Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 1 of 89

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

EVERETT HADIX, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

PERRY JOHNSON, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

Case No. 4:92-CV-110 HONORABLE RICHARD A. ENSLEN

ELIZABETH ALEXANDER National Prison Project/ACLU Attorney for Plaintiffs 915 15th Street, N.W., 7th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: 202.393.4930 Facsimile: 202.393.4931
MICHAEL BARNHART 221 North Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 Telephone: 734.213.3703 Facsimile: 734.213.3704 Michigan Bar Number: P10467

A. PETER GOVORCHIN Assistant Attorney General Attorney for Defendants Corrections Division P. O. Box 30217 Lansing, Michigan 48909
PATRICIA A. STREETER Attorney for Plaintiffs 221 North Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 Telephone: 734.222.0088 Facsimile: 734.769.2196

_________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 2 of 89
INDEX Page
I. Procedural Background and Issue(s) Presented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. Backgrounds of the Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 A. Curtiss Pulitzer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 B. Michael DiMascio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 C. Jerry Walden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 D. Elizabeth Ferguson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 E. Wayne Carson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
III. Physical Description of Cell Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 A. Blocks 1, 2, 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 B. Block 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 C. Block 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 D. Other areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
IV. Prisoner Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 A. Egeler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1. Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2. Health Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. Potential Impairments to Fire Protection and Egress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 B. Parnall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1. Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2. Health Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3. Potential Impairments to Fire Protection and Egress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
V. Operational and Physical Characteristics, including Fire Safety Provisions . . . . . . . . 12 A. Risk Factors and Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 B. Fire Protection and Alarm Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 C. Unlocking Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 D. Fire Drills and Signage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 1. Block 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2. Block 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3. Block 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4. Block 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5. Block 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 E. Operational Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 F. Staff Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
-i-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 3 of 89

VI. Fire Code Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 A. Building and Fire Prevention Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 B. Life Safety Code and its Equivalency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

VII. Actual Fire Experience in the Cell Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 A. December 2004 Fire in Block 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 B. March 2005 Fire in Block 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 C. Block 8 Fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

VIII.

Potential Conditions In Event of Fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 A. Basic Characteristics and Development of the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 B. Limitations and Incorrect Assumptions
In the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 C. Implications of the Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

IX. Degree of Risk from Current Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 A. Description of the Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 1. Prisoners with Health or Similar Impediments to Evacuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 2. Conditions During an Evacuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 3. Hazards in Non-Housing Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 B. Assessment of Seriousness of Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

X. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 A. Egeler Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 B. Block 8 Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 C. General Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 D. Implications of the Fire Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 E. Interactions of the Deficiencies and Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

XI. Remedies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

XII. Proposed Conclusions of Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 A. General Eighth Amendment Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 1. The Components of an Eighth Amendment Violation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 2. The Objective Component of the Eighth Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 3. The Subjective Component of an Eighth Amendment Violation . . . . . . . . 68 B. Application of Eighth Amendment Standards to Fire Safety Issue . . . . . . . . 69 C. Finding of Constitutional Violation and Remedy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Appendix A (Walden Table re Egeler Findings) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-i Appendix B (Walden Table re Block 8 Findings) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-i

-ii-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 4 of 89
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND ISSUES PRESENTED 1. This class action challenging conditions of confinement within Michigan’s oldest and largest prison resulted in a Consent Decree addressing fire safety, among a number of conditions of confinement. Consent Decree, May 13, 1985 (E.D. Dkt. 199); Order Accepting Consent Decree Judgment, May 13, 1985 (E.D. Dkt. 213). 2. Over time, certain issues in this case were transferred from the Eastern District of Michigan to this Court. Among the issues transferred to this Court were medical and mental health issues. Order of Transfer, June 5, 1992 (E.D. Dkt. 835). In addition, fire safety issues involving the Egeler and Parnall facilities were transferred to this Court. Order of Transfer, March 18, 1999 (E.D. Dkt. 1342) (Egeler); Order of Transfer, Nov. 15, 2000 (E.D. Dkt. 1432) (Parnall). 3. Following the transfer of the fire safety issues at Egeler, but prior to the transfer of the same issues at Parnall, the Court held a hearing on Defendants’ motion for termination of injunctive relief pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b). The Court thereafter issued findings in which it concluded that Defendants’ failures to address the fire safety dangers at the Egeler Facility had resulted in current and ongoing constitutional violations. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Feb. 18, 2000 (“2000 Findings”) at 51 (Dkt. 1372). 4. Defendants were also ordered to report on their remedial plans to address fire safety. Order, May 2, 2001 at 4 (Dkt. 1443). In response, Defendants failed to propose any remedy for the fire safety violations. Defs.’ Report of Their Remedial Plans for Fire Safety, Temperature and Ventilation and Facility A, June 8, 2001 at 2 (Dkt. 1445).
-1-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 5 of 89
5. The Court held a subsequent fire safety hearing involving both the Egeler and Parnall facilities in May 2002. Following those hearings, the Court found a constitutional violation with regard to the lack of fire safety in Blocks 1-3 and 7 of the Egeler Facility and Block 8 of the Parnall facility. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Oct. 29, 2002 (“2002 Findings”) at 263 (Dkt. 1658). 6. The Court again ordered further submissions on the appropriate remedy for the constitutional violation with regard to fire safety. 2002 Findings at 264 (Dkt. 1658). Defendants again responded without proposing any remedy for the fire safety problems. Defs.’ Br. Regarding Alternatives to Compartmentalization to Remedy Alleged Fire Safety Problems and Risks, Dec. 30, 2002 (Dkt. 1687); see also Defs.’ Reply to Pls.’ Resp. to Defs.’ Br. Regarding Alternatives to Compartmentalization to Remedy Alleged Fire Safety Problems and Risks, Feb. 18, 2003 (Dkt. 1694). 7. On Feb. 25, 2003, the Court issued an injunction, noting the following:
The very substantial failures of these facilities to allow for timely egress in the event of a fire, to exhaust smoke, to sprinkle fire, and to unlock doors means, simply, that many inmates in each facility would likely suffer smoke inhalation or death in the event of fire. Simply put, these risks are grave and unacceptable. Injunction, Feb. 25, 2003 at 1-2 (Dkt. 1696). 8. The Court ordered Defendants to implement the break-up plan developed pursuant to Section VIII of the Consent Decree, with the additional step of subdividing Egeler so that the exit distance from any cell would not exceed 150 feet. In addition, the Court ordered Defendants to correct the deficiencies previously found in the unlocking systems, exhaust systems and sprinkler systems of Blocks 1-3 and 7-8, or adopt other ameliorative changes that would offer equivalent levels of fire protection. Injunction, Feb. 25, 2003 at 2 (Dkt. 1696).
-2-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 6 of 89
9. Defendants subsequently filed a plan to address the fire safety violations. That plan included eight elements: reduce travel distances by constructing a horizontal wall with an within each block to divide each block into two smoke compartments; add an electronically operated remote unlocking system within Blocks 1-3, including a control panel at the guard station; add a smoke control system consisting of exhaust fans in each cell block; add sprinklers to unsprinklered areas of the blocks; remove unused transformers and other electrical equipment from the basements of the cellblocks; increase the height of the guardrail on the open side of each tier of cells to 3'6"; remove unenclosed storage areas and laundries; and enclose the laundry area in Block 8. Defs.’ Filing Pursuant to the Court’s Feb. 25, 2003 Injunction and Request for Stay, Attachment 1, Dec. 23, 2003 (Dkt. 1739). 10. Defendants appealed to the Sixth Circuit from the injunction issued by the Court. The court of appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the fire safety issue to this Court, asking the Court to identify the point at which the fire safety deficiencies in the record become constitutional violations. The court of appeals also noted the following:
[T]his Court was informed at oral argument that Defendants have taken steps to remedy some of the problems noted by the district court, such as removing the dry transformers from the basement and installing additional sprinklers. It is unclear to us whether those remedies are sufficient to cure the constitutional violations at the Hadix facilities. Hadix v. Johnson, 367 F.3d 513, 529 (6th Cir. 2004). 11. Following remand, Defendants completed the installation of additional sprinklers in the cellblocks; removed unused electrical equipment from the basements; increased the guardrail height on the tiers; and removed unenclosed storage areas and laundry facilities while enclosing the Block 8 laundry area. T. 43-44, 5/5/05 (Parties’ Stipulation). Notwithstanding
-3-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 7 of 89
the changes in the laundry facilities, however, significant amounts of loose laundry are still stored without fire-safe enclosures in Block 8. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 19-20 (Walden Testimony). 12. The Court held a hearing on May 5-6, 2005 on whether the lack of fire safety at the facilities violates the Eighth Amendment and, if so, what remedy is necessary to address that violation. II. BACKGROUND OF THE EXPERTS
A. CURTISS PULITZER 13. Curtiss Pulitzer is a licensed architect with over 29 years of experience in the planning and development of justice facilities in more than 40 states including prisons in Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, and the District of Columbia. Mr. Pulitzer has worked on the planning and design of six different reception centers, including both new and renovated facilities. T. 218, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). See Pls.’ Exh. 2. Mr. Pulitzer provided credible expert testimony.
B. MICHAEL DIMASCIO 14. Michael DiMascio is an expert in fire protection engineering. He is a registered Professional Fire Protection Engineer. His education includes a degree in civil engineering and an M.S. degree in fire protection engineering. He has experience with large correctional facilities and with older correctional facilities. He is a member of a number of professional organizations, including the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the Building Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA), NFPA 921 Technical Committee (Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigators) (Past Member),
-4-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 8 of 89
and the NFPA 101, Code for Safety to Life from Fire in Buildings and Structures, Subcommittee on Detention and Correctional Occupancies. See Pls.’ Exh. 1A; Finding 52 at 12, 2002 Findings. Mr. DiMascio provided credible expert testimony.
C. JERRY WALDEN, M.D. 15. Jerry Walden graduated from the University of Michigan Medical School and is certified by the American Board of Family Physicians. He is the founder and executive director of the Packard Community Clinic. His previous positions include serving as Chief Medical Officer of the U.S. Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana. He was selected by the Michigan Academy of Family Physicians as the Family Physician of the Year in 2000. He has testified as an expert witness in a number of cases, and has served as the Plaintiffs’ expert witness in this case since 1999. Pls.’ Exh. 3A at 1-2 (Walden Curriculum Vitae); see also Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 2-3 (Walden deposition). Dr. Walden provided credible expert testimony.
D. ELIZABETH J. FERGUSON 16. Elizabeth J. Ferguson is Plaintiffs’ expert in aging and disability systems, programs and services. She has testified for Plaintiffs on prior occasions in this case and has previously provided expert testimony regarding aging and disabilities service systems. Finding 45 at 11, 2002 Findings; Finding 27 at 5, 2000 Findings. Ms. Ferguson provided credible expert testimony.
E. WAYNE CARSON 17. Wayne Carson’s expert testimony was less credible than that of Mr. DiMascio because Mr. Carson primarily analyzed only code compliance and did not seriously consider the implications of Prof. Mowrer’s model in the context of the specific characteristics of the
-5-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 9 of 89
population of these facilities and their expected evacuation times. III. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF BLOCKS
A. BLOCKS 1, 2 AND 3 18. The cells in Blocks 1-3 are arranged back-to-back in the center of the block and face the outer walls. See Pls.’ Exh. 23. 19. Blocks 1-3 are approximately 276 feet long by 59 feet wide by 42 feet high. Finding 1387 at 255, 2002 Findings. 20. The ceiling height in Blocks 1-3 is 51 feet. Finding 1398 at 257, 2002 Findings. 21. There are also 16 cells for the disabled and 24 Quarantine cells in Block 1. The Quarantine cells have solid doors with a food slot and must be individually unlocked. Some of the cells for the disabled are singles; others are doubles. T. 222, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer); T. 26-27, 5/5/05 (Fushi); T. 249, 250, 5/6/05 (Ferguson); T. 329, 5/6/05 (Hughes).
B. BLOCK 7 22. Block 7 is a five-story open structure with five tiers of cells on either outside wall facing each other across an open common area. It is 362 feet long by 59 feet wide by 51 feet high. The block contains approximately 19,000 square feet. Finding 1388 at 255, 2002 Findings. 23. The galleries are about three feet wide and have a pinch point, a narrowing of the gallery to 20 or 24 inches wide. T. 252, 5/6/05 (Ferguson); Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 16, 18 (Walden Testimony). 24. The atrium in Block 7 has fixed chairs and tables. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 14; T. 252, 5/6/05 (Ferguson).
-6-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 10 of 89
C. BLOCK 8 25. Block 8 is approximately 287 feet long by 51 feet high. Finding 1185 at 219, 2002 Findings (75 feet shorter than Block 7). Like Block 7, Block 8 is a five-story open structure with five tiers of cells on either outside wall facing each other across an open common area. Finding 1388 at 255, 2002 Findings. 26. The galleries in Block 8 are also between 30 and 36 inches wide and have pinch points at the center of each which measure 24 inches wide. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 16, 18.
D. OTHER AREAS 27. The laundry has a posted exit route that terminates on the first floor rather than outside the building. T. 312-13, 5/6/05 (DiMascio). 28. The metal factory lacks a proper chemical storage and dispensing area. T. 312, 5/6/05 (DiMascio). IV. PRISONER CHARACTERISTICS
A. EGELER 1. CLASSIFICATION
29. Prisoners in Blocks 1-3 are undergoing admission screening, including medical screening. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 21-22. 30. Prisoners in Block 7 have completed their admission screening and are awaiting transfer to their institutional assignment. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 22. 31. Block 1 contains a group of cells on Base on the south side that are called Quarantine cells. These cells are used for segregation and for prisoners with medical problems. Suicidal prisoners are commonly housed there. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 7-8.
-7-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 11 of 89
32. Information gained through the intake history and physical examination is relevant to making housing decisions. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 32. 33. Prisoners frequently do not provide their history or receive their physicals for fifteen days. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 32-33. Pls.’ Exh. 5 at 3 (PD-03.04.100 (2/14/05)). 34. On average, 243 prisoners enter the reception process at Egeler each week. Pls.’ Exh. 46 at 5 (Resp. No. 11). 35. Defendants estimate that healthy prisoners without special needs are transferred from Egeler within 30 days. Pls.’ Exh. 46 at 5 (Defs.’ Resp. to Interrog., 12/1/04, No. 12). Policy provides that intake processing shall normally be completed within four weeks of arrival at Egeler. Pls.’ Exh. 6 at 7 (PD-04.01.105 (2/14/05)). 36. Prisoners with serious health problems who remain for more than thirty days are typically housed in Block 7. T. 218, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). See Pls.’ Exh. 46 at 5 (Defs.’ Resp. to Interrog., 12/01/04, Nos. 11, 12 ); Pls.’ Exh. 7B (RGC processing information).
2. HEALTH CHARACTERISTICS 37. Prisoners are much more likely than would be members of the general public to meet the criteria for enrollment in a Chronic Care Clinic. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 34-35. 38. With minor exceptions, a prisoner must have a serious medical condition to qualify for enrollment in a Chronic Care Clinic. For example, the criteria for enrollment in the Cardiac Chronic Care Clinic are cardiomyopathy, coronary artery disease, dysrhythmia or cardiac arrhythmia, congestive heart failure, valvular heart disease, peripheral vascular disease or other circulatory diseases. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 35-37. 39. All of these are serious diseases in that they are potentially life-threatening and entail a
-8-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 12 of 89
high rate of morbidity, even though individual cases vary in their degree of severity. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 37. 40. Most of these diagnoses require medical monitoring, attention to vital signs and medical history, attention to weight, and attention to laboratory data. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 38. 41. Most of the people in the Chronic Care Clinics are on medication and have a significant disorder. These are sick people. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 146-47. 42. Many prisoners in the Hadix facilities suffer from chronic diseases. Moreover, those serious medical conditions are not always identified by the health staff. Indeed, in a sizable percentage of instances in which prisoners in the Hadix facility died of disease, the prisoner had not been placed in a Chronic Care Clinic to address his health needs. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 3940. 43. Approximately twenty (20%) percent of the population in Egeler is enrolled in a Chronic Care Clinic. This percentage does not include those persons who have yet to receive their history and physical, and therefore have yet to be evaluated for enrollment. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 32-33; Pls.’ Exh. 46 at 5. 44. In light of the fact that physicals are frequently not completed until the prisoner’s fifteenth day in Egeler, and that Defendants estimate the average stay in Egeler at 30 days, the percentage of prisoners who qualify for a Chronic Care Clinic is necessarily higher and may be significantly higher. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 98. 45. Parole violators who have been out of prison for one year or less do not receive new history and physical examinations. The policy that excludes parolees returning to prison within a year from the requirement of a new history and physical has no exception for parolees
-9-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 13 of 89
who report new diseases, or who have abnormal vital signs. Pls.’ Exh. 5 at 3. 46. The only health appraisal required by policy for parolees returning to prison within a year does not include any physical examination beyond the collection of vital signs and a dental screening and examination. Pls.’ Exh. 5 at 3-4. 47. Medical conditions that require diagnosis and treatment can slip through because new histories and physicals are not provided to all prisoners, particularly in light of the high level of disease in the Hadix population Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 24. 48. The failure to provide physicals to all arriving prisoners is problematic, particularly given the number of substance abusers and dual diagnosis prisoners. T. 220, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). 49. In addition, the fact that new prisoners frequently do not receive their history and physical until the prisoners are almost half-way through their stay in Egeler means that at any given time there are a large number of prisoners whose degree of health risk in the event of a fire has not been fully determined. See Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 98. 50. There are prisoners in wheelchairs confined in Block 1. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 11.
3. POTENTIAL IMPAIRMENTS TO FIRE PROTECTION AND EGRESS 51. As discussed in more detail below, prisoners with physical problems, including orthopedic problems, neurological problems, cardiac problems, pulmonary problems, diabetics, persons with HIV; the mentally ill; and persons with communicative disabilities or lack of English would have particular difficulties in evacuating the cellblocks. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 25-26. 52. Prisoners at a reception center are entering very unfamiliar surroundings, and are bewildered and uncertain. T. 219, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). 53. Staff report that there are not enough Base cells available for prisoners who require
-10-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 14 of 89
such housing for health reasons, and that it can take a month or more for a prisoner with a medical need for Base housing to be moved to Base from another gallery. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 13. 54. Defendants estimate that approximately six prisoners for whom English is a second language go through the classification process each month. Pls.’ Exh. 46 at 8 (Resp. No. 19). 55. Prisoners going through the reception process at Egeler sometimes do not understand that they are expected to open the door to their cell when they hear the fire alarm. Pls.’ Exh. 21A at 034 (Defs.’ Evacuation Drill Reports for 2004).
B. PARNALL 1. CLASSIFICATION
56. Prisoners in Parnall are classified as Level I, the lowest level of custody. T. 95, 5/5/05 (Embry).
2. HEALTH CHARACTERISTICS 57. The sickest and most vulnerable prisoners are concentrated at the Hadix facilities. Finding 166 at 31, 2000 Findings. 58. Sixty (60%) percent of prisoners in Block 8 are enrolled in a Chronic Care Clinic, a rate of disease that is radically higher than the rate one would expect in the general population. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 83. 59. For a period of time shortly before trial, there was a prisoner in Block 8 confined to a wheelchair. At the time of trial Block 8 housed a prisoner on crutches. T. 117, 5/5/05 (Hladki). 60. Parnall is not designated as a wheel chair accessible facility. T. 118, 5/5/05 (Hladki). 61. Everyone on Base in Block 8 has a physical limitation that requires them to be on Base. T. 80, 5/5/05 (Meeker).
-11-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 15 of 89
3. POTENTIAL IMPAIRMENTS TO FIRE PROTECTION AND EGRESS 62. As set forth in more detail below, the large number of prisoners with chronic diseases in Parnall results in significant and unusually high numbers of persons who would be unable to evacuate from the cellblock at a normal speed, and whose difficulties might also impair the evacuation of other prisoners. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 25-26; T. 256, 5/6/05 (Ferguson). V. OPERATIONAL AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS, INCLUDING FIRE
SAFETY PROVISIONS A. RISK FACTORS AND CONDITIONS 63. According to Defendants’ evacuation diagram of the Base Level of Block 7, if prisoners evacuate from the mid-point of Fourth Gallery and travel in opposite directions, they must travel 246 feet to the farthest exit. Pls.’ Exh. 27 at 006. 64. According to Defendants’ evacuation diagram of Fourth Gallery of Block 8, if prisoners in Block 8 evacuate from the midpoint of Fourth Gallery of the block and travel in opposite directions, they must travel 258 feet to the farthest exit. Pls.’ Exh. 27 at 008. 65. The total distance a prisoner must travel to exit is over 200 feet in all cellblocks. T. 193, 5/5/05 (Carson). 66. There are only two officers in each of the units during the night shift, which places the population at extreme risk in a serious fire situation. The staffing level on the night shift has been reduced from three to two per cellblock. T. 221-22, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). 67. Prisoners are at greatest risk at night when they must be awakened before they can be evacuated. T. 222, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). 68. Defendants’ staff admitted that a fire at night would result in a longer evacuation time because those in need of evacuation would be sleepy. T. 69, 5/5/05 (Fushi).
-12-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 16 of 89
69. On the night shift the Resident Unit Manager and other non-custody staff are not likely to be in the housing unit. T. 73, 5/5/05 (Fushi). 70. Even though some support staff can assist in the event of a fire emergency, to do so they must travel substantial distances, between 600-800 feet, to the facility. Back-up staff would have to travel to the control center to get extra emergency keys and then return a distance of 600-800 feet to assist in opening cells. T. 222, 224, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer); see also Pls.’ Exhs. 25 and 26. 71. When prisoners arrive on Base during an evacuation in Egeler, staff must open doors to let them out into the yard. T. 226, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). 72. There is not enough room to pass another person on the stairs in Block 7. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 16-17, 19. 73. There is also not enough room to pass another person on the stairs or the pinch points in Block 8. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 16-17, 19. Assistant Resident Unit Manager Ronald Embry confirmed that it would be difficult if someone were attempting to go up the stairs while people were exiting. T. 98, 5/5/05 (Embry). 74. The risks are not limited to the persons with a disability or other problem. If one of these prisoners fell, or had a condition that caused him to move more slowly than others, then other prisoners would be placed at increased risk of harm. T. 256, 5/6/05 (Ferguson); see also Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 145. 75. Although the changes in the handrails are an improvement, it would still be possible to slide under them and off the gallery. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 17. 76. The stairs in all the cellblocks lack non-skid coverings and feel somewhat slippery. This is especially true of Block 1. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 9.
-13-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 17 of 89
77. The floor near the shower in Block 2 was wet and slippery. If and when the sprinklers would go off, the water on the floor would be very slippery. The floors had similar composition in each of the housing units. T. 251, 253, 5/6/05 (Ferguson). 78. The gallery in Block 7 feels slippery, even without any possible water from a sprinkler. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 16. 79. The terrazzo floor in Block 7 is highly polished and a bit slippery. About a third of the open space in the atrium in Block 7 is occupied by square tables set at an angle that are bolted to the floor. There are about ten feet of unencumbered space on each side of the tables. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 14. 80. The fixed chairs and tables in Block 7 could become a barrier to evacuation in the event of an emergency. T. 252, 5/6/05 (Ferguson). 81. Prisoners in Egeler undergoing the reception process are allowed to keep their personal legal property, which includes books, pleadings, documents and correspondence. Qualifying legal property is permitted without limitations in amount. In addition, prisoners in Egeler for reception processing are allowed religious items other than reading material, personal addresses, prescription glasses, and medically necessary items. Pls.’ Exh. 6 at 2 (PD04.01.105 (2/14/05)); Pls.’ Exh. 19 at 3-4 (PD-04.07.112 (11/15/04)). 82. A number of prisoners at Egeler receive medical accommodations that would increase the fuel available in a fire. These accommodations include Prisoners the following: cotton blanket (133045); cotton blanket (136057); mattress (136169); cotton blanket (152363); nonwool blanket (168576); extra sheet (190524); extra sheet (197090); extra pillow (200156); extra bedding (unspecified) (207303); extra sheet (220836); cotton blanket (231840); extra pillow (233507); sheets (234899); cotton blanket (245575); sheet (249428); extra pillow
-14-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 18 of 89
(257849); sheet (266171); cotton blanket (269530); sheet (271373); extra bedding (unspecified) (341839); sheet (361175); sheet (380243); blanket (449279); sheet (494020); and extra sheet (510124). Pls.’ Exh. 39A. 83. At the time of Plaintiffs’ expert tour on March 18, 2005, there was a pile of laundry in a laundry bin near the laundry room in Block 8. The laundry pile was approximately three feet by six feet by four feet. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 19-20.
B. FIRE PROTECTION AND ALARM SYSTEMS 84. Each sprinkler head activates individually. The sprinkler head is designed to activate when its heat sensor is exposed to a temperature of 135-265° Fahrenheit. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 1213. 85. In a fire in December 2004 that resulted in prisoner and staff injuries, the prisoner tampered with the sprinkler, and it did not activate. Pls.’ Exh. 33A-8 (videotaped staff report following the fire in Block 1 South on 12/13/04). 86. It is not difficult to incapacitate a sprinkler. T. 308, 5/6/05 (DiMascio). 87. Recent fires in the cellblocks were not discovered by smoke detectors and there was no evidence that any such detectors are actually functioning in a manner that contributes to fire safety. See Pls.’ Exh. 33A-2 at 006, 010, 012; T. 89, 5/5/05 (Meeker); T. 341-43, 5/6/05 (Davidson); see also Pls.’ Exh. 33B-1 (fire incident report does not check that fire detection or alarm equipment activated).
C. UNLOCKING MECHANISMS 88. Cell doors in Blocks 1-3 do not open automatically or electronically. The only electronic release operates on expanded metal gates at the end of each gallery. These doors are
-15-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 19 of 89
electronically opened from the control center only. A key lock is also provided on the end doors of each gallery with every officer having a key to open the doors manually in case of electronic failure. Pls.’ Exh. 28 (Attachment 25 to Defs.’ Resp. to Interrogatories, 12/1/04); see also Pls.’ Exh. 46 at 9-10 (Defs.’ Resp. to Interrogatories, 12/1/04). 89. There are 20 breaker boxes in each cellblock in Blocks 1-3. These breaker boxes must be operated to unlock all the cells. Two of the breaker boxes are on each of the five levels on each side. Within each box a breaker bar must be attached and then turned manually to open half the cells on that side of that level. T. 223-24, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). 90. The cell doors in Blocks 1-3 are opened in an emergency by a manual gang release at the end of each gallery. Each manual gang release breaker will open one-half of a gallery. Cell doors can also be opened manually by using a cell key to open each door one at a time. Pls.’ Exh. 28 (Attachment 25 to Defs.’ Resp. to Interrogatories, 12/1/04); see also Pls.’ Exh. 46 at 9-10 (Defs.’ Resp. to Interrogatories, 12/1/04). 91. Staff in Block 1 indicated that using the breaker bar to open the locks on each gallery individually might work as well or better than having the gallery locks opened from the control center. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 11-12. 92. A fire drill report for Block 3 dated October 5, 2004 notes the following: “Several prisoners did not open their cell doors when brakes were thrown so had to be keyed out by the SCBA [self-contained breathing apparatus] teams. It appears that newer prisoners did not know if this was a fire drill or al[a]rm was for lockdown.” Pls.’ Exh. 21A at 034. 93. The process for opening cells doors in each of Blocks 1-3 requires opening twenty separate breaker boxes on the galleries. The same process is required in Blocks 7 and 8. In
-16-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 20 of 89
Blocks 7 and 8 there are also electronic release mechanisms in a control center in a separate building that can open cell doors one at a time, or by sections. Pls.’ Exh. 28; see also Pls.’ Exh. 46 at 9-10. 94. Blocks 7 and 8 also resemble Blocks 1-3 in having breaker box release systems that must be opened at 20 separate locations. In Blocks 7 and 8, however, there is a back-up remote control release system. T. 223, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). 95. If manual release is necessary in Block 7 or 8, a lever in the control box at the end of each gallery must first be thrown to switch the electric release system off. A manual release lever must then be thrown at the end of each gallery to open a group of cell doors at a time. Individual cells can also be opened manually by using a “T” handle bar located in each control box. Pls.’ Exh. 28; see also Pls.’ Exh. 46 at 9-10. 96. The group override unlocking mechanism in Block 8 does not work when the cells are placed on the “closed mode”; even if it worked, it is potentially unsafe to have the only remote release system outside the block. Pls.’ Exh. 26 at 004. 97. Neither the Quarantine cells nor the cells for the disabled can be operated by the breaker bar system, but must be individually unlocked. T. 223, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer); 98. The locking mechanisms frequently break down and fail to open cell doors and other cellblock locks. These lock failures involve both the doors of individual cells and locking mechanisms for groups of cells. See generally Pls.’ Exh. 32. 99. Between January 1, 2004 and November 18, 2004, there were 18 locking mechanism failures affecting one or more cells in Block 1. At least two of these failures affected groups of cells. One of these failures was not repaired for 89 days. Pls.’ Exh. 32 at 1 (summary exhibit);
-17-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 21 of 89
Pls.’ Exh. 30 (Work Orders Tracking Report). 100. Between January and November 2004 in Block 1 North, ten (10%) percent of all the locks were out of service, some for as long as two months; in Block 2 North approximately fifteen (15%) percent of all the locks were out of service. T. 231-32, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). See Pls.’ Exh. 30. 101. Between January 1, 2004 and November 18, 2004, there were 39 locking mechanism failures affecting one or more cells in Block 2. At least thirteen of these failures affected groups of cells. One of these failures was not repaired for 80 days. Pls.’ Exh. 32 at 1-2; Pls.’ Exh. 30. 102. Between January 1, 2004 and November 18, 2004, there were 49 locking mechanism failures affecting one or more cells in Block 3. Eighteen of these failures affected groups of cells. One of these failures was not repaired for 79 days. An outside door that would not unlock was not repaired for ten days. Three locking mechanisms affecting groups of cells were not repaired for over a month. Pls.’ Exh. 32 at 2-3; Pls.’ Exh. 30. 103. Defendants’ lock repair records for Block 7 are incomplete and contain too little information to evaluate. Compare Pls.’ Exh. 30 at 15-17 (Block 7) to Pls.’ Exh. 30 at 1-14 (Blocks 1-3). Moreover, Defendants’ fire drill records for Block 7 contain notes indicating that two locking mechanism failures were discovered during fire drills, but there is no entry in Defendants’ lock repair records indicating that any locking problem was reported on the date of the fire drills, or shortly following that date. Compare Pls.’ Exh. 21A at 011, 021 to Pls.’ Exh. 30 at 15-17. Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence suggests that Block 7 experiences locking mechanism problems at a rate similar to that of the other cellblocks.
-18-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 22 of 89
104. In the period January 1, 2004-February 23, 2004, there were 22 locking mechanism failures affecting one or more cell in Block 8. Four of these failures affected groups of cells, and one failure affected all cells. One of these failures was not repaired for 103 days. Pls.’ Exhs. 32 at 4 (summary exhibit); Pls.’ Exh. 29 (Block 8 Maintenance Service Requests). 105. The severe problems with the locking system are not new. A substantial number of the cell locking mechanisms did not work in 2002. Finding 1385 at 225, 2002 Findings. 106. Mr. Pulitzer testified that in his experience he has never seen a locking system as badly deteriorated as the system in Blocks 1-3 that was not replaced as a matter of course. T. 232, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). 107. The level of lock repair problems, particularly at the Egeler Facility, is shocking; the locking system has outlived its usefulness. T. 231-32, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer).
D. FIRE DRILLS AND SIGNAGE 108. Fire drills are important to familiarize both staff and prisoners with the process of evacuation in a threatening situation. T. 229-30, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). 109. Only mock drills are conducted at night when there are the fewest number of staff. T. 229, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). 110. MDOC reports do not identify which fire drills involve actual prisoner evacuation. T. 28-29, 5/5/05 (Fushi). 111. It is not possible to tell from the fire drill reports how many prisoners were in the housing unit. Prisoners might have been out of their cells at the time. T. 206, 5/5/05 (Carson). 112. There is no way to tell from the fire drill reports how many prisoners are in the Quarantine cells at the time of the drill. T. 28-29, 5/5/05 (Fushi).
-19-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 23 of 89
113. Necessary qualitative operational information is not contained in the evacuation reports other than a fire drill happened in a particular block. T. 229, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). 114. Since no drills are being done at night, the validity of the times shown in the reports in comparison to the time an actual evacuation would take is very questionable. T. 230-31, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). 115. There are conflicting interpretations of what the evacuation times recorded in the fire drills refer to, which make such times suspect. T. 228-29, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). 116. In the Egeler Facility, given the turnover rate, the fact that a fire drill is done quarterly on each shift, and that 1000 prisoners are coming into the facility per month, it is likely that many prisoners will never have participated in a fire drill. T. 229-30, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer).
1. BLOCK 1 117. During a routine fire drill, the prisoners in Block 1 South Quarantine area are not released from the block. T. 110, 5/5/05 (Denman). 118. Fire drills in Block 1 have taken up to 16 minutes to complete. Pls.’ Exh. 21A at 033 (evacuation drills reports). 119. Diagrams for evacuation routes in Blocks 1 and 2 of the Egeler Facility indicate that prisoners are to travel the entire length of their gallery to exit. See Pls.’ Exh. 27 at 002, 003. 120. As of March 18, 2005, the posted evacuation signs in Block 1 were upside down, so that it was difficult to determine where the reader was. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 4, 6; T. 250, 5/6/05 (Ferguson). 121. In addition, the evacuation drawing posted on the south side of Block 1 indicated that prisoners were to evacuate in the opposite direction from the direction indicated in the
-20-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 24 of 89
evacuation sign posted on the north side, which was confusing. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 9. 122. Fire drills in Block 1 use only one exit, although in an actual fire staff and prisoners would be expected to use an additional exit. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 6-7.
2. BLOCK 2 123. Fire drills in Block 2 have taken up to 15 minutes to complete. Pls.’ Exh. 21A at 002. 124. The posting evacuation notices in Block 2 were confusing because the two notices posted on either side of the cellblock conflicted and sent prisoners along different evacuation routes. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 10; T. 250, 5/6/05 (Ferguson).
3. BLOCK 3 125. Fire drills in Block 3 have taken up to 20 minutes to complete. Pls.’ Exh. 21A at 025. 126. Staff outside Block 3 who are expected to respond in a fire drill do not always hear or respond to fire drills. Pls.’ Exh. 21A at 007, 019.
4. BLOCK 7 127. Fire drills in Block 7 have taken up to 19 minutes to complete. Pls.’ Exh. 21A at 035. 128. Although there are three exits in Block 7, fire drills never practice using two of the exits that might need to be used in the event of an actual fire. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 15; T. 253, 5/6/05 (Ferguson). 129. The posted evacuation notice in Block 7 was confusing. Eugene Fushi, Defendants’ Regional Fire Inspector for the Jackson area, could not determine what route the notice directed prisoners to use. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 4, 15-16; T. 253, 5/6/05 (Ferguson); T. 11-12, 5/5/05 (Fushi). 130. Block 7 had a posted evacuation plan that was upside down. MDOC staff
-21-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 25 of 89
acknowledged that the notice needed to be corrected but stated that these notices were not very important. T. 252-53, 5/6/05 (Ferguson).
5. BLOCK 8 131. Fire drills in Block 8 have taken up to 20 minutes to complete. Pls.’ Exh. 21B at unnumbered page 3. 132. Thomas Meeker, a Corrections Officer in Block 8, testified that fire drills are generally conducted by releasing prisoners on Base first. T. 77, 5/5/05 (Meeker). Assistant Resident Unit Manager Ronald Embry confirmed that in fire drills prisoners on Base are usually evacuated first. T. 98-99, 5/5/05 (Embry). 133. In contrast, policy provides that, after the area immediately at risk from fire is evacuated, fire evacuation should start at the top of the cellblock and start down. Pls.’ Exh. 10 at 7 (OP-SMT-04.03.120 (2/28/00)); Pls.’ Exh. 14 at 10 (OP-SMI/RGC-04.03.120 (8/16/00)); T. 36-37, 5/5/05 (Fushi); Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 11; T. 255, 5/6/05 (Ferguson). 134. Officer Meeker also testified that the fire drills do not involve practice on responding to fire drills in different locations within the cellblocks. T. 77, 5/5/05 (Meeker). 135. Ronald Embry, an Assistant Resident Unit Supervisor in Block 8, confirmed that Defendants did not vary the fire scenarios that are practiced in fire drills. T. 81-82, 87, 5/5/05 (Embry). 136. Fire drills should not be routinely conducted in the same way. Because the location of a fire cannot be predicted, staff should practice alternative fire scenarios. T. 18, 5/5/05 (Fushi). The best way to prepare for a real fire is to conduct fire drills in the way staff would be expected to perform in a real fire. T. 99-100, 5/5/05 (Embry).
-22-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 26 of 89
137. Prisoner aides are expected to evacuate disabled prisoners. T. 99-100, 5/5/05 (Embry). 138. Cell doors are not open in Block 8 during count or at night. Notwithstanding that fact, fire drills are conducted only when the cell doors are open. T. 92-94, 5/5/05 (Embry). 139. In Block 8, most of the time there are four officers and three supervisors involved in a fire drill. T. 99, 5/5/05 (Embry). In contrast, if a fire occurred at night time in Blocks 1-3 or Block 8, only two officers would be in the cellblock. Pls.’ Exh. 46 at 1-2 (Defs.’ Discovery Resp., 12/1/04 at 1-2). 140. Because of the deficiencies in Defendants’ fire drill procedures, the evacuation times reflected in Defendants’ fire drill reports are likely to be less than the time of evacuation in an actual fire. (Factual conclusion).
E. OPERATIONAL POLICIES 141. Staffing policies applicable to Blocks 1-3 and 8 assign only two correctional officers to the entire cellblock during the night shift. Pls.’ Exh. 46 at 1-2 (Defs.’ Resp. to Pls.’ Interrogs., 12/01/04, No. 1.) 142. Staff have no practice in attempting an actual evacuation of a block with only two officers. Indeed, staff testified that fire drills in Block 8 involving actual evacuation typically involved four officers and three supervisors. T. 99, 5/5/05 (Embry). 143. Policy requires that, in an evacuation at Egeler, one staff member is to open the cells and the other is to walk the galleries to see if prisoners have evacuated. Pls.’ Exh. 12 at 7 (OPSMN-04.03.120 (10/31/01)). Two officers, however, are required just to open the cells. T. 225, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). 144. There is no SCBA (self-contained breathing) equipment in the Block 8 housing unit.
-23-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 27 of 89
This equipment allows rescue of persons trapped in as a result of fire and smoke. See Pls.’ Exh. 47 (Defs.’ Resp. to Interrogatories, No. 6); Pls.’ Exh. 10 at 5, para. 23 (PD-04.03.120 (10/13/97)). 145. There are a total of four staff who could assist the two officers on the 10-6 shift in Block 7. See Pls.’ Exh. 24 at 001, Pls.’ Exh. 47 (Defs.’ Resp. to Interrogatories, No. 8). 146. The greatest concern with Defendants’ fire drills is that, by policy, only mock drills are conducted at night, when there are the fewest number of staff. T. 229, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). 147. Mock drills are inadequate to prepare for a real fire emergency, particularly in light of the limited staffing on the night shift. T. 221, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). 148. By policy, disabled prisoners on Base in Block 7 are assisted in an actual evacuation only after the majority of the other prisoners have actually evacuated from the block. Policy does not address assistance to disabled prisoners who are not on Base. See Pls.’ Exh. 14 at 10, para. 6 (OP-SMI/RGC-04.03.120 (8/16/00)). 149. Policy requires that the Prisoner Guidebook is to include training in the event of a fire. The Guidebook contains one paragraph of instructions which is limited to informing prisoners to learn the posted evacuation routes, listen to instructions, and crawl under the smoke to an exit. See Pls.’ Exh. 9 at 1, para. 6 (PD-04.03.120 (10/13/97)), Pls.’ Exh. 22 at 6 (Emergency Fire Guidelines for Prisoners). 150. Good practice requires that the regional fire administrator or inspector makes the decision regarding when fire drills occur. The fact that the Resident Unit Manager makes these decisions calls into the question the validity of the drills. T. 234, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer).
F. STAFF PERFORMANCE 151. Parnall Operating Procedure requires that in an evacuation cells are to be unlocked
-24-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 28 of 89
from the top of the block down. See Pls.’ Exh. 10 at 7 (OP-SMT-04.03.12 (2/28/00). This policy is routinely ignored. In fact, Defendants presented staff testimony that this policy is not followed. T. 77, 5/5//05 (Meeker); T. 98-99, 5/5//05 (Embry). 152. The Operating Procedures at Egeler require that the cells occupied by disabled prisoners be specially identified with a blue card, as follows:
Handicapped prisoners are located within Housing Units, 1, 2, and 3, C-Unit and Duane Waters Hospital (DWH). The handicapped prisoners are identified by a blue card at the master count board in the housing unit and also by a 1"x1" blue card with an “H” stamped on it attached to the name tag on individual cells. Pls.’ Exh. 12 at 2 (“Fire Control and Emergency Evacuation,” OP-SMN-04.03.120 (10/31/01)). 153. None of the cells for the disabled on the North Side of Block 1 has a blue tag as required by policy. T. 250, 5/6/05 (Ferguson). 154. In Block 2, a number of frail prisoners were in cells that did not have blue tags. These included at least two crutch users, one prisoner using a cane, and one prisoner who was blind. T. 250, 5/6/05 (Ferguson). 155. The duties of the officers during the emergencies, such as dealing with a fire, could prevent them from assisting prisoners with disabilities who might need assistance because of visual or physical handicaps, or because that prisoner had become disoriented. Such delays would add risk for people with compromised respiratory systems. T. 255, 5/6/05 (Ferguson). 156. Using prisoner aides to assist in evacuating prisoners with mobility problems is unacceptable. Prisoner helpers cannot be relied upon in a fire situation, because the aides will be fending for themselves. Good practice and the Department’s policy require that in a fire situation staff assistance must be available. T. 226-27, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer); see also Pls.’ Exh. 12 at 7 (OP-SMN-04.03.12 (2/28/00)).
-25-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 29 of 89
VI. FIRE CODE COMPLIANCE A. BUILDING AND FIRE PREVENTION CODES
157. Defendants’ mechanical engineering expert David Sproul accepted the findings of Rosser Fabrap, the architecture and engineering firm retained by the State of Michigan, that:
. . . all of the cell blocks at Egeler violate the “means of egress” requirement of the [Building Officials Code Administrators] (“BOCA”) Code; the stairs that would be used for evacuating the cell blocks in Egeler are inadequate in size, enclosure, location, and discharge; and the five-story mezzanine design in the Egeler cell blocks violates the atrium requirement in the BOCA Code. Findings 1296, 1298 at 242, 2002 Findings. 158. The BOCA Code would not permit a five-tiered cellblock such as those at Egeler or Parnall. Finding 1393 at 256, 2002 Findings. 159. The BOCA Code permits a ceiling height up to 23 feet as long as one of the exits does not require prisoners to descend stairs for more than 23 feet. The BOCA ceiling height requirement serves to reduce the number of people at risk. The intent of the ceiling height requirement is to assure compartmentalization, reducing the population at risk from a fire in a particular unit and assuring that prisoners can move horizontally to the next unit in the event of fire, rather than being required to negotiate distances in excess of what is permitted by the Code. Finding 1399 at 257, 2002 Findings. B. LIFE SAFETY CODE AND ITS EQUIVALENCY 160. Defendants must combine consideration of the needs of the population, adequacy of staffing, operating procedures for evacuation that are understood, and applicable fire codes. The totality of these factors must go into the planning and design of the Hadix facilities. T. 221, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). 161. Defendants stated in their State Prison of Southern Michigan Egress Report dated
-26-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 30 of 89
December 12, 2003, that: Section 15-3.1.3 of the [Life Safety Code] allows multi-tiered open cell blocks to be considered a single story building if the cell block is provided with a smoke control system and the entire cell block is provided with fire protection.
(Emphasis added). Pls.’ Exh. 50 at 7 (Defs.’ Plan). 162. Blocks 1-3 and 7-8 do not have a smoke control system as such a system is defined by the applicable codes. Findings 1404-05 at 258, 2002 Findings. 163. The distance a prisoner must travel in 1-3 Blocks and 7-8 Blocks to exit the block exceeds the maximum travel distance of 150 feet permitted by the Life Safety Code. Finding 1391 at 256, 2002 Findings. VII. ACTUAL FIRE EXPERIENCE IN THE CELL BLOCKS 164. In the history of the Hadix facilities, multiple fires have been fairly common. T. 227, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). 165. The history of serious riot conditions in other prisons must also be taken into consideration in developing a fire safety system. For example, in the Attica riot, the New Mexico penitentiary riots, and the Camp Hill riots in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, there was an effort on the part of prisoners working together to set simultaneous fires. T. 227-28, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). 166. Department policy recognizes that prisoners may be in control during a fire and that fire suppression forces may need to retreat for security reasons. See Pls.’ Exh. 14 at 5, para. 15 (OP-SMI/RGC-04.03.120 (8/16/00)). 167. A prisoner on First Gallery of Block 8 ignited a few papers and a sheet in a trash can, then placed his mattress over the fire. There was so much smoke produced by this fire that a prisoner in a cell on the other side of the atrium from the fire could not see the cell directly
-27-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 31 of 89
across from him. Finding 1416 at 260, 2002 Findings. 168. A Carolina jail experienced a catastrophic fire with loss of life. Like the Hadix facilities, that jail had manual locks on the cells and was configured in a linear fashion, although it also differed from the Hadix facilities in lacking sprinklers or a tier design. T. 23435, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). 169. Since December 2004, the Parnall and Egeler facilities have experienced two fires resulting in a total of four injuries to prisoners or staff. One of the injured prisoners was recorded to have a level of carbon monoxide in his blood high enough to be associated with some fatalities. See §§ VII.A. and VII.B, infra.
A. DECEMBER 2004 FIRE IN BLOCK 1 170. On December 13, 2004 Prisoner No. 228931 set a fire in his cell (14-B-1) in the Quarantine Area on the south side of Block 1, also referred to as the detention area or the Special Housing Unit. Pls.’ Exh. 33A-1 (Fire Incident Report), Pls.’ Exh. 33A-3 at 2 (Major Misconduct Report). This cell had a solid front. T. 34-35, 5/5/05 (Fushi); 33A-8 (videotaped staff report regarding this fire). 171. This fire was set by a prisoner who disabled the sprinkler in his cell. Pls.’ Exh. 33A-8 at 54:47 (videotaped staff report). 172. At the time this fire started, there were about six prisoners on the Base Level of Block 1 South. T. 330, 5/6/05 (Hughes). 173. There was an extremely large amount of black smoke coming out of Cell 14-B-1. Pls.’ Exh. 33A-2 at 14 (Critical Incident Participant Report). 174. Prisoner 185558 was in Cell 18-B-1, two doors down from this fire. Pls.’ Exh. 33A-6 at 8 (emergency room intake history). Cell 18-B-1 has a solid front door with a food slot in the
-28-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 32 of 89
middle. T. 327-28, 5/6/05 (Hughes). The smoke came into his cell through the crack of the door; there were no vents in his cell. T. 329, 5/6/05 (Hughes). 175. The prisoner who set the fire was moved several cells down, from Cell 14 to Cell 3, but not evacuated. Pls.’ Exh. 33A-2 at 1 (Critical Incident Report). See also Pls.’ Exh. 33A-2 at 6 (Critical Incident Participant Report); Pls.’ Exh. 33A-8 (videotape of events after the cell extraction). 176. The Base Level on the south side was not released by the officer evacuating the other prisoners in Block 1. In the officer’s report, he notes that when the block alarm sounded, he released the breaker bars to allow the evacuation of prisoners from first through fourth galleries. There is no reference to releasing the prisoners on Base (“I broke first thru forth [sic] galleries to get prisoners out of the building”). Pls.’ Exh. 33A-2 at 10 (Critical Incident Participant Report), see also T. 332-33, 5/6/05 (Hughes). 177. At trial, Defendants did not contest the fact that the Quarantine cells on the Base Level of Block 1 South were not evacuated with the rest of the block as a result of this fire. See T. 35, 5/5/05 (Fushi). 178. It is notable that the housing area not evacuated in this fire is the same area that staff never practice evacuating in fire drills. T. 110, 5/5/05 (Denman). 179. As a result of this fire, one staff member was transported first to Duane Waters Hospital Emergency, and then to the civilian hospital within twenty minutes of the fire. Pls.’ Exh. 33A2 at 2, 8 (Critical Incident Report); Pls.’ Exh. 33A-5 (Waters Hospital Emergency Room Log). 180. Two prisoners in the immediate area of the fire (228931 and 185558) were taken to Duane Waters Hospital for medical treatment several hours later, after the prisoners who had been evacuated returned. T. 327-28, 332-33, 5/6/05 (Hughes); Pls.’ Exh. 33A-5 (Waters
-29-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 33 of 89
Hospital Emergency Room Log). 181. Prisoner 228931 (Cell 18-B-1) was taken from Block 1 at 19:30 (7:30 p.m.) and Prisoner 185558 (Cell 18-B-1) at 19:40 (7:40 p.m.). Pls.’ Exh. 33A-4 at 2 (Housing Unit Log). The prisoners were logged into the Emergency Room at 19:51 and 19:50, respectively, for smoke inhalation. Pls.’ Exh. 33A-5 (Waters Hospital Emergency Room Log). 182. Prisoner 185558 was diagnosed as having exogenous bronchospasms, secondary to smoke inhalation and was provided an inhaler. Pls.’ Exh. 33A-6 at 5 (12/14/04 entry); T. 334, 5/6/05 (Hughes). 183. Prisoner 185518 was tested for carboxyhemoglobin level approximately two hours after the fire. At that time, his tested level was 3.8, a level associated with some fatalities from carbon monoxide inhalation. Pls.’ Exh. 1C at 8-13 (NFPA Fire Protection Handbook, Ch. 8, §2); Pls.’ Exh. 33A-6 at 110. 184. Since the time of the fire Prisoner 185518 has used an inhaler, prescribed because his physical examination noted wheezes in his lungs. Pls.’ Exh. 33A-6 at 005-06 (medical records); Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 119-20. 185. Defendants’ critical incident reports regarding this fire are not reliable. Although Defendants claim to have evacuated Block 1 within seven minutes, in fact the Quarantine cells were not evacuated for approximately two hours, if at all. Moreover, the Defendants’ Fire Incident Report indicates that the Control Center was notified before the fire began. Compare Pls.’ Exh. 33A-1, 33A-2, 33A-3 at 001-002 to Pls.’ Exh. 33B; T. 35, 5/5/05 (Fushi). 186. The characteristics of the smoke and how it behaved in this Block 1 fire (T. 327-29, 5/6/05 (Hughes)), undermines Defendants’ proffered testimony that the solid doors in Quarantine provide substantial protection from smoke in the event of a fire. T. 27-28, 5/5/05
-30-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 34 of 89
(Fushi). B. MARCH 2005 FIRE IN BLOCK 10
187. On March 23, 2005 a fire started on in the catwalk of Block 10 on First Gallery behind cells 68-70, one story up from the main floor. Pls.’ Exh. 33B-1 (Fire Incident Report); T. 341, 5/6/05 (Davidson). 188. The time of the fire was reported as 00:50 (12:50 a.m.). Pls.’ Exh. 33B-1 (Fire Incident Report). 189. The fire, caused by a cigarette, ignited a seven foot long piece of cardboard lying on the catwalk. Pls.’ Exh. 33B-1 (Fire Incident Report); T. 341, 5/6/05 (Davidson). 190. The catwalk on First Gallery consists of an open grate. In contrast, the catwalk on Second Gallery above First Gallery has a solid concrete floor. T. 341, 5/6/05 (Davidson). 191. One prisoner hit the fire with a broom, causing flames to shoot up three to four feet. When others saw the flames, they started shouting. It was early morning, about 12:45 a.m., and all the lights were out. Another prisoner threw his coffee on the fire. T. 342, 5/6/05 (Davidson). 192. The smoke was intense. After it reached the ceiling, the smoke descended on the tiers and thickened. T. 342-43, 5/6/05 (Davidson). 193. At least eight minutes elapsed before any staff responded. T. 343, 5/6/05 (Davidson). 194. The building was not evacuated. T. 343, 5/6/05 (Davidson); Pls.’ Exh. 33B-1. 195. Reports indicate that the fire was extinguished at 00:52 (12:52 a.m.). Pls.’ Exh. 33B-1. 196. At 1:18 a.m., Prisoner 194520 in Cell 63-B-10, one level below the fire, was taken to Duane Waters Hospital for difficulty breathing due to the smoke from this fire. Pls.’ Exh. 33B-2 (Housing Unit Log); Pls.’ Exh. 33B-1 (Fire Incident Report); Pls.’ Exh. 33B-4 at 3
-31-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 35 of 89
(Emergency Department Report, intake history). 197. Prisoner 194520 was enrolled in the Cardiac/HTN Chronic Care Clinic and was a known asthmatic. Pls.’ Exh. 33B-3 (summarizing his health care data from Pls.’ Exh. 40); Pls.’ Exh. 33B-4 at 3 (Emergency Department Report). 198. Prisoner 194520 was diagnosed as having (1) an acute asthmatic attack secondary to smoke inhalation (resolved), and (2) smoke inhalation. He was given Albuterol and Atrovent nebulizer treatments, after which his wheezes resolved and his breathing improved. Pls.’ Exh. 33B-4 at 4 (Emergency Department Report).
C. BLOCK 8 FIRE 199. Assistant Resident Unit Supervisor Ronald Embry testified that it took either fifteen or 18 minutes to evacuate Block 8 during a fire in Block 8. T. 90-91, 5/5/05 (Embry). VIII. POTENTIAL CONDITIONS IN EVENT OF FIRE
A. BASIC CHARACTERISTICS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODEL 200. Professor Frederick B. Mowrer was retained by Defendants to develop a model of the conditions that would prevail in the Hadix cellblocks in the event of a fire. T. 143-44, 149-50, 5/5/05 (Mowrer). 201. Fire models are developed in light of the principles that fuel has a given potential for producing energy in a fire, but that fires can vary in the rate that fuel is consumed, and this variance in the rate of fuel consumption determines the length of time that the fire will burn. T. 145, 5/5/05 (Mowrer). 202. Another principle of fire model-building is that the arrangement of the fuel will affect the rate that fuel will be consumed in a fire. In a given arrangement, the transfer of heat may be insufficient to sustain combustion, while a different presentation of the fuel would burn
-32-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 36 of 89
readily. T. 145-46, 5/5//05 (Mowrer). 203. Another known characteristic of fires is that, as smoke rises in an enclosed space, the smoke entrains fresh air, with the result that the volume of smoke increases but the smoke itself becomes less concentrated. When the smoke plume reaches the top of an enclosed space, the smoke begins to bank down and become more concentrated. T. 167-68, 5/5/05 (Mowrer). 204. Prof. Mowrer used two approaches to fire model building. One was zone modeling and one was computational fluid dynamics (“CFD”). A zone model assumes that the temperature of the smoke produced by the fire will be uniform, while a CFD model allows a calculation of the temperature in different parts of the smoke plume. T. 147-48, 5/5/05 (Mowrer). 205. Prof. Mowrer used a zone model to predict conditions in Blocks 1-3 in the event of a fire and CFD models of a fire in some small groups of cells. T. 148-49, 5/5//05 (Mowrer). 206. Prof. Mowrer did not produce a zone model of a fire in Block 7 or 8 (Defs.’ Exh. 1 at 21), but it was his opinion that conditions during a fire in the Egeler and Parnall cellblocks would be about the same once the smoke descended to the level of the fire. T. 184, 5/5/05 (Mowrer). 207. Prior to inspecting the Hadix facilities, Prof. Mowrer developed a report, but following his inspection, he had to modify that report because he found that certain conditions were not what he had assumed. T. 151-52, 5/5/05 (Mowrer). 208. For example, prior to his inspection, Prof. Mowrer assumed that, in the event of a fire, smoke from the fire would rise through the ceiling up into the attic where it would then bank down. After he actually saw the attic, he changed his models to assume that smoke from a fire would bank down at the ceiling and would not penetrate the attic. T. 152, 5/5/05 (Mowrer). 209. In addition, when Prof. Mowrer saw the cellblocks, he observed that there was more
-33-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 37 of 89
property available as fuel than he had assumed when he relied on the information given him. T. 155, 5/5/05 (Mowrer).
B. LIMITATIONS AND INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS IN THE MODEL 210. A significant limitation of the zone model is that the model assumes that smoke density is uniform throughout, just as it assumes that smoke temperature will be uniform throughout. This limitation is inherent in the zone model. In reality, the smoke closer to the source of the fire will have higher concentrations of soot, heat and other combustion by-products. T. 289, 291-92, 301-02, 5/6/05 (DiMascio). 211. This limitation of the model is particularly important in Blocks 1-3. These Blocks contain tiers of cells arranged in the center of each block, in large part dividing the block in two. If there were a fire on one side of the cellblock, the smoke would be denser on the side of the fire. T. 291-93, 5/6/05 (DiMascio). 212. As a result, conditions on that side of the cellblock will involve higher concentrations of soot, carbon monoxide, heat, and visibility than if the cellblock were configured like Blocks 7 and 8, with an open atrium in the center. Prisoners on the side of the cellblock where the fire started would be exposed to higher concentrations of combustion by-products than predicted by the Mowrer zone model. T. 291-293, 5/6/05 (DiMascio); see schematic drawings illustrating cellblock divisions in Pls.’ Exh. 50. 213. The injury to Prisoner 194520, who was confined one tier below a fire in Block 10, also illustrates the imprecision of the zone model used by Prof. Mowrer, which assumes that a prisoner below the level of the fire would not be affected by smoke. Compare Defs.’ Exh. 1 at 15-16, 19 (smoke descends only to the layer of the fire) with Proposed Findings in § VII.B, supra.
-34-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 38 of 89
214. Another serious problem with the inherent inability of a zone model to predict differences in smoke densities is illustrated by the smoke plume from a cell fire on a lower tier. The smoke plume would engulf a growing number of cells on each tier as it ascended. T. 30203, 5/6/05 (DiMascio). 215. In reality, the smoke within this plume would remain substantially denser than the smoke within the rest of the cellblock. This denser area of smoke would extend from the level of the fire to the ceiling. T. 302-03, 5/6/05 (DiMascio). 216. Within this plume, tenability conditions would decrease far faster than predicted by the zone model. Compare T. 302-03, 5/6/05 (DiMascio) to Defs.’ Exh. 1 at 17 (Figure 18). 217. Accordingly, visibility would fall below tenability limits on segments of multiple tiers significantly before the times predicted by the zone model. (Factual conclusion.) 218. Although Defendants’ policy provides that the area in the vicinity of a fire is to be evacuated first (Pls.’ Exh. 10 at 5, para. 19 (OP-SMT-04.03.120 (2/28/00)); Pls.’ Exh. 12 at 4, para. 1 (OP-SMN-04.03.120 (10/31/01)), Defendants’ policy cannot address the problems caused by a potential fire’s smoke plume because that policy is limited to cells in the vicinity of the fire; the policy does not and cannot provide for cell releases on segments of multiple tiers first. (Factual conclusion). 219. Notwithstanding the changes that Prof. Mowrer made in his assumptions regarding the amount of property available to prisoners, Prof. Mowrer’s model did not consider all the property that is available to a prisoner in either Egeler or Block 8. Among the additional items of available property are shaving cream, gel, shower cap, glue, facial tissues, shoe polish, domino games, photo albums, playing cards, and many other items. See Pls.’ Exh. 8 (PD04.02.130 (11/15/04)).
-35-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 39 of 89
220. In addition to the combustibles that Prof. Mowrer assumed would be available to a prisoner in Egeler, such prisoners are also permitted a foot locker of legal materials as well as supplies related to health conditions and products from the store. Compare Defs.’ Exh. 1, Attachment D to T. 288-89, 5/6/05 (DiMascio); see also Pls.’ Exh. 6, Section E (PD-03.04.105 (3/18/02)) and Pls.’ Exh.19, Section M (PD-04.07.112 (11/15/2004)). 221. More personal property also exists in Block 8 cells than assumed by Prof. Mowrer. T. 289, 5/6/05 (DiMascio); see also Pls.’ Exh. 19, Attachment C (several page list of additional permitted personal property) (PD-04.07.112 (11/15/2004)). 222. The Mowrer report analyzed temperature, soot production, carbon monoxide but did not analyze carbon dioxide or hydrogen chloride or the alkalines from the burning of wool, all of which are either asphyxiants or irritants. T. 308, 5/6/05 (DiMascio). 223. Prof. Mowrer considered the smoke compounds resulting from a fire separately. These components, however, have a synergistic effect on the occupant and should be analyzed together. T. 308-09, 5/6/05 (DiMascio). 224. Of the materials in the property list used by Prof. Mowrer for his assumptions, about twenty (20%) percent are plastic, including a plastic television. Soot production rates when plastics are burned can be four to ten times that of normal cellulosics. T. 304, 5/6/05 (DiMascio). 225. Prof. Mowrer agreed that the yield factor for soot from some plastics is higher than the yield factor he had assumed. If the fuel load consumed in an actual fire had a higher yield factor than the fuel assumed by Prof. Mowrer, the higher smoke yields would produce even lower visibility. T. 182, 5/5/05 (Mowrer). 226. If plastic materials are taken into account, the visibility predicted under the Mowrer
-36-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 40 of 89
zone model drops dramatically. For example, Prof. Mowrer’s Model predicts that a fire on Fourth Gallery in Egeler would result in visibility falling to 16-17 meters in 108 seconds. If the plastic fuels available in the cells are taken into account, the visibility on Fourth Gallery predicted by the model falls to eight meters in 108 seconds. T. 304-05, 5/6/05 (DiMascio).
C. IMPLICATIONS OF THE MODELS 227. Tenability limits are measurements of the conditions that are tolerable for human life. T. 183, 5/5/05 (Mowrer). 228. According to the NFPA Fire Protection Handbook, which is one of the authorities that Prof. Mowrer relied on in developing his zone models, see Defs.’ Exh. 1 at 1, one of the major hazards presented in a fire is impaired vision, which hinders escape from the fire. Pls.’ Exh. 1C at 8-13, 8-23. There is a standardized formula for determining the extent to which a fire obscures visibility. Id. at 8-23. The Handbook states the following:
People’s response to obscuration of vision and its detrimental effects on movement speed and wayfinding efficiency is highly variable. Visibility requirements for escape depend to a large extent on the size of the enclosure and the occupants’ familiarity with escape routes. Suggested tenability limits for optical density have ranged from 0.5/m (2 m-visibility), for occupants of small rooms who are familiar with escape routes, down to about 0.065/m (15-m visibility) for large enclosures in which occupants are unfamiliar with their surroundings. Id. 229. According to Prof. Mowrer’s zone model, smoke from a Base fire in Blocks 1-3 will fill the upper tiers down to the ceiling of the first tier in approximately eleven minutes. Defs.’ Exh. 1 at 15, 23 (Mowrer Report). Assuming Prof. Mowrer’s model, it would also take about eleven minutes for smoke to fill Block 8. T. 294 (DiMascio). 230. The model predicts that during the first approximately two minutes, average visibility within the smoke layer will have fallen to less than six meters. Within approximately ten
-37-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 41 of 89
minutes, average visibility will have fallen to two meters. Defs.’ Exh. 1 at 17 (Figure 18). Moreover, visibility within the first tier will fall below fifteen meters sometime between five and ten minutes after the fire begins. Defs.’ Exh. 1 at 23. 231. Accordingly, even if one applies the less demanding visibility standard noted by the NFPA Fire Protection Handbook, in approximately ten minutes from the beginning of the fire, average visibility within the smoke layer will be reduced to a level below that required for escape from the fire. In fact, conditions in the cellblocks more closely resemble the conditions for which visibility of 15 meters is necessary, but Prof. Mowrer’s model predicts that visibility will fall below that level in the smoke layer in less than a minute. See Defs.’ Exh. 1 at 17 (Figure 18); Pls.’ Exh. 1C at 8-23. 232. In the event of a fire on the top tier in Blocks 1-3, Prof. Mowrer’s model indicates that the top tier will fill with smoke within 108 seconds. Although it could have been done, Prof. Mowrer made no calculations regarding the visibility or the concentration of toxic substances in the smoke layer in such a fire after the first 108 seconds. Defs.’ Exh. 1 at 19; T. 184-85, 5/5/05 (Mowrer). 233. If Prof. Mowrer had modeled conditions within a top tier fire after the first 108 seconds, the model would have shown a deterioration in tenability conditions. Oxygen depletion would also occur most rapidly in a top tier fire. T. 186-87, 5/5/05 (Mowrer). 234. The time until visibility levels fall below tenability limits predicted by the model will in fact be substantially below the times predicted in Prof. Mowrer’s model if a correction is made for his failure to include calculations based on the amount of plastic available as fuels in the cells. As noted, although Prof. Mowrer predicted that visibility would fall to 16 or 17 meters in the event of a Fourth Gallery fire, Mr. DiMascio calculated that if one corrected the zone
-38-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 42 of 89
model solely for the availability of fuel in the form of plastics, visibility on the fourth tier would decrease to eight meters in the first 108 seconds. Compare T. 304-05, 5/6/05 (DiMascio) to Defs.’ Exh. 1 at 19. 235. Prof. Mowrer’s model, even without necessary corrections that would decrease the time until non-tenable conditions, predicts that visibility would fall below minimally tenable limits in a period of time less than the evacuation times recorded by Defendants during fire drills. Prof. Mowrer’s model predicts that visibility in a Base fire in Block 1, 2, or 3 will fall below minimally tenable levels in approximately ten minutes, but evacuation times in practice drills are generally more than ten minutes, and range up to 15-20 minutes. Defs.’ Exh. 1 at 17 (Figure 18); Pls.’ Exh. 1C at 8-23; Pls.’ Exh. 21A at 002, 025, 033. 236. In Blocks 1-3, temperatures in cells directly above a cell containing a fire could reach close to 175° F. T. 177, 5/5/05 (Mowrer). One could assume injury would occur to a person exposed to a temperature of 175° F. T. 297, 5/6/05 (DiMascio). 237. The temperature at the floor level in the cells directly above a fire in Block 8 is predicted to reach 130-140° F. It is normally not recommended that fire fighters enter buildings without protective gear when the temperature exceeds 130° F. T. 297, 5/6/05 (DiMascio). 238. Flashover is the stage in a fire in an enclosed space that occurs when the temperature reaches approximately 600° C, or about 1100° F. At the point that flashover occurs, the remaining fuels in the enclosed space ignite almost instantly. T. 165-66, 5/5/05 (Mowrer). 239. Prof. Mowrer prepared a FDS model of what would happen within the cell where a fire originates in Blocks 1-3. The model predicts “thermal conditions within the cell representative of flashover conditions,” so that flashover would be imminent. Defs.’ Exh. 1 at 10, 22.
-39-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 43 of 89
240. If the fuel available in a Block 8 cell were arranged in the most dangerous way, flashover in such a cell would also become a possibility. T. 180, 5/5/05 (Mowrer). 241. If there were two fires in a single cell, visibility would be one-half that predicted by the Mowrer model because the amount of smoke has a linear relationship to visibility. T. 299, 5/6/05 (DiMascio). 242. If two fires were set in separate cells in the same cellblock, the amount of smoke produced would be double the amount produced by a single fire. T. 180-81, 5/5/05 (Mowrer). There would be a higher heat release rate, more soot production, and the smoke layer would drop faster because the heat release rates are higher. T. 290-91, 5/6/05 (DiMascio). 243. If there were two fires in a single cell, using the same total amount of combustible materials as in the Mowrer model, the total smoke from the fire would be produced in approximately half the time. T. 291, 5/6/05 (DiMascio). 244. If the extra footlocker of property available in Parnall is considered in the Mowrer model, the predicted length of a fire until exhaustion of fuel increases by 27 minutes. T. 299, 5/6/05 (DiMascio). IX. DEGREE OF RISK FROM CURRENT CONDITIONS
A. DESCRIPTION OF THE CONDITION 1. PRISONERS WITH HEALTH OR SIMILAR IMPEDIMENTS TO EVACUATION
245. The Hadix population includes disproportionate numbers of persons with mobility problems, breathing problems, strength and endurance problems, and problems following directions, including disproportionate numbers of persons with visual problems, hearing problems or behavioral issues. T. 256, 5/6/05 (Ferguson).
-40-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 44 of 89
246. In medical terms, the categories of persons likely to be at high risk include orthopedic problems, neurological problems, cardiac problems, pulmonary problems, diabetes, persons with HIV, the mentally ill, and persons with communicative disorders. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 25-26. 247. Someone with multiple sclerosis, a neurological disorder, would be unable to exit easily in a crowd. Someone with a seizure disorder exposed to smoke would be more prone to experience a seizure. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 26. 248. Someone with an orthopedic disorder affecting walking would be slower and could impede the exiting of others or get pushed down while others exited. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 26. 249. Persons with pulmonary disorders are at particularly high risk in the event of an evacuation because even minor exposure to smoke has the potential to tip them into more serious respiratory distress, resulting in a physical collapse, a cardiac event, or loss of consciousness. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 26. 250. The largest or second-largest category of persons at high risk includes those with cardiac disorders. These persons are at risk of a heart attack during an evacuation. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 27. 251. Persons with vision problems are at heightened risk, particularly in a fire during the night-time hours. The presence of smoke would exacerbate their vision problems, making it more likely that the person would be unable to tell where he was going and therefore more likely to panic. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 27. 252. The persons who would have problems evacuating in an emergency include people with mobility problems and seizures who were put on upper levels, and people who are not independent on exiting. T. 256-57, 5/6/05 (Ferguson). 253. In light of the fact that staff in the Hadix facilities rely primarily on staff’s ability to
-41-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 45 of 89
give oral instructions to prisoners during actual evacuations, persons with hearing problems or difficulty understanding English would experience greater problems during evacuation. In addition, such persons are more likely to feel generally isolated, and as a result have more of a tendency to experience confusion and panic. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 27-28. 254. Persons suffering from mental illness are also more prone to panic and less likely to exit safely. Patients taking medications such as tricyclic anti-depressants also have a greater physiologic response to smoke inhalation. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 28, 94-95. 255. Prisoners in the Hadix facility who need medications or accommodations such as hearing aid equipment, inhalers, or anti-seizure medications frequently do not have their needs met. Prisoners in need of such items would be further hindered in exiting in the event of a fire. T. 256-57, 5/6/05 (Ferguson); Pls.’ Exh. 4B; see also Findings 872 at 159, 895-900 at 166-67, 912-916 at 169, 920 and 924 at 170, 943 at 174, 944 at 174, 995 at 184, 996-1009 at 184-85, 2002 Findings. 256. Smoke density affects healthy people differently from the way it affects unhealthy people. T. 306-07, 5/6/05 (DiMascio). 257. If incapacitation from smoke and hot gases would normally occur in a healthy person at around thirty (30%) percent of the lethal dose, it could be down as low as four to five (4-5%) percent of that figure for the sub-population of people with health problems. T. 307, 5/6/05 (DiMascio). 258. Prisoners who are coming in as new arrivals are in very unfamiliar surroundings. This lack of familiarity would pose a serious risk in the event of a fire evacuation. T. 233, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). 259. When prisoners would be released from the top down in an emergency, traffic jams or
-42-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 46 of 89
chaotic conditions could develop, particularly if people were noisy getting out. In certain instances, weaker or functionally-limited persons could be injured or could become a barrier for others. T. 255, 5/6/05 (Ferguson).
2. CONDITIONS DURING AN EVACUATION 260. In Egeler during an evacuation, two custody officers, one on each end, would have to climb the five levels to the top gallery. The officers would first be required to open the breaker bar boxes with a key. The boxes would be difficult to find in a smoky environment. After a breaker box was opened, the officer would begin to release the breaker bars. T. 225, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). 261. Because the cells in the Egeler Facility are arranged back-to-back, after a custody officer opened the cells on Fourth Gallery on one side, the officer would be required to cross over to the other side and open the breaker box there with a key, use the bar again to open the next group of cells, then go down the stairs and begin the process again on the next level. This process would continue until the officers reached Base and had opened all the cells. T. 225, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). 262. Fire safety dictates that people should not have to exit a building down smoke-filled stairs. T. 314, 5/6/05 (DiMascio). Defendants’ expert agreed that if stairs are to be used for egress, they must be enclosed in a smoke-free compartment. T. 142, 5/5/05 (Smith). 263. While an atrium does serve as a reservoir for smoke, in order to accomplish evacuation, the smoke must be kept above the area used for egress. A smoke-removal system is necessary to keep smoke above the level of the evacuation route. T. 313-14, 5/6/05 (DiMascio).
3. HAZARDS IN NON-HOUSING AREAS 264. There were several hundred gallons of hazardous materials stored in 55 gallon drums
-43-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 47 of 89
on the first floor of the metal furniture factory. This quantity exceeds the quantity permitted pursuant to the Life Safety Code section relied upon by Mr. Fushi, Defendants’ Regional Fire Inspector. Both storage and dispensing of chemicals were occurring in the metal furniture factory. T. 310-11, 5/6/05 (DiMascio). 265. There were well over 120 gallons of Xylene, a very flammable chemical, stored in the factory during an inspection Mr. DiMascio’s inspection; two 55 gallons drums were in use to dispense Xylene. Xylene was being poured from the 55 gallon drums into five gallon pails that were then used to soak spray gun parts. There was also ordinary electrical equipment in the area where the Xylene was dispensed. These conditions are unsafe and violate a specific provision of the Life Safety Code. T. 312, 5/6/05 (DiMascio). 266. In the laundry, one of the exits from the upper floor discharges to the first floor rather than out of the building. T. 312-13, 5/6/05 (DiMascio).
B. ASSESSMENT OF THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE RISK 267. Ms. Ferguson and Dr. Walden reviewed Defendants’ data reported in Defendants’ Monthly Report of Prisoners Disabilities and Accommodations (HC-251), the Service Area Clinic Reports (HC-261), and the location reports for prisoners at both the Egeler (Pls.’ Exh. 39) and Parnall Facilities (Pls.’ Exh. 40). T. 258-59, 5/6/05 (Ferguson); Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 20-21. 268. The HC-251 is commonly called the accommodation report. It lists the prisoner’s name, number, diagnoses based on a functional assessment, and the listing of the special accommodations provided to each prisoner. Each of the individually-based assessments and treatment decisions are entered into the a database reflecting the medical determinations made at various points in the process. These data are generated in a monthly report, the HC-251. T. 259, 5/6/05 (Ferguson).
-44-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 48 of 89
269. Associated with each disability description in the HC-251 is a code for “Level of Functioning.” The codes are: I (independent), A (needs assistance), and D (dependent). Pls.’ Exh. 17 at 1 (Documentation Guidelines for Special Needs Identification Screening). 270. The HC-251 lists only chronic or permanent accommodations. For conditions that last six months or less, medical details are used instead. T. 260, 5/6/05 (Ferguson). 271. Every prisoner in a facility is listed on the HC-251, whether or not they have a disability or accommodation. T. 260, 5/6/05 (Ferguson). 272. In contrast, not every prisoner is listed on the HC-261, the Chronic Care Clinic report, which is limited to prisoners enrolled in one of the seven Chronic Care Clinics. T. 260-61, 5/6/05 (Ferguson). 273. Each clinic list contains the names and numbers of the prisoners assigned to that Chronic Care Clinic and the most significant three diagnoses for which they were seen in the most recent visit, so that review of the HC-261 provides a sense of the reasons for enrollment in the Chronic Care Clinic. T. 260-261, 5/6/05 (Ferguson). 274. Despite the limited information available and the fact that many prisoners in Egeler at any given time have not received a full health review, Dr. Walden identified 38 prisoners who were likely to be at heightened risk in a fire but not housed on Base. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 47-64; see also Pls.’ Exhs. 37, 39.1 275. The prisoners identified included eight housed on Fourth Gallery and nine on Third Gallery of one of the Egeler cellblocks. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 47-64; see also Pls.’ Exhs. 37, 39.
1For the Court’s convenience, Plaintiffs include as Appendix A a table based on Plaintiffs’ Exh. 37 that lists only the prisoners referred to in this Proposed Finding and Proposed Findings 275 and 276.
-45-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 49 of 89
276. The 38 Egeler prisoners identified by Dr. Walden included a patient who had been noted by Defendants to have a level of functioning requiring assistance by virtue of his HIV infection. All of the other Egeler prisoners identified by Dr. Walden had been diagnosed by Defendants with either respiratory or cardiac disease, or both. In the majority of cases, these prisoners carried additional diagnoses that Dr. Walden also considered in making his determinations. Among the prisoners identified were prisoners with a visual or hearing impairment, or both. (160657, 192354 (both), 197427 (visual impairment with level of functioning classified as requiring assistance)). Dr Walden also identified prisoners with restrictions on their ability to stand (217074, housed on Fourth Gallery), or medical orders that had not been followed to house the prisoner on Base (248988, housed on Third Gallery; 278398, 391369, and 525249 housed on Fourth Gallery; see also 309953, medical order for no heights but housed on Second Gallery). Prisoner 251306, although not on Dr. Walden’s list, was housed on the Fourth Gallery despite having cardiac and circulatory problems that Defendants classified as a level of functioning needing assistance. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 52-54, 58, 60-61, 63-64; see also Pls.’ Exhs. 37, 39. 277. Ms. Ferguson, in consultation with Dr. Walden, developed five categories of conditions that could lead to difficulties during a fire evacuation. These categories are as follows: difficulty with mobility; breathing; strength and endurance; following directions, such as impairments of vision or hearing; or behavioral issues. T. 261, 5/6/05 (Ferguson). 278. The categories Ms. Ferguson developed are consistent with the criteria for enrollment in the Disabilities Chronic Care Clinic. In order to be enrolled in that clinic, a prisoner must have at least one of the following diagnoses, functional impairments or structural problems:
•Paraplegia, limb amputations, wheelchair-dependent for mobility,
-46-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 50 of 89
history of skin grafts or flap to buttocks or other pressure areas; • Individuals requiring assistance with daily living due to body control problems; • Individuals who require mobility devices for activities of daily living; • Loss of visual or auditory function which affects activities of daily living; • History of resolved/cured pressure ulcers; • Diagnosed neuromuscular disease such as Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson’s, which results in a functional deficiency; • Paralysis of any extremity; • Any physical or body area impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities; • Unresolved or fluctuating accommodation needs; • Patients whose physical functional disability limits participation in services, programs and/or activities; or • Brain injury. Pls.’ Exh. 34B at 2 (Chronic Care Clinic Guidelines, Disability Chronic Care Clinic Criteria, Section III.C). 279. Ms. Ferguson also considered Defendants’ training material for preparation of the HC251 and related forms. Those materials include a definition of respiratory disease in Code 10: “Respiratory disease, if maximum breath capacity is less than 55 percent of predicted or there is shortness of breath after climbing one flight of stairs or walking 100 yards due to tuberculosis, emphysema, pneumoconiosis, asbestosis, bronchiectasis, chronic bronchitis and sinusitis.” Pls.’ Exh. 17 at unnumbered page 7. 280. In addition, Ms. Ferguson considered Defendants’ criteria for determining that a
-47-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 51 of 89
prisoner is at high risk for heat-related injury. The entire set of criteria is as follows: enrollment in the Cardiovascular or Pulmonary Chronic Care Clinic; over 65 years of age; undergoing renal dialysis; pregnant; or confined to a wheelchair. Defs.’ Exh. 35 at 2 (OP03.04.100-E (5/21/01)) (May 2002 hearing record). 281. Based on Ms. Ferguson’s functional categories as informed by the enrollment criteria for the Disabilities and Respiratory Chronic Care Clinics and the heat risk criteria, Ms. Ferguson identified 258 data entries indicating prisoners who would have difficulty with mobility, breathing, strength and endurance, or following directions out of the Egeler population of 1445 prisoners. Pls.’ Exh. 37 (Egeler Health Care Data Table); T. 261, 262-63, 5/6/05 (Ferguson); Pls.’ Exh. 39C at 57 (total prisoners on count). 282. At least 34 of the 258 prisoners identified at Egeler have respiratory conditions that impair their walking 100 yards or one flight of stairs. Twenty-two of these were placed on First Gallery (second floor) or above. Pls.’ Exh. 37 at 1. 283. At least nine of the 258 prisoners identified at Egeler have visual or hearing impairments that may interfere with their hearing directions or visually following directions. Defendants have coded these nine as “LOF A” (level of functioning: needs assistance); three of these were placed on First Gallery or above. Pls.’ Exh. 37 at 1. Of note, this calculation was based on incomplete data, because many prisoners in Egeler had not completed the intake screening. T. 264, 5/6/05 (Ferguson); Pls.’ Exh. 37. 284. Ninety-eight of the 258 prisoners identified at Egeler were on Base and would have difficulty exiting for the very reasons they have been placed on Base. Pls.’ Exh. 37 at 1. Many such prisoners have significant impairments and will probably be released last of all in the event of a fire. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 67-68, 78.
-48-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 52 of 89

285. Ms. Ferguson identified 60 prisoners at Egeler at risk for heat-related illness. T. 264,

5/6/05 (Ferguson); Pls.’ Exh. 37 at 1.

286. Ms. Ferguson identified 17 prisoners at Egeler as placement mistakes. For these, the

HC-251, prepared by medical staff, notes prisoners in need of ground floor housing (Base) who

were not housed on Base, which is evident from the prisoners’ location. T. 264, 5/6/05

(Ferguson); Pls.’ Exh. 37 at 1.

287. Ms. Ferguson identified 16 prisoners at Egeler with asthma or chronic airway

obstruction who are not listed on the HC-251 with respiratory disease, and who were placed on

First Gallery or above. Pls.’ Exh. 37 at 1.

288. Of the prisoners at Egeler, twenty (20%) percent, or 292, are enrolled in chronic care

clinics, as follows:

Egeler Chronic Care Clinic (“CCC”) Enrollment Data 04/05/05

Cardiac/HTN Clinic

66

Diabetic Clinic

2

Disability Clinic

42

Endocrine Disorder Clinic

28

Gastrointestinal Clinic

37

Generic Clinic

0

Hep C Clinic

20

Infectious Disease Clinic

15

Neurologic Disorder Clinic

14

Pulmonary Clinic

68

All CCCs

292

T. 264, 5/6/05 (Ferguson); Pls.’ Exh. 37 at 29.

289. Fifty prisoners identified at Egeler had respiratory conditions that could put them at risk

in a fire. That is about the same percentage as shown in national studies. T. 264-65, 5/6/05

(Ferguson).

290. Fourteen prisoners identified at Egeler are listed as having seizure disorders, about

-49-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 53 of 89
double the national rate. T. 265, 5/6/05 (Ferguson). 291. After eliminating duplicates resulting from prisoners who had more than one problem in exiting, Ms. Ferguson identified 199 prisoners, or fourteen (14%) percent of the population at Egeler, who are at significantly elevated risk of harm in a fire or emergency evacuation in comparison to the norm. T. 265, 5/6/05 (Ferguson). 292. Of the 199 prisoners, 144 would need extra time to travel across the gallery, down the steps, and out the doors. T. 268, 5/6/05 (Ferguson). 293. In Block 8, Dr. Walden identified 58 prisoners who were likely to be at heightened risk of a fire but were not housed on Base. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 68-80; see also Pls.’ Exhs. 38, 40.2 294. The prisoners identified included ten housed on Fourth Gallery and fifteen housed on Third Gallery. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 68-80; see also Pls.’ Exhs. 38, 40. 295. The great majority of the 58 prisoners identified by Dr. Walden had been diagnosed with either respiratory or cardiac disease, or both. In the majority of cases, these prisoners carried additional diagnoses. Among the prisoners identified were 124266, with lumbar disc displacement and pelvic displacement, noted by Defendants to have an orthopedic deformity classified as requiring assistance; 135363, also with an orthopedic deformity classified as requiring assistance, in addition to diabetes, respiratory disease, limitations on lifting, and HIV infection; 147207, with cardiac disease classified as requiring assistance among other diagnoses; 157121, with cardiac and respiratory disease, noted to require permanent air conditioning among his unusual accommodations; 164755, with both visual and hearing
2 For the Court’s convenience, Plaintiffs include as Appendix B a table based on Plaintiffs’ Exh. 38 that lists only the prisoners referred to in this Proposed Finding and Proposed Findings 294 and 295.
-50-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 54 of 89
impairments classified as requiring assistance; 166484, with cardiac disease classified as rendering him disabled, yet is housed on Second Gallery; 166760, with both cardiac disease and chronic airway obstruction (emphysema), as well as a visual impairment classified as requiring assistance; 265113, with glaucoma and a hearing impairment classified as requiring assistance, who is noted as having communication difficulties, yet is housed on Fourth Gallery; 303611, with cardiac disease classified as requiring assistance as well as diabetes and obesity; 368151, with acquired traumatic brain injury and visual impairment classified as requiring assistance but is housed on Third Gallery; 466500, with an orthopedic deformity, cardiac disease, and respiratory disease, as well as a visual impairment classified as requiring assistance yet is housed on Fourth Gallery. Prisoner 516312, identified by Dr. Walden, would be attempting to descend stairs with the help of crutches or a cane. In addition, Prisoner 198776 has a seizure disorder classified as requiring assistance. Pursuant to Defendants’ health care policy, he should have a medical order for Base housing but apparently does not. He is housed on Fourth Gallery. Further, Prisoners 127748 (Third Gallery), 135363 and 271651 (Third Gallery), 316603 and 423321 (Fourth Gallery), 466500 (Fourth Gallery), and 516312 (First Gallery) have medical orders for Base housing but are not housed on Base. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 69, 71-74,77, 80. 296. Ms. Ferguson applied the same analytic methods she used in Egeler to Block 8 of the Parnall Facility (Pls.’ Exh. 40). Her findings are summarized in a table of 174 data entries identifying prisoners who would have difficulty in with mobility, breathing, strength and endurance, or following directions. Pls.’ Exh. 38 (Block 8 Health Care Data Table); T. 265, 5/6/05 (Ferguson). 297. There were 351 prisoners in Block 8 as of 2002; for all of Parnall, Blocks 8, 9, and 10,
-51-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 55 of 89
there were 1023 prisoners. Pls.’ Exh. 38 at 24. 298. At least 30 of the 174 prisoners identified in Block 8 have respiratory conditions that impair their walking 100 yards or one flight of stairs, based on Defendants’ health care criteria. Twenty-two of these prisoners were placed on First Gallery (the second floor) or above. Pls.’ Exh. 38 at 1; T. 266, 5/6/05 (Ferguson). 299. At least 26 of the 174 prisoners identified in Block 8 have visual or hearing impairments that may interfere with their hearing directions or visually following directions. Defendants coded these 26 prisoners “LOF: A” (needs assistance). Twenty of these prisoners were placed on First Gallery or above. Pls.’ Exh. 38 at 1; T. 266, 5/6/05 (Ferguson). 300. Fifty-five of the 174 prisoners identified in Block 8 were on Base. They will have difficulty exiting for the very reasons they have been placed on Base. Pls.’ Exh. 38 at 1. 301. 112 of the 174 prisoners identified in Block 8 are listed as at risk for heat-related illness. Pls.’ Exh. 38 at 1. 302. Ten of the 174 prisoners identified in Block 8 have asthma or chronic airway obstruction, but are not listed on the HC-251 with respiratory disease, and were placed on First Gallery or above. Pls.’ Exh. 38 at 1. 303. Seven of the 174 prisoners identified in Block 8 are noted as “placement mistakes” in the Table “comments” column. Staff had identified these prisoners in the HC-251 as in need of ground floor housing (Base), but they were housed at some other level by custody staff. Pls.’ Exh. 38 at 1; T. 266, 5/6/05 (Ferguson). 304. Sixty-five (65%) percent, nearly two-thirds of the total Parnall population, are enrolled in chronic care clinics and nearly half of them are either in the Cardiac or Pulmonary Chronic Care Clinic. T. 266, 5/6/05 (Ferguson); Pls.’ Exh. 38 at 24.
-52-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 56 of 89

305. There are 663 prisoners at Parnall who are enrolled in a chronic care clinic, as follows:

Parnall Chronic Care Clinic Enrollment Data 04/05/05

Cardiac/HTN Clinic

222

Diabetic Clinic

1

Disability Clinic

49

Endocrine Disorder Clinic 112

Gastrointestinal Clinic

59

Generic Clinic

9

Hep C Clinic

65

Infectious Disease Clinic 33

Neurologic Disorder Clinic 28

Pulmonary Clinic

88

All CCCs

663

Pls.’ Exh. 38 at 24; Pls.’ Exh. 40B (clinic enrollment numbers follow each clinic report).

306. Forty of the 174 prisoners identified in Block 8 have respiratory conditions that would

put them at risk, more than double the percentage in national studies. Pls.’ Exh. 38 at 1; T.

266, 5/6/05 (Ferguson).

307. Eleven of the 174 prisoners identified in Block 8 had seizure disorders that put them at

greater risk. That figure is five times the national rate. T. 266-67, 5/6/05 (Ferguson). Pls.’

Exh. 38 at 1.

308. After eliminating duplicates resulting from prisoners who had more than one problem

in exiting, Ms. Ferguson identified 160 prisoners in Block 8 as having conditions that could

lead to difficulties in exiting are at significant risk of harm in fire or emergency evacuation.

That figure is forty-six (46%) percent of the prisoners in Block 8. T. 267, 5/6/05 (Ferguson);

Pls.’ Exh. 38. 309. Of those 160 prisoners in Block 8, 103 would require extra time to

travel along the galleries, down the steps and out the doors. T. 268, 5/6/05 (Ferguson).

310. In Block 8, prisoners who are identified as being at risk of heat-related illness are asked

to sign written waivers in order to maintain their housing assignments. Pls.’ Exh. 36. A

-53-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 57 of 89
typical waiver reads as follows: You have been identified as being at risk of heat related illness. As such, an effort will be made to house you on the Base or First Gallery. If necessary, you may be moved to another housing unit to accommodate a low cell placement. If you believe it is not necessary for you to be placed on a lower gallery and would like to remain in your currently assigned cell, you may sign in the indicated position below. I choose to remain in my currently assigned cell.
See Pls.’ Exh. 36A-1 (individually signed waivers). 311. Ms. Ferguson performed a comparison of the prisoners in Block 8 who signed such cell placement waivers in the year 2004 (Pls.’ Exh. 36A-1) to their health data reported in the HC-251s (Pls.’ Exh. 36A-2) and HC-261s (Pls.’ Exhs. 36A-3, 36A-4). The results are shown in a table of 36 prisoners. Pls.’ Exh. 36A (Analysis of Cell Waivers in 8 Block); T. 267, 5/6/05 (Ferguson). 312. Thirty-six cell placement waivers were signed by Block 8 prisoners in the months from May to September, 2004. Pls.’ Exh. 36A at 1. 313. Each of the 36 prisoners who signed cell placement waivers in 2004 was still at the Parnall Facility as of November 2, 2004. Pls.’ Exh. 36A at 1. 314. Six of the 36 prisoners who signed cell placement waivers in 2004 have respiratory conditions that impair their walking 100 yards or one flight of stairs. Pls.’ Exh. 36A at 1. 315. Seven of the 36 prisoners who signed cell placement waivers in 2004 have visual or hearing impairments that may interfere with their hearing directions or visually following directions. All seven are coded “A” (needs assistance). Pls.’ Exh. 36A at 1. 316. Nine of the 36 prisoners who signed cell placement waivers in 2004 are listed as at risk
-54-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 58 of 89
for heat-related illness and have no description of a disability on the HC-251, but are enrolled in a clinic on the HC-261. Of these, six are in the Cardiac Chronic Care Clinic. Pls.’ Exh. 36A at 1. 317. Ms. Ferguson performed a similar analysis for 42 prisoners who were asked to sign cell placement waivers in Block 8 in April 2005. This analysis was combined with the corresponding analysis for 2004 to provide a comprehensive table. Pls.’ Exh. 36B (Analysis of Cell Waivers in 8 Block, Combined 2004 and 2005); T. 267, 5/6/05 (Ferguson). 318. Of the prisoners in Block 8 who signed cell placement waivers in 2004 or 2005, 55 were in Block 8 in April 2005. Seven prisoners from Exhibit 36A are not listed on the HC-251 for April 2005. One prisoner from Exhibit 36A (175733) moved to a cell on First Gallery. One prisoner (224533 ) is listed on Fourth Gallery in April 2005 report, but no signed waiver was provided by Defendants. Pls.’ Exh. 36B at 1; Defs.’ Exh. 28. 319. Of those prisoners in Block 8 in April 2005 who signed waivers, seven have respiratory conditions that impair their walking 100 yards or one flight of stairs. Pls.’ Exh. 36B at 1. 320. Of those prisoners in Block 8 in April 2005 who signed waivers, nine have visual or hearing impairments that may interfere with their hearing directions or visually following directions. These nine prisoners are coded "A" (needs assistance). Pls.’ Exh. 36B at 1. 321. Fourteen prisoners in the combined group who signed cell placement waivers in 2004 and 2005 are listed as at risk for heat-related illness and have no description of disability on the HC-251. Six of these are enrolled in the Cardiac Chronic Care Clinic, and three are not listed in any chronic care clinic. Pls.’ Exh. 36B at 1. 322. In view of the risks to these prisoners and others in a fire or an emergency evacuation, these prisoners should not be asked to sign a waiver of this medical accommodation. T. 268,
-55-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 59 of 89
5/6/05 (Ferguson); Pls.’ Exh. 36. 323. Exiting down five stories utilizing open stairways is not safe, particularly in a fire under smokey conditions with floors possibly wet and slippery from sprinklers. Finding 1290 at 240, 2002 Findings. 324. Given that, in Parnall sixty (60%) percent of the population have serious health problems, there are a number of prisoners who will take their time going down stairs. The stairs would be the only means of evacuation. Because stairs will be the only means to reach an exit, a panic would ensue in the event of a serious fire. This is a potentially life-threatening situation. T. 232-33, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). 325. If there were a fire, a cell door that would not open would pose a life-threatening situation to the prisoner in the cell, particularly for a prisoner with health problems. T. 232, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). 326. An advantage of constructing a smoke compartment is that it would address the natural resistance to releasing prisoners from a prison block during an emergency. If there is an exit to an adjacent smoke compartment, the option to evacuate is more likely to be used. T. 321-22, 5/6/05 (DiMascio). X. CONCLUSIONS
A. EGELER HEALTH 327. A substantial number of prisoners in Blocks 1-3 would be at significantly heightened risk of harm in the event of smoke inhalation. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 42. 328. At the Egeler Facility, the percentage of prisoners with mobility issues is approximately one and one-half to twice as high as the percentage of persons in the general population with comparable mobility problems. T. 268-69, 5/6/05 (Ferguson).
-56-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 60 of 89
329. The Egeler prisoners are at particular risk, especially those in Quarantine who are not let out, those with mobility limitations, and those with breathing problems on upper levels. T. 269-71, 5/6/05 (Ferguson). 330. Based on the evacuation times experienced in Defendants’ drills, a significant number of prisoners in Blocks 1-3 are at substantial risk of serious harm in the event of a fire. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 42-43, 85; Pls.’ Exh. 21A at 002, 025, 033. 331. Prisoners with health problems sometimes take more time to transfer to their destination facility following the reception process, resulting in a concentration of such prisoners in Block 7. T. 218, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer); Pls.’ Exh. 7B (reception processing information). 332. The extended length of the galleries in Block 7, the narrow and slippery galleries, and the poor lighting combine with the increased number of prisoners with health problems to place prisoners in Block 7 at heightened risk in the event of a fire. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 81-82. 333. A substantial number of prisoners in Block 7 would be at significantly heightened risk of harm in the event of a fire. The percentage of persons at heightened risk in the event of a fire is much greater than the percentage in the general population who would be at heightened risk. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 82-83. 334. Based on the evacuation time experienced in Defendants’ drills, a significant number of prisoners in Block 7 are at substantial risk of serious harm in the event of a fire. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 85; Pls.’ Exh. 21A at 035.
B. BLOCK 8 HEALTH 335. There are many more people with functional limitations in Block 8 than in the general adult working-age population. T. 269, 5/6/05 (Ferguson); Pls.’ Exhs. 36, 37, 38. In Block 8,
-57-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 61 of 89
the percentage of the population at risk in the event of fire because of mobility problems rises to four to five times the national prevalence rate. T. 268-69, 5/6/05 (Ferguson). 336. Overall, there are substantial numbers of prisoners in Block 8 who are at significantly heightened risk of harm in the event of a fire. The percentage of prisoners at heightened risk in Block 8 is much higher than the percentage in the general population. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 83. 337. The cell waiver policy is unsafe. Medical orders for housing should be followed. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 84. 338. Based on the evacuation times experienced in Defendants’ drills, a significant number of prisoners in Block 8 are at substantial risk of serious harm. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 85; Pls.’ Exh. 21B at unnumbered page 3.
C. GENERAL HEALTH 339. Large numbers of the prisoners in the Hadix facilities do not have the capability to descend stairs and travel 250 feet or more to an exit in an orderly fashion before conditions become intolerable. T. 268, 5/6/05 (Ferguson) (144 in Egeler would need more time to evacuate); T. 268, 5/6/05 (Ferguson) (160 in Block 8 would need more time to evacuate). 340. Large numbers of the prisoners with special medical conditions in the Hadix facilities are at increased risk from smoke and fire, particularly those with chronic cardiac disease and pulmonary disease. Finding 1431 at 262, 2002 Findings. 341. In order to ensure fire safety, it is necessary to consider the capabilities of the occupants within a facility if they do not fall within the norms of a general population. Finding 1430 at 26, 2002 Findings.
D. IMPLICATIONS OF THE FIRE MODELS 342. Prof. Mowrer’s zone model predicts that smoke density from a fire on Base will reach
-58-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 62 of 89
untenable visibility levels within ten minutes. Within approximately ten minutes, average visibility will have fallen to two meters. Defs.’ Exh. 1 at 17 (Figure 18) (Dr. Mowrer's Fire Model). This is about half of the time in which Defendants’ fire drills demonstrate that the faculties may take for evacuation. See Pls.’ Exh. 21A at 002, 025, 033 (evacuation times in practice drills generally more than ten minutes, and range up to 15-20 minutes); T. 90-91, 5/5/05 (Embry) (18 minutes to evacuate Block 8 during fire). 343. Moreover, because Prof. Mowrer’s zone model cannot show the expected much higher density within the smoke plume of a fire, in fact a fire on Base would be expected to result in segments of multiple tiers reaching untenable visibility levels much earlier than the ten minutes predicted by the zone model. Proposed Finding 231, supra; T. 302-03, 5/6/05 (DiMascio); Pls.’ Exh. 1C at 8-23. 344. In addition, Prof. Mowrer’s model predicts that temperatures in the cell above the tier where the fire starts would reach approximately 175° F., a temperature high enough to cause injury. T. 296, 5/6/05 (DiMascio). 345. Moreover, Prof. Mowrer’s model underestimates the degree of risk to Hadix prisoners. There is substantially more property available to fuel a fire than assumed in Prof. Mowrer’s model. T. 288-89, 5/6/05 (DiMascio); Pls.’ Exh. 19, Attachment C (several page list of additional permitted personal property) (PD-04.07.112 (11/15/2004)); Pls.’ Exh. 6, Section E.1 (PD-04.07.112 (3/18/02)). 346. If the correct amounts of fuel had been used in the model, then the model would have shown more smoke being produced. T. 180, 5/5/05 (Mowrer); T. 290, 5/6/05 (DiMascio). 347. A substantial amount of the personal property is non-cellulosic and would produce
-59-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 63 of 89
much more soot, with less visibility, than Prof. Mowrer’s model. T. 304-05, 5/6/05 (DiMascio); T. 182-83, 5/5/05 (Mowrer). 348. Prof. Mowrer’s zone model is also intrinsically unable to describe the variations in smoke density within the smoke plume from a fire. T. 291-02, 5/6/05 (DiMascio). The concentration of smoke on the side of cellblock where the fire occurs will be much higher than the concentration of smoke on the other side. T. 293, 5/6/05 (DiMascio). The smoke in the plume from a fire in the vicinity of the fire will also be more concentrated than the zone model can predict. T. 302, 5/6/05 (DiMascio).
E. INTERACTIONS OF THE DEFICIENCIES AND CONDITIONS 349. Defendants’ renovations to the housing units do not address concerns with a fire or emergency for those prisoners who would have difficulty with mobility, breathing, strength and endurance, and following directions. T. 270-71, 5/6/05 (Ferguson). 350. In light of the skeleton staff and lack of drills on the third shift, there is substantial reason to think that actual times during a fire emergency would be even longer than the times shown in fire drills in the event of an actual fire. T. 229, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). 351. Under current conditions, neither formal policy (evacuating prisoners with medical conditions on Base last) nor current practice (evacuating such prisoners first) is safe. In the case of an actual fire, the practice of evacuating Base prisoners first would dangerously delay removing prisoners from the higher galleries where the smoke would be thickest. At the same time, prisoners on Base who be at heightened risk in the event of smoke inhalation, or who exit particularly slowly, cannot be safely maintained on Base without a smoke removal system. Proposed Findings 128-129, supra.
-60-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 64 of 89
352. The practice of not removing prisoners from Quarantine cells during fire drills (T. 110, 5/5/05 (Denman)) is extremely dangerous. 353. The lack of any capability for remote release of the Quarantine cells or cells for the disabled (Proposed Finding 20, supra), is extremely dangerous. 354. Letting locking mechanisms go unrepaired for months, and allowing a door to the outside that would not unlock to remain unrepaired for ten days (T. 231-32, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer); Proposed Finding 98, supra), demonstrate a lack of minimal concern for life safety. 355. The failure of Defendants to address this long-known deficiency also demonstrates a lack of minimal concern for life safety. T. 231-32, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). 356. The pervasive deficiencies of the route postings, the lack of knowledge of fire safety policy on the part of testifying staff, and the manifest deficiencies in staff performance during actual serious fires, also demonstrate a lack of minimal concern for life safety. (Factual conclusion.) 357. Given all the relevant factors, including the high risk population, the long distances that must be traveled to reach safety, the pinch points that do not allow two people to pass each other, the open stairs, the lack of a reliable unlocking system, the lack of a remote release system in Egeler, the deficient training and supervision of staff, the lack of a sufficient staff to accomplish cell release in the event of a fire at night, and the short period of time before conditions become intolerable in comparison to the length of time that evacuation can be expected to take, loss of life can be expected if a significant fire occurs in the Hadix facilities. (Factual conclusion.) 358. There is a very substantial, life-threatening risk to the prisoners in the event of a fire in
-61-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 65 of 89
the Hadix facilities. T. 233, 238 5/6/05 (Pulitzer); see also T. 309, 5/6/05 (DiMascio) (there is an absolute probability that the population in Blocks 1-3, 7 and 8 would be put at substantial risk of inhalation of smoke that is serious, indeed, life threatening). XI. REMEDIES 359. Reducing the current life threatening risk to less than substantial requires the creation of horizontal exits through the creation in each block of two smoke compartments, the electrification of the cell doors in the Egeler Facility with remote control capability from the control center, and introduction of an adequate smoke exhaust system in all five blocks. T. 323, 5/6/05 (DiMascio); T. 235, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). 360. Reducing the risk also requires addressing the shocking rate of failures in the locking systems. The locking system has outlived its usefulness. T. 231-32, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). 361. These remedies would address the needs identified by Plaintiffs’ medical and disabilities experts, who indicated that changes would have to include reduction in the travel distances and travel times, and greater consideration of the mobility, vision, and other problems that these prisoners have. Pls.’ Exh. 3B at 80, 85; T. 271, 5/6/05 (Ferguson). 362. The horizontal wall in each block would divide the block in half. It would extend from the ceiling to the Base. A door in the middle of each gallery would allow everyone to exit horizontally at each level from the side involved with the fire to the smoke-free side. T. 236, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). 363. The new horizontal wall with an exit door would make it unnecessary for prisoners to exit down unenclosed stairs. T. 232, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer); T. 322-23 (DiMascio). 364. If there were a fire in a stairway, which is a likely scenario, prisoners would still be
-62-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 66 of 89
able to use the horizontal exit to reach the safe side without having to use the stairs. T. 236, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). Prisoners would have to use stairs only after moving out of the area of danger through the door. They could conceivably remain in the smoke-free compartment and not have to be evacuated from the building. This arrangement would have the added benefit of not requiring an outside evacuation of the prisoner population, which is undesirable. T. 237, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). Defendants’ expert concurred that it is undesirable to evacuate prisoners. T. 139, 5/5/05 (Smith). 365. Although the construction of the horizontal wall and exit will increase the density of smoke in the area where the fire is located, all of the remedies must be considered in combination. The remote release system will remove prisoners from their cells quickly, so they can start evacuating without having to wait for a guard to release their locks manually. The smoke removal system should also maintain the level of the smoke above the area of egress. The cell release system in combination with the smoke evacuation system and the smoke barrier work together to protect prisoners. T. 322-23, 5/6/05 (DiMascio). 366. Defendants’ Fire Safety and Egress Report dated 12/12/03 (“Defendants’ Report”) was prepared to address the deficiencies found by the Court in the 2002 Findings. Pls.’ Exh. 50. Defendants’ Report explained the benefits of the horizontal wall:
. . . The construction of the horizontal exit reduces the number of building occupants in one smoke/fire compartment by one half, therefore also reducing the number of occupants who have to be removed from their cells by one half. It is our opinion that constructing a horizontal exit will reduce the time required for occupants to exit the smoke/fire compartment and greatly improve the safety of the occupants. Pls.’ Exh. 50 at 5, 17 (schematics).
-63-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 67 of 89
367. Thomas Smith, Defendants’ architectural expert, agreed that the horizontal wall and exit would improve life safety. T. 141, 5/5/05 (Smith). 368. Defendants’ Report also addressed the deficiencies in smoke exhaust:
The smoke control system will exhaust a minimum of 150,000 cubic feet per minute out of each smoke compartment . . . Installing the smoke control system will improve the safety of the occupants within the cell block by evacuating smoke out of the open tier cell block design. It will allow more time and greater visibility for occupants of the cell block to exit the smoke/fire compartment. Pls.’ Exh. 50 at 6. 369. The new proposed smoke control plan described in Defendants’ Report would exhaust a minimum of 150,000 cubic feet per minute (“CFM”). This would greatly enhance the smoke exhaust capabilities that are there now which are fairly minimum. T. 239, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). This was the capacity recommended by Mr. DiMascio in the 2002 hearing. Finding 1404 at 258, 2002 Findings. 370. Defendants’ Report also described the benefits of addressing the lack of a remote unlocking mechanism in Blocks 1-3. The remote unlocking mechanism will allow the staff at the guard station within each of the three cell blocks to remotely unlock the cell doors. This will decrease the time required to unlock the cells. It is our opinion that modifying the existing unlocking mechanisms to remotely unlock the cells will decrease the time required to exit the cells and greatly increase the safety of the occupants. Pls.’ Exh. 50 at 6. 371. A remote cell release system should have a release from a central location on Base where officers could activate buttons that would open the cells. This was not done in Blocks 7 and 8. If that location became uninhabitable because of smoke, or the officers became disabled, the control center could remotely unlock the cells. T. 238-39, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer).
-64-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 68 of 89
372. In light of the continued deterioration of the locking system since the 2002 hearing, the remedies addressed in Defendants’ Report are not sufficient, and the locking system must be replaced in a comprehensive and reliable manner. 373. In summary, the plan for remediation set forth in Defendants’ Report, with the addition of repair of the locking system, would correct the life safety deficiencies at the Hadix housing facilities. It would aid prisoners in exiting their cells as quickly as possible from the onset of hazardous conditions. It would provide a smoke barrier that would have the effect of dividing the exposed population in half and the additional advantage of requiring only horizontal travel to an area of safe refuge. The smoke exhaust system would evacuate smoke early (offsetting effects of the density of smoke resulting from reducing the volume of space within the compartment). T. 313, 5/6/05 (DiMascio). The plan set forth in Defendants’ Report would also substantially address the fire safety needs of those prisoners with health problems. T. 238, 5/6/05 (Pulitzer). 374. To remedy the life safety risk created by an exit in the laundry that improperly terminates on the first floor rather than outside the building, Defendants should adequately mark the route from the stairway to an outside exit. T. 312-13, 5/6/05 (DiMascio). 375. To correct the fire safety hazards caused by the improper storage of flammable chemicals in the metal furniture factory, Defendants should either remove the chemicals from the inside location or construct a flammable liquid storage and handling room for storage and dispensing the liquids. T. 310, 5/6/05 (DiMascio).
-65-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 69 of 89
XII. PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A. GENERAL EIGHTH AMENDMENT STANDARDS 1. THE COMPONENTS OF AN EIGHTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION
1. Eighth Amendment challenges to prison conditions of confinement involve proof of two elements. First, the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, sufficiently serious. The second subjective component requires that the prisoner must prove that prison officials had a sufficiently culpable state of mind. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 845 (1994).
2. THE OBJECTIVE COMPONENT OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT 2. Prison officials have an affirmative obligation under the Eighth Amendment to provide prisoners with the basic necessities of life, including reasonable safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994); DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Soc. Serv., 489 U.S. 189 (1989):
The rationale for this principle is simple enough: when the State by the affirmative exercise of its power so restrains an individual’s liberty that it renders him unable to care for himself, and at the same time fails to provide for his basic human needs, e.g., food, clothing, shelter, medical care and reasonable safety, it transgresses the substantive limits on state action set by the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause. Id. at 200. 3. Thus, deprivation of a basic necessity of life satisfies the objective component of the Eighth Amendment. When prison officials fail to meet the obligation to provide for a basic human need as a result of their “deliberate indifference,” they violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 303 (1991). 4. In determining what level of reasonable safety is required to avoid a violation of the objective component of the Eighth Amendment, the Court is guided not simply by the
-66-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 70 of 89
scientific evidence, but also a determination that a particular risk is so grave that it violates contemporary standards of decency to expose anyone unwillingly to such a risk. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 36 (1993), quoted in Hadix v. Johnson, 367 F.3d 513, 528 (6th Cir. 2004). 5. The Court concludes that it violates contemporary standards of decency to expose prisoners to housing in which, if a serious fire occurs, scientific evidence predicts that conditions will become untenable well before the staff can reliably evacuate the prisoners. 6. The Court’s consideration in this regard is informed by the determination of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that the Eighth Amendment’s objective component is violated by forcing a prisoner with a serious medical need for a smoke-free environment to share his or her cell with a prisoner who smokes. Talal v. White, 403 F.3d 423, 426 (6th Cir. 2005); Hunt v. Reynolds,974 F.2d 734, 736 (6th Cir. 1992). The Court is persuaded that requiring prisoners to bear the risk of death from fire in an unsafe cellblock is at least equally inconsistent with contemporary standards of decency as is exposing prisoners with a serious medical need for a smoke-free environment to passive environmental smoke.
3. THE SUBJECTIVE COMPONENT OF AN EIGHTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION
7. Plaintiffs needs not show that prison officials acted or failed to act believing that harm would actually befall prisoners; it is enough to show deliberate indifference that officials acted or failed to act despite knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842. 8. In cases like this one concerned with prison officials’ future conduct with regard to prison conditions, “[i]f those conditions are found to be objectively unconstitutional, then that finding
-67-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 71 of 89
[also satisfies] the subjective prong [of deliberate indifference] because the same information that would lead to the court’s conclusion is available to prison officials.” Hadix v. Johnson, 367 F.3d at 526; see also Farmer at 846 n.9 (“If, for example, the evidence before a district court establishes that an inmate faces an objectively intolerable risk of serious injury, the defendants could not plausibly persist in claiming lack of awareness, any more than prison officials who state during the litigation that they will not take reasonable measures to abate an intolerable risk of which they are aware could claim to be subjectively blameless for purposes of the Eighth Amendment, and in deciding whether an inmate has established a continuing constitutional violation a district court may take such developments into account.”).
B. APPLICATION OF EIGHTH AMENDMENT STANDARDS TO FIRE SAFETY ISSUE
9. In determining whether prison conditions constitute cruel and unusual punishment, courts “must examine the effect upon inmates of the condition of the physical plant[,]” including heat and ventilation. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 364 (1981) (Brennan, Blackmun and Stevens, JJ., concurring). 10. Moreover, “a remedy for unsafe conditions need not await a tragic event.” Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993). Prison authorities may not “ignore a condition of confinement that is sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering the next week or month or year” merely because no harm has yet occurred. Id. 11. “Prisoners have the right not to be subjected to the unreasonable threat of injury or death by fire and need not wait until actual casualties occur in order to obtain relief from such conditions.” Hoptowit v. Spellman, 753 F.2d 779, 784 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291, 1300, 1303 (5th Cir. 1974) (prisoners are entitled to relief under the
-68-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 72 of 89
Eighth Amendment from a threat to their personal safety posed by a lack of adequate firefighting equipment), cited with approval, Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 34 (1993); Toussaint v. McCarthy, 597 F. Supp.1388, 1398 (N.D. Cal. 1984) (fire hazards combined with lack of preparedness violate Eighth Amendment by creating “a substantial risk that a major fire will break out” and cause prisoner deaths), aff’d in pertinent part, 801 F.2d 1080 (9th Cir. 1986). 12. A case with many similarities to the instant one is Tillery v. Owens, 719 F. Supp. 1256 (W.D. Pa. 1989), aff’d on other grounds, 907 F.2d 418 (3d. Cir. 1990),3 in which the district court held that the lack of fire safety in the cellblocks at the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh (“SCIP”) violated the Eighth Amendment. At issue in that case were “cavernous,”4 five-tiered cellblocks. Id. at 1260, 1262. The tiers rose 50-60 feet; one cellblock contained 640 cells and the other 500. Id. at 1262. While the cellblocks had some features worse than the Hadix facilities, including a lack of sprinklers and smoke detectors,5 they shared many fire safety deficiencies with the current Hadix facilities. These shared features include the lack of a meaningful smoke control system, the lack of a master unlocking system, the lack of fire
3 Although the defendants’ challenge on appeal was limited to the portion of the district court order involving overcrowding, the court of appeals specifically relied on the district court’s conclusion, among other things, that fire safety in the prison fell below constitutional norms in its affirmance of the order against overcrowding. Indeed, the court of appeals reasoned that “[w]e finding nothing in the Supreme Court’s relevant jurisprudence that suggests that conditions as deplorable as those of [this prison] may not be held to fall below constitutional standards merely because there has not been an epidemic of typhoid fever, an outbreak of AIDS, a deadly fire, or a prison riot.” Tillery, 907 F.2d at 427-48.
4 Id. at 1260. 5 It is not clear how real any distinction between fire detection in Tillery and this case is. While the Hadix cellblocks may have fire detection equipment, that fire equipment seems to play no practical role in the detection of fires within the cellblocks. See Pls.’ Proposed Findings 87.
-69-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 73 of 89
compartmentalization, and long distances to exits. Id. at 1277-78. 13. The district court in Tillery found that the conditions indicated that the prison did not provide “a reasonably safe place of confinement” and that the fire safety violations shocked the court’s conscience. Id. at 1279-80. Among the remedies that the district court indicated would suffice to cure the constitutional violation were effective smoke exhaust systems, an electronic master cell locking system, fire separation between the blocks and between floors of the blocks, and increased staff coverage. Id. at 1280. 14. Tillery is also similar to Cody v. Hillard, 599 F. Supp.1025 (D.S.D.1984), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 830 F.2d 912 (8th Cir. 1987). Cody also involved multi-tiered cellblocks. See id. at 1029 (in discussing heating system, referring to the cellblocks’ top tiers and bottom tiers). Among the fire safety violations found by the court were insufficient night staff to respond to an emergency fire, no remote automatic unlocking devices, no compartmentalization of the cellblocks, a ventilation system inadequate to remove smoke in the event of a fire, and a failure to enclose the stairs to be used in the event of an emergency evacuation. Also like conditions in Tillery, fire safety conditions in Cody were also in some respects worse than the conditions in this case. The cellblocks in Cody also lacked sprinklers and smoke detectors, for example. Id. 15. Laaman v. Helgemoe, 437 F. Supp. 269 (D.N.H. 1977), involved a prison containing a cellblock of four-tier back-to-back cells. While this cellblock was sprinklered, all the cells required individual unlocking, and there were additional fire safety deficiencies, such as a lack of emergency exits and fire equipment, and a structure partially constructed of wood. Id. at 281. The court found that the combination of these conditions, including the lack of a master locking system, presented “a clear and present danger of serious loss of life.” Id. at 323.
-70-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 74 of 89
16. The Sixth Circuit, in remanding this case to the Court, cited with apparent approval a number of additional cases in which courts had found Eighth Amendment violations because of a lack of fire safety. These cases included Women Prisoners of the District of Columbia v. District of Columbia, 877 F. Supp. 634 (D.D.C. 1994). An annex to the prison was partially of wooden construction and had a high combustible load without necessary compartmentalization or sprinklers. The fire alarm system in the annex was also inadequate. At the same time, the court noted as a factor reducing the level of danger that the Annex was a one-story structure. Id. at 653, 671. The court found that the fire safety violations at the annex violated the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 669-70. 17. The second case cited by the Sixth Circuit was Carty v. Farrelly, 957 F. Supp. 727 (D.V.I. 1997). In that case, the court found that the combination of inoperable cell locking devices, manual alarm systems, smoke dampers, and heat detectors violated the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 737. Accordingly, some of the factors at issue in Carty, including the inoperable locking devices and the lack of a meaningful smoke removal system, resemble the Hadix facilities, while others do not. 18. A third case cited by the Sixth Circuit was Toussaint v. McCarthy, 597 F. Supp. 1388 (N.D. Cal. 1984). This case involved five-tier cellblocks. Id. at 1393. While the two prisons at issue in Toussaint lacked sprinklers and had electrical hazards not shared by Hadix facilities, the Hadix facilities also share deficiencies with those condemned in Toussaint, including a lack of functional smoke removal systems and long travel distances to exits. One of the prisons in Toussaint, like Block 8, lacked on-site SCBA equipment for fire rescue. Id. at 1398 & n.16. Two prisoners had died in a fire when the cell door could not be opened because of the heat.
-71-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 75 of 89
Id. at 1398. The court found that conditions violated the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 1410. 19. The next case cited, Capps v. Atiyeh, 559 F. Supp. 894 (D. Or. 1983), involving various cellblocks and an annex within a prison. The court found a fire safety violation in the Annex because it was not a solid concrete structure and it needed smoke detectors or an alarm system and another emergency exit. In finding a constitutional violation, the court relied on its conclusion that fire safety at the Annex was so deficient that, if a serious fire occurred, injury was inevitable. Id. at 914-15. 20. The next case cited, Leeds v. Watson, 630 F.2d 674 (9th Cir. 1980), involved a jail rather than a prison. A house had been converted into the jail. In the event of a fire, if an interior stairs were to be blocked by fire, the only way to evacuate detainees would have been for a correctional officer to run from a lower floor to an outside fire escape and unbolt and unlock it from outside. After that, a locked door would have to have been opened to gain access to the cell area. The court of appeals noted that continued use of the area could easily lead to a great loss of life, and that an emergency housing area lacked a fire exit. The court of appeals held that the district court had erred in approving a plan for improvements that did not address these deficiencies. Id. at 675-76. 21. The next case, Santana v. Collazo, 714 F.2d 1172 (1st Cir. 1983), involved a juvenile facility. The court of appeals remanded because the district court had not adequately considered whether the constitution required that polyurethane mattresses be replaced, new fire extinguishers be purchased and an evacuation plan formulated. Id. at 1183. 22. The next case, Masonoff v. Bissonette, 899 F. Supp. 782 (D. Mass. 1995), involved a medium security prison. Id. at 787. The prison lacked a sprinkler system or an alternative to
-72-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 76 of 89
manual unlocking of the cell doors. The court determined that a trial was necessary to determine the level of danger caused by these conditions in light of the defendants’ claim that rigorous safety procedures had dissipated those dangers. Id. at 798-99. 23. The Sixth Circuit also cited two cases in which a court had rejected the claim of a constitutional violation. The first of these cases was Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir. 1982). Ruiz involved the entire Texas prison system. The district court had found a lack of fire safety exits; the court of appeals does not cite any other fire safety deficiencies in its discussion. The court of appeals concluded that these deficiencies did not amount to a violation of the Eighth Amendment, and cautioned that violation of professional fire safety standards did not demonstrate a constitutional violation. Id. at 1152-53. 24. The second unfavorable case cited by the court of appeals was Miles v. Bell, 621 F. Supp. 51 (D. Conn. 1985). This case involved a federal prison. The plaintiffs’ principal claim regarding fire safety was that the institution was so understaffed that a swift response would not take place in the event of a fire; the plaintiffs also challenged the lack of a fire resistant door to a laundry room. The court accepted the conclusions of the defendants’ fire safety expert that these conditions did not expose prisoners to an unreasonable risk of death. Again, the court noted that violation of professional fire safety code standards did not demonstrate a constitutional violation. Id. at 64-65. 25. In addition, the court of appeals in this case cited French v. Owens, 777 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1985), a case involving the defendants’ appeal from an order granting injunctive relief regarding a prison. The prisoners complained of improperly maintained electrical wiring, inadequate fire exits, and a lack of established procedures to respond to fires. The court of appeals held that the district court had failed to determine which of the conditions constituted
-73-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 77 of 89
constitutional violations and which simply violated various administrative regulations or codes; only the constitutional violations needed to be remedied. Id. at 1257-58. 26. The cases cited above illustrate, as a group, several principles. The first is that a federal court appropriately finds an Eighth Amendment violation with regard to fire safety only when the Court concludes that the evidence demonstrates a significant and realistic threat of serious bodily injury resulting from the fire conditions. In the cases cited above in which a court appropriately found such a violation, the combined circumstances demonstrated that, in the event of a serious fire, the fire protection response available from the prison officials would be very likely to lead to injury or death. 27. An equally important principle from these cases is that violations of a fire safety code do not equate to a violation of the Eighth Amendment. See cases discussed supra. Accordingly, while the facilities at issue do not comply in all respects with aspects of various fire safety codes, the Court’s decision does not rest on this issue.6 28. Many of the cases discussed above in which other courts found constitutional violations involved more obviously intrinsically dangerous conditions than do the facts of this case. On the other hand, the Court’s determination is informed by two factors that did not play a role in any of the other cases.
6 It is equally the case that compliance with such codes and standards cannot by itself insulate a facility from a finding of a constitutional violation. See, e.g., Gates v. Johnson, 376 F.3d 323, 327 (5th Cir. 2004) (accreditation by American Correctional Association is not per se evidence of lack of an Eighth Amendment violation); Wyatt v. Poundstone, 985 F. Supp. 1356, 1429 (M.D. Ala. 1997) (stating that accreditation by Joint Commission on Correctional Health Care Organizations is not equivalent to, or substitute for, compliance with minimal constitutional standards); Robbins v. Budke, 739 F. Supp. 1479, 1481 (D.N.M. 1990) (same); Boulies v. Ricketts, 518 F. Supp. 687, 689 (D. Colo. 1981) (calling argument that accreditation by American Correctional Association entitled defendants to summary judgment “simply ludicrous”).
-74-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 78 of 89
29. The first factor unique to this case is the very high number of the prisoners at heightened risk in the event of a fire. These heightened risks derive from several different characteristics of the prison population in the Hadix facility, including the number of prisoners who would not be able to exit as rapidly as other prisoners because of mobility problems, those who would be significantly higher risk of a heart attack, seizure, or asthma attack; and those with communication problems that would interfere with following directions. 30. The second new factor in this case is that advances in technology make possible more accurate and refined models of the expected consequences of a fire in one of the cellblocks. In this case, the models proffered by Defendants demonstrate, in light of all the circumstances in this case, the highly probable consequence of a serious fire would be the inability to remove all the occupants of the cellblock before conditions became completely unsafe. In reaching this conclusion, the Court is considering the condition of the prisoners; the shocking lack of a reliable unlocking system; the inability of the current fire protection devices to remove smoke during the exiting process; the extremely long distances, pinch points, and unenclosed stairways that prisoners must traverse to exit; and the other evidence presented by the parties.
C. FINDING OF CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION AND REMEDY 31. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that there are current and ongoing constitutional violations with regard to fire safety. Prospective relief retaining Section III of the Consent Decree remains necessary to correct that violation. The remedy set forth below extends no further than necessary to correct the constitutional violations. This remedy is also narrowly drawn and appropriately part of the least intrusive means to correct the violation, particularly because it is the remedy that defendants previously submitted by Defendants as their remedial plan, with necessary additions.
-75-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 79 of 89

32. In view of the history of hearings on this issue and of the fact that Defendants have previously been provided with the opportunity to develop an appropriate remedial plan, the Court adopts the remedial plan previously submitted by Defendants on December 30, 2002, with certain revisions as set forth below. See Defs.’ Brief/Plan to Comply with the Court’s Injunction Pertaining to Heat-Related Illness and Defs.’ Br. Regarding Alternatives to Compartmentalization to Remedy Alleged Fire Safety Problems and Risks, Dec. 30, 2002, Attachment 1. The Court will accordingly issue an order containing the following provisions: Defendants shall construct walls with exit doors and a smoke exhaust system in Blocks 1-3 and 7-8, as described in their previous remedial plan. In addition, Defendants shall within 60 days submit a supplemental plan to reconstruct all the cell locking mechanisms in Blocks 1-3 and 78 to provide safe and reliable mechanisms for remote and manual unlocking of all cells. That supplemental plan shall also verify that Defendants have adequately and appropriately marked all fire exits in the laundry and that Defendants have either removed the chemicals improperly stored in the metal furniture factory, or that they have constructed a proper flammable storage and handling room for storage and dispensing of such chemicals.
Respectfully Submitted,

ELIZABETH ALEXANDER National Prison Project/ACLU 915 15th Street, N.W., 7th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: 202.393.4930 Facsimile: 202.393.4931

MICHAEL BARNHART 221 North Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 Telephone: 734.213.3703 Facsimile: 734.213.3704 Michigan Bar Number: P10467

-76-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 80 of 89

/s/ Patricia A. Streeter PATRICIA A. STREETER 221 North Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 Telephone: 734.222.0088 Facsimile: 734.769.2196 Email: pas@patstreeter.com Michigan Bar Number: P30022

Dated: July 5, 2005

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on July 5, 2005, I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which will send notification of such filing to F. Warren Benton and counsel for the Defendants, A. Peter Govorchin. A copy was also emailed to:

Robert L. Cohen, MD 314 W. 14th Street New York, NY 10014 Email: BobbyCohen@aol.com
Dated: July 5, 2005

s/ Patricia A. Streeter 221 North Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 Telephone: 734.222.0088 Facsimile: 734.769.2196 Email: pas@patstreeter.com Michigan Bar Number: P30022

-77-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 81 of 89

APPENDIX A Walden Egeler Table

No.

Name

131505 Hathorne 132337 Gardner 143789 Keener

154695 Wilson 160657 Henry
178838 Lewis 183348 Harrison 188559 Cabre 192131 Miller
192354 Warfield 195752 Lopez

Lock (BlockGallery-
Cell) 3-2-59 3-4-12 3-2-70
3-4-45 2-2-66
3-1-47
3-2-25 1-1-60 3-B-27
3-3-35
2-4-20

HC-251 Disabilities and Accommodations Report
(04/05/05) Disability Description /
Accommodation

HC-261 Service Area Clinic
Reports (04/05/05)

HIV infection, Respiratory

Infectious Disease Clinic

disease, Digestive system disor / at 1. Asymptomatic HIV

risk of heat, no food serv

infection

Cardiac and circulatory, Respiratory disease, Chronic hepatitis, / no outdr wk, heat relate

Pulmonary Clinic 1. Hepatitis C carrier

respiratory disease / heat risk

Pulmonary Clinic 1. Acute/unspec Hepatitis C w/o M 2. Tobacco abuse continuous 3. Asthma w/o status asthma

respiratory disease / heat risk

No clinic

HIV (LOF:A), visual impairment / no kitchen, health

Infectious Disease Clinic 1. Chronic Hepatitis C without me 2. Asymptomatic HIV infection

orthopedic disorder/f , respiratory disorder , allergic, endocrine system / see CHJ-244

Pulmonary Clinic 1. Asthma w/o status asthma 2. Health exam - group survey

respiratory disorder (LOF:A) / heat Pulmonary Clinic

risk

1. Asthma w/o status asthma

No description / no accommodation

Pulmonary Clinic 1. Chr airway obstruct NEC 2. Unilat inguinal hernia

mental or physiological, cardiac and circulatory, cluster migraine headaches, / ground floor, bottom bunk, therapeutic diet, no heights, no driving/da

Cardiac Clinic 1. chronic ischemic heart disease NOS 2. HTN NOS 3. esophageal reflux

hearing impairment, respiratory disease, visual impairment, / heat risk

Pulmonary Clinic 1. asthma w/o status asthma 2. iron def anemia NOS 3. chronic renal failure

respiratory disease / no accommodation

Pulmonary Clinic asthma w/o status asthma

Comments
note. note

-i-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 82 of 89

197427 Chatman 3-1-56

205348 Bartlett

1-1-58

215401 Flentall 1-1-30

217074 Lemerand 1-4-43

219256 Blakeley 7-1-82

230052 Bellefant 2-4-58

248988 Harris

1-3-25

249274 Vasquez 1-1-68

250991 Edwards 7-1-30

252913 Burke

3-2-32

258101 McCray 2-1-46

267669 Pettey

1-1-47

269530 Stokes

7-3-63

270826 Alvarez 7-1-48

278398 Olds

2-1-16

mental or physiological,

Cardiac Clinic

note

cardiac and circulatory, respiratory HTN NOS

disease, visual impairment

(LOF:A), chronic hepatitis / heat

risk

No description / No accommodation

Pulmonary Clinic asthma w/o status asthma

respiratory disease / No accommodation

Hep C Clinic asthma w/o status asthma chronic Hep C w/o me health exam-group survey

mental or physiological, cardiac and circulatory, allergic, endocrine system, chronic hepatitis /water bottle, heat risk, no standing $ 30 minutes, no lifting

Cardiac Clinic 1. med exam nec-admin purp 2. HTN NOS

He may be a slow walker.

respiratory disease / no accommodation

Pulmonary Clinic 1. asthma w/o status asthma 2. allergic rhinitis NOS

No description/no accommodation

Pulmonary Clinic 1. health exam-group survey 2. asthma w/o status asthma

physiological disorder, respiratory Pulmonary Clinic

disease / ground floor

asthma w/o status asthma

Placement mistake

respiratory disease / no accommodation

Pulmonary Clinic asthma w/o status asthma

No description / no accommodation

Pulmonary Clinic med exam nec-admin purp asthma w/o status asthma

cardiac and circulatory, respiratory disease / bottom bunk, heat risk, no laundry or kitchen

Cardiac Clinic 1. med exam nec-admin purp 2. HTN NOS 3. asthma w/o status asthma

No description/ no accommodation Pulmonary Clinic asthma w/o status asthma

respiratory disease, chronic hepatitis / heat risk

Pulmonary Clinic 1. chronic Hep C w/o me 2. asthma w/o status asthma

allergic, endocrine system / extra bedding

Pulmonary Clinic 1. med exam nec-admin purp 2. asthma w/o status asthma

No description / heat risk

Pulmonary Clinic asthma w/o status asthma

respiratory disease/ ground floor, therapeutic diet- 2400 cal

Gastrointestinal Clinic 1. esophageal reflux 2. HTN NOS 3. asthma w/o status asthma

Placement mistake

-ii-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 83 of 89

289846 Coward 7-3-66

308026 Lyon

7-2-43

309953 Williams 7-2-58

322420 Brown

3-3-42

351208 Brook

1-3-14

366552 Smith

3-3-68

375145 Wayne

2-4-23

391369 Spiewak 1-1-1

394148 Walker

1-4-29

497729 Ghee

7-3-9

515650 Blackshire 7-3-46

525249 Lofgren 2-4-41

respiratory disease / no accommodation

Pulmonary Clinic 1. med exam nec-admin purp 2. asthma w/o status asthma

No description /no accommodation Pulmonary Clinic 1. med exam nec-admin purp 2. asthma w/o status asthma

physiological disorder / bottom bunk, heat risk, no heights

Pulmonary Clinic 1. med exam nec-admin purp 2. asthma w/o status asthma 3. chronic airway obstruc nec

Note.

No description /no accommodation Pulmonary Clinic 1. asthma w/o status asthma 2. hyperlipidemia nec NOS

No description /arch support, heat Pulmonary Clinic

risk

asthma w/o status asthma

cardiac and circulatory / heat risk Cardiac Clinic esophagitis

No description / heat risk

Pulmonary Clinic prophy measure nec

respiratory disease (LOF:A) / ground floor, no driving/da

Pulmonary Clinic asthma w/o status asthma

Placement mistake

Cardiac and circulatory / heat risk Cardiac Clinic health exam group survey

No description /no accommodation Pulmonary Clinic 1. med exam nec-admin purp 2. asthma w/o status asthma

No description /no accommodation Pulmonary Clinic 1. med exam nec-admin purp 2. asthma w/o status asthma

No description / ground floor, bottom bunk

No Clinic

Placement mistake

-iii-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 84 of 89

APPENDIX B Walden Block 8 Table

No.

Name

108558 Faber 124266 Venegar 135363 Craig 139718 Bell

147207 Pearson 147450 Lewis 147687 Manier

154475 Harris 155414 May
157121 Avery

Lock (CellGalleryBlock) 30-2-08
60-1-08
06-1-08
68-3-08
15-2-08 13-2-08
21-4-08
31-3-08 31-1-08
12-1-08

HC-251 Disabilities and Accommodations Report
(04/05/05) Disability Description /
Accommodation

HC-261 Service Area Clinic
Reports (04/05/05)

Mental or physiologica, Allergic, Endocrine Sy / at risk of heat

Endo Clinic 1. Obs Comp Disorder 2. Hypothyroidsim NOS 3. Duodenal ulcer NOS

Orthopedic deformity/F, LOF: A / at risk of heat

Cardiac / HTN Clinic 1. Hypertension NOS 2. Osteoarthros NOS-pelvis 3. Lumbar disc displacement

Mental or Physiologica, Orthopedic deformity/F LOF:A / ground floor, bottom bunk, no heights

Cardiac / HTN Clinic 1. Obesity 2. Hyperlipidenia NEC / NOS

Ortho deformity, LOF: A, HIV infection, respiratory disease allergic, endocrine sy LOF: A / Bottom bunk, therapeutic D, at risk of heat, no lifting mo 20 lbs, no food service

Infectious Disease Clinic 1. Diabetes Uncompl Adult 2. Acq Immunodefic Syndrome

Orthopedic deformity/F Cardiac and circulatory LOF: A / bottom bunk, TED hose

Hep C Clinic 1. Hypertension NOS 2. Hepatitis C carrier

Allergic, Endocrine sy / at risk of heat

Endocrine Clinic 1. Hypothyroidsim NOS 2. Hyperlipidemia NEC/NOS

Cardiac and circulatory, respiratory disease, alcoholism, drug addiction, chronic hepatitis / at risk of heat

Hep C Clinic 1. Esophageal reflux 11/02/04: Hep C Clinic 1. Chronic hepatitis C w/o M 2. Chr airway obstruct NEC

HIV infection / no kitchen

Pulmonary Clinic 1. Health exam-group survey

No disability description / at risk of heat

Pulmonary Clinic 1. Asthma w/o status asthm 2. Hypertension NOS 3. Esophagitis

Cardiac and Circulatory, Respiratory Disease / Continuous AC (Obtain Perm), (Spacer inhal) (Tens Unit), at risk of heat (perm)

Pulmonary Clinic 1. Asthma w/o status asthm 2. Esophageal reflux 3. Obesity

Comments
Signed Cell Waiver New cell, same gallery He may be a slow walker.
Placement mistake.
Signed Cell Waiver Same cell He may be a slow walker. He may be a slow walker.
Signed Cell Waiver Same cell
Signed Cell Waiver Same cell

-i-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 85 of 89

161281 Carroll 164755 Jones
165710 Keller
166484 Edwards 166760 Shaheed 170709 Pearson 173533 Glenn 174981 Barker 175733 Rhodes 176474 Hodge

42-4-08 48-1-08
14-2-08
46-2-08 74-1-08 24-4-08 52-3-08 69-1-08 63-1-08 33-3-08

No disability description / at risk of heat

Cardiac / HTN Clinic 1. Hypertension NOS 2. Mixed Hyperlipidemia

Mental or physiologica, Hearing impairment, LOF: A, Cardiac and circulatory, Visual impairment, LOF: A, Digestive system disor, Alcoholism / hearing aid, glasses, at risk of heat (lo social con)

Cardiac / HTN Clinic 1. Hypertension NOS 2. Hyperlipidemia NEC/NOS 3. Tobacco abusecontinuous

Chronic Hepatitis, Amputation of major/mi, Cardiac and circulatory, Visual impairment, LOF: A, Digestive system disor / at risk of heat

Cardiac / HTN Clinic 1. Hypertension NOS 2. Hyperlipidemia NEC/NOS 3. Tobacco abusecontinuous

Cardiac and circulatory, LOF: D / bottom bunk, special garment (sighose/arc) (tennis shoe)

Hep C Clinic 1. Hepatitis C carrier 2. Hypertension NOS

Cardiac and circulatory, Respiratory disease, Visual impairment, LOF: A Alcoholism, Drug addiction /

Cardiac / HTN Clinic Chronic airway obstruction NEC

Respiratory disease, Digestive system disor / at risk of heat, no grass work

Hep C Clinic 1. Asthma w/o status asthm 2.Chronic Hepatitis C without ME

Physiological disorder / at risk of Not listed in a medical

heat

clinic.

Mental or physiologica, orthopedic deformity/F / at risk of heat Cardiac and circulatory / at risk of heat
Cardiac and circulatory / no accommodation noted

Not listed in a medical clinic.
Cardiac / HTN Clinic 1. Hypertension NOS 2. Hyperlipidemia NEC/NOS
Cardiac / HTN Clinic 1. Hypertension NOS 2. Trans cereb ischemia NEC

Signed Cell Wavier Same cell
His hearing and visual impairments needing assistance together suggest he may be at risk in an emergency exit even on the 1st Gallery.
The combination of visual impairment needing assistance and cardiac problems suggest he should not be on 2nd gallery.
He may be a slow walker.
Signed Cell Waiver Same cell
Signed Cell Waiver Same cell
Signed Cell Waiver when at 48-2-08

-ii-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 86 of 89

186063 Bradshaw
186089 Smith 186179 Miller 188735 Antes 190056 McMillan 190981 Gipson 195555 Morgan 198776 Myers 205930 Delatorre 213307 Deloach
214219 Phillips

25-2-08
58-2-08 52-1-08 47-1-08 01-4-08 22-1-08 16-2-08 74-4-08 68-B-08 15-B-08
59-1-08

HIV Infection, Cardiac and Circulator, Visual impairment LOF: A / at risk of heat

Infectious Disease Clinic 1. Acq Immunodefic syndrome 2. Esphageal reflux 3. Hyperlipidemia NEC/NOS

Orthopedic deformity/F, Allergic, Pulmonary Clinic

endocrine sy

1. Asthma w/o status asthm

/ bottom bunk, EPI Pen- CC

Respiratory disease, Allergic, endocrine sy / therapeutic diet (1800 ada), at risk of heat

Endocrine Clinic 1. Health exam-group survey

No description / at risk of heat

Pulmonary Clinic 1. Chr airway obstruct NEC 2. Hyperlipidemia NEC/NOS

No description / no accommodation

Pulmonary Clinic 1. Asthma w/o status asthma

No description / at risk of heat

Pulmonary Clinic 1. Chr airway obstruct NEC

Cardiac and circulatory, visual impairment LOF: A / at risk of heat

Cardiac / HTN Clinic 1. Hypertension NOS 2. Hyperlipidemia NEC/NOS

Seizure disorder, LOF: A / bottom bunk, (gloves), no driving/da

Neurologic Clinic 1. Convulsions

Orthopedic deformity/F, LOF: A Cardiac and circulatory, LOF: A Visual impairment, LOF: A / ground floor, handicap table, at risk of heat

Cardiac / HTN Clinic 1. Chr airway obstruct NEC

Orthopedic deformity/F, Cardiac and circulatory, Respiratory disease Visual impairment / ground floor (Base lock), Bottom bunk, cane (wood), at risk of heat, no work assig

Disabilities Clinic 1. Hypertens renal dis NOS 2. Chr airway obstruct NEC 3. Osteoarthros NOS- L / Leg

Mental or physiologica, Respiratory disease / at risk of heat

Pulmonary Clinic 1. Chr airway obstruct NEC 2. Tobacco abuse-unspec

Signed Cell Waiver. Same cell [moved down from 3rd gallery since Nov. 2004]
Signed Cell Waiver, Same cell Placement mistake, per HC policy.

-iii-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 87 of 89

220791
224629 225945
226016 232019
233455 236210 238152 242056 243109 246230

Garcia
Cervantes Lewis
Latondras Moore
Archambeau Contor Blackmore Morrison Sparks Steinert

01-3-08
67-3-08 31-B-08
53-B-08 47-3-08
52-B-08 71-1-08 01-2-08 11-3-08 58-4-08 25-1-08

Respiratory disease, Visual impairment LOF: A, Digestive system disor / Prescription toes overla, at risk of heat

Gastrointestinal Clinic 1.Chr airway obstruct NEC 2. Stomach function dis NEC

Signed Cell Waiver when in 21-1-08. Note: Moved up to 3rd gallery from 1st since signing waiver

Allergic, endocrine sy / at risk of heat

Cardiac / HTN Clinic 1. Diabetes uncompl adult 2. Hypertension nos 3. Pure hyperglyceridemia

Orthopedic deformity/F, LOF: A Respiratory disease, LOF: A, Visual impairment, LOF: A / Continous el, bottom bunk, crutches (two), at risk of heat

Disabilities Clinic 1. Chr Hepatitis C without ME 2. Viral Hep B w/o men hep coma 3. Chr airway obstruct NEC

Hearing impairment, Seizure disorder, Cardiac and circulatory /ground floor, hearing aid, at risk of heat, no work assig (med 00)

Disabilities Clinic 1. Hemiplegia NOS 2. Hypertension NOS 3. Tobacco abuse-unspec

HIV infection, Cardiac and circulatory / bottom bunk, handicap tabl, at risk of heat, no work assig

Infectious Disease Clinic 1. Acq Immunodefic Syndrome 2. Hodgkins dis NOS mult 3. Hyperlipidemia NEC/NOS

He may be a slow walker.

Cardiac and circulatory, Allergic, endocrine sy, LOF: A / Special garme (TED hose), at risk of heat, no work assign (med 00)

Endocrine Clinic 1. Chronic ischemic hrt dis NOS 2. Venous thrombosis NEC

Orthopedic deformity/F, LOF: A, Respiratory disease / TENS unit, at risk of heat

Pulmonary Clinic 1. Asthma w/o status asthm 2. Esophageal reflux

He may be a slow walker.

Respiratory disease / no accommodation

Pulmonary Clinic 1. Asthma w/o status asthm

Orthopedic deformity/F / bottom Pulmonary Clinic

bunk, other (6 sm feedin)

1. Asthma w/o status asthm

Cardiac and circulatory, Respiratory disease / at risk of heat

Pulmonary Clinic 1. Health exam-group survey 2. Asthma w/o status asthm 3. Tobacco abuse-unspec

Hearing impairment, LOF: A, Cardiac and circulatory, Respiratory disease / bottom bunk, at risk of heat, no lifing mo (> 20#)

Pulmonary Clinic 1. Chr airway obstruct NEC 2. Hypertension NOS 3. Hyperlipidemia NEC/NOS

-iv-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 88 of 89

247878 248032
248654
252063 253412 260266 261705 265113 271651 291134 301245 302833

Miller Kern
Joyce
Ferman Montgomery Paliwoda Cinnamon Christol May Worthington Martin Hall

44-1-08 49-B-08
26-3-08
37-3-08 65-3-08 03-3-08 47-2-08 50-4-08 60-3-08 16-1-08 40-4-08 09-2-08

Cardiac and circulatory, digestive system disor / Ground floor or 1st, communication (read/write), at risk of heat, no work assig

G I Clinic Health exam-group survey

Cardiac and circulatory, LOF: A / ground floor, bottom bunk, cane (quad), glasses, at risk of heat

Disabilities Clinic 1. Hypertension NOS 2. Angina pectoris NEC/NOS 3. Hx-prostatic malignancy

Orthopedic deformity /F LOF: A, allergic, endocrine sy / at risk of heat

Cardiac / HTN Clinic 1. Hypertension NOS 2. Hyperlipidemia NEC/NOS 3. Obesity

Signed Cell Waiver Same cell He may be a slow walker.

No description / at risk of heat

Pulmonary Clinic Chr airway obstruct nec

Mental or physiologica, Respiratory disease/ no accommodation description

Pulmonary Clinic 1. Asthma w/o status asthm

Cardiac and circulatory, Allergic, endocrine sy / at risk of heat

Endocrine Clinic 1. Diabetes Uncompl adult 2. Lipoid metabol dis NOS

Signed Cell Waiver Same cell

No description / at risk of heat

Cardiac / HTN Clinic 1. Hypertension NOS 2. Seborrhea 3. Obesity

He may be a slow walker.

Physiological disorder LOF: A, hearing impairment LOF: A / communication hearing, at risk of heat

Generic Clinic Prim open angle glaucoma

Signed Cell Waiver Same cell

Cardiac and circulatory,

Cardiac / HTN Clinic

Respiratory disease / ground floor 1. Hypertension NOS

2. Asthma w/o status asthm

Placement mistake.

Cardiac and circulatory, Respiratory disease / at risk of heat

Pulmonary Clinic 1. Chr airway obstruct NEC

Cardiac and circulatory / at risk of heat

Cardiac / HTN Clinic 1. Hyperlipidemia NEC/NOS 2. Hypertension NOS

Signed Cell Waiver Same cell

Orthopedic deformity /F Cardiac and circulatory, Respiratory disease, Visual impairment LOF: A, Allergic endocrine sy, Alcoholism / glasses, at risk of heat

Not listed in a medical clinic

Signed Cell Waiver Same cell

-v-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1889 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 89 of 89

303611 Francis 316603 Diciesare 319374 Babik 368151 Gonzales
375913 Youngski 407839 Collison 423321 Shaffer 466500 Kerns 484354 Grabinski 516312 Jennings

06-2-08 70-1-08 12-2-08 59-3-08
06-3-08 36-1-08 28-4-08 27-4-08 23-1-08 14-1-08

Cardiac and circulatory LOF: A, allergic endocrine sy / bottom bunk, at risk of heat

Endo Clinic 1. Diabetes Uncompl adult 2. Hypertension NOS 3. Obesity

No description / ground floor, bottom bunk, therapeutic diet (2400 ada hssn)

Pulmonary Clinic 1. chr airway obstruct NEC 2. Diabetes uncompl adult 3. Hypertension NOS

Seizure disorder, cardiac and circulatory / (1-3 man room), at risk of heat.

Not listed in a medical clinic.

Visual impairment, LOF: A, Allergic, endocrine sy, Acquired traumatic brain, Alcoholism, Chronic Hepatitis / at risk of heat

Endocrine Clinic 1. Tobacco abuse-unspec

No description / Therapeutic Diet Endocrine Clinic

(3000 cal ad), at risk of heat

1. Diabetes uncompl juven

Cardiac and circulatory, Visual impairment, LOF: A / brace (leg), prescription (tennis shoe), other (insoles)

Cardiac / HTN Clinic 1. Hypertension NOS 2. Acq ankle-foot def NEC

Respiratory disease, visual impairment LOF: A / ground floor, bottom bunk

Not listed in a medical clinic.

Orthopedic deformity/F, cardiac and circulatory, respiratory disease, visual impairment LOF: A / Ground floor, therapeutic diet, handicap table

Hep C Clinic Screening-pulmonary TB

No description / no accommodation

Pulmonary Clinic 1. Health exam-group survey

No description / Ground floor, crutches, cane (wooden)

Not listed in a medical clinic.

Signed Cell Waiver Same cell
Placement mistake.
Traumatic brain injury and visual impairment may add to his problems in an emergency exit.
He may be a slow walker.
Placement mistake.
Placement mistake.
Placement mistake.

-vi-

 
 Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1967-2 Filed 02/07/2006 Page 1 of 16
ALTERNATIVE TO THE STATE PRISON OF SOUTHERN MICHIGAN
COURT ORDERED IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR EGELER CELL BLOCKS 1,2,3, AND 7 AND PARNALL CELL BLOCK 8
PREPARED FOR: MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT & BUDGET
LANSING, MICHIGAN FEBRUARY 1, 2006 PROJECT NO. G03383AL

Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc.

Engineers • Scientists • Architects • Constructors

1515 Arboretum Drive, SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49546 Telephone: 616-575-3824

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1967-2 Filed 02/07/2006 Page 2 of 16
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TAB 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1 SUMMARY............................................................................................................................ 2 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE IMPROVEMENTS..................................... 4
TAB 2 SCHEMATIC DRAWINGS .................................................................................................... 9 COST ESTIMATE ................................................................................................................. 10 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE............................................................................................. 11
TAB 3 APPENDIX 1 Michigan Department of Corrections Memo regarding Operational Cost

i

S:\CORRECTIONS\ASSIGNMENT

CONTROL\CASES\OPEN\GOVORCHIN\HADIX\1992006833A.HADIX.WD.492-

110\PLEADINGS-APG\FIRE SAFETY\ALTERNATIVE PLAN.020106.DOC

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1967-2 Filed 02/07/2006 Page 3 of 16
INTRODUCTION
The report entitled State Prison of Southern Michigan Court Ordered Improvement Plan for Egeler Cell Blocks 1, 2, 3, and 7 and Parnall Cell Block 8 dated January 20, 2006, described court ordered improvements for each of the five cell blocks. This report describes alternative fire safety and egress improvements to the cell blocks and improvements to Housing Units A and B.
This report includes a summary describing the alternative fire safety and egress improvements, a detailed description of the improvements, schematic drawings, cost estimate, and a construction schedule.

1

02/07/2006 ●

S:\CORRECTIONS\ASSIGNMENT

CONTROL\CASES\OPEN\GOVORCHIN\HADIX\1992006833A.HADIX.WD.492-

110\PLEADINGS-APG\FIRE SAFETY\ALTERNATIVE PLAN.020106.DOC

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1967-2 Filed 02/07/2006 Page 4 of 16

SUMMARY
The following summary describes the proposed improvements to Housing Units A and B, plans for Parnall Cell Block 8, and life safety and egress improvements to Egeler Cell Blocks 7, and 1, 2, and 3.

Housing Units A and B

Housing Units A and B are currently vacant. Some renovation work will occur at the buildings to improve the mechanical systems, and lighting, and to provide the number of code required plumbing fixtures and life safety features. The improvements at both Units A and B include removal and replacement of the existing boiler, increasing the ventilation to provide the code-required amount of ventilation, cleaning the existing light fixtures, and adding one new shower stall to each of the four restrooms for a total of four new showers in each building. A dry pipe fire protection system will be added throughout the occupied spaces of the building. This will significantly improve the life safety of the building occupants.

Parnall Cell Block 8

The Department of Corrections has determined that Parnall Cell Block 8 will be vacated and all cell block occupants will be relocated to other facilities.

Egeler Cell Block 7 Alternative Improvements

The proposed alternative improvements to fire safety and egress at Egeler Cell Block 7 include the construction of two new exit stair towers similar to the proposed alternative at Cell Block 1, 2, and 3. The existing interior stairs at the midpoint on each side of the cell block will be removed. This space will be used as an exit corridor that will provide access to the new exterior exit stair. (See the schematic drawings.) A new exit door with panic hardware connected to the building’s fire alarm system will be installed at the entrance to this corridor to prevent inmates from lingering in the exit corridor. The hardware on these doors will be connected to the building’s alarm system and will include a delay alarm to notify staff that the door hardware has been activated and to prevent inmates from reaching the exit corridor unsupervised. All building utilities including mechanical, electrical, lighting, and fire protection will be extended into the exterior stairs and exit access corridor.

The new exit stair towers will be constructed with block walls and create a fire rated exit enclosure that will provide access to an exit from each tier of the cell block. Constructing the exit stair on each side and

2

02/07/2006 ●

S:\CORRECTIONS\ASSIGNMENT

CONTROL\CASES\OPEN\GOVORCHIN\HADIX\1992006833A.HADIX.WD.492-

110\PLEADINGS-APG\FIRE SAFETY\ALTERNATIVE PLAN.020106.DOC

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1967-2 Filed 02/07/2006 Page 5 of 16
at the midpoint of the block will further increase life safety by reducing the exit travel distance and time to exit the cell block. Adding the new exit stair will reduce the maximum exit travel distance from the highest tier of cells to less than 150 feet.
Egeler Cell Blocks 1, 2, and 3
The proposed alternative fire safety and egress improvements at Egeler Cell Blocks 1, 2, and 3 include the construction of two new enclosed, exterior exit stair towers. Two exit stair towers will be added; one on each side of the cell block at approximately the mid-point of the block. (See the schematic drawings.) The exit stair towers will be accessed from each elevated tier of cells by a new elevated walkway that will extend from the existing walkway in front of the cells, across the open gallery, to the exterior wall. All existing utility systems including mechanical, electrical, lighting and fire protection will be extended into the new stair towers. Adding a new exit stair tower at the midpoint on each side of the cell block will significantly improve the life safety of all building occupants.
The new exit stair towers will be constructed with block walls and create a fire rated exit enclosure that will provide access to an exit from each tier of the cell block. Constructing the exit stair on each side and at the midpoint of the block will further increase life safety by reducing the exit travel distance and time to exit the cell block. Adding the new exit stair will reduce the maximum exit travel distance from the highest tier of cells to less than 150 feet.
The proposed schedule for the proposed alternative improvements identified in this report is approximately two years, five months. The estimated construction cost for these improvements is $7,804,294.
In addition to the construction cost, there are costs for moving prisoners during construction and for additional staff. The estimated cost for these construction administration services during construction is $1,329,366. (See Appendix 1)
The total estimate including construction administration is $9,133,660.

3

02/07/2006 ●

S:\CORRECTIONS\ASSIGNMENT

CONTROL\CASES\OPEN\GOVORCHIN\HADIX\1992006833A.HADIX.WD.492-

110\PLEADINGS-APG\FIRE SAFETY\ALTERNATIVE PLAN.020106.DOC

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1967-2 Filed 02/07/2006 Page 6 of 16

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE IMPROVEMENTS

Housing Units A and B

The mechanical systems in Units A and B consist of a hot water heating system, fan induced draft ventilation system and standard plumbing equipment. Mechanically, the only difference between Units A and B is that Unit B has had direct expansion cooling added to the “common” rooms because this facility was once used as office space.

The existing hot water heating system consists of a boiler, zone pumps, finned tube radiation, unit ventilators and forced flow convection heaters. The finned tube radiation serves the exterior perimeter of each housing unit, interior offices and restrooms. The unit ventilators provide heat and ventilation to the activities areas and the forced flow convection heaters offset heat loss at the exit doors.

The existing ventilating system draws air from the outside, into the attic space and out to the occupied space from the ceiling mounted grills with filters. The air is then exhausted out of the space via separate exhaust fans serving the dormitory, activity and rest room areas.

The heating plant equipment, which includes the boiler, pumps & trim were installed in 1986 and have been drained and left open to atmospheric conditions for quite some time. The age and exposure to atmospheric conditions for an extended period of time renders the heating plant equipment unfit for reuse. Therefore the entire heating plant must be replaced with new equipment capable of producing heating hot water of the same capacity and flow rates as the existing equipment.

The finned tube radiation has also been exposed to atmospheric conditions for an extended period of time. This exposure has caused scale build up on the inside of the piping which must be chemically “shocked” to break its bond with the piping. The scale and chemical must then be flushed out of the system before it can be refilled with fluid. Several interior sections of finned tube radiation need to be replaced due to freeze and physical damage.

The existing ventilation system currently has the capability to deliver ASHRAE recommended 20 CFM per person of outdoor air. However, the existing ventilation set up is not configured to provide outdoor air in the winter months. In order to provide ventilation air during winter, the ceiling mounted supply air grills must be retrofitted with heating coils. The heating coils are required to deliver the ventilation air into the Housing Units at or near the winter space temperature setpoint of 68°F.

4

02/07/2006 ●

S:\CORRECTIONS\ASSIGNMENT

CONTROL\CASES\OPEN\GOVORCHIN\HADIX\1992006833A.HADIX.WD.492-

110\PLEADINGS-APG\FIRE SAFETY\ALTERNATIVE PLAN.020106.DOC

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1967-2 Filed 02/07/2006 Page 7 of 16

The existing temperature control system in the Housing Units A and B lacks the flexibility to control the proposed heating and ventilating equipment. A new DDC based temperature control system is required to be installed to effectively control the heating hot water circuits, boilers, outdoor air tempering coils and exhaust fans.

Currently Housing Units A and B do not have automatic fire suppression installed. To meet current Department of Corrections standards and to improve life safety, automatic fire suppression must be installed. Exposed piping cannot be run below the gypsum ceiling for security reasons; it must be run in the attic space. The attic space is wood truss construction so automatic fire suppression heads must be located above and below the ceiling. Since the automatic fire suppression system must be run in the unconditioned attic space, a dry pipe style system must be installed.

The existing plumbing systems in Housing Units A and B appear to be in overall good shape. The plumbing systems have been shut down and drained to avoid freezing. As a result of the shutdown, the piping has been exposed to atmospheric conditions for an extended period of time. To effectively bring the plumbing piping back into working order the piping must be chemically cleaned and disinfected.

The existing water heaters are relatively new, are in good working order and do not require replacement. The existing water service to the building is via groundwater well. The groundwater is extremely hard and must be run through a water softener system to avoid scale build up in the piping systems. The existing water softener systems have sat idle too long at atmospheric conditions and are no longer in good working order. The water softener systems will require replacement with performance to match existing equipment.

The existing hot water tempering valves are dated and at the end of their useful life. The tempering valves are required to be replaced with modern pressure balanced models.

Current Department of Correction standards dictate that shower facilities be provided at the rate of one shower per 15 occupants. There are currently not enough showers provided. To meet current standards one urinal in each restroom must be demolished and a new shower shall be constructed in its place for a total of four new showers.

The existing lighting systems in Housing Units A and B are aged and require replacement to new technology. Existing light fixtures are to be replaced with energy efficient T-8 bulbs and electronic ballasts. Personal light fixtures located at the head of each bed location are dated and a significant

5

02/07/2006 ●

S:\CORRECTIONS\ASSIGNMENT

CONTROL\CASES\OPEN\GOVORCHIN\HADIX\1992006833A.HADIX.WD.492-

110\PLEADINGS-APG\FIRE SAFETY\ALTERNATIVE PLAN.020106.DOC

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1967-2 Filed 02/07/2006 Page 8 of 16
number no longer work. Each personal light fixture requires replacement with a modern model consisting of T-8 lamps, electronic ballast, high & low modes and two receptacle outlets per fixture.
Contractors will require access to the site during the construction phase. A gate is required to be installed in the security fence adjacent to Cooper Street. The gate will be welded shut at the completion of the construction phase.
Two wood guard towers are located outside of the security fence surrounding Housing Units A and B. The guard towers will require new floor decking and miscellaneous repairs before they can be occupied to supervise the occupancy of Housing Units A and B.

6

02/07/2006 ●

S:\CORRECTIONS\ASSIGNMENT

CONTROL\CASES\OPEN\GOVORCHIN\HADIX\1992006833A.HADIX.WD.492-

110\PLEADINGS-APG\FIRE SAFETY\ALTERNATIVE PLAN.020106.DOC

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1967-2 Filed 02/07/2006 Page 9 of 16

Egeler Cell Block 7
The proposed alternative fire safety and egress improvements at Egeler Cell Block 7 include the construction of two new exit stair towers. (See the schematic drawings.) The new exterior exit stair enclosures will be similar to the exit stair towers added on to cell blocks 11 and 12. The exterior walls of the exit stair tower will be stained, split-face block construction. The exterior walls will include minimal amounts of windows to provide natural lighting into the stair towers. The design of the exit stairs will comply with all current codes and correctional standards for exit width. The stair construction will include concrete landings and concrete filled metal pan tread and risers. The railings will be wall-mounted steel railings and steel guardrails at open areas. The stair tower will be accessed by a new corridor that will connect the existing walkway in front of each elevated level of the cells to the new stair tower. The new corridor will be at the location of the existing stair at the midpoint of the cell block.
The corridor will be accessed by a new rated steel door. The door will be provided with panic hardware connected to the cell block’s alarm system. The panic hardware will also have a delayed opening device to prevent inmates from accessing the corridor unsupervised. This delay system will prevent access to the stair for a short period of time and will notify staff that an occupant is attempting to enter the corridor.
The addition of the exterior exit stair at the midpoint of the cell block on each side will significantly decrease the time required to exit the building and provide a new safe means of egress for all building occupants.
The existing radiation heat system and fire protection system will be extended into the new stair towers. Each exit stair will be provided with new lighting and emergency exit lights and signs.
The proposed exit stair locations for Cell Block 7 will interfere with the existing mechanical and electrical systems. The exit stair can be constructed in the proposed location with modifications to the existing mechanical and electrical systems. The systems requiring alteration for the stair location are hot water heating piping, automatic fire suppression system, exhaust air ductwork, electrical conduit and switches / junction boxes. Each modification required is typical of two sides of each cell block.
The heating hot water piping will be cut at the stair location, run along the perimeter of the stair well and tied back into the existing piping on the other side. This modification will be required at each tier.

7

02/07/2006 ●

S:\CORRECTIONS\ASSIGNMENT

CONTROL\CASES\OPEN\GOVORCHIN\HADIX\1992006833A.HADIX.WD.492-

110\PLEADINGS-APG\FIRE SAFETY\ALTERNATIVE PLAN.020106.DOC

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1967-2 Filed 02/07/2006 Page 10 of 16

The main riser for the automatic fire suppression system will need to be relocated approximately 5 to 8 feet from the current location from the ground floor up to the upper tier. All associated branch and sprinkler head piping will need to be relocated to provide head room for the new stair at each tier. Existing sprinkler heads in the current stair area will need to be relocated based on new security door layout at each tier. The Siamese fire department connection located at the ground level is required to be relocated to avoid interference with the proposed egress stair location.
Existing electrical conduit, junction boxes and light switches will need to be relocated approximately 6 to 8 feet from their current location at each tier.
Some of the security fencing at the base of the stair towers will need to be relocated or modified to accommodate the exit stairs and maintain security.

Egeler Cell Blocks 1, 2, and 3
The proposed alternative fire safety and egress improvements at Egeler Cell Blocks 1, 2, and 3 include the construction of two new exit stair towers at each of the three cell blocks. (See the schematic drawings.) The new exterior exit stair enclosures will be similar to the exit stair towers added on to cell blocks 11 and 12. The exterior walls of the exit stair tower will be stained, split-face block construction. The exterior walls will include minimal amounts of windows to provide natural lighting into the stair towers. The design of the exit stairs will comply with all current codes and correctional standards for exit width. The stair construction will include concrete landings and concrete filled metal pan tread and risers. The railings will be wall-mounted steel railings and steel guardrails at open areas. The stair tower will be accessed by a new walkway that will connect the existing walkway in front of each elevated level of the cells to the new stair tower. This walkway will span from the walkway at the front of the cells to the exterior wall and connect to the stair tower. The walkway will be provided with a guardrail that will match the height of the newly improved guardrail at the front of the cell walkway. The width of the new walkway will be sufficient to provide safe egress based on the cell block occupant load.
At the end of the new walkway, the stair will be accessed by a new rated steel door. The door will be provided with panic hardware connected to the cell block’s alarm system. The panic hardware will also have a delayed opening device to prevent inmates from accessing the exit stair tower unsupervised. This delay system will prevent access to the stair for a short period of time and will notify staff that an occupant is attempting to enter the stair tower.

8

02/07/2006 ●

S:\CORRECTIONS\ASSIGNMENT

CONTROL\CASES\OPEN\GOVORCHIN\HADIX\1992006833A.HADIX.WD.492-

110\PLEADINGS-APG\FIRE SAFETY\ALTERNATIVE PLAN.020106.DOC

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1967-2 Filed 02/07/2006 Page 11 of 16
The addition of the exterior exit stair at the midpoint of the cell block on each side will significantly decrease the time required to exit the building and provide a new safe means of egress for all building occupants.
The existing radiation heat system and fire protection system will be extended into the new stair towers. Each exit stair will be provided with new lighting and emergency exit lights and signs.
Some of the security fencing at the base of the stair towers will need to be relocated or modified to accommodate the exit stairs and maintain security.

9

02/07/2006 ●

S:\CORRECTIONS\ASSIGNMENT

CONTROL\CASES\OPEN\GOVORCHIN\HADIX\1992006833A.HADIX.WD.492-

110\PLEADINGS-APG\FIRE SAFETY\ALTERNATIVE PLAN.020106.DOC

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1967-2 Filed 02/07/2006 Page 12 of 16
SCHEMATIC DRAWINGS

10

02/07/2006 ●

S:\CORRECTIONS\ASSIGNMENT

CONTROL\CASES\OPEN\GOVORCHIN\HADIX\1992006833A.HADIX.WD.492-

110\PLEADINGS-APG\FIRE SAFETY\ALTERNATIVE PLAN.020106.DOC

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1967-2 Filed 02/07/2006 Page 13 of 16
COST ESTIMATE
FTC&H has prepared the following cost estimate for the work required for the proposed alternatives to the court ordered improvements in each cell block and at Housing Units A and B. The cost estimate includes such items as general conditions and fees, an adjustment for working within a secured prison environment, and a construction contingency. Builder’s Risk Insurance will be provided by the State.
The total construction cost estimate for the proposed alternatives for Cell Blocks 1, 2, 3, and 7 and Units A and B is $7,804,294.
In addition to the construction cost, there are costs for moving prisoners during construction and for additional staff. The estimated cost for these construction administration services during construction is $1,329,366. (See Appendix 1)
The total estimate including construction administration is $9,133,660.

11

02/07/2006 ●

S:\CORRECTIONS\ASSIGNMENT

CONTROL\CASES\OPEN\GOVORCHIN\HADIX\1992006833A.HADIX.WD.492-

110\PLEADINGS-APG\FIRE SAFETY\ALTERNATIVE PLAN.020106.DOC

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1967-2 Filed 02/07/2006 Page 14 of 16
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
FTC&H has prepared a construction schedule for the work required to implement the proposed alternative fire safety and egress improvements. The construction schedule assumes the cell blocks will be completely vacated for accessibility by the contractors and that one cell block will be renovated at a time, one after the other. The total time for renovating Cell Blocks 1, 2, 3, and 7 and Units A and B is approximately two years, five months, including design time.

12

02/07/2006 ●

S:\CORRECTIONS\ASSIGNMENT

CONTROL\CASES\OPEN\GOVORCHIN\HADIX\1992006833A.HADIX.WD.492-

110\PLEADINGS-APG\FIRE SAFETY\ALTERNATIVE PLAN.020106.DOC

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1967-2 Filed 02/07/2006 Page 15 of 16

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
“Expecting Excellence Every Day”
MEMORANDUM
(Sent 2/1/06 via email)

DATE:

February 1, 2006

TO:

Jeff Baumann, Administrator

Office of Audit, Internal Affairs and Litigation

FROM:

Thomas J. Faussett, Manager Thomas J. Faussett Physical Plant Division, BFM

SUBJECT: Alternative to the Court Ordered Improvement Plan for Egeler (RGC) 1, 2, 3 and 7 and Parnall Cellblock 8

The proposed alternative fire safety egress improvements plan for Egeler Cellblocks 1, 2, 3 and 7 and Parnall Cellblock 8 consists of the following scope of work:
1. Remodeling of Housing Units A and B and moving the Level I prisoners from 8-Block to those housing units.
2. Construction of new enclosed exterior stair towers to Housing Units 1, 2, 3 and 7Blocks.
Based on the alternative plan, the additional operational costs which are over and above the construction costs for operating a secure prison for the time period covered by the construction are identified below. Because the alternative fire safety egress plan reduces the construction time frame from 42 months to 22 months, additional staffing time shown in the “Heavy Industry” plan has also been reduced from 42 to 22 months. This reduces the construction administration costs to the Department by $993,264 in salary and wages versus the “Heavy Industry” plan.
In addition, with the enclosed exterior stair towers being constructed versus the mid-cellblock dividing walls, ongoing extra-staffing operational costs are eliminated because current staffing will be sufficient. The alternative plan reduces the Department’s additional custody staff costs by $11,682,036 annually after five years versus the “Heavy Industry” plan. The alternative plan, with exception of the five officer positions, two maintenance mechanic positions, and one licensed electrician required for construction will not require the Department to add additional staff after construction is complete.
Construction administration costs describe the costs that will be incurred when prisoners are moved one block at a time to adjacent housing units and double bunked in the lower levels of

13

02/07/2006 ●

S:\CORRECTIONS\ASSIGNMENT

CONTROL\CASES\OPEN\GOVORCHIN\HADIX\1992006833A.HADIX.WD.492-

110\PLEADINGS-APG\FIRE SAFETY\ALTERNATIVE PLAN.020106.DOC

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1967-2 Filed 02/07/2006 Page 16 of 16
the adjacent housing units. For example, when Housing Unit 1 is vacated, those prisoners will be moved to Housing Units 2 and 3, thus double bunking the lower two floors in each unit.
Mr. Baumann - Revised Court Ordered Improvement February 1, 2006 Page 2

Once A and B-Blocks are remodeled, the prisoners in 8-Block will be moved there, and 8-Bblock will be permanently closed down.

Construction Administration:

Furnishings:

380 Bunk beds @ $325 each 380 wall lockers @ $190 each 10 Ice Machines @ $3,500.00 each 10 Additional Radios @ $600.00 each

$123,500.00 72,200.00 35,000.00 6,000.00

Total Furnishings

= $236,700.00

Custody Officer Coverage for Construction:

5 - Custody Officers @ $30,000 per month X 22 months

= $660,000.00

Maintenance Coverage for Assembly and Disassembly of Furnishings:

2 - Maintenance Mechanics E10 @ $12,832 per month X 22 months = $282,304.00 1 - Licensed 11 Master Electrician @ $6,833 per month X 22 months = $150,362.00

Total Construction Administration Additional Staff Coverage = $1,092,666.00

Construction Administration Total

= $1,329,366.00

14

02/07/2006 ●

S:\CORRECTIONS\ASSIGNMENT

CONTROL\CASES\OPEN\GOVORCHIN\HADIX\1992006833A.HADIX.WD.492-

110\PLEADINGS-APG\FIRE SAFETY\ALTERNATIVE PLAN.020106.DOC

 
 Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1876 Filed 05/03/2005 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

EVERETT HADIX, et. al.,

Plaintiffs,

No. 4:92-CV-110

v. PERRY M. JOHNSON, et. al.,

HONORABLE RICHARD ENSLEN

Defendants.

STIPULATION TO TERMINATE JURISDICTION OVER CERTAIN AREAS REGARDING FIRE SAFETY ISSUES

The parties stipulate that injunctive relief pursuant to the Consent Decree and associated

plans should be terminated in the Jackson prison complex in the areas below as to fire safety

only:

1. Parnall creamery

2. Parnall meat processing plant

3. Jackson prison complex power plant

4. Parnall chow hall

5. Egeler chow hall

6. MSI shoe factory/box and carton factory in Parnall

s/Patricia A. Streeter
Patricia A. Streeter (P30032) Attorney for Plaintiffs

s/A. Peter Govorchin
A. Peter Govorchin (P31161) Attorney for Defendants

Date: April 29, 2005

Govorchin/1992006833A/Pleadings-APG/Fire Safety//Stipulation-Jurisdiction re fire safety.042905

 
 Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1878 Filed 05/04/2005 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION _____________________

EVERETT HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs,

Case No. 4:92-CV-110

v.

Hon. Richard Alan Enslen

PERRY M. JOHNSON, et al.,
Defendants. __________________________/

ORDER

Upon review of the parties’ two Stipulations of May 3, 2005, it appears that the Stipulations should be approved and adopted as the Orders of this Court. The Stipulation pertaining to Wayne Carson’s testimony as to the May fire safety hearing is proper and facilitates relevant testimony. The Stipulation to Terminate Jurisdiction over Certain Areas regarding Fire Safety Issues is also proper in that it affects a termination of Consent Decree jurisdiction as to fire safety concerning facilities not in dispute. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Stipulation regarding testimony of Wayne Carson (Dkt. No. 1875) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Order of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Stipulation to Terminate Jurisdiction over Certain Areas Regarding Fire Safety Issues (Dkt. No. 1876) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Order of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Consent Decree jurisdiction as to fire safety is TERMINATED regarding the following areas only:
1. Parnall creamery;

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1878 Filed 05/04/2005 Page 2 of 2

2. Parnall meat processing plant;

3. Jackson prison complex power plant;

4. Parnall chow hall;

5. Egeler chow hall; and

6. MSI shoe factory/box and carton factory in Parnall.

DATED in Kalamazoo, MI: May 4, 2005

/s/ Richard Alan Enslen RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 1 of 60
Robert L. Cohen, MD
314 W. 14th Street New York, NY 10014
212-620-0144 (v) 212-691-8588 (f)
September 8, 2005
Judge Richard A. Enslen Federal District Court Western District of Michigan 149 Federal Building Kalamazoo, MI 49007
RE: Hadix v. Johnson U.S. Dist. Ct. #4:92-cv-11 0 Third Report of the Associate Monitor
Honorable Judge Enslen:
Attached please find a redacted and revised copy of my August 22 report, The redaction of names is consistent with prior practice in the above referenced matter. A legend is attached for the parties.
There have also been a number of revisions. In every case these are corrections of syntax, grammar, and spelling. I am e-mailing a PDF of the track changes to Brian Beck and to the parties.
Robert L. Cohen, MD Associate Monitor
Cc: Ned Benton A, Peter Govorchin Leo Friedman Elizabeth Alexander Michael Barnhart Patricia Streeter

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 2 of 60

3rd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #1

INTRODUCTION
This is the third report of the Associate Monitor on Health Care in the Hadix matter. This report is based upon my tours of the facilities, interviews with staff and prisoners, review of medical records, review of documents, and meetings with counsel to the parties. It covers my review of medical care for the first seven months of 2005. My last visit to the facility was on August 4,2005.
In response to the Second Report (January 11, 2005), a series of conversations and meetings, chaired by the Associate Monitor, were held to review serious problems in the delivery of medical care in the Jackson facilities. New policies were developed in the following areas:
Criteria for charging co-payments Chronic Care in the C-Unit Care in the JMF Segregation Unit Dialysis - Suicide prevention, vascular access Inter-institutional Transfers
This review of will cover those issues, as well as the following subjects: Staffing, supervision, and organizational issues at Duane Waters Hospital. Limitation in access to specialty care Failure to recognize and treat life threatening conditions Medical Records Pharmacy Infection Control
The report will conclude with a number of specific recommendations, some of which should be implemented as soon as possible.

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 3 of 60

3rd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #2

ADMINISTRATION

There has been significant instability in the Correctional Medical Services (CMS) administration of their MDOC contract at the Hadix facilities. In response to concerns about inadequate supervision of MSP staff expressed in the First Report of the Associate Monitor, CMS hired Dr. Austin as Associate Medical Director for CMS in the Jackson Region. He assumed this position on September 15, 2004. He remained in the position for approximately six months, when he moved to Texas. During his tenure Dr. Austin did not establish an effective system of supervision or monitoring of CMS staff in the Hadix facilities.
Dr. Mathai was appointed Medical Director in April, 2005. Based upon her initial efforts, she appears to be an excellent choice for this position. She has had significant clinical experience at Duane Waters Hospital (DWH) as well as SMT.
Dr. Gregory Naylor, the Regional Medical Director for the Jackson Medical Region, announced his resignation in July, and will retire in August. No replacement has yet been identified, according to Dr. Pramstaller. Dr. Naylor was not successful in using his position as Regional Medical Director to improve the quality of supervision of the clinical staff, to support continuing education, or to develop specific initiatives to improve the quality of care. It is noteworthy that although he had been the Medical Director of DWH, the dysfunctional MSP situation at C-Unit and at DWH developed during his tenure.
As I suggested in my first report, MDOC should use the opportunity of his resignation to define the role of the MDOC Regional Medical Director of the Jackson Complex. This position should provide clinical leadership to the medical program of the Jackson Complex, should monitor CMS performance, and should provide clinical support to the pharmacy and nursing functions. The Regional Medical Director should also organize a continuing education program for the staff of the Jackson Complex.

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 4 of 60

3rd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen, MD

September 8, 2005 Page #3

MEDICAL SERVICE PROVIDERS
An effective program of MSP supervision by CMS has not yet been developed. There was no clinical supervision of MSP staff at C-Unit or Duane Waters Hospital, which has been staffed by Dr, Fuller's Emergency group. Dr. Mathai has been assigned this supervisory responsibility. At the present time CMS is not providing adequate medical staff at the Hadix facilities to support the enhanced clinical function created by the addition of the dialysis program and the establishment of the C-Unit program. Additionally, the role of Duane Waters Hospital has changed, becoming more clinically intense, while the medical staffing of the Hospital has actually decreased.
When new MSP's are assigned by CMS to the Hadix facilities, they are not trained in SERAPIS (CMS' Electronic Medical Record System, purchased by MDOC), and are unable to enter their notes, pharmacy orders, and laboratory orders into the SERAPIS system. This creates significant problems in the medical records, as will be described below.
Some CMS MSP's work in multiple facilities, and they are not able to use the SERAPIS system in more than one facility. According to Sharon von Horn, this is a problem with the MDOC system, not SERAPIS. This is a critical deficiency and needs to be resolved urgently.
At the present time, because of inadequate physician staffing, Dr. Mathai is required to work as a staff physician to fill in for scheduled vacancies. Staff turnover continues at a significant level for CMS physicians, and recruitment for adequate coverage at C-Unit and DWH has been unsuccessful.
INTAKE -- According to Mr. Govorchin's August 16th letter to Ms. Streeter, MDOC has adopted a new process for intake medical transfers. Prisoners transferred into Hadix facilities will have all of their prescribed medication noted through one of three mechanisms: "printing the list from SERAPIS, noting the list

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 5 of 60

3rd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8,2005 Page #4

in the progress notes or noting the medications on the transfer screen." Medical reviews of Inter-institutional transfers are a fundamental function of the Hadix medical system. There should be a specific, defined procedure for medical review and evaluation of newly transferred prisoners. There should not be a menu of options.

Special attention must be paid to the medical needs of prisoners transferred directly into the Segregation Unit at JMF. Several cases are described below where these patients' medical needs were neglected because of their transfer directly into JMF segregation.

PRISONER HEALTH CARE CO-PAYMENT
A new procedure for assessing co-payments was promulgated on April 15, 2005 to assure that patients with significant ongoing or chronic medical problems would not be denied access to care because of the co-payment system. Although no standardized audits of this new procedure have been implemented, according to a memorandum from Kathy E. Blyd to Barbara Hladki dated June 21,2005, the number of co-payments assessed in May 2005 compared with February 2005 has decreased by two thirds.

CHRONIC CARE
There is a functioning chronic care system present in JMF, excluding patients with chronic illness housed in segregation. The SMT chronic care program is functioning. Each of these programs would be substantially enhanced if the Nursing chronic care function were related to the MSP chronic care encounter. Rather than having an essentially non-clinical encounter every six months, Nursing support of chronic care should take place a week or two before each scheduled MSP visit, and involve chart organization, assuring that necessary laboratory and diagnostic studies will be available at the scheduled

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 6 of 60

3rd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen, MD

September 8, 2005 Page #5

MSP chronic care clinic, reviewing and assuring medication compliance and continuity, and patient teaching.

The chronic care program is not operational for prisoners housed in CUnit and in DWH, although a commitment to develop a chronic care program in C-Unit has been announced.

DIALYSIS
Three audits of the Dialysis unit were provided to me, for May, June, and July, 2005. According to Barbara Hladki, the first two audits were conducted without benefit of the dialysis record. The results of the May and June audits, conducted by Dr. Naylor and Dr. Hutchinson were very positive, but they were not based on clinical data.
The second audit provided to me, performed in July, 2005, was much more problematic, because it was based on actual review of medical records. It showed that half of the ten patients reviewed had significant hypertension postdialysis, without any urgent treatment response. Additionally, for those patients with poorly controlled "steady state" hypertension, 50% (5/10) were not addressed by the nephrologists. It also showed that the indicator of dialysis effectiveness, the "urea reduction ratio" was abnormal in 60 % of the cases (6/10) reviewed, and that there was no response by the nephrologists in 40% (4/10) of these cases. The audit tool looks at 8 indicators. Dr. Middlebrook, the nephrologists, received 25% of his positive score for writing a monthly note, and for obtaining the "urea reduction ratio," This gives Dr. Middlebrook too much credit for just "showing up." Writing a note each month which fails to address major clinical needs in at least half of the patients reviewed should not be given "full credit."
The results of the July audit were to be addressed by Dr. Mathai at a special meeting with Dr. Middlebrook, the nephrologist, on July 22, 2005. That meeting was cancelled by Dr. Middlebrook. As of August 4, Dr. Middlebrook had

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 7 of 60

3rd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #6

not met with Dr. Mathai to discuss these issues. Although Mr. Govorchin, in his August 16 letter promised increased availability of Dr. Middlebrook to the Dialysis program at JMF, I have not yet seen any evidence of this increased commitment.

There is no SERAPIS terminal in the dialysis unit. Laboratory studies which are ordered through SERAPIS are not being filed as paper reports in the medical records. According to the July Dialysis Audit: "SERAPIS availability for the Nephrologists and the Unit Manager (of the dialysis unit) is being pursued. Instructions will be reiterated to ensure that the Nephrologists monthly notes are in the DOC health record and that a list of current medications will be provided from SERAPIS or Tiny Terms (the pharmacy computer system, which is not linked to SERAPIS) to the (?nephrologists) at the time the monthly notes are written."

An additional problem discussed in the Associate Monitor's Second Report, and covered in Mr. Govorchin's August 16 letter, concerned elective and emergency access to appropriate vascular surgery consultation. This situation is still substantially un-resolved. On August 4, 2005, a number of the dialysis patients were being held at Detroit Receiving Hospital because CMS no longer has access to a number of the surgeons who had been performing vascular access procedures at Foote Hospital

Dr. Camann, an experienced internist, had been given the responsibility for all of the dialysis patients at JMF. Dr. Camann recently reSigned his position. Dr. Faghihnia has been assigned this responsibility.

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 8 of 60

3'd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #7

PHARMACY
The bi-monthly facility audits suggest that there are approximately forty medication kites submitted each month (excluding RGC) because of problems with renewals of medications. Barbara Hladki is conducting a study of these medication kites but has not completed it.
I reviewed the system for medication renewals in JMF in July, and was impressed with the significant improvements which had taken place. A significant missing piece in the system is the integration of SERAPIS into the pharmacy system.
The pharmacy program is also missing drug interaction identification software which includes HIV medications. This was apparent in one of the cases reviewed below.

MEDICAL RECORDS

There are two separate medical record systems in operation at the Hadix facilities, a paper record, and a computerized record. The computerized medical record, the SERAPIS system, is a CMS product which has been modified for use by the MDOC.
New CMS physician and mid-level providers begin working in Hadix facilities before they have been trained in the use of the SERAPIS system. They are therefore unable to use the system, and write their notes and orders in the medical record. CMS practitioners who work in more than one of the Hadix facilities are not permitted to log in to the SERAPIS system at both facilities. There is no SERAPIS terminal in the JMF Segregation Unit. There is no SERAPIS terminal in the Dialysis Unit.

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 9 of 60

3'd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #8

Medications ordered on paper which are faxed or delivered to the pharmacy are not included in the SERAPIS system. All medications are entered, by hand, into the "Tiny Terms" pharmacy system, but there is no interface between "Tiny Terms" and SERAPIS, and no interface is planned. Laboratory tests which are ordered in SERAPIS are electronically transferred from the Garcia Lab directly into the computer system, and are not printed out for the medical record. Laboratory studies not ordered through SERAPIS are not available in the computer system, but they are printed out and are present in the paper medical record.

The Emergency Room at Duane Waters Hospital does not have a SERAPIS terminal, and clinicians there did not have access to the SERAPIS medical record. There is no plan to implement SERAPIS in Duane Waters. Similarly, there are no SERAPIS terminals at C-Unit.

Physicians, including those working in the Dialysis Unit, C Unit, DWH and the DWH Emergency room must review a patient's paper medical record without access to SERAPIS. These physicians do not have access to the results of laboratory studies which were ordered in SERAPIS.

At the present time, the MSP and nursing staff at SMT, JMF, and RGC use both systems. Because of the concurrent use of two systems, the medical records are voluminous, difficult to use, and are not in chronological order. The medical records are not in chronological order because the SERAPIS notes are printed out individually, often a few lines on an entire page, sometimes four or five printed pages, while handwritten notes are written sequentially on progress note pages in the paper medical record.

There must be a unified medical records system. The SERAPIS system may be adequate, and if it is used, it must have a direct interface/order entry function into the pharmacy system so that all medication information will be current and correct. All laboratory data must be present in SERAPIS, whether

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 10 of 60

3rd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #9

ordered in SERAPIS or not. All clinical areas must have functioning SERAPIS terminals.

Clinicians who work in more than one facility must be able to enter data and review data in each of the facilities in which they work.

SPECIALTY CARE
There is a continuing serious problem with access to specialty care for patients in the Hadix facilities. Although all consults are logged by CMS into their computer system, CMS has not been helpful in providing information to MDOC about delays in providing specialty care, and through 2005, did not oversee the quality of its staff follow-up of these issues. Extraordinary delays in the care of very sick patients with cancer, renal failure, AIDS have occurred over the past year.
Barbara Hladki, the Regional Administrator, has implemented a computerized system to allow MDOC to track the access of Hadix class members to consultation with CMS specialists and for specialized procedures. According the "Offsite Specialty Log Summary" compiled for the first six months of 2005, 41 % of all completed initial consults, and 45% of all completed follow-up consultations were not completed within the requested time frame. This is unacceptable, and results in significant delays in the diagnosis and management of serious, as well as life threatening illnesses.
The MSP 30 day review of pending consultations is a failed system, Using data generated by the MDOC specialty care computer system, Barbara Hladki , Dr. Mathai, and Dr. Naylor (during his tenure) are reviewing all consults which have not been scheduled, or have not yet take place within the requested time frame. They are meeting every two weeks in each facility with the MSP staff to review each of these consults. This is a good system, which hopefully will result in fewer and fewer consults occurring past their scheduled dates. MSP staff have an obligation to track their consult requests, and to assure that patients

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 11 of 60

3'd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #10

requiring specialty care and special diagnostic procedures receive them in an appropriate time frame. In some cases, particularly involving the PA and NP staff, I have noticed a tremendous effort by these practitioners to obtain urgent consultations for their patients. Unfortunately, their efforts were often thwarted by the CMS system.

At the present time CMS specialists fill out a handwritten consultation form at the time of their evaluation, and then dictate a formal consultation, which is typed and sent to the facilities. There is often a substantial delay in receipt of the typed dictations, yet it is the policy of CMS' MSP's not to review hand written consultation requests. It is also the policy of CMS not to honor their own specialist's requests for diagnostic testing until the typed consult is received.

This system is designed to delay necessary specialty consultations, and is hazardous to the health of patients. Consultations are routinely not viewed by MSP's until after typed consult received, even though the written note often has important information requiring action by the MSP. MSP's should review these handwritten consultations when they are available. When a specialist believes that an urgent treatment, diagnostic test, or additional consultation is indicated, a phone call should be made directly to the referring MSP.

INFECTIOUS DISEASES

Although there have been periods in the past year when there were significant delays in access to HIV specialty care, additional infectious disease consultant time has been made available to care for prisoners with HIV and Hepatitis C infection. The Michigan legislature has been considering limiting funding for treatment of Hepatitis C infection in the MOOC. It is not yet clear how proposed budgetary restrictions on Hepatitis C treatment will affect the care of patients in the Hadix facilities who require treatment for this infection.

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 12 of 60

3'd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #11

On April 13, 2005, I reviewed the MRSA control program for the Hadix facilities. At that time I noted that there was no functioning tracking system for patients with MRSA infection. Culture reports were collected by the Infection Control Nurse, but no case investigations were performed, no infection control policies regarding isolation/quarantine were in effect, and no epidemiologic investigation of the cases at the Hadix facilities had been performed. I noted that there were three clusters of cases at three of the Hadix facilities: C-Unit, the Dialysis Unit, and at DWH hospital. I informed the medical leadership of the facilities of my findings.

On April 14,2005, Richard D. Russell, Administrator of the Bureau of Health Care Services for the MDOC issued a Memorandum on MRSA infection. The first line of the memorandum states: "Effective immediately, all prisoners with a documented culture positive for MRSA must be quarantined (Bold in original)." Also issued on April 14,2005 was a three page set of guidelines on the correctional and nursing management of MRSA infection. These guidelines call for daily nursing visits for patients quarantined for MRSA infection. They also include guidelines for reporting and epidemiologic investigation.

It is noteworthy that Patient #8, whose care is described below, was being treated for MRSA. He was segregated in JMF, but not quarantined. Except for his first day at JMF, he had no medical and no nursing visits to assess his purulent wound during his three week stay in Segregation at JMC. Mr. Russell's guidelines required daily nursing visits. Patient #8 died of neglect, MRSA, and gastro-intestinal bleeding.

SEGREGATION
In my January report I identified serious problems with access to medical care for prisoners in Segregation. MDOC developed new procedures to attempt to address these problems. These procedures specifically involve a monthly

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 13 of 60

3rd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #12

chart review of half of the patients enrolled in chronic care clinics. A nurse was assigned specifically to the Segregation Unit.

Based upon my review of patients in segregation in April and May, medical care for these patients is still very problematic. Patients with critical life threatening illnesses were completely ignored, treated inadequately. Patients with extreme pain and massive weight loss are not properly evaluated and treated. There seem to be many psychotic inmates in segregation, and they have significant medical problems but have difficulty expressing their medical needs. There is a significant problem with provider continuity.

C UNIT
The C-Unit was opened in the spring of 2003, and it currently houses approximately 59 chronically ill men who are too sick to live in general prison population. These prisoners often have multiple chronic illnesses, including AIDS, Hepatitis C, as well as decompensated pulmonary and cardiac illnesses. Medical staffing for this population was provided by CMS through a subcontract with Dr. Fuller, who has been providing medical care to Dwayne Waters Hospital and its Emergency Room. No additional staff medical service providers were hired to care for this chronically ill prisoner population. The system of chronic care clinics, with regular structured nursing and physician evaluation according to defined protocols was not extended to this population.
Care in the C- Unit has been chaotic because of significant understaffing. From the beginning of 2005, and perhaps much earlier, it was apparent that CMS was unable to provide adequate medical coverage for Dwayne Water's Hospital and C unit. CMS has contracted with Emergency Medical Consultants, a corporation run by Dr. Fuller, to provide physician and mid-level practitioner staff for C Unit, Dwayne Waters Hospital in-patient units, as well as 24 hour coverage of the Dwayne Waters Hospital Emergency Room.

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 14 of 60

3rd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #13

Although the crisis in MSP staffing and severe deficiencies in quality of care was acknowledged by MDOC staff in March, 2005, the actual full time medical staff available to C-Unit, DWH and the DWH ER decreased this spring, exacerbating a dangerous situation. The Regional Medical Director for the Jackson Region, although based at Dwayne Waters Hospital, did not recognize these serious ongoing problems, and made no effort to identify the source of the problems or to correct them. The CMS Deputy Medical Director, Dr. Austin, although responsible for supervising the MSP staff in the Hadix Facilities, did not supervise the C-Unit or DWH staff. The Nursing administrators at DWH and CUnit told me that were aware of the problems, and agreed that the problems had serious implications for patient care, but they did not have any solutions. They viewed the MSP availability as so strained that they did not think it was possible to expect them to write notes or to respond to nursing requests for patient evaluations. The Medical Director did nothing to resolve these problems.

It was not until June 21, 2005, in a memorandum from Lisa Sweet-Brown, that CMS announced that:

"Correctional Medical Services has made the decision to provide the Hospitalist and primary care at Duane Waters Hospital and C-Unit Directly and transfer this service responsibility from Emergency Medical Consultants (i.e. Dr. Fuller). We will continue to utilize Emergency Medical Consultants for emergency room coverage at Duane Waters Hospital only....This transition will be phased in beginning July 5,2005." As of August, 2005, no new staff have been hired. Dr. Mathai is assigned to provide direct care at C-Unit twice a week.

According to Barbara Hladki, CMS plans to hire 3.2 full time equivalent (FTE) MSP staff for DWH and C Unit. CMS will guarantee at least two full time MSP's Monday through Friday at C-Unit and for inpatients at DWH. They plan to add an additional four hours of coverage on weekends. Should this staffing be achieved, it will represent more than a doubling of current DWH/C-Unit staffing. It is extremely distressing that adequate additional staffing was not provided when C-

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 15 of 60

3'd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #14

Unit, a 59 bed unit with extremely high medical utilization, was opened two years ago.

DUANE WATERS HOSPITAL
There has been a dramatic change in the role and function of Duane Waters Hospital. In recent years it had served four functions:
1. Acute post-operative care, for the patients receiving simple surgeries at DWH, or re-covering post op from surgeries at Foote or other Hospital.
2. Acute and chronic care for severely mentally ill prisoners. This function has been transferred to other MDOG facilities.
3. It also has a chronic care function, linked closely to G-Unit, which it provides for the entire MDOG system. DWH can take patients of all security classifications, while G-Unit appears to have exclusions for patients In Segregation status. These are patients with significant physical disabilities, sometimes orthopedic, usually involving significant medical problems which limit their activities of daily living. These patients are sometimes in a terminal status
4. Acute hospital care, for patients with acute medical problems requiring relatively intensive nursing and medical care, such as severe asthma, pneumonia, gastroenteritis, infections requiring intravenous antibiotics. These patients are too sick to be housed in general population. This is a rapidly growing population, and DWH has limited capacity for these patients. Almost all acutely ill patients from the Hadix facilities are sent to DWH for emergency evaluation. DWH ER medical staff must then elect to send them to Foote for further evaluation and diagnostic testing, back to their housing areas, or admit them for acute care.
Because of insufficient capacity at DWH, there is no ability to maintain a group of available beds at DWH for acutely ill medical patients from the Hadix facilities.

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 16 of 60

3rd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #15

This is a necessary function for a population of more than 5000 prisoners. Theoretically these patients can be sent to Foote Hospital, but review of the cases below shows that Foote regularly returns acutely ill patients to DWH, even when they are aware that no DWH hospital beds are available. The lack of acute beds at DWH, as well as the lack of medical staff at DWH has resulted in a situation where MSP staff at DWH are forced to send acutely patients back to their housing areas for ongoing treatment of medical problems which are beyond the capability of the SMT or JMF medical staff. Alternatively, when they are required to admit acutely ill patients, they often admit them as "chronic patients," which means that the patients will only be seen monthly by MSP staff.

I reviewed the care of a patient (Patiente #10) with bilateral pneumonia and a persistent elevation of temperature who had failed a course of oral antibiotics. The patient was sent to the DWH Emergency Room for care, and was sent back to their housing area with a recommendation for an antibiotic change. The patient was much too ill to be care for at JMF, needed close nursing coverage and intravenous antibiotics. The patient decompensated further, was eventually hospitalized at Foote, and died.

In response to these problems, several changes have been proposed, and some implemented. Patients are no longer admitted to DWH Hospital as "chronic." All patients are initially admitted as acute, and are treated as acute patients for at least 72 hours, because their classification has changed. There has been a commitment to increase staffing for C-unit and for the Hospital beds at DWH, expressed to me for the past four months, but the staffing has not increased, in fact during much of the period it decreased. The responsibility for supervision of the "Hospitalist (non-emergency room staff)" MSP's at DWH has been taken away from the Fuller Emergency Medicine group and will be assumed directly by the CMS Deputy Medical Director, Dr. Mathai.

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 17 of 60

3rd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #16

CASE REVIEWS
Following are a series of case reviews which are representative of the serious problems that I found in reviewing the medical records of prisoners at DWH, JMF Segregation, and the charts of prisoners who died while in the Hadix facilities.
Patient #1
Patient #1 has AIDS. He also has chronic hepatitis B and chronic hepatitis C. He also suffered from sicca syndrome, a condition of extreme dryness of the mouth and esophagus, causing chronic pain and difficulty in swallowing. He was housed at JMF Segregation. He had been prescribed Invirase 1000mg twice a day, Kaletra 3 tabs twice a day, Viread (tenofovir) 300 mg once a day, and Videx EC 400 mg twice a day, beginning in 2003. He is always described as cachectic. On October 29,2003, when he was seen by Dr. Crane, one of the HIV specialists, he weighed 123 pounds, up from 121 in August, 2003.
On February 13 Dr. Faghihnia saw Patient #1 in the 10 chronic care clinic. He noted that he weighed 108 pounds, and had lost 10 pounds, almost 10% of his body weight. He found him to be stable, and scheduled a three month followup.
On February 27, 2004, a lipase level was measured and was elevated at 83, an abnormal elevation. A week later he was seen again by Dr. Crane Patient #1 complained of increased difficulty swallowing his food because of his lack of saliva, with the pain descending into his esophagus. At this visit he weighed 110 pounds, thirteen pounds less than four months before. He was markedly malnourished. Dr. Crane wrote: "Despite his special dietary orders, he

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 18 of 60

3rd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #17

has not been consistently provided with an adequate mechanical diet so that he can eat properly......his level 4 segregation has resulted in him falling behind in terms of his nutrition. This patient is now seriously mal-nourished." Based on Dr. Crane's assessment, Dr. Camann, Patient #1 's physician at JMF, worked to get him admitted to DWH to assure that he would get appropriate nutritional support.

On May 5, 2004 Dr. Crane again examined Patient #1. He noted that "he is a chronically ill appearing, skeletal appearing man .... He weighs 112 pounds in chains." On August 8,2004, his weight was recorded as "107, in chains." There was no notation as to whether these were the same chains which bound him three months before, nor an indication of the weight of the chains. His Tcells were 170, down from 220 on 1/16/04. Dr. Crane noted "Despite his efforts, he is not transferred to a chronic care unit and continues in a level 5 segregated unit.

On September 24, 2004, Dr. Camann saw the patient. In response to the patient's complaint of persistent severe epigastric pain, Dr. Camann ordered an UGI and Small bowel follow thru (X-ray contrast study). On October 22, 2004, Dr. Camann again requested this study. The study was performed and reported as normal.

On November 10, 2004, Dr. Crane saw the patient in the Infectious Disease Clinic. His weight was recorded as "116 (with) iron." Patient #1 told Dr. Crane that for the past three months he has had significant abdominal pain "which occurs during meals and lasts anywhere from an our to overnight after eating."

An appointment scheduled for December 15, 2004 was cancelled because the patient was in Segregation. In their April report on Segregation Drs. Naylor and Austin note that "Patient was unable to keep appointment to Infectious Disease on December 15, 2004, but was followed by Dr. Camann appropriately and is currently at DWH. The missed Infectious Disease appointment does not

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 19 of 60

3rd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #18

appear to have hastened the patient's admission to DWH." Their observation is correct, since Dr. Camann and Dr. Crane had been trying to get Patient #1 into DWH for almost a year. Unfortunately, on January 7,2005, when Patient #1 was finally admitted to DWH he was directly admitted as a "chronic patient." This meant that he would be seen by an MSP on a monthly basis, only.

The consequences of "chronic" status quickly became apparent. The First MSP note was written on January 7,2005. Dr. Howse wrote: "Pt. is here for End Stage HIV with wasting syndrome, transferred at request of Dr. Camann for failure to thrive on salvage therapy. Pt. is alert, able to sit up, verbally coherent + temporal wasting." No other examination took place. No review of his medications or of his active medical problems, which were weight loss, HIV infection, sicca syndrome, abdominal pain, and chronic hepatitis. No effort was made to address any of his multiple painful and life threatening medical problems.

Four days later, on January 14, 2005, Patient #1 reported "I've had this rash for at least 2 days. It burns and itches." The nurse noticed raised red areas in the left lower quad and flank. She wrote "Note placed on Drs. Sheet about rash." The doctor, who was supposed to read the "Drs. Sheet" on a daily basis and respond never came to see the patient. Four days later, he again complained about the rash, which was itching and burning, raised and reddened. Then nurse again requested the doctor to see the patient and Dr. Howse came and saw that Patient #1 had a vesicular rash characteristic of Herpes Zoster. This is an extremely painful rash, and can be particularly dangerous in an immunocompromised patient. Dr. Howse treated Patient #1 with intravenous acyclovir.

On January 24, one of Patient #1 's teeth crumbled, and he requested dental consultation, but was told that there was no access to emergency dental care at Duane Waters Hospital. On January 27 he was seen by the dietician who did not appear to understand his need for pureed diet, and did not order him a pureed diet.

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 20 of 60

3'd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #19

On January 28 Patient #1 complained that additional lesions were appearing despite the intravenous therapy. A physician, without examining Patient #1, ordered oral acyclovir 400 mg tid for thirty days, an inappropriate therapy for herpes zoster.
On February 15th, five weeks after he arrived at DWH he was seen again by Dr. Howse, who did not examine him, or review his medications. On February 23, 2005 he reported that he was again having a recurrence of herpes zoster. The nursing staff did not call the doctor, but chose to "refer to MSP via physician board."

COMMENT: Patient #1 has AIDS, severe sicca syndrome, which results in severe dryness of his mouth and esophagus, chronic hepatitis, and cirrhosis. He also had some degree of pancreatitis, which was not appropriately monitored. He received inappropriate HIV medications for approximately 18 months, during which time he constantly complained of abdominal pain. On September 30, 2002, the FDA issued a warning regarding the co-administration of Videx (001) and Tenefovir. It has been recommended since that time that Videx doses be decreased to 250 mg if the drugs are given together, and that in patients weighing less than 60 kg (132 pounds) the Videx dose be further reduced to 200 mg. Complications of these combination at the Videx 400 mg dose include decreased anti-viral efficacy, as well as pancreatitis and lactic acidosis.

Except for one contrast X-ray, done in October, 2004, he had no diagnostic evaluation until I notified senior MDOC and CMS staff about his care. For over a year he complained of abdominal pain and had no endoscopy, no ultrasound studies, no CT scans, and no gastroenterology consultation. He told me that he would complain about abdominal pain while housed in Segregation and his complaints would be ignored by the security and medical staff. The pharmacy computer system at DWH failed to identify a well described Class 0 drug/drug interaction, and this inappropriate prescribing may have been responsible for Patient #1 's persistent weight loss, and abdominal pain.

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 21 of 60

3'd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #20

Although he was trying very hard to live, and to treat his complex medical problems, when he was finally transferred to DWH he was treated by the nursing and medical staff as someone who was about to die, and did not receive attention to his pressing medical problems. When he developed Herpes Zoster, an extremely painful rash, the doctor failed to come to see him for four days. It was routine in Duane Waters Hospital for nurses to request physicians to examine patients and for physicians not to come. I have never before heard of physicians failing to respond to a nursing request to evaluate a patient, but according to the medical records I reviewed, and according to the Nursing Staff at DWH, this is routine. Patients in chronic status are at DWH to die, and they are seen on a monthly basis. As noted in the case of Patient #5 (described below), multiple acute painful conditions were ignored because he was classified, at the time of his admission to DWH, as a "chronic patient."

Patient #2

Patient #2 was admitted to RGC on March 4, 2004. He was 29 years old. He weighed 180 pounds. He was known to have HIV infection. Fifteen days after admission, on March 19, 2004, he had his physical examination. According the MSP note, "He refused rectal examination." Laboratory studies were drawn on March 22, 2004. They were not reviewed by the medical staff until April 15, 2004, twenty four days later. Repeat studies confirmed severe iron deficiency anemia, with a hemoglobin of 9.0. He was confirmed HIV positive and had 29 Tcells. Two of three tests for occult blood were positive. An ID consultation was requested on April 15. The request was for two weeks, because of the anemia and low T-cells. The ID appointment was given for May 26,2004, six weeks later.

On April 27 he was evaluated by an MSP who examined him and found "prolapsed hemorrhoids," and wrote, "would consider surgical referral for hemorrhoidectomy." On May 3, Patient #2 was evaluated for his RGC clearance, and told the PA that he had noticed blood on the toilet paper. On examination the PA did not see any hemorrhoids, but instead noted ulcerated anal warts. He

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 22 of 60

3'd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #21

was appropriately concerned that the patient had rectal carcinoma, since this is related to condyloma, and more common in men with HIV infection and low Tcells. The PA was concerned that the patient received timely Infectious Disease as well as gastroenterological consultation. The PA called Liz at CMS, arranged for 10 consultation on May 6, 2005, and put in a consult for gastroenterology.

The next day The PA heard that the next available GI clinic was not until May 24, 2004. This was too long, so the PA called Dr. Hussein, the gastroenterologist, and arranged to have the patient seen the next week, on May 10. On May 11th patient was seen by Dr. Cohn of the 10 service. Patient #2 had Hepatitis C and HIV infection. Patient #2 was reluctant to start anti-viral medications. Dr. Cohn noted that the perianal lesion was bleeding and painful. Dr. Cohn was concerned that the lesion was an anal carcinoma, and agreed with the plan to schedule an excisional biopsy. He also felt that the patient would benefit from sitz baths, stool softeners, and suggested "that he should have some accommodation for having this chronic bleeding mass in his perianal area
- whether that be a more accessible bunk, a cell that doesn't require ascending
stairs, etc., but this is up to the discretion of the MSP."

Two weeks later, on May 24, Patient #2 was seen by Dr. lIyas Hussain, the gastroenterologist. Dr. Hussain did not examine Patient #2 rectum. He recommended that Patient #2 have a colonoscopy, "for further evaluation." He wrote out this consultation on the 409 form, which was returned to SMT. A consultation request for the colonoscopy was faxed to CMS, but was pended by CMS while they waited for Dr. Hussain's dictation! The colonoscopy was finally scheduled for July 12, 2004.

By the beginning of July, 2004, Patient #2 was in great pain, and he was having large amounts of malodorous drainage from the peri-anal lesion. On July 8, Deb Lange, the Nurse Practitioner at SMT, placed an urgent surgical consult to have Dr. Wisniewsky, a general surgeon, biopsy the lesion. The CMS scheduler, Linda Kleinhardt, told Deb Lange not to send a picture of the affected area.

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 23 of 60

3'd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted
Hadix v. Johnson
Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #22,

On July 12, 2004, three months after Dr. Hussain's was initially consulted to evaluate the patient, Patient #2 was brought into the endoscopy suite for his colonoscopy. Dr. Hussain looked at the peri-anal lesion for the first time. He noted that it was 6 cm by 10 cm with irregular margins and with a bleeding surface. The lesion was tender. He declined to do the colonoscopy. He wrote the lesion was likely a condyloma or anal wart. He wrote: "His MSP can schedule a 409 and consultation with a surgeon." On July 16 Dr. Wisniewsky, a general surgeon, saw the patient and said he was not able to perform a biopsy. He referred him for Plastic Surgery at the University of Michigan.

For the next two months Patient #2 was housed at SMT. According to the medical record, the anal lesion drained copious amounts of foul smelling fluids. Dr. Mathai, the current CMS Associate Medical Director worked in SMT at that time. She told me that the odor of the discharge was extremely foul, spreading throughout the prison. It was not until September 21, 2004, more than five months after clinical staff had strong suspicion that Patient #2 had anal cancer, that a diagnosis was finally made. Biopsy showed locally invasive advanced squamous cell carcinoma.

Two weeks later, on October 4, 2005, by request of Deb Lange, NP, and Patient #2 was finally admitted to Duane Waters Hospital, where he had a single room, and appropriate nursing care. Dr. Crane, from the Infectious Disease Service saw him at Duane Waters and ordered long acting morphine sulfate for his severe pain. He spent another month at Duane Waters before he finally had surgery at Foote Hospital. By that time the lesion was inoperable, having invaded the buttocks.

Patient #2 had surgery at Foote Hospital on November 4,2004. The surgery was a diverting colostomy, bringing the end of the uninvolved bowel outside the abdomen into a colostomy. At operation the large fungating tumor was infected, making surgery difficult. There was considerable rectal bleeding post-operatively. The patient developed a deep vein thrombosis and septic pulmonary emboli. These are life threatening complications, which fortunately,

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 24 of 60

3rd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #23

Patient #2 survived. To prevent further emboli, an inferior vena caval filter was placed.

After six weeks of hospitalization Patient #2 was discharged back to Duane Waters Hospital. He was begun on radiation therapy for his cancer, and after two weeks discharged back to SMT. Initial results from radiation therapy were encouraging with tumor shrinkage noted.

COMMENT: When a 29 year old man with HIV infection presents with what appears to be an anal carcinoma, it is imperative that prompt diagnosis be made, and treatment initiated. In this case, whose outcome is not yet known, over five months passed before a simple diagnostic procedure was performed, another six weeks passed before the diverting colostomy was performed, and another six weeks past before definitive radiation therapy could be initiated. It is possible that if in April he had been referred directly to a colorectal surgeon, a reasonable and usual approach to a patient with a rectal lesion, including anal condylomas, that his prognosis would have been significantly better.

Patient #3 I interviewed Patient #3 on April 14, 2005 in the Segregation Unit in JMF. The
first notes on the chart provided me were written at DWH by Mary Fowler, a speech therapist, who was trying to help Patient #3 communicate. She saw him on November 12 and on November 23, 2004. In her first note she advises the medical staff:
For staff: Speaking strategies: 1. Stay calm, cool and collected. 2. Speak Slowly 3. Say the important words first; add more words slowly during conversation 4. Wait and listen to others

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 25 of 60

3rd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #24

5. When frustrated or upset or dysfluent (stutters) take 5-10 deep breaths and relax.

In her last note, on November 23,2004, she noted that these strategies were working, and had improved his speech production and verbal expressiveness by 30%.

According to the face sheet on his medical record, he was admitted to JMF from on January 10, 2005. He was first evaluated in JMF by Josia E. Smith, PA, on January 18, 2005. This evaluation was comprehensive, and included his enrollment in the Disability Chronic Care Clinic. He had suffered a severe stroke in September 2004, and had been hospitalized at DWH from 8/20104 through 1/14/05, with two hospitalizations at Foote Hospital one for a new stroke which caused bleeding in his brain, and another for gastrointestinal bleeding Patient #3 was 51 years old. On admission to JMF he was noted to have chronic hepatitis (B and C), hypertension and diabetes, with some kidney dysfunction. He had great difficulty communicating because of severe expressive aphasia, secondary to his stroke.
At his January 18th visit Patient #3 did not complain of pain and was cooperative with the examination. He did not have any leg swelling, although he was noted to be very weak, and was noted to have significant lower extremity weakness, requiring a wheelchair. Mr. Smith referred Patient #3 to nephrology because of his renal disease, At the time of his stroke, on August 4, 2004, Patient #3 BUNICreatinine was 1811.5. On January 4, 2005, just before he was transferred from DWH to JMF, his BUN and creatinine had risen substantially, and were now 50/2.5. His albumin had been chronically low, and was noted to be 1.9 on January 4, 2005.

The required Nursing transfer receiving note was written on February 3, 2005, three weeks after Patient #3 was admitted to JMF. The note, written by Charles D. Boltjes, RN reaffirmed the medical classification (HCC-002) that Patient #3's medical needs could be met at any institution. Mr. Boltjes did not

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 26 of 60

3rd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #25 .

make note of any of Patient #3's problems. He did not record any of his medications. He did not check his vital signs. He described no physical deformities, and described his general appearance as good, although he did note that Patient #3 had "impaired communication" and was uncooperative and had been interviewed in his cell, rather than the medical area.

While at DWH, on December 1, 2004 Patient #3 had been referred to Nephrology because of his developing renal failure. The consultation, marked urgent, was faxed to eMS on December 2,2005. eMS gave Patient #3 a telemedicine appOintment with Dr. Middlebrook on 8 AM, February 15, 2005 , two and a half months later. Patient #3 was not brought to his consultation on February 15, 2005. A nurse's note written at 1 PM on February 15 says" (No) Show, Per custody. AMA'd., eMS to reschedule."

The next week, on February 22, Patient #3 complained of three days of painful swelling of his right arm. This had been not been noted before. Mr. Smith described the right harm as swollen, and hypersensitive. He described Patient #3 as being in pain, and noted that Patient #3 asked for vicodin. Patient #3 had been cautioned to avoid aspirin or NSAID's because of his recent gastrointestinal bleed. Mr. Smith noted that the laboratory studies he had ordered had not been done, and that the renal consult had not taken place, and re-ordered these.

At Foote an ultrasound evaluation did not demonstrate any venous thrombosis as the cause of Patient #3's pain and swelling. He was sent back to the DWH ER where he was evaluated. He was given one 25mg dose of Ultram (Patient #3 weighed 232 pounds), X-rays of his right arm and shoulder were scheduled for the next morning (February 23,2005), and he was sent back to the segregation unit at JMF. The ER physician noted that Patient #3's MSP needed to develop a plan for long term management of Patient #3's severe pain.

The next morning (February 23, 2005) Mr. Smith saw Patient #3 and told Dr. Faghihnia, about the patient's problems. On February 24, 2005, Mr. Smith

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 27 of 60

3'd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #26

again saw Patient #3, and noted that he had not been sent for his scheduled xrays. This encounter took place at the cell door, not in the examining room in the segregation unit. Mr. Smith ordered tramadol, 100 mg three times a day, for seven days, rescheduled the renal consultation for March 15, and scheduled a follow-up visit with Dr. Faghihnia in two weeks.

The x-rays were taken on February 25. On March 2, Dr. Faghihnia sent a test follow-up form to Patient #3, checking off the box "No clinically significant abnormality exists, therefore, no change in treatment plan is necessary." If the xray was normal, then there was still no explanation for Patient #3's sudden onset of painful swelling of his right arm. A definite change in the treatment plan was necessary, in order to diagnose the cause of the swelling, and to assure that Patient #3 was free of pain. Mr. Smith's medication order was due to expire on March 3. It is difficult to imagine the thought or logic behind Dr. Faghihnia's decision to do nothing.

On March 3, 2005, Patient #3 was again seen by PA Smith, who noted that his arm was still painfully swollen, and wondered whether there was a mass obstructing the venous flow from his arm. He discussed the case with Dr. Faghihnia, and ordered a CT exam of the chest, and referred a request for continuing the tramadol to Dr. Naylor. The consultation prepared by PA Smith requested an urgent CT scan, to be performed within two weeks of March 3. On March 5, Liz Klienhardt wrote an email to Lloyd Edwards, the CMS coordinator for JMF, notifying him that the CT had been pended.
ON March 10th a nursing visit for the Disability Chronic Care Clinic took place. There is no evidence that the nurse spoke with Patient #3 , nor examined him. The note referred to PA Smith's "cell side evaluation." The note did not comment on Patient #3's pain, on the swelling of his arm, or on his ability to care for himself now that his right arm and both lower extremities were poorly functioning.

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 28 of 60

3'd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #27

On March 14th, Dr. Faghihnia saw his patient, Patient #3 for the first time. He wrote:

"Appears Alert, does not answer to questions properly and not cooperative. Speaks gibberish and feels like he has difficulty understanding the questions...appears flustered and angry and speaks very fast, gibberish and loud. The spoken words are not complete and he does not finish any of his sentences. Sitting in wheelchair gets to scale with difficulty.

HEENT: does not let me examine him well and does not take his hat off. Eyes, appears with round, equal pupils bilaterally, EOMI bilat."

Dr. Faghihnia did not order any pain medication, and scheduled a followup appointment in two weeks. He wrote in his note that a CT scan of the chest was pending. According to the chart, PA Smith had ordered the CT on March 3, but as of March 14th, it was pended by CMS. According to the medical record, the CT scan was never performed.

On March 22, 2005, Patient #3 went back to Foote hospital for an ultrasound of his upper extremity which failed to show any vascular cause for the continued swelling. On that day he complained of pain to the nursing staff at 6 PM. He was sent to the Emergency Room. The DWH Emergency Room Staff noted that the edema had increased significantly

On March 24, PA Smith examined Patient #3 on his return from Foote Hospital, he noted that his arm was extremely painful to touch. He referred the patient to Dr. Faghihnia. On March 28, 2005 Dr. Faghihnia saw Patient #3. Again, according to Dr. Faghihnia, Patient #3 refused to allow any examination. He said that Patient #3 complained of pain all over, and that he was demonstrating drug seeking behavior. Dr. Faghihnia prescribed acetaminophen (Tylenol).

On March 29, four and a half months after an urgent renal consult was requested from CMS, Patient #3 was finally seen by Dr. Middlebrook via telemedicine. Dr. Middlebrook's consultation was minimal. He did not review

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 29 of 60

3rd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #28

any laboratory studies. He did not request to know the patient's blood pressure, he did not ask the patient any questions. He recommended an additional diuretic, and requested a follow-up visit in three weeks.

On April 7, Patient #3 was not receiving any pain medication, despite his recurrent requests to the medical staff for relief of severe pain. No further effort was made to identify the cause of his painful arm swelling.

Dr. Faghihnia did not place the consultation for the three week renal follow-up until April 7, 2005. The consult was approved on April 12, 2005, and was scheduled for May 12, 2005. This was five weeks after the initial consult, two weeks beyond the three weeks requested by Dr. Middlebrook.

On April 11, 2005 Drs. Naylor and Austin issued a memorandum entitled: JMF Segregation Chart Reviews. In their review of Patien #3's care they noted the following:

"No show for a renal (clinic) on 212/05. Abnormal lab (elevated TSH) not
addressed in progress note.

Action taken: The renal clinic was canceled that day. Patient was rescheduled for March 15, 2005. He did not go to his appointment on March 15, 2005. He indicated he did not feel well and was in pain. Has been seen by three MSP's all of whom are addressing the issue and increasing dosage. Patient will be referred for possible
placement in C Unit. "

On April 20, 2005, Patient #3 was brought to Foote Hospital in extremis. He had never been transferred to C-Unit for infirmary care. The admission history and physical describes his having massive edema of his penis and scrotum, from which fluid was seeping, along with massive edema of both legs extending up to both of this thighs. He had abnormal laboratory tests showing acute renal failure as well as other electrolyte abnormalities. The day of his admission he developed respiratory failure and was intubated. On April 22, while Patient #3 was hospitalized, Dr. Faghihnia was asked by eMS to further delay the renal consultation until June 16, 2005. He agreed.

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 30 of 60

3rd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #29

Patient #3 died at Foote Hospital on May 9, 2005. I have been unable to review his hospital course because, according to Sharon Von Horn, Foote Hospital has refused to release his medical records because of HIPPA regulations. I have requested his hospital records on multiple occasions but have not yet received them.

COMMENT: Patient #3 was obviously in tremendous pain when I saw him on April 13. He was refused necessary pain medication despite a gross and obviously painful physical abnormality, his massively swollen arm. His speech was severely limited by his dysarthria, which was caused by his stroke, but his physician, Dr. Faghihnia, refused to make the effort necessary to listen to his patient, and made no significant effort to relieve his intense pain.

Patient #3 was housed in Segregation at JMF for two months before Dr. Faghihnia, his physician, ever examined him. When he was finally seen, Dr. Faghihnia examined him in his cell, rather than in an equipped examination room. He was housed in segregation at JMF when he required intensive nursing care. The reason he was not transferred to C-Unit is not clear, but it may have been related to his Segregation status. This needs to be clarified, because patients in need of intensive nursing care cannot be denied access to that care because of their correctional status. If C-Unit cannot take people in segregation status, than Patient #3 should have been housed at DWH, as he had been before transfer to JMF Segregation.

The administrative review performed by Drs. Austin and Naylor failed to make any minimal inquiry into Patient #3's obviously severely compromised state, and they made no effort to have him examined, to have the cause of his arm swelling identified, and to make sure that his pain was relieved. These administrative reviews are inadequate to the necessary task of assuring that patients locked in Segregation at JMF have appropriate access to medical care, the kind of access denied to Patient #3. If they had looked at Patient #3, they would have seen a very sick man, in need of urgent care.

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 31 of 60

3rd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #30

Patient #4
I interviewed Patient #4 on May 20, 2005. At that time he was housed in segregation. He is 33 years old, and has HIV infection. When he was admitted to RGC on January 6, 2005 he told the medical staff he had HIV infection, and complained of having frequent diarrhea. He was appropriately given an urgent evaluation and was seen and examined the next day by Dr. Gordon, who ordered the appropriate laboratory studies and his medications. Patient #4 had very low T-cells, 65, and a history of resistance to anti-viral medications. On January 13, and again on January 20, 2005, Dr. Gordon noted that her initial physical examination had been lost. She repeated her examination on January 20. On January 21 she completed a referral for infectious disease consultation. The consultation was approved by CMS and scheduled for February 16.
According to Patient #4, and confirmed by the medical record, he was placed in "Quarantine" in RGC because of an unresolved pending infraction from his previous MDOC imprisonment. He had been accused of sexual activity, and was placed in segregation. It is the policy of MDOC that HIV positive prisoners who are sexually active in prison are to be placed permanently in segregation. While in Quarantine at RGC, On February 16 he was called for his appointment to the Infectious Disease Clinic at DWH but was not allowed to go because of his segregation status.
On February 18 Patient #4 was transferred from the Quarantine unit at RGC to the Segregation Unit at JMF. The patient was interviewed and examined at JMF on February 18 by an MD. On February 19, an RN spoke with the patient in his cell and scheduled him for an MSP visit on or about March 24, 2005. On February 24 PA Smith examined Patient #4 as part of his Infectious Disease Chronic Care Clinic. He noted that he had missed his February 15 Infectious Disease Clinic appointment, and rescheduled it for March 2. He noted that his weight was 151, 8 pounds less than it had been on January 7, 5 weeks earlier.

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 32 of 60

3'd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #31

PA Smith scheduled follow up MSP Chronic Care visits on March 21, May 16, and an RN chronic Care visit for August 31, 2005.

On March 2, security staff again failed to take Patient #4 to his Infectious Disease consultation at DWH. This was the second missed visit. On March 6 he sent in two kites. In one he requested to have his eyes check. An Optometry clinic was scheduled for March 7, but again, for the third time, Patient #4 was not taken to the clinic. The chart note from the Optometry clinic says that security staff said that the patient refused to come to the appointment. I asked him about this, and he told me that he had never refused any medical appointment. When
Patient #4 sent a second kite on March 6 from his segregation cell requesting
information about his missed appointment on March 2, the Nurse wrote back "You will be rescheduled."

The patient was first seen by his assigned MSP, Dr. Faghihnia, on March
21,2005. Patient #4 told Dr. Faghihnia that he had been having diarrhea for
several weeks, and that the medication had made it worse. He recommended to the patient that he stop taking his anti-viral medications, but continue the Azithromycin and 8actrim. He scheduled a follow-up appointment to see the patient in one month, and wrote "Patient is to be scheduled (with) Dr. CraneliD ASAP. On March 30th the patient refused his scheduled Infectious Disease Clinic
at DWH. On April 8, 2005, Dr. Gordon became aware that Patient #4 had
missed severallD consultations and asked that he be called out. He was seen in his cell on April 19 when he again stated that he wanted to be seen by the Infectious Disease Specialist.

On April 25, Dr. Faghihnia was scheduled to see the patient for the followup he had ordered on March 21. He did not see the patient. Instead he wrote "Patient declined (refused) to be seen. Per officer report at seg unit."

COMMENT: According to the Health Unit Manager at JMF, patients in the Segregation Unit are frequently denied transportation to DWH for specialty consultation. She told me that to counteract this practice, she had recently

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 33 of 60

3rd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #32

established a procedure which required a nurse to interview every patient who "refused" to go to their specialty appointment. This is a good process. It must be initiated immediately, rather than retrospectively, at the time of "refusal," to assure that patients do not have their appointment cancelled. This patient was also refused access to Infectious Disease Specialty care while he was at RGC because he was in segregation status, referred to as "quarantine" at RGC.

Patients in Segregation must be interviewed and examined in a confidential well equipped medical location. Special efforts, including immediate nursing intervention should be established to assure that these patients have access to specialty consultation, chronic care, and sick call.

Patient #5
Patient #5 was admitted to RGC on April 6, 2004. He was examined by the medical staff on April 7th and 8th . He was diagnosed with AIDS, Chronic Hepatitis, asthma, and an ataxic gait which had left him wheelchair bound. He also had a severe dermatitis with excoriations noted all over his arms and legs. He said that he used benadryl every day to control the itching." Dr. Hutchison, the infectious disease consultant was notified that Patient #5 had been admitted. Appropriate laboratory studies were ordered, and he was referred for Infectious Disease Consultation. He was given an inhaler, an antihistamine, Azithromycin and bactrim, because he had not been receiving antiviral medications for several months, and there was concern that his T-cells were low, placing him at risk for pneumocystis pneumonia. T cell and viral load studies were available at the facility on April 15, revealing an extremely low T-cell count of 28, and a very high viral load.
On April 12, he requested assistance with his wheelchair. It was noted that he had no wheelchair accommodation. In response, on April 28 he was evaluated by physical therapy who agreed with Patient #5 that he needed his wheelchair whenever he had to travel significant distances. He could walk

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 34 of 60

3'd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #33

around his cell and for short distances. An accommodation was given to him. Although Dr. Hutchison was notified on April 7, 2004 that Patient #5 had been admitted, as of April 30, 2004 he had not been started on any anti-viral therapy. On April 30 he was begun on nortryptilline, to provide additional treatment for his peripheral neuropathy.

On May 3, 2004, Dr. Faghihnia referred to Patient #5's condition as "endstage AIDS with painful neuropathy," yet ordered no specific analgesic medication for him, only continued his nortryptilline.

On May 4, 2004, Patient #5 put in a kite asking for assistance with a rash, and complained of pain in his legs and back. He was seen by a nurse on May 5, 2004 who diagnosed his skin problem as "contact rash, (secondary to End Stage AIDS (042) and prescribed 1% hydrocortisone. There was no response to his leg or back pain. On May 7, he again requested medical care for "many numerous complaints." There was no response from the nursing or phYSician staff at RGC.

A chart review conducted at JMF on May 18 noted that Infectious Disease and Psychiatric referrals were pending and said "At this time it appears his transfer is inappropriate to this facility. If anything he should at least be placed where hospital is very accessible. His intake screening at JMF was completed on May 20, and he was referred to Psychiatry, and to the CMS coordinator regarding his pending Infectious Disease consultation. He was given a referral to his MSP, Dr. Faghihnia, for May 25.

On May 23, he submitted a kite with the complaint "CHRONIC LEG PAIN." A nursing evaluation performed on May 24 described his problem as "Altered comfort? HIV neuropathy." The nurse noted he was to see Dr. Crane of Infectious Diseases on May 26 at 8 AM. He was given no treatment for his pain.

On May 25, Dr. Faghihnia examined Patient #5 and found no physical abnormalities except for an extensive maculo-papular rash and trace ankle edema. He was able to perform a "partial fundoscopy" only. Patient #5 told him that his legs swelled when he walked. Dr. Faghihnia recorded this information

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 35 of 60

3rd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #34

with an exclamation point. Dr. Faghihnia found no leg weakness and decided that Patient #5 had no need for a wheelchair. He cancelled the wheelchair, cancelled the neurontin, cancelled the ranitidine, cancelled his albuterol inhaler, and decreased the benadryl to 25 mg at night only. There is no explanation in the note as to why he was discontinuing these three medications and drastically decreasing the dose of the fourth. Patient #5 was receiving benadryl 50 mg three times a day for his chronic itching, neurontin for his HIV neuropathy, and ranitidine for gastroesophageal reflux. There is no indication in the note that Dr. Faghihnia informed Patient #5 that he was discontinuing these medications. Dr. Faghihnia asked that a punch biopsy of Patient #5's skin be scheduled. He did order a "Detail for walker x 6m."

He was seen on May 26 by Dr. Crane who ordered Ziagen 300 mg bid, reyataz 300 mg qd, Norvir 100 mg qd, and Videx EC 400 mg. This medications were ordered six weeks after his T-cell count of 28 had been received by the facility.

On June 9, Patient #5 requested refills of his benadryl and neurontin, but they were not available because Dr. Faghihnia had cancelled them.

Dr. Faghihnia reviewed Patient #5's chart on June 29 and examined him. He noted that Patient #5 complained of severe numbness in his feet, and inability to feel his feet in the morning, as well as severe itching. Dr. Faghihnia examined his feet and documented that he had very poor sensation, which he attributed to peripheral neuropathy secondary to HIV infection. He reordered medications, now increasing Patient #5's benadryl back to 50mg three times a day, but did not provide any treatment for the peripheral neuropathy. On July 6 he wrote that Patient #5 "was stable and doing well now," but there is no indication that he ever examined Patient #5. There are no subjective or objective elements recorded.

Laboratory studies were ordered on July 13, 2004. These studies were initially reported back on July 15, but no review of labs took place until August 9.

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 36 of 60

3'd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #35

Of note is the fact that these July 13 studies were the last laboratory studies of Patient #5's liver and renal function until he was hospitalized on December 1, 2004.

On July 14th he was seen again by Dr. Crane who recommended that he be transferred to C Unit because he needed more nursing care than was available to him in general population at JMF. This transfer did not take place.

On July 17, he complained of increased pain in his right hip. He was seen by a nurse who did not examine his back or leg, and prescribed acetaminophen (Tylenol). He was not referred to a physician. On July 21,2004, he again complained of pain in his back and side. He was called to be seen by the Nursing staff on July 22 but went to the yard instead.

On July 26, he submitted another kite, apologizing for missing his call out, and again complaining of pain on the right side of his body, especially his hip and leg. He also complained of diarrhea. He was seen on July 27 by a nurse. His blood pressure was 153/108. No examination of his leg or back was performed. He was given loperamide for his diarrhea.

On July 27, he submitted a kite asking why his benadryl had been discontinued, and requested renewal of his hydrocortisone and petroleum jelly. He also asked for a pillow because of his hip and leg pain. The nurse wrote that she had given the kite to Dr. Faghihnia, but that he was not going to renew the hydrocortisone cream or the petroleum jelly. Dr. Faghihnia did not examine the patient, but he did order the extra pillow

On August 3, Patient #5 complained that he was still having problem with his right side. The nurse did not examine him, but told him he would be seen on August 19. On August 4, he submitted a kite complaining of right sided pain. He was seen the next day by a member of the nursing staff who noted that his blood pressure was 148/89, and referred his "chronic musculoskeletal complaints to the MSP for evaluation. Dr. Faghihnia examined him on August 9 found a completely normal physical examination of the leg and hip, and diagnosed

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 37 of 60

3rd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #36

sciatica. However, because of the patient's chronic hepatitis, he told him not to take Tylenol or motrin. He prescribed nothing for the pain.

On August 17, Patient #5 submitted a kite in which he again complained of pain in his right side. Dr. Faghihnia did not examine the patient, but he did recommend tennis shoes be provided to him because of his medical condition and because he was indigent.

On August 25, Patient #5 submitted another kite, saying "right side still hurts." He was seen by a nurse on August 25 who recorded that he had pain in his right hip and thigh for one month, but that it was worse now. The nurse noted swelling of his right foot. He was seen the next evening, August 26, in the DWH ER. PA Smith evaluated him and found him to be in severe pain, unable to bear any weight. Any movement of the hip resulted in severe pain. PA Smith gave him 50 mg of Demerol 1M, and sent him to the Foote Hospital ER where he arrived early in the morning of August 27. His blood pressure at that time was 167/98. An x-ray of his hip was normal. The Foote Hospital emergency room physician diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy. He was given an injection of Toradol 30mg, and 10 mg offlexeril, and sent back to the DWH ER. PA Smith received him back the DWH ER and referred him to Dr. Faghihnia for follow-up. Dr. Faghihnia did not see the patient.

HIV specific laboratory studies were obtained on August 30,2004. They were received at JMF on September 1, 2004. Dr. Faghihnia did not see review these studies until October 15, 2004.

He was seen by Dr. Crane for Infectious Disease Consultation on September 1, 2004. He was responding very well to the anti-viral therapy. Patient #5's CD4 count had increased from 28 to 184 in two month's time, and his viral load had decreased dramatically. Dr. Crane felt that the hip pain was probably not aseptic necrosis, since the x-ray was normal. He recommended further radiologic evaluation if the pain continued. Dr. Crane noted that the right leg was significantly more swollen than the left. He said that this could be

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 38 of 60

3rd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen, MD

September 8, 2005 Page #37

attributed to venous insufficiency. He dictated his note on September 1 and it was transcribed on September 2. The handwritten note was returned with the medical record on September 1. Dr. Faghihnia saw both the handwritten note and the dictation on September 9.

His pain continued. On September 1-2, 2004 he was seen in the DWH ER and given toradol intramuscularly for severe pain of his right hip and leg. In the emergency room swelling of both legs were noted, the right more swollen than the left. He was discharged back to see his physician, Dr. Faghihnia. Dr. Faghihnia did not see the patient.

On September 10 he requested sick call and was again seen by a nurse for his continuing complaint of constant right lower extremity pain, hip pain, and swelling of his leg. His blood pressure was again elevated, For the first time he was prescribed three days of tramadol 50 mg, three times a day, with follow-up scheduled for September 13 with PA Smith. PA Smith took away Patient #5's wheelchair, and did not re-order any pain medication.

On September 15, Dr. Faghihnia reviewed the chart. He did not examine the patient. On September 17, Patient #5 was seen for his continuing pain. No medication was given to him. PA Smith was notified. The patient was encouraged to elevate his legs.

On September 20, he again requested medical care for pain in his feet and legs. He was seen two days later, on September 22, and prescribed ibuprofen 200 mg every 4 to 6 hours. No referral to his MSP was made.

On October 4 Patient #5 requested medical assistance for right sided lower extremity pain. He also asked for a refill of his benadryl. He was not seen for three days, until October 7. At that time he was evaluated by a nurse who diagnosed venous insufficiency as the cause of his pain, and ordered 200 mg of ibuprofen. The nurse referred the patient's complaint of pain to Dr. Faghihnia for consideration of additional pain medication.

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 39 of 60

3'd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #38

On October 8, Dr. Faghihnia wrote a note in the chart. He did not examine the patient. He did not ask the patient any questions. He did not consider the request by the Nurse from October for evaluation of the patient's need for additional pain medication. He wrote that the patient's condition was stable. He also noted that there was no need to have him seen any sooner by the infectious disease consultant. Dr. Faghihnia note says "He is informed."

On October 10 Patient #5 had an emergency nursing evaluation for his complaint of severe back and hip pain. The nurse referred him to DWH ER. On examination at DWH his pulse was noted to be 123/minute, approximately twice normal. No evaluation of the cause for this abnormality was pursued. The physician at DWH diagnosed the patient as having a deep pain thrombosis (blood clot) in his right leg, and gave him an injection to prevent clotting, recommending that a doppler study of the veins of the lower legs be performed the next morning. The DWH ER physician called Dr. Faghihnia and told him of his recommendation.

He was seen five days later by Dr. Faghihnia at his chronic care clinic. His pulse was 123/minute, approximately twice normal. He had lost 10 pounds in the preceding month. He complained of severe pain and swelling in his legs which he said made walking difficult. Dr. Faghihnia noted that he had bilateral swelling of his legs, much greater on the right than the left. Dr. Faghihnia wrote:

He is not walking toady and comes to the clinic with a wheelchair that he has borrowed from a friend. He states that (he) has a lot of pain in his legs and
feet and is unable to walk due to severe pain. He transfers to the scale and exam table very slowly.

He has lots of medical problems and lots of pain due to his HIV neuropathy probably. He however does not have any problem to become wheelchair dependent and his prognosis would be much worse if he does not try to keep moving and the dependent edema in legs would be exacerbates (sic). He is

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 40 of 60

3rd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #39

explained a lot about all these and he finally accepts to be cooperative and
would try to be more active.

Neurontin is a minimally effective medication for pain. It had not significantly helped Patient #5 in the past. He failed to provide any medication which would provide adequate pain relief. He did not schedule a follow-up appointment within the next few days or week to determine if the medication he did prescribed was effective in relieving the severe pain Patient #5 was experiencing. Dr. Faghihnia made no effort to determine the cause of Patient #5 pain. He wrote in his note that a Doppler study longing for DVT was normal. In fact, the study was not performed until one week later, on October 22,and was not normal. The study was unable to visualize the peroneal vein. This study did not rule out a deep vein thrombosis. Of note is that on October 15, in addition to his visit with Dr. Faghihnia, Patient #5 was told by the nursing staff that he incurred a co-payment charge when he sought medical care.

Patient #5 saw Dr. Crane, the Infectious Disease Specialist on October 3, 2004. Dr. Crane noted that Patient #5 had "constant exquisite sharp pains in the right hip area" with increased swelling of the right leg. Dr. Crane was concerned about the severity of the pain, believed that Patient #5 had avascular necrosis of the hip, and referred Patient #5 to the DWH ER to arrange for urgent admission to the Orthopedic service at Foote Hospital in order to obtain an MRI or CT scan of the hip. Patient #5 was sent to the Foote Hospital ER. An emergency CT scan was performed and again showed a normal hip. Patient #5 was returned to DWH and subsequently to JMF the next day. His pain and leg swelling continued unabated, and no further workup was planned to identify the cause of his constant distress. Dr. Faghihnia initialed the November 3, 2005 ER visit note from Dr. Howze at the DWH ER on November 21,2005 almost three weeks later. He never saw the November 4, 2005 ER note from DWH indicating that the CT exam of the hip was normal - there was no fracture, no arthritis, no avascular necrosis. He never saw Patient #5 again.

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 41 of 60

3rd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #40

On December 4,2004, Patient #5 was again sent to the Foote Emergency Room for painful leg swelling and abdominal pain. Routine laboratory studies revealed that his kidneys were not functioning, and an emergency CT scan showed that his pelvis was filled with tumor, which was blocking his kidneys. His BUN was 104 and his creatinine was 7.3. An emergency CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis on December 4, 2004 showed bilateral obstructed enlarged kidneys, with multiple masses blocking the flow of urine.

These masses were Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, a common tumor found strongly associated with AIDS. Patient #5 was hospitalized on December 4, 2004, seven months after he first complained of leg pain and swelling on May 4. Patient #5 had surgery involving the placement of stents to allow urine to flow out of his kidneys, and to biopsy the mass and diagnose his lymphoma.

On December 8,2004, at 11 :12 AM, Patient #5 was discharged back to Duane Waters Hospital for comfort care. According to Dr. Siddiqi's discharge note, Dr. Axelrod, the oncologist felt that because his prognosis was poor, he should not receive chemotherapy, but should be transferred back to Duane Waters for comfort care. Two hours later, Dr. Siddiqi dictated an addendum, canceling the discharge, and noting that Dr. Axelson had decided to treat the patient with chemotherapy. He was diagnosed with bilateral deep venous thrombosis as Foote Hospital and treated with anti-coagulation therapy.

On January 17, 2005, Patient #5 was discharged back to Duane Waters Hospital. In his discharge note, Dr. John Axelson wrote:

Obviously for someone who has been hospitalized this long, it takes a
specific review of the chart, but I would like to try and summarize in as much detail as possible in view of the fact that he is being transferred back to Duane Waters Hospital. ....

The case management has kindly left a note that his current length of stay of 44 days at this point has run up charges of at least $170,000. She is

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 42 of 60

3rd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #41

recommending transfer back to Duane Waters and is concerned that eMS may no longer justify ongoing inpatient care.

He was discharged back to Foote Hospital on January 1ih. Foote Hospital recommended that he be continued on anti-coagulation therapy, that he be continued on Zyvox for Vancomycin Resistant Enterococcal Infection, and that he be given Total Parenteral Nutrition (TPN) to improve his nutritional status so that when he returned to Foote Hospital in a week he would be better nourished, and more able to tolerate chemotherapy.

He was readmitted to Duane Waters Hospital. Anticoagulation therapy for his deep vein thrombosis was not ordered. TPN was not ordered. Morphine as MS-contin was ordered for pain. After his initial admission evaluation to the Duane Waters Hospital on the morning of January 17, 2005, he was not seen again by a physician or MSP, despite the fact that he was in constant pain. He was transferred back to Foote Hospital on January 24, 2005, for his next round of chemotherapy.

At Foote Hospital, Dr. Madani's January 24 admission note says:

".. .he was discharged about a week ago .... And .. recommendations to
do anticoagulation with Lovenox and then recommendation to do TPN for his poor nutritional status. As I said, he is not receiving any TPN at Duane Waters Hospital and he is not receiving any Lovenox, but he has been receiving Zyvox twice a day as prescribed. ...

...The patient told me that he has had a very bad week. He has .. .been having increasing abdominal pain. He has been having increased constipation and he has been having increasing nausea and he vomited twice yesterday evening and today this evening."

Additional attempts at cancer therapy were attempted at Foote, but were unsuccessful. He was discharged back to Duane Waters Hospital on February 4. He was readmitted to Foote for one day on February 10, than discharged.

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 43 of 60

3'd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8,2005 Page #42

Patient #5 was readmitted to Duane Waters Hospital on February 10 discharged, and readmitted, and died two weeks later on February 19, 2005.

COMMENT: This is a very tragic case. It demonstrates several recurrent deficiencies. A patient with AIDS with severe pain in his hip with significant swelling on the side of the pain went for seven months without treatment of pain or a diagnosis of his treatable cancer. Diagnostic efforts were minimal, complaints of pain were ignored or trivialized. When a diagnostic test was indeterminate, or ruled out a suspected diagnosis, the response was to assume the patient was exaggerating his pain, and further diagnostic tests were not scheduled. Patient #5 suffered tremendous pain for seven months and received no treatment for it. His lymphoma was present for months, causing an obvious physical sign of painful unilateral swelling of his right leg. Instead of aggressively seeking a diagnosis, his physician dismissed his complaints, viewing him as a prisoner seeking pain medication, rather than a patient seeking help. When the Doppler study was indeterminate, Dr. Faghihnia did nothing. When the CT scan of the hip was negative, Dr. Faghihnia did nothing. The fact that Patient #5 did not have avascular necrosis of the hip did not explain why his right leg was swollen and painful, but it was sufficient for his physician to stop looking for other causes of his pain.
Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) in HIV infection is a serious condition, but is often extremely responsive to chemotherapy. The oncologists at Foote told Patient #5 that he had only a three month prognosis for is illness, which is not consistent with the literature. (M C Rabatin and others. Clinical features and predictors of
survival of AIDS-related non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in a population-based case series in Sydney, Australia. HIV Medicine 5(5): 377-384. September 2004.; R Biggar and others. Survival after Cancer Diagnosis in Persons with AIDS. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes
39(3): 293-299. July 1,2005; J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2002; 30:478-484).) The Foote hospital oncologists recommended that he not receive any treatment. Mean disease free interval survivals for NHL patients with HIV infection on anti-viral

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 44 of 60

3rd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #43

therapy are closer to two years than three months. Had he been treated aggressively with appropriate chemotherapy five or six or seven months earlier, before he developed acute renal failure, his response would probably have been much better.

Additionally, the first week Patient #5 spent at DWH following his discharge from Foote Hospital revealed the general practice at DWH during this period. Although Patient #5 was acutely ill, suffering from the complications of chemotherapy, decubitus ulcers, and severe pain (9.5/10 when he was asked by the nurses), he was admitted to the hospital as a "chronic patient." This meant that the medical staff were required to see him once a month. In this case, after his admission, he was never seen again by an MSP. On several occasions Dr. Howse was called by the Nursing staff about Patient #5, but she never came to see him, and actually reduced his pain medication via a verbal order. During 2004, and through April of 2005, this was routine practice at Duane Waters Hospital.

Patient #6
Patient #6 bled to death from an ulcer. He had a history of colon cancer. Two years before, on October 26, 2003, while at RGC, complained of abdominal pain, and of throwing up coffee grounds. He was diagnosed at that time with a bleeding duodenal ulcer. On the problem list on the front of his chart there is an
= entry; "PUD GI Bleed, 10/30103." In 2004 he was diagnosed with colon cancer
and had a partial colostomy.
Patient #6 complained of epigastric (abdominal) pain on 1/21/05. His Temperature was 93.7. He was given ranitidine (zantac) and sent back to his cell. No blood test was ordered. No stool guaic test was obtained (although one was ordered). The PA who saw Patient #6 wrote: "Pt refused any further testing, agreed to do hemocult Will start a trial of zantac and Tylenol for pain. Advised

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 45 of 60

3'd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8,2005 Page #44

to kite if not improved." Forty eight hours later Patient #6 bled to death in his cell from an acute bleeding duodenal ulcer.

COMMENT: It is possible to diagnosis the presence of gastrointestinal bleeding in seconds with a stool guaiac test (test for blood in the stool). When a patient with a history of colon cancer and a bleeding duodenal ulcer complains of acute abdominal pain, a digital rectal examination along with a test for blood in the stool is mandatory. No rectal examination was performed. No stool guaiac test was done. According to the chart note, Patient #6 did refuse testing at the time of his encounter, but the MSP should have explained to him the importance and simplicity of the required testing. Patient #6 had not complained of abdominal pain for more than one year. He was suffering an acute abdominal process, and he was treated for a stomach ache. Had the minimal necessary care been provided him, he would have been diagnosed immediately, and probably treated successfully.

Patient #7
Patient #7 was 52 years old when he died on June 6, 2005 of metastatic lung cancer. Lung cancer is a devastating and common disease, and, unless detected early, it rapidly spreads and has a fatal outcome.
Patient #7 first requested medical attention on April 4, 2005. He sent a medical kite complaining of a "lump on collar bone." He complained of weight loss, malaise, and chills. He was seen by Charles Soltjes, an RN at JMF the next day, April 5, and immediately referred to Josiah Smith, PA, who confirmed the present of I(eft} supraclavicular (above the clavicle) .. tender firm, fixed nodes." He suspected some kind of cancer, either gastrointestinal, lung, or lymphoma. He ordered immediate laboratory studies and a chest x-ray.
The next day laboratory tests showed a dangerously elevated potassium level. PA Smith was informed of the results and sent the patient to the DWH ER

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 46 of 60

3'd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #45

for management. At DWH a repeat potassium level and an EKG were normal, and Patient #7 was sent back to JMF. Mr. Smith scheduled a follow-up appointment on April 8. On April 8 Mr. Smith wrote that the chest-x ray was "not available yet. Will flu CXR on Monday. Monday, 4/11 will request urgent bx (biopsy) of L subclavian lymph nodes." On April 11, Mr. Smith was told that the x-ray, which had been taken on April 5, showed a right peri-hilar mass. He wrote: "Will generated urgent CT Chest with IV contrast and urgent L Supraclavicular lymph node Bx. Discussed with Dr. Faghihnia." Mr. Smith scheduled a follow appt with himself to review the results of the CT scan and Biopsy. Dr. Faghihnia did not see the patient.

Two weeks later, on April 25, 2005, no CT scan had been obtained, and no Biopsy had taken place. No surgery appointment had been scheduled. Dr. Faghihnia did not see the patient. PA Smith re-submitted the emergency consultations he had submitted two weeks before.

Mr. Smith next saw Patient #7 on May 4, 2005, nine days later. At that time he complained that for the past week he had nausea and vomiting, increased cough, he felt poorly, and had night sweats and chills. He noted that the CT scan, performed on April 26 showed a right lung mass. The CT scan was read on April 27 at Foote Hospital. The report describes a large irregular mass extending from the bronchus intermedius into the right middle and lower lobes of the lung. The Foote Hospital radiologist did not contact any clinician at JMF about the results of the study. On May 4,2005, while he was evaluating Patient #7, PA Smith obtained a fax of the study from Foote Hospital. Also, on May 4, PA smith obtained the results of the biopsy performed on April 28 by Dr. Wisnewski. Dr. James C. Niewenhuis, a pathologist, read the biopsy and notified Dr. Wisnewski by telephone at 2:00 PM on May 2, 2005, that the lymph node showed metastatic adenocarcinoma. Dr. Wisnewski did not notify the patient, Dr. Faghihnia, or Mr. Smith of the results of the Biopsy. On May 4, PA Smith spoke with Dr. Trimble at Foote Hospital and arranged for the patient to be admitted to the hospital for treatment of his cancer.

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 47 of 60

3rd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #46

Evaluation by the oncologists at Foote Hospital revealed that the cancer already involved the brain and the liver. A plan for radiation therapy and chemotherapy was developed. On Friday evening, May 6, 2005, at 2110 (11:10 PM) Patient #7 was returned from Foote Hospital. There is a very brief note ER note in the chart. The patient was sent back to JMF. He was not seen at JMF by Dr. Faghihnia, his physician. He was seen on May 9, at 4:46 PM by PA Smith. Mr. Smith referred him to see Dr. Faghihnia. He was seen for the first time by Dr. Faghihnia on May 23, seven weeks after he first presented with weight loss, cough, and lymphadenopathy. Dr. Faghihnia did not see him again.

On Saturday morning, June 4, at 6:39 am, Patient #7 complained that he had been unable to eat for three days and that he had pain in his lower back and abdomen. His blood pressure was 88/70 and his pulse was 130. He was taken to the DWH ER and admitted there, were he died early on the morning of June 6, 2005.

COMMENT: Mr. Smith ordered a STAT chest X-rayon April 5, but he did not receive the report of the grossly abnormal study until April 11, even though he sought to obtain the report three days earlier, on April 8. CMS has said that abnormal radiologic studies will be reported immediately, but that did not happen. Although on April 11 Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith requested an urgent CT of the Chest and an urgent lymph node Biopsy within one week, describing in detail Patient #7's condition and the need for rapid diagnosis, by two weeks later, CMS had not done anything. When the CT of the chest was read and showed a probably extensive malignancy, the radiologist did not notify Patient #7 or his physicians of his finding. Dr. Wisnewski was called with the result of the pathology, but failed to notify Patient #7, or his physicians.

Dr. Faghihnia was told by Mr. Smith on April 11 that his patient, Patient #7, had a mass on his chest x-ray. Dr. Faghihnia did not make any effort to assure that his patient received timely diagnostic evaluation. He did not speak with the oncologists at Foote Hospital to find out what kind of therapy they were

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 48 of 60

3'd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #47

proposing, and he did not speak with Patient #7 until May 23, 2005. According to that note, he did not schedule any follow-up appointment with Patient #7 to make sure that he was receiving necessary palliative care along with his chemotherapy and radiation.

Mr. Smith is to be commended for his repeated efforts to provide care for Patient #7. His efforts were frustrated by the repeated failure of radiologists to report significant gross abnormalities, the failure to obtain urgent studies in a timely manner, and the surgeon's failure to report the results of his biopsy to his patient, or to his patient's physician. His diagnosis was unnecessarily and repeatedly delayed for one month. During the last month of his life, while he was receiving intensive chemotherapy and radiation therapy, his physician, Dr. Faghihnia, failed to monitor his care, saw him only once, and failed to admit him to DWH in a timely manner. Patient #7 was receiving chemotherapy and radiation therapy for metastatic lung cancer which had spread to his brain and to his liver. He was extremely weak. When he was finally admitted to DWH he was in pain. He should have been housed in a supportive nursing environment during the last month of his life.

Patient #8
Patient #8 was admitted directly to the Segregation Unit at JMF on June 15, 2005. He had been "OOW" (Out on writ) since September 2, 2004, According to Jeffrey Schulcz, RN, no chart was available when he saw the patient on June 15. The patient told him that he was being treated for a an MRSA (Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus) infection of his leg. Mr. Schulcz did not examine the patient. He did not obtain vital signs. His note reads: "Comments regarding objective findings: Pt has red Biohazard bag wrapped around L lower leg. Under Bio bag has multiple layers of ABO pads and gauze. Unable to examine thoroughly as pt in dress in case in seg. Pt pulled dressing down from knee, L lower leg red and extremely swollen. Pt states that

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 49 of 60

3rd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted
Hadix v. Johnson
Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #48

skin on back of leg sloughs off when touched and that lower leg constantly weeps clear to yel/ow fluid." Patient #8 was sent to the DWH ER. Nurse Schulcz wrote: "Unable to care for pt needs at JMF. Sent to OLW (OWH?) for eval and admission. Will flu with clinic MSP on discharge." (Mr. Schulcz's note is timed at 7:33 PM on the SERAPIS system. He arrived at DWH at 6:00 PM. There is no functional SERAPIS terminal in the Segregation Unit, and the note was probably entered later).

At the Dwayne Waters Hospital ER Patient #8's medical history was obtained. He had a history of a heart attack, had received 3 coronary artery bypass grafts in 2000, and was being treated for diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and gout. His medications included: Nitroglycerin, Lopressor, vasotec, lasix, potassium, norvasc, lovastatin, glipizide, allopurinol, zyvox (for methicillin resistant staph - MRSA) as well as multiple pulmonary inhalers.

His leg was chronically infected, but for the previous several weeks it had become very swollen, painful and clearly infected. Dr. Pacelle, the physician in the DWH ER sent Patient #8 to Foot Hospital for evaluation and treatment.

He arrived at the Foote Hospital Emergency Room at 2116 on June 15. He was examined and laboratory studies were obtained. Patient #8 was noted to be in severe pain. He said that he had been receiving antibiotics for MRSA for the past two days. He said that he had been hospitalized and had received a transfusion for anemia, but that he was discharged from the hospital at Clare because he didn't have any money.

Laboratory studies at Foote were extremely abnormal. Patient #8 was severely anemic. His hemoglobin was 8.4, slightly more than half normal, despite a recent blood transfusion. Foote Hospital records from 2001 showed that his hemoglobin at that time had been 11.9. His sodium was significant decreased at 129. He had blood in his stool. Dr. Farhat, the physician at Foote, wrote a comprehensive, and distressing discharge note. He stated that "Dr. Pacelle, sent him here to rule out a deep venous thrombosis and a possible

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 50 of 60

3rd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #49

admission for cellulites. Dr. Pacelle said that they did not have any beds there for the patient."

Dr. Farhat, in the section of the discharge note headed "MEDICAL DECISION MAKING" wrote:

"I discussed the case with Dr. Qureshi, who is in the PAC-group (critical care physician practice at Foote), to see if he would like to admit him to
transfusion with a workup his anemia and occult hematochezia (blood in the
stool).

Dr. Qureshi, after discussing this in depth with me, did not feel that is was emergent to admit the patient and that he could be worked-up as an outpatient at Duane Waters Hospital. He said that he ought to give him one unit of packed red blood cells reason being that he was a congestive heart failure, which we will give that over three hours.

We will send him back. He will need to follow-up in the gastrointestinal clinic there. Also Dr. Qureshi said that the patient would not benefit from admission for antibiotics because he is currently on the Zyvox. He has only been on it a couple of days and he needs to be on it longer.

I then relayed this information back to Dr. Pacelle at the prison. I told Dr.
Pacelle to repeat the cac tomorrow(.) if it is worse. (t}he patient is to come
back. The patient will need to get into the gastrointestinal clinic as soon as possible for workup of his anemia and hematochezia. They could do an anemia workup there at the prison. The patient is to come back here if has black stool, blood in the stool, worsening or other problems or concerns. He is to continue his Zyvox. I also told Dr. Pacelle that he needed to get an infectious disease consult.

All this workup I believe can be done at the prison, as Dr. Qureshi felt was appropriate. Dr. Qureshi did not feel that he needed to be admitted." These instructions were written on the Foote Hospital "Instructions for Follow-up Care" which accompanied the patient back to the DWH ER. "

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 51 of 60

3rd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #50

Patient #8 arrived back at DWH at 5:30 in the morning of June 16. A CSC was drawn, and he was sent back to JMF. At 1130 he was seen by a physician in the Segregation Unit. The physician (Dr. Gordon?) said that she did not have access to the medical record. Her examination was limited to Patient #8's left leg. She did note that "Patient #8 also reports melanotic stools X 3 weeks - he denies being on iron supplements - Again without his chart this is not verifiable." She noted that he had received coronary artery bypass grafts in the past. Dr. Gordon did not examine anything except his leg. She does not note that he has the multiple serious medical problems described above, including hypertension, diabetes, gout, congestive heart failure, and hyperlipidemia, as well as severe anemia. She does not refer him for a colonoscopy, an endoscopy, or for infectious disease consultation. She did request that fecal occult blood studies be checked. She wrote "Will request chart."

On June 25 there is a handwritten note nursing note: "Kite sent 'I need to know about culture sent out.' Garcia called. Lab results are being sent over today. Labs faxed per Chuck given to PA Smith."

Patient #8 was never told the results of his tests. They were not in the chart I reviewed. On June 28, at 9:30 in the morning, the patient was found dead in his cell in Segregation, his pupils fixed and dilated. No attempt at cardiopulmonary resuscitation was attempted.

Comment: Patient #8 was 70 years old. No autopsy was obtained. An autopsy should have been performed. Patient #8 was a 70 year old man with a severely infected swollen painful foot who was having internal bleeding. He had coronary artery disease, diabetes, hypertension, gout, and had a severe MRSA infection of his leg. He was bleeding internally, and he was allowed to die without any treatment. He should not have been discharged from Foote. When he was sent back to DWH, he should have been admitted to the Hospital, or else sent back to Foote. He should not have been sent back to the Segregation Unit at JMF to die without any medical attention to his multiple serious life threatening medical problems. This death occurred on June 28, less than two months ago.

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 52 of 60

3'd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #51

I had met Patient #8 at JMF in his housing unit on April 21,2004. At that time he told me that his leg was chronically and painfully swollen secondary to the saphenous vein removal that had been performed for his coronary artery bypass graft. He told he at that time that his wheelchair had been taken away from him, and that he had difficultly walking with the walker provided. When I met him his wheelchair had been given back to him. He also said that his leg and been chronically swollen since the bypass surgery, but he had not received any treatment for this problem. I brought his problem to the attention of MDOC staff at that time.

Patient #9
Patient #9 had diabetes and severe hypertension. His renal function had been deteriorating during the year prior to his death in May, 2005
On March 31,2005, an urgent (ASAP) renal consultation request was made for acute renal failure when his creatinine reached 6, slowly rising from 3.0 over the previous year. No consult had ever been provided to patient.
On April 5, 2005 he had an emergency admission to Foote Hospital for uncontrolled hypertension -- 200/123. He was severely hyponatremic, serum sodium was 127, creatinine increased to 6.3 and potassium was 5.9. He had emergency dialysis at Foote and an emergency fistula was placed He was discharged April 21, 2005. There is no record in the medical chart of patient receiving any dialysis after discharge from Foote.
On April 29, 2005 he was seen at Endocrine Chronic Care Clinic, noted to have a blood pressure of 228/118 and was very lethargic, according to Dr. Faghihnia. There was no treatment of this hypertensive emergency by Dr. Faghihnia. He scheduled the patient for follow-up in two weeks (5/13/05). No physical exam, no fundoscopic examination, no examination of heart or lungs was performed.
On that day he was sent to the DWH Emergency Room from JMF for his complaint of headache, elevated blood pressure. His blood pressure was

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 53 of 60

3rd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8,2005 Page #52

200/110 initially, and went up to 223/113. He was treated with sublingual NTG, an then given imdur 60 mg, catapres 0.3mg, and sent back to JMF.

On May 1, 2005 he was sent to the OWH ER because of a hypoglycemic reaction. He was noted to be restless, disoriented, and sweating. His blood glucose was 24 at 0408. He was given 050 (50% glucose). His blood pressure at 0413 was 184/107. At 0445 he vomited up a sandwich. At 0530 he was sent back to JMF. He was seen by nurse Charles Boltjes at 6:30 AM. His blood pressure was elevated at 169/90. The next day, his blood pressure was noted to be 201/111. He was seen by Or. Gordon, and an evening dose of catapres 0.3mg given. No MO note was written in the chart and no follow up scheduled.

The last note in the chart was written on May 4, 2005. It says his blood pressure was 180/103.

COMMENT: This patient had multiple serious medical problems. He had chronic renal failure with uncontrolled hypertension and diabetes, yet received no renal consultation. His hypertension and diabetes were both very poorly controlled, yet there was no request for endocrine consultation.

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 54 of 60

3'd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #53

CONCLUSIONS:
There are significant problems with the care being provided to the sickest prisoners in the Hadix facilities. This is due to significant weaknesses in the provision of medical services and of specialty services. These problems were identified by the Court in its finding of 2001 , and were again documented in my first and second reports. Unfortunately, these problems persist, and appear to have gotten worse over the past two years. A substantial expansion of the clinical responsibility of the Hadix facilities occurred during this period, without provision of staff for the increased medical services required.
The C-Unit was opened in the spring of 2003, and it currently houses approximately 64 chronically ill men who are too ill to live in general population. These prisoners often have multiple chronic illnesses, including AIDS, Hepatitis C, as well as decompensated pulmonary and cardiac illnesses. Medical staffing for this population was provided by CMS through a subcontract with the Dr. Fuller, who has been providing medical care to Duane Waters Hospital and its Emergency Room. No additional staff medical service providers were hired to care for this chronically ill prisoner population. The system of chronic care clinics, with regular structured nursing and physician evaluation according to defined protocols was not extended to this population.
A large dialysis unit, currently serving approximately 75 patients with end stage renal failure was established in JMF in 2004. These men have developed kidney failure secondary to hypertension, diabetes, AIDS, and chronic intravenous drug use. There medical problems are often exacerbated by dialysis, and they require substantial complex internal medicine care. No additional staff medical service providers were hired to address the clinical needs of this group. There has been inadequate support by Dr. Middlebrook's nephrology group for the patients with renal failure cared for at JMF, and throughout the Hadix facilities, which need him for renal consultation.

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 55 of 60

3'd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #54

There is no predictable capacity for infirmary care for patients requiring intravenous medications all 24 hour nursing observation. Patient's can be admitted to Foote Hospital if they have acute needs, but Foote Hospital often sends acutely ill patients back to DWH, which sends the patients back to their sending facility - JMF, SMT, or RGC.

As noted above, the medical service provider coverage for the DWH and C Unit has been extremely deficient. According to the nursing staff, and confirmed by review of medical records, nursing requests for urgent physician evaluation of serious and painful medical conditions in these units can be unanswered for days at a time, or never responded to at all (see Patient #1 below). I have never before seen a situation in which patients with complex medical problems with acute exacerbations housed in intensive medical settings are routinely denied access to physician care when specifically requested by the nursing staff. Nor have I ever imagined a situation where Nursing staff would tolerate this situation and not take appropriate action to correct the situation, and prevent it from happening again.
During the past two years, there has been essentially no on-site supervision of the medical staff by CMS. Although the need for this position was identified a year ago, effectively, through April 2005, no significant supervision by provided by CMS. Although Dr. Austin was appointed Regional Medical Director for CMS in August, 2004, he only served in through April, 2005. CMS did not assign him to oversee the care in C-Unit until March, 2005. Dr. Austin was replaced by Dr. Matthai in April.
The following recommendations are based upon my two years of work at the Hadix facilities. By design, these facilities are medically intensive. The sicker patients from throughout Michigan end up at the Jackson Medical Complex, as they should. MDOC has the responsibility of assuring that the Jackson Medical Complex can meet their medical needs.
CMS bears a substantial responsibility for the current situation. They have not provided supervision for their medical staff, although they appear to be

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 56 of 60

3rd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8,2005 Page #55

committed to local supervision at this time. Their staff at OWH and C-Unit has been unresponsive to the serious medical care needs of acutely ill patients, and took no significant action to address this situation.
Prisoners confined in Segregation are always at the greatest risk of being denied access to necessary medical care, and physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners have to be trained to take the care of these patients. At JMF there has been, and continues to be a pattern of severe neglect of these prisoners. The death of Patient #8 is particularly tragic, yet predictable based on the current attitudes towards these patients.
I have noticed an unusually large number of HIV positive patients housed in segregation status. MOOC has a policy of permanent segregation for HIV positive prisoners who have been sexually active. This policy has meant that increasing numbers of ill HIV positive prisoners are housed in JMF segregation, and are consequently having increasing difficulty in obtaining specialty care, as well as routine care. It is necessary that medical staff make extra effort to see their patients housed in segregation more frequently. Their patients need to be examined in a confidential setting without correction officers present. It is not possible for patients to communicate effectively when they are chained and officers are present in the room. Except in the rarest of instances, patients being examined should not be wearing chains, and physicians and other clinicians should not allow non-medical staff to be present nor patient encounters.

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 57 of 60

3rd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen, MD

September 8, 2005 Page #56

RECOMMENDATIONS
Establish an acute infirmary capability of at least thirty beds at DWH. 1. This unit will require 24 hours nursing staffing and seven day a week MSP staffing. 2. Emergency medical coverage will be provided by the DWH ER when necessary. 3. When the unit is filled, patients requiring this level of care are to be sent to Foote Hospital.
Establish a unitary medical record system 1. Assure that all laboratory studies are available in SERAPIS 2. Assure that all medications are available in SERAPIS 3. Link the SERAPIS system to the pharmacy computer system for order entry 4. Enhance the drug interaction function of SERAPIS/Tiny Terms to include HIV medications 5. Train and certify all nurses and MSP's in the system(s) before they begin working at the Hadix Facilities 6. Expand the SERAPIS system to include all clinical areas, specifically the Dialysis Unit, the JMF Segregation Unit, the DWH Emergency Room, DWH and C-Unit, and the Specialty Clinic Areas of DWH. 7. When Telemedicine is used on a routine basis (e.g. Dr. Hutchinson, Dr. Middlebrook) SERAPIS terminals should be available
Ensure automatic renewals of all chronic medications 1. Monitor distribution of chronic medication 2. Prepare a regular study/report on medication renewals 3. Require all medications from all clinical sectors (DWH, C-Unit, Segregation, Dialysis) to be entered in SERAPIS

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 58 of 60

3'd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen, MD

September 8, 2005 Page #57

Define the Role for MDOC's Jackson Complex Regional Medical Director 1. Member of Jackson Medical Complex Senior Leadership Team 2. Oversight of CMS specialty consultation program 3. Oversight of CMS contract employees 4. Medical Leadership for QI function, including audits and studies 5. Oversight of Dialysis Program 6. Oversight of C-UnitlDWH clinical complex 7. Clinical liaison to Pharmacy 8. Establish and Maintain a Continuing Education Program at the Jackson Complex
Obtain Autopsy Reports of all deaths
Assure that Specialty Care Services are available to all prisoners, including those in Segregation
1. Obtain data from CMS as needed to assist in analysis of Specialty Care
2. Maintain the current MDOC Specialty Care Computer System 3. Provide MSP's with weekly lists of the status of their outstanding
consults. 4. Provide handwritten consultations from to providers within twenty four
hours of consultation, if dictation not available. 5. Require telephone contact by specialists to MSP's when urgent
medical information needs to be communicated. 6. CMS should not "pend" consultation while awaiting dictated consults
when the consultant has written or called the MSP with specific recommendations.

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005 Page 59 of 60

3'd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen. MD

September 8, 2005 Page #58

Develop an enhanced program of monitoring the clinical function of the Dialysis Program

1. Monthly meetings, hopefully becoming quarterly, should be held with Dr. Middlebrook, the Dialysis Administrator, JMF Leadership, designated MSP(s), Jackson Complex Regional Medical Director, and CMS Deputy Medical Director.
2. The monthly evaluation form currently in use needs to be revised and enhanced.
3. Include structured interviews with Dialysis patients as part of monthly dialysis monitoring form, and include Dialysis patients, where appropriate, at the Monthly meetings.

Assure Access to Care for All Patients in Segregation

1. Maintain continuity of MSP care with assigned patients. 2. Maintain SERAPIS terminal in Segregation clinic 3. With rare exceptions, all clinical encounters with patients in
Segregation should occur confidentially, without correction staff present, while maintaining correctional staff visual observation 4. Clinical encounters in Segregation should only take place in the designated clinic area, not in "cell-side." 5. Assure that patients in Segregation have access to specialty care by having nurses verify refusals at the time of the refusal. 6. Identify the reasons for the current problem in obtaining DWH and CUnit beds for patients with chronic medical problems who should not be housed in Segregation 7. Identify other alternatives to permanent Segregation for HIV positive prisoners who are accused of sexual activity

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1897 Filed 09/12/2005
3rd Report of the Associate Monitor Revised and Redacted Hadix v. Johnson Robert L. Cohen, MD

Page 60 of 60
September 8, 2005 Page #59

8. Expand the current bi-monthly review of chronic care patients to include all patients in Segregation, and include interviews whenever problems are identified in chart review
9. Establish a functioning program of daily MSP rounds for all prisoners in Segregation
10. Establish a monthly meeting with mental health staff to review medical problems of severely mentally ill patients housed in Segregation.
11. Review care at RGC Segregation/Quarantine Unit and develop a plan
to assure patients receive necessary medical care, including specialty consultations.

Enhance Staffing to meet the expanded clinical responsibilities of the Hadix facilities
1. Increase staff at DWH 2. Increase staff at C-Unit 3. Hire staff for Acute Carellnfirmary Unit 4. Increase staff at JMF to cover new clinical responsibilities from the
Dialysis program 5. Increase staff at JMF to adequately serve medical needs of prisoners
in Segregation,

Submitted September 8,2005

 
 Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1846 Filed 02/28/2005 Page 1 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

EVERETT HADIX, et. al.,

Plaintiffs,

No. 4:92-CV-110

v.

HONORABLE RICHARD ENSLEN

PERRY M. JOHNSON, et. al.,

Defendants.
Patricia Streeter (P30032) Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (734) 222-0088

/ Michael Barnhart (P10467) Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs 615 Griswold, Suite 925 Detroit, MI 48226 (313) 964-6520

Elizabeth Alexander

Leo H. Friedman (P26319)

Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs

A. Peter Govorchin (P31161)

The National Prison Project 915 15th Street, NW, 7th Floor

Counsel for Defendants Michigan Department of Attorney General

Washington, DC 20005

Corrections Division

(202) 393-4930

P.O. Box 30217

Lansing, MI 48909

(517) 335-7021

__________________________________________________________________________

DEFENDANTS’ EXPEDITED MOTION TO DISMISS THE COURT’S ATTEMPT TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER FACILITIES NOT SUBJECT TO THE CONSENT DECREE AND/OR ISSUES AND FACILITIES
PREVIOUSLY TERMINATED BY THE FEDERAL COURT Defendants, by their counsel, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 3626, seek dismissal of the Court’s attempt to exercise jurisdiction over Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) facilities that are not subject to the Hadix Consent Decree and/or issues and facilities previously terminated by the federal court, and state as follows: 1. In 1980, Everett Hadix and other prisoners incarcerated at the State Prison of Southern Michigan, Central Complex (“SPSM-CC”) brought a class action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
1

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1846 Filed 02/28/2005 Page 2 of 13
§ 1983 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against various
state officials charged with the operation of SPSM-CC. See Hadix v. Johnson, 367 F.3d 513, 515-517 (6th Cir. 2004).1 The inmates asserted that their conditions of confinement violated their
rights under the First, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Id.
2. Five years later, on April 4, 1985, the parties entered into a comprehensive
consent decree covering most aspects of health care; fire safety; sanitation; safety and hygiene;
overcrowding and protection from harm; volunteers; food service; management; operations;
access to courts; and mail. Id.
3. Though the state officials admitted no liability on the inmates’ claims, the decree
explicitly stated that it was intended by the parties to assure the constitutionality of the
conditions under which prisoners are incarcerated at SPSM-CC. Id. Under the consent decree’s terms, the state officials could apply for termination of the decree when they were in compliance
with all decree provisions. Id. The district court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the
consent decree until compliance was achieved. Id.
4. In 1992, the District Court for the Eastern District transferred the medical and mental health components of the Consent Decree to this Court.2 Id. The Sixth Circuit also
transferred the access to courts portion of the case to this Court. Knop v. Johnson, 977 F.2d 996, (6th Cir. 1992). 1 The history of this case is stated in previous decisions of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, see Hadix v. Johnson, 367 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2004); 230 F.3d 840 (6th Cir. 2000); 228 F.3d 662 (6th Cir. 2000); 144 F.3d 925 (6th Cir. 1998); 143 F.3d 246 (6th Cir. 1998); 133 F.3d 940 (6th Cir. 1998), and in previous decisions of the district court, see Hadix v. Johnson, 45 F. Supp. 2d 584 (E.D. Mich. 1999); 947 F. Supp. 1113 (E.D. Mich. 1996); 947 F. Supp. 1100 (E.D. Mich. 1996); 933 F. Supp. 1360 (E.D. Mich. 1996); 879 F. Supp. 743 (E.D. Mich. 1995); 896 F. Supp. 697 (E.D. Mich. 1995); 792 F. Supp. 527 (E.D. Mich. 1992); 740 F. Supp. 433 (E.D. Mich. 1990); 712 F. Supp. 550 (E.D. Mich. 1989); 694 F. Supp. 259 (E.D. Mich. 1988). 2 On January 8, 2001, this Court entered its order terminating in all respects Section II.B (mental health care) of the Consent Decree.
2

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1846 Filed 02/28/2005 Page 3 of 13
5. The Consent Decree in this case provides: 1) This was an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other applicable statutes seeking declaratory and equitable relief with respect to the conditions of confinement at the Central Complex of the State Prison of Southern Michigan, including the Reception and Guidance Center (hereinafter referred to as SPSM-CC). 2) Plaintiffs are prisoners at the SPSM-CC and represent themselves and the class of all prisoners who are now or will be confined within said institution. Defendants are state officials charged under Michigan law with the operation of SPSM-CC. [R. 199, Consent Decree, Introduction, p. 1.] 6. At the time of the entry of the Consent Decree, April 1985, SPSM-CC consisted of cell blocks 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12 and administrative segregation (which was the hospital). See, the January 8, 2002 Affidavit of Barbara Hladki, R. 1540, a copy of which is attached hereto as Attachment 1. 6-Block only consisted of galleries base through 3. The 4th gallery also known as “top 6,” was part of the Reception and Guidance Center. 7-Block was then as it is now, the Reception and Guidance Center. Id. Cell Blocks 1 and 2 were the North Complex, and Cell Blocks 9, 10 and 16 were the South Complex. Id. 16-Block was demolished and is being replaced with a new housing unit. Id. A and B units, which are now part of the Reception and Guidance Center, did not exist at the time the Consent Decree was entered, and when they were first built they were part of the Parnall Correctional Facility. Id. C Unit did not exist at the time the Consent Decree was entered, and is now administered by the Egeler Correctional Facility. Id. The Duane Waters Hospital did not exist at the time the Consent Decree was entered. Id. 7. In April of 1996, Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 100 Stat. 1321-66 (1966). "Enacted in part in response to criticisms that federal courts had overstepped their supervisory authority in prison conditions cases, the PLRA was specifically intended to limit the use of court-enforced consent decree cases and to restrict 'the ability of Federal judges to affect the capacity and conditions of prisons and jails beyond
3

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1846 Filed 02/28/2005 Page 4 of 13
what is required by the Constitution and Federal law'." Hadix, 228 F.3d at 665; Hadix, 144 F.3d at 931.
8. After enactment of the PLRA, the defendants moved for termination of the Consent Decree in the Eastern District pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2). Hadix, 228 F.3d at 665-666. On November 1, 1996, the Eastern District denied defendants' motion to terminate the Consent Decree, ruling that the termination provisions of the PLRA were unconstitutional on separation-of-powers grounds. Id. at 666. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed the Eastern District's judgment [Hadix v Johnson, 133 F.3d 940, 941 (6th Cir. 1998), cert denied 524 U.S. 952 (1998)]. Id. The Sixth Circuit remanded the case to the Eastern District for the consideration of the merits of the defendants' motion for termination. Id.
9. On March 18, 1999, the Eastern District issued its ruling on defendants' motion for termination, and focused its attention on whether there had been substantial compliance with the consent decree with regard to the facilities designated in the break-up plan [Hadix v Johnson, 45 F. Supp. 2d 584 (E.D. Mich. 1999)]. Id. at 666. The Eastern District unconditionally terminated certain portions of the consent decree, and conditionally terminated other provisions. Id. at 666-667. On October 5, 2000, the Sixth Circuit reversed the Eastern District's order terminating the Consent Decree because it failed to comply with the requirements of the PLRA, and remanded the case with strict instructions for the prompt resolution of the defendants' motion to terminate. Hadix v Johnson, 228 F.3d 662 (6th Cir. 2000).
10. On March 18, 1999, the Eastern District also transferred sections I.P., I.Q., and I.S. of the Consent Decree (regarding water temperatures, housing temperatures, and ventilation, respectively) pertaining to Facility B (formerly Cell Blocks 4 and 5, now the Southern Michigan Correctional Facility or JMF) to this Court. Eastern District R. 1342 (Attachment 2); Hadix, 367 F.3d at 515-517. The Eastern District further transferred to this Court Defendants’ proposed
4

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1846 Filed 02/28/2005 Page 5 of 13
alternatives to Facility A (Cell Block 3 of the Egeler Correctional Facility or SMN). Id. The Eastern District determined that health care was implicated in these provisions at each of these facilities.
11. On December 2-3, 1999, this Court conducted hearings on the medical health care provisions of the Consent Decree and other issues transferred by the Eastern District. Id. Subsequently, on February 18, 2000, this Court issued its Order and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. R. 1372, 1373. This Court determined that Plaintiffs sustained their burden by proving the existence of constitutional violations with regard to section II.A.3.6, II.A.4.a, II.A.5.a, II.A.7, and II.A.11, and that Plaintiffs failed to sustain their burden of proving the existence of constitutional violations as to the remaining health care provisions of the Consent Decree and terminated its jurisdiction over those provisions. Additionally, this court found that the temperature, ventilation and fire safety conditions at JMF, Egeler, and Administrative Segregation support a finding of constitutional violations. Hadix, 367 F.3d at 515-517. The February 18, 2000 Order was not final, as the Court reserved judgment on termination of other portions of the Consent Decree and the entry of any remedial order. Id.
12. In an Order dated February 18, 2000, this Court terminated Section I.P. of the Consent Decree as to JMF.
13. On July 12, 2000, the Eastern District transferred to this Court Plaintiffs’ claims that conditions in Facility C (formerly Cell Blocks 11 and 12, now State Prison of Southern Michigan Central Complex or SMI) with regard to water, temperature and ventilation (Sections I.P., I.Q., and I.S., respectively) endanger the health of prisoners. Eastern District R. 1421 (Attachment 3); Id.
14. On November 15, 2000, the Eastern District transferred to this Court Plaintiffs’ claims that conditions in Facility D (8-Block of the Parnall Correctional Facility or SMT) with
5

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1846 Filed 02/28/2005 Page 6 of 13
regard to temperature and ventilation (Sections I.Q. and I.S., respectively), and the fire safety issues which are the same as to those concerning Facility A previously transferred. Eastern District R. 1432 (Attachment 4); Id.
15. On June 27, 2001, the Eastern District issued its Order of Termination. Eastern District R. 1442 (Attachment 5). The Eastern District’s Order of Termination provided in pertinent part:
With the exception of those portions of the Consent Decree transferred to the Western District [orders dated June 5, 1992; March 18, 1999; July 12, 2000; and November 15, 2000] . . . the Court hereby TERMINATES its jurisdiction over all sections of the Consent Decree and implementing orders remaining before this Court. 16. As set forth above, the only issues transferred to this Court were:
a. June 5, 1992 Order – medical and mental health care; b. March 18, 1999 Order – water temperatures, housing temperatures, and ventilation at JMF and Defendants’ proposed alternatives to SMN;3 c. July 12, 2000 Order – water temperatures, housing temperatures, and ventilation at SMI;4 d. November 15, 2000 Order – housing temperatures, ventilation, and fire safety at 8-Block of SMT.5 17. On May 6-8, 2002, this Court conducted hearings on the remaining medical health care provisions of the Consent Decree and other issues transferred by the Eastern District.
3 On April 8, 2002, pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, this Court terminated its jurisdiction over water temperatures of the Consent Decree as to all Hadix facilities. R. 1608. 4 On June 17, 2003, this Court issued its Order terminating jurisdiction over SMI. R. 1714. 5 On May 3, 2002, pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, this Court terminated its jurisdiction over ventilation as to SMN, SMI, and SMT. R. 1621.
6

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1846 Filed 02/28/2005 Page 7 of 13
Subsequently, on October 29, 2002, this Court issued its Order and Injunction and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. R. 1658, 1659. The Court determined that the existing system of health care continues to violate Sections II.A.3.6, II.A.4.a, II.A.5.a, II.A.7, and II.A.11 of the Consent Decree and the Eighth Amendment. Hadix, supra, 367 F.3d at 517. The Court further found that Defendants’ failure to protect prisoners from heat-related illnesses and the risk of injury from smoke and fire for prisoners with disabilities and chronic diseases resulted in violations of the Consent Decree and Constitution. Id.
18. This Court ordered the parties to further brief the issue of whether there is any alternative to compartmentalization, consistent with Section VIII of the Consent Decree, as a remedy for the fire safety problems and risks. Id. After briefing, on February 25, 2003, this Court issued its Injunction ordering compartmentalization of the facilities as the fire safety remedy. R. 1696. The Injunction applied only to SMN and SMT.
19. On March 4, 2003, Defendants filed their Notice of Appeal with the Sixth Circuit. 20. On December 23, 2003, Defendants submitted their filing entitled “State Prison of Southern Michigan Fire Safety and Egress Report for Egeler Cell Blocks 1, 2, 3, & 7 and Parnall Cell Block 8.” ("Plan") R. 1739. Defendants further indicated that subject to certain conditions they would voluntarily proceed with that portion of the Plan which concerned:
a. Expansion of the fire protection system to provide fire protection throughout each cell block;
b. Removal of the transformers and other electrical equipment that are no longer in use in the basement;
c. Increasing the guardrail height at the open side of the walkway at each tier of elevated cells; and
7

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1846 Filed 02/28/2005 Page 8 of 13
d. Removal of the unenclosed storage areas and laundry facilities and
construction of a 1-hour rated wall around the laundry facility at the Parnall Correctional
Facility.
21. On February 2, 2004, this Court issued its Order preliminarily approving
Defendants’ fire safety plan pending further hearing. R. 1751.
22. On March 25, 2004, the Sixth Circuit granted Defendants’ request for a stay of
this Court’s February 25, 2003 Injunction. Subsequently, on May 6, 2004, the Sixth Circuit
issued its Opinion affirming in part and reversing in part this Court’s injunctive order. Hadix v.
Johnson, 367 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2004). In reversing and remanding the alleged fire safety
constitutional violations, the Sixth Circuit stated in part:
In this case, the district court failed to identify the point at which certain fire safety deficiencies ceased being mere deficiencies and, instead, became constitutional violations. As noted above, this Court was informed at oral argument that Defendants have taken steps to remedy some of the problems noted by the district court, such as removing the dry transformers from the basement and installing additional sprinklers. It is unclear to us whether those remedies are sufficient to cure the constitutional violations at the Hadix facilities.
We understand that the judicial supervision over prison conditions is a daunting task. We cannot, however, accept the approach taken by the district court in this case, namely, providing a laundry list of all the things that were wrong in the Hadix facilities, declaring a constitutional violation, and ordering a highly expensive, and potentially ineffective, solution. . . . Accordingly, we remand this case for a more detailed analysis of how the current conditions in the Hadix facilities continue to be deprivations denying “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities” rather than potentially minor deviations that may satisfy the equivalency provisions of the LSC. Also, we remand for a more detailed analysis of why the steps taken by the prison officials, which the lower court may disagree with, constitute “deliberate indifference,” rather than a mere difference of opinion. [Id. at 529-530]
23. On July 29, 2004, Defendants’ counsel advised the Court, Court Monitor, and the
Plaintiffs that pursuant to Defendants’ Plan, “MDOC maintenance staff have removed the six
transformers and four oil switches from the basement of Parnall’s 8-Block.” Attachment 6.
8

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1846 Filed 02/28/2005 Page 9 of 13
24. On August 5, 2004, this Court issued its Order which provided in part that the parties should file simultaneous briefs on the process which should be used to resolve the fire safety remand from the Sixth Circuit. R. 1771.
25. On August 17, September 7, and September 17, 2004, Defendants’ counsel advised the Court, Court Monitor, and the Plaintiffs that pursuant to Defendants’ Plan the transformers and all electrical equipment had been removed from the basement in Egeler Cell Blocks 1, 2, 3, and 7, and Parnall Cell Block 8. Attachment 7.
26. On September 28, 2004, this Court issued its Scheduling Order (R. 1775), which provided for the filing of a detailed schedule for fire safety improvements planned; discovery, site visits by the experts; and an evidentiary hearing. Subsequently, on October 14, 2004, Defendants filed their Schedule for Fire Safety Improvements. R. 1785.
27. On October 12, 2004 and December 1, 2004, Defendants’ counsel advised the Court, Court Monitor, and Plaintiffs that pursuant to Defendants’ Plan, the MDOC completed the removal of the unenclosed storage areas and laundry facilities and had increased the guardrail height in Egeler Cell Blocks 1, 2, 3, and 7 and Parnall Cell Block 8. Attachment 8.
28. Despite the fact the Eastern District had transferred only limited specific issues pertaining to limited specific facilities to this Court and terminated all other provisions of the Consent Decree not transferred, Plaintiffs and this Court have ignored this jurisdictional subject matter defect. On October 30, 2004 and February 4, 2005, Plaintiffs submitted their Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. In many instances, Plaintiffs seek information regarding the “chow halls and kitchens serving the Egeler and Parnall facilities;” “the laundry, industries and the power plant at which Parnall prisoners work;” “9 and 10 blocks of the Parnall Facility;” “power plant, laundries, food preparation and service area and MSI (Michigan State Industries);” “SPSM laundry.” Plaintiffs’ October 30, 2004 Interrogatories ¶¶
9

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1846 Filed 02/28/2005 Page 10 of 13
29-30, 34; and February 4, 2005 Interrogatories ¶¶ 15, 16, 30-32, 34 (Attachment 9). None of these facilities or issues were transferred to this Court, and all were covered by the Eastern District’s June 27, 2001 Order of Termination.
29. The SMT laundry building is a one-story building separate from the housing units. The MSI factory within SMT is also separate from the housing units. The power plant building is separate from the housing units. The SMN chow hall and kitchen is a single story building, separate from the housing units.
30. JMF is not subject to this Court’s February 25, 2003 Injunction. Hadix, 367 F.3d at 517. The JMF housing units have been completely rebuilt, and they are no longer part of the fire safety issue in this litigation.6 More importantly, this “issue” was never transferred to this Court from the Eastern District and was terminated by the Eastern District’s June 27, 2001 Order of Termination. Even assuming that the MSI factory at JMF (textiles, print shop, optical) was covered by the Consent Decree, jurisdiction over these facilities was terminated on June 27, 2001. Finally, there is no laundry building in JMF, nor do any JMF prisoners work in the power plant, SMT laundry, or the SMI MSI building. The kitchen and chow hall at JMF is a singlestory building separate from the housing units, and jurisdiction over them was never transferred to this Court and was terminated on June 27, 2001.
31. Cell Blocks 9 and 10 of the Parnall Correctional Facility are non-Hadix facilities. See, April 18, 2002 Opinion (R. 1612) (“Plaintiffs apparently agree that Blocks 9 and 10 of
6 “Our reading of the record indicates that Defendants consented to compartmentalization as a remedy not for fire safety concerns, but for the concerns over violent attacks that were taking place in the prison complex. The concerns about personal safety of the prisoners stemming from the potential outbreak of violence have been remedied and are not subject of the current appeal. Accordingly, the district court erred when it proceeded on the assumption that Defendants had agreed on an earlier occasion to compartmentalization of the facilities to remedy fire safety violations.” Hadix, 367 F.3d at 519.
10

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1846 Filed 02/28/2005 Page 11 of 13
Parnall are non-Hadix facilities . . . .”). More importantly, this Court has never had jurisdiction over these facilities, and was not provided the same by any order from the Eastern District.
32. As a matter of law, jurisdiction over the aforementioned non-Hadix facilities and/or Hadix facilities and issues that were not transferred to this Court and were terminated by the Eastern District, is not vested with this Court and has never been vested with this Court. There is no existing order to the contrary.
33. As noted by the Sixth Circuit, a consent decree has both contractual and judicial aspects. United States v. Michigan, 940 F.2d 143, 150 (6th Cir. 1991); Williams v. Vukovich, 720 F.2d 909, 920 (6th Cir. 1983); See also, United States v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 420 U.S. 223, 228 (1975).
34. When construing a consent decree, as when construing other contracts, a court may rely on the usual aids to construction, including “the circumstances surrounding the formation of the consent order, any technical meaning words used may have had to the parties, and any other documents expressly incorporated in the decree.” ITT Continental Baking, 420 U.S. at 238. Nonetheless, the words contained within the four corners of the document itself determine the scope of a consent decree. Firefighters Local Union No. 1784 v. Stotts, 467 U.S. 561, 574 (1984); United States v. Armour and Co., 402 U.S. 673, 681-682 (1971) (“scope of a consent decree must by discerned within its four corners, and not by reference to what might have been written had Plaintiff established his factual claims and legal theories in litigation.”). The decree “should be construed to preserve the position for which the parties bargained.” Vogel v. City of Cincinnati, 959 F.2d 594, 598 (6th Cir.) cert. denied, 506 U.S. 827 (1992). This Court has improperly attempted to expand its jurisdiction.
35. Section 802(a)(1) of the PLRA directs that prospective relief in prison cases "shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular
11

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1846 Filed 02/28/2005 Page 12 of 13
plaintiff or plaintiffs." 18 U.S.C. § 3626 (a)(1). Correspondingly, § 802(b)(2) of the PLRA entitles the defendant "to the immediate termination of any prospective relief if the relief was approved or granted in the absence of a finding by the court that the relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right." 18 U.S.C. § 3626 (b)(2). Such prospective relief, however, "shall not terminate if the court makes written findings based on the record that prospective relief remains necessary, narrowly drawn, and the least intrusive means to correct a current and ongoing violation of the Federal right." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3).
36. As set forth above, on June 27, 2001, the Eastern District issued its Order of Termination (Attachment 5), terminating "its jurisdiction over all portions of the Consent Decree and implementing orders" with the exception of these limited and specific portions of the Consent Decree transferred to the Western District.
37. "'Terminate' means 'to put an end to' or 'to end'. Black's Law Dictionary at 1471". Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v Rouse, 129 F.3d 649, 662 (1st Cir. 1997) ("terminating a consent decree strips it of future potency"). Id. "Terminating the consent decree ends its future injunctive effect." Imprisoned Citizens Union v Shapp, 11 F. Supp. 2d 586, 610 (E.D. Pa. 1998).
38. Despite the clear and explicit language the Consent Decree, the Eastern District’s orders of transfer to this Court, and the Eastern District’s Order of Termination, Plaintiffs, with this Court’s implicit and/or explicit concurrence, have attempted to exercise jurisdiction over facilities not subject to the Consent Decree and/or issues and facilities previously terminated by the Eastern District.
39. On February 24, 2005, Defendants' counsel sought concurrence from Plaintiffs' counsel and this motion will be opposed.
12

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1846 Filed 02/28/2005 Page 13 of 13

Conclusion
For the aforementioned reasons, Defendants request that their Motion to Dismiss the
Court's attempt to exercise jurisdiction over facilities not subject to the Consent Decree and/or
issues and facilities previously terminated by the Federal Court be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael A. Cox Attorney General
s/Leo H. Friedman (P26319) A. Peter Govorchin (P31161) Assistant Attorneys General Corrections Division (517) 335-7021
Dated: February 28, 2005
Friedman/Hadix/1992006833A WD/Pldgs/Exp Mot Dism Cts Attempt

Certificate of Service

I certify that on February 28, 2005, I electronically filed the foregoing papers with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system and I certify that Mary Zischke has mailed by U.S. Postal Service the e-filed documents with attachments to:

Patricia Streeter Michael Barnhart Elizabeth Alexander F. Warren Benton, Ph.D.

Michael A. Cox Attorney General

s/ Leo H. Friedman (P26319) Assistant Attorney General Corrections Division

13

 
 Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2106-2 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 1 of 4
ATTACHMENT 1

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2106-2 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 2 of 4

9/4/06 -- Draft Recommendations re Hadix
Robert L. Cohen, MD 314 W. 141h Street New York, NY 10014 BobbyCohen@aol.com
September 4, 2006 To: Pete Govorchin, Elizabeth Alexander, Pat Streeter, Michael
Barnhart, and Ned Benton From: Robert L. Cohen, Independent Medical Monitor Re: Hadix

Page 1

Based upon my recent tours, review of documents provided by Defendants, as well as failures in staffing, pharmacy, and monitoring of patients in segregation status, I am considering making a series of recommendations to the Court to remedy critical problems in patient care at the Hadix facilities. am still awaiting additional documents regarding the recent death in segregation, as well as any reports, studies, quality assurance documents, not already provided to me. I will be preparing a report for the Court, which will be distributed prior to the scheduled October 11, 2006 hearing.

I am submitting the following draft recommendations to Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants. I would appreciate any comments and suggestions you may have regarding these recommendations. Please send me your comments before the end of September. Thank you.

DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Eliminate the use of Punitive Restraints in JMF
• When emergency physical restraints are required they may only be applied temporarily, based on written medical/mental health guidelines
• Emergency medical and psychiatric evaluation must be obtained for any physically restrained prisoner

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2106-2 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 3 of 4

9/4/06 -- Draft Recommendations re Hadix

Page2

• Prisoners whose medical or psychiatric condition requires ongoing use of restraints must be housed where they can be continually observed and treated by nurses and physicians (24 hour nursing and physician coverage)
2. Establish the capacity for air-conditioning the Segregation Unit, as well as other units in JMF, RGC, and SMT during heat emergencies;
3. Assure that prisoners in the Hadix facilities have direct routine and emergency access to qualified psychiatrists
4. Enhance Medical and Mental Health Services in Segregation • Conduct daily MD Rounds in Segregation areas of all Hadix facilities • Conduct daily Psychologist Rounds of all patients in Segregation receiving psychiatric medications and/or psychiatric consultation • Establish a Weekly Conference (Participants: MD, Psychiatry, RN, Psychology) to review care of prisoners in Segregation receiving psychiatric consultation. Maintain minutes of attendees and patients discussed, place notes in patient medical record. Each included prisoner will be reviewed at this conference at least biweekly. This review will include a determination if the prisoner is psychologically stable and can continue to be in segregation status, if he requires removal from segregation and return to general population, or, if necessary referral for emergency evaluation for transfer to an Emergency Room, DWH, Huron Valley, etc.;
5. Establish protocols for liaison between medical and mental health staff, including emergency consultation;
6. Increase permanent staffing at JMF to support the following minimum daily coverage: 3 MD's, 1 PA/NP, in addition to the previously ordered forty hours per week of Renal/Internist Coverage 52 weeks/year. Vacation/Sick Leave/CME for the Renal/Internist should be provided by one of the two nephrologists subcontracted by CMS.

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2106-2 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 4 of 4

9/4/06 --Draft Recommendations re Hadix

Page 3

7. In order to assure adequate coverage of all of the Hadix facilities, all fulltime MSP staff should receive traditional benefits (health insurance, disability insurance, malpractice insurance, One week per year off-site CME with expense/tuition allowance, etc, ability to include family members under coverage).
8. Establish a unitary medical record • If Defendants believe the SERAPIS system is functional, it must be implemented throughout the Hadix facilities by the end of 2006; • If Defendants believe the SERAPIS system cannot be implemented, they will present an alternative proposal to the Court for review by December 31, 2006.
9. In order to more closely monitor care, the Independent Medical Monitor will establish an Office of the Independent Medical Monitor (OIMM) at Jackson, with sufficient facilities, staff, and administrative support to assure that there is compliance with ongoing court orders, The OIMM will: • Receive prisoners complaints, register them, investigate them, and obtain responses from MDOC clinical and administrative staff; • Monitor adequacy of nurse and physician staffing; • Monitor Specialty Consultation services to assure that requests for specialty care are obtained within appropriate intervals; • Monitor care of prisoners in Segregation status; • Monitor implementation of a unitary medical record system; • Monitor the function of all aspects of the pharmacy system • Monitor the care of all patients with chronic renal failure, including their evaluation, surgical consultation for vascular procedures, referral for transplantation, and comprehensive medical care; and • Request any data and reports necessary to allow the Independent Medical Monitor to assess all aspects of the medical care program in the Hadix facilities and to develop, with Defendants and Plaintiffs, an effective program of quality assurance,

 
 Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2106-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 1 of 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

EVERETT HADIX, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

) Case No. 4:92-CV-110

v.

)

) HONORABLE RICHARD A. ENSLEN

PATRICIA CARUSO, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FURTHER RELIEF

I. INTRODUCTION

On October 29, 2002, the Court issued its Findings of Fact as well as an Order and

Injunction. That order contemplated that, following the appointment of an Associate Monitor

for Medical Care, the Associate Monitor would review Plaintiffs’ remedial proposals, in

consultation with the parties. Findings of Fact, Oct. 29, 2002 (“2002 Findings”) at 264 ¶ 1440.

Through no fault of the Associate Monitor, Robert Cohen, M.D., that review never took place.

Instead, the Associate Monitor, based on his documentation of continuing life-threatening

medical deficiencies in the Third Report of the Associate Monitor, developed his own set of

recommendations to address those problems. Third Report of the Associate Monitor, Sept. 12,

2005 (Dkt. No. 1892). The Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, based

in large part on the Third Report, and the Court following a hearing granted that motion.

Preliminary Injunction, Oct. 19, 2005 (Dkt. No. 1916). The Injunction required Defendants to

develop a plan to accomplish Dr. Cohen’s recommendations for changes. Id. Defendants

1

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2106-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 2 of 14
subsequently filed their proposed plan for compliance, which the Court significantly modified prior to approval. Order, Jan.12, 2006 (Dkt. No. 1952); Defs.’ Health Care Plan Submitted Pursuant to the Court’s Preliminary Injunction of Oct.19, 2005, as Amended by the Jan. 12, 2006 Court Order, Jan. 23, 2006 (Dkt. No. 1954) (“Defs.’ Plan”).
Since the approval of Defendants’ Plan, many of its provisions have proven insufficiently rigorous to prevent continued denials of necessary medical care to the Plaintiff class. Dr. Cohen has reported on some of these failures, including the failure of the medication distribution system, the staffing deficiencies, and the continued deficiencies in the care of prisoners confined in the segregation unit. See Letter from Cohen to Court, June 1, 2006 (Dkt. No. 2035); Letter from Cohen to Court, Aug. 14, 2006 (Dkt. No. 2088). In addition, Dr. Cohen recently provided some additional recommendations to the parties for comment. These recommendations include items necessary to assure a constitutional level of health care. Attach. 1, Memo. from Cohen to Govorchin, Sept. 4, 2006. Certain recommendations that specifically address the failure to provide appropriate mental health care staffing and services, the need for appropriate restrictions on the use of in-cell restraints, and the need for appropriate coordination between medical and mental health services are incorporated into Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reopen Judgment Regarding Mental Health Issues and Issue a Preliminary Injunction, which is being filed simultaneously with this motion.
Plaintiffs also urge the Court to require additional modifications of the current Defendants’ Plan. Some of Plaintiffs’ proposals are directly related to strengthening current provisions of Defendants’ Plan that have not eliminated specific known failures. Plaintiffs offer other proposals in this motion, such as the proposals that address the constitutional failures
2

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2106-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 3 of 14
regarding the care of persons with disabilities, that involve issues on which the Court previously found a constitutional violation but has never entered a specific order granting injunctive relief. See 2002 Findings at 190 ¶ 1031.
Finally, this motion also renews Plaintiffs’ request that the Court grant injunctive relief regarding protecting prisoners from heat injury. This is another area where the Court has previously found a constitutional violation. 2002 Findings at 236 ¶ 1270; Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Feb. 18, 2000 at 58 ¶ 338. The Court also ordered a remedy for this constitutional violation,1 but it subsequently vacated that remedial order for technical reasons2 and the 2002 order, in the form Plaintiffs propose in this motion, should again be issued. II. PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSALS FOR ADDITIONAL RELIEF A. Proposals Related to Medical Care
Plaintiffs request an order requiring Defendants to increase the permanent medical staffing at JMF so that minimum daily coverage consists of three physicians and one physician’s assistant or nurse practitioner, along with 40 hours of nephrologist or Board-certified internist coverage of the dialysis unit every week. Plaintiffs also ask that the Court establish a specific date by which that coverage must be provided, and further order that if Defendants do not fully comply by that date, Defendants must adopt Dr. Cohen’s proposed remedy of offering all fulltime MSP staff traditional benefits (health and disability insurance, including optional family coverage; malpractice insurance; and one week of continuing medical education, with tuition and
1 2002 Findings at 265 ¶ 1442. 2 Order, June 6, 2003 (Dkt. No. 1712). The Court did order limited interim relief. Order, June 19, 2003 (Dkt. No. 1715); see also Order, July 2, 2003 (Dkt. No. 1721).
3

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2106-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 4 of 14
expenses paid). Attach. 1 at 2-3. In addition to Dr. Cohen’s staffing proposals, Plaintiffs ask that Defendants be required to maintain two MSPs (with full SERAPIS access and training) as floaters and that the Court order that Defendants assure that both MDOC and CMS medical care supervisory positions remain filled. If there is a vacancy, Defendants should be required to report the vacancy promptly, to take steps to fill the position expeditiously, and, when recruiting leadership staff, attempt to hire persons with a graduate degree in organizational development or the equivalent, as well as significant organizational experience. Further, Defendants should be required to devise a workable plan to assure completion of the Chronic Care Clinics (“CCC”) database, flowsheets and other CCC enrollment forms in RGC.
Plaintiffs also ask that Defendants develop and implement a scheduling committee to determine how to increase productivity without overscheduling providers and allow efficient use of staffing resources. The scheduling committee, or some related committee, should explore how to coordinate nursing and physician services more seamlessly in the CCC process, and also how to implement a primary physician system in a meaningful fashion. The results of this planning by Defendants should be submitted to the Court on a periodic basis.
Defendants should be required to reduce by 20% the total number of excess days that patients wait for ordered specialty care. In order to make this possible, Defendants should be required to make provisions for back-up vendors for specialty referrals when the standard source of specialty consultations is not available. An appropriate staff member should be assigned fulltime, until the problem abates, to reducing the prevalence of inappropriately delayed specialty consultations. Additional on-site specialty consultations should be made available in endocrinology and physical medicine. In consultation with a physical medicine specialist,
4

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2106-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 5 of 14
Defendants should establish criteria for patients who would benefit from a multi-disciplinary individual treatment plan to address problems of prisoners with complex chronic medical conditions, including disabilities.
Plaintiffs also ask that the Court adopt a modified version of Dr. Cohen’s proposal (see Attach. 1 at 3), that Defendants be ordered to implement the SERAPIS system throughout the Hadix facilities, including DLW. Plaintiffs request that Defendants inform the Court immediately whether they can implement SERAPIS by the end of 2006. If Defendants cannot do so, then Defendants should be ordered to submit a proposal by November 30, 2006 for expedited installation of an electronic medical records system that can be implemented in all segments of the Hadix facilities. In the interim, Defendants should include the Special Accommodations lists as part of the standard Patient Overview printed from SERAPIS; assure that no one starts work in an ambulatory clinic without proficiency in SERAPIS; and provide that floating staff have access to the health care records of the patients they see.
Plaintiffs further request that Defendants be required to address the current deficiencies of the kite system by enforcing the requirement that prisoners receive a written response to their kites, and that basic information regarding medical kites be recorded in the patient’ medical record. The HUM supervisor should regularly review information regarding access to health care disclosed by the Help-Line process, kite logs, and the Urgent/Emergent logs to identify patterns of problems. All prisoners, including prisoners in C-Unit and DLW, should be afforded access to the kite system.
Recent events have made it absolutely clear that conditions in the Hadix facilities are currently so unsafe that it is critical that Dr. Cohen’s proposal for establishment of an Office of
5

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2106-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 6 of 14
the Independent Medical Monitor at Jackson be implemented, and that the proposed Office be provided with sufficient facilities, staff and administrative support to assure that there is compliance with the Court’s orders. Id. In addition, the proposed office should be charged with appropriate monitoring of the sanitation in the dialysis unit and DLW, as well as a focused, onetime, review of the work of the Pain Committee to assure that appropriate pain relief is available to all prisoners. Plaintiffs also ask that Dr. Cohen be tasked with preparing a specific proposal defining the numbers and professional qualifications of the necessary staff and submit the proposal to the parties. In the event that there is any disagreement on this proposal, the Court should resolve it.
Finally, Plaintiffs ask that Defendants be ordered to report certain critical events, in categories to be fully developed by the Associate Monitor. These categories should include all unexpected deaths, but also significant failures of the medical system, such as the pharmacy collapse in the spring. Staff did not tell Dr. Cohen during his May inspection of the catastrophic failure of the pharmacy system, so that he had to learn from prisoners about the problem, and staff had no real plan to address the resulting crisis. These facts demonstrate why a vigorous reporting requirement is necessary. B. Proposals Related to Disabilities
Because of the critical shortage of beds for prisoners who need licensed providers for personal care assistance and other supports in their activities of daily living, Plaintiffs ask that Defendants be ordered to submit a plan to increase the capacity for housing such prisoners by a minimum of 150 air conditioned beds.
Plaintiffs also ask that appropriate policies be developed making certain that custody does
6

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2106-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 7 of 14
not interfere with necessary accommodations for the disabled. Such policies must include a requirement that medical decisions, such as special diets, housing placement, and other accommodations are not overridden by custody. In addition, both custody and health care must be provided with appropriate training, including where appropriate joint training, on disabilities issues, such as issues involving the assignment of prisoner assistants. Defendants should also develop an appropriate mechanism for communications between health care and custody regarding disabilities issues.
Plaintiffs also ask that Defendants be required to establish a clear policy for appeal for prisoners who disagree with a decision to remove an assistive device that has been provided to the prisoner for over one year. That procedure should explicitly not require use of the regular prison grievance system in order for a prisoner to exhaust for federal court access purposes, although a prisoner should be permitted to choose to exhaust the regular grievance system.
In addition, Plaintiffs ask that Defendants be ordered to develop a plan to reduce the delays in repairs of assistive devices, as well as the delay between the time that an MSP orders a special accommodation and the time that the assistive device is ordered from the vendor. In order to minimize repair time for wheelchairs, the plan will include provisions for preventive maintenance and periodic inspection by qualified technicians. The plan must also include a requirement that each ambulatory clinic maintain an accommodation list that includes all ordered accommodations and pending accommodation repairs, as well as a requirement that staff check the accommodation list on a regular basis to assure the prompt receipt of ordered accommodations. The plan should further provide that, absent unusual circumstances, accommodations that do not require a special order will be provided to the prisoner within one
7

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2106-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 8 of 14
week. In addition, the plan should require that special diet accommodations, including snacks, will be provided within two days of the order by the MSP.
Because of the special vulnerability of prisoners who require prisoner assistants, Plaintiffs ask that Defendants designate an occupational therapist, registered nurse, or physician’s assistant to develop, coordinate and monitor the program for prisoner assistants. The program must address selection, training, matching of assistants, and supervision.
The current institutional transfer system also requires changes. Plaintiffs ask that the Court order that all prisoners who have urgent accommodation needs, such as special diets or snack bags, be seen by an MSP within two days of arrival at the receiving facility. In addition, Defendants need to conduct a systems analysis and establish a self-correcting audit of the transfer process, to reduce the number and duration of delays that patients enrolled in CCCs experience in the transfer process before they see an MSP.
In order to address deficiencies in the functioning of the CCCs, Plaintiffs ask that the Court order Defendants to develop categories of prisoners who require an accommodations review at every CCC visit, regardless of the CCC to which the prisoners are assigned. Such assessments should include a functional assessment and a review of accommodations, including the “degree of control.” The Functional Assessment and Special Accommodations forms should also be revised to include an assessment of the capacity to climb and descend stairs, to travel to required activities in the housing unit and yard within an expected time frame, and in appropriate cases an assessment of the tasks for which an assistant is required.
There is a serious need for a comprehensive review of the availability of appropriate accommodations in housing for prisoners with disabilities. Defendants should be required to
8

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2106-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 9 of 14
develop an appropriate plan to address such issues, including elevator details for all JMF prisoners who have ground level and bottom bunk accommodations; accessible telephones indoors for prisoners with mobility disabilities and TTY communications for deaf prisoners; automatic door openers and handrails at appropriate places in C-Unit; and the availability of sufficient housing for persons with disabilities in Level I or II to assure that such prisoners are not required to transfer to Level IV housing in order to receive appropriate housing accommodations. Further, prisoners who are at risk of heat-related illnesses should not be allowed to waive placement on base or the first tier.
Because of the harm caused when decubitus ulcers are allowed to develop, Plaintiffs request that Defendants create a surveillance, prevention and treatment program to prevent skin breakdown and to treat decubitus ulcers and other skin breakdowns if they occur. The program must include daily documentation of treatment in the progress notes, not less than weekly medical review and evaluation by an MSP, and provision for appropriate alternatives to use of a wheelchair if the wheelchair exacerbates the skin breakdown. The program must also include inservice training when it is introduced, and regular auditing.
A particularly critical need is the need for Defendants to perform a thorough review of transportation issues involving prisoners with mobility disabilities and chronic illnesses. In particular, Defendants need to take appropriate action to assure that such prisoners are not injured in transport, or denied necessary food or medicine during the transport process. This review and the resulting corrective measures should address measures to assure that such prisoners are not injured during the loading and unloading process, as well as during the actual transport.
9

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2106-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 10 of 14
Defendants should also require that transportation staff involved in the transport of prisoners with disabilities have appropriate specialized training. C. Proposals Related to Prevention of Heat Injury
It is apparent that the only workable remedy to prevent continued heat injury is to provide air-conditioned housing during periods of high heat for prisoners at high risk of heat injury. This proposed remedy is consistent with the remedy announced by the Court in the 2002 Findings, which required that prisoners at high risk of heat injury not be housed in any area where the heat index exceeded 90E. 2002 Findings at 265 ¶ 1442. This remedy will require either permanent or temporary air conditioning of sufficient housing for such prisoners, and Plaintiffs have provided Defendants with information regarding air conditioning options. Because of the intrinsic lack of air movement in the JMF segregation cells,3 as long as Defendants intend to use that unit to confine any prisoners at high risk, Plaintiffs believe that it must become an air conditioned unit.
Plaintiffs further request that Defendants be required to submit a plan, developed by professional engineers, to accomplish this requirement, and also request that Plaintiffs have an opportunity to review the plan before it is presented in final form to the Court. In addition, Plaintiffs urge the Court to order that the first unit to be provided with enough air conditioned housing during periods of high heat be JMF, in view of the particular environmental hazards there. Plaintiffs also request that the Court order a modification of Defendants’ heat alert policy so that it clearly requires that all “at risk” prisoners are to be followed by medical staff during
3 Plaintiffs learned from Defendants following the recent death in the segregation unit that ventilation in the segregation unit cells had been further impaired because Defendants had recently taken steps to seal the area under the solid doors. Although they also claim that they have taken other steps to maintain some air flow, conditions in the unit remain unsafe for prisoners at high risk of heat and cannot be made safe without some form of air conditioning.
10

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2106-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 11 of 14
periods of high heat, and that medical staff are to monitor for, and report, dangerous complications of heat such as asthma attacks, cardiac events, and seizures, as well as heat exhaustion and heat stroke.
Finally, Plaintiffs reluctantly ask that Plaintiffs’ request for further relief on the heat issue be considered at the hearing that the Court intends to schedule following the hearing to commence on October 11, 2006. The medical and mental health issues that Plaintiffs intend to present evidence on at the October hearing will, Plaintiffs expect, occupy the entire hearing; given the season, these issues must take precedence over the equally lethal dangers of failing to protect prisoners from the risk of heat injury. III. THE LEGAL BASIS FOR PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS
At the forthcoming hearings, Plaintiffs expect to present persuasive evidence of the need for all of the proposed relief identified in Section II, supra. For all of the issues upon which Plaintiffs will present evidence, the legal standard is the same. When prison officials fail to meet their obligation to provide for a basic human need as a result of their “deliberate indifference,” they violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 303 (1991). These basic human needs include medical care, adequate shelter and reasonable safety:
The [Eighth] Amendment also imposes duties on these officials, who must ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, and must take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also DeShaney v. Winnebago Co. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 200 (1994) (similar list
11

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2106-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 12 of 14
of “basic human needs”). The requests for relief Plaintiffs present in this motion thus all involve basic human
needs. In particular, the requests for relief to prevent harm to prisoners with disabilities obviously implicate the right to adequate medical care, but they also implicate the right to reasonable safety, and some of the requests also implicate the right to adequate shelter. See Weeks v. Chaboudy, 984 F.2d 185, 187-88 (6th Cir. 1993) (denial of wheelchair to paralyzed prisoner constituted deliberate indifference to serious medical needs; qualified immunity not available). Similarly, the requests for measures to protect against heat injury implicate the rights to adequate medical care, adequate shelter, and the right to reasonable safety. See, e.g, Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 340 (5th Cir. 2004) (affirming trial court finding of Eighth Amendment violation from exposure of prisoners to high temperatures; “this condition presents a substantial risk of serious harm to the inmates”).
Farmer sets forth detailed guidelines for determining if prison conditions of confinement violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The Eighth Amendment “deliberate indifference” standard has both an objective and subjective component. Thus, in order to be found liable under the Eighth Amendment, a defendant must know of and disregard an excessive risk to prisoner health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Further, once prison officials know of a substantial risk to prisoner health or safety, they have a duty to respond reasonably to that risk. Id. at 844.
Because this is an injunctive case, Plaintiffs’ proof of the subjective proof of the subjective component regarding Defendants’ actual knowledge is simple and straight-forward:
In this case, we are concerned with future conduct to correct
12

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2106-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 13 of 14
prison conditions. If these conditions are found to be objectively unconstitutional, then that finding would also satisfy the subjective prong because the same information that would lead to the court’s conclusion was available to the prison officials. Hadix v. Johnson, 367 F.3d 513, 526 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Farmer). In support of each of their requests for relief, Plaintiffs will at trial present evidence of a substantial risk of serious harm, and a failure of prison officials to respond reasonably to that risk. Indeed, in many if not most instances, Plaintiffs will present evidence that, not only was there a substantial risk of serious harm, but also that the known risk materialized and caused death, serious injury, or unnecessary suffering to one or more class members. It is also significant that, as explained above, the Court has previously found a violation of the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. See 2002 Findings at 79 ¶ 371 (access to health care); 111 ¶ 566 (treatment of patients with chronic diseases); 148 ¶ 789 (physician supervision); 157 ¶ 867 (maintenance of the health care record); 190 ¶ 1031 (health care and health-related accommodations for prisoners with disabilities); 236 ¶ 1270 (protection from heat-related illnesses). Under these circumstances, the legal burden is on Defendants to come forward with evidence that they have cured the existing constitutional violations. Thompson v. City of Los Angeles, 885 F.2d 1439, 1449 (9th Cir. 1989) (earlier court order regarding conditions at the jail created a common law presumption that such conditions continued); see also Qui v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 140, 148 (2d Cir. 2003) (applying presumption that a given condition continues to exist); NAACP, Jacksonville Branch v. Duvall Co. Sch., 273 F.3d 960, 988-89 (11th Cir. 2001) (same). Finally, Plaintiffs will also present evidence at trial that their proposals for relief meet the restrictions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1). Given this proof,
13

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2106-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 14 of 14

Plaintiffs will be entitled to the relief that they seek. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, Plaintiffs request that the relief they seek be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

S/ Elizabeth Alexander ELIZABETH ALEXANDER National Prison Project 915 15th Street, N.W., 7th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 202/393-4930

MICHAEL BARNHART (P-10467) 221 North Main Street Suite 300 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 734/213-3703

PATRICIA STREETER (P-30022) 221 North Main Street Suite 300 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 (734) 222-0088

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Dated: September 8, 2006

14

 
 Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2094 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION _____________________

EVERETT HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs,

Case No. 4:92-CV-110

v.

Hon. Richard Alan Enslen

PATRICIA CARUSO, et al.,
Defendants. _____________________________/

AMENDED FIRE SAFETY INJUNCTION

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals having remanded this matter for entry of relief pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 and such relief now being appropriate for the reasons given

in support of the previous Hirsch determinations.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Fire Safety Injunction (Dkt. No. 1899) entered on

September 14, 2005 is VACATED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are ENJOINED to implement Defendants’

Alternative Fire Safety Plan (Dkt No. 1967), including the proposed Construction Schedule,

immediately. Defendants are also required to file quarterly reports on the progress of

implementation, initially by the end of September 2006, and to inform the Court of any material

changes from the plan as submitted.

DATED in Kalamazoo, MI: August 21, 2006

/s/ Richard Alan Enslen RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2019 Filed 05/15/2006 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION _____________________

EVERETT HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs,

Case No. 4:92-CV-110

v.

Hon. Richard Alan Enslen

PATRICIA CARUSO, et al.,
Defendants. _____________________________/

OPINION

This matter is before this Court to approve one of two fire safety plans and to consider Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Affidavits attached to Defendants’ Detailed Alternative Plan (“D.A.P.”). Defendants’ D.A.P. is offered in lieu of a Compartmentalization Plan mandated by the Injunction Concerning Fire Safety entered on September 14, 2005. Defendants filed a compliant plan on or about January 25, 2006, but urge the Court to approve the D.A.P. filed on March 23, 2006 and further certify to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals under First National Bank of Salem, Ohio v. Hirsch, 535 F.2d 343, 346 (6th Cir. 1976) that Defendants’ appeal of the Injunction be remanded for the purpose of entering Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) relief (modification of the Injunction to permit approval of the D.A.P.). Hearing was held on the competing plans on February 21, 2006 and post-hearing briefing was ordered and timely filed.
Defendants’ D.A.P. proceeds from the premise that the additional fire safety mandated by the Eighth Amendment may be achieved by Defendants through a less costly and less intrusive plan than was previously ordered. (Reply 2.) Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”), injunctive relief as to prison conditions must be “narrowly drawn, extend no further than

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2019 Filed 05/15/2006 Page 2 of 6
necessary to correct the violation . . ., and . . . [must be] the least intrusive means to correct the violation . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1).
Defendants’ D.A.P. recognizes that the most significant defect of the existing structures, in terms of fire safety, is that disabled inmates are located far from fire exits and cannot reliably exit from fire in a timely way so as to pose a grave danger of smoke inhalation. (See Reply 2.) Defendants’ D.A.P. solves this problem in a variety of ways. First, it substitutes two-refitted temporary-style structures as to which there are no existing fire safety concerns (Blocks A and B) for Parnall Block 8. (D.A.P. 3.) As to Egeler Blocks 1-3 and 7, Defendants achieve the necessary reduction in travel exit distances by the creation of multiple new exits for each level of prisoner occupancy–two new central staircase exit towers will be added to greatly reduce exit travel distance. (Id. at 3-4 & Attach. 1.) For Blocks 1-3 of Egeler, the new staircases are to be accessed in part by raised exit corridors. (Id.) Block 7 of Egeler does not use the raised exit corridors because the prisoner cells are along the outside prison walls such that the new exits do not require the use of an additional exit corridor apart from new and short exit ways through the existing cell space into the new stairwell compartments. (Id.)
Defendants’ D.A.P. does not implement as much additional smoke exhaustion (computed by cubic feet per meter (“CFM”) capability of the exhaust fans) as contemplated by the Compartmentalization Plan. The D.A.P. increases the fan CFM for Egeler Block 1 from 20,520 to 32,520. (Id. at 4.) The D.A.P. increases the fan CFM capacity for Egeler Block 2 from 18,900 to 29,659. (Id. at 5.) The D.A.P. increases the fan CFM capacity for Egeler Block 3 from 20,520 to 30,000. (Id.) It also increases the fan CFM capacity for Egeler Block 7 from 14,040 to 19,464. The Compartmentalization Plan included fan CFM capacity of 212,000 for each cell half-block. (Jan.
2

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2019 Filed 05/15/2006 Page 3 of 6
25, 2006 Plan 5.) The reason for the significant increase of fan capacity for the Compartmentalization Plan is because such plan halved the available overhead space for smoke collection (i.e., halved the overhead atria) and would have in fact created a greater risk of smoke inhalation were it not for the increased fan capacity. Since compartmentalization will not occur, the full-scale exhaust system previously contemplated may be less necessary in that the large atrium will continue to provide significant overhead air displacement of smoke. Since prisoners will be exiting the facilities faster (due to the shortened exit routes), the level of ventilation contemplated by the D.A.P. will be more adequate and would be less likely to pose any undue risk of smoke inhalation injury to prisoners. The danger of smoke inhalation is also addressed by existing cell sprinklers, property limitations, and nonflammable cell construction which limit both the spread of fire and smoke during arson incidents.
Defendants’ D.A.P. does not foresee the use of a new remote unlocking system, but instead calls for the use of continued regular maintenance and repair of the existing unlocking system for the cell blocks. Defendants have developed a new system for lock inspection intended to assure the functionality of the unlocking mechanisms in the event of fire.1 (Id. at 13 & Attach. 3.) Defendants have estimated that the D.A.P. can be implemented at a small fraction ($7.54 million) of the cost of the Compartmentalization Plan ($98.55 million). (Id. Attach. 9.) Further, the use of the Compartmentalization Plan would require substantial permanent additional correctional officer staffing costs and additional costs for use and maintenance of the electronic remote unlocking system, and other features. (Id.) For example, for the year 2015, Defendants project that operational
1Of course, the sufficiency of this new inspection system will be tested further during this litigation. If prisoners are locked in their cells during fire drills or fires, the system will be subject to further correction or remedy.
3

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2019 Filed 05/15/2006 Page 4 of 6
and maintenance costs for the Compartmentalization Plan would exceed the costs of the D.A.P. by over $5 million. (Id.)
Defendants have also scheduled to complete the D.A.P. at a much faster pace than the Compartmentalization Plan due to the reduction of associated construction tasks. (Cf. D.A.P., Attach. 8 (2.5 years) vs. Jan. 25, 2006 Plan, Const. Schedules (5 years).) Defendants have also pledged to implement the D.A.P. without challenge–though of course any plan will be subject to further inmate challenge and testing.
Defendants’ D.A.P. was not proposed as of the time of the last evidentiary hearing–because it is a recent invention of Department of Corrections’ officials proposed after the Court’s earlier Findings. Upon review of the D.A.P. and supporting evidentiary materials filed by Defendants, the Court finds that the fire safety elements of the D.A.P., if implemented according to the drawings and schedules, would both meet the Life Safety Code and provide an acceptable level of fire safety even for disabled inmates with difficulties exiting. As such, the Court finds that the D.A.P. is an adequate Eighth Amendment remedy and is preferable to the Compartmentalization Plan given the faster construction schedule, the reduced costs, the lesser intrusion into Department affairs, and the public’s interest in a safe and effective means of fire egress for prisoners in these facilities. The Court also finds that Defendants’ remedy meets the requirements of the PLRA. The Compartmentalization Plan no longer meets the PLRA requirements because the D.A.P. is now available and is significantly less intrusive than the Compartmentalization Plan.
A few comments are warranted as to Plaintiffs’ criticisms of the D.A.P. Plaintiffs suggest that Egeler inmates at upper levels may experience anxiety about the use of a raised walkway during fire exiting, which may in turn delay both their exit and the exit of other inmates exiting behind
4

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2019 Filed 05/15/2006 Page 5 of 6
them. Although this is a real concern, the Court does not view this concern as creating a significant likelihood of peril for several reasons. The Court believes that most inmates with height anxieties would, due to the construction of the Egeler blocks, already be stationed at lower levels. Further, any such inmates now residing at upper floors would have an option of exiting from end row staircases. Finally, the responsible prison officials plan to test their system during fire drills. If during drills certain inmates experience anxiety or other difficulty using raised walkways, they may be reassigned to lower cells to prevent difficulty in the event of actual fire.
Plaintiffs have also postulated that the raised walkways should be protected by cyclone fencing to prevent prisoner falls. The Court does not perceive this to be a wise suggestion for several reasons. The prisoners who use the upper Egeler floors are experienced with the use of raised walkways outside their cells and have not experienced any problems with falls, including during fires and fire drills. The introduction of cyclone fencing would also add a ready supply for prisoner shanks–something the security staff of the prison justifiedly seek to avoid.
In light of the above, the Court further finds that Defendants are entitled to relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) and/or 60(b)(6)–due to exceptional changes in circumstances which make the enforcement of the previously ordered relief otherwise inequitable–i.e., the proposal of a new plan together with the public’s interest in the enactment of the most expedient and least intrusive constitutional remedy. Cf. United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106, 119 (1932); Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 384 (1992). As such, the Court will make the required certification under Hirsch and certify to the Court of Appeals that it will upon remand approve Defendants’ D.A.P.
5

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2019 Filed 05/15/2006 Page 6 of 6

Plaintiffs’ request to strike Defendants’ Affidavits will be denied because the admittedly old

information has new found relevance in light of the newly-minted Detailed Alternative Plan and

because the Court must, in any event, consider such information because it bears upon equitable

factors relating to the public’s interest and the wise expenditure of public resources. In particular,

in light of such information, the Court cannot justify the expenditure of a large amount of prison

resources to introduce a new remote unlocking system to replace an older, functional and

constitutionally adequate unlocking system, nor is interference with the Department’s control of

prisoner cell property otherwise justified on the present record.

An Order shall enter consistent with this Opinion.

DATED in Kalamazoo, MI: May 15, 2006

/s/ Richard Alan Enslen RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6

 
 Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2103-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 1 of 23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

EVERETT HADIX, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

) Case No. 4:92-CV-110

v.

)

) HONORABLE RICHARD A. ENSLEN

PATRICIA CARUSO, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REOPEN JUDGMENT REGARDING MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES AND ISSUE A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

I. INTRODUCTION

On August 14, 2006, the Associate Monitor for Medical Issues, Robert Cohen, M.D.,

informed the Court of his findings from a recent inspection of the Hadix facilities. Dr. Cohen

reported on the death of a 21-year old man, who had a long history of mental illness. This

prisoner died shortly after being released following four days in full restraints, and no physician

examined him during the entire period that he was in restraints. Although mental health staff

knew that he was actively psychotic and being held in four-point restraints, no psychiatrist was

consulted at any point. Indeed, Dr. Cohen reported that not a single patient at JMF had seen a

psychiatrist in the six weeks preceding the prisoner’s death.

The death of this prisoner, and the appalling lack of response from either mental health or

medical staff that made it possible, illustrate that the constitutional violations with regard to the

medical care of the class cannot be fully eliminated without addressing the basic mental health

1

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2103-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 2 of 23
needs of the class. Precisely because it is now clear that the medical needs of the Hadix class cannot be met without attention to the assurance of a constitutional level of mental health care for the class, Plaintiffs ask that the Court take the appropriate action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) to relieve Plaintiffs of the previous order of the Court dismissing Plaintiffs’ mental health claims.
Plaintiffs further request that the Court, following hearing, issue a preliminary injunction eliminating the use of in-cell mechanical restraints outside of medical settings except for limited time periods in emergencies; requiring medical and psychiatric evaluation of restrained prisoners; assuring that prisoners have appropriate access to psychiatrists and other critical mental health staff; assuring daily rounds by psychologists in the segregation unit; establishing a weekly conference involving mental health and medical care staff regarding prisoners in the segregation unit with mental health needs; and requiring Defendants to develop protocols for the use of restraints and for coordination of medical and mental health services. Plaintiffs also request that this motion be considered at the forthcoming October 11 hearing, and that the Court further issue a discovery and hearing schedule, with the goal of determining whether additional or different relief is appropriate with regard to the remaining mental health care claims. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Additional information supplied to Dr. Cohen following his initial report indicated that, only after this death on August 6, did the responsible authorities act to make any psychiatric access available to prisoners at JMF, despite the fact that it contains a unit used for prisoners in segregation and observation status and that it contains a total population of approximately 1400. During the period in which there was no on-site psychiatric coverage, no patients were seen by psychiatrists. If the need was classified as urgent, case managers (social workers) were to initiate
2

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2103-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 3 of 23

transfers to other facilities; patients requiring “routine” evaluations by a psychiatrist simply did

not receive them. When psychiatric medications required renewal, an offsite psychiatrist phoned

in an order. Attach. 1, Memo. from Rushbrook to Calley, Aug. 15, 2006.

Because of this situation, the prisoner was left to die an agonizing death. The medical

records supplied to Plaintiffs do not contain a single set of vital signs during the week that the

prisoner died. The logs for the segregation unit repeatedly document psychotic behavior and

refusals of food and water by the prisoner. While Plaintiffs have yet to receive autopsy reports, it

seems entirely plausible from the information currently available that a lack of water contributed

to the prisoner’s death. There is no evidence that any medical or mental health staff member took

any steps to interrupt what amounted to a death by torture. Because the events are so horrendous

Plaintiffs reproduce in full (aside from names) the timeline prepared by staff based on a

videotape of the last few hours of the prisoner’s life:

Sunday, August 6, 2006

1:49 p.m. 1:51 1:53 1:58 1:59
2:01 2:02 2:03 2:04 2:06
2:12 2:14

Lt. in to explain the procedure for taking off TOBR [top of bed] restraints. Lt. out. . . Officer in cell to unlock restraints. [Second] officer in the doorway.1 TOBR restraints completely off. . . .belly chains still on prisoner. [Three officers] in cell to take off TOBR restraints. Officers out of cell. . . . [The prisoner] moving to get off bed and he falls to the floor. [Three officers] enter cell. . . [They] s[e]t prisoner on the floor. Officers s[e]t prisoner on the bed. Officers out of the cell. . . Lt. remains in cell to talk to prisoner. Lt. out of cell. Prisoner staggers from bed to sit on the toilet. . . appears to be attempting to drink water. Prisoner falls on the floor in a sitting position. . .struggling to get up. Prisoner falls on his back in a lying position.

1 All of the ellipses in this summary are in the original. No substantive descriptions of events are omitted in this reproduction of the memorandum.
3

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2103-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 4 of 23

2:26

Prisoner trying to raise himself off the floor.

2:32

Prisoner [lies] back down.

2:57

RN, [two officers] enter cell.

2:58

Prisoner is laid on his back on the bottom section of his bed with legs hanging

over edge of bed.

2:59

RN does a blood pressure check on prisoner’s left arm.2

3:00

RN does a blood pressure check on prisoner’s right arm.

3:02

Blood pressure checks done. . . RN checks prisoner’s pulse on left wrist.

3:04

All staff out of cell.

3:47

Faint movement seen by prisoner.

3:50

Faint movement seen by prisoner.

3:53

Faint movement seen by prisoner.

3:58

[a masters-level psychologist, erroneously identified in the memorandum as a

doctor] seen leaving the area near prisoner’s cell.

3:58

RN and Officer enter prisoner’s cell.

3:59

RN exits. . . Officer takes out CPR breathing device. . . RN reenters cell with

AED [a device designed to deliver shocks to a person in cardiac arrest]. . . CPR is

started by [two officers].

4:00

Officer enters prisoner’s cell and assists with CPR . . . Sergeant enters cell.

4:12

DLW staff enter prisoner’s cell.

4:16

Gurney is brought to prisoner’s cell.

4:17

Prisoner placed on gurney . . . CPR still in progress.

4:18

Prisoner out of cell.

Memo. from Murchison to Becker, Aug. 9, 2006.

Dr. Cohen summarized the circumstances as follows:

My preliminary findings suggest that [the prisoner’s] death was predictable and preventable. Actively psychotic patients with cardiac conditions placed in four point restraint are at significant risk of death. The temperature humidity index in the segregation unit during the week prior to [the prisoner’s] death had reached 106. [The prisoner] had multiple medical conditions, including hypertension, hypothyroidism, and manic-depressive illness which placed him at risk of severe heat related illness. He was taking six different medications. Several of these drugs are known to seriously impair heat regulation. Most importantly, [the prisoner] was kept in four point restraints for four days without physician care. During this period, he was noted to be

2 The vital signs are not recorded in the medical record given to Plaintiffs or in any other document provided to them.
4

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2103-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 5 of 23
agitated, disoriented, psychotic, and was urinating on his bed. Despite th[ese] emergency psychiatric symptoms, he was not seen by a psychiatrist, because no psychiatrist was working at JMF. The death of [the prisoner], a twenty one year old man, was a terrible unnecessary tragedy. Letter from Cohen to Court, Aug. 14, 2006 at 2. Plaintiffs’ expert Jerry Walden, M.D., also points out that all categories of staff–physicians, nursing, mental health supervisors who allowed JMF to operate without any psychiatric coverage, JMF mental health staff, and custody–contributed to the death by ignoring obvious signs of danger. Further, Dr. Walden points out in detail the obvious dangers posed by the combination of heat alert-level temperatures, the failures of MDOC to provide psychiatric coverage for the facility, the failures of medical care and mental health staff to coordinate, the failures of either psychiatric staff or medical staff to monitor the prisoner’s complex medication regimen that left him extremely vulnerable during a heat alert period, particularly in boxcar cells of the segregation unit. See Attach. 2, Walden Decl., Sept. 6, 2006. It is shocking that responsible Department of Corrections staff would allow JMF to remain without any on-site psychiatric coverage for over a month until this tragedy; this, like the May pharmacy implosion, was a disaster waiting to happen. Second, while Defendants have chosen to blame one staff member who failed to transfer the prisoner from JMF to another facility, it is apparent that any number of staff, including the nurses and the mental health staff assigned to the segregation unit, failed to take affirmative action to intervene. There were apparently no reliable systems to facilitate medical-mental health coordination for vulnerable prisoners, no systems to assure that basic mental health services were not interrupted, and no communications to custody staff so that policy would have prohibited the use of restraints in this
5

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2103-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 6 of 23
manner. III. RELIEF UNDER RULE 60(b)(6) A. The Need for Relief
On January 8, 2001, the Court terminated the mental health provisions of the Consent Decree pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2). Opinion and Order, Jan. 8, 2001 (Dkt. Nos. 1435, 1436). Plaintiffs do not challenge the correctness of the Court’s ruling in 2001. Given that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) required a “current and ongoing” constitutional violation to sustain the challenged injunctive relief in the face of Defendants’ challenge, the Court’s finding that no current violation existed required termination then. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3).
The correctness of the Court’s previous ruling does not, however, govern current events. As the Court also said:
If in the future the Defendants should fail in these respects, it is as certain as the next day that untreated mental illness will again ravage Michigan’s prisoners. Should this happen, let it be known as an indictment of those leaders who could remain so indifferent to dire human suffering as to forsake proven remedies engineered through painstaking work and professional diligence, which are ready at hand. Opinion at 5. The day the Court feared is now at hand, but the Court’s previous order does not leave the Court helpless to address the resurgent constitutional violations. The Federal Rules of Procedure provide an appropriate procedure for reopening judgments resulting from PLRA termination motions, just as they do for other equitable judgments that require revision. B. The Availability of Reopening Relief In Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994), the Supreme Court
6

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2103-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 7 of 23
held that, absent some independent basis for federal jurisdiction, a federal court cannot enforce a settlement agreement unless the agreement has been incorporated into a court order or the court had explicitly retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. Id. at 380-81. Kokkonen affirmatively states that when a settlement agreement has been incorporated into a court order, the court has jurisdiction to grant relief by reopening the judgment if the agreement is breached:
The situation would be quite different if the parties’ obligation to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement had been made part of the order of dismissal–either by separate provision (such as a provision “retaining jurisdiction” over the settlement agreement) or by incorporating the terms of the settlement agreement in the order. In that event, a breach of the agreement would be a violation of the order, and ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the agreement would therefore exist. Id. at 381. C. Rule 60(b)(6) Relief The reasoning of Kokkonen necessarily envisions that, if a court incorporated a settlement agreement into an order and then dismissed the case, enforcement of the settlement would require reopening of the case and thus recourse to Rule 60(b). Ordinarily motions to modify final injunctive relief are filed pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5), which allows relief if “it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application.” Once an injunction has been terminated, however, it no longer has prospective application, so this section cannot be used to restore a previously terminated injunction. Dowell v. Bd. of Educ. of Okla. Pub. Sch., 8 F.3d 1501, 1509 (10th Cir. 1993) (rejecting application of Rule 60(b)(5) to application to restore relief; noting that Rule 60(b)(6) applied); Lee v. Talledega Co. Bd. of Educ., 963 F.2d 1426, 1433 (11th Cir. 1992) (holding that an order that implicitly dissolved an injunction was not an order with
7

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2103-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 8 of 23
prospective application, so Rule 60(b)(5) was inapplicable); Twelve John Does v. District of
Columbia, 841 F.2d 1133 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (“[I]t is difficult to see how an unconditional
dismissal could ever have prospective application within the meaning of Rule 60(b)(5).”).
Because Rule 60(b)(5) is inapplicable, Plaintiffs bring this motion under Rule 60(b)(6),
which is the catch-all clause allowing alteration of a judgment based on “any other reason
justifying relief from the operation of a judgment.” Not surprisingly, the first requirement that
Plaintiffs must meet to demonstrate entitlement to relief under this subsection is a showing that
relief is unavailable under any other subsection of the rule. Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition
Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863 & n.11 (1988) (stating that Rule 60(b)(6) grants federal courts authority
to provide relief only when relief is not available under any other provision of Rule 60(b)).
Because relief is not available under Rule 60(b)(5), for the reasons noted above, this demonstration is easy.3
D. Plaintiffs’ Showing of “Extraordinary Circumstances”
The other requirement for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is a showing of “extraordinary
circumstances” justifying relief from the judgment. See Liljeberg, 486 U.S. at 863-64. Plaintiffs
3 The remaining subsections of Rule 60(b) provide for relief in the following circumstances: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; and (4) the judgment is void. Whether the return of unconstitutional conditions is a surprise or involved misrepresentations by Defendants at the time of the previous order is irrelevant because the predictability of a return of such conditions would not have affected termination; as noted above, all that was material was whether there were then-existing constitutional violations. Nor is the second subsection applicable, because this subsection is designed to provide relief if it is likely that the judgment would have been different based on evidence that existed at the time of trial. See, e.g., United States v. McGaughey, 977 F.2d 1067, 1075 (7th Cir. 1999) (stating requirement that evidence existed at the time of trial as one element of the test for relief under Rule 60(b)(2)). Because Plaintiffs concede that the constitutional violation returned only after the dismissal of injunctive relief, this subsection is not applicable. Finally, Plaintiffs make no argument that the previous judgment was fraudulent or void.
8

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2103-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 9 of 23
have shown the required “extraordinary circumstances” sufficient to justify reopening the Order of January 8, 2001. First, Defendants’ failures of constitutional dimension to live up to their commitments to the Court at the time that relief was dismissed have had lethal results. Second, unless the Court reopens the mental health issues, the efforts to cure the constitutional violation regarding medical care will be severely compromised.
The recent death illustrates the unbreakable link between the medical care issues and mental health care. This prisoner died from untreated physical conditions, but the failure of the mental health staff to address his mental health needs in the segregation unit set the stage for his death. There are many other potential interactions between medical care and mental health care, including medication issues (such as the failure of the pharmacy system to deliver ordered psychotropic medications because of SERAPIS problems); medical side effects of psychotropic medications; potential interactions between psychotropic medications and other medications prescribed to a prisoner; heat injury risks posed by psychotropic medications; and access to health care issues, ranging from restrictions on medications because of cost to ineffective communications between patients and their providers. Plaintiffs expect to present evidence on all these issues.
Mentally ill patients are concentrated in the segregation unit. Further, coordination between medical care and mental health care is hindered because medical care is a CMS function, while mental health care is provided by state employees. Accordingly, implementing and monitoring medical orders directly affecting mental health in the absence of orders that directly address the mental health deficiencies will be significantly less efficacious. Further, given what has been discovered essentially by accident by Dr. Cohen, it is apparent that there are
9

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2103-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 10 of 23
likely to be additional systemic constitutional violations regarding mental health care that are not yet in focus.
Indeed, a number of circuits, including the Sixth Circuit, have found “extraordinary circumstances” under Rule 60(b)(6) justifying reopening a judgment when a settlement agreement has been subsequently violated. See Aro Corp. v. Allied Witan Co., 531 F.2d 1368, 1371 (6th Cir. 1976) (district court, using Rule 60(b)(6), correctly exercised its jurisdiction in vacating an order of dismissal based on party’s attempted repudiation of a settlement).4 Particularly well-reasoned is the First Circuit’s decision in United States v. Baus, 834 F.2d 1114 (1st Cir. 1987), in which that court reversed a district court’s refusal to grant relief and held that the defendants were entitled to a hearing on their allegations that the United States had breached a stipulated judgment. The court characterized as “well-accepted” the principle that material breach of a settlement agreement incorporated into a court judgment entitles the non-breaching party to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) and it emphasized that, absent such relief, “[m]aterial breach of such a solemn obligation presents an extraordinary situation of permitting a party to benefit from a judgment the terms of which it has deliberately disregarded.” Id. at 1124; see also Keeling v. Sheet Metal Workers Int’l Ass’n, Local Union, 162 937 F.2d 408, 410 (9th Cir. 1991) (affirming a district court’s grant of relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because consistent noncompliance with the terms of a settlement agreement, which had the effect of frustrating the purpose of the agreement, constituted an “exceptional circumstance”); Vincent v. Reynolds Mem.
4 Dicta in Aro Corp. are inconsistent with the later holding in Kokkonen that a federal court cannot enforce an unincorporated settlement absent some independent source of federal jurisdiction. This distinction is irrelevant here, since the previous order at issue, the Consent Decree, was incorporated as a court order.
10

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2103-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 11 of 23
Hosp., Inc., 728 F.2d 250, 251 (4th Cir. 1978) (reversing refusal of district court to vacate dismissal of case based on party’ssettlement; in light of fact that state court had subsequently determined that terms of settlementagreement violated state public policy, Rule 60(b)(6) relief should have been granted to allow the moving party to reopen litigation and pursue new judgment); cf. Sawka v. Healtheast, Inc., 989 F.3d 138, 140-41 (3d Cir. 1993) (suggesting that if settlement agreement had been incorporated into record, that might have constituted an “extraordinary circumstance” under Rule 60(b)(6) justifying reopening when non-moving party violated settlement). E. The Mental Health Issues Cannot Be Fully Considered at the October Hearing.
Of note, Plaintiffs are not requesting a reinstatement of the Consent Decree mental health provisions. Rather, Plaintiffs seek a reinstatement of their original claims that mental health care deficiencies constitute a constitutional violation. While the evidence of a constitutional violation justifies vacatur of the termination order, Plaintiffs at this time do not claim that the constitutional violation regarding mental health is necessarily coextensive with the relief provided in the mental health sections of the Consent Decree. Accordingly, the appropriate relief, respectful of the limitations imposed by the PLRA, is to vacate the 2001 Order but to enter affirmative relief only to the extent that Plaintiffs prove a new current and ongoing constitutional violation.
While Plaintiffs will request relief at the October hearing related to the mixed medical/mental health issues for which additional discovery to document the violations is unnecessary, it is probable that the mental health issues uncovered by Dr. Cohen are not the only ones of constitutional dimension. Thus, while Plaintiffs ask that the Court vacate its previous
11

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2103-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 12 of 23
dismissal order and reopen the mental health issues entirely, Plaintiffs request that only the relief requested in the following section be considered at the forthcoming hearing. Plaintiffs further request that, following the forthcoming hearing, the Court establish a discovery and potential hearing schedule to consider whether other or additional relief on the mental health claims is appropriate.
Allowing Plaintiffs an opportunity to explore the mental health issues through discovery is certainly appropriate in light of what the record already shows. The fact that Defendants could allow JMF with its large segregation unit and approximately 1400 prisoners to operate for a prolonged period of time without any on-site psychiatric coverage demonstrates a system that is unable to operate responsibly on its own. Given this fact, a fair opportunity to conduct discovery is absolutely necessary before these claims can be resolved by trial. IV. THE NEED FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.
Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction incorporating the major recommendations of Dr. Cohen to the parties regarding mental health: A. Appropriate Protocols and Policies Regarding Use of In-Cell Mechanical Restraints
The single factor most responsible for the death of this prisoner was the decision to use mechanical restraints outside of a medical setting. Because of this decision, this prisoner, at known high risk for heat injury and cardiac events, could obtain water only by cooperating with staff. Given that he was “floridly psychotic” at the time, according to mental health staff, it is not surprising that he did not cooperate with staff. As a result, he was almost entirely deprived of water during a period in which a heat alert was just ending. As Dr. Walden summarizes, the segregation log documents six refusals and one acceptance of water on August 3, and eleven
12

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2103-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 13 of 23
refusals with no acceptances of water on August 4. Attach. 2 at 4. Presumably because the water refusals were noted in the custody log and not in medical progress notes, no one–physicians, nurses, mental health staff or custody–acted to address his obvious needs resulting from the interaction of his medical and psychiatric needs. The relevant MDOC policy allows a shift commander to place a prisoner in restraints initially, with approval from a duty administrative officer if the restraints are used for longer than two hours. If the restraints are used for more than 24 hours, the Regional Prison Administrator must approve. While health care staff is supposed to check the prisoner’s condition during health care rounds, nothing specifically defines how often rounds are required or what a health care “check” includes in this circumstance. Restraints can be used before any medical review. Further, medical staff is “consulted to ensure there is no known medical reason” precluding the use of restrains only when the use of top-of bed restraints is contemplated, despite the policy’s recognition that restraints can interfere with breathing and circulation. Attach. 3, PD 04.05.112 (1/13/03).
If the restraints had been applied in a medical setting, vital signs and fluid intake and output, among other things, would presumably have been regularly monitored and the prisoner’s deteriorating mental status would have led to intervention. Because such monitoring is critical, it is clearly too dangerous to allow such restraints outside of a medical setting.
Further, nothing in Defendants’ current policy requires either medical or psychiatric evaluations; the undefined requirement of medical “checks” is clearly too vague to provide basic protections for restrained prisoners, who intrinsically are more likely to be suffering from significant mental illness and who are also put at serious medical risks by the very nature of these physical restraints. If the prisoner who died had received either a full evaluation by either a
13

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2103-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 14 of 23
psychiatrist or another physician, it is unlikely that death would have ensued. It is significant that there is no applicable protocol for the use of restraints in a medical
setting. Because of this lack of defined policy, as noted above, staff in all the various occupational categories were ineffective in addressing the obvious risks to the prisoner. It is absolutely critical that Defendants do now what they should have accomplished long ago: develop appropriate policies and protocols to assure that the decision to use in-cell mechanical restraints on a prisoner does not once again become a decision to sentence the prisoner to death. B. Necessary Psychiatric and Psychological Staffing
The stage was set for this disaster by the fact that Defendants did nothing to assure on-site psychiatric and psychological services for all of JMF during the prolonged absence of the psychiatrist assigned to JMF. This decision is shocking and is likely to have inflicted grave harm on many prisoners, not just the prisoner who died. It is literally inconceivable to Plaintiffs that Defendants could have made a conscious decision to operate a facility of this size, with its large population of prisoners with mental health needs, without any provision for availability of on-site psychiatric services. According to Defendants’ responses regarding the August death, during the period of time that JMF lacked any on-site psychiatric services, the only mechanism for ordering or renewing psychotropic medications was through telephone orders conveyed through the outpatient team’s registered nurse; there were no provisions for an actual psychiatric evaluation of the prisoner to determine if new orders or changes in existing orders were necessary. Prisoners who required emergency psychiatric evaluation were evaluated by non-physicians assigned to the outpatient mental health team. Fourteen prisoners assigned to segregation who had been scheduled for psychiatric evaluations did not receive them; Defendants supplied no information
14

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2103-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 15 of 23
on how many other JMF prisoners were awaiting previously scheduled psychiatric evaluations. Attach. 1 at unnumbered 2.
Further, even after the death of the prisoner, and Dr. Cohen’s exploration of the circumstances subsequent to his notification of the death by Plaintiffs’ counsel, Defendants did not restore full psychiatric coverage to JMF; it is unclear whether such coverage exists today. Rather than full-time psychiatric coverage, Defendants cut psychiatric services at RGC, forcing RGC and JMF to share one psychiatrist. Accordingly, in order to assure that all Hadix facilities are provided with uninterrupted basic psychiatric and psychological services, Plaintiffs ask that the Court issue a preliminary injunction requiring that a critical level of psychiatric and psychological staff coverage be designated and thereafter maintained by Defendants.5 Certainly in JMF that minimum coverage clearly includes a full-time psychiatrist and sufficient psychologist staff to conduct daily rounds in administrative segregation while fulfilling the psychologists’ other duties in the facility. C. Daily Psychologist Rounds in the Segregation Unit
Given the concentration of prisoners with mental health problems in the segregation unit, and the barriers to health care that this unit presents, Dr. Cohen recommends daily psychologist rounds. These rounds need to be focused, with the psychologist reviewing the segregation log as well as the prisoners’ medical and mental health records. The segregation logs of the prisoner who died are many times more informative about his heartbreaking suffering prior to his death than his medical records, which are almost blank for that period. It is apparent that without close
5 Plaintiffs expect that this level of coverage will be adjusted following the discovery and additional hearing that Plaintiffs request in Section III.E, supra.
15

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2103-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 16 of 23
supervision of the segregation units prisoners with mental illness cannot be protected from severe
harm, and this requirement is designed to provide some minimal protections for such prisoners,
as well as some provision for those additional prisoners whose mental status deteriorates in the
highly stressful atmosphere of the segregation unit.
D. Coordination of Medical and Mental Health Staff
Once again, the complete lack of communication or apparent sense of responsibility
characterizing medical and mental health care staff involved in the care of the prisoner who died
illustrates why a protocol for coordination of medical and mental staff coordination is critical.
This protocol should involve, not just the coordination of psychiatrists with other physicians, but
coordination among nurses, social workers, physician’s assistants, and psychologists.
As Dr. Walden states:
Why did the medical team defer completely to psychiatry? Dr. Fatu acted as if this man wasn’t in his care. Why didn’t psych ask for medical care? The failures are huge and the system may ignore them because the finger points to the other one in each case.
***
For psychiatry or mental health this was their patient also. Although social workers and psychologists are obviously not physicians, they had grad school training and ought to have recognized the danger. The man was “floridly psychotic” on day one. Is their training to do nothing? Where was the transfer to DWH if nowhere else? Where was the monitoring? Who doesn’t draw blood tests when their patient is on 3-4 psychiatric meds and is decompensating? Do they not know the risks of these meds? Has no one looked at any drug references or called pharmacy to ask if there are risks like dehydration or arrhythmia?
16

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2103-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 17 of 23
Attach. 2 at 5-6. V. THE APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS A. The Eighth Amendment Standard
“Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs” violates the Eighth Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). Thus, the Eighth Amendment “deliberate indifference” standard applicable to prison conditions has both an objective and subjective component. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). In order to be found liable under the Eighth Amendment, a defendant must know of and disregard an excessive risk to prisoner health or safety. Id. at 837. Because this is an injunctive case, Plaintiffs’ proof of the subjective component regarding Defendants’ actual knowledge is simple and straight-forward:
In this case, we are concerned with future conduct to correct prison conditions. If these conditions are found to be objectively unconstitutional, then that finding would also satisfy the subjective prong because the same information that would lead to the court’s conclusion was available to the prison officials. Hadix v. Johnson, 367 F.3d 513, 526 (6th Cir. 2004). Deliberate indifference to serious psychological needs violates the Eighth Amendment. Clark-Murphy v. Foreback, 439 F.3d 280, 292 (6th Cir. 2006) (holding that there is a clearly established right to psychological treatment under the Eighth Amendment; quoting with approval from Gleason v. Kemp, 891 F.2d 829, 834 (11th Cir. 1990), that “every reported decision handed down after Estelle . . . recognized that deliberate indifference to an inmate’s need for mental health care is actionable on eighth amendment grounds”). Clark-Murphy also involved a death from dehydration during a heat wave. The decedent was an MDOC prisoner confined at the Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility who was exhibiting
17

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2103-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 18 of 23
signs of mental illness. The case eerily resembles the current death. During a heat alert period, Jeffrey Clark collapsed outside while waiting to go to the messhall. He was transported to an observation cell. Once in the cell, he began barking like a dog and screaming. As in the case of the Hadix prisoner, staff filled out a psychiatric referral form. Staff was also told that Mr. Clark was not drinking water and he was later observed drinking from the toilet. A psychologist diagnosed Mr. Clark with psychosis. During at least much of this period, the water to Mr. Clark’s cell was turned off, and Mr. Clark urinated on the floor. On the fourth day that Mr. Clark was in observation status, the psychologist noted that Mr. Clark was virtually non-responsive but did not intervene to assist him. Other staff noted deterioration in Mr. Clark’s condition, and that he was lying naked on his bed. At approximately 1:00 a.m. on the following day he was discovered in rigor mortis in his cell. The autopsy determined that he had died of dehydration. Id. at 283-85.
Accordingly, it is readily apparent that the use of in-cell restraints on prisoners intrinsically entails serious risks that are known to Defendants and require Defendants to act reasonably. In order to assure that Defendants will begin to act reasonably in response to these serious risks, Defendants must be required to cease confining prisoners in in-cell restraints, other than for brief emergency periods, outside of medical settings. Cf. Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S.730 (2002):
Despite the clear lack of an emergency situation, the respondents knowingly subjected him to a substantial risk of physical harm, to unnecessary pain caused by the handcuffs and the restricted position of confinement for a 7-hour period, to unnecessary exposure to the heat of the sun, to prolonged thirst and taunting, and to a deprivation of bathroom breaks that created a risk of particular discomfort and humiliation.
18

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2103-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 19 of 23
Id. at 738 (footnote omitted) (affirming judgment that use of hitching post as punishment for disruptive behavior violated the Eighth Amendment; reversing court of appeal’s grant of qualified immunity to defendants).
The requirement for appropriate psychiatric and psychological staffing to assure that necessary mental health care staffing is available is similarly required under settled law. See, e.g., Waldrop v. Evans, 871 F.2d 1030, 1036 (11th Cir. 1989) (non-psychiatrist was not qualified to evaluate significance of prisoner’s suicide gesture); Cabrales v. County of Los Angeles, 864 F.2d 1454, 1461 (9th Cir. 1988), vacated by 490 U.S. 1087 (1989), reinstated 886 F.2d 235 (9th Cir. 1989) (affirming finding of deliberate indifference where medical understaffing directly contributed to decedent’s suicide); Wellman v. Faulkner, 715 F.2d 269, 272-73 (7th Cir. 1983) (“a psychiatrist is needed to supervise long term maintenance” on psychotropic medication); Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 577-78 (10th Cir. 1980) (lack of on-site coverage by psychiatrist or Ph.D.-level psychologist to provide daily care and counseling to prisoners was “grossly inadequate”).
In addition, housing seriously mentally ill prisoners in segregation is extremely dangerous, so the Eighth Amendment requires that such prisoners be screened to assure that they are not left in conditions that exacerbate their illness and cause unnecessary suffering. See, e.g., Jones’El v. Berge, 164 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (W.D. Wis. 2001) (holding that “supermax” prison was not appropriate for seriously mentally ill prisoners and ordering screening to remove all such prisoners from facility); Ruiz v. Johnson, 37 F. Supp. 2d. 855, 913-15 (S.D. Tex. 1999) (finding that, for mentally ill prisoners the severe and psychologically harmful deprivations of administrative segregation units constitute cruel and unusual punishment), rev’d on other
19

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2103-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 20 of 23
grounds, 243 F.3d 941 (5th Cir. 2001), adhered to on remand, 154 F. Supp. 2d 975 (S.D. Tex. 2001) ; Coleman v. Wilson, 912 F. Supp.1282, 1320-21 (E.D. Cal. 1995) (requiring screening because the placement of mentally ill prisoners in segregation without mental health evaluation and without access to necessary mental health care causes further mental health deterioration and violates the Eight Amendment). In order to assure that prisoners do not decompensate in segregation, Defendants should be required to implement Dr. Cohen’s recommendation of daily psychologist rounds in administrative segregation.
Finally, it is apparent that the medical and mental health staff at the Hadix facilities are not performing with minimal competence in the absence of coordination of the two services that is now lacking. A review of the events that led to the prisoner’s death make it obvious that he was at extraordinary risk of dying from dehydration or some related cause. The failure of coordination between medical and mental health care, along with the lack of developed protocols assigning monitoring responsibilities to both disciplines, resulted in the virtual certainty that this prisoner would die. Cf. LeMarbe v. Wisneski, 266 F.3d 429, 439 (6th Cir. 2001) (finding that plaintiff was entitled to pursue claim of deliberate indifference against a surgeon in view of affidavit from a specialist that “anyone with a medical education and most lay people” would have known that the particular surgical condition at issue (the presence of five liters of bile fluid in the patient’s abdomen, indicating a bile leak that needed treatment) posed a substantial risk of serious harm if not addressed). It is apparent that the treatment that this prisoner was exposed to essentially amounted to prolonged torture resulting in death, and obvious structural defects in health services that allowed this torture to exist must be repaired.
20

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2103-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 21 of 23
B. The Preliminary Injunction Standard The standards for issuance of a preliminary injunction are well-established. See, e.g.,
Leary v. Daeschner, 228 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2000): When deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the district court considers four factors: (1) whether the movant has a “strong” likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant would otherwise suffer irreparable injury; (3) whether issuance of a preliminary injunction would cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public interest would be served by issuance of a preliminary injunction.
Id. at 738. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is always to prevent irreparable injury so as to preserve the court’s ability to render a meaningful decision on the merits, and the traditional preliminary injunction standard applies to mandatory as well as prohibitory preliminary injunctions. United Food v. Southwest Ohio Reg’l Transit, 163 F.3d 341, 348 (6th Cir. 1998).
For the reasons given above, Plaintiffs have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits. The continuing risks of additional unnecessary deaths and continued suffering described above also demonstrate the irreparable injury to the plaintiff class if the requested relief is not granted. Whatever cost may be occasioned to Defendants by requiring them to develop and implement practices conforming to their constitutional obligations should not weigh significantly in the balance, because Defendants should already be complying with these obligations under the Constitution. The public interest is also served by promoted by saving lives and avoiding unnecessary suffering. Indeed, as argued above, the public safety will be generally promoted by requiring Defendants to comply with their affirmative obligation to provide necessary health care, as such compliance will remove a potentially explosive cause of
21

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2103-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 22 of 23

unrest among prisoners. Finally, the proposed relief is consistent with the requirements of PLRA because this
relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the probable violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the probable violation of those rights because it is limited to those matters identified by the Associate Monitor as minimally necessary to address immediate health and safety risks. VI. THE LACK OF A NEED FOR THE POSTING OF SECURITY
The Court has discretion to determine that Plaintiffs need not provide security in order to secure the issuance of a preliminary injunction. Roth v. Bank of the Commonwealth, 583 F.2d 527, 539 (6th Cir. 1978). Because the great majority of the members of the class are indigent, it would have the effect of denying access to the courts to require a bond in these circumstances. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, Plaintiffs ask that the Court vacate its order of January 8, 2001 and reopen the mental health issues in this case; that it issue the requested preliminary injunction; and that it establish a discovery and hearing schedule regarding the remaining mental health claims.
Respectfully submitted,

S/ Elizabeth Alexander ELIZABETH ALEXANDER National Prison Project 915 15th Street, N.W., 7th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 202/393-4930

MICHAEL BARNHART (P-10467) 221 North Main Street Suite 300 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 734/213-3703

22

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2103-1 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 23 of 23

Dated: September 8, 2006

PATRICIA STREETER (P-30022) 221 North Main Street Suite 300 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 (734) 222-0088
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

23

 
 Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1900-2 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 1 of 23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

EVERETT HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. PERRY JOHNSON, et al.,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) Case No. 4:92-CV-110 ) ) HONORABLE RICHARD A. ENSLEN ) ) ) )

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
I. INTRODUCTION The Consent Decree in this case has been in place for twenty years, yet medical care
continues to violate the Eighth Amendment, and indeed is deteriorating. The Court has conducted three hearings on medical care subsequent to the effective date of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). See Opinion and Order (“Findings I”), Nov. 18, 1996, appeal dismissed, No. 96-2548 (6th Cir., Jan. 22, 1998); Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (“Findings II”), Feb. 18, 2000; Findings of Fact (“Findings III”), Oct. 29, 2002. In each hearing, the Court has identified a number of violations regarding medical care, including failures to provide necessary medications (Findings I at 31-32; Findings II at 35; Findings III at 83-99); failures to provide for the chronically ill (Findings I at 31-34; Findings II at 31-32; Findings III at 79-111); and failures to provide appropriate staff supervision (including failures to assure timely specialty referrals) (Findings I at 25-26; Findings II at 33-36; Findings III at

1

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1900-2 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 2 of 23
111-148 ). At Defendants’ initial request, the Court appointed an Associate Monitor for Medical
Care to assist in addressing the constitutional violations regarding medical care. Findings III at 263-64; Order, April 21, 2003. As set forth below, the Third Report of the Monitor on Medical Care (“Third Report”) documents worsening problems, including a number on instances in which repeated failures to provide necessary care appear to have hastened a patient’s death.
In light of the fact that neither the Consent Decree provisions, the previous findings of the Court, nor the thorough and incisive work of Associate Monitor Robert Cohen, M.D., have succeeded in eliminating the constitutional violations, and that it is two decades since the Consent Decree was entered, it is time to provide an interim remedy that finally grants some concrete relief to the class.
Of note, Plaintiffs filed a similar motion after a previous report from Dr. Cohen demonstrated serious continuing problems. Following a status conference in February 2005, Defendants agreed to address a number of problems identified in that report. Defendants agreed to file a written document confirming their agreement in February, but did not even file that document until August of this year. Further, Dr. Cohen’s report makes clear that the agreements reached following that status conference were worthless in protecting the health of the most vulnerable members of the class. Plaintiffs’ counsel cannot sit back and continue to watch members of the class die. II. STAFF ARE NOT APPROPRIATELY SUPERVISED
In the Second Report of the Associate Monitor Regarding Medical Services at the 2

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1900-2 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 3 of 23
Hadix facilities, January 11, 2005, Dr. Cohen reported that, although Correctional Medical Services (“CMS”) had hired Dr. Arthur Austin as an Associate Medical Director for the Jackson Medical Complex to supervise and evaluate the work of the medical service providers (“MSPs”) in the Jackson complex, Dr. Austin was not supervising the MSPs in either Duane Waters Hospital (“DWH”) or C Unit, the medical units where the chronically ill who are most at risk are housed. Subsequently, in connection with the status conference of February 10, 2005, Defendants developed written plans that addressed various problems identified in that report, but did not address the overall supervisory issue. The only area in which Defendants purported to address the problem was in C Unit, where Defendants stated that additional physician time would be provided, and that Dr. Austin would be involved in chart review. Attachment 1, Plan for C Unit, at 1. On August 10, 2005, Defendants, about six months after they had promised to do so, submitted a letter to Plaintiffs in which they stated that they had fully implemented their plans for C Unit. Attachment 2, letter from Govorchin to Streeter, Aug. 16, 2005, at 1. In fact, the Third Report indicates the following:
Although the crisis in MSP staffing and severe deficiencies in quality of care w[ere] acknowledged by MDOC staff in March, 2005, the actual full time medical staff available to C-Unit, DWH and the DWH ER decreased this spring, exacerbating a dangerous situation. The Regional Director for the Jackson Region, although based at Dwayne Waters Hospital, did not recognize these serious ongoing problems, and made no effort to identify the source of the problems nor correct them. The CMS Deputy Medical Director, Dr. Austin, although responsible for supervising the MSP staff in the Hadix facilities, did not supervise the C-Unit or DWH staff. Third Report at 13. Similarly, the Third Report noted the “significant instability in the
3

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1900-2 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 4 of 23
Correctional Medical Services (CMS) administration of their MDOC contract at the [Hadix] facilities” and “[a]n effective program of MSP supervision by CMS has not yet been developed.” Id. at 2-3.
The consequences of this lack of supervision have been horrifying, with the Third Report documenting many cases of death, unimaginable pain and unnecessary suffering resulting from gross failures of medical care. Although every case cited in the Third Report is an example of the lack of any effective supervision of medical care at the prison, two illustrative cases involve Patient 1 (the patient died of “neglect, MRSA,1 and gastro-intestinal bleeding”) (id. at 11) and Patient 2 (the patient had advanced HIV, but did not get the soft diet he needed; he received delayed and incorrect treatment for an opportunistic herpes zoster infection; he did not have his pancreatitis monitored; and he was given the wrong combination of HIV medications). Id. at 16-20. Dr. Cohen further reports in connection with Patient 2 that it was routine in DWH for nurses to request that physicians examine patients but for the physicians not to come–a shocking failure that Dr. Cohen, who has examined numerous prison systems, had never before encountered. Id. at 20. A third example is Patient 3, a 29 year-old with HIV, who despite symptoms of colo-rectal cancer waited five months for a simple diagnostic test, and three months after diagnosis before radiation therapy was begun. Id. at 2023.
Significantly, these are not the first cases Dr. Cohen had identified as marking a dysfunctional system in need of clinical supervision. In the transcript of the January 13, 2005
1 Methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus. 4

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1900-2 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 5 of 23
status conference, Dr. Cohen noted the following about a patient with prostate cancer whose
case is not included in the Third Report:
DR. COHEN: Somebody constantly reapproved the delay in consultation. MR.GOVORCHIN: The MSP? DR. COHEN: I assume so, yes, because it was six months before it happened, so someone was, you know, you have this system in place–which I think is a stupid system as I’ve described, not stupid, but ill-conceived and likely to cause harm. . . . You should have leadership at the facility which would look at this and say, oh my God, what is wrong with this person. MR. GOVORCHIN: Right. DR. COHEN: But you know who would have acted on it and someone who would have picked this up before because if someone is delayed that long, why wasn’t a supervisor involved you know. In this case the supervisor was Dr. Hutchinson. Dr. Hutchinson’s responsible for the consultations, he is the supervisor. . . .[W]hy does the medical staff not do something when they see something as disturbing as this going on?. . . .I think the, you know, one of the solutions is on-site leadership which cannot tolerate this.
Attachment 3, T., Jan. 13, 2005, at 47-49. Sadly, this case involved a named plaintiff who
also was not given a test to diagnose his cancer for six months, and who was then also
significantly delayed in receiving radiation therapy, despite assurances to Plaintiffs’ counsel.
III. SPECIALTY REFERRALS DO NOT TAKE PLACE IN A TIMELY MANNER
Another facet of the issue of staff supervision, also noted in the Third Report, is the
failure to provide for timely specialty referrals. CMS did not oversee the quality of its staff
follow-up for specialty care. Indeed, in the first six months of 2005, 41% of initial consults
and 45% of completed follow-up consults were not completed within the time requested by
the referring physician. Dr. Cohen characterized this performance as “unacceptable,” and
noted that it resulted in delays in the diagnosis and management of life-threatening illnesses.
5

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1900-2 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 6 of 23
Third Report at 9. One of the specific problems noted in the Third Report is CMS’ refusal to process consultation forms until the forms are typed. Id. at 10.
The Third Report documents that these routine delays in consultations have caused grievous harm. Among the prisoners who experienced delays in consultations were Patient 1 (failure to refer patient with multiple medical problems, including known MRSA, for appropriate consultations, including colonoscopy, endoscopy, and infectious disease consultations; patient was found dead in cell) (id. at 47-51); Patient 2 (an appointment with an Infectious Diseases specialist for the patient, who had advanced HIV, was canceled; no access to emergency dentistry because the patient was in DWH; he also did not receive necessary studies such as ultrasound or CT scan, and had no gastroenterology consultation) (id. at 1620); Patient 3 (seven-month delay in treating HIV patient with colo-rectal cancer because of delays in specialty consultations and testing); Patient 4 (patient with history of stroke and seriously abnormal renal studies was not scheduled for a nephrology consultation for 2 ½ months, although the consultation was marked urgent; that appointment was not kept; the patient was actually not seen for 4 ½ months; CT scan referral designated as urgent was pended by CMS; follow-up appointment with specialist was not timely requested; patient discovered close to death in cell three weeks before follow-up appointment) (id. at 23-29); Patient 5 (patient with HIV kept from Infectious Disease appointment because in Quarantine status; staff failed to take him to second scheduled Infectious Disease appointment; patient was not taken to optometry appointment) (id. at 30-32); Patient 6 (Foote Hospital note indicates that a concern in discharging patient with Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma back to the prison was that CMS would not want to pay for in-patient care) (id. at 32-43); Patient 8
6

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1900-2 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 7 of 23
(despite efforts by physician’s assistant, biopsy and CT scan testing were delayed; there were delays in receiving an x-ray result and a surgical biopsy, and in responding to the biopsy result; there was no attempt by the patient’s physician to assure timely diagnostic evaluation) (id. at 44-47); and Patient 9 (patient with poorly controlled diabetes and severe hypertension with deteriorating renal function never received specialty care despite urgent referral; no request for endocrine consultation) (id. at 51-52). IV. DEFENDANTS FAIL TO PROVIDE NECESSARY CHRONIC CARE
The Third Report notes that Defendants’ chronic care program is not functioning in the locations with the highest concentrations of chronically ill patients–DWH and C Unit–and that the program is also not functioning in administrative segregation. Id. at 4-5. Indeed, the Third Report characterizes medical care in administrative segregation as follows:
Based upon my review of patients in segregation in April and May, care for these patients is still very problematic. Patients with critical life threatening illnesses were completely ignored, treated inadequately. Patients with extreme pain and massive weight loss are not properly evaluated and treated. There seem to be many psychotic inmates in segregation, and they have significant medical problems but have difficulty expressing their medical needs. There is a significant problem with provider continuity. Id. at 12. Similarly, the Third Report characterizes care on C Unit as “chaotic” because of significant understaffing affecting patients who often have multiple chronic illnesses and are too sick to live in the general population. Id. at 12. Although the Third Report indicates that Defendants acknowledged the staffing crises and severe deficiencies in March 2005, the actual full-time staff available on C Unit and DWH then declined. Despite an announcement by
7

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1900-2 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 8 of 23
CMS in June that it would provide care at C Unit and DWH directly rather than continue to employ subcontractors to run the units, as of August 2005 no new staff had been hired. Id. at 13.
The problem is at least equally critical at DWH. The hospital is so backlogged with patients that it cannot maintain available beds for patients with acute problems. Patients who need hospital beds are sent back to their housing units, or seen only monthly by a physician when they need a higher level of care. Indeed, the Report notes that a patient with bilateral pneumonia who had not responded to a course of antibiotics and needed intravenous antibiotics and close nursing supervision was nonetheless sent back to JMF, where he died. Id. at 15.
In addition, the dialysis program for patients in chronic renal failure has serious deficiencies. Defendants’ own audits of the dialysis program indicated that, in 40% to 50% of the cases audited, there were specific deficiencies, such as a lack of treatment response to significant post-dialysis hypertension, a failure to address poorly controlled hypertension, and a failure to address ineffective dialysis. Id. at 5. These problems are exacerbated by failures to provide effective specialist oversight of the program and the unavailability of the electronic medical records system (SERAPIS) on the unit. They are also exacerbated by the unresolved failure to assure patients’ access to routine and emergency vascular surgery consultations, which is critical to assuring that patients’ grafts remain functional to allow dialysis. Id. at 5-6.
Further, chronic medications are still disrupted, presumably related to the failure of integration of SERAPIS with the paper pharmacy records. Prisoners file approximately forty kites a month because of problems with medication renewals. Id. at 7.
8

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1900-2 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 9 of 23
Among the Third Report’s examples of grossly deficient chronic care are the following: Patient 1 (patient arrived in RGC with a history of a heart attack, three coronary bypass grafts, diabetes, high cholesterol, hypertension, gout, as well as current acute MRSA; he was transferred to Foote Hospital, where he was found to be severely anemic with blood in his stool; Foote Hospital decided that the work-up of the anemia and possible bleed could be done in the Gastrointestinal Chronic Care Clinic; his chart was not available when he was first seen back at the prison and the physician examined only his leg (the location of the MRSA infection); the physician did not note most of his chronic problems; the patient was housed in the segregation unit, where he died “without any medical attention to his multiple serious life threatening medical problems”) (id. at 47-51); Patient 2 (patient with HIV and chronic Hepatitis B and C was evaluated in the Infectious Disease Chronic Care Clinic by Dr. Faghihnia, who classified the patient as stable, despite the loss of about 10% of the patient’s body weight since his previous appointment; patient was not provided with the special diet that he needed to help maintain his weight; despite another physician’s attempt to transfer the patient to a chronic care unit, he stayed in segregation; after a year delay, when the patient was finally admitted to the DWH chronic care unit, he was not given an appropriate medical examination or history review; the patient was not given appropriate physician care in DWH; a physician ordered inappropriate medications for herpes zoster, an extremely painful disease; the patient received incorrect HIV medications for 18 months; his pancreatitis was not appropriately monitored; he was not provided with appropriate diagnostic studies until Dr. Cohen specifically intervened on his behalf; physicians failed to respond to nursing requests for their attention; “Patients in chronic status are at DWH to die”) (id. at 16-20); Patient 3
9

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1900-2 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 10 of 23
(patient with known HIV infection and known concern that he might have rectal cancer; seen by CMS gastroenterologist Dr. Hussain2 (as a substitute for Gastrointestinal Chronic Care Clinic), but Dr. Hussain did not examine Patient 3's rectum; when Dr. Hussain again saw the patient, he declined to perform a colonscopy; for two subsequent months the foul odor of seepage from the patient’s anal lesion spread through the prison before he had a biopsy that diagnosed rectal cancer) (id. at 20-23); Patient 4 (following a stroke resulting in a severe communicative disorder, the patient was enrolled in the Disabilities Chronic Care Clinic; he also had chronic renal disease, hypertension, and diabetes; when he was transferred from DWH to JMF, the nursing transfer receiving form failed to note his medical problems, record his medications, or record his vital signs; Dr. Faghihnia failed to adjust the patient’s treatment plan, despite pain and swelling of unknown origin in the patient’s arm; when the patient saw a nurse in the Disabilities Chronic Care Clinic, the nurse did not speak to or examine the patient; when Dr. Faghihnia actually examined the patient for the first time, he reported that the patient “speaks gibberish” and failed to order pain medication; the CT scan Dr. Faghihnia ordered was pended by CMS and never performed; when Dr. Faghihnia next saw the patient, he attributed the patient’s symptoms to “drug-seeking behavior;” a telemedicine examination by a consultant resulted in minimal review of the patient’s history and symptoms; Dr. Faghihnia did not obtain timely follow-up; Defendants’ chart review failed to note the profound deficiencies in care for this patient; the patient eventually was transferred from administrative segregation to Foote Hospital when he was close to death; at the time of
2 Plaintiffs’ counsel discovered during a recent chart review that Dr. Hussain noted in another chart that the patient was not an appropriate candidate for a liver transplant because he was a prisoner.
10

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1900-2 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 11 of 23
admission to the hospital, the patient had massive edema of his legs, scrotum and penis, along with acute renal failure; he died about three weeks later) (id. at 23-30); Patient 6 (the patient was admitted to RGC and diagnosed with advanced HIV, chronic hepatitis, asthma, and ataxic gait that left the patient wheelchair-dependent; the patient was not started on anti-virals for more than three weeks after admission; it took three weeks to evaluate the patient for a wheelchair; although Dr. Faghihnia diagnosed “end-stage AIDS with painful neuropathy,” he ordered no specific analgesics for the neuropathy; when Dr. Faghihnia next examined the patient, he found no leg weakness and canceled the wheelchair, as well as the patient’s asthma medications; Dr. Faghihnia decreased the medication for a painful rash associated with HIV; when Dr. Faghihnia next saw the patient, he failed to treat the painful peripheral neuropathy he noted; there was more than a three-week delay in reviewing laboratory studies; the patient had no additional liver laboratory studies between mid-June and December, 2004, when he was hospitalized; a specialist recommendation that the patient be transferred to C Unit was not followed; when Dr. Faghihnia next saw the patient, he diagnosed sciatica, but prescribed nothing for the pain; Dr. Faghihnia did not review the patient’s HIV laboratory studies from September 1, when they were received, until October 15; Patient 6 continued to complain of severe leg and hip pain after sciatica was diagnosed; Dr. Faghihnia described the patient’s condition as stable without examining the patient; two days later the patient was sent to the DWH emergency room with a pulse rate of twice normal and was diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis; Dr. Faghihnia saw the patient five days later, when his pulse rate was still the same, in the Chronic Care Clinic; Dr. Faghihnia noted bilateral swelling of the legs and that the patient had managed to borrow a wheelchair but Dr. Faghihnia failed to look for the cause
11

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1900-2 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 12 of 23
of the pain and swelling or prescribe effective pain control; Dr. Faghihnia incorrectly reported as normal a study that had not yet been conducted; in December 2004, following another transfer to Foote Hospital, the patient was finally found to have his pelvis filled with tumor blocking his kidneys, as a result of Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma; after the patient received chemotherapy and was returned to DWH, his ordered care was not provided; although Patient 6 was extremely ill, suffering from the effects of chemotherapy, decubitus ulcers, and severe pain, he was never seen again by an MSP after his last DWH admission) (id. at 32-43); Patient 8 (Dr. Faghihnia made no effort to assure follow-up chemotherapy and radiation, along with palliative care, for a patient with lung cancer; the patient was not provided with a supportive nursing environment at the end of his life). V. MEDICAL RECORDS ARE NOT APPROPRIATELY MAINTAINED
The Third Report also documents significant failings of the medical records, in large part produced by the ongoing failure to combine SERAPIS with the traditional paper medical record. As the Third Report notes:
New CMS physician and mid-level providers begin working in the Hadix facilities before they have been trained in the use of the SERAPIS system. They are therefore unable to use the system, and write their notes and orders in the medical record. CMS practitioners who work in more than one of the Hadix facilities are not permitted to log in to the SERAPIS system at both facilities. There is no SERAPIS terminal in the JMF Segregation Unit. There is no SERAPIS terminal in the Dialysis Unit. Id. at 7. Further, the DWH emergency room and C Unit also lack a SERAPIS terminal. Physicians in the dialysis unit, C Unit, DWH, and the DWH emergency room, among other locations, thus lack access to laboratory studies ordered in SERAPIS. MSPs cannot work in
12

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1900-2 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 13 of 23
SERAPIS in more than one facility. As a result of the two competing systems, the medical records are “voluminous, difficult to use and not in chronological order.” Id.
While it is probably not possible to distinguish all the cases in which the deficiencies in the records harmed patients, one clear case is Patient 2. Patient 2 had advanced HIV disease and some degree of pancreatitis, along with severe wasting. His physician continued a regimen of anti-viral treatment that the Food and Drug Administration had warned against in September 2002, and the pharmacy records, which are not computerized or integrated with SERAPIS, has no system to pick up inappropriate HIV medication interactions. This failure may have been responsible for Patient 2's persistent weight loss and pain prior to his death. Id. at 19-20.
Similarly, the chart of Patient 1, who had MRSA, was not available when he was first seen. Id. at 47. Patient 4's care was compromised by the failure of the medical record to contain an appropriate nursing transfer note. Id. at 25. Patient 5's care was delayed because of the loss of records from his initial physical. Id. at 30. Patient 8's treatment was delayed because an urgent x-ray result showing cancer and a CT scan report were delayed in being added to the medical record. Id. at 46. VI. MEDICAL CARE AT THE HADIX FACILITIES VIOLATES THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT
Prison officials have an affirmative obligation under the Eighth Amendment to provide prisoners with the basic necessities of life, including medical care. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994); Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31-32 (1993); DeShaney v. Winnebago Co. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 200 (1989). The Eighth Amendment is accordingly violated when prison officials, with deliberate indifference, expose a prisoner to a
13

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1900-2 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 14 of 23
substantial risk of serious harm. Farmer at 836. In particular, a prison official who, acting with deliberate indifference, deprives a prisoner of medical care necessary to address a serious medical need violates the Eighth Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976).
Plaintiffs’ claims involve serious medical needs. See, e.g., Brock v. Wright, 315 F.3d 158, 162 (2d Cir. 2003) (stating that factors that should guide the analysis of whether a medical need is “serious” include, but are not limited to, “(1) whether a reasonable doctor or patient would perceive the medical need in question as important or worthy of comment or treatment; (2) whether the medical condition significantly affects daily activities, and (3) the existence of chronic and substantial pain.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The medical conditions at issue in the Third Report, such as life-threatening cancer, HIV, MRSA, renal failure, deep vein thrombosis, a bleeding ulcer, and severe stroke, all qualify under any definition of serious medical needs.
Indeed, a survey of the cases indicates that far less significant conditions have been found to constitute “serious medical needs.” See, e.g., Talal v. White, 403 F.3d 423, 425-26 (6th Cir. 2005) (need for a smoke-free environment by prisoner with smoke allergy); Brock v. Wright, 315 F.3d at 163-64 (painful keloids); Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2003) (effects of pepper spray on bystanders); Ellis v. Butler, 890 F.2d 1001, 1003 (8th Cir. 1989) (swollen, painful knee); Chaney v. City of Chicago, 901 F. Supp. 266, 270 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (post-surgical care of foot); Bouchard v. Magnusson, 715 F. Supp. 1146, 1148 (D. Me. 1989) (persistent back pain); Smallwood v. Renfro, 708 F. Supp. 182, 187 (N.D. Ill. 1989) (cut lip); Henderson v. Harris, 672 F. Supp. 1054, 1059 (N.D. Ill. 1987) (hemorrhoids); Case v. Bixler, 518 F. Supp. 1277, 1280 (S.D. Ohio 1981) (boil).
14

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1900-2 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 15 of 23
Further, there is no question but that Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference. In order to show deliberate indifference, Plaintiffs do not need to show that prison officials acted or failed to act believing that harm would actually befall prisoners; it is enough to show deliberate indifference that officials acted or failed to act despite knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 842. Further, in cases like this one concerned with prison officials’ future conduct with regard to prison conditions, “[i]f those conditions are found to be objectively unconstitutional, then that finding [also satisfies] the subjective prong [of deliberate indifference] because the same information that would lead to the court’s conclusion is available to prison officials.” Hadix v. Johnson, 367 F.3d 513, 526 (6th Cir. 2004); see also Farmer at 846 n.9 (“If, for example, the evidence before the district court establishes an objectively intolerable risk of serious injury, the defendants could not plausibly persist in claiming lack of awareness. . . .”). Accordingly, the findings of the Third Report indicate that the current medical care provided to the Hadix class violates the Eighth Amendment. VII. THE REQUESTED RELIEF IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLRA A. The Requested Relief Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction requiring Defendants to prepare a plan, in consultation with the Associate Monitor, to address the deficiencies documented in the Third Report. Plaintiffs ask that the plan be due thirty days after the date that the Court issues its injunction, and that the Court schedule a hearing to determine whether the plan should be approved. Further, Plaintiffs request an immediate preliminary injunction removing Dr. Faghihnia from direct clinical care of patients pending further order of the Court. For the reasons set forth
15

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1900-2 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 16 of 23
below, this relief is consistent with the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2) (“PLRA”). B. The Requirements of the PLRA
The relevant provisions of the PLRA require the following with regard to preliminary injunctions:
Preliminary injunctive relief.–In any civil action with respect to prison conditions, to the extent otherwise authorized by law, the court may enter a temporary restraining order or an order for preliminary injunctive relief. Preliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means to correct that harm. The court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the preliminary relief and shall respect the principles of comity set out in paragraph (1)(B) in tailoring any preliminary relief.3
18 U.S.C.§ 3626(a)(2). All courts to address the issue have held that, with regard to litigated decrees, PLRA
does not change the standards for issuance of an injunction. Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 872 (9th Cir. 2001); Smith v. Arkansas Dep’t of Correction, 103 F.3d 637, 647 (8th Cir. 1996) (“The Act merely codifies existing law and does not change the standards of whether to grant an injunction.”); Williams v. Edwards, 87 F.3d 126, 133 n.21 (5th Cir. 1996) (same). This principle specifically applies to preliminary injunctions. Jones’El v. Berge,164 F. Supp. 2d 1096, 1116 (W.D. 2001). Further, the ninety-day time limitation imposed on the length of
3 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(B) involves injunctive relief that violates state law. Essentially, that provision provides that relief that violates state law can be imposed only if such a remedy is the sole relief that will correct the violation of federal law.
16

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1900-2 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 17 of 23
preliminary injunctions imposed by PLRA does not affect the ability of a court to enter a series of preliminary injunctions, as long as relief is specifically re-entered at the appropriate times. Mayweathers v. Newland, 258 F.3d 930, 936 (9th Cir. 2001).
The general remedy requested by Plaintiffs is an order that Defendants prepare plans, so the proposed order intrinsically provides guarantees that it meets the PLRA requirements that such relief be narrowly drawn and no broader than necessary. Thus in Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2001), the court of appeals rejected the defendants’ argument that an order was insufficiently narrowly tailored when the order allowed the defendants to develop the policies and practices that would eliminate conditions that violate the rights of disabled prisoners, even though the resulting injunction included a number of quite detailed provisions. Id. at 872-73. For the same reasons given by the court of appeals in Armstrong, the order proposed by Plaintiffs meets the requirements of precise fit imposed by PLRA.
In addition, Plaintiffs are proposing minimally intrusive remedies. Rather than attempting to impose any particular solution to the constitutional failings, Plaintiffs’ proposed order leaves decisions as to how to address the failings to Defendants. At the same time, the proposed order promises to address the constitutional failings by Defendants because the order requires Defendants to focus on critical constitutional violations and take actual, concrete steps to address them. By requiring that the plan be developed by Defendants, but that Defendants consult with the Associate Monitor and obtain court approval, the proposed order, like the order in Armstrong, is carefully designed to be minimally intrusive:
By her injunction, the thorough and extremely patient district judge did not attempt to “micro manage” the Board’s activities, but rather to set clear objectives for it to attempt to attain, and, in most circumstances, general methods whereby it would attain them.
17

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1900-2 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 18 of 23
Id. at 873. Indeed, the history of violations would support more extensive and intrusive relief.
See Morales Feliciano v. Rullan, 378 F.3d 42, 54-56 (1st Cir. 2004) (holding that an order requiring privatization of the prison health care system met PLRA requirements because the district court had previously attempted narrower, less intrusive remedies, but without success). Finally, the proposed order, by serving to promote constitutional levels of health care, will promote the public safety by removing a source of prisoner unrest. In Johnson v. California, 125 S. Ct. 1141 (2005), the Supreme Court noted, in connection with a challenge to prison racial segregation, that racial segregation may exacerbate hostility and violence among prisoners. Id. at 1147. It is even more apparent that a lack of medical care has the potential to lead to prison unrest.
The other order proposed by Plaintiffs–the temporary suspension of Dr. Faghihnia’s clinical interactions with members of the class–is an intrusive remedy, even for a limited time period, but it is not an unnecessarily intrusive remedy. Long before the Third Report, Plaintiffs’ counsel had held discussions with Defendants expressing their serious concerns about Dr. Faghihnia’s interactions with prisoners, based on numerous complaints by members of the class.
The Third Report specifically points out failures by Dr. Faghihnia with regard to several of the cases chosen as examples. For example, Dr. Faghihnia classified Patient 2 as stable when he examined the patient in the Infectious Disease Chronic Care Clinic, although Patient 2 had lost 10% of his weight. Third Report at 16. Dr. Faghihnia failed to adjust Patient 4's treatment plan despite pain and swelling of unknown origin in the patient’s arm.
18

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1900-2 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 19 of 23
The speech therapist had noted in the medical record that, because of Patient 4's stroke and resulting communicative disorders, Patient 4 had great difficulty speaking and was easily frustrated, and needed time to relax when upset or frustrated, which made his communications even more difficult. Working with an understanding of the patient’s needs, she was able to increase his verbal production by 30%. Id. at 23-27. Nonetheless when Dr. Faghihnia first saw the patient, he recorded that the patient “spoke gibberish;” not surprisingly, Dr. Faghihnia also noted that the patient did not allow a complete examination. He apparently never checked on an ordered CT scan that in fact had not been performed, and he assumed that the patient’s pain was simply drug-seeking behavior. He delayed consultation requests. Id. at 2729. He did not change the treatment plan despite his patient’s unexplained serious swelling, and the Third Report notes that it “is difficult to imagine the thought or logic behind Dr. Faghihnia’s decision to do nothing.” Id. at 26. While Patient 4 was hospitalized, Dr. Faghihnia agreed to delay a renal consult until June 15, 2005; as it happened the patient died on May 9. Id. at 29. This series of events represented a textbook case of deliberate indifference. See Green v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 655 (7th Cir. 2005) (Eighth Amendment is violated when provider “doggedly persist[s] in a course of treatment known to be ineffective”); see also LeMarbe v. Wisneski, 266 F.3d 429, 437-38 (6th Cir. 2001) (allegations that physician defendant failed to react to conditions that anyone with a medical education and most lay people would have known posed a substantial risk of serious harm to patient would, if established, show deliberate indifference).
Dr. Faghihnia also failed to explore the causes for Patient 5's claimed refusals of health care, under circumstances that suggested the problem was segregation practices, not the
19

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1900-2 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 20 of 23
patient’s lack of cooperation. Third Report at 30-32. For Patient 6, Dr. Faghihnia diagnosed end-stage AIDS with painful neuropathy, without providing pain relief. He canceled medications for Patient 6 without explanation, and canceled a wheelchair accommodation for a patient who reported leg swelling of unknown cause. He failed to treat peripheral neuropathy, and wrote, apparently without seeing the patient, that patient 6 was “stable and doing well.” He did not review laboratory reports about the patient’s HIV for six weeks. On August 9, 2004, Dr. Faghihnia recorded a normal examination of Patient 6's leg and hip and diagnosed sciatica. Patient 6 saw a physician’s assistant on August 25, who sent him to Foote Hospital. When the physician’s assistant referred Patient 6 to Dr. Faghihnia for follow-up, Dr. Faghihnia did not see the patient. Despite consult notes from an Infectious Diseases specialist who thought Patient 6 might have venous insufficiency, Dr. Faghihnia did not see the patient. A nurse diagnosed venous insufficiency in October, but Dr. Faghihnia did not see the patient and wrote a note that the patient was stable. When Dr. Faghihnia did see the patient, he had a pulse of 123. Nonetheless, Dr. Faghihnia did not schedule a prompt follow-up or make any effort to diagnose Patient 6's worsening pain and swelling. He initialed a November emergency room visit almost three weeks after it happened and never saw Patient 6 again. In December 2004, Patient 6 was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma; he died in February 2005. Id. at 32-43.
Similarly, as the Third Report discusses in detail, Dr. Faghihnia took no action regarding Patient 8, despite knowing of his probable cancer, in contrast to the physician assistant’s unsuccessful efforts to obtain prompt care for his patient. Id. at 44-47.
The Third Report documents that Dr. Faghihnia is a serious danger to his patients.
20

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1900-2 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 21 of 23
There may be some appropriate medical role that he can play at the Hadix facilities, but on the current record, at least until Defendants submit their proposed plan to cure the medical deficiencies, the narrowest and least intrusive remedy is to remove him from direct patient care. Certainly this remedy, at least initially short-term, is far narrower than the order privatizing the Department of Corrections health care system upheld in Morales Feliciano; the reasoning of the First Circuit applies equally to this case:
The increased intrusiveness and broader scope of the privatization remedy is a direct response to the unique need created by the Commonwealth’s own failure–for more than twenty years–to correct serious constitutional inadequacies. Drastic times call for drastic measures. Morales Feliciano, 378 F.3d at 55. VIII. PLAINTIFFS MEET THE STANDARDS FOR ISSUANCE OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION The standards for issuance of a preliminary injunction are well-established. See, e.g., Leary v. Daeschner, 228 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2000): When deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the district court considers four factors: (1) whether the movant has a “strong” likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant would otherwise suffer irreparable injury; (3) whether issuance of a preliminary injunction would cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public interest would be served by issuance of a preliminary injunction. Id. at 736. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is always to prevent irreparable injury so as to preserve the court’s ability to render a meaningful decision on the merits, and the traditional preliminary injunction standard applies to mandatory as well as prohibitory preliminary injunctions. United Food v. Southwest Ohio Reg’l Transit, 163 F.3d 341, 348 (6th
21

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1900-2 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 22 of 23
Cir. 1998). For the reasons given above, Plaintiffs have demonstrated a strong likelihood of
success on the merits. The deaths and completely unnecessary suffering described in the Third Report also demonstrate the irreparable injury to the plaintiff class if the requested relief is not granted. Whatever cost might be occasioned to Defendants and CMS by requiring them to develop and implement practices conforming to their constitutional obligations should not weigh significantly in the balance, because Defendants and CMS should already be complying with these obligations, to which Defendants obligated themselves voluntarily when they agreed to the Consent Decree. While there may be more significant reputational and economic costs to Dr. Faghihnia if the proposed relief is granted, those possible costs are outweighed by the potential loss of life if the requested relief is not granted. Finally, the public interest is promoted by saving lives and avoiding unnecessary suffering. Indeed, as argued above, the public safety will be generally promoted by requiring Defendants to comply with their affirmative obligation to provide necessary health care, as such compliance will remove a potentially explosive occasion for unrest among prisoners. IX. PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO POST A BOND
The Court has discretion to determine that Plaintiffs need not provide security in order to secure the issuance of a preliminary injunction. Roth v. Bank of the Commonwealth, 583 F.2d 527, 539 (6th Cir. 1978). Because the great majority of the members of the class are indigent, it would have the effect of denying access to the courts to require a bond in these circumstances.
22

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1900-2 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 23 of 23
X. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiffs ask that the Court grant the request for
preliminary relief as set forth above. Respectfully submitted, ________/s/_____________________ ELIZABETH ALEXANDER National Prison Project of the ACLUF 915 15th St, NW, Seventh Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: 202.548.6603 Facsimile: 202.393.4931 PATRICIA STREETER (P30022) 221 North Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 Telephone: 734.222.0088 Facsimile: 734.769.2196
MICHAEL BARNHART (P10467) 615 Griswold, Suite 925 Detroit, Michigan 48226 Telephone:313.964.6520 Facsimile: 313.964.7350
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
DATED: September 14, 2004
23

 
 Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1915 Filed 10/19/2005 Page 1 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION _____________________

EVERETT HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs,

Case No. 4:92-CV-110

v.

Hon. Richard Alan Enslen

PATRICIA L. CARUSO, et al.,
Defendants. _____________________________/

OPINION

This Plaintiff’s Motion was filed on September 14, 2005. The motion comes in the context of a prisoner class action in which this Court has made many findings of Eighth Amendment violations because of systemic failures to delivery adequate medical care. This includes findings since the adoption of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), including findings of November 18, 1996, findings of February 18, 2000 and findings of October 29, 2002. At these past hearings, Plaintiffs have extensively documented failures to provide for the chronically ill, failures to provide staff supervision and ensure timely specialty referrals, and failures to provide necessary medications.
This Court, because of the PLRA’s preference for the least intrusive constitutional remedies, has in the past directed Defendants to self-remedy the constitutional violations. To assist in this process, the Court approved the appointment of Dr. Robert Cohen as a medical monitor in this case by Order of April 23, 2003. Dr. Cohen filed his First Report in July 2004. He filed his Second Report in January 2005. He filed his Third Report this September. His Third Report was deeply disturbing to this Court because it noted several cases of prisoners suffering premature and possibly avoidable deaths because of inadequate medical care. It also noted the extremely poor performance of one physician–Dr. Faghihnia. I am told that Dr. Faghihnia is no longer an issue because he is no

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1915 Filed 10/19/2005 Page 2 of 12
longer employed by the Department of Corrections. While this may be true, the issue remains as to why Dr. Faghihnia’s medical care was not effectively monitored such that it took Dr. Cohen to discover and document his deficient care.
According to Dr. Cohen’s Third Report: Although the crisis in MSP [medical service provider] staffing and severe deficiencies in quality of care w[ere] acknowledged by MDOC staff in March 2005, the actual full-time medical staff available to C-Unit, DWH and DWH ER decreased this spring, exacerbating a dangerous situation. The Regional Director for the Jackson Region, although based at Dwayne Waters Hospital, did not recognize these serious ongoing problems nor correct them. The CMS Deputy Medical Director, Dr. Austin, although responsible for supervising the MSP staff in the Hadix facilities, did not supervise the C-Unit or DWH staff. (Third Report at 13.) Dr. Cohen’s reference to the C-Unit refers to a special unit which was opened in Spring 2003. It houses approximately 60 prisoners who are too sick to live in general population. Its population includes prisoners with multiple chronic illnesses, including AIDS, Hepatitis C, and serious pulmonary and cardiac illnesses. (Id. at 12.) Although this special unit was opened in Spring 2003, no new medical staff was hired to staff it. (Id.) Correctional Medical Services (“CMS”) has been responsible for staffing both Dwayne Waters Hospital (“DWH”) and C-Unit, but according to Dr. Cohen, it was apparent to him from the beginning of 2005, that CMS could not provide adequate medical coverage to DWH and C-Unit. (Id.) Dr. Cohen has also been critical of CMS for failing to develop an effective program for MSP supervision. (Id. at 2-3.) Here are some of the examples of what happens in the absence of an effective programs of supervision: Patient 1, who is described at page 11 of the Third Report, died of neglect, a drug resistant staph infection and gastro-intestinal bleeding. Dr. Cohen describes his death as caused by neglect because he was housed in segregation without appropriate medical care.
2

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1915 Filed 10/19/2005 Page 3 of 12
Patient 2, who is a patient with a bevy of health problems including AIDS, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, Sicca Syndrome (a chronic and extreme dryness of the mouth and esophagus which causes difficulty swallowing). His treatment was reviewed at pages 16 through 20 of the Third Report. Basically, he lost 10 percent of his body weight (down to 108 pounds) without any effective treatment from the chronic care clinic and received the wrong doses of anti-retroviral medication. From February 2004 to February 2005, he was not effectively treated for a number of serious medical conditions: (1) he was not consistently provided a proper pureed diet; (2) he was not treated for abdominal pain; (3) he was not treated for crumbled teeth; and (4) he was not treated appropriately for a painful rashes and lesions.
Patient 3 is a 29-year-old with HIV who waited five months for a simple diagnostic test for rectal cancer, as discussed at pages 20-23 of the Third Report. After the cancer was confirmed, patient 3 then waited another three months before any radiation therapy was begun. This particular problem, patients wanting a long time for cancer treatment, has been previously noted in the Court’s prior findings. In fact, in January 2005, this Court discussed with Defendant’s counsel the treatment of one of the named Plaintiffs in this case—whose treatment for cancer was also greatly delayed. (Plaintiffs’ Attachment 3, Jan. 13, 2005 Transcript at 47-49.) It appears that such discussions have not been effective in prompting Defendants to remedy problems with care.
Another aspect of the deficient care is the failure of specialty referrals to take place in a timely manner. Patents 1, 2 and 3 also display shocking examples of delayed specialty referral care. Other examples include: Patient 4, who has a history of stroke and abnormal renal studies, and who was not seen on a nephrology consultation marked urgent for 4 and ½ months (Third Report, at 2329); Patient 5 , who has a history of HIV and low T-cell counts and weight loss, was delayed by over
3

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1915 Filed 10/19/2005 Page 4 of 12
three months in obtaining a consultation with an infectious disease specialist (id. at 30-32); Patient 6, who has Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, was treated at Foote Hospital for cancer which was blocking his kidneys and causing severe leg pain; his diagnostic evaluation for the leg pain had been greatly delayed (more than six months); he began complaints about pain in April 2004; consultations were delayed during the course of his evaluation until the Lymphoma was discovered; after his Lymphoma was discovered, officials at Foote Hospital were concerned that he might not get inpatient care if transferred back to Duane Waters Hospital and the care of CMS (id. at 32-41); Patient 8 was a patient with metastatic lung cancer; he had a CT performed that noted the lung mass (after a delay in the CT); when finally seen by an oncologist, treatment was not possible since the cancer had spread to his brain and liver (id. at 44-47); and Patient 9 had diabetes and severe hypertension; his renal function had deteriorated in the year prior to his death in May 2005; an urgent renal consultation was requested on March 31, 2005, but was not conducted before his death in May 2005 (id. at 51-52.).
These examples show the consequences of delayed consultations and treatment. Dr. Cohen in his Report indicates that 41 percent of the initial consultations and 45 of the follow-up consultations were not completed within the times requested by the referring physicians, according to MDOC statistics. (Id. at 9.) Another problem with consultations is that CMS apparently still delays consultations due to paperwork concerns which do not reflect on the necessity of care, such as consult forms not being typed or being incomplete. (Id. at 10.)
Another problems with the level of care is that the Chronic Care Clinics are not functioning in the places where they are needed most–at C-Unit and Dwayne Waters Hospital. The Third Report says the following:
4

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1915 Filed 10/19/2005 Page 5 of 12
Based upon my review of patients in segregation in April and May, care for these patients is still very problematic. Patients with critical life threatening illnesses were completely ignored, treated inadequately. Patients with extreme pain and massive weight loss are not properly evaluated and treated. There seem to be many psychotic inmates in segregation, and they have significant medical problems but have difficulty expressing their medical needs. There is a significant problem with provider continuity. (Id. at 12.) Dr. Cohen observes that there were staffing crises in March 2005, and the staffing levels on C Unit and DWH have since declined such that there is no longer the expectation that service providers can respond to nurse requests for patient evaluations. (Id. at 13.) More staffing of C-Unit is planned, but it unclear when the staffing will be provided given that the C-Unit has been understaffed for more than two years. (Id. at 14.) Another chronic care issue is that the chronic renal unit has serious deficiencies. According to MDOC audits, in 40 to 50 percent of the cases audited, there were problems in treatment regarding treatment of hypertension and a failure to address ineffective dialysis. (Id. a 5.) I think I have given a flavor of the chronic care problems. Specific case reviews indicating severe problems include: Patients 1, 2 , 3 and 4, noted above. Another system with regular and systematic failures is the medical record system used. These deficiencies are related to the ongoing failure of a coordination between the SERAPIS (computer record system) and traditional paper records. (Id. at 7.) These problems are aggravated by the fact that DWH and C-Unit lack a SERAPIS terminal, and thus lack access to laboratory studies ordered in SERAPIS. One example of how this has contributed to deficient care is Patient 2, whose treatment contrary to FDA warnings would have been easily noticed on a computerized system. (Id. at 19-20.) Other examples of recording keeping which probably contributed to deficient care include Patients 4, 5 and 8.
5

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1915 Filed 10/19/2005 Page 6 of 12
In response to these various serious problems, Defendants have filed a Response requesting that the Court not grant any preliminary relief concerning the conditions. One of Defendants’ challenges to a preliminary injunction, which is a real concern, is that the use of a preliminary injunction not interfere with the litigation framework for the upcoming hearing. In other words, this last phase of the case was designed to see if Defendants could self-remedy conditions with the help of Dr. Cohen. If an injunction is entered mid-stream, this will affect the record that is produced at the upcoming hearing because the record will reflect not just Defendants’ attempts at self-remedy, but also the effect of the preliminary injunction.
Other concerns raised by Defendants concern both the accuracy of some of the information contained in the Third Report and the statistical significance of the problem cases noted by Dr. Cohen. In particular, Defendants have filed a thirty-three page response to the Third Report. (Defs.’ Response, Attach. 1.) The response disagrees with many of the overall factual conclusions of Dr. Cohen, but agrees with many of the specific problems and problem areas identified by Dr. Cohen. For example, it is noted at page 5 that Defendants agree that more staffing is necessary for C-Unit and the dialysis program. (Id. at 5.) It is also noted that the acuity level at DWH has increased, which also affects care. (Id.) Defendants’ plan to address temporary staffing crises involves referring more patients to community hospitals (id. at 6), though it is not known how such patients will be selected for referral. Defendants likewise agree that the chronic care system must be modified to require nursing review before chronic care doctor visits to make the visits more effective. (Id. at 7.) Defendants acknowledge that there have been training problems regarding the use of the SERAPIS system, but believe that this is a solvable performance issue. (Id. at 9.) Defendants also
6

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1915 Filed 10/19/2005 Page 7 of 12
admit that the percentages of failed referral use by Dr. Cohen in his Third Report are accurate, but disagree with his conclusions drawn from those statistics. (Id. at 10.)
However, the most interestingly aspect of Defendants’ Response is that it involves response to many of the recommendations made by Dr. Cohen at end of the Third Report. Defendants in response agree, at least in principle, to many of the recommendations. While Defendants agree with some of the recommendations and the goal, they dispute whether they have the ability to control the result. The recommendations include important changes to the medical facilities and services provided including the establishment of a thirty-bed infirmary at Dwayne Waters Hospital. (Id. at 14-33.)
Defendants in their Response brief (not the attachment) have also filed the Affidavit of Dr. George Pramstaller. Dr. Pramstaller, the Chief Medical Officer for the MDOC, says in his Affidavit that while he is concerned about the problem cases he does not believe that the problem cases are representative of overall MDOC medical care. (Pramstaller Aff. ¶ 3.) Dr. Pramstaller also characterizes the cases selected as “brittle” meaning that bad outcomes may be expected because the prisoners are in grave medical conditions. (Id.)
Defendants have also provided the Affidavit of Richard Russell, an administrator for the Bureau of Health Care Services for the MDOC. Mr. Russell’s Affidavit takes the position that the problem cases noted in Dr. Cohen’s Report are not statistically significant. Mr. Russell comes to this conclusion because he numbered the total inmates served at the facilities at 1587 and in order to arrive at a valid statistical sample of the population to a 95% confidence level one would have to review at least 305 medical files. (Russell Aff. ¶ 15.) Since this was not done, Russell does not believe that Dr. Cohen’s criticisms are necessarily representative of the care delivered to the class.
7

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1915 Filed 10/19/2005 Page 8 of 12
(See Russell Aff. ¶ 17.) In saying so, though, Russell did not define the subclass of people in the Hadix class who had a need for urgent, acute or emergency care and he did not state whether the problems cases might be reflective of systemic problems in delivering care to this subclass of prisoners. Paragraph 16 of Russell’s Affidavit also assumes that the cases reviewed but not commented upon by Dr. Cohen lacked deficiencies. This assumption does not appear valid from a complete reading of the Third Report.
Defendants’ arguments are also answered in Plaintiffs’ Reply. Plaintiffs have attached the Declaration of Jerry Walden, M.D. Walden reviewed 23 medical records of patients who died at the Hadix facilities in 2004. (Walden Decl. ¶ 4.) His review revealed a number of instances of failure to deliver appropriate medical care. (Id.) Examples included a cancer patient who was not given pain medication (id. at ¶ 5), a renal patient who was refused treatment and who was not given psychological care that might have prolonged his treatment and life (id. at ¶ 6), a patient with cirrhosis of the liver who was not given necessary medication over a four-day period and otherwise not treated appropriately for serious symptoms of liver failure (id. at ¶ 11.) These are just a few examples listed by Dr. Walden, he lists several other problems cases from the 23 cases he surveyed. Dr. Walden viewed these cases as reflective of a need to make significant changes in health care delivery at the Hadix facilities to prevent imminent harm to prisoner health. (Id. ¶ 36.) Dr. Walden also criticized the SERAPIS electronic medical record program on the ground that the program did not include a manual override feature for necessary changes. (Id. ¶ 35.) Overall, Dr. Walden’s Declaration supports that the problems observed by Dr. Cohen are not simple anomalies, but are reflective of system-wide deficient medical care.
8

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1915 Filed 10/19/2005 Page 9 of 12
The same conclusion may be drawn from Mark Creekmore’s Declaration. Creekmore is a researcher and lecturer in Psychology at the University of Michigan and in the past has provided testimony about valid programs for quality assurance in the delivery of medical care. Creekmore says that there are at least six types of case studies which can be used to gather and present data. (Creekmore Decl. ¶ 6.) Creekmore believes that Dr. Cohen’s cases are reflective of “critical” incidents and illustrate complex medical problems and system failures in need of solution. (Id. at ¶ 11.) He also views the events reported upon as “sentinel” events which provide special insight into system failures. (Id.) It is noted that the CDC uses sentinel events, such as deaths, to study patient care. (See Pls.’ Reply, Attach. 3.) The MDOC also uses such information in that mortality review is used as a peer review mechanism of each prisoner death under MDOC policy. (See Pls.’ Reply, Attach. 4.)
At the present time, the prisoners at DWH, C-Unit, JMF and SMT are at a high level of clinical acuity. The majority of the prisoners are enrolled in chronic care clinics. This is almost twice the enrollment rate for other prisoners in the State (58 percent versus 35 percent); and, it is for this reason, that deficiencies noted are of such moment to the Hadix Class.
LEGAL STANDARDS Under the Rule 65, the Court must consider four factors: (1) whether there is a strong likelihood of success on the merit; (2) whether there is proof of irreparable harm to the moving party without the injunction; (3) whether substantial harm to others will be caused by the injunction; and (4) whether the public’s interest is favored by the issuance of the injunction. Jones v. City of Monroe, 341 F.3d 474, 476 (6th Cir. 2003); Nightclubs, Inc. v. City of Paducah, 202 F.3d 884, 888 (6th Cir. 2000); Basicomputer Corp. v. Scott, 973 F.2d 507, 511 (6th Cir. 1992). This evaluation
9

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1915 Filed 10/19/2005 Page 10 of 12
focuses on all four factors--rather than any particular factor. In re De Lorean Motor Co., 755 F.2d 1223, 1228-30 (6th Cir. 1985).
LEGAL ANALYSIS 1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits Of course, prisoners have an Eighth Amendment constitutional right to medical care for serious medical needs during incarceration and jailers may not intentionally or recklessly deprive a prisoner of such necessary medical care. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 836 (1994). It is not disputed that the medical conditions of the referenced prisoners (which include cancer, liver failure, kidney failure, etc.) are serious medical conditions. See also Brock v. Wright, 315 F.3d 158, 162 (2d Cir. 2003) (listing factors pertinent to the seriousness of medical needs). In assessing intentional and reckless violations, the history of violations may be important. Where information known to prison officials establishes an ongoing objectively unconstitutional condition, then such information satisfies both the objective and subject prong of the Eighth Amendment analysis. Hadix v. Johnson, 367 F.3d 513, 526 (6th Cir. 2004); see also Farmer, 511 U.S. at 846 n.9. Furthermore, according to the Third Circuit:
Where prison authorities deny reasonable requests for medical treatment . . . and such denial exposes the inmate ‘to undue suffering or the threat of tangible residual injury,’ Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857, 860 (6th Cir.1976) (cited with approval in Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105 n. 11, 97 S.Ct. at 291 n. 11), deliberate indifference is manifest.
Monmouth County Correctional Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 346 (3d Cir. 1987).
In the present case, the failure of the medical delivery system has long been known to Defendants. The Court documented those failures extensively in its 2002 Findings. The Court
10

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1915 Filed 10/19/2005 Page 11 of 12
appointed a Medical Monitor who has provided specific information to Defendants about the deficiencies of its system. Under these conditions, the failure to correct the deficiencies constitutes deliberate or reckless indifference to known serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Therefore, the first prong favors Plaintiff’s Motion.
In saying so, I take full notice of the PLRA and its restrictions. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2),
a preliminary injunction may not issue unless it is: . . . narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm . . ., and [is] the least intrusive means to correct that harm. The Court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the preliminary relief and shall respect the principles of comity . . . .
18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).
The Court believes that the evidence presented dictates a finding of likelihood on the merits notwithstanding the PLRA limitations. Any injunction issued will respect the limitations of the PLRA.
2. Irreparable Injury The observable consequence of the deficient medical care at issue have been avoidable death, illness, pain and aggravation of disease. As a matter of law, such injuries constitute irreparable injury. 3. Substantial Harm to Others Before issuing a preliminary injunction, this Court must consider whether the injunction will cause substantial harm to others. In this case, this concern equates with the need to respect the comity and control of the Michigan Department of Corrections and the professional judgment of its doctors and administrators. The Court weighs these as very serious concerns and, for this reason, treads lightly in this area. However, I take notice that the precise injunction relief requested by Plaintiffs (to force Defendants to engage in cooperative planning and remedy with the Medical Monitor) is such that it
11

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1915 Filed 10/19/2005 Page 12 of 12

will respect the State’s comity and not cause substantial harm. Therefore, this factor does not weigh against the relief requested.

4. Public Interest

It cannot be said enough that the Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

We are not a barbaric country. We will not set aside idly while prisoners, on a regular basis, contract

cancer, kidney disease, and other serious illnesses and are left untreated for lengthy periods of time.

The public interest favors the immediate remedy of such conditions.

Therefore, I will issue a preliminary injunction without bond (due to Plaintiffs’ indigence).

My injunction will require Defendants to engage in cooperatively planning with Plaintiffs and Dr.

Cohen to remedy the unconstitutional conditions discussed. Defendants will be ordered to submit a

remedial plan, within 30 days of my Order, for later court approval. I will schedule further hearing

upon receipt of the plan.

DATED in Kalamazoo, MI: October 19, 2005

/s/ Richard Alan Enslen RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12

 
 Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1930 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION _____________________

EVERETT HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs,

Case No. 4:92-CV-110

v.

Hon. Richard Alan Enslen

PATRICIA L. CARUSO, et al.,
Defendants. _____________________________/

AMENDED PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION*

In accordance with the Court’s findings of this date; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Everett Hadix, et al.’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 1900) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants, their agents and assigns, are enjoined to submit a formal written plan for remedying the constitutional deprivations in medical care explained at the hearing of October 19, 2005 and in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction within 30 days of this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ plan shall accomplish the recommendations contained in Dr. Robert Cohen’s Third Report, including, but not limited to the following: 1. Establish a unitary medical record system; 2. Assure access to care for all patients in segregation; 3. Provide adequate staffing to insure appropriate medical treatment at Dwayne Waters Hospital, C-Unit, acute/infirmary care, the segregation unit, and the dialysis program;

*This Preliminary Injunction is amended nunc pro tunc and does not intend an alteration of the time periods stated in the prior Preliminary Injunction.

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1930 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 2 of 2

4. Provide for assessment and medical review of all prisoner patient deaths and provide training

to medical service providers concerning serious instances of inappropriate patient treatment;

5. Establish a program for effective supervision of medical service providers providing service

within the Hadix facilities.

6. Establish an infirmary capacity at Dwayne Waters Hospital; and

7. Assure that specialty care services are available to all prisoners including those in

segregation.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants, their agents and assigns, shall work

cooperatively with special monitor Dr. Robert Cohen, M.D. in developing said plan.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption is hereby AMENDED to reflect the

succession and appointment of Patricia L. Caruso as the Director of the Michigan Department of

Corrections in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court finds this Injunction satisfies the requirements

of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1) in that: the order is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to

correct the probable violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment, and is

the least intrusive means necessary to correct the probable violation of those rights because it allows

Defendants to design the relief appropriate to address the violation and because the Court has

previously provided Defendants with multiple opportunities to address the violation.

DATED in Kalamazoo, MI: November 23, 2005

/s/ Richard Alan Enslen RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

 
 Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1916 Filed 10/19/2005 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION _____________________

EVERETT HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs,

Case No. 4:92-CV-110

v.

Hon. Richard Alan Enslen

PATRICIA L. CARUSO, et al.,
Defendants. _____________________________/

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

In accordance with the Court’s findings of this date; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Everett Hadix et al.’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 1900) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants, their agents and assigns, are enjoined to submit a formal written plan for remedying the constitutional deprivations in medical care explained at the hearing of October 19, 2005 and in Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction within 30 days of this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ plan shall accomplish the recommendations contained in Dr. Robert Cohen’s Third Report, including, but not limited to the following: 1. Establish a unitary medical record system; 2. Assure access to care for all patients in segregation; 3. Provide adequate staffing to insure appropriate medical treatment at Dwayne Waters Hospital, C-Unit, acute/infirmary care, the segregation unit, and the dialysis program; 4. Provide for assessment and medical review of all prisoner patient deaths and provide training to medical service providers concerning serious instances of inappropriate patient treatment;

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1916 Filed 10/19/2005 Page 2 of 2

5. Establish a program for effective supervision of medical service providers providing service

within the Hadix facilities.

6. Establish an infirmary capacity at Dwayne Waters Hospital; and

7. Assure that specialty care services are available to all prisoners including those in

segregation.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants, their agents and assigns, shall work

cooperatively with special monitor Dr. Robert Cohen, M.D. in developing said plan.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption is hereby AMENDED to reflect the

succession and appointment of Patricia L. Caruso as the Director of the Michigan Department of

Corrections in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).

DATED in Kalamazoo, MI: October 19, 2005

/s/ Richard Alan Enslen RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

 
 Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 1 of 73

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

EVERETT HADIX, et. al.,

Plaintiffs,

No. 4:92-cv-110

v. PERRY M. JOHNSON, et. al.,

HONORABLE RICHARD A. ENSLEN MAGISTRATE ELLEN S. CARMODY

Defendants.
Patricia Streeter (P30032) Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (734) 222-0088

/
Michael Barnhart (P10467) Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (734) 213-3703

Elizabeth Alexander

A. Peter Govorchin (P31161)

Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs

Counsel for Defendants

The National Prison Project 915 15th Street, NW, 7th Floor

Michigan Department of Attorney General Corrections Division

Washington, DC 20005

P.O. Box 30217

(202) 393-4930

Lansing, MI 48909

(517) 335-7021

__________________________________________________________________________

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 2 of 73
Defendants’ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law I. Procedural Background and Issue(s) Presented
1. In 1980, Everett Hadix and other prisoners incarcerated at the State Prison of Southern Michigan, Central Complex (“SPSM-CC”) brought a class action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against various state officials charged with the operation of SPSM-CC. See Hadix v. Johnson, 367 F.3d 513, 515-517 (6th Cir. 2004).1 R. 1846, Motion; R. 1863, Opinion. The inmates asserted that their conditions of confinement violated their rights under the First, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Id.
2. Five years later, on April 4, 1985, the parties entered into a comprehensive consent decree covering most aspects of health care; fire safety; sanitation; safety and hygiene; overcrowding and protection from harm; volunteers; food service; management; operations; access to courts; and mail. Id.
3. Though the state officials admitted no liability on the inmates’ claims, the decree explicitly stated that it was intended by the parties to assure the constitutionality of the conditions under which prisoners are incarcerated at SPSM-CC. Id. Under the consent decree’s terms, the state officials could apply for termination of the decree when
1 The history of this case is stated in previous decisions of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, see Hadix v. Johnson, 367 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2004); 230 F.3d 840 (6th Cir. 2000); 228 F.3d 662 (6th Cir. 2000); 144 F.3d 925 (6th Cir. 1998); 143 F.3d 246 (6th Cir. 1998); 133 F.3d 940 (6th Cir. 1998), and in previous decisions of the district court, see Hadix v. Johnson, 45 F. Supp. 2d 584 (E.D. Mich. 1999); 947 F. Supp. 1113 (E.D. Mich. 1996); 947 F. Supp. 1100 (E.D. Mich. 1996); 933 F. Supp. 1360 (E.D. Mich. 1996); 879 F. Supp. 743 (E.D. Mich. 1995); 896 F. Supp. 697 (E.D. Mich. 1995); 792 F. Supp. 527 (E.D. Mich. 1992); 740 F. Supp. 433 (E.D. Mich. 1990); 712 F. Supp. 550 (E.D. Mich. 1989); 694 F. Supp. 259 (E.D. Mich. 1988).

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 3 of 73
they were in compliance with all decree provisions. Id. The district court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the consent decree until compliance was achieved. Id.
4. In 1992, the District Court for the Eastern District transferred the medical and mental health components of the Consent Decree to this Court.2 Id. The Sixth Circuit also transferred the access to courts portion of the case to this Court. Knop v. Johnson, 977 F.2d 996, (6th Cir. 1992).
5. The Consent Decree in this case provides: 1) This was an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other applicable statutes seeking declaratory and equitable relief with respect to the conditions of confinement at the Central Complex of the State Prison of Southern Michigan, including the Reception and Guidance Center (hereinafter referred to as SPSM-CC). 2) Plaintiffs are prisoners at the SPSM-CC and represent themselves and the class of all prisoners who are now or will be confined within said institution. Defendants are state officials charged under Michigan law with the operation of SPSM-CC. [R. 199, Consent Decree, Introduction, p. 1.] 6. At the time of the entry of the Consent Decree, April 1985, SPSM-CC consisted of Cell Blocks 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12 and administrative segregation (which was the hospital). See, the January 8, 2002 Affidavit of Barbara Hladki; R. 1540; R. 1846, Motion. 6-Block only consisted of galleries base through 3. The 4th gallery also known as “top 6,” was part of the Reception and Guidance Center. 7-Block was then as it is now, the Reception and Guidance Center. Id. Cell Blocks 1 and 2 were the North Complex, and Cell Blocks 9, 10 and 16 were the South Complex. Id. 16-Block was demolished and is being replaced with a new housing unit. Id. A and B units, which are now part of the Reception and Guidance Center, did not exist at the time the Consent
2 On January 8, 2001, this Court entered its order terminating in all respects Section II.B (mental health care) of the Consent Decree.
3

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 4 of 73
Decree was entered, and when they were first built they were part of the Parnall Correctional Facility. Id. C Unit did not exist at the time the Consent Decree was entered, and is now administered by the Egeler Correctional Facility. Id. The Duane Waters Hospital did not exist at the time the Consent Decree was entered. Id.
7. In April of 1996, Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 100 Stat. 1321-66 (1966). "Enacted in part in response to criticisms that federal courts had overstepped their supervisory authority in prison conditions cases, the PLRA was specifically intended to limit the use of court-enforced consent decree cases and to restrict 'the ability of Federal judges to affect the capacity and conditions of prisons and jails beyond what is required by the Constitution and Federal law'." Hadix, 228 F.3d at 665; Hadix, 144 F.3d at 931.
8. After enactment of the PLRA, the defendants moved for termination of the Consent Decree in the Eastern District pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2). Hadix, 228 F.3d at 665-666. On November 1, 1996, the Eastern District denied defendants' motion to terminate the Consent Decree, ruling that the termination provisions of the PLRA were unconstitutional on separation-of-powers grounds. Id. at 666. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed the Eastern District's judgment [Hadix v Johnson, 133 F.3d 940, 941 (6th Cir. 1998), cert denied 524 U.S. 952 (1998)]. Id. The Sixth Circuit remanded the case to the Eastern District for the consideration of the merits of the defendants' motion for termination. Id.
9. On March 18, 1999, the Eastern District issued its ruling on defendants' motion for termination, and focused its attention on whether there had been substantial compliance with the consent decree with regard to the facilities designated in the break-
4

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 5 of 73
up plan [Hadix v Johnson, 45 F. Supp. 2d 584 (E.D. Mich. 1999)]. Id. at 666. The Eastern District unconditionally terminated certain portions of the consent decree, and conditionally terminated other provisions. Id. at 666-667. On October 5, 2000, the Sixth Circuit reversed the Eastern District's order terminating the Consent Decree because it failed to comply with the requirements of the PLRA, and remanded the case with strict instructions for the prompt resolution of the defendants' motion to terminate. Hadix v Johnson, 228 F.3d 662 (6th Cir. 2000).
10. On March 18, 1999, the Eastern District also transferred sections I.P., I.Q., and I.S. of the Consent Decree (regarding water temperatures, housing temperatures, and ventilation, respectively) pertaining to Facility B (formerly Cell Blocks 4 and 5, now the Southern Michigan Correctional Facility or JMF) to this Court. Eastern District R. 1342; R. 1863, Opinion; Hadix, 367 F.3d at 515-517. The Eastern District further transferred to this Court Defendants’ proposed alternatives to Facility A (Cell Block 3 of the Egeler Correctional Facility or SMN). Id. The Eastern District determined that health care was implicated in these provisions at each of these facilities.
11. On December 2-3, 1999, this Court conducted hearings on the medical health care provisions of the Consent Decree and other issues transferred by the Eastern District. Id. Subsequently, on February 18, 2000, this Court issued its Order and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. R. 1372, 1373. This Court determined that Plaintiffs sustained their burden by proving the existence of constitutional violations with regard to section II.A.3.6, II.A.4.a, II.A.5.a, II.A.7, and II.A.11, and that Plaintiffs failed to sustain their burden of proving the existence of constitutional violations as to the remaining health care provisions of the Consent Decree and terminated its jurisdiction
5

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 6 of 73
over those provisions. Additionally, this court found that the temperature, ventilation and fire safety conditions at JMF, Egeler, and Administrative Segregation support a finding of constitutional violations. Hadix, 367 F.3d at 515-517. The February 18, 2000 Order was not final, as the Court reserved judgment on termination of other portions of the Consent Decree and the entry of any remedial order. Id.
12. In an Order dated February 18, 2000, this Court terminated Section I.P. of the Consent Decree as to JMF.
13. On July 12, 2000, the Eastern District transferred to this Court Plaintiffs’ claims that conditions in Facility C (formerly Cell Blocks 11 and 12, now State Prison of Southern Michigan Central Complex or SMI) with regard to water, temperature and ventilation (Sections I.P., I.Q., and I.S., respectively) endanger the health of prisoners. Eastern District R. 1421; Id.
14. On November 15, 2000, the Eastern District transferred to this Court Plaintiffs’ claims that conditions in Facility D (8-Block of the Parnall Correctional Facility or SMT) with regard to temperature and ventilation (Sections I.Q. and I.S., respectively), and the fire safety issues which are the same as to those concerning Facility A previously transferred. Eastern District R. 1432; Id.
15. On June 27, 2001, the Eastern District issued its Order of Termination. Eastern District R. 1442.3 The Eastern District’s Order of Termination provided in pertinent part:
3 On April 8, 2002, pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, this Court terminated its jurisdiction over water temperatures of the Consent Decree as to all Hadix facilities. R. 1608. On June 17, 2003, this Court issued its Order terminating jurisdiction over SMI. R. 1714. On May 3, 2002, pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, this Court terminated its jurisdiction over ventilation as to SMN, SMI, and SMT. R. 1621.
6

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 7 of 73
With the exception of those portions of the Consent Decree transferred to the Western District [orders dated June 5, 1992; March 18, 1999; July 12, 2000; and November 15, 2000] . . . the Court hereby TERMINATES its jurisdiction over all sections of the Consent Decree and implementing orders remaining before this Court. 16. On May 6-8, 2002, this Court conducted hearings on the remaining medical health care provisions of the Consent Decree and other issues transferred by the Eastern District. Subsequently, on October 29, 2002, this Court issued its Order and Injunction and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. R. 1658, 1659. The Court determined that the existing system of health care continues to violate Sections II.A.3.6, II.A.4.a, II.A.5.a, II.A.7, and II.A.11 of the Consent Decree and the Eighth Amendment. Hadix, supra, 367 F.3d at 517. The Court further found that Defendants’ failure to protect prisoners from heat-related illnesses and the risk of injury from smoke and fire for prisoners with disabilities and chronic diseases resulted in violations of the Consent Decree and Constitution. Id. 17. This Court ordered the parties to further brief the issue of whether there is any alternative to compartmentalization, consistent with Section VIII of the Consent Decree, as a remedy for the fire safety problems and risks. Id. After briefing, on February 25, 2003, this Court issued its Injunction ordering compartmentalization of the facilities as the fire safety remedy. R. 1696. The Injunction applied only to SMN and SMT. 18. On March 4, 2003, Defendants filed their Notice of Appeal with the Sixth Circuit. 19. On December 23, 2003, Defendants submitted their filing entitled “State Prison of Southern Michigan Fire Safety and Egress Report for Egeler Cell Blocks 1, 2,
7

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 8 of 73
3, & 7 and Parnall Cell Block 8.” ("Plan") R. 1739. Defendants further indicated that subject to certain conditions they would voluntarily proceed with that portion of the Plan which concerned:
Expansion of the fire protection system to provide fire protection throughout each cell block;
Removal of the transformers and other electrical equipment that are no longer in use in the basement;
Increasing the guardrail height at the open side of the walkway at each tier of elevated cells; and
Removal of the unenclosed storage areas and laundry facilities and construction of a 1-hour rated wall around the laundry facility at the Parnall Correctional Facility. The portions of the December 23, 2003 Plan that Defendants did not agree to complete voluntarily was a) installation of a mechanical smoke exhaust system in Cell Blocks 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8; b) replacement of the manual remote cell door locking system in Cell Blocks 1, 2 and 3 with a remote electronic cell door locking/unlocking system; and c) installation of a vertical dividing wall on each side of Egeler’s Cell Blocks 1, 2 and 3 and across the center of the atrium in 7 and 8 Blocks. 20. On February 2, 2004, this Court issued its Order preliminarily approving Defendants’ fire safety plan pending further hearing. R. 1751. 21. On March 25, 2004, the Sixth Circuit granted Defendants’ request for a stay of this Court’s February 25, 2003 Injunction. Subsequently, on May 6, 2004, the Sixth Circuit issued its Opinion affirming in part and reversing in part this Court’s
8

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 9 of 73
injunctive order. Hadix v. Johnson, 367 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2004). In reversing and
remanding the alleged fire safety constitutional violations, the Sixth Circuit stated in part:
In this case, the district court failed to identify the point at which certain fire safety deficiencies ceased being mere deficiencies and, instead, became constitutional violations. As noted above, this Court was informed at oral argument that Defendants have taken steps to remedy some of the problems noted by the district court, such as removing the dry transformers from the basement and installing additional sprinklers. It is unclear to us whether those remedies are sufficient to cure the constitutional violations at the Hadix facilities.
We understand that the judicial supervision over prison conditions is a daunting task. We cannot, however, accept the approach taken by the district court in this case, namely, providing a laundry list of all the things that were wrong in the Hadix facilities, declaring a constitutional violation, and ordering a highly expensive, and potentially ineffective, solution. . . . Accordingly, we remand this case for a more detailed analysis of how the current conditions in the Hadix facilities continue to be deprivations denying “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities” rather than potentially minor deviations that may satisfy the equivalency provisions of the LSC. Also, we remand for a more detailed analysis of why the steps taken by the prison officials, which the lower court may disagree with, constitute “deliberate indifference,” rather than a mere difference of opinion. [Id. at 529-530]
With regard to the issue of compartmentalization,4 the Sixth Circuit reversed this
Court and held:
Our reading of the record indicates that Defendants consented to compartmentalization as a remedy not for fire safety concerns, but for the concerns over violent attacks that were taking place in the prison complex. The concerns about personal safety of the prisoners stemming from the potential outbreak of violence have been remedied and are not subject of the current appeal. Accordingly, the district court erred when it proceeded on the assumption that Defendants had agreed on an earlier occasion to compartmentalization of the facilities to remedy fire safety violations. [Id. at 519].
4 Compartmentalization refers to physical modifications which divide the cell blocks into smaller units.
9

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 10 of 73
22. On July 29, 2004, Defendants’ counsel advised the Court, Court Monitor, and the Plaintiffs that pursuant to Defendants’ Plan, “MDOC maintenance staff have removed the six transformers and four oil switches from the basement of Parnall’s 8Block.” R. 1846, Motion.
23. On August 5, 2004, this Court issued its Order which provided in part that the parties should file simultaneous briefs on the process which should be used to resolve the fire safety remand from the Sixth Circuit. R. 1771.
24. On August 17, September 7, and September 17, 2004, Defendants’ counsel advised the Court, Court Monitor, and the Plaintiffs that pursuant to Defendants’ Plan the transformers and all electrical equipment had been removed from the basement in Egeler Cell Blocks 1, 2, 3, and 7, and Parnall Cell Block 8. R. 1846, Motion.
25. On September 28, 2004, this Court issued its Scheduling Order (R. 1775), which provided for the filing of a detailed schedule for fire safety improvements planned; discovery, site visits by the experts; and an evidentiary hearing. Subsequently, on October 14, 2004, Defendants filed their Schedule for Fire Safety Improvements. R. 1785.
26. On October 12, 2004 and December 1, 2004, Defendants’ counsel advised the Court, Court Monitor, and Plaintiffs that pursuant to Defendants’ Plan, the MDOC completed the removal of the unenclosed storage areas and laundry facilities and had increased the guardrail height in Egeler Cell Blocks 1, 2, 3, and 7 and Parnall Cell Block 8. R. 1846.
27. On February 28, 2005, Defendants filed their Expedited Motion to Dismiss the Court's Attempt to Exercise Jurisdiction Over Facilities Not Subject to the
10

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 11 of 73
Consent Decree and/or Issues and Facilities Previously Terminated by the Federal Court. R. 1846, 1847.
28. On March 31, 2005, this Court issued its Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. R. 1863, 1864. The Court held that the fire safety issues before the Court did not include cell blocks at the JMF Facility and Blocks 9 and 10 of the Parnall Facility. Id. JMF had been dismissed by the Eastern District on a finding that the plan for that facility had been fully implemented. Id. Cell Blocks 9 and 10 of the Parnall Facility are non-Hadix facilities. Id.; R. 1612. This Court denied Defendants' Motion as to the "support" facilities for Cell Block 8 of the Parnall Facility and the Egeler Facility.
29. On April 29, 2005, the parties filed a Stipulation to Terminate Jurisdiction Over Certain Areas Regarding Fire Safety Issues. R. 1876. These areas concerned the Parnall creamery; Parnall meat processing plant; Jackson prison complex power plant; Parnall chow hall; Egeler chow hall; and MSI shoe factory/box and carton factory in Parnall. Id. On May 4, 2005, this Court issued its Order Approving and Adopting Stipulation. R. 1878.
30. The only remaining "support facilities" at issue are the SMT/MSI laundry building and the SMT/MSI metal furniture factory. The SMT laundry building is a twostory building separate from the housing units. R. 1846. The only issue in the SMT/MSI laundry is whether the egress from the second floor to the ground floor is properly marked and indicated with exit signs, and whether the ground floor direction to the exit from the second floor egress is properly marked. The SMT/MSI metal furniture factory is a two-story building with a basement. The only issue for the SMT/MSI metal furniture
11

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 12 of 73

factory concerns the storage and handling of xylene fluids on the first floor painting area and the storage of mineral fluids on the second floor.

II. Backgrounds of the Experts

A. Defendant’s Expert Witnesses (Wayne G. Carson, Frederick Mowrer, Ph.D. and George Pramstaller, D.O.

31. Wayne G. Carson is a consulting fire protection engineer and operates his

own firm. R. 1637. Mr. Carson has consulted for governmental and non-governmental

agencies. Id. Mr. Carson is a licensed engineer in five states and the District of

Columbia. Mr. Carson has testified as an expert in over 50 states including this Court.

Id. Mr. Carson has inspected over 75 correctional facilities around the country. Id.

Mr. Carson teaches seminars around the country. Id.

32. Mr. Carson is familiar with the Life Safety Code. Id. With regard to the

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) codes and standards, Mr. Carson is serving

or has served in the following capacities:

•

Past member, Safety to Life Committee which is responsible for the Life

Safety Code® (NFPA 101)

•

Past Chairman, Subcommittee on Residential Occupancies

•

Past Member, Subcommittee on Detention and Correction Occupancies

•

Past Chairman, Technical Committee on Health Care Occupancies (Chaps.

12/13)

•

Member, Technical Committee on Fundamentals (NFPA 101, Chaps. 1-4)

•

Member, Technical Committee on Alternate Approaches (NFPA 101A)

•

Member, Technical Committee on Health Care Occupancies (NFPA 101,

Chaps. 18/19)

•

Secretary, NFPA Building Construction and Safety Code (NFPA 5000)

12

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 13 of 73
The NFPA Safety to Life Committee oversees the writing of the Life Safety Code and the work of all technical committees. Id. Mr. Carson was a member of the Safety to Life Committee for 12 years. Id.
33. Mr. Carson also served on the Detention and Correctional Committee from its inception in 1977 through the 1991 edition of the Life Safety Code. Id. Mr. Carson was involved in the drafting of the correctional facility provisions of the Life Safety Code. Id.
34. Mr. Carson is familiar with the Life Safety Code Handbook. Id. The Life Safety Code Handbook explains certain provisions of the Life Safety Code and provides examples of how the Code might be applied to buildings. Id.
35. Mr. Carson is a professional member of the Building Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA) which publishes the BOCA National Building Code.
36. Mr. Carson has published numerous papers and publications, including contributions to the Fire Protection Handbook and the Life Safety Code.
37. Frederick W. Mowrer is an Associate Professor in the Department of Fire Protection at the University of Maryland. He holds a Ph.D. in Fire Protection Engineering and Combustion Science; an M.S. in Engineering; and a B.S. in Fire Protection and Safety Engineering.
38. Prior to his present position, Dr. Mowrer was a lecturer in civil engineering at the University of California (Berkley) and a fire protection engineer. Dr. Mowrer is a registered fire protection engineer in the State of California.
13

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 14 of 73
39. Dr. Mowrer has held and continues to hold numerous positions with the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, NFPA, International Association of Fire Safety Science, and the International Standards Organization.
40. Dr. Mowrer has received numerous awards and honors in the field of fire protection. Dr. Mowrer has authored or contributed to over 100 publications.
41. Dr. George Pramstaller is MDOC's Chief Medical Officer. R. 1658. Dr. Pramstaller has extensive medical experience within MDOC and in private practice. Id. Prior to assuming his current position, Dr. Pramstaller was MDOC Director of Medical Services for Region I. Id. Dr. Pramstaller is a certified Correctional Health Professional, a Fellow-American College of Osteopathic Family Physicians, and Board Certified in Family Practice.
42. Dr. Pramstaller is a member of numerous professional associations, including the Society of Correctional Physicians and the American Correctional Health Services Association. Dr. Pramstaller is on the Board of Directors of the National Commission on Correctional Health Care. Id.
B. Defendant’s Lay Witnesses (Eugene Fushi, Thomas R. Smith, Barbara Hladki, Thomas Meeker, Ronald Embry and William Denman)
43. Thomas R. Smith is employed as Project Manager with Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr and Huber, Engineers, Scientists and Architects, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Tr. I, pp. 127-128. Mr. Smith holds a Master's Degree in architecture. Id. Mr. Smith is a Project Manager on large multi-discipline projects, typically institutional occupancies such as health care, hospitals, long-term care, nursing facilities, and detentional occupancies. Id.
14

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 15 of 73
44. Eugene Fushi is employed by the MDOC as a Regional Fire Inspector. Id. at 12. Mr. Fushi oversees the prisons within the Jackson region, including the Egeler and Parnall Facilities. Id.
45. Barbara Hladki is employed by the MDOC as Administrator, Jackson Medical Complex, Bureau of Health Care Services. Id. at 110-111. Ms. Hladki's duties include the supervision of all health care staff within the Jackson Medical Complex (with the exception of mental health staff and medical service providers), quality assurance, audits, and reviews. Id.
46. Thomas Meeker is employed by the MDOC as a Resident Unit Officer (RUO) in 8-Block at Parnall. Id. at 76. RUO Meeker has been assigned to 8 Block for the last five to seven years. Id. RUO Meeker has been working at the Parnall Facility for 19 years. Id. at 78.
47. Mr. Thomas Meeker is a Resident Unit Officer (RUO) in 8-Block. Id. at 76. He has been assigned to this position for 7 years. Id. He is currently working the first shift (5:18 a.m. – 1:18 p.m.). Id.
48. Ronald Embry is employed by the MDOC as an Assistant Resident Unit Supervisor (ARUS) in 8-Block at Parnall. Id. at 81-82. Mr. Embry has been assigned to 8 Block for five years. Id. Mr. Embry has supervisory responsibilities over the RUOs and reports to a Resident Unit Manager (RUM). Id.
49. Mr. Thomas Meeker is a Resident Unit Officer (RUO) in 8 Block. Id. at 76. He has been assigned to this position for 7 years. Id. He is currently working the first shift (5:18 a.m. – 1:18 p.m.). Id.
15

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 16 of 73
50. ARUS Embry's working hours are 8:00 a.m. – 4:30 p.m., with the exception of Mondays when his hours are 11:00 a.m. – 7:30 p.m. Id.
51. Mr. William Denman is currently employed as Resident Unit Manager (RUM) of 7-Block. Id. at 103. He has held his current position sine December 2004. Id. Prior to this position, he was RUM at Cell Blocks 1, 2, and 3 for over 11 years. Id.
III. Physical Description of Cell Blocks A. Egeler’s Cell Blocks 1, 2, and 3 52. Cell Block 1 contains a series of observation or quarantine and
handicapper cells located at base level. Id. at 26. These cells need to be key released by an officer. Id. at 27. The quarantine cells have solid fronts. Id. These cells offer greater protection from smoke by being solid fronts. Id. The rest of the cells on base and all of the cells on 1-4 galleries are open front and may be released remotely by the breaker bar at each end of the gallery. A diagram of the cell blocks is included in Defendants’ Exhibit 2.
53. The MDOC has raised the rail heights in the cell blocks from 36 to 48 inches by adding a third rail and additional vertical railings in each gallery. Id. at 43.
54. Cell Blocks 1, 2 and 3 have been fully sprinkled by adding sprinklers to the attic, basement, and end spaces of the cell blocks. Id. at 44.
55. The loose laundry combustibles that had been stored at the ends of Cell Blocks 1, 2 and 3 were removed. Id.
B. Egeler’s Cell Block 7 56. Egeler Cell Block 7 cells are all open front cells that can be opened electronically from the end of the galleries and from the control center in addition to
16

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 17 of 73
being able to be unlocked by the officer’s key. A diagram of the cell block is included in Defendants’ Exhibit 2.
57. The MDOC has raised the rail heights in the cell blocks from 36 to 48 inches by adding a third rail and additional vertical railings in each gallery. Id. at 43.
58. Cell Block 7 has been fully sprinkled by adding sprinklers to the attic, basement, and end spaces of the cell blocks. Id. at 44.
59. The replacement bedding under the officer’s station has also been removed. Id. at 45.
60. Cell Block 7 has been fully sprinkled by adding sprinklers to the attic, basement, and end spaces of the cell blocks. Id. at 44.
C. Parnall’s Cell Block 8 61. Parnall Cell Block 8 cells are all open front cells that can be opened electronically from the end of the galleries and from the control center in addition to being able to be unlocked by the officer’s key. A diagram of the cell bock is included in Defendants’ Exhibit 2. 62. The MDOC has raised the rail heights in the cell blocks from 36 to 48 inches by adding a third rail and vertical railings in each gallery. Id. at 43. 63. Cell Block 8 has been fully sprinkled by adding sprinklers to the attic, basement, and end spaces of the cell blocks. Id. at 44. 64. The loose laundry combustibles that had been stored at the ends of Cell Block 8 were removed. Id. A one-hour rated, fire-door rated laundry room in 8-Block has been completed. Id.
17

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 18 of 73
D. Other areas 1. SMT/MSI Laundry
65. The only issue in this building at the time of the hearing was a contention by Plaintiffs that the egress from the second floor to the first floor was not sufficiently marked and that the route from where the egress stairs opened onto the first floor to the first floor exit was not sufficiently marked. Since the May 5-6, 2005 hearing, Defendants have painted wide yellow lines on the second floor to direct a person to the second floor egress. That stairway is marked with a lighted exit sign. Also, wide yellow lines have been painted on the first floor to take a person from the first floor doorway of the egress stairs from the second floor to the first floor exit. Confirmation of these actions have been sent to Plaintiffs by letter dated June 10, 2005.
2. SMT/MSI Metal Furniture Factory 66. This building has a walk-in basement level and two upper floors. There is no fire safety issue on the basement level. In one end of the first floor, there is a painting operation. As part of that operation xylene is used to clean the paint equipment. It is stored in 55 gallon drums in a locked metal cage. The cage is ventilated to the outside by a 16 inch fan. The Plaintiffs contended that the drums should be grounded and bonded. Since the May 5-6, 2005 hearing the Defendants have grounded and bonded the xylene drums. Confirmation was sent to the Plaintiffs on May 31, 2005. The Plaintiffs also contended that the drums should be sealed around the hand pumping equipment in the top of the drums. Since the May 5-6, 2005 hearing seals have been acquired and installed on the drums. Confirmation was sent to Plaintiffs on May 31, 2005.
18

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 19 of 73
67. On the second floor of the metal furniture factory there is another lockable metal cage area where several 55 gallon drums of mineral spirits used for lubrication and cleaning are stored. The same issues described for the xylene barrels have been resolved in the same way for the mineral spirits barrels.
68. The parties disagree whether additional modifications are required in the metal furniture factory with regard to the storage and handling of the xylene and mineral spirits. IV. Prisoner Characteristics
A. Egeler (Cell Blocks 1, 2, 3 and 7) 1. Classification of prisoners in Egeler.
69. The Egeler Correctional Facility is now the reception center for all male prisoners.
70. PD 04.01.150 Reception Center Services, effective February 14, 2005, governs the processing of prisoners into the facility and preparing those prisoners for transfer to their first permanent location. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6. [Plaintiffs submitted an out of date policy directive in their exhibit book but Defendants provided Plaintiffs with the current version, in effect for 3 months, prior to the May 5-6, 2005 hearing.] Tr. II, pp. 215-16.
71. Prisoners arriving in Egeler are treated as Level V prisoners for purposes of personal property, Defendants’ Exhibit 4, and state issue property, Defendants’ Exhibit 3. This is significantly less property than prisoners in Egeler possessed in 2002 when Egeler was a Level II general population prison. Tr. I, pp. 104-05.
19

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 20 of 73
72. Prisoners arriving at Egeler and not needing immediate placement in the hospital or Unit C, are placed in cell blocks 1, 2 or 3.
73. After the prisoner’s initial health screening and classification, they move to Cell Block 7 to await transfer to their regular housing assignment in another facility. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6 (February 14, 2005 version).
2. Health Characteristics 74. The prisoners arriving as new commitments and as parole violators come in with the mix of health characteristics that could be found on any random sampling of an equivalent number of prisoners sampled from the entire male prisoner population in the Department of Corrections. As prisoners are health screened, some of them are listed in the MDOC’s HC-251 and/or HC-261 reports. HC-251 lists prisoners who are eligible for a special accommodation. HC-261 lists prisoners who are assigned to a chronic care clinic. Defendants’ Exhibits 21, 24, 25 and 26. 75. Dr. Walden recognized that all newly committed prisoners received a comprehensive health care screening but believed that parole violators who were returning to prison after less than two years after being away were not given a physical as a matter of course. Walden dep, p. 90. However, Dr. Walden recognized that the 2001 document he was relying on also authorized full health care screening “if health warrants it.” Walden dep, p. 91. Dr. Walden recognized that for someone to determine if a prisoner’s “health warrants it” [a medical exam], that information would most likely be brought up as a complaint by the prisoner or an observation by the nurse that there was a health problem. Walden dep, p. 91. However, Dr. Walden noted that the prisoner might not disclose a health care complaint or the nurse might not recognize such a complaint.
20

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 21 of 73
76. Dr. Walden has not reviewed the medical records of prisoners listed on the HC-251 and HC-261 forms. Defendants’ Exhibits 21, 24, 25 and 26 and Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 39 and 40. April 28, 2005 deposition to preserve testimony of Dr. Jerry Walden, at 125.
77. When asked if that “needs assistance” could be that he needs to use an inhaler, Dr. Walden answered, “I can only speculate.” Walden dep, p. 138. This makes perfect sense because Dr. Walden did not review any of the prisoners’ medical files listed in the HC-251 and HC-261 reports. Id. at 125.
78. When Dr. Walden referred to prisoner #183348 who had a “Level of function: A” Dr. Walden testified that he believes that means he needs assistance but he does not know what that assistance is. Walden dep, pp. 137-38.
79. Dr. Walden admitted that an indication in the HC-251 of an orthopedic disorder did not indicate what the disorder was or whether it had any impact on a prisoner’s mobility. Walden dep, p. 137.
80. The inability to reach conclusions based on the information in the HC-251 and HC-261 alone regarding the qualitative state of a prisoner’s health condition was demonstrated by Ms. Hladki. Tr. I, pp. 118-120. Ms. Hladki referred to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 38, which represented a compilation of those prisoners who have been identified on the April 5, 2005 HC-251 and HC-261 forms. This listing was also correlated with the prisoners’ lock locations. Ms. Hladki stated that a review of this table (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 38) for auditing purposes would not indicate to the auditor the severity of a particular prisoner’s condition.
21

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 22 of 73
81. For example, prisoner #242056 on p. 15 of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 38 was described as having an “orthopedic deformity/f/bottom bunk, other (6 SM feeding),” was in the pulmonary chronic care clinic and had asthma without status. Tr. I, pp. 119-120. In order to determine with more specificity the nature of prisoner #242056’s orthopedic deformity, Ms. Hladki needed to look at the prisoner’s medical record. Tr. I, p. 121. Reviewing the cover of that prisoner’s medical record Ms. Hladki learned that his orthopedic deformity was a hand deformity and that, in discussing this prisoner with her nursing staff, Ms. Hladki learned that prisoner #242056 who was listed in the pulmonary chronic care clinic had asthma without status and the orthopedic deformity was employed as a porter in the unit. Tr. I, p. 123.
82. A the Jackson Medical Complex Administrator, Ms. Barbara Hladki selects the persons who will do health care audits, and reviews, modifies or creates with the assistance of other staff the audit tools that are used. Tr. I, p. 111.
83. HC-251 and HC-261 (Defendants’ Exhibits 21 and 24-26) are used to identify which prisoners’ medical records are actually going to be reviewed as part of the audit process. It is necessary to review the prisoner’s medical file because the HC-251 and the HC-261 do not give qualitative information about a prisoner listed.
84. Dr. Walden reviewed the list of prisoners and the HC-251 and HC-261 combination chart created by Plaintiffs and submitted as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 38. Dr. Walden assumed that a person who was noted as experiencing tobacco abuse may have emphysema (without determining whether the tobacco abuse was from smoking or chewing) and assumed that any designation of asthma gave a person a heightened risk,
22

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 23 of 73
yet he acknowledged that the scope of a designation of visual impairment did not indicate the degree of visual impairment. Walden dep, p. 136.
85. Under the Department’s chronic care clinic system for following the health care of prisoners who have certain categories of medical conditions, a person with hypertension would be in a chronic care clinic. Tr. I, p. 126. This same person would most likely be identified as “at risk of heat-related illness” and therefore be on the HC251 list. Tr. I, p. 126. If that same person was taking medication to control his hypertension and the hypertension was controlled, that person would still be in the chronic care clinic. Tr. I, p. 126. They would still be on the list of “at risk for heatrelated illness” even if their hypertension was under control. Tr. I, p. 126.
86. Dr. Walden stated that he does not think there is a risk or at least the increased risk is minimal, by exposure to smoke for a short duration of say 15 minutes for a person with hypertension. Walden dep, p. 142.
87. One is not able to tell from a review of the HC-251 or the HC-261 whether a prisoner has a particular susceptibility to an environmental constraint. Tr. II, p.245.
88. Prisoners who have a particular medical condition, have the severity of that medical condition assessed by the medical service provider. Tr. I, p. 127. In most cases, the MSPs take the listed policy and anyone that fits that category, is written a special accommodation. These prisoners would be listed on the HC-251.
89. Without reviewing a prisoner’s medical file, one is not able to tell an asthmatic from someone who has COPD just by looking at the fact that they are in the chronic care pulmonary clinic. You could tell for instance if the person was on continuous oxygen or had an oxygen concentrator but then obviously that person would
23

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 24 of 73
be so severely impaired by their pulmonary condition they would not be in a general population cell block. Tr. II, pp. 245-46. Therefore, such a person would not be in either Parnall’s 8 Block or any of the cell blocks in Egeler.
90. The Department creates a list of prisoners who are considered to be at risk of heat-related illness. Designation of a prisoner on this list entitles a prisoner to be placed, between May 1 and September 30 of the given year on either base or first gallery in the cell block. Prisoners who are designated as at risk for heat-related illness are listed on the HC-251 which is the form that lists accommodations. Tr. I, pp. 112-113.
91. Dr. Walden considers an MDOC special accommodation as a feature of medical care. Walden dep, p. 86.
92. A listing of prisoners’ locations dated April 5, 2005 would not necessarily indicate the implementation of accommodations for prisoners who are identified as at risk of heat-related illness because those prisoners’ placement on base or first gallery is not required to take place until May 1st of the year. Tr. I, p. 114.
93. Placement on base or first gallery is an accommodation. Tr. I, p. 115. Not all prisoners who are entitled to be placed on base or first gallery want to accept that placement accommodation. Ms. Hladki was involved in the concept of these at risk of heat-related illness accommodation waiver form. Tr. I, p. 115.
94. The form was developed because many prisoners, particularly in the Parnall facility which includes 8 Block, had expressed considerable displeasure over having to move from their current placement on second or third or fourth gallery down to base or first gallery. Tr. I, p. 115. If a prisoner signs the waiver form it allows the
24

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 25 of 73
prisoner to decline moving from a cell on an upper gallery to a cell on base or first gallery. Tr. I, p. 116.
95. A prisoner may revoke their waiver of the special accommodation by filing a grievance or sending a kite that they would like out of their waiver. Tr. I, p. 116. If a prisoner waives their cell placement accommodation due to risk of heat-related illness, that waiver does not affect any other medical care or other accommodations that are offered to that prisoner. Tr. I, p. 117.
96. Dr. Walden acknowledges that private persons, that is members of the general public, have a right to reject medical care but asserts that it is his belief that prisoners do not have the right to reject medical care. Walden dep, pp. 86-87.
3. Potential impairments to fire protection and egress 97. When Egeler converted to a Reception and Guidance Center, it converted from a general population Level II facility to a Level V facility. Id. at 104. 98. This conversion of Egeler to a Reception and Guidance Center reduced the amount of out-of-cell time for prisoners, along with the amount of property available. Id. at 105. 99. All the property the prisoners have is state issue clothing. Id. This contrasts with the one footlocker and one duffel bag of property available to general population prisoners. Id. and that amount of property Egeler prisoners could possess before the end of 2002. Tr. I, at p. 105. Thus, by reducing the fuel available the risk of serious injury from smoke and fire to prisoners in cell blocks 1, 2, 3 and 7 is significantly reduced from whatever that risk was in 2002.
25

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 26 of 73
100. The 2004 removal of the unused transformers and related electrical equipment reduces the risk of serious injury from smoke and fire from whatever it was in 2002.
101. The removal of stored property and laundry from the ends of the cell blocks in 2004 reduced the risk of serious injury due to smoke and fire from whatever it was in 2002.
102. Increasing the rail heights on the galleries from 36 to 48 inches in 2004 reduced the risk of serious injury due to smoke and fire from whatever it was in 2002.
103. Fully sprinkling the cell blocks in early 2005 has decreased the risk of serious injury due to smoke and fire from whatever that risk was in 2002.
104. The fact that the cells in cell blocks 1, 2 and 3 are opened manually instead of electronically is not an impediment to prisoner safety from injury due to smoke and fire. Defendants’ Exhibits 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15.
B. Parnall 1. Classification
105. The prisoners in Parnall’s Cell Block 8 are Level I general population prisoners.
106. The prisoners in 8 Block are considered general population prisoners even if they are enrolled in a chronic care clinic. Tr. II, p. 243.
107. Their cell doors are open most of the day. Tr. I, p. 92. 108. The prisoners leave their cells and the block for chow, job assignments, law library, health care, visits and yard.
26

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 27 of 73
2. Health Characteristics 109. Prisoners in 8 Block comprise a mixed population of low security level general population prisoners. Any prisoners with lingering medical needs are provided treatment by enrolling them in one of the MDOC’s chronic care clinics. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 34. 110. A prisoner in general population, even if identified on the HC-251 and/or HC-261 as being in a chronic care clinic is generally speaking able to walk to chow, able to walk to the store, able to walk to school, able to go to their job or, in other words, they are able to function at a level that allows them to get around to their necessary activities while incarcerated. Tr. II, p. 244. 111. On May 5, 2005, 8 Block ARUS Embry noted that there were no prisoners in a wheelchair housed in Cell Block 8. Tr. I, p. 86. 112. Ms. Hladki also stated that as of May 5, 2005, there were no prisoners in wheelchairs in 8 Block at Parnall Correctional Facility. Tr. I, p. 117. A prisoner who is completely or permanently dependent on a wheelchair would not be housed at the Parnall Correctional Facility as it is not designated as a wheelchair-accessible facility. Tr. I, p. 118. 113. The HC-251 and HC-261 (Defendant’s Exhibits 21 and 24-26) are used to identify which prisoners’ medical records are actually going to be reviewed as part of the audit process. 114. As the Jackson Medical Complex Administrator, Ms. Barbara Hladki selects the persons who will do health care audits, and reviews, modifies or creates with the assistance of other staff the audit tools that are used. Tr. I, p. 111.
27

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 28 of 73
115. One is not able to tell from a review of the HC-251 and HC-261 whether a prisoner has a particular susceptibility to an environmental constraint. Tr. II, p. 245.
116. Under the Department’s chronic care clinic system for following the health care of prisoners who have certain categories of medical conditions, a person with hypertension would be in a chronic care clinic. Tr. I, p. 126. This same person would most likely be identified as “at risk of heat-related illness” and therefore be on the HC251 list. Tr. I, p. 126. If that same person was taking medication to control his hypertension and the hypertension was controlled, that person would still be in the chronic care clinic. Tr. I, p. 126. They would still be on the list of “at risk for heatrelated illness” even if their hypertension was under control. Tr. I, p. 126. Prisoners who have a particular medical condition, have the severity of that medical condition assessed by the medical service provider. Tr. I, p. 127. In most cases, the MSPs take the listed policy and anyone that fits that category, is written an accommodation.
117. The inability to reach conclusions based on the information in the HC-251 and HC-261 regarding the qualitative state of a prisoner’s health condition was demonstrated by Ms. Hladki. Tr. I, pp. 118-120. Ms. Hladki referred to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 38, which represented a compilation of those prisoners who have been identified on the April 5, 2005 HC-251 and HC-261 forms. This listing was also correlated with the prisoners’ lock locations. Ms. Hladki stated that a review of this table (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 38) for auditing purposes would not indicate to the auditor the severity of a particular prisoner’s condition. For example, prisoner #242056 on p. 15 of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 38 was described as having an “orthopedic deformity/f/bottom bunk, other (6 SM feeding),” was in the pulmonary chronic care clinic and had asthma without status. Tr. I, pp. 119-
28

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 29 of 73
120. In order to determine with more specificity the nature of prisoner #242056’s orthopedic deformity, Ms. Hladki needed to look at the prisoner’s medical record. Tr. I, p. 121. Reviewing the cover of that prisoner’s medical record Ms. Hladki learned that his orthopedic deformity was a hand deformity and that, in discussing this prisoner with her nursing staff, Ms. Hladki learned that prisoner #242056 who was listed in the pulmonary chronic care clinic had asthma without status and the orthopedic deformity was employed as a porter in the unit. Tr. I, p. 123.
118. Without reviewing a prisoner’s medical file, one is not able to tell an asthmatic from someone who has COPD just by looking at the fact that they are in the chronic care pulmonary clinic. You could tell for instance if the person was on continuous oxygen or had an oxygen concentrator but then obviously that person would be so severely impaired by their pulmonary condition they would not be in a general population cell block. Tr. II, pp. 245-46. Therefore, such a person would not be in either Parnall’s 8 Block or any of the cell blocks in Egeler.
119. Ms. Ferguson relied on the HC-251 (Special Accommodations List) and the HC-261 (Chronic Care Clinic List) to conclude that 103 individuals in the Parnall Correctional Facility’s 8 Block would have trouble getting down the stairs or out of the block in the event of a fire in the block. Tr. II, pp. 285-86. However, Ms. Ferguson did not actually interview any prisoner or review their medical files in 8 Block. Tr. II, p. 286. Ms. Ferguson relied on the identification of prisoners who either had lower body orthopedic problems or who had respiratory conditions that by “definition” she believed limited their walking either one block or up a flight of stairs. Tr. II, p. 286.
29

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 30 of 73
120. Ms. Elizabeth Ferguson retired from the State of Michigan in 1992. In 2002 she testified that she had no medical training and on May 6, 2005 she testified that since her last testimony (in 2002) she had not received any medical training. Tr. II, p. 284. Ms. Ferguson’s current fulltime activity is landscape painting (erroneously transcribed as “landscaping”). Tr. II, p. 284.
121. Plaintiffs’ witness, Ronald Kovaleski #213896, is housed in 8 Block of the Parnall Correctional Facility and is identified in Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 38 as having a prescription orthotic with insert but testified that he works in the Michigan State Industries creamery from 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. and is up and down on his feet all day. Tr. II, p. 349.
122. Mr. Kovaleski testified that he was not aware of any prisoners on any of the galleries in 8 Block that need assistance to get out of their cells and go outside. Tr. II, p. 350.
123. The Department creates a list of prisoners who are considered to be at risk of heat-related illness. Designation of a prisoner on this list entitles a prisoner to be placed, between May 1 and September 30 of the given year on either base or first gallery in the cell block. Prisoners who are designated as at risk for heat-related illness are listed on the HC-251 which is the form that lists accommodations. Tr. I, p. 112-113.
124. A listing of prisoners’ locations dated April 5, 2005 would not necessarily indicate the implementation of accommodations for prisoners who are identified as at risk of heat-related illness because those prisoners’ placement on base or first gallery is not required to take place until May 1st of the year. Tr. I, p. 114.
125. Placement on base or first gallery is an accommodation. Tr. I, p. 115.
30

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 31 of 73
126. Not all prisoners who are entitled to be placed on base or first gallery want to accept that placement accommodation. Ms. Hladki was involved in the concept of these at risk of heat-related illness accommodation waiver form. Tr. I, p. 115.
127. The form was developed because many prisoners, particularly in the Parnall facility which includes 8 Block, had expressed considerable displeasure over having to move from their current placement on second or third or fourth gallery down to base or first gallery. Tr. I, p. 115. If a prisoner signs the waiver form it allows the prisoner to decline moving from a cell on an upper gallery to a cell on base or first gallery. Tr. I, p. 116.
128. Defendant’s Exhibit 28 consisted of 42 of these signed waiver forms from prisoners in 8 Block of the Parnall Correctional Facility. A prisoner may revoke their waiver of the special accommodation by filing a grievance or sending a kite that they would like out of their waiver. Tr. I, p. 116. If a prisoner waives their cell placement accommodation due to risk of heat-related illness, that waiver does not affect any other medical care or other accommodations that are offered to that prisoner. Tr. I, p. 117.
129. Dr. Jerry Walden considers a Department of Corrections Special Accommodation as a feature of medical care. Walden dep, p. 86.
130. Dr. Walden acknowledges that private persons, that is members of the general public, have a right to reject medical care but asserts that it is his belief that prisoners do not have the right to reject medical care. Walden dep, pp. 86-87.
131. Dr. Walden reviewed the list of prisoners and the HC-251 and HC-261 combination chart created by Plaintiffs and submitted as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 38. Dr. Walden assumed that a person who was noted as experiencing tobacco abuse may have
31

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 32 of 73
emphysema (without determining whether the tobacco abuse was from smoking or chewing) and assumed that any designation of asthma gave a person a heightened risk, yet he acknowledged that the scope of a designation of visual impairment did not indicate the degree of visual impairment. Walden dep, p. 136.
132. Dr. Walden admitted that an indication in the HC-251 of an orthopedic disorder did not indicate what the disorder was or whether it had any impact on a prisoner’s mobility. Walden dep, p. 137.
133. When Dr. Walden referred to prisoner #183348 who had a “Level of function: A” Dr. Walden testified that he believes that means he needs assistance but he does not know what that assistance is. Walden dep, pp. 137-38.
134. When asked if that “needs assistance” could be that he needs to use an inhaler, Dr. Walden answered, “I can only speculate.” Walden dep, p. 138.
135. Dr. Walden stated that he does not think there is one or at least the increased risk is minimal of exposure to smoke for a short duration of say 15 minutes for a person with hypertension. Walden dep, p. 142.
3. Potential impairments to fire protection and egress in cell blocks 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8.
136. Ms. Ferguson testified that fixed seats in restaurants and courtrooms were examples of furniture arrangements that provided defined aisles. Tr. II, p. 284. One area of 7 Block’s atrium contains fixed seats and tables.
137. All of the cell blocks under consideration have had their gallery railings raised from 36” to 48” by the addition of a third rail. Additional vertical rail supports were added from the gallery walkway to the third rail to support that third rail. This has significantly raised the sense of comfort when traversing the gallery walkways and added
32

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 33 of 73
to the ease of exiting by touch if visibility became so obstructed that such exiting was required. That visibility would ever become so obstructed even in a severe fire is very doubtful. Defendants’ Exhibit 1.
138. The staff regularly conduct fire drills so that staff are familiar with how to quickly unlock the galleries. Tr. I at pp. 77-78, Tr. I at pp. 83, 91-92, 96-97. In fire drills or a real fire event, staff walk the galleries to ensure all prisoners are evacuated. Tr. I at pp. 84, 94, 96-97.
139. ARUS Embry stated that his experience is that the prisoners with special accommodations for base cells are usually the first prisoners out of the cell block in a fire drill or fire event. Tr. I, p. 85.
140. Prisoner aides assist visually impaired prisoners in exiting the cell blocks during fire drills and fire events. Tr. I, p. 86.
141. The same exits used by prisoners going to yard and chow are used to evacuate the cell block during fire drills and fire events so the prisoners know where the exits are. Tr. I, p. 194.
142. The reduction in combustibles in the cell blocks, the completion of full sprinklerization of all the cell blocks, the fire drills conducted, the raising of the gallery rails, the marking of the center line on each gallery, the removal of the locking and latching mechanisms on the gates between each side of the gallery in 8 Block, the experience of 8 Block staff that it is quicker to manually go from gallery to gallery to release the gang locks than rely on the remote electronic locking mechanism, Walden dep. at p. 90, and the experience of prisoners (Kovaleski, Tr. II, p. 350) and staff (Meeker Tr. I, p. 79; Embry Tr. I, p. 97) that prisoners do not get stuck or injured using the
33

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 34 of 73
stairways to exit in a fire drill demonstrate that there are no significant impediments to fire protection and egress in any of the cell blocks. V. Operational and Physical Characteristics, including Fire Safety Provisions
A. Risk Factors and Conditions 143. Mr. Pulitzer is not aware of the fuel levels in the California jail he testified about. Id. at 241 but does know that it was not fully sprinkled. Id. at p. 240. Thus, it presented a higher risk than do the cell blocks at issue. 144. Prisoner Kovaleski claimed to possess more legal property than 90% of the prisoners in the cell block. Id. at 350. Prisoner Kovaleski has never known of a prisoner to burn their own legal property. Id. Thus, the likelihood of a cell fire as severe as the fire modeled by Dr. Mowrer is very low. 145. Prisoner Kovaleski is not aware of any prisoners on any of the galleries in 8-Block that need assistance in order to get out of their cells and go outside. Id. Prisoner Kovaleski has never observed anyone being injured in the stairways during a fire drill. Id. Thus, experience in the blocks demonstrates that there is no unreasonable risk of serious injury in the evacuation process. 146. Dr. Walden acknowledges that the length of time of exposure to smoke is important in terms of a person’s risk of harm. Walden dep, p. 89. Dr. Walden thinks that the increased risk of harm to a person with hypertension from exposure to smoke for 15 minutes is minimal. Walden dep., p. 142.
34

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 35 of 73
B. Fire Protection and Alarm Systems 147. The MDOC’s policy on fire safety, Defendants’ Exhibit 5 and Operating Procedures on Fire Control and Emergency Evacuation and Fire Department Response, Defendants’ Exhibits 4-9, outline the physical plant requirements and staff operational requirements in this area. 148. In accord with MDOC policy Mr. Fushi conducts annual inspections of the correctional facilities, including the housing units. Tr. I, p.16. The last inspection of Egeler was in November 2004 and Parnall in May 2005. Id. 149. During his inspections, Mr. Fushi is looking for any possible violations of the Life Safety Code and any changes that may affect the fire safety and operation of the facility that would make it less safe. Id. at 17. He is also examining the facility to ensure it is following MDOC fire safety policy not only operationally but also administratively. Id. 150. Mr. Pulitzer believes evacuation is the appropriate response when there is a fire in the building. Tr. II, p.210. The primary response is evacuation. Id. 151. Mr. Pulitzer was not aware if the prisons he testified about in New Mexico and Attica riot situations were fully sprinkled. Id. The California jail fire that Mr. Pulitzer testified about involved a jail that was not fully sprinkled. Id. 152. Dr. DiMascio believes that a sprinkler in a cell where a fire has been set by a prisoner will resolve the problem if the sprinkler has not been compromised. Id. at 308.
35

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 36 of 73
153. Mr. DiMascio factors in fire suppression to the point that you would not have a large fire extending to multiple cells. Id., at 317. An arsonist may manipulate the sprinkler head in his cell to prevent the sprinkler in that cell from operating. Id.
154. In the case where the ceiling temperature in the cell above the cell fire reaches 175 degrees, the sprinkler would be triggered. Id. at 318. This would then provide a decrease in temperature in the arsonist's cell also. Id.
155. The MDOC’s staff fire drill training and experience combined with the fire protection sprinkler system, alarm system and local fire department response prevents any unreasonable risk of serious injury to the prisoner population from smoke and fire.
156. The California jail fire that Mr. Pulitzer testified about was not fully sprinkled. Id.
C. Unlocking Mechanisms 157. Within 8 Block, there are multiple ways of unlocking the cells: 1) electronic release at the end of each gallery; 2) manual release at the end of each gallery; 3) remote electronic release from the control center. Id. at 62. 158. The release mechanisms in Cell Blocks 1, 2, and 3 are all manual except for the gallery gates. Id. at 69. At the end of each gallery there is a breaker bar (i.e., 2 for every floor). Id. 159. The custody staff have keys to unlock the cell blocks. Id. at 71. The "emergency keys" located in the control center are for the fire department. Id. 160. The gates at the end of the galleries are no longer locked or lockable in 8 Block. Id. at 95-96. The gates remain open all the time. Id. 161. Most of the facilities in the federal prison system are manual locks. Id.
36

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 37 of 73
162. Dr. Walden accepted a 7 Block officer’s explanation that it was quicker to manually release the prisoners from their cells than it was to use the remote electronic gang release. Walden dep, p. 90.
D. Fire drills and Signage 163. Mr. Fushi recently made recommendations regarding changes to the Egeler Facility's operation of fire drills to provide greater consistency between shifts. Id. 164. Mr. Fushi opined that fire drills should be varied. Id. at 18. Ideally, during drills, you would start in the middle of the cell block and evacuate in opposite directions. Id. However, the recommended approach is to practice alternative ways to evacuate. Id. 165. Mr. Fushi has revised all the evacuation diagrams in the cell blocks so they are clearer to staff and prisoners. Id. at 18-19. 166. There is a fire drill report that is prepared after each fire drill. Id.; Def. Exhs. 10 and 11. 167. Defendants' Exhibit 11 reflects fire evacuation drill reports involving staff only without actual prisoner evacuation. Id. at 20-22. The purpose of this drill is to ensure the training of staff on third shift (10:00 p.m. – 6:00 a.m.) without having to evacuate the prisoners at night. Id. The prisoners still drill during the other shifts, and the Wardens may allow prisoner evacuation if in their opinion security is not jeopardized. Id. 168. In this situation (third shift), the staff walk through the evacuation procedure and conduct simulated fire drills. Id. The purpose of drills is to train officers and staff on the procedures to be followed in case of fire. Id. The prisoners take
37

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 38 of 73
directions from the officers. Id. The third shift officers actually go through the procedures and simulate all their responsibilities.
169. Defendants' Exhibit 10 is evacuation report drills involving actual prisoner evacuation. Id. at 22. The MDOC's Policy Directive and Operating Procedures do not mandate any particular time for a fire drill to be accomplished (i.e., the evacuation of the building). Id.
170. Mr. Fushi is familiar with the Life Safety Code. Id. The Life Safety Code does not mandate any particular time for prisoners or free citizens to evacuate a building. Id.
171. The MDOC's evacuation drill reports describe the facility, actual area involved, time and date of the drill, when the actual alarm or notification was provided, elapsed time for total evacuation, and an evaluation of the drill. Id. at 25; Def. Exhs. 10 and 11.
172. To determine whether a particular drill involved actual prisoner evacuation, the log book would have to be examined. Id. at 28.
173. Fire inspectors who do monthly inspections of the facilities, review the evacuation reports, and Mr. Fushi reviews the reports on an annual basis. Id. at 30. The range of elapsed times for evacuations set forth in Defendants' Exhibit 10 is 5-20 minutes. Id.
174. All the evacuation diagrams within the cell blocks have been corrected sine the tour in March 2005. Id. at 68. The diagrams are an educational tool or training aid for staff. Id. at 68. In an actual emergency, direction will be provided by MDOC staff. Id. at 68-69.
38

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 39 of 73
175. When a fire drill takes place in a housing unit, all staff in the housing unit, including non-custody staff, are involved. Id. at 72. Custody staff in the housing unit are the first responders, but all custody staff (i.e., yard sergeants, supervisors, staff from other blocks) are utilized. Id.
176. The MDOC will do one fire drill per shift per quarter. Id. at 74. 177. RUO Meeker has never observed prisoners getting "caught" or blocked in an exit during a fire drill. Id. 178. RUO Meeker has never observed prisoners getting "caught" in the stairwells going down to the exit during a fire drill. Id. 179. RUO Meeker has never observed prisoners falling in the stairwells during a fire drill. Id. at 79-80. 180. ARUS Embry has been in 8-Block during fire drills and also a fire incident. Id. 181. Fire drills are conducted quarterly. Id. at 83. The RUM will determine when a fire drill is to be conducted. Id. 182. Prisoners evacuate out of both the front and rear entrances of Cell Block 8. Id. at 96. 183. ARUS Embry has never observed prisoners becoming congested along the gallery walkways during a fire drill. Id. at 97. 184. ARUS Embry has never observed prisoners becoming congested down the stairways during a fire drill. Id. 185. ARUS Embry has never observed prisoners falling on the stairs during a fire drill. Id. at 98.
39

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 40 of 73
186. During a fire drill, the first prisoners evacuated are on base level. Id. The situation varies in the event of an actual fire incident. Id.
187. Prisoner aides assist to evacuate disabled prisoners. Id. The prisoner aides are assigned to particular prisoners. Id. at 101. ARUS Embry has never observed a prisoner aide not doing his job during a fire drill. Id.
188. As an ARUS, Mr. Embry personally or the other RUM or ARUMs personally check to make sure every cell has been evacuated. Id. at 102.
189. While assigned to Cell Blocks 1, 2, and 3, RUM Denman was involved in fire drills. Id. at 106.
190. A fire drill is basically training; it is not intended to be a timed drill. Id. The purpose of a fire drill is not speed; its purpose is to be a learning exercise for people to know what to do in event of emergency. Id.
191. The difference between the fire drill and the real fire evacuation is motivation. Id.
192. The primary effect with the familiarity of the prisoners in the cell blocks with the exits is the repeated use of the same exits for chow, yard, or other activities. Id
193. Time of evacuation in a fire drill is not what is important in drills. Id. at 203. It is not unusual in a jail or prison environment to have the times vary considerably depending on time of day, what the prisoners are doing, and what is happening in the cell block. Id. The important thing is that drills are being conducted and staff and prisoners are getting practice on what to do. Id.
194. Variation in fire drill times in a prison is expected. Id. at 205. Evacuation during a fire drill would not directly relate to the issue of evacuation during emergencies,
40

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 41 of 73
since the fire incident reports indicate evacuation in five or seven minutes. Id. at 205206.
195. There is no specified time in the codes for drills or evacuation. Id. at 206. The primary purpose of the drills, as set forth by the codes, is to familiarize people with what they are supposed to do and how they are supposed to do it. Id.
196. Mr. Curtiss Pulitzer was not aware if hospitals or nursing homes conduct mock fire drills at night. Tr Vol II at 240.
197. Mr. Ronald Kovaleski is currently incarcerated with the MDOC residing in 8-Block. Id. at 345 and has participated in fire drills where the cell block has been evacuated. Id. at 346.
198. Prisoner Kovaleski has observed handicapped prisoners assisted by prisoner aides during the fire drill. Id. at 347.
199. Prisoner Kovaleski has never observed anyone being injured in the stairways during a fire drill. Id.
E. Operational Policies 200. An actual fire incident will generate a critical incident report, written testimony of the personnel involved, and a fire incident report. Id. at 31-32; Defendants’ Exhibits 12a-20c. It may also include an investigation report by the Michigan State Police. Id. 201. The MDOC's policy does not require the evacuation of the prisoner population in a cell block whenever a fire incident within a cell block occurs. Id. at 33. It is better to evaluate and only evacuate the necessary prisoners that you have to during a fire, since many of them are very small. Id. There is no need to jeopardize the security
41

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 42 of 73
of an entire cell block for a small fire that is not generating any danger to any of the occupants other than the few around the cell. Id.
202. Mr. Fushi has the authority to make recommendations regarding fire safety operational changes. Id. at 40. He has made recommendations concerning the response of the SCBA team. Id.
203. Evacuation is one response to a fire, and fire suppression is a totally separate response. Id. at 42.
204. The local fire department, Blackman Township, is only two miles away and can respond to a fire emergency. Tr. I, p. 15. The Blackman Township fire department participates in an annual “pre-fire plan” with the facilities to review equipment changes and refresh on procedures in the prison for getting in to respond to a fire. Id., pp. 15-16.
205. Fire emergency keys used to unlock exit and egress doors have a rivet attached so they can be identified by feel and sight. Defendants’ Exhibit 5.
206. Egeler and Parnall facility operating procedures require staff from the control center and other parts of the facility not involved in a fire incident to respond to a housing unit where there is a fire incident. Defendants’ Exhibits 6 and 8.
207. MDOC policy does not require that an entire housing unit be evacuated in a fire incident, no matter how minor. Tr. I, p. 33. It is better not to jeopardize the security of an entire cell bock for a small fire that is not generating any danger to the occupants of the block. Id., p. 33. If nearby occupants are endangered they should and would be evacuated. This decision making is part of staff training. Id., p. 33.
42

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 43 of 73
208. The small 10 Block fire on the catwalk behind prisoner Davidson’s cell that was put out by a nearby prisoner tossing his 16 ounce tumbler of coffee on it is a type of fire in a housing unit that does not require that the cell block or even any prisoners be evacuated. Tr. II, pp. 342-43.
209. The handicapper cells are on base and identified by a card on the cell door. Id. at 64. Handicapper prisoners who need assistance are housed on base. Id.
210. In 7 Block, there is a laundry exchange once a week where prisoners will drop their linen in tubs and pick up new linen. Id. at 107. The tubs are rotated between the cell block and quartermaster building. Id. The tubs are removed before the end of second shift and are not in the cell block overnight. Id. at 108.
F. Staff Performance 211. Dr. Walden acknowledged that he is not a correctional expert in terms of correctional staffing. Walden dep, pp. 88-89. 212. Mr. Fushi has witnessed MDOC fire drills. Id. at 23. Since fire drills are a training exercise, they are not a surprise to staff. Id. The fire drill commences with the sounding of the fire alarm or using the public address system. Id. at 24. Once a fire drill commences, all procedures are followed (i.e., simulated). Id. 213. After releasing the galleries, RUO Meeker makes rounds of each gallery to ascertain that all prisoners have left their cells. Id. RUO Meeker has observed prisoners who have not left their cells for the fire drill. Id. at 79. The prisoners exit when confronted and are told to do so. Id.
43

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 44 of 73
214. It is not important that everyone have the opportunity to practice in a drill to reduce or eliminate the risk of dying in a fire. Id. at 206-207. The staff has the opportunity to practice and drill, not necessary a transient prison population. Id. at 207.
215. Mr. Carson examined the fire drills to get a sense of what is going on in the cell block; whether drills are conducted on a regular basis; and whether drills are conducted at different times. Id. at 208.
216. Time of evacuation in a fire drill is not what is important in drills. Id. at 203. It is not unusual in a jail or prison environment to have the times vary considerably depending on time of day, what the prisoners are doing, and what is happening in the cell block. Id. The important thing is that drills are being conducted and primarily staff and to a lesser extent prisoners are getting practice on what to do. Id.
217. Any staff, including non-custody staff in a housing unit, are trained to respond to a fire emergency. This includes the Resident Unit Manager or the Assistant Resident Unit Supervisors. Tr. I, p. 72. Yard staff and staff from the control center and other housing units also respond. Tr. I, p. 72. Therefore, no housing unit, even on the 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. shift, is required to respond to a fire incident with only two custody officers assigned to a side of a cell block.
VI. Fire Code Compliance A. Building and Fire Prevention Codes 218. The Life Safety Code (LSC) is applied to cell blocks 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8. Tr.
I, pp. 17 and 128.
44

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 45 of 73
219. The LSC discusses fire drills in Section 1-7.4 and provides, "In the conduct of drills, emphasis shall be placed on orderly evacuation under proper discipline rather than on speed." Id.
220. A fire drill is basically training; it is not intended to be a timed drill. Id. The purpose of a fire drill is not speed; its purpose is to be a learning exercise for people to know what to do in event of emergency. Id.
221. The difference between the fire drill and the real fire evacuation is motivation. Id.
222. Time of evacuation in a fire drill is not what is important in drills. Id. at 203. It is not unusual in a jail or prison environment to have the times vary considerably depending on time of day, what the prisoners are doing, and what is happening in the cell block. Id. The important thing is that drills are being conducted and staff and prisoners are getting practice on what to do. Id.
223. There is no specified time in the codes for drills or evacuation. Id. at 206. The primary purpose of the drills, as set forth by the codes, is to familiarize people with what they are supposed to do and how they are supposed to do it. Id.
224. A basic requirement in the LSC is that people be removed from fire conditions before it becomes untenable. Id. at 200. People may move to another location in the same building. Id.
225. Smoke in a building is not necessarily untenable. Id. 226. The only issue where these facilities do not comply with the LSC is travel distance. Id. However, Mr. Carson opined that under the equivalency concept the facilities meet the level of safety intended by the LSC even with these travel distances.
45

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 46 of 73
Id. at 198. Dr. Mowrer's model, the fire safety evacuation system, and fire history (both these cell blocks and nationwide) demonstrate that the prisoner population can evacuate before the situation becomes untenable. Id.
227. The LSC does not look at a specific population to say what the percentage of people is in various categories, but the LSC recognizes there may be a variety of people in a building. Id.
228. The LSC looks at the general population. Id. at 201. The LSC looks at the condition and establishes criteria. Id. When the requirements for the detention and occupational occupancies in the LSC were established, the model was hospitals (i.e., looking at the level of safety for hospitals and adding the requirements needed for detention and correctional occupancies). Id. The LSC does consider the population and its general requirements are placed in the LSC. Id.
B. Life Safety Code and its Equivalency 229. Chapter 15 of the LSC addresses existing detention facilities. Id. It provides parameters for the life safety functions or physical requirements for existing prison facilities. Id. at 131. You may evaluate an existing facility for equivalency and determine if it meets the general overall requirements for life safety in Chapter 15 based on 13 different parameters developed in 1998. Tr. I, p. 191 and Defendants’ Exhibits 30a and 30b. 230. Mr. Carson serves on the Committee that developed equivalency under the LSC. Id. at 191; Defendants’ Exhibits 30a and 30b. 231. Mr. Carson serves on the NFPA Committee that oversees equivalency pursuant to the LSC. Id. at 90.
46

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 47 of 73
232. Equivalency was a method for developing a system for evaluating existing facilities for compliance with the level of fire safety intended by the LSC. Id. at 191.
233. The question of equivalency is a recognized part of the LSC. Id. at 138139.
234. Mr. Carson explained the development of the equivalency evaluation as follows: “What happened is many years ago we were looking at fire safety in hospitals and the National Institute of Science and Technology was asked to look at coming up with a system for evaluating existing facilities for compliance with the level of safety intended by the code. The code establishes one level of safety, it’s rather specific on how to do that, but what was believed is there a level of safety that could be achieved by other means, and they wanted to come up with a system for evaluating that. And the National Institute of Science [and] Technology came up with this system that was originally included in the Appendix to the Life Safety Code and later as more of these came about, the first one was for hospitals and [an]other came about for office buildings and detention and correctional occupancies was put in [a] separate document in 101A. It’s just one tool, one method to look at, [‘]does a building comply with the level of safety intended by the Life Safety Code[?’].” Tr. I, p. 191.
235. Mr. Smith took part in the tours of Cell Blocks 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8. Id. 236. After completion of the tours, Mr. Smith performed a review to determine whether the cell blocks would pass the equivalency considerations of the LSC. Id. at 130. 237. The 13 parameters are: construction; hazardous areas; fire alarm; smoke detection; automatic sprinklers; interior finish (corridors and egress); interior finish (other areas); cell/sleeping room enclosure; separation of resident housing areas from
47

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 48 of 73
other areas; exit system; exit access; vertical openings; and smoke control. Defendants’ Exhibits 30a and 30b.
238. The numbers for each item reviewed are prescribed by the LSC. Id. at 134.
239. Each cell block passes the equivalency under the LSC if the number is positive at the conclusion of the analysis. Id. at 137. In the analysis performed, the cell blocks all had non-negative numbers. Id. at 138. By the LSC's definition, the facilities are equivalent to all of the safety requirements identified in the LSC. Id.
240. Mr. Carson examined and reviewed the equivalency calculations performed by Thomas Smith. Id. Mr. Carson opined that he agreed with the conclusion that Cell Blocks 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 meet the equivalency requirement of the LSC. Id. at 192.
241. There were two different methodologies for equivalency: 1) the life safety evaluation system NFPA 101A, and 2) Dr. Mowrer’s modeling. Id. at 204.
242. Mr. Carson agreed with Mr. Smith's analysis that Cell Blocks 1, 2, and 3 are Use Condition V. Id. Cell Blocks 7 and 8 are Use Condition IV. Id. at 135.
243. The cell blocks are a type two building. Id. Type two means made of noncombustible construction; i.e., steel, concrete. Id. This provides additional two points from Mr. Smith's original analysis. (Item 1 of 13.) Id.
244. Item 3 discusses fire alarm/fire department notification. Id. at 193. Section 15-3.4.3.2 provides, "If you have a constantly attended controlled room where alarms come into and people can call the fire department, that's an (?) acceptable as a
48

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 49 of 73
direct connection to the fire department." Id. The facilities have a control room, so instead of zero in Mr. Smith's original analysis, the MDOC gets a plus-2. Id.
245. Item 11 concerns exit access. Id. Mr. Smith assumed a travel distance of less than 200 feet, when it is actually over 200 feet. Id. Instead of a minus-1 in Mr. Smith's original analysis, there should have been a minus-2. Id.
246. In terms of fire safety, you do not design a facility trying to avoid people using stairs. Id. at 142. Stairs are not inherently dangerous. Id.
247. Item 13 concerns smoke control. Id. The LSC states in Section 15-3.7.1 / Exception 2, "that if you have direct access to the outside and it's used or can be used, that is an exception to the requirement for smoke barriers." Id. This is the case with the cell blocks, and the value in Mr. Smith's original analysis should have been plus-2. Id. at 194.
248. The primary effect with the familiarity of the prisoners in the cell blocks with the exits is the repeated use of the same exits for chow, yard, or other activities. Id.
249. Mr. DiMascio reviewed the life safety equivalency scoring system performed by Mr. Smith. Id. at 315. Mr. DiMascio agrees with Mr. Smith's conclusion that the scoring system demonstrated Cell Blocks 7 and 8 "passed" under the equivalency system. Id. VII. Actual Fire Experience in the Cell Blocks
250. The fire incident described in Defendants' Exhibits 12b and 12b1 occurred in a solid front cell. Id. The occupant of the cell started the fire. . Id. at 34. All the prisoners in the cell block were evacuated except several other prisoners in other solid front cells.
49

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 50 of 73
251. In an actual fire, circumstances dictate how or whether the cell block is evacuated. Id. at 65.
252. In actual fire incidents, response to the incident is not limited to custody staff assigned to the cell block. Id. It is a common practice that staff from other housing units also respond. Id. at 73.
253. Mr. Robert Hughes is currently incarcerated with the MDOC. Id. at 326. 254. Prisoner Hughes testified regarding a fire in Cell Block 1 in December 2004. Id. 255. Prisoner Hughes' only support for his statement that the sprinklers did not work is that the sprinkler in his cell did not activate. Id. at 338-339. There is no evidence of a fire in Hughes’ cell. 256. Despite previously testifying at his deposition that he used a breathing machine prior to his entry into prison, Prisoner Hughes now claims he has to use an inhaler as a result of the fire. Id. at 337-338. However, prisoner Hughes testified during his deposition that he used a breathing device at night before he came to prison. Id. at 338, though he denied this at trial. Id. at 338. 257. Dr. Pramstaller had reviewed the report of the cell block fire in cell block 1 on December 13, 2004 (Defendant’s Exhibit 12(b) and Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 33A). Dr. Pramstaller noted that prisoner Robert Hughes, one of Plaintiffs’ witnesses, #185558, remained in his cell, two doors from the cell in which another prisoner had started the fire for some period of time where he was certainly exposed to some of the smoke that was generated from that fire. Dr. Pramstaller noted that prisoner Hughes was taken to Duane
50

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 51 of 73
Waters Hospital where he was evaluated and found to have experienced minor smoke inhalation that did not require treatment of any kind. Tr. II, p. 280.
258. Hughes was given some oxygen for a short period of time but the amount of oxygen and the length of oxygen treatment was not necessarily treatment of anything because the concentration of the oxygen was not high enough and it was not given for long enough to have any therapeutic value. Mr. Hughes’ carboxyhemoglobin level was measured in his blood as 3.8%. Tr. II, p. 280.
259. Dr. Pramstaller explained that even a light smoker has a carboxyhemoglobin level of up to 5%. Dr. Pramstaller opined that the carboxyhemoglobin level as tested in Mr. Hughes was at a minor level. Tr. II, p. 281.
260. Dr. Pramstaller reviewed portions of Mr. Hughes’ medical record. Dr. Pramstaller noted that Mr. Hughes had breathing problems before he arrived in prison. Dr. Pramstaller noted that Mr. Hughes had reported using a breathing assistance device before arriving in prison. Tr. II, p. 281.
261. Dr. Pramstaller noted that on December 14, 2004, Mr. Hughes was seen by someone and given an inhaler but Dr. Pramstaller could not determine any medical basis for Mr. Hughes to have been given the inhaler. Tr. II, p. 281.
262. Dr. Pramstaller said that his review of the medical record indicated that the inhaler had been given to Mr. Hughes solely on Mr. Hughes’ subjective complaints. There had not been any physical exam that indicated that Mr. Hughes was having difficulty and there were no peak flows done and no oxygen level done so the only thing Dr. Pramstaller could review from the medical record is that Mr. Hughes had complaints and he was given an inhaler for them. Tr. II, pp. 281-82.
51

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 52 of 73
263. From January 1, 2001 – May 5, 2005, there have been no fire incidents in 3-Block at Egeler. Id. at 38-39.
264. Mr. Donald Davidson is currently incarcerated with the MDOC. Id. at 340.
265. Prisoner Davidson testified regarding a fire in Cell Block 10 in March 2005. Id. Prisoner Davidson was housed in cell 69. Id.
266. The fire that Prisoner Davidson testified about was "put out" when the prisoner in Cell 67 threw his 16-ounce tumbler of coffee on it. Id. at 343-344. Prisoner Davidson acknowledged that when the officers arrived they inquired "where is the fire?" Id. at 344.
267. Prisoner Davidson has a heart condition. Id. at 343, yet prisoner Davidson walks 2-3 miles a day for exercise. Id. There was no report of adverse health consequences from the fire. Tr. II, pp. 340-344.
268. During RUO Meeker's employment on the first shift at 8-Block, there has been no actual fire incident. Id. at 78. During his 19 years of employment working at the Parnall Facility, he could not recall an actual fire incident that he had to respond to. Id.
269. ARUS Embry has been in 8-Block during fire drills and also a fire incident. Id. at 87; Defendants’ Exhibit 16. The Fire Incident Report (Defendants’ Exhibit 16) was prepared by ARUS Embry. Id. A prisoner started a fire in a trash can on the third gallery. Id. at 88.
270. ARUS Embry smelled smoke, Officer Reneman extinguished the fire with a fire extinguisher, and the trash can was taken outside. Id. at 89. The evacuation of the
52

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 53 of 73
cell block commenced once smoke was observed, and the entire cell block was evacuated. Id. The evacuation of the cell block took 15 minutes. Id. at 90. .
271. Normal operations at 8 Block provide that the cell doors are open unless it is count time or at night. Id. at 92-93.
272. The gates at the end of the galleries are no longer locked or lockable in 8 Block. Id. at 95-96. The gates remain open all the time. Id.
273. Prisoners evacuate out of both the front and rear entrances of Cell Block 8. Id. at 96.
274. Neither ARUS Embry or Plaintiff’s witness and Hadix class representative Kovaleski has ever known of a prisoner burning his legal property. Tr. I, p. 98, Tr. II, p. 350.
275. There have been no fire incidents in 7-Block sine RUM Denman has been there. Id.
276. RUM Denman was not involved in any fire incidents at Cell Blocks 1, 2, or 3 while assigned there. Id.
277. In a fire emergency, there is no rule as to whether you start at base or top gallery first. Id. at 99.
278. Mr. Carson reviewed the fire incident reports (Defendants’ Exhibits 1220). Id. None of these fire incidents indicated a fire involving anywhere near the volume of fuel that was modeled in Dr. Mowrer's model. Id.
279. Nationwide, there has not been an incident of fires causing death in multitiered open cell blocks. Id.
53

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 54 of 73
280. Mr. DiMascio is not aware of any multi-tiered cell blocks of similar construction to Cell Blocks 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 that have been fully sprinkled in which there has been a prison cell fire that resulted in the death to the non-arsonist. Id. VIII. Potential Conditions in Event of Fire
281. There were two different methodologies for equivalency: 1) the life safety evaluation system NFPA 101A, and 2) Dr. Mowrer's modeling. Id. at 204.
282. Frederick Mowrer, Ph.D., explained that fire modeling is an attempt to calculate the conditions resulting from a fire within a room or a building over a period of time instead of as just a snapshot of any particular moment. Tr. I, pp. 143-44. Defendants’ Exhibit 1.
283. Dr. Mowrer visited the cell blocks in March 2005 and walked through cell blocks 2, 3 and 8 and perhaps an additional cell block being either 1 or 7. Tr. I, p. 150. Dr. Mowrer was provided with drawings in which he could calculate dimensions and he and Mr. Carson spot checked some measurements while they were in the blocks. Tr. I, pp. 150-51.
284. Dr. Mowrer’s fire model assumes that the ceiling below the attic is solid so that the space in the attic does not act as a smoke reservoir for smoke generated by a fire in the cell block. Dr. Mowrer believes this is more conservative, that is, leads to a calculation of faster smoke spread throughout the cell block. Tr. I, pp. 152-53.
285. Dr. Mowrer’s model relied on the dimensions in cell Block 3 of the Egeler Correctional Facility because it was the smaller of the four cell blocks in the Egeler Correctional Facility and therefore, a fire of the same size would fill the cell block more
54

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 55 of 73
quickly with smoke and thus describe a cell block situation where the cell block would fill up with smoke quicker than would be expected in cell blocks 1 and 2. Id., p. 164.
286. Fire modeling considers the fuels involved in the fire both by volume or the amount of fuel and the composition of that fuel. Tr. I, p. 144.
287. There are standard references to refer to determine the heat energy contained within different materials per certain volumes or weights. Tr. I, p. 145. Dr. Mowrer took a list of the materials that were known to be in a representative cell. The inventory of those materials had been weighed and the content of the materials seem to be pretty much cellulose and some plastic products. The volumes and weights of these materials are used to calculate the energy content or the heat of combustion of the modeled fire. Tr. I, p. 146. Defendants’ Exhibit 1, Appendix D.
288. Dr. Mowrer assumed that the materials in the cell were piled in the back of the cell and ignited and the pile that was ignited would go relatively quickly to a maximum size that would be governed by the quantity of exposed material. Tr. I, p. 147.
289. There are two primary approaches to fire modeling called zone modeling and computational fluid dynamics (CFD). Tr. I, p. 147. Dr. Mowrer used both approaches to model the fires in the cell blocks identified in his report. Tr. I, p. 148.
290. Dr. Mowrer’s modeled fire was based on an assumption of a mattress being set on its longest edge in the back of the cell and the prisoner’s property piled within that space between the mattress and the wall and combusted would generate a fire that was 3’ x 6’ and thus considered a fairly severe fire. Tr. I, pp. 154-55.
291. The fire that Dr. Mowrer modeled was designed to be reasonably severe, that is, it was a model of a condition that Dr. Mowrer thought was toward the high end of
55

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 56 of 73
what was possible given the amount of fuel, the type of fuel and the structure of the cells and cell blocks. Tr. I, pp. 158-59. This included a footlocker full of paper. Id., at 15556. However, neither staff nor Plaintiffs’ prisoner witness Kovaleski had ever heard of a prisoner burning their legal papers. Tr. I, p. 98; Tr. II, p. 350.
292. Flashover, the event when the smoke at the top of a room becomes so hot (approximately 600 degrees Centigrade or 1100 degrees Fahrenheit) that the radiant heat from that smoke causes other combustible materials in the room to ignite, does not have application to fires in the cells as modeled because, contrary to a residential setting where the furniture, floors and walls may be combustible in addition to whatever is originally burning, all of the fuels in the cells when combined in order to create a fire hot enough to approach flashover temperatures at the ceiling of the cell. Therefore, there is nothing left in the cell to burn. Id., pp. 165-66.
293. Dr. Mowrer relied on the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE) Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering to determine the types of combustion gases that would be produced by his modeled fire. Tr. I, pp. 159-60. Dr. Mowrer explained that the modeled fire produced carbon dioxide in the greatest quantity and, in terms of a toxic gas, carbon monoxide was the primary toxin. Id., p. 160.
294. Based on the materials available to prisoners in the cells and the modeled fire, Dr. Mowrer estimated that the carbon monoxide concentration from these fires would reach a value of something around 16.9 parts per million. Id., p. 161. Defendant’s Exhibit 1. The SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering explains that the lethal limit of carbon monoxide is shown to be approximately 5,700 parts per million at an exposure over 30 minutes. Defendants’ Exhibit 1.
56

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 57 of 73
295. The carbon monoxide to health relationship is an inverse relationship. That means that the higher level of carbon monoxide, the shorter amount of time it will take to reach a lethal level. Analogously, the lower level of carbon monoxide present will yield a much longer period of exposure before there are lethal consequences.
296. Therefore, it would take approximately a 30-minute exposure to a carbon monoxide concentration of 5,700 parts per million in order to expect that the exposure would be lethal. This lethal level is 300 times the level of carbon monoxide that would be expected to be produced by a cell fire according to Dr. Mowrer’s model. Id., pp. 16162. Therefore, it would be reasonable to assume that it would take exposure to the level of carbon monoxide produced by the modeled cell fire for approximately 150 hours before there would be lethal consequences if there was no threshold level below which no lethal consequences would occur regardless of the period of exposure. Id., p. 162.
297. However, Dr. Pramstaller explained the NIOSH standard for workers allowed constant exposure to 50 ppm carbon monoxide for 8 hours/day and 40 hours/week.
298. Mr. Carson's review of Dr. Mowrer's fire modeling has confirmed his previous opinion that the large open space in the cell blocks, the atrium, would have an efficacious effect on dissipating the smoke in the cell blocks and lead to or assist with the preservation of life safety. Id. at 195.
299. Tenability under the LSC is a factor that basically provides, "can the occupants get away from the fire conditions before those fire conditions become untenable.” Id. at 197.
57

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 58 of 73
300. Dr. Mowrer's fire model provided a sensitivity analysis predicting what has been seen historically in multi-tiered open cell facilities. Id. at 196. The model looked at a severe situation (i.e., no sprinkler activation, no one doing anything). Id. The model indicates it is not a significant event in this large volume. Id.
301. Dr. Mowrer’s model demonstrated a fire on base gallery in cell Block 3 as producing smoke that would expand and spread to the ceiling and then flow down from the ceiling until the level of smoke reached a height of approximately 2 meters from the ground in about 25 minutes. Id., p. 168. However, because of such a large volume space and the space in the cell block to fill with smoke, the smoke would not be at a very high temperature relative to the fire temperature. Id., p. 169.
302. Dr. Mowrer’s model indicated that a fire on base that would expose the entire cell block to the smoke conditions but because of the dilution that occurs, there would be very mild conditions. A fire on fourth gallery would put the prisoners on fourth gallery quickly into contact with the smoke but, if those people could be moved out of harm’s way efficiently, with the fire up that high the flow of the smoke would tend to stop at the level of the fire and the rest of the block would not be exposed. Id., p. 170.
303. Dr. Mowrer’s initial modeling did not factor in the effect of fire suppression represented by the sprinklers in the prisoners’ cells or outside intervention by staff. Knowing the specifications of the in-cell sprinkler system, the model would indicate that the sprinklers would activate in about 30 seconds and would quickly suppress the fire.
58

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 59 of 73
304. In the event of an actual fire, Dr. Mowrer would expect that the smoke in Egeler cell blocks 1, 2 and 3 would quickly spread uniformly throughout the cell block. Id., p. 177.
305. If there was a vertical divider in the cell blocks (Egeler 1, 2 and 3), it would affect the concentration of the build-up in smoke in the air space generated or resulting from the plume. Id. at 320. Such a vertical divider would increase the concentration of the plume by having the smaller air space to fill. Id. You would have the potential to fill the block faster. Id.
306. Mr. DiMascio expressed an issue with Dr. Mowrer's visibility calculations because of the presence of the 12" television, the 2" x 3" calculator, and the prisoner ear phones in the prisoner's allowed property. Id. at 316. Apparently, Mr. DiMascio did not realize that Dr. Mowrer’s modeled fire included all of the property listed in Appendix D of Dr. Mowrer’s report (Defendant’s Exhibit 1, Appendix D).
307. It is Mr. Carson's conclusion that the prisoner population in the cell blocks can be evacuated before the situation becomes untenable. Id. IX. Degree of Risk from Current Conditions
308. The degree of risk has been described throughout the Defendants’ proposed findings of fact above, several times due to the nature of the outline structure required of the parties’ submission. No expert or lay person offered testimony putting a percentage on the “risk” of serious injury from smoke or fire although the parties appear to agree that short duration contact (15 minutes or less) is not likely to cause serious injury. Walden dep, p. 142.
59

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 60 of 73
309. Experience in the United States has disclosed no examples of a fire in a multitiered fully sprinkled cell block ever causing a prisoner’s death who was not the arsonist. (DiMascio) Tr. II, p. 320; (Carson) Tr. I, p. 198. Therefore, the parties are required to consider what might happen in a cell block fire and what the consequences of such a fire might be.
A. Description of the condition 1. Fire
310. No significant risk because 1) cell fires do not produce enough heat to cause combustion in neighboring cells; and 2) fire suppression by the sprinkler system, staff and local fire department fire suppression would prevent fire-related injuries. Defendants’ Exhibits 1, 5-9.
2. Smoke a. Toxins
311. Primary toxin is carbon monoxide. The modeled fire generates only 16.9 ppm. NIOSH standard for workers allows 50 ppm/8 hour day and for 40 hours per week. Tr. II, p. 243. Dr. Pramstaller believes that 400 ppm carbon monoxide in the ambient air could cause lethal consequences and the SFPE handbook for fire protection engineers sets a lethal carbon monoxide level of 5,700 ppm in the ambient air. Defendants’ Exhibit 1.
312. Dr. Pramstaller, having reviewed the fire drill reports, reviewed the fire model report of Dr. Mowrer with regard to the amount of smoke that would be generated by the modeled fire and with his understanding of the status of the prisoners who are housed in 8 Block of the Parnall Correctional Facility concluded that the prisoners in that block are not at a substantial risk of serious injury from smoke or fire. Tr. II, pp. 272-73.
60

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 61 of 73
313. Dr. Pramstaller formed his opinion in part by considering the amount of smoke that is generated in the area in which the smoke is going to dissipate and considering the actual concentration of the smoke that prisoners would inhale for the length of time that they might be exposed. Tr. II, p. 273. Dr. Pramstaller acknowledged that people certainly move a little bit faster in a real fire situation than they do in a drill. Tr. II, p. 274.
314. Then, even assuming that an evacuation took 20 minutes, based on the concentration of particles in the air from the smoke and based on the concentration of carbon monoxide that is generated as predicted by Dr. Mowrer’s fire model, Dr. Pramstaller did not believe that those concentrations presented a significant risk. Tr. II, p. 274.
315. When Dr. Walden testified on direct about his estimation or opinion that persons identified in the HC-251 or HC-261 were at a particular heightened risk of harm from contact with smoke, he was not factoring into his judgment any evaluation or consideration of the length of time that they might have been exposed to that smoke. Walden dep, pp. 89-90, yet he said that a person suffering from hypertension was at minimal or no risk of injury from exposure to smoke for 15 minutes or less. Walden dep, p. 142.
316. Dr. Pramstaller noted that there are prisoner patients with significant pulmonary conditions that smoke cigarettes all the time and in smoking a cigarette there is an inhalation of far more concentrated smoke and particulate matter than there would be in this fire situation as modeled by Dr. Mowrer. In addition, there are 400 ppm of carbon monoxide inhaled in smoking a cigarette whereas Dr. Mowrer’s fire model
61

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 62 of 73
predicted a maximum of only 16.9 ppm of carbon monoxide generated by a cell fire. Dr. Pramstaller pointed out that patients who have chronic pulmonary disease and smoke cigarettes do not put themselves in any immediate risk. Tr. II, p. 274.
3. Real world experience 317. The closest actual on-scene example is prisoner Hughes’ experience in the 12/13/04 1 Block fire, set in a cell two cells down from Hughes. He spent about one hour in a closed front cell and was then taken to Duane Waters Hospital. He was examined and found to have a carboxyhemoglobin level of only 3.6%, well within the range of a moderate smoker and needed no treatment of therapeutic value as a result of his contact with the cell fire smoke. 318. Dr. Pramstaller noted that in the reading he has done, the amount of carbon monoxide in the air that has been associated with persons dying is reported at about 400 ppm (Defendants believe this value is actually 4,000 ppm, misstated from the content of carbon monoxide in cigarette smoke. 4,000 ppm is closer to the FSPE literature putting the lethal level at 4,700 ppm. Defendants’ Exhibit 1.) When talking about the level of carbon monoxide in the blood, reported as carboxyhemoglobin, a reading is general fatal at 60% and above. Tr. II, p. 275. 319. Dr. Pramstaller testified that he has dealt with patients who have carbon monoxide poisoning and in his experience, a level of 20% results in absolutely no symptoms for that patient. Tr. II, p. 276. Dr. Pramstaller notes that the advance trauma life support course identifies a carboxyhemoglobin level of less than 20% as being without symptoms. Tr. II, p. 276.
62

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 63 of 73
320. By way of comparison, prisoner Hughes spent an hour in his closed front cell in 1 Block after the fire had been started and put out two cells from his location. His carboxyhemoglobin level measured just 3.8%.
4. Difficulty in exiting the cell block. 321. Mr. Carson is relying upon the LSC, Dr. Mowrer's report, his evaluation of the facilities, and his experience and involvement with jails and prisons. Id. at 199200. 322. Mr. Pulitzer has reported his belief that the standard to be applied to avoid risk of serious injury to prisoners is "everything humanly possible." Tr. II, p. 242. 323. Mr. Pulitzer testified that the minimum requirement for the MDOC is "to provide for the life safety of the prisoners and their staff." Id. at 242. 324. Mr. DiMascio testified that if the fourth gallery fire brings the plume down to the fourth gallery and the primary concern is to evacuate the prisoners from the area of highest risk, getting the prisoners down to the third gallery would take the prisoners out of the exposure to smoke and hot gases. Id. at 317. 325. Mr. DiMascio did serve on the Technical Committee of LSC 101. Id. at 324. As a member of the Committee, he introduced a resolution to mandate existing correctional facilities have installed smoke exhaust systems, vertical dividers to shorten horizontal travel time, and electronic unlocking mechanisms. Id. at 324. This recommendation was rejected as not being acceptable to the full membership of NFPA. Id. 326. Mr. Michael DiMascio has no medical training. Id. at 305, 315.
63

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 64 of 73
C. Prisoner population 327. The 8 Block population is Level I general population and able to leave block for chow, yard, work and other activities. Tr. II, p. 244. D. MSI/SMT Laundry 328. Mr. Fushi also participated in the tour of the MSI laundry located outside of the secure perimeter of the Parnall Facility. Id. at 55-56. This laundry stands alone with a fence around it. Id. This laundry building consists of a basement, ground floor, and first floor. Id. 329. There is one exit that goes directly to the outside from the top floor. Id. at 57. There is also a second exit that goes to the floor below (the main laundry area), and from there an individual can go to multiple exits. Id. 330. Two means of egress meet the requirements of the Life Safety Code. Id. at 58-61; Def. Exh. 29. Any recommendation that the top floor of the laundry requires a second exit directly to the outside is incorrect. Id. at 61. The MDOC currently meets the requirements of the Life Safety Code. Id. at 58-61. 331. Mr. Carson also opined that he agreed with Mr. Fushi's conclusion regarding the MSI laundry exits. Id. The LSC is clear when it uses the word exits. Id. The LSC allows movement down or up to another floor to get out of the building, and the MSI laundry meets that provision. Id. at 199. E. MSI/SMT Metal Furniture Factory 332. Mr. Fushi participated in tours of the MSI metal furniture factory with the parties' experts. Id. at 45.
64

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 65 of 73
333. Xylene is stored in the second floor paint area in the industrial building. Id. It is stored in 55-gallon drums in a non-accessible, locked cage. Id. The MDOC received two recommendations regarding the storage of the xylene: 1) use of rubber seals for the 55-gallon drums to eliminate vapor escape, and 2) grounding and bonding. Id. at 46-47. Both of these recommendations are being adopted. Id. at 47. (As noted in section III.D., these recommendations have been implemented.)
334. It was also recommended that the xylene had to be enclosed in a one-hour rated fireproof room. Id. at 48. An examination of NFPA 30 which discusses xylene storage provides that the current storage of the xylene is acceptable. Id. at 48-50, 52-54.
335. Mr. Carson also opined that he agreed with Mr. Fushi's conclusion regarding the xylene and other flammable fluids in the MSI metal furniture factory. Id. NFPA 30, which is the standard referenced, not only looks at life safety but also property protection, while the LSC looks at protection of people. Id.
336. There is an exhaust fan in the caged area that exhausts directly outside. Id. at 48.
337. It was recommended that all flammable liquids stored on the first floor of the industrial building be stored in a non-accessible, locked cage. Id. at 54-55. This recommendation will be followed. Id. X. Conclusions of Law
In its May 6, 2004 Opinion sending the fire safety question back to this Court, the Appellate court in Hadix, et al v. Johnson, et al, (367 F.3d 513 at 525-526 96th Cir. 2004)) provided the following guidance:
In the context of prison conditions, the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause forbids conditions that involve the ‘wanton and unnecessary
65

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 66 of 73
infliction of pain,’ or are ‘grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime…’ Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). To succeed in an Eighth Amendment challenge, Plaintiff must establish that (1) a single, identifiable necessity of civilized human existence is being denied (objective prong) and (2) the defendant prison official acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind. See, e.g., Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991); Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 867 (6th Cir. 2000).
With respect to the objective prong “[p]risoners have the right not to be subjected to the unreasonable threat of injury or death by fire…” Hoptowit v. Spellman, 753 F.2d 779, 783-84 (9th Cir. 1985). The contemporary standards of civilized decency that currently prevail in society determine whether conditions of confinement are cruel and unusual. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. at 346. It is those contemporary standards, and not courts’ own “notions of enlighted policy” that are controlling. Tillery v. Owens, 907 F.2d 418, 426 (3rd Cir. 1990). To satisfy this prong, “extreme deprivations are required…,” Hudson v. McMillan, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992), and only deprivations denying “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities” are grave enough to create a violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347. Harsh and uncomfortable prison conditions do not automatically create such a violation. Dixon v. Godinez, 114 F.3d 640, 642 (7th Cir. 1997) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994)). However, a “remedy for unsafe conditions need not await a tragic event.” Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33-34 (1993). See also Hill v. Marshall, 962 F.2d 1209, 1211, 1215 (6th Cir. 1992) (holding that failure to provide prophylactic medication to prevent the possible future development of active tuberculosis is “actual injury,” even though prisoner did not develop active tuberculosis).
With respect to the subjective prong, there is no violation of the Eighth Amendment unless the defendant is “aware of the facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists” and he draws “that inference.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Even if the defendant draws such an inference, he is not liable if he took reasonable steps to avert the harm. Id. at 835-36. Rather, deliberate indifference can best be compared to criminal law’s “subjective recklessness.” Id. at 83940. In Farmer, the Court, concerned with the subjective component, explained that an “inmate seeking an injunction on the ground that there is a contemporary violation of a nature likely to continue must adequately plead such a violation; to survive summary judgment, he must come forward with evidence from which it can be inferred that the defendantofficials were at the time suit was filed, and are at the time of summary judgment, knowingly and unreasonably disregarding an objectively intolerable risk of harm, and that they will continue to do so…” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 845-46. In this case, we are concerned with future conduct to
66

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 67 of 73
correct prison conditions. If those conditions are found to be objectively unconstitutional, then that finding would also satisfy the subjective prong because the same information that would lead to the court’s conclusion was available to the prison officials.
The Court went on to explain the contemporary standards of decency standard as
different from experts’ preferences by quoting from a footnote in Rhodes, at 348, n. 13:
Respondents and the District Court erred in assuming that opinions of experts as to desirable prison conditions suffice to establish contemporary standards of decency. As we noted in [an earlier case], such opinions may be helpful and relevant with respect to some questions, but they simply do not establish the constitutional minima; rather, they establish goals recommended by the organization in question. Indeed, generalized opinions of experts cannot weigh as heavily in determining contemporary standards of decency as the public attitude toward a given sanction. We could agree that double celling is not desirable, especially in view of the size of these cells. But there is no evidence in this case that double celling is viewed generally as violating decently. Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 348 n. 13 (citations omitted).
The Hadix Court then re-focused on the contemporary standards of decency
analysis by stating:
The Supreme Court more recently reiterated its commitment to “contemporary standards of decency” approach to claims of alleged Eighth Amendment violations:
[D]etermining whether McKinney’s conditions of confinement violate the Eighth Amendment requires more than a scientific and statistical inquiry into the seriousness of the potential harm and the likelihood that such injury to health will actually be caused by exposure to ETS. It also requires a court to assess whether society considers the risk that the prisoner complains of to be so grave that it violates contemporary standards of decency to expose anyone unwillingly to such a risk. In other words, the prisoner must show that the risk of which he complains is not one that today’s society chooses to tolerate. Helling, 509 U.S. at 36. [Hadix, supra, at 526]
67

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 68 of 73
Plaintiffs’ three lawyers and a group of experts have made a vigorous attempt to imagine a scenario that, if there were facts to support it, might create a risk of injury and support some kind of remedy. The problem with their imagined scenario is that it is not demonstrated by the facts and experience in the cell blocks.
Plaintiffs make the foundation of their argument a concept of presumed heightened susceptibility to serious harm because of the health of the prisoners in the cell blocks. This argument fails to be proven. It is asserted only as a concept or speculative construct. Ms. Elizabeth Ferguson has no medical training and has spent most of the last four years as a landscape painter. She reviewed no prisoners’ medical records and interviewed no prisoners. Dr. Walden likewise interviewed no prisoners and reviewed no prisoner medical records.
Dr. Walden and Ms. Ferguson relied solely on the MDOC lists known as HC-251 and HC-261. These forms list those persons who are eligible for a special accommodation and who are assigned to a chronic care clinic respectively. Defendants’ Exhibits 21 and 24-26. Ms. Hladki explained that these lists could not be used to determine the degree of disability or assess the state of a prisoner’s health. Tr. I, pp. 118120. By way of example she cited a prisoner who had an orthopedic disability listed on the HC-251 but review of his file showed the disability to involve his hand and in discussion with block staff Ms. Hladki learned the prisoner worked as a porter in the block. Id.
Plaintiffs’ witness Kovaleski who has resided in 8 Block for years has an orthotic accommodation listed on the HC-251. However, Mr. Kovaleski works in the MSI creamery 8-10 hours/day, 5-6 days/week. Tr. II, p. 349. While Ms. Ferguson opined that
68

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 69 of 73
her review of the HC-251 list led her to conclude that over 100 prisoners would have difficulty exiting 8 Block in a timely fashion and would probably need assistance to do so, Tr. II, p. 286, Mr. Kovaleski testified that he did not know of any prisoners on the galleries in 8 Block who needed assistance to exit the cell block. Tr. II, p. 350.
Another of Plaintiffs’ witnesses, Mr. Davidson, testified he had a heart condition. Tr. II at p. 340. He would certainly be listed on the HC-261 for 10 Block prisoners, yet he walks 2-3 miles per day for exercise. Tr. II, p. 343. While he testified there had been a small fire in the catwalk behind the cell next to his, he did not say he suffered any adverse health effects in spite of his heart condition. Tr. II, p. 343.
Dr. Walden admitted that relying on the information in the HC-261 to come to a conclusion about the severity of a prisoner’s health condition was “pure speculation.” Walden dep. at 138. Therefore, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated any heightened susceptibility of the prisoner population in 8 Block beyond that of any group of 250 men of similar age and range of ailments. In other words, a group of general population prisoners.
The Mowrer fire model projected the likely concentration of carbon monoxide released from the modeled fire to be up to 16.9 ppm. Defendants’ Exhibit 1. Dr. Pramstaller testified that he had actual experience treating persons who had experienced substantial carbon monoxide poisoning. He testified that the NIOSH standard for worker exposure to ambient air carbon monoxide allowed continuous exposure to 50 ppm for 8 hours/day and 5 days/week. Tr. II at 243.
All of the fire drill and fire incident reports indicated evacuation in 20 minutes or less, Defendants’ Exhibits 10-18, if evacuation was even required, so the prisoner
69

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 70 of 73
population’s exposure to carbon monoxide presents a minor or even negligible risk of harm.
The legal standard is still the contemporary standard of decency, that is, the risk that today’s society chooses to tolerate. Rhodes, supra. Whose evaluation better represents that standard: 1) Mr. DiMascio’s suggestion, rejected by his fellow fire safety engineers, or 2) Mr. Carson’s alternative which was accepted by the fire safety engineers as a recognition of the real world physical environment of multitiered cell blocks that are fully sprinkled?
Mr. Carson and Mr. DiMascio agree that cell blocks 7 and 8 meet the equivalency standard of the Life Safety Code. Tr. I, p. 192 and Tr. II, p. 315. Defendants contend that compliance with the LSC’s equivalency provisions could not possibly still represent conditions that do not meet “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Rhodes, supra. Therefore, Defendants contend that no additional remedy is required for cell blocks 7 and 8 and the consent decree’s fire safety provisions as to those cell blocks should be dismissed.
Mr. Carson went through his reasons explaining why he concluded that cell blocks 1, 2 and 3 of the Egeler facility also meet the equivalency provisions of the LSC. Tr. I, pp. 191-199. Mr. DiMascio was silent on cell blocks 1, 2 and 3’s compliance with the LSC’s equivalency provisions. As Mr. Carson explained, the only criteria in the LSC’s regular provisions (Chapter 15) applicable to multitiered correctional facilities that blocks 1, 2 and 3 did not comply with was exit distance because it was a little over 200 feet from the point of the middle of the fourth gallery (the farthest point from the exit) to the exit. Tr. I, p. 193.
70

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 71 of 73
Mr. Carson did not believe this distance represented a substantial risk to the prisoner population because the large air volume of the atrium in the cell blocks would dilute the smoke from a fire. Dr. Mowrer’s model confirmed Mr. Carson’s belief. Tr. I, pp. 195, 197. The model predicted a fire on base to take approximately 20-25 minutes to fill the cell block with smoke down to a level of 2 meters above the floor. Defendants’ Exhibit 1. By that time the cell block would have been evacuated. Mr. Carson said there would be expected to be some coughing and watering of eyes but the cell blocks would not become untenable. Tr. I, p. 200.
Mr. DiMascio acknowledged that smoke from a fire on fourth gallery would be avoided by moving prisoners to the third gallery so it would take even less time to get prisoners out of harm’s way. Tr. II, p. 317.
All of these scenarios assume that the fire suppression of the fully sprinkled cell blocks and staff response do not happen. If the sprinklers in a cell are not disabled by the arsonist, it would be expected to come on in about 30 seconds and suppress the fire in another 30-60 seconds. Defendants’ Exhibit 1.
Mr. Pulitzer testified that the majority of the cell blocks in the federal prison system use manual locking mechanisms as compared to electronic unlocking mechanisms. Tr. II, p. 240. We know from actual experience in cell block 1 that the block can be evacuated in 10-20 minutes and that the solid front cells on base provide much greater protection from smoke than do open front cells. Defendants’ Exhibit 12b.
Plaintiffs’ suggestion that the Court find that the fire safety conditions in Egeler’s cell blocks 1, 2 and 3 amount to cruel an unusual punishment appear to disregard the four substantial improvements made there since 2002. 1) Removal; of unused transformers
71

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 72 of 73
and outdated electrical equipment; 2) raising gallery railing heights from 36 inches to 48 inches by installation of a third horizontal rail and additional vertical rails; 3) fully sprinkling the cell blocks; and 4) removal of combustibles from the storage cages at the ends of the cell block.
Plaintiff’s suggestion of a current Eighth Amendment violation also appears to ignore the reduction of prisoner property in cell blocks 1, 2 and 3 since Egeler’s conversion from a Level II general population cell block with prisoner property equivalent to the amount of property currently possessed by prisoners in 8 Block, instead of half or less that property amount since all Egeler prisoners are treated as Level V prisoners for property. Defendants’ Exhibits 3-4.
Finally, Plaintiffs’ suggestion that in order to eliminate the conditions in Egeler’s cell blocks 1, 2 and 3, the Court should require the Defendants to install remote electronic unlocking mechanisms, a mechanical smoke exhaust system and a vertical dividing wall to allow for shorter horizontal escape from the “smoke compartment” ignores the fact that Mr. DiMascio’s suggestion to the LSC committee considering modifications of the LSC for multitiered correctional facilities was rejected for inclusion in the code. Tr. II, p. 324. If the Society of Fire Protection Engineers rejected Mr. DiMascio’s suggestion for inclusion in the LSC’s provisions as a goal, how can those same suggestions be required to eliminate the much lower standard of the “minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities”?
Defendants contend that this Court should find that the fire safety conditions in cell blocks 1, 2 and 3, as in cell blocks 7 and 8 do not violate the Eighth Amendment’s
72

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1888 Filed 07/05/2005 Page 73 of 73

prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and dismiss all fire cell blocks from the

consent decree’s fire safety provisions.

Relief

Wherefore, for all of the above stated reasons, Defendants respectfully request

this Court to conclude that cell blocks 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8, the MSI/SMT laundry and the

MSI/SMT metal furniture factory do not present conditions constituting a violation of the

Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment in terms of fire safety.

That being the case, Defendants respectfully request the Court to dismiss the remaining

consent decree provisions concerning fire safety for these locations.

Respectfully submitted,

Michael A. Cox Attorney General

Date: July 5, 2005

s/A. Peter Govorchin (P31161) Attorney for Defendants

Govorchin/Hadix 4:92-cv-110/Pleadings-APG/Fire Safety/Findings of Fact and Expert Opinion.Outline 070105

73

 
 Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2100-1 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 1 of 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

EVERETT HADIX, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

) Case No. 4:92-CV-110

v.

)

) HONORABLE RICHARD A. ENSLEN

PATRICIA CARUSO, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

I. INTRODUCTION

On January 12, 2006, the Court accepted, with significant modifications, Defendants’

Plan to comply with the Injunction issued by the Court on October 19, 2005. Defendants

subsequently filed their Plan pursuant to that Order. Defs.’ Health Care Plan Submitted Pursuant

to the Court’s Prelim. Inj. of October 19, 2005, as Amended by the January 12, 2006 Court

Order, Jan. 23, 2006 (Dkt. No. 1954) (“Defs.’ Plan”). In several critical respects, however,

Defendants have not satisfied the obligations spelled out in Defendants’ Plan, and accordingly

they should be adjudged in civil contempt of court. Plaintiffs therefore ask that the Court issue

an order to show cause Defendants should not be held in civil contempt for their failures to come

into compliance with the following sections of Defendants’ Plan:

1. Defendants have failed to enhance their mortality review process through the use of outside

professional reviewers. Defs.’ Plan at 2.

2. Defendants have failed to explore available options to obtain autopsy reports in all deaths. Id.

1

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2100-1 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 2 of 16
at 13. 3. Defendants have failed to require that Dr. Middlebrook attend bi-monthly meetings with the CMS Associate Medical Officer, the JMF Medical Officer and the dialysis patients’ primary provider. Id. at 15-16. 4. Defendants have failed to assure that there is a prompt review of all specialist reports (both hand-written and dictated) so that any urgency noted by the specialist can be acted upon immediately by the facility providers. Id. at 15. 5. Defendants have failed to expand the MSP staff at JMF to five providers. Id. at 22. 6. Defendants have failed to provide that orders for medications and laboratory studies are entered in Serapis at DLW. Id. 7. Defendants have failed to assure the employment of a nephrologist or a board-certified internist to provide sufficient hours of service at the dialysis unit so that the total hours of physician services at that unit are equal to a regular work week for a full-time medical provider. Id. at 25.
Plaintiffs accordingly request that the Court issue an order requiring Defendants to show cause at the scheduled October 11, 2006 hearing why Defendants should not be adjudged in civil contempt and sanctions imposed to compel their compliance. II. THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE A. The Mortality Review Process
Defendants’ Plan promises that they will “enhance their mortality review process through the use of outside professional reviewers who will provide a timely and complete review of all
2

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2100-1 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 3 of 16
patient deaths occurring in a Hadix facility.” Id. at 2. Defendants have failed to do so. Defendants’ May 2006 Compliance Report indicates that Defendants are not in compliance with that requirement; had in fact made virtually no progress on this issue; and had no plans to come into compliance:
While the Defendan[ts] have not ruled out the use of an outside agency [to conduct mortality reviews], it has become apparent that prior to following through with outside reviewers the Department needs to streamline the internal review process so that the review occurs closer to the event. Revised Defs.’ May 1, 2006 Compliance with the Court-Approved Health Care Plan, May 3, 2006 (Dkt. No. 2014) (“Defs.’ May Compliance Report”) at 2. Defendants’ next compliance report does not address the status of compliance with this requirement at all. See Defs.’ July 1, 2006 Health Care Compliance Report, July 7, 2006 (Dkt. No. 2051) (“Defs.’ July Compliance Report”). Most significantly, Barbara Hladki, Defendants’ Health Care Coordinator, stated on August 30, 2006 that she believed that “it is not being aggressively pursued at this time.” Attach. 1, Hladki Response to Alexander Questions, Aug. 30, 2006 at unnumbered 3. B. Autopsy Reports Defendants’ Plan provides that Defendants will “pursu[e] other options to be able to obtain an autopsy in all cases.” Defs.’ Plan at 13. Neither Defendants’ May Compliance Report nor Defendants’ July Compliance Report avows that any other options are being pursued. See Defs.’ May Compliance Report at 6; Defs.’ July Compliance Report at 5. Ms. Hladki indicated that she had no knowledge of any activities to bring Defendants into compliance with this requirement. Attach. 2, Memorandum from Hladki to Alexander, Aug. 30, 2006. Plaintiffs’ counsel asked Defendants’ counsel to supply any additional information on this subject and
3

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2100-1 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 4 of 16
Defendants have not responded. C. Bi-Monthly Meetings with Dr. Middlebrook
Defendants’ Plan requires that Dr. Middlebrook, the nephrologist who provides consulting specialty services for the dialysis unit, attend bi-monthly meetings with the CMS Associate Medical Director, the JMF Medical Officer, and the dialysis patients’ primary provider. Defs.’ Plan at 15-16. Defendants admit that Dr. Middlebrook has not attended such a meeting since March 31, 2006–more than five months ago. Attach. 1 at unnumbered 2. D. Processing of Hand-Written Specialist Reports
Defendants’ Plan states that “Defendants shall ensure that there is a prompt review of all specialist reports (both hand-written and dictated) so that any urgency noted by the specialist can be acted upon immediately by the faculty providers. Defs.’ Plan at 15. This provision followed from the concern of Dr. Cohen that specialist requests for follow-up services were not being processed by the medical contractor, Correctional Medical Services (“CMS”) unless they were written. See Revised and Redacted Third Report of the Associate Monitor, Sept. 12, 2005 at 57 (“CMS should not ‘pend’ consultation while awaiting dictated consults when the consultant has written or called the MSP with specific recommendations.”).
Notwithstanding the Injunction, Defendants’ May and July Compliance Reports continue to report that some consultation requests are not acted upon because CMS decides to wait for a dictated report from the consultant. Defs.’ May Compliance Report at 8 (stating that in March 2006 four requests from specialists were “pended” for dictation); Defs.’ July Compliance Report at 6 (stating that in May 2006 four requests from specialists were “pended” for dictation). This is obviously not accidental non-compliance; the CMS staff who “pend” and deny consultation
4

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2100-1 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 5 of 16
requests must know that the Injunction prohibits this behavior, yet CMS continues to engage in it, albeit in a reduced number of cases. In light of the deliberate nature of the violation, Defendants have failed to achieve substantial compliance with this requirement. E. Expanded Staffing at JMF
Defendants’ Plan requires the provision of four physicians and one mid-level MSP1 to serve JMF. Defs.’ Plan at 22. Neither of Defendants’ Compliance Reports addresses this specific requirement and, at the time of the meeting between Dr. Cohen and the parties on August 16, 2006, Dr. Cohen reported that, aside from the part-time physician coverage for the dialysis unit, the only MSP coverage at JMF consisted of two physicians and one mid-level practitioner who has significant restrictions on the scope of medical services that she can provide.2 Further, Dr. Cohen viewed the staffing shortages at JMF as the most critical of the Hadix medical staff shortages. Subsequently Ms. Hladki indicated that a third physician has now become a permanent full-time employee. Attach. 1 at unnumbered 2. The only other physician staff at JMF is the new internist to assist in the dialysis unit, who is reported as working a minimum of twenty hours a week. Id. at unnumbered 3.3 Accordingly, Defendants have clearly failed to increase the number of physicians to four and also lack the services of an unrestricted mid-level provider that is required under Defendants’ Plan.4
1 Mid-level providers are either physician’s assistants or nurse practitioners. 2 This MSP is not able to see patients with certain communicable diseases. 3 A full-time physician works a forty-hour week, with a lunch break. Attach. 2. 4 Plaintiffs note that they are not “double-counting” Defendants’ acts of contempt. Although Defendants arguably could also obtain substantial compliance with this provision if they fully complied with the staffing requirements for the dialysis unit (see Section II.G, infra),
5

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2100-1 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 6 of 16
F. Medication and Laboratory Orders at DLW Defendants’ Plan, as required by the Court’s Order of January 12, 2006, requires that all
medication and laboratory studies orders at DLW must be entered into Serapis. Defendants’ Compliance Reports acknowledge that to date Defendants have not complied. Indeed, Defendants’ May Compliance Report indicates that Defendants will not even start compliance efforts related to this requirement until all of the ambulatory services are fully converted to Serapis use. Defs.’ May Compliance Report at 12. Given that the ambulatory conversion was not reported as complete in Defendants’ July Compliance Report,5 it is not surprising that this report also indicates that nothing has been done to implement this requirement. Defs.’ July Compliance Report at 9. Indeed, apparently Defendants do not consider themselves required to follow this provision of Defendants’ Plan, as Ms. Hladki responded on this issue as follows:
Labs and meds ordered while prisoners are inpatients in DWH or C Unit are not ordered in SERAPIS. As was explained in the Plan, this is an inpatient unit and the SERAPIS record is not designed for inpatients. Also there is no target date for completing the SERAPIS conversion in the Plan. Attach. 1 at unnumbered 1. G. FTE-Equivalent Physician for the Dialysis Unit Another provision of the Defendants’ Plan that the Court added in its January 12, 2006 Order is the requirement that Defendants employ a nephrologist or Board-certified internist to provide services in the dialysis unit. The Court further ordered, and the Plan now provides, that
Defendants could comply with this provision by increasing staffing for JMF without necessarily curing the violation in the staffing of the dialysis unit.
5 Defs.’ July Compliance Report at 3. 6

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2100-1 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 7 of 16
the total hours of services of this additional physician, together with the hours actually worked by Deon Middlebrook, M.D., shall amount to at least a FTE-equivalent physician position. Defs.’ Plan at 25. Defendants’ May Compliance Report indicated that Dr. Middlebrook had hired an additional nephrologist to work with him and was also “developing” two contracts with internists. Defs.’ May Compliance Report at 12-13. Defendants’ July Compliance Report again reports that Dr. Middlebrook has hired a nephrologist partner and that a 3/4's-time internist is providing services to the dialysis unit. Defs.’ July Report at 9. It thus does not specifically discuss whether the Court’s requirement of an FTE-equivalent has been met. Ms. Hladki’s responses indicate that the internist works “at least twenty hours a week” and that Dr. Middlebrook or his partner spends “at least 8-12 hours per month” in the dialysis unit. Attach. 1 at unnumbered 3. Eight hours per month translates to slightly less than two hours per week, so the total physician time guaranteed by Defendants is less than twenty-two hours per week.6 III. THE LEGAL BASIS FOR HOLDING DEFENDANTS IN CIVIL CONTEMPT
The relevant standards for adjudging a party in civil contempt are well-known. A court has the “inherent power to enforce compliance with [its] lawful orders through civil contempt.” Spallone v. United States, 493 U.S. 265, 276 (1990) (quoting Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966)). Further, “a contempt proceeding does not open to reconsideration the legal or factual basis of the [disobeyed] order.” Maggio v. Zeitz, 333 U.S. 56, 69 (1948).
6 See Attach. 2 (A full-time physician works forty hours per week with a lunch break). Presumably the lunch break is no longer than one hour and probably shorter, so 3/4's time cannot require less than 30 hours a week. This admission demonstrates the inaccuracy of Defendants’ claim in the July Compliance Report that they had hired a 3/4's time physician, contrary to the Court’s expectation in the January 12, 2006 Order that “the data presented will be accurate” in the required Compliance Reports.
7

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2100-1 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 8 of 16
Plaintiffs are required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Defendants violated a definite and specific order of the Court. It is also Plaintiffs’ burden to make a prima facie showing of a violation of the Court’s orders. Once that showing is made, however, it is Defendants’ burden to prove an inability to comply with the order. Glover v. Johnson, 138 F.3d 229, 244 (6th Cir. 1998). The court of appeals in Glover quoted with approval from its earlier decision in the same case:
[T]he test is not whether defendants made a good faith effort at compliance but whether “the defendants took all reasonable steps within their power to comply with the court’s order.”
[G]ood faith is not a defense to civil contempt. Conversely, impossibility would be a defense to contempt, but the Department has the burden of proving impossibility, and that burden is difficult to meet. Although diligence is relevant to the question of ability to comply, the Department’s evidence of diligence alone does not satisfy that burden. Id., citing Glover v. Johnson, 934 F.2d 703, 708 (6th Cir. 1991). Just as good faith is not a defense to civil contempt, neither is evidence that Defendants did not act willfully in violating the Court’s orders; the question of a party’s intent in violating an order is irrelevant to whether or not a contempt citation should be imposed. Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Crowley, 74 F.3d 716, 720-21 (6th Cir. 1996) (affirming judgment of civil contempt). While, as noted above, a defense of impossibility of compliance is theoretically available to Defendants, to establish such a defense, Defendants must show, categorically and in detail, why they are unable to comply with the Court’s Order. Id. at 720. Plaintiffs have met their burden of demonstrating a prima facie violation of the Court’s order by showing evidence, consisting of admissions from Defendants’ own compliance reports
8

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2100-1 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 9 of 16
and responsible staff, that Defendants are in violation of the Order. Whether Defendants could establish the difficult defense of impossibility must necessarily await the hearing.
Defendants suggest that because the order requiring Defendants to provide a mechanism for ordering laboratory studies and medications in Serapis had no deadline, they cannot be in contempt. This is also clearly not the law. See Bambu Sales, Inc. v. Ozak Trading Inc., 58 F.3d 849, 853 (2d Cir. 1995) (“Like any court order, however, the August 30 order plainly contemplated prompt compliance[.]”). Further, Defendants’ argument founders on basic principles. None of the provisions of Defendants’ Plan have specific compliance dates, yet Defendants understood in all other cases that they were required to comply with the order. Accordingly, there is no question but that Defendants’ Plan has the requisite specificity because Defendants’ actions have shown that they understood their obligations for provisions that were identical in relevant characteristics.
Thus, the only defense available for Defendants would be impossibility, a defense that would be particularly difficult to establish in light of Defendants’ acknowledged decision not to do anything to comply with the order. Similarly, Defendants’ statement that procurement of outside reviewers to conduct autopsies for unexpected deaths is not being “aggressively pursued” (Attach. 1 at unnumbered 3) also precludes a defense of impossibility for that provision. IV. THE NEED FOR A CIVIL CONTEMPT CITATION A. Outside Mortality Review and Provisions for Autopsies of Unexplained Deaths
Over and over both the MDOC and CMS have proven themselves incapable of providing meaningful supervision and quality assurance, including during the May 2006 disaster when only the serendipitous inspection by Dr. Cohen prevented an even longer interruption in critical
9

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2100-1 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 10 of 16
chronic medications. Letter from Cohen to Court, June 5, 2006 at 1 (Dkt. No. 2035) (referring to
“ongoing critical failure of the pharmacy system” that resulted in a large number of prisoners
with chronic diseases not receiving their medications for five days; noting that when he toured,
staff had known about pharmacy problems since at least May 19, 2006, but pharmacy “staff were
making no efforts to address this issue”; while many prescriptions were being filled at a
commercial pharmacy, no systematic solution was being attempted; also noting that he learned of
the crisis from prisoners because staff did not inform him). For that reason, assurance of some
basic supervision and oversight of the system requires that autopsies be performed in unexpected
deaths and that outsiders be involved in mortality reviews. The Third Report of the Associate
Monitor also makes clear that it is critical that the Court’s Order of January 12, 2006 be fully
enforced. As Dr. Cohen notes in the Third Report:
An effective program of MSP supervision by CMS has not yet been developed. (p. 3).7
Although the crisis in MSP staffing and severe deficiencies in quality of care [were] acknowledged by MDOC staff in March, 2005, the actual full time medical staff available to C-Unit, DWH and the DWH ER decreased this spring, exacerbating a dangerous situation. The Regional Medical Director for the Jackson Region, although based at [Duane] Waters Hospital, did not recognize these serious ongoing problems and made no effort to identify the source of the problems or to correct them. The CMS Medical Director, Dr. Austin, although responsible for supervising the MSP staff in the Hadix facilities, did not supervise the C-Unit or DWH staff. The Nursing administrators at DWH and C-Unit told me that they were aware of the problems, and agreed that the problems had serious implications for patient care, but
7 All page references in this Section not otherwise identified refer to the Revised and Redacted Third Report of the Associate Monitor, Sept. 12, 2005.
10

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2100-1 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 11 of 16
they did not have any solutions. . . . The Medical Director did nothing to resolve these problems. (p. 13).
The administrative review performed by Drs. Austin and Naylor failed to make any minimal inquiry into Patient #3's [a patient who subsequently died] obviously severely compromised state, and they made no effort to have him examined, to have the cause of his arm swelling identified, and to make sure that his pain was relieved. (p. 29).
An autopsy should have been performed. Patient #8 was a 70 year old man with a severely infected swollen painful foot who was having internal bleeding. He had coronary artery disease, diabetes, hypertension, gout, and had a severe MRSA infection of his leg. He was bleeding internally, and he was allowed to die without any treatment. (p. 50).
Simply stated, the current leadership cannot be trusted to review patient deaths to identify
serious failures of care, and it is critical to enforce the provisions requiring steps for outside
review of prisoner deaths.
B. Meetings with Dr. Middlebrook
Dr. Cohen’s Report also makes clear why gaining some level of accountability from Dr.
Middlebrook is so critical:
On March 29, four and a half months after an urgent renal consult was requested by CMS, Patient #3 was finally seen by Dr. Middlebrook via telemedicine. Dr. Middlebrook’s consultation was minimal. He did not review any laboratory studies. He did not request to know the patient’s blood pressure, he did not ask the patient any questions. He recommended an additional diuretic, and requested a follow-up visit in three weeks.
*** On April 20, 2005, Patient #3 was brought to Foote Hospital in extremis. (pp. 27-28).
Dr. Middlebrook, the nephrologist received 25% of his positive
11

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2100-1 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 12 of 16
score on [the audit of the dialysis unit] for writing a monthly note, and for obtaining the “urea reduction ratio.” This gives Dr. Middlebrook too much credit for just “showing up.”
*** The results of the July audit were to be addressed by Dr. Mathai at a special meeting with Dr. Middlebrook, the nephrologist, on July 22, 2005. That meeting was cancelled by Dr. Middlebrook. As of August 4, Dr. Middlebrook had not met with Dr. Middlebrook to discuss these issues (pp. 5-6).
It is apparent that Dr. Middlebrook will never attend these meetings regularly unless
Defendants are coerced to take action on this issue.
C. Pending Reports for Dictation
Defendants’ casual assumption that they can simply ignore a court order with which they
disagree mirrors their continuing indifference to the consequences of delaying specialty care:
The MSP 30 day review of pending consultations is a failed system.
*** At the present time CMS specialists fill out a handwritten consultation form at the time of their evaluation, and then dictate a formal consultation, which is typed and sent to the facilities. There is often a substantial delay in receipt of the typed dictations, yet it is the policy of CMS MSPs not to review hand written consultation requests. It is also the policy of CMS not to honor their own specialist’s requests for diagnostic testing until the typed consult is received.
*** This system is designed to delay necessary consultations, and is hazardous to the health of patients. (pp. 9-10).
The Third Report of the Associate Monitor also pointed to the case of Patient 2, whose
diagnosis of colon cancer was delayed by this policy:
Two weeks later, Patient #2 was seen by Dr. Ilyas Hussain, the gasterenterologist. Dr. Hussain did not examine Patient #2's rectum. He recommended that Patient #2 have a colonoscopy, “for further evaluation.” He wrote out this
12

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2100-1 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 13 of 16
consultation request on the 409 form, which was returned to SMT. A consultation request for the colonoscopy was faxed to CMS, but was pended by CMS while they waited for Dr. Hussain’s dictation. The colonosopy was finally scheduled for July 12, 2004. (p. 21). Patient #2 thereafter endured additional delay in great pain at SMT while his anal lesion drained copious amounts of foul-smelling liquids. In September 2004, he was diagnosed with locally invasive advanced squamous cell cancer. Accordingly to Dr. Cohen, Patient #2's prognosis might have been significantly better if he had been referred directly to a colorectal surgeon in April. Id. at 23-24. Defendants’ continued practice of delaying hand-written consults must be eliminated root and branch. D. Expand JMF Staff The fact that Defendants have failed to implement this requirement in full is even more inexplicable in light of Dr. Cohen’s more recent findings of a staffing crisis. See letter from Cohen to Court, Aug. 14, 2006 at unnumbered 2 (Dkt. No. 2088) (“Specifically, there is a critical shortage of medical staff at JMF, and serious medical staff shortages throughout the medical program. This is an emergency situation which has gone on for too long and is having an extremely adverse effect on patient care.”). E. Medications and Laboratory Orders in Serapis at DLW The Third Report also explains why this provision of Defendants’ Plan is critical: Medications ordered on paper which are faxed or delivered to the pharmacy are not included in the SERAPIS system. . . . Laboratory tests not ordered in SERAPIS are not available in the computer system, but they are printed out and are present in the paper medical record.
*** At the present time, the MSP and nursing staff at SMT, JMF, and
13

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2100-1 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 14 of 16
RGC use both systems. Because of the concurrent use of two systems, the medical records are voluminous, difficult to use, and not in chronological order. . .
*** There must be a unified medical records system. The SERAPIS system may be adequate, and if it is used, it must have a direct interface/order entry function into the pharmacy system so that all medication information will be current and correct. (pp. 8-9).
Dr. Cohen’s Third Report also documents a specific instance of probable harm from this
deficiency:
The pharmacy computer system at DWH failed to identify a well described Class D drug/drug interaction, and this inappropriate prescribing may have been responsible for Patient #1's8 persistent weight loss, and abdominal pain. (p. 19).
This requirements remains critical.
F. Full-time Physician in the Dialysis Unit
The seriously ill dialysis patients, many with extremely serious medical problems,
deserve the attention that the Court required when it modified Defendants Plan. As the Third
Report notes:
A large dialysis unit, currently serving approximately 75 patients with end stage renal failure was established in JMF in 2004. These men have developed kidney failure secondary to hypertension, diabetes, AIDS, and chronic intravenous drug use. [Their] medical problems are often exacerbated by dialysis, and they require substantial complex internal medicine care. . . . There has been inadequate support by Dr. Middlebrook’s nephrology group for the patients with renal failure cared for at JMF, and throughout the Hadix facilities,
8 Patient 1 had advanced HIV, chronic hepatitis, cirrhosis and some degree of pancreatitis.
14

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2100-1 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 15 of 16
which need him for renal consultation. (p. 53).9 Accordingly, all of the failures of Defendants to abide by the approved Plan are significant and deserve enforcement through the mechanism of civil contempt. V. THE PENALTY FOR DEFENDANTS’ CONTEMPT It should first be noted that imposition of contempt sanctions does not require that the Court again make the findings required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1), for the initial imposition of relief. Jones-El v. Berge, 374 F.3d 541, 545 (7th Cir. 2004) (district court order enforcing provisions of previously-entered consent decree did not constitute “prospective relief” for purposes of § 3626(a)(1)); Essex Co. Jail Annex Inmates v. Treffinger, 18 F. Supp. 2d 445, 462 (D.N.J. 1998) (contempt power is not limited by provisions of § 3626(a)). Plaintiffs accordingly propose that the Court cite Defendants for civil contempt for each of the above failures and that the Court further impose coercive sanctions of prospective fines of $200 per day for each violation of Defendants’ Plan found by the Court. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, Plaintiffs ask that the Court issue the requested order to show cause, to be heard at the hearing now scheduled for October 11, 2006.
9 See also Section IV.B, supra. 15

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2100-1 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 16 of 16

Respectfully submitted,

S/ Elizabeth Alexander ELIZABETH ALEXANDER National Prison Project 915 15th Street, N.W., 7th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 202/393-4930

MICHAEL BARNHART (P-10467) 221 North Main Street Suite 300 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 734/213-3703
PATRICIA STREETER (P-30022) 221 North Main Street Suite 300 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 (734) 222-0088

Dated: September 7, 2006

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

16

 
 Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2112 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION _____________________

EVERETT HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs,

Case No. 4:92-CV-110

v.

Hon. Richard Alan Enslen

PATRICIA L. CARUSO, et al.,
Defendants. _____________________________/

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order to Show Cause, Motion to Alter Judgment, and Motion for Further Relief. Since those Motions seek immediate relief related to significant and urgent medical and mental health care issues, they will be heard during the forthcoming evidentiary hearing scheduled to commence on October 11, 2006.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order to Show Cause, Motion to Alter Judgment and Motion for Further Relief (Dkt. Nos. 2099, 2102 & 2105) shall be heard by this Court during the forthcoming evidentiary hearing commencing on October 11, 2006 at 9:00 a.m.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall answer those Motions in writing in accordance with the Western District of Michigan Local Civil Rule 7.2 and shall show cause during such hearing as to why the relief sought, including contempt sanctions, should not issue.

Dated in Kalamazoo, MI: September 15, 2006

/s/Richard Alan Enslen Richard Alan Enslen Senior United States District Judge

 
 Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1954 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 1 of 26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

EVERETT HADIX, et. al.,

Plaintiffs,

No. 4:92-CV-110

v.

HONORABLE RICHARD ENSLEN

PERRY M. JOHNSON, et. al.,

Defendants.
Patricia Streeter (P30032) Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (734) 222-0088

/
Michael Barnhart (P10467) Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main Street, Suite 300 Detroit, MI 48226 (734) 213-3703

Elizabeth Alexander

Leo H. Friedman (P26319)

Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs

A. Peter Govorchin (P31161)

The National Prison Project

Counsel for Defendants

733 15th Street, NW, Suite 620

Michigan Department of Attorney General

Washington, DC 20005

Corrections Division

(202) 393-4930

P.O. Box 30217

Lansing, MI 48909

(517) 335-7021

__________________________________________________________________________

DEFENDANTS’ HEALTH CARE PLAN SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO THE COURT’S PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION OF OCTOBER 19, 2005, AS AMENDED BY THE JANUARY 12, 2006 COURT ORDER

INTRODUCTION

On October 19, 2005 the Court ordered the Defendants to submit a formal

written plan to address issues identified in the preliminary injunction and to accomplish

the recommendations contained in Dr. Cohen’s Third Report. The issues outlined in the

Court’s Order (numbered as 1-7 in the Court’s injunction October 19, 2005) are also

contained in the report of Dr. Cohen except the requirement in number 4 of that Court

order which states “provide for the assessment and medical review of all patient deaths

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1954 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 2 of 26
and provide training to medical service providers concerning serious instances of inappropriate patient treatment.” The Defendants intend to enhance their mortality review process through the use of outside professional reviewers who will provide a timely and complete review of all patient deaths occurring in a Hadix facility. This review will then be used to provide training for Medical Service Providers (MSP) and other Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) staff for whom inappropriate or less than optimal actions are identified.
To identify opportunities for improvement in the medical care provided and to ensure appropriate supervision of the MSP, the Defendants, in conjunction with Corrections Medical Service (CMS), have taken or will take the following actions: A number of the proposed actions have already been implemented. In these cases an implementation schedule will not be provided.
The January 12, 2006 Order accepted the Defendant's Health Care Plan except for requiring three deletions and requiring certain additional actions. Those deletions have been stricken. The additional requirements have been incorporated into the following plan (see page 22).
1) The CMS Associate Medical Director or Assistant Medical Director rounds each prisoner in segregation twice monthly in conjunction with the case management nurse. As areas of concern are identified, the CMS Associate Medical Director reviews the case and addresses the issues with the primary care MSP. Once the designated JMF segregation MSP is in place s/he will also participate in the twice monthly rounds.
During the rounds the CMS Associate Medical Director will note any prisoner who s/he believes should be evaluated to determine if the prisoner’s medical condition
2

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1954 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 3 of 26
warrants the prisoner being moved to an inpatient, extended care, or other inpatient level of care.
Once the twice monthly rounding process reaches a point where the Associate Medical Director is comfortable that any possible problems or concerns are being identified and resolved by the JMF designated segregation MSP, the frequency of rounds by the CMS Associate Medical Director may be reduced, with the agreement of the Court’s Associate Monitor, Dr. Robert Cohen.
2) The CMS Associate Medical Director reviews the patients in the Duane Waters Hospital (DWH) twice monthly in conjunction with the unit charge nurse. Again, as areas of concern are identified, the CMS Associate Medical Director reviews the case and addresses the issues with the attending physician. The CMS Associate Medical Director reviews the health record of at least 10 patients per week in C-Unit and again addresses all the areas of concern with the C Unit assigned physician.
3) On a monthly basis the MDOC Jackson Medical Complex Medical Officer (RMO) or the CMS Associate Medical Director audits the records and care being provided to at least 50% of the prisoners with a chronic disease who are housed in segregation. As opportunities for improvement are identified, the CMS Associate Medical Director and the RMO addresses these issues with the MSP. Beginning with the December 2005 reviews of the segregation prisoners, the Defendants did and will continue to include those prisoners who have refused or who missed a scheduled offsite specialty appointment in the charts reviewed during the segregation audit.
4) The RMO will begin conducting case reviews (or audits) of targeted medical cases based upon predetermined criteria as part of an overall CQI process. As
3

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1954 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 4 of 26
opportunities for improvement are identified from these reviews, the CMS Associate Medical Director and/or the RMO will review the areas needing improvement with the appropriate MSP and other staff.
The order of the topics set forth below mirrors that contained in the “Recommendation Section” of Dr. Cohen’s Third Report (Dr. Cohen’s recommendations are in bold print).
Establish an acute infirmary capability of at least thirty beds at DWH. 1. This unit will require 24 hour nursing staffing and seven day a week
MSP staffing. 2. Emergency medical coverage will be provided by DWH ER, when
necessary. 3. When the unit is filled, patients requiring this level of care are to be
sent to Foote Hospital. In order to assure patients receive the proper level of care, Defendants intend to immediately provide services for the most acute medical and surgical patients in community hospitals rather than DWH. There will be beds at DWH designated for subacute care and other transitional care, and long term and/or rehabilitative care. Defendants plan to convert 22 beds at DWH to beds termed as “sub acute/transitional” beds. The type of patient being accommodated in these beds will include at a minimum: (a) Patients requiring short term post acute hospital care prior to returning to a regular housing unit; (b) All prisoners discharging from the Secure Unit hospital who will be returning to a Hadix facility. All these patients will be admitted to the sub- acute/transitional beds
4

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1954 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 5 of 26
for at least 24 hours prior to returning to their housing unit. This will provide a single point of reference for physician-to-physician referrals to assure that discharge orders are quickly implemented and prisoners are not placed in general population before they are physically able to do so.
(c) Patients needing 24 hour or short term pre and/or post operative care as appropriate;
(d) Patients from the Hadix ambulatory facilities who may require, on a short term basis, more aggressive medical management (but not acute care) than is available in the ambulatory setting;
(e) Patients undergoing specialized treatment whose needs may be better accommodated in an inpatient setting during parts of their treatment [i.e. patients undergoing chemotherapy who are suffering significant negative reactions (such as nausea and vomiting) to the treatment];
The sub-acute/transitional beds at DWH (approximately 22 beds) will be used only for the transitional /sub-acute admissions or step down discharges from other acute units when the patient becomes sub-acute. If these beds are not filled they will remain empty until needed (patients requiring chronic or extended care will not be admitted to the sub-acute/transitional unit). It is anticipated that these beds will be operational by January 30, 2006.
Discharges from Foote Hospital will no longer be accepted after 4:00 pm Monday through Thursday or after noon on Friday. They also will not be accepted on the weekend or holidays. These patients will remain in the community hospital. While Dr. Cohen suggested a 30 bed unit, the largest unit at DWH contains only is 22 beds. Defendants currently believe that it is more appropriate to divide the transitional/sub-
5

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1954 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 6 of 26
acute beds among several units at DWH as opposed to consolidating them all in one unit as this provides for better utilization of the space and staffing. Under this arrangement, Defendants believe this increase to 22 sub-acute/transitional beds will be sufficient.
The sub-acute/transitions beds will have 24 hour nursing staff (as the beds in DWH currently do) and will have seven day per week MSP coverage. There will be regular MSP coverage Monday thru Friday and a minimum of 4 hours per day on the weekends and holidays. As is currently being done, emergency medical coverage for the sub-acute/transitional beds will be provided by the DWH emergency room staff when necessary.
The Defendants will prepare a preliminary staffing analysis for DWH reflecting the planned additional sub-acute/transitional beds. The staffing analysis will cover nursing, administrative and MSP staff, and will reflect the increased number of patients, and their acuity. Defendants will provide a staffing chart to Dr. Cohen which indicates the nursing and administrative staffing which will be present on each of the inpatient units at DWH. Each of these documents was provided to Dr. Cohen on December 16, 2005. Defendants will prepare a follow-up report to be submitted to Dr. Cohen three months after the sub-acute/transitional beds become operational. At this time, data on the admission and discharge rates, bed utilization, length of stay, patient acuity, and other information required to update the analysis and staffing plan developed on December 16, 2005 will be available. Should there be an unexpected need for more staff than planned for in the December 16, 2005 analysis, staff can be supplemented through the use of contractual staff.
6

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1954 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 7 of 26
When the sub-acute/transitional beds are filled, patients needing the level of care provided in these beds will be sent to a community hospital, or other patients will be admitted to acute care facilities in the community or transferred to an appropriate level of care to accommodate those needing the sub-acute/ transitional beds.
Defendants also will convert beds currently housing general population “campers” in C-Unit to medical special needs beds and provide appropriate staffing to accommodate the increase in patient load for nursing, physician, and other necessary support services.
Establish a Unitary Medical Records System 1. Assure that all laboratory studies are available in Serapis 2. Assure that all medications are available in Serapis 3. Link the Serapis system to the pharmacy computer system for order
entry 4. Enhance the drug interaction function of SERAPIS/Tiny Terms to
include HIV medications. 5. Train and certify all nurses and MSPs in the system(s) before they
begin working at the Hadix Facilities 6. Expand the SERAPIS system to include all clinical areas, specifically
the Dialysis Unit, the JMF Segregation Unit, the DWH Emergency Room, DWH and C-Unit, and the Specialty Clinic Areas of DWH. 7. When Telemedicine is used on a routine basis (e.g. Dr. Hutchinson, Dr. Middlebrook) SERAPIS terminals should be available Defendants will ensure that all laboratory studies and medications ordered in all ambulatory clinics in the Hadix facilities are entered in Serapis. Upon completion of the
7

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1954 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 8 of 26
training of all providers, this will be accomplished. In addition, by January 31, 2006 Defendants will develop a means so that medications ordered in the emergency room, and those ordered by the select specialists providing clinics at the DWH are also entered into Serapis. This will provide the complete listing in Serapis of all medications prescribed for each patient.
A Request for Proposal (RFP) for a new pharmacy system has been submitted to the Michigan Department of Management and Budget. It is anticipated that the bidding process will allow identification of an appropriate provider by March 1, 2006, with implementation to follow in an orderly way in as short a time period as is feasible but no later than 90 days after award of the contract. The RFP requires that the vendor manage the MDOC pharmacy and delivery system; provide supplemental staffing to the existing Civil Service staffing to maintain staffing at optimum levels; upgrade the equipment and practices at the onsite pharmacy in DWH; and, oversee pharmacy assistants that the Defendants will place at each of the ambulatory care units to receive medications and deliver keep-on-person medications. An additional requirement of the RFP provides that a link be established to the Serapis prisoner electronic record to assure direct physician ordering through linkage to a new pharmacy computer system to be provided by the vendor. The new pharmacy computer system required under the RFP will have enhanced capabilities for identification of drug interactions.
Defendants have redefined the MSP training and orientation schedule to accommodate additional hands-on training for MSPs. This training will be provided by an experienced trainer with a clinical background during the MSP orientation to the MDOC. No MSP will be considered to be part of the regular schedule until s/he has received training on the electronic health record, can conduct entire visits using the
8

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1954 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 9 of 26
electronic health record, and have a full understanding of the chronic care clinic and other essential MDOC basic requirements. This portion of the plan became effective October 1, 2005. Nurses performing functions which require the use of Serapis will be provided formal and on the job training and will be proficient in the use of Serapis prior to working independently.
Defendants plan to expand Serapis to the emergency room and the Dialysis Unit by the end of January, 2006. A Serapis terminal is now functional in the dialysis unit and the unit staff will be required to enter all the medication orders and laboratory requests into Serapis. All dialysis unit staff have been trained and directed to use the electronic record when ordering all medication orders and laboratory tests. There are functional Serapis terminals in the JMF segregation unit.
In addition, there is a terminal in the DWH emergency room, and staff is beginning to utilize the information from the ambulatory electronic record to assist staff as they manage the urgent care needs of these same prisoners. The medication and laboratory orders for oncology, hematology, and infectious disease specialists operating in the DWH onsite clinics will be ordered through Serapis. This will be implemented after training is completed, but no later than January 31, 2006.
With regard to recommendations to use Serapis in C-Unit and DWH, it should be noted that Serapis is an ambulatory health record with little functionality for acute inpatient care. There may be future potential use in the areas of lab ordering and medication ordering and delivery. All resources, however, are currently being utilized to move all ambulatory facilities to the electronic record. Effective April 1, 2006, the results of all laboratory studies ordered at the Hadix ambulatory facilities will be maintained in
9

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1954 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 10 of 26
Serapis and will be available for review to the nursing and medical staff at Serapis terminals in C-Unit and DWH.
Defendants will assure that the ambulatory record can be viewed electronically at intake to C-Unit and DWH in the form of a patient overview. The overview will include diagnosis information, vital signs, existing medications, allergies, key lab results, and pending lab work or procedures. The full record will be viewable to assure access to the full MDOC ambulatory health history. Discharge planning will be provided through the electronic medical record by providing a discharge record entry as prisoners leave DWH and C-Unit. This will assure flow of necessary information and improve continuity of care at the receiving facility.
It is not feasible to require that all community based specialists who provide specialty clinics at DWH be required to document or order in Serapis. However, Defendants will require that the dictated or written note summarizing the findings of the specialist (the properly completed 409 Form) is made available to the provider in the ambulatory areas within one working day of the specialty clinic visit. The specialist will be directed to call or email the ambulatory care provider regarding all urgent recommendations.
Dr. Hutchinson currently has access to Serapis and utilizes it for documentation of his telemedicine visits. Defendants have provided a system for Dr. Middlebrook to access Serapis and for his telemedicine visits since January 1, 2006.
Ensure automatic renewals of all chronic medications 1. Monitor distribution of chronic medication 2 Prepare a regular study/report on medication renewals
10

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1954 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 11 of 26
3. Require all medications from all clinical sectors (DWH, C-Unit, Segregation, Dialysis) to be entered in SERAPIS
Defendants presently have a system in place to monitor the distribution of chronic medication and ensure renewals. Defendants will assure use of the system through oversight and audit. Nurses will routinely review medication orders and receipt of medication records to ensure that the medications are ordered and renewed as needed. Nurses will also review records to ensure the patient receives the ordered chronic medications as required.
Defendants have initiated a study of all cases of prisoners claiming to be out of medications at JMF and SMT. The study on medication renewals, including chronic medications on the automatic renewal system, was commenced at JMF in February, 2005 and will continue as long as is needed. A nurse reviews each kite on which the prisoner claims to be out of medication, or when the prisoner claims that he did not receive his medications. If, upon review, it appears that the prisoner did not receive a medication as needed, it will be provided within 24 hours. This system has been in place at JMF for a few months and is now implemented at SMT. Quarterly reports on the actual number of prisoners who did not receive medication have been generated from the study at JMF. Reports will be generated on a quarterly basis for both SMT and JMF and attempts to identify and correct any systemic reasons for the missed medication will be put in place under MDOC’s CQI component. By April 15, 2006, a study similar to that currently being done at JMF and SMT will be initiated at RGC.
Defendants will continue with this study and continue to develop and analyze the findings of these studies and take necessary corrective actions should problems area develop Defendants agree to require that all medications from the ambulatory clinics,
11

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1954 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 12 of 26
the dialysis unit, and the ER be ordered in Serapis. However, as indicated above, it is not possible to require this from C Unit and DWH except at the time of discharge to an ambulatory clinic. The major advantage of having all medications ordered in Serapis is that there is then a complete listing of all the medications prescribed for a particular patient in one location in the Serapis system. The provider does not need to check both paper medical records and Serapis to see the complete listing of medication prescribed for each prisoner. With the additional provisions that medications be entered into Serapis from the ER, dialysis unit, specialty clinics areas, and upon discharge form DWH and C Unit, this complete listing will be available and maintained.
Define the Role for the Jackson Complex Regional Medical Director 1. member of Jackson Medical Complex Senior Leadership Team 2. oversight of CMS specialty consultation program 3. oversight of CMS contract employees 4. medical leadership for QI function, including audits and studies 5. oversight of Dialysis Program 6. oversight of C-Unit/DWH clinical complex 7. clinical liaison to pharmacy 8. establish and maintain a continuing education program at the Jackson
Complex Defendants have defined the role of the JMC Regional Medical Officer as above and believe that the role encompasses all the areas outlined by Dr. Cohen. However, the direct supervision of the CMS staff is the role of the CMS Associate Medical Director. This includes direct oversight of the CMS clinical staff working in C-Unit and DWH. Defendants have agreed with Dr. Cohen’s suggestion that there should be an
12

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1954 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 13 of 26
assistant to the CMS Associate Medical Director. The Defendants have instructed CMS to begin to recruit for that position. This will further enhance the direct supervision of the MSP. The JMC Medical Officer and the CMS Associate Medical Director work closely together to provide a comprehensive CQI oversight and educational program for staff in the Hadix facilities.
Obtain Autopsy Reports of all deaths By statute, the need for an autopsy in Michigan is the sole determination of the County Medical Examiner, the prisoner’s family, and in some cases may be requested by two or more registered voters in the county. It is not always possible to obtain an autopsy as this is not in the control of the Defendants. The Defendants will request an autopsy for all unexpected deaths. The Defendants are also pursuing other options to be able to obtain an autopsy in all cases. Assure that Specialty Care services are available to all prisoners, including those in Segregation. Specialty Care is available to all prisoners including those in segregation and/or quarantine. Defendants have initiated a program in segregation at JMF which provides that if custody staff reports that a prisoner has refused his specialty or offsite appointment, a nurse visits the patient to ensure that he actually did refuse. If the prisoner did refuse the appointment and continues to refuse his appointment, that prisoner will be required to sign a release (AMA) form. Defendants also intend to further modify this procedure so that a case manager nurse will inform prisoners that they have an upcoming specialty appointment, and also convey to the prisoner the importance of attending the appointment. If the prisoner indicates that he does not want the specialty service, the prisoner will be counseled by the case manger nurse on the importance of
13

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1954 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 14 of 26
the appointment. If the prisoner still intends to refuse his appointment, a release will be provided and the MSP will be informed by the case manager nurse that the prisoner plans to or did refuse the specialty appointment. A similar system will be put in place for the quarantine/segregation unit at RGC.
1. Obtain data from CMS as needed to assist in analysis of Specialty Care
Data is already available and Defendants will ensure that it is made available to the Chief Medical Officer to assist her/him in analyzing specialty services.
2. Maintain the current MDOC Specialty Care Computer System Defendants plan to maintain the current specialty care computer system and are now using it to track appointments at DWH and C-Unit as well. 3. Provide MSPs with weekly lists of the status of their outstanding
consults. The MSP in the ambulatory areas are provided the report on the status of their outstanding appointment every two weeks, and the CMS Associate Medical Director also reviews this list with the MSP every two weeks. As of October 1, 2005 the list has been provided to the Hadix facility ambulatory care MSP weekly, and the Defendants will continue the biweekly meetings between the CMS Associate Medical Director and the ambulatory area MSP. 4. Provide handwritten consultation forms to providers within twenty
four hours of consultation, if dictation is not available. Defendants agree to do this. 5. Require telephone contact by specialists to MSPs when urgent
medical information needs to be communicated. 14

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1954 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 15 of 26
Defendants will have CMS request this of all the specialists. Defendants shall ensure that there is a prompt review of all specialist reports (both hand-written and dictated) so that any urgency noted by the specialist can be acted upon immediately by the facility providers.
6. CMS should not “pend” consultation while awaiting dictated consults when the consultant has written or called the MSP with specific recommendations.
CMS will re-emphasize to the specialists the need to provide a comprehensive initial consultation report (a 409 report).
Develop an enhanced program of monitoring the clinical function of the Dialysis Program
1. Monthly meetings, hopefully becoming quarterly, should be held with Dr. Middlebrook, the Dialysis Administrator, JMF Leadership, designated MSP(s), the Jackson Complex Regional Medical Director, and CMS Deputy Medical Director.
2. The monthly evaluation form currently in use needs to be revised and enhanced.
3. Include structured interviews with Dialysis patients as part of the monthly dialysis monitoring form, and include Dialysis patients, where appropriate, at the monthly meetings.
Currently Defendants hold monthly meetings between the Health Unit Manger at JMF and the Dialysis Unit on-site supervisor regarding issues of the dialysis unit, including discussion of operational issues and the flow of information. These meetings will continue. Beginning in January, 2006 an additional clinical meeting has been and
15

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1954 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 16 of 26
will continue to be held at least every other month to monitor the clinical care delivered in the Dialysis unit. These meetings will include the CMS Associate Medical Director, the JMC Medical Officer, Dr. Middlebrook, and the dialysis patient’s primary provider.
Modifications to the monthly evaluation form (audit tool) currently used to audit the dialysis patient care will be considered by the CMS Medical Director and the MDOC Medical Director, with input from Dr. Middlebrook. Structured interviews with patients will be performed periodically as part of the ongoing Performance Improvement/Quality Assurance process.
The Health Unit Manger at JMF currently holds monthly meetings with representatives of the dialysis patients (similar to the Health Care Forum meeting held at JMF). During this meeting, issues of concern related specifically to the dialysis patients are discussed and solutions sought.
Assure Access to Care for All Patients in Segregation 1. Maintain continuity of MSP care with assigned patients. DEFENDANTS’ PLAN: Additional MSP staff will be added to JMF so that there will be a designated provider in segregation 5 days per week. The designated provider will be responsible for the JMF segregation population and will work in conjunction with the nurse case manager as defined in Defendants’ February, 2005 plan. The designated provider responsible for the patients in segregation may be periodically rotated in order to retain qualified MSPs, but a specific provider will be designated to care for the segregation population as opposed to the current system of assigning each JMF provider one day per week to segregation. 2. Maintain SERAPIS terminal in Segregation clinic
16

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1954 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 17 of 26
DEFENDANTS’ PLAN: There has been a Serapis terminal in segregation connected to a lap top computer available for use. The lack of its use by the MSP was a performance issue which has been addressed. In addition to the laptop, a desktop computer with Serapis has also been placed on the segregation unit. Both will remain there and be maintained.
3. With rare exceptions, all clinical encounters with patients in Segregation should occur confidentially, without correction staff present, while maintaining correctional staff visual observation.
Beginning December 1, 2005 custody staff has not routinely provided in-room supervision during medical encounters conducted in segregation. They will provide visual observation. The doors to the examination area will remain unlocked and open but not to the extent that conversations between the patient and the provider can easily be overheard. There will continue to be exceptions wherein it is determined that custody staff must be present during the health care encounter for the protection of the medical staff and the patient. If the MSP or other medical staff feel unsafe or uncomfortable performing an exam on any prisoner without custody staff present they may request that custody staff remain in the room and custody staff will do so. The final decision is one of safety and security and must continue to rest with custody staff.
4. Clinical encounters in Segregation should only take place in the designated clinic area, not in “cell-side.”
Defendants agree that clinical encounters should always be conducted in the designated health care areas and not cell side. However, if custody determines, based upon security needs, that a prisoner can not be brought out of the cell, (i.e., immediately after an altercation or during other times when the prisoner is disruptive) a preliminary
17

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1954 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 18 of 26
examination by nursing staff may need to be conducted cell-side to provide timely access to care. As soon as custody determines it is safe to do so, the prisoner will be taken to the health care area in segregation for a standard examination. Defendants agree that assessments should not be done cell side as a rule.
5. Assure that patients in Segregation have access to specialty care by having nurses verify refusals at the time of the refusal.
A process has been initiated at JMF wherein the case manager nurse informs the patient of his upcoming specialty appointment and informs him of the importance of the appointment to his care. An additional new process has been put in place in segregation in JMF. If a prisoner in segregation refuses to go to an offsite appointment the housing unit officer will call health care staff and inform them the prisoner is refusing the medical offsite appointment. The housing unit officer will also note on the detail and note in the log book that the prisoner is refusing the offsite appointment. The log entry will include the prisoner’s name, number and lock. Health care staff will discuss each refusal with the patient to ensure that he actually did refuse, and that he understands the need for the appointment. This will ensure that in the majority of cases of alleged prisoner refusals the nurse will have access to verify the refusal and counsel the patient at the time of the reported refusal. Health care staff will also note in the log book that they have concurred that the patient refused the appointment. The appointment will be rescheduled and if the patient continues to refuse, a medical release indicating that he is refusing the care will be obtained. A similar process was initiated at RGC in December 2005.
18

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1954 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 19 of 26
6. Identify the reasons for the current problem in obtaining DWH and CUnit beds for patients with chronic medical problems who should not be housed in Segregation
Any prisoner whose medical needs cannot be met in segregation can be placed in a community hospital as medical needs or bed space dictates. With Defendants’ plan for additional C-Unit and dedicated DWH beds there will be more beds available.
7. Identify other alternatives to permanent Segregation for HIV positive prisoners who are accused of sexual activity.
Defendant’s policy is based on State statute (MCL 791.267) which requires that prisoners who are HIV positive and knowingly engage in activity that could transmit the disease be housed separately from the general population to prevent such activity. Defendants are reviewing their past approach and considering the establishment of more select criteria for placement in segregation and a system for possible movement out of segregation at an appropriate time that may be consistent with the intent of the statute.
8. Expand the current bi-monthly review of chronic care patients to include all patients in Segregation, and include interviews whenever problems are identified in chart review.
The CMS Associate Medical Director has initiated a bi-monthly (every other week) door-to-door round of prisoners in segregation with the case manager nurse. Monthly, the CMS Associate Medical Director and the JMC Medical Officer audit half of the patients enrolled in Chronic Care Clinics. Therefore, all are audited every two months. Whenever problems are identified in this audit/case review, an interview with the patient will be conducted.
19

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1954 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 20 of 26
9. Establish a functioning program of daily MSP rounds for all prisoners in Segregation.
Defendants believe that the system described in the last section coupled with the existing daily nursing rounds and increased MSP presence in segregation (5 days per week) will provide for enhanced awareness of medical issues in segregation and is sufficient to meet the medical needs of this population. The case manager nurse assigned to segregation is present in the unit on a daily basis and a working relationship between the case management nurse and the designated segregation MSP will provide a mechanism for the MSP to timely be made aware of all medical issues and needs of patients in segregation.
10. Establish a monthly meeting with mental health staff to review medical problems of severely mentally ill patients housed in Segregation.
There currently are monthly meetings held between health care staff and mental health staff which address issues of mentally ill prisoners, including those in segregation.
11. Review care at RGC Segregation/Quarantine Unit and develop a plan to assure patients receive necessary medical care, including specialty consultations.
Nursing staff have initiated daily rounds of prisoners in the RGC Quarantine/Segregation. A case manager nurse will be assigned to this unit as is the case in JMF. That nurse will review all cases in which the prisoner has indicated or custody staff have indicted that a prisoner refused to go to a specialty appointment as outlined above. If it is indicated that the prisoner refused, the nurse will see him and determine if he actually refused and why he refused. The case manager nurse will also
20

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1954 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 21 of 26
ensure that the MSP is aware that the prisoner did not go to the specialty appointment. This provision was put into practice at RGC in December 2005.
Enhance staffing to meet the expanded clinical responsibilities of the Hadix facilities
1.. Increase staff at DWH 2. Increase staff at C-Unit 3. Hire staff for Acute Care/Infirmary Unit 4. Increase staff at JMF to cover new clinical responsibilities from the
Dialysis program 5. Increase staff at JMF to adequately serve medical needs of prisoners
in Segregation Defendants agree to expand the staff and have allocated two MSPs Monday through Friday at DWH. One new MSP has started and currently there are two full time MSPs covering the patients at DWH. The use of the two MSPs will be supplemented by onsite weekend coverage and holiday coverage to assure daily access to medical services. The compliment of staffing at C-Unit and DWH is increased to four full time equivalent positions. This provides for two full time FTEs for DWH, 0.75 FTE for C-Unit and .025 FTE for weekend and holiday coverage, and provides for relief for these positions. This is exclusive of the coverage provided in the ER. The staff at C-Unit has been increased to 0.75 FTE and additional staff will be added when the number of medical patients is expanded. According to the Defendant’s staffing plan for the Transitional/sub-acute beds, Defendants have determined that an additional MSP is needed and will be brought on staff.
21

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1954 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 22 of 26
Defendants agree to increase staffing at JMF to 5 MSPs (four physicians and one mid-level). The additional FTE of MSP time at JMF will enhance both the coverage for the dialysis patients and those in segregation. The Defendants also anticipated changes in terms of the physician coverage and distribution of the dialysis patients.
AMENDMENTS TO THE PLAN AS REQUIRED BY THE COURT ORDER OF JANUARY 12, 2006.
2.a. Defendants must include within its Serapis computerized medical record system (or equivalent system) laboratory and Pharmacy records for prisoners at Dwayne Waters Hospital and C Unit.
The Defendants will comply with this requirement and will incorporate these elements into the Serapis applications at Duane Waters Hospital and C Unit.
2b. Complex sequential diagnostic evaluations shall be scheduled simultaneously, when appropriate, to minimize delay in the treatment of serious medical problems.
The Defendants will request that CMS instruct the utilization review staff to authorize and schedule these diagnostic appointments simultaneously, when ever appropriate and possible. The Defendants will also instruct the MDOC staff who schedule appointments to schedule these diagnostic appointments simultaneously, as soon as the authorizations are received.
2b. Defendants will submit four kinds of monthly reports (specialty care workload report, specialty care patient report, pending
22

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1954 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 23 of 26
consultations, and non occurring scheduled clinical appointments, listed by patient identifier).
The Defendants will submit each of the four monthly reports to the Court, medical monitor, and Plaintiffs’ counsel, beginning with the first report submitted on February 10, 2006. The reports will contain the following information for all specialty care appointments and specialty diagnostic procedures (CT scans, MRIs, EMGs, Stress Tests, Echocardiograms, etc), including those specialty clinics a held at Duane Waters Hospital and those appointments scheduled off-site : 2b.1 Specialty Care Work Load Report a. List of all specialty clinics b. The number of patients seen in each clinic during the month c. The number of patients scheduled to be seen who not seen (cancellations) were d. The number of patients with pending consultations (those patients with authorized appointments who are waiting to be seen in that specialty clinic) e. The number of pending consultations which are past their requested completion date (the number of patients who have not been seen by the specialist within the time frame specified by the practitioner requesting the specialty consultation) f. Whether the clinics were held at DWH or off-site.
2.b.2 Specialty Care Patients Seen This monthly report will provide a listing all the patients housed in a
Hadix facility who has received specialty care during the month. The report will be organized by clinic or appointment type when ever possible. The following information will be reported for each patient appointment: a. Name b. MDOC number c. Initial or follow up consultation (appointment)
23

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1954 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 24 of 26
d. Diagnosis or reason for the consultation (appointment) e. MDOC facility housing the patient f. Date the consultation (appointment) was requested g. Number of days requested by the practitioner h. Date consult (appointment) occurred i. Number of days elapsed if greater than the days requested. (This information will be provided in bold print.)
2.b. 3 Pending Consultation Report This report will include all prisoners in a Hadix facility who has
pending consults (is awaiting a specialty/off-site appointment), organized by specialty clinic or appointment type and will include the following information: a. Name b. MDOC number c. Initial or follow up consultation (appointment) d. Diagnosis or reason for the consultation (appointment) e. MDOC facility housing the patient f. Date the consultation (appointment) was requested g. Number of days requested by the practitioner h. Date consult (appointment) occurred i. Number of days elapsed if greater than the days requested. (This information will be provided in bold print.)
2.b. 4. Non-Occurring Appointments/Patient Data This report will list all scheduled clinic or off-site appointments
which did not occur for each prisoner housed in a Hadix facility and include the following information: a. Name b. MDOC number
24

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1954 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 25 of 26
c. MDOC facility housing the patient d. Location of the clinic/ appointment – DWH or off-site e. Reason for failure of scheduled appointment to occur
i. Prisoner refusal ii. Physician/Medical Facility cancellation iii. Physician failure to attend iv. MDOC transportation not available v. MDOC cancellation of appointment ( patient ate, equipment failure etc.)
2.c 2.d Defendants shall employ a nephrologists or a board certified internist to provide additional hours of service at the Dialysis unit. The hours of service of such provider or providers ( together with such hours as are actually performed by Dr. Middlebrook) shall not be less than the regular work week of a full-time medical service provider for the facility. Dr. Middlebrook, or another nephrologist, will be responsible for the clinical care at the Dialysis Unit, and will supervise any additional non-nephrologists physician staff. Those hours of service shall be performed primarily at the JMF dialysis unit.
The Defendant agrees to do this and have requested that its agent, CMS, instruct Dr. Middlebrook to begin the recruitment process for a nephrologist or board certified internist for the dialysis Unit at JMF.
2 e. Defendants shall insure that all prisoners who are admitted to segregation in RGC and JMF will have their medical records reviewed by the assigned physician within one week of their placement in segregation. The physician assigned to the segregation unit at JMF will make joint rounds with the CMS Associate Medical Director on a monthly basis. The physician assigned to
25

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 1954 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 26 of 26

care for patients in the segregation/quarantine unit at RGC will make rounds once

a month with the Case Manager assigned to that unit.

The Defendants agree to implement this process. Once a

designated physician has been assigned to the segregation unit at JMF h/she will make

rounds once per month with the CMS Associate Medical Director. A physician will be

designated to make rounds once per month in the special management housing unit

(segregation/ quarantine) at RGC with the Case Manager Nurse.

Respectfully submitted,

Michael A. Cox Attorney General

Date: January 23, 2006

s/A. Peter Govorchin (P31161) Attorney for Defendants

Givorchin/Hadix/1992006833A/Pleadings-APG/Medical/Health Care Plan.012306

26

 
 Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

EVERETT HADIX, et. al.,

Plaintiffs,

No. 4:92-CV-110

v.

HONORABLE RICHARD ENSLEN

PERRY M. JOHNSON, et. al.,

Defendants.
Patricia Streeter (P30022) Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (734) 222-0088

/
Michael Barnhart (P10467) Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (734) 213-3703

Elizabeth Alexander

A. Peter Govorchin (P31161)

Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs

Leo H. Friedman (P26319)

The National Prison Project

Counsel for Defendants

915 15th Street, NW, 7th Floor

Michigan Department of Attorney General

Washington, DC 20005

Corrections Division

(202) 393-4930

PO Box 30217

Lansing, MI 48909

(517) 335-7021

__________________________________________________________________________

DEFENDANTS’ HEALTH CARE PLAN REGARDING MENTAL HEALTH ACTIVITIES SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO THE COURT’S NOVEMBER 13, 2006 ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION A draft copy of this Plan along with the attachments were provided to Plaintiffs’ counsel and Associate Monitor Cohen on the morning of Thursday, December 21, 2006 at a meeting arranged by Dr. Cohen to discuss the Defendants’ response to the Court’s November 13, 2006 Order and Preliminary Injunction (Order). Defendants’ counsel solicited comments from Plaintiffs’ counsel and/or Dr. Cohen up through the end of Wednesday, December 27, 2006. While this was admittedly not a long period of time and did include the Christmas holiday, Defendants’ counsel has not received any comments from Plaintiffs’ counsel or Associate

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 2 of 5
Monitor Cohen. This version of the Defendants’ Plan is slightly expanded to include mention of the PSU rounds in administrative segregation and the Operating Procedure prohibiting the use of in-cell mechanical restraints at JMF administrative segregation, among other locations.
To meet the requirements of the Order the Defendants will cause to be added key staff positions and change staffing requirements to assure that routine, urgent and emergent mental health needs of prisoners in Southern Michigan Correctional Facility (JMF), Parnall Correctional Facility (SMT), and Egeler Reception and Guidance Center (RGC) are addressed, and are addressed in a timely manner. Below is a presentation of existing PSU services and the increases that will be made by facility:
The psychologist coverage for JMF, SMT and RGC will be increased by adding a fulllicensed Psychologist position which will:
1) Directly supervise the full-licensed psychologist supervisors at JMF, SMT, RGC; 2) Perform clinical case review (as a peer review function) of all psychologists at
JMF, RGC, and SMT; 3 cases per month per psychologist will undergo review; and 3) Coordinate the interface between the Psychological Services Unit (PSU) in the Department of Corrections, mental health services provided by the Department of Community Health (DCH) Corrections Mental Health Program (CMHP), and the medical services provided by the Department of Corrections; coordination shall be through monthly meetings between PSU, CMHP, and DOC Medical Services to discuss operational responsiveness of the system to the mental health needs of prisoners toward the production of improved outcomes. Full-licensed Psychologists will be provided to directly supervisor all psychologists providing services at JMF and at SMT. RGC currently has a full-licensed psychologist directly
2

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 3 of 5
supervising all staff. Each full-licensed psychologist supervisor will be required to meet monthly with their staff and each staff psychologist will be required to provide a case list summarization of any patients identified throughout the month (in weekly multidisciplinary case management meetings) as having special needs. (See Attachment F for the description of the case management protocol.) Treatment plans will be reviewed as will all emergency interventions provided during the month. The supervisor led discussion will focus on appropriateness of intervention, treatment, treatment plans, and the effectiveness of interdisciplinary communication. The purpose of the review and case management activities will be to improve patient outcomes and the activity described will be incorporated into the quality management system of the Department. To assure the full functioning of psychological services in the presence of the added daily rounds, staff turn-over, and temporary vacancies, two (2) additional staff psychologists will be added.
Currently six (5) full-time psychiatrist positions are dedicated to providing psychiatric care to the prisoners in the Hadix facilities. JMF and SMT each have one (1) dedicated psychiatrist. RGC has three (3) dedicated psychiatrists. Two (2) additional psychiatrist positions will be added to:
1) Assure adequate staffing during temporary absences (vacation and sick time); 2) To account assure coverage while recruiting for any vacancies; and 3) To provide on-call access to a psychiatrist after normal working hours week days,
on weekends, and on holidays. The on-call psychiatric coverage system will be implemented such that a psychiatrist will be available to come on-site to DWHC within an hour of a call to evaluate and/or treat any prisoner undergoing a psychiatric crisis. Two beds in DWHC will be earmarked for such cases. Detail of the on-call psychiatric coverage system can be found in the draft procedure attached as
3

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 4 of 5
Exhibit A to this Plan. Detail of the procedure to assure psychiatric coverage in the event of annual or sick leave is attached in Exhibit B.
Daily psychologist rounds have been implemented in the segregation unit at (JMF) and in the Special Management Housing Unit (SMHU) at RGC (see Attachments D and E, which are a month’s worth of daily reports from rounds for JMF administrative segregation and RGC SMHU, respectively). A psychologist must round each day, 7 days per week, 365 days per year. All supervisory staff has been instructed in responsibilities and direct care staff has been given written and verbal instructions to assure completion of rounds that are characterized by timeliness and thoroughness. These instructions are presented in Exhibit C, Michigan Department of Corrections PSU Staff Rounds Instructions for JMF and RGC. Rounds are documented and the quality of the rounds is being monitored. Several referrals for mental health follow-up and medical follow-up have resulted from this process.
Weekly meetings have been established for the purpose of the coordination of medical and mental health staff to assure exchange of information on all segregation prisoners and prisoners identified as having potential for increased risk.
Separately, as explained in Defendants’ Motion to Reschedule the January 24-26, 2007 Hearing to a New Date in Late April 2007, the MDOC’s Deputy Director for Correctional Facilities Administration issued a memorandum effective December 14, 2006 prohibiting the placement of prisoners prescribed psychotropic medication(s) to address mental health conditions from being placed in JMF’s administrative segregation unit. As at least a partial result of this prohibition, the number of prisoners in JMF’s administrative segregation unit carried on the Outpatient Mental Health Team case load has dropped from approximately 14 at any given time to 3 or less. Also attached is Exhibit G entitled, OP-CFA3-04.05.112 effective December 22, 2006 which formally carries out the Court-ordered prohibition against using in-
4

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 5 of 5 cell mechanical restraints, or at least that is how the Defendants have chosen to ensure that they not act in contempt of the Court’s Order prohibiting the use of “punitive” mechanical in-cell restraints.
Respectfully submitted, Michael A. Cox Attorney General s/A. Peter Govorchin (P31161) Attorney for Defendants Dated: December 28, 2006
Govorchin/Hadix/1992006833A/Pleadings-APG/Medical/Health Care Plan (Mental)-Update.122806
5

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT A
DRAFT PROCEDURE FOR JACKSON MEDICAL COMPLEX OUTPATIENT MENTAL HEALTH TEAM (OPT) PSYCHIATRIC ON-CALL COVERAGE

OBJECTIVE:

To establish a procedure to ensure that there is DCH corrections mental health program (CMHP) psychiatric on-call coverage for Hadix facilities when psychiatric services are required for emergencies after hours or on weekends or paid holidays.

INFORMATION:

OPT psychiatrists provide psychiatric coverage and back-up during normal business days (Monday through Friday, excluding holidays) for the following prisons:

Southern Michigan Correctional Facility (JMF)

Egeler Reception & Guidance Center (RGC; including parttime coverage of Duane Waters Health Center, or DWH)

Parnall Correctional Facility (SMT)

When emergent psychiatric services or interventions are required for prisoners from Hadix facilities after hours or on weekends or paid holidays, there must be an effective process in place for oncall OPT psychiatric MSP to be contacted via pager and consulted with to determine the best course of action, treatment disposition, or management precautions.

On-call psychiatric coverage will be coordinated through the Duane Waters Health Center (DWH) Emergency Room, (517) 780-5910 or 5911.

WHO

DOES WHAT

Hadix Facility Staff 1. After hours or on weekends or paid holidays, identifies prisoner who is seriously mentally ill, a danger to self or others, or manifesting a mental health emergency and cannot be safely or effectively managed at the current Hadix facility location via the provisions of MDOC PD 04.05.112 Managing Disruptive Prisoners until CMHP staff are once again on duty on the next business day.

Page 1 of 3

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 2 of 3 EXHIBIT A

DWH ER Staff MSP or Nurse

2. Arranges for secure transfer of the identified prisoner to the DWH Emergency Room (ER) for health care and mental health assessment and treatment disposition.
3. Receives transferred Hadix facility prisoner, assesses prisoner’s health status, and delivers any needed health care interventions.
4. Evaluates prisoner’s behavior and attempts to defuse the situation. Determines that prisoner appears to be seriously mentally ill, a danger to self or others, or manifesting a mental health emergency which requires the consultation and probable intervention of a CMHP on-call psychiatrist.
5. Refers to the CMHP on-call psychiatrist schedule and identifies the appropriate on-call psychiatrist.
6. Contacts the on-call psychiatrist via pager and awaits the call back from the psychiatrist.

WHO

DOES WHAT

7. Observes and manages the prisoner in secure and safe manner pending the return call from the on-call psychiatrist.

8. Initiates seclusion and/or restraints and supervises the placement of prisoner in seclusion and/or restraints.

On-Call Psychiatrist 9. Receives the page from the DWH ER staff and calls the ER within thirty (30) minutes.

DWH ER Staff

10. Describes for the psychiatrist the prisoner’s status and presenting symptoms to help the psychiatrist determine what actions, treatment, or management precautions must be taken.

On-Call Psychiatrist 11. Based on prisoner’s described status and presenting symptoms, (a) orders the medication, management or treatment interventions deemed necessary to effectively treat and/or manage the prisoner. If seclusion and/or restraint is needed, gives verbal orders to the RN/MSP approving or authorizing. Note: Within one hour of authorizing the use of seclusion and/or restraints, the psychiatrist must evaluate the prisoner on site face-

Page 2 of 3

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT A

DWH ER or Other DWH Staff

to-face.
12. Implements or carries out all on-call psychiatrist orders while prisoner is in ER or if admitted to DWH.

On-Call Psychiatrist 13. If necessary, completes and documents a comprehensive psychiatric examination to verify whether the prisoner is seriously mentally ill and meets CMHP admission criteria.
14. Documents all orders for medication, seclusion, restraints, or any other treatment or management interventions deemed necessary for the prisoner.
15. If necessary, recommends admission to a higher level of CMHP care (e.g., crisis stabilization program, inpatient services, or residential treatment program).

CMHP OPT Staff

16. If prisoner is admitted to CMHP treatment, takes responsibility for the mental health treatment and monitoring of the prisoner during normal business days.

Central Region CMHP 17. Maintains and disseminates an on-call psychiatrist

coverage schedule Director’s Office

including the names and pager numbers

of the on-call psychiatrists and

how to contact

them.

Page 3 of 3

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT B

DRAFT PROCEDURE FOR JACKSON MEDICAL COMPLEX OUTPATIENT MENTAL HEALTH TEAM (OPT) PSYCHIATRIC COVERAGE BACK-UP

OBJECTIVE: INFORMATION:
WHO Psychiatrist Supervisor

To establish a procedure to ensure that there is adequate back-up for DCH outpatient mental health team (OPT) psychiatric coverage in Jackson Medical Complex when the OPT psychiatrist assigned to a given OPT facility is off on annual or sick leave.
Jackson Medical Complex (JMC) OPT psychiatric medical service providers (MSPs) provide psychiatric coverage during normal business days (Monday through Friday, excluding holidays) for the following prisons:
Southern Michigan Correctional Facility (JMF);
Egeler Reception & Guidance Center (RGC; including part-time coverage of Duane Waters Health Center, or DWH );
G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility (JCF); and
Parnall Correctional Facility (SMT).
[See Appendix 1.]
In the event that one (or more) of the assigned OPT psychiatrists is off work due to annual leave, sick leave, medical leave or other reason, OPT supervisors need to know which JMC OPT psychiatric MSPs are on duty and available to provide psychiatric back-up as needed and how to contact them.
If an OPT psychiatrist is to be off more than two weeks, attempts will be made to procure a contractual psychiatric MSP.
While the back-up psychiatric MSPs have their own scheduled (and unscheduled) workloads on all business days, it is vital for OPT supervisors to be able to identify and enlist the aid of a back-up psychiatric MSP when needed to handle urgent and emergent cases which must be addressed either face to face or via telemedicine and documented in a timely way.
DOES WHAT
1. Informs immediate supervisor of unforeseen absence from work (sick leave or medical leave) or gets supervisor’s prior approval for annual leave.
2. Arranges for back-up psychiatric MSPcoverage by contacting the supervisor of another JMC OPT as per Appendix 1 to secure the

Page 1 of 4

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 2 of 4
EXHIBIT B

help of the first (or, if necessary, the second) back-up psychiatric MSP. [NOTE: If neither the first or second back-up psychiatric MSP are available or on duty, go to Step #8.]

3. Reviews the number of urgent and emergent cases requiring evaluation/consultation and informs the supervisor of the first or second back up psychiatric MSP how many clinical contacts will need to be handled by the back-up psychiatric MSP.

4. Coordinates with the supervisor of the first or second back up psychiatric MSP the time, place, and logistics of the needed backup services.

WHO

DOES WHAT

Supervisor of Back-Up back-up services as Psychiatric MSP

5. Assigns an on-duty psychiatric MSP to deliver requested coordinated and agreed on with the requesting supervisor.

6. Directs on-duty OPT psychiatric MSPto provide the requested back-up psychiatric services.

Back-Up Psychiatric 7. MSP

Works and coordinates with the OPT supervisor who requested psychiatric MSP back-up to deliver and document the needed services.

Supervisor

8. If the second back-up psychiatric MSPs are found to be unavailable, handles emergent referrals via telemedicine evaluations or consults with psychiatric MSPs from CMHP Inpatient Services at HVM in Ypsilanti or their on-call psychiatrists. [See Appendix 1.] Note: In the event of disagreement or uncertainty as to who will be providing the back up services, the supervisor is to contact the Regional Director for resolution.

Page 2 of 4

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 3 of 4
EXHIBIT B
JACKSON MEDICAL COMPLEX OUTPATIENT MENTAL HEALTH TEAM (OPT) PSYCHIATRIC COVERAGE AND BACK-UP
SOUTHERN MICHIGAN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY (JMF) Psychiatrist, Michaela Weller, M.D.
• First back-up: One of the Psychiatric MSPs from RGC. • Second back-up: Psychiatric MSP from JCF or SMT.
EGELER RECEPTION & GUIDANCE CENTER (RGC)* Psychiatrist, T. Vinh Thai, M.D. Psychiatrist, Aleksandra Wilanowski, M.D. Psychiatrist, Vacant
• First back-up: One of the other RGC OPT psychiatric MSPs. • Second back-up: Psychiatric MSP from JMF. [*Includes limited, part-time consultation and monitoring of OPT patients at Duane Waters Health Center.]
G. ROBERT COTTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY (JCF) PARNALL CORRECTIONAL FACILITY (SMT) Psychiatrist, Numa Cabrera, M.D. (SMT)
• First back-up: Psychiatric MSP from JCF. • Second back-up: One of the Psychiatric MSPs from RGC. Psychiatrist, Vacant (JCF) • First back-up: Psychiatric MSP from SMT. • Second back-up: One of the Psychiatric MSPs from RGC.
NOTE: If second back-ups are unavailable, urgent and emergent referrals must be handled via telemedicine evaluations or consults with psychiatric MSPs from CMHP Inpatient Services at HVM in Ypsilanti or their on-call psychiatrists. Inpatient Services is located at 3201 Bemis Road, Ypsilanti, MI 48197. The Acting Program Director for Inpatient Services is Mary Parson, ACSW, LMSW, Parsonmm@michigan.gov, at (734) 572-9957. Her Secretary, Mariann Musgrave, musgrama@michigan.gov, is at (734) 434-4542. The Admission Telephone Line is (734) 4349435. The Inpatient Admission/Discharge Coordinator is Jan Henry, henryjm1@michigan.gov,
Page 3 of 4

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT B at (734) 434-5186. All admission referrals are to be faxed to: (734) 434-8813 or e-mailed to: Patelka@michigan.gov. The psychiatrist overseeing Admissions is Kirtida Patel, M.D., Patelka@michigan.gov, at (734) 434-2708 or (734) 572-9935.
Page 4 of 4

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 1 of 14 EXHIBIT C
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PSU STAFF ROUNDS – JMF AND RGC CONTENTS
I. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR SEGREGATION ROUNDS II. WHAT TO DO DURING SEGREGATION ROUNDS III. WEEKEND/HOLIDAY PSU ROUNDING IV. SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR ROUNDS AT JMF V. SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR ROUNDS AT RGC VI. MANAGING REFERRALS ______________________________________________________________________ I. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR SEGREGATION ROUNDS
The purpose of these instructions is to outline the process and expectations for the Psychological Services Unit (PSU) rounds in segregation at the Southern Michigan Corrections Facility (JMF) and the Charles Egeler Reception and Guidance Center (RGC).
PSU staff must conduct daily rounds (every day/seven days a week) in the segregation units at JMF and the Special Management Housing Unit (SMHU) at RGC and report by email on a daily basis as soon after the round as possible. The following information must be included in the daily report in the format outlined below. There must be one email report per facility, each day. Weekend and holiday rounds must also be reported separately for each facility.
Subject: (XX/XX/06) RGC PSU SHMU Rounds Subject: (XX/XX/06) JMF PSU Segregation Rounds
1. Date and Facility (JMF or RGC) 2. Name and Title of person making the rounds
Page 1 of 14

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 2 of 14 EXHIBIT C
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PSU STAFF ROUNDS – JMF AND RGC 3. Sign in Time (time rounds began) 4. Sign Out time (time rounds concluded) 5. Total number of prisoners in segregation 6. Total number of prisoners on OPT caseload in segregation (this does not
need to be reported on the weekend/holidays reports) 7. Number of patients out of cell and reason 8. Total number of patients seen
List, by name, prisoner number, and type if referral, all Mental Health Referrals, Mental Health Management Plans, or Medical Referrals that were done as a result of the round.
These reports must be emailed daily by 3:00 PM to the “designated report group” (this group concurrently consists of Barbara Hladki, Hampton Walker, Debbie Roth, and Marianne Sears.
II. WHAT TO DO DURING SEGREGATION ROUNDS
Segregation has always been identified as a “high risk” situation for prisoners housed in such units. It is important that all clinicians conduct the “Segregation Round” in a consistent fashion regardless of what facility might be involved. Below are the steps and the procedures that all PSU staff will follow when conducting a segregation round.
The psychologist will: A. Check with the segregation unit officers upon entering and ask if there are any unusual behaviors/gestures/conditions which they have noticed, or if there are any prisoners about whom they have special concerns; B. Sign the segregation unit log book upon entering the unit; C. Follow up with any prisoner identified by the Segregation Unit Officer as needing special attention;
Page 2 of 14

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 3 of 14 EXHIBIT C
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PSU STAFF ROUNDS – JMF AND RGC D. Physically walk thru the entire unit; E. Identify himself/herself to the prisoner and attempt to engage him/her in brief
conversation; F. Check for signs of potential decompensation such as:
a. Confusion, lack of verbal interaction, slow mentation, a highly agitated state, inappropriate affect, hallucinations/delusions, speech disturbance or speaking nonsense;
b. Poor hygiene, sleeping on the floor (not sleeping on the beds), sleeping under their mattress on the floor, mattress or sheets torn up, walking around naked, sitting on their beds rocking back and forth, talking to themselves loudly;
c. Unusual or chaotic cell conditions such as a filthy cell, food and/or feces smeared or thrown around the cell or on the walls, papers strewn every where;
d. Dangerous looking items that may have been broken such as TV’s, radio’s;
e. Unusual odors or smells coming from the cells; f. Physical concerns such as readily visible cuts, scratches, burns,
emaciated appearance;
Evidence of any of the signs of potential decompensation listed above, or any other curious findings or behaviors, warrant a brief assessment as to what may be occurring with the prisoner, including a mental status exam to determine if the prisoner is experiencing any significant stress. If the prisoner is experiencing some significant distress, the clinician must pursue a thorough evaluation including a review of the prisoner’s health record.
If there is a mental health issue, the psychologist will address those within the scope of the PSU and make a referral to Out Patient Mental Health Team (OPT) as necessary.
Page 3 of 14

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 4 of 14 EXHIBIT C
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PSU STAFF ROUNDS – JMF AND RGC The treatment and/or referral must be documented in Serapis. The psychologist must follow up to be sure that OPT has evaluated the inmate and the outcome is sufficient to address the problem. If the prisoner is already on the OPT the psychologist must consult with OPT and advise the OPT case manager of the prisoner’s concerns and follow up. If it is an emergent situation, then the psychologist must place the prisoner on appropriate restrictions and immediately contact OPT and advise them of the prisoner’s status.
When a segregated prisoner requires an evaluation of any kind (suicide, mental illness, mental retardation, personality disorder, parole board evaluation, etc), the psychologist performing the evaluation must remove the prisoner from his cell and conduct the evaluation at a location that will provide privacy from other prisoners and staff.
PSU staff must not only look for mental and emotional distress, but must also immediately report any signs that a prisoner appears to have an emergent medical need. The psychologist must notify health care staff (including the ER at DWH if necessary) and custody staff immediately of the problem. The psychologist must then document this information into Serapis.
If, while making these rounds, the psychologist finds that a prisoner has a medical issue that is not of an urgent nature, the psychologist should instruct the prisoner to notify nursing during nursing staff’s next round. At JMF, the psychologist must document the medical issue in the Segregation Healthcare Log Book so that when nursing staff at JMF complete their next round, they will be alerted by the Log Book that there is an issue which needs to be addressed. In RGC, the psychologist must inform the RGC nursing staff, either in person or by telephone. If there are questionable medical cases or someone is refusing treatment, the psychologist must notify the JMC Medical Director, Dr. Savage. The psychologist must then follow up with that prisoner during the next round to be sure that his issue has been addressed.
Page 4 of 14

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 5 of 14 EXHIBIT C
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PSU STAFF ROUNDS – JMF AND RGC
Upon completion of the rounds the psychologist must inform custody staff that rounds are complete, make them aware of any prisoners causing concern, and document those concerns in the Segregation Healthcare Logbook and on the Special Housing Unit Record.
A Serapis note is not mandatory for each contact made during rounding. If clinical contacts, observations, or other referrals are necessary, a Serapis note must be written.
III. WEEKEND /HOLIDAY PSU ROUNDING
The Psychological Services Unit (PSU) is responsible for providing first responses to all requests for mental health services by facility staff or by prisoners themselves. This responsibility extends to the provision of emergency services coverage during weekends and on legal holidays. These assignments are filled by PSU staff on a rotating basis in accordance with the emergency services staff roster.
All PSU line professional staff assigned to the Jackson Medical Complex rotates the emergency services assignment. Consequently, the emergency services rotation list will vary from week to week, and the emergency services rotation list will be updated weekly to reflect any changes.
The emergency services assignment is normally from 8:00 a.m. until 12:00 noon on weekends and holidays. The rounding requirement may necessitate additional hours depending upon the other emergencies which need to be addressed. Assigned staff must:
a) Report to the Duane Waters Health Center (DWH) Emergency Room by 8:00 a.m. and pick up the pager;
b) Advise the Emergency Room supervisor that they are on site;
Page 5 of 14

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 6 of 14 EXHIBIT C
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PSU STAFF ROUNDS – JMF AND RGC c) Tell the Emergency Room supervisor where he/she may be reached by
telephone during the shift; and inquire whether any calls have been made to the Emergency Room staff requesting the need for emergency psychological services; and d) Check his/her telephone messaging system and e-mail for any messages regarding prisoners needing to be evaluated. In the event of multiple emergency calls, the psychologist must use clinical judgment and respond in order of clinical urgency. All calls to PSU will be responded to and the referral source will be advised as to what the plans and intentions are in response to the referral.
PSU staff may request that prisoners be escorted to the Emergency Room for evaluation. However, clinicians may provide on-site evaluations at the prisoner’s facility, if appropriate. These generally should be conducted outside the prisoner’s cell. Wherever an evaluation is completed, the process must be identical to an evaluation completed during the normal work week.
At the end of the Emergency services shift, staff returns the pager to the DWH Emergency Room. It is never acceptable to leave the pager in someone’s mail box, desk drawer, or at any information desk. The pager should always be returned to the DWH Emergency Room.
IV. SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR ROUNDS AT JMF
Segregation at JMF is located in pods 6C, 6D, and 6E. The specific instructions for Rounding are as follows:
1. Use OMNI to go to OCMS facility reports, click the "occupied locks" folder, and click on the drop down menu for housing unit 6C, 6D, and 6E at JMF. Retrieve
Page 6 of 14

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 7 of 14 EXHIBIT C
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PSU STAFF ROUNDS – JMF AND RGC each of these to compile the census of the three units at JMF as of that day. Print these out, and bring them to JMF. Also, take a green pen to sign in and out.
2. Pick up a PPD and a pass key at the JMF arsenal or control center. There will be a special set of keys designated for the ER Weekend/holiday staff. The pass key allows entrance into the segregation health care area so that entries may be made into the segregation health care log book as described above.
3. Walk through the PSU area at JMF and review a blue notebook labeled “Ad Seg Rounding Log". This notebook contains copies of previous reports which can be used as models to communicate your findings.
4. Walk into Temporary Segregation (C-Pod) and sign in the unit log book, using a green pen, indicating that you are beginning rounds. Check with the officers to see if there are any prisoners about whom they have concerns. Make rounds as described above in the “What To Do During Rounds” section. If you should have to leave the unit before completing the rounds, indicate this in the unit logbook. Then, resume the round again when you return. Keep track of when you begin and finish rounds as this information needs to be communicated via email at the end.
5. Make verbal contact with each prisoner in the cell using the printed census from OMNI as described in #1 above. Wake prisoners up to engage with them. Sign your name clearly to the "comments" section of the Special Housing Unit Record. This record is next to every single cell door in all three areas of Administrative Segregation.
6. Keep track of the prisoners seen, those that may be out to medical, visits, court, etc. Unless a prisoner is off site, every attempt should be made to speak to him. A Serapis note does not need to be completed on these contacts. If clinical
Page 7 of 14

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 8 of 14 EXHIBIT C
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PSU STAFF ROUNDS – JMF AND RGC contacts, observations, or other referrals are necessary, a Serapis note should be written.
7. If there is a mental health concern, take the appropriate action including evaluation, referral, or treatment as the situation requires. Request the Officer escort the prisoner to the health care room in the cellblock for an assessment.
If the prisoner’s status requires immediate intervention, institute procedures to safely manage the prisoner until he is assessed and treated, or transferred.
Advise the PSU clerical staff, Chief Psychologist, and Lead Worker Psychologist of any evaluation performed and the disposition of the referral. This may be done by telephone or e-mail and will provide back-up to the notifications required in the unit log book and in the Special Housing Unit Record.
8. Inform the officer of any findings or specific recommendations on any prisoner about whom you have a concern and describe to the officer any actions that are to be taken. Indicate this in the unit logbook.
9. Log in the book at the Officer’s Desk that rounds were completed, the number of prisoners observed during rounds, and the time rounds were completed. Sign the log book when you leave the unit with a legible signature and provider number.
10. Email the report to the designated report group described above (Hampton Walker, Barbara Hladki, Debbie Roth and Marianne Sears) before 3:00 p.m. Also send a copy to the PSU Lead Worker at JMF, David Arends, so it can be added to the JMF Ad Seg Rounding Log book.
V. SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR ROUNDS AT RGC
Page 8 of 14

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 9 of 14 EXHIBIT C
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PSU STAFF ROUNDS – JMF AND RGC
At the Reception and Guidance Center (RGC), the Special Management Housing Unit (SMHU) is currently located in One Block south on base level. The specific instructions for Rounding are as follows:
1. Retrieve the email sent to you from the PSU secretary, which contains the current SMHU census list and relevant information about each prisoner’s status. The PSU secretary will send this list to the next day’s duty psychologist via email. This will also be emailed to the psychologist covering the weekend and holidays. The psychologist will need to access this email before the end of the previous shift or prior to commencing rounds. Another copy will be placed in the Egeler front office mailroom. The RGC emergency duty coverage psychologist for the day will normally be the person completing rounds on week days and he/she will usually complete rounds between 0800 and 0900 daily. .
2. Sign the log book at the Officer’s Desk at One Block upon entering the area indicating, at minimum, the time, his or her name, provider number, and presence on the unit.
3. Ask the officer if they are aware of any prisoners who might be having difficulties. The psychologist may ask an officer to walk through rounds with the psychologist or he/she may complete rounds on his/her own.
4. Make verbal contact with each prisoner in the cells. Use the SMHU roster and go cell to cell trying to engage each and every prisoner. Wake prisoners up to engage with them.
Page 9 of 14

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 10 of 14 EXHIBIT C
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PSU STAFF ROUNDS – JMF AND RGC 5. Keep track of the prisoners seen, those that may be out to medical, visits, court,
etc. Unless a prisoner is off site, every attempt should be made to speak to him.
A Serapis note is not mandatory for each contact made during rounding. If clinical contacts, observations, or other referrals are necessary, a Serapis note must be written.
6. If there is a mental health concern, take the appropriate action including evaluation, referral, or treatment, as the situation requires.
If the prisoner’s status requires immediate intervention, institute procedures to safely manage the prisoner until he is assessed and treated, or transferred.
7. Initial each prisoner’s door card, indicate in red ink.
8. Inform the officer of any findings or specific recommendations, any prisoner about whom you have a concern and what actions are to be taken. Indicate this in the Special Housing Management Unit logbook and in the Special Housing Unit Record.
9. Log in the book at the Officer’s Desk that SMHU rounds were completed, the number of prisoners observed during rounds, and the time rounds were completed. Sign the log book when you leave the unit with a legible signature and provider number.
10. Email a report to the designated report group and copy the RGC Chief Psychologist, Dr. Diane Gartland. The RGC PSU QMHP will download this information and attach it to the SHMU list originally provided and put it in the binder in the data processing area.
Page 10 of 14

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 11 of 14 EXHIBIT C
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PSU STAFF ROUNDS – JMF AND RGC VI. MANAGING REFERRALS
Wherever one completes an evaluation, the clinician makes a determination as to what action is needed. The clinician may find:
1. The prisoner is not experiencing significant psychological distress. This is noted in the unit log book and the contact is documented in the Serapis medical record.
2. The presenting problems can be addressed through the development of a Management Plan, supportive counseling, or periodic follow-up. This is communicated to the facility PSU and the contact documented in the Serapis medical record.
3. The prisoner’s psychological problems are severe enough to warrant placing him in an observation cell with restrictions specified by a Management Plan. This is communicated to the facility PSU and the contact documented in the medical record.
Note: The Management Plan is communicated on form CHJ-177 and should be an individualized plan detailing the specialized management needs of the prisoner referred. Instructions for completion of this plan are on the back of the CHJ-177 packet and are self-explanatory. The Management Plan’s use is not restricted to self-injurious or suicidal prisoners and may be used to communicate any specialized management needs identified during the psychological evaluation.
4. The prisoner requires an assessment for suicide risk. It is important that PSU staff complete all necessary forms when conducting these evaluations. These are:
Evaluation of Suicide Risk (CHJ-180)
Page 11 of 14

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 12 of 14 EXHIBIT C
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PSU STAFF ROUNDS – JMF AND RGC Mental Health Progress Note (CHJ-543) Mental Health Referral/Evaluation Data Entry (CHJ-246) Mental Health Management Plan (CHJ-177) (if necessary) Mental Health Evaluation/Admission Referral (CHJ-332) (if necessary)
5. The prisoner needs a referral to an inpatient medical unit, mental health facility, or crisis stabilization unit.
Note: For referrals to the CSP follow the OP 04.06.180b, Crisis Stabilization Program Referrals/Adminssions. The process for referrals to the Huron Valley Men’s is outlined in OP-05.01.140-E, “Transfers to Huron Valley Mens.” The same five forms listed in # 4 above will be used, although the CHJ-543 is not necessary if the CHJ-332 is used. The following is the current process of transferring prisoners for admission to HVM. The PSU staff will:
1) Complete a QMHP evaluation documenting that the prisoner may be acutely mentally ill or suicidal and a mental health emergency exists.
2) Place the prisoner in an observation cell and complete CHJ-177 pending transfer of the prisoner to HVM.
3) Complete CHJ-332 and fax this to the HVM Admissions Coordinator at (734) 434-8813.
4) Complete CHJ-246 for data entry.
5) Call the HVM Admissions Coordinator at: (734) 434-5186 providing the referral information. On the weekends or holidays, you will need to call the HVM’s Control Center at (734) 572-9893 and/or the HMV Admission Unit at (734) 572-
Page 12 of 14

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 13 of 14 EXHIBIT C
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PSU STAFF ROUNDS – JMF AND RGC 9935. Describe the mental health emergency and the reason for referral.
If you do not speak immediately to the psychiatrist and the on call system is utilized you must wait onsite until the on call psychiatrist calls you back or until the admission is approved.
6. After the transfer to HMV is approved, complete a request for Prisoner Transfer for Health Care Reasons (CHX-165); including the name of the HVM doctor approving the transfer. The registered nurse at the facility must also complete the transfer assessment form (CHJ-218). He/she should include the name of the facility or Emergency Room Physician consulted regarding any current medical condition requiring assessment and/or treatment prior to admission to HVM. Emergency Room medical staff can assist in the transfer process.
7. Notify appropriate institutional staff, such as the Control Center and Duty Officer/Deputy Warden at the sending Hadix facility, of HVM approval and the need to coordinate transportation of the prisoner.
8. If transfer to HVM is not accepted, a CHJ-177 may need modification to assist in the management of the prisoner until a psychiatric assessment occurs. The CHJ332 should be retained in the prisoner’s medical file, and the facility’s Outpatient Mental Health Team should be notified of the need for psychiatric assessment.
9. Complete any necessary calls to ensure follow-up of referral once the normal work week resumes.
Staff is expected to stay on site until all matters related to the emergency have been attended to. The prisoner should be stabilized either in his regular housing setting, in an
Page 13 of 14

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 14 of 14 EXHIBIT C
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PSU STAFF ROUNDS – JMF AND RGC inpatient medical facility, in an observation cell, or the prisoner’s transfer should be assured. All documentation must be completed. Follow-up needs on assessed prisoners should be clearly communicated to the respective facility’s clerical staff, Chief Psychologist, and Lead Worker Psychologist. If follow-up instructions need to be communicated to the next assigned psychologist providing emergency services coverage, these should be left at the Emergency Room with the pager so that the next assigned person may pick them up.
Page 14 of 14

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256
CASE MANAGEMENT PROTOCOL EXHIBIT F

Filed 12/28/2006

Page 1 of 10 Page 1

Weekly Case Management Meetings have been established to identify

prisoners who are in some way “at risk” due to the status of their health condition.

These “at risk” prisoners comprise a group of Special Needs Patients who require close

medical or multidisciplinary management, in other words, they need to be case-managed

and individual treatment plans need to be developed for each of them. Individual

Treatment Plans are developed by a Qualified Health Professional (QHP) or Qualified

Mental Health Professional (QMHP) at the time the condition is identified, and updated

when warranted.

The purposes of the Case Management Meetings are to:

1) Serve as a point of weekly contact for medical, nursing, and mental health (Corrections Mental Health Program and Psychological Services Unit) staff to assure communication on Special Needs Patients toward improving individual patient outcomes and systems improvement;

2) Review and, if necessary, modify the treatment plan;

3) Assess progress on the Treatment Plan and identify any impediments to timely access to needed services;

4) Initiate and then monitor any actions necessary to assure continuity of care; and

5) Generate a comprehensive list of Special Needs Patients from which subsequent lists of patients can be shared with the Warden and Segregation Unit Staff to engage them when necessary in facilitating the Treatment Plan.

NOTE: Information shared with the Warden and/or segregation staff should not contain specific diagnoses and should be restricted only to

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256
CASE MANAGEMENT PROTOCOL EXHIBIT F

Filed 12/28/2006

Page 2 of 10 Page 2

information necessary for them to know in order to facilitate action if and

when the prisoner’s health status requires.

The Treatment Plan is the plan developed and maintained within Serapis© which must include, at a minimum:

¾

The frequency of follow-up for medical evaluation and adjustment of

treatment modality;

¾

The type and frequency of diagnostic testing and therapeutic regimens;

¾

When appropriate, instructions about diet, exercise, adaptation to the

correctional environment, and medication.

¾

Delineation of special needs on the master problem list; and

NOTE: Lists of special needs patients must be maintained by the Health Unit Manager (HUM) (see reporting requirements later in this document.)

Discussion

Case Management Meetings are intended to ensure that prisoners with significant health conditions receive ongoing multidisciplinary care.

The special needs program serves a broad range of health conditions and problems that require the physician or other designated qualified health care professionals to design a treatment plan tailored to the individual patient’s needs. The treatment plan is individualized, typically multidisciplinary, and based on an assessment of the patient’s needs, and includes a statement of short- and long-term goals as well as the methods by which these goals will be pursued. When clinically indicated, the treatment plan gives patients access to the range of supportive and rehabilitative

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256
CASE MANAGEMENT PROTOCOL EXHIBIT F

Filed 12/28/2006

Page 3 of 10 Page 3

services (such as physical therapy, individual or group counseling, and self-help groups)

that the treating clinician deems appropriate.

Patients with special needs are followed closely through regularly scheduled Medical Service Provider visits appropriate to the needs and complexities of the care required. The master problem list includes known drug allergies and any special needs. All documentation is to be entered into Serapis© to assure system-wide availability of necessary health information for the facilitation of care.

Treatment plans for patients with mental health conditions should incorporate ways to address the patients’ problems and enhance patients’ strengths, involve patients in their development, and include relapse prevention risk management strategies. The strategies should describe signs and symptoms associated with relapse or recurring difficulties (e.g., auditory hallucinations), how the patient thinks a relapse can be averted, and how best to help him or her manage crises that occur.

Inmates with intellectual limitations are prone to become victims in the correctional environment and may need special housing arrangements.

An individual treatment plan should be developed or revised for any prisoner expressing suicidal ideation. This treatment plan should be developed by the mental health staff in conjunction with the patient to address relapse prevention and initiate a risk management plan. The risk management plan should describe signs, symptoms, and the circumstances under which the risk for suicide is likely to recur, how recurrence of suicidal thoughts can be avoided, and actions the patient or staff can take if the suicidal thoughts do occur.

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256
CASE MANAGEMENT PROTOCOL EXHIBIT F

Filed 12/28/2006

Page 4 of 10 Page 4

REPORTING A list of Special Needs Prisoners must be kept by each HUM for each Hadix

facility. In addition, each special program supervisor (e.g., dialysis unit) shall keep a list

of their Special Needs Prisoners and report on their status to the HUM at least weekly.

Reporting of specific diagnoses and treatment must be contained within health care.

Reporting of risk factors to the Warden or to staff on segregation units should not contain

such detailed patient information. QHPs and QMHPs must use discretion and share

confidential health care information only on a need to know basis. Use the format

contained in Appendix B, Special Needs Patient Report.

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 5 of 10
APPENDIX A
WEEKLY CASE MANGEMENT MEETINGS
DEFINITIONS
¾ Special Needs Patients include those with chronic diseases or conditions that require regular care. Examples of special needs patients, and their conditions, are provided below.
¾ The Special Needs Program assures individual prisoners’ health care needs are addressed by the QHP/QMHP. It addresses the broad range of health conditions and problems that require the physician or other designated qualified health care professionals to design a treatment plan tailored to the individual patient’s needs.
¾ A Treatment Plan is a series of written statements specifying a patient’s particular course of therapy and the roles of qualified health care professionals in carrying it out.
• Adolescence is a period during which a prisoner goes through periods that require special attention to diet, exercise, and nutrition.
• Chronic Disease is an illness or condition that affects an individual’s well-being for an extended interval, usually (at least) 6 months, and generally is not curable, but can be managed to provide optimum functioning within any limitations the condition imposes on the individual.
• Developmentally Disabled individuals include those with limited intellectual ability who may need habilitation planning, assistance in accepting the limitations of their conditions, and special attention to their physical safety in the corrections environment.
• Dialysis patients are those with end-stage renal disease requiring either hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis on a recurrent basis.
• Frail or Elderly prisoners include those who suffer from conditions that impair their ability to function to the extent that they require assistance in activities of daily living (e.g., dressing, feeding, transferring, toileting).
• Physical Disabilities can refer to mobility impairments (e.g., amputations, paraplegia) or to other disabilities that limit a person’s daily functioning (e.g., visual impairments, hearing impairments, speech impairments).
• QHP (Qualified Health Professional) is a physician, physician assistant, nurse practitioner, registered nurse, dentist, dental hygienist or other health care professional licensed by the State of Michigan or certified to practice within the scope of his/her training (definition taken from PD 03.040.100 “Health Services”).
• QMHP (Qualified Mental Health Professional) is a physician, psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker, registered nurse, or other health professional who is trained and experienced in the areas of mental illness or mental retardation and is licensed by the State of Michigan or certified to practice within the scope of his/her training (definition taken from PD 03.040.100 “Health Services”).

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 6 of 10
APPENDIX A
WEEKLY CASE MANGEMENT MEETINGS
DEFINITIONS
• Serious Communicable Diseases include those that are transmitted sexually, through the respiratory system, or by infected blood (e.g., syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, HIV, tuberculosis, hepatitis).
• Serious Mental Health needs include those with basic psychotic disorders or mood disorders (e.g., manic-depressives), self-mutilators, the aggressive mentally ill, post-traumatic stress disorders, and suicidal prisoners.
• Terminally Ill prisoners all require specialized care that includes mental health and medical management.

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 7 of 10 APPENDIX B
SPECIAL NEEDS PATIENT REPORTS
Special Needs Patient Reports are required to be kept and updated continuously as significant changes in patient status are noted. The following procedure and forms must be used

Purpose: Case Management of Special Needs Patients.

Definitions: 1)

Case Management -- a process involving medical, nursing, mental health, and dental staff which in collaboration assesses, plans, implements, coordinates, monitors, and evaluates options and services to meet an individual's health needs through communication and the effective use of available resources to promote quality, cost effective outcomes". (Derived from US Military definition)

2) Special Needs Prisoners -- medically or mentally fragile and/or in a diagnostic or treatment pathway (example: Rule out cancer/heart disease, etc.) that, if interrupted, would cause increased morbidity or mortality. APPLIES TO PRISONERS IN GENERAL POPULATION AND IN SEGREGATION. See definitions in Appendix A.
NOTE: The prisoner must be moved to a medical bed if the medical/mental health condition cannot be managed in segregation.

Complete the form:

Date Listed/ Updated

Enter the date the Special Needs Patient issue(s) was/were identified; change the date if the Patient status factors change significantly.

Prisoner Name

Enter prisoner name.

Example: Last Name, First Name, Middle Initial.

Prisoner #

Enter Prisoner number.

Example: #999999

Lock/Location

Enter Lock & Location.

Issue(s)

Identify Issue(s).

Example: Being treated for a serious medical illness requiring frequent off-sites; Difficulty breathing with exercise; High Risk for Heat Related Illness.

Note: Enter all prisoners on the comprehensive list; share with each Warden and/or segregation unit staff any information required to enlist their support of patient care and send the Warden’s. DO NOT SHARE SPECIFIC DIAGNOSES OR TREATMENT PLANS.
Forward by e-mail a copy of the lists for the Warden and for segregation to the Warden and work with the Warden to establish a process to share the segregation list with the segregation officers in a timely way.
Forward copies of all lists to your RHA.

Use the HUM form as the basis of your weekly multidisciplinary case management meeting. Include only those disciplines that have relevance given patient illness/risks to conserve staff time.

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 8 of 10 APPENDIX B
SPECIAL NEEDS PATIENT REPORTS

Michigan Department of Corrections
“Expecting Excellence Every Day”
Health Unit Manager’s Special Needs Patient List
Report Date: ____________
Facility: _________________________

Date Listed/ Updated

Prisoner Name

Prisoner # Lock/Location

Issue(s) For Clinical and Health Care Support Staff

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 9 of 10 APPENDIX B
SPECIAL NEEDS PATIENT REPORTS

Michigan Department of Corrections
“Expecting Excellence Every Day”
Warden High Health Risk Prisoners List
Report Date: ____________
Facility: _________________________

Date Listed/ Updated

Prisoner Name

Prisoner # Lock/Location

Issue(s) for Warden’s

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 10 of 10 APPENDIX B
SPECIAL NEEDS PATIENT REPORTS

Michigan Department of Corrections
“Expecting Excellence Every Day”
Segregation Officers High Health Risk Prisoners List
Report Date: ____________
Facility: _________________________

Date Listed/ Updated

Prisoner Name

Prisoner # Lock/Location

Issue(s) for Segregation Officers

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 1 of 4

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 2 of 4

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 3 of 4

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RAE Document 2256 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 4 of 4

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

EVERETT HADIX, et al.,

Plaintiffs, v. PATRICIA L. CARUSO, et. al.,

CASE NO. 4:92-CV-110 HON. ROBERT J. JONKER

Defendants. __________________________________/

OPINION

Introduction

This prisoner civil rights class action began almost thirty years ago, when twenty-three

inmates filed suit in 1980 in the Eastern District of Michigan to protest conditions of confinement

at the State Prison of Southern Michigan – Central Complex (the “SPSM–CC”). In August, 1981,

the Court certified the class, defined as “all prisoners who are, or will be, confined at the

[SPSM–CC].” On May 13, 1985, the Court approved a proposed Consent Decree. In doing so, the

Court noted that likely structural changes in the SPSM–CC might involve renaming parts of that

facility. The Court clarified that “the facility at issue in this lawsuit, [the SPSM–CC], including the

Reception and Guidance Center, shall be defined as ‘all areas within the walls of . . . the [SPSM–CC]

at the time this cause commenced and all areas which will supply support services under the

provisions of this Consent Judgment, e.g. food service and Boiler Plant operations.’” (Order

Accepting Consent J., docket # 213, Hadix v. Johnson, CA No. 80-73581). Under the Consent

Decree, the Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the judgment. (Id.)

Now, almost twenty-four years after the entry of the Consent Decree, the shape of the case has changed dramatically. All twenty-three of the original named plaintiffs have died. A single named plaintiff, Clarence Moore, represents the entire class. The primary long-term housing units of the SPSM-CC have closed, and the state does not intend to re-open them. The class itself has therefore diminished greatly in size. The nature of the class has also changed fundamentally: while previously the class encompassed mainly prisoners housed long-term in the SPSM-CC, the class now consists primarily of prisoners housed temporarily in a Hadix facility (such as the Reception and Guidance Center (RGC)) before proceeding to the correctional facilities where they will be housed longer-term. As Hadix prisoners move to non-Hadix facilities, they leave the Hadix class. Cf. Hadix v. Caruso, 297 Fed. Appx. 504, 506-07 (6th Cir., Oct. 20 2008) (Consent Decree does not apply to non-Hadix facilities to which former Hadix prisoners are transferred.)) Further, most of the Consent Decree provisions, which pertain to a range of confinement issues such as sanitation, health care, safety, overcrowding and security, have been resolved and closed. Only certain subsections, concerning medical care, have remained open since the entry of the Consent Decree. In addition, the Court re-opened to a limited extent certain provisions regarding mental health care, through a preliminary injunction entered November 13, 2006 (docket # 2187) (the “November 2006 Order”).
Observing that changes in the scope and nature of the class might dictate changes in the scope and nature of relief, the Sixth Circuit remanded to this Court three appeals to consider in light of the most recent developments in the case. Hadix v. Caruso, 248 Fed. Appx. 678 (6th Cir., Sept. 21, 2007). One of the appeals, regarding heat-related issues in Hadix facilities, has been resolved. The other two appeals concern the limited re-opening of certain mental health care provisions in the Consent Decree and the expansion of the Office of the Independent Medical Monitor (OIMM). In
2

addition, the parties have filed a number of other motions, including motions to terminate injunctive relief as to JMF and the Dialysis Unit. The final injunctive hearing on mental health issues has also taken place. This Opinion addresses the remands, disposes of several pending motions and closes trial court proceedings on mental health issues.
I. Re-Opening of Mental Health Provisions A. Background From the entry of the Consent Decree until early 2001, the Court monitored mental health care at the Hadix facilities. Early in 2001, the Court found that the mental health care provisions of the Consent Decree had been satisfied, and granted Defendants’ request to terminate enforcement of those provision. Approximately five years later, a mentally ill prisoner confined in the segregation unit of JMF, a Hadix facility, died under extraordinary and tragic circumstances. Following that event, Plaintiffs moved to re-open the mental health care provisions of the Consent Decree. Invoking FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(6), the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion, and issued a preliminary injunction re-opening mental health care provisions to a limited extent. Specifically, the Court ordered Defendants to: (1) cease using punitive mechanical restraints within the Hadix facilities and develop procedures to enforce that limitation; (2) develop a staffing plan to provide adequate psychiatric and psychological staffing at Hadix facilities to ensure timely routine and emergent psychiatric and psychological care; (3) work to provide daily psychologist and psychiatrist rounds in the segregation units at Hadix facilities; and (4) better coordinate mental health and medical staff, in part by requiring weekly conferences of mental health and medical staff and incorporating training to prevent staff and administrative indifference to the provision of care. (November 2006 Order, docket # 2187). The Court ordered Defendants to prepare a mental health plan addressing those
3

requirements. (Id.) The Court also permitted discovery to illuminate the limited mental health care items it had re-opened, and scheduled a final injunctive hearing to determine the necessity of keeping mental health provisions open. (Id.)
Defendants appealed the Court’s order. While the appeal was pending, Defendants submitted multiple proposed mental health care plans in an effort to comply with the Court’s requirements. (Defendants’ Health Care Plan regarding Mental Health Activities Dated December 28, 2006, docket # 2256; Defendants’ Revised Health Care Plan Regarding Mental Health Activities dated June 7, 2007, docket # 2474; and Defendants’ Revised Hadix Mental Health Care Plan dated August 20, 2007, docket # 2601). The Court rejected Defendants’ first two proposed mental health care plans but reserved judgment concerning the third plan in anticipation of a final injunctive hearing. (See Revised Opinion dated September 10, 2007, docket # 2624, at 21.)
The Sixth Circuit ultimately remanded to the Court the re-opening of mental health care provisions under the Consent Decree and issues presented by Defendants’ appeal concerning mental health care. Hadix v. Caruso, 248 Fed. Appx. 678 (6th Cir., Sept. 21, 2007). The appellate court noted that if the State were to close JMF (which has since occurred), and if the Court were to rule that SMT Building A is no longer a Hadix facility (which has since occurred), “the prisoner population of the Hadix facilities would change dramatically – and so would the number of Hadix prisoners needing mental health services.” Id. at 681-82. The Sixth Circuit pointed out that “if indeed the State closes JMF . . . some portions of the district court’s November 13 order assuredly will have little relevance – such as the requirement that the State’s mental healthcare plan ‘must include additional staffing to ensure full-time psychiatric coverage at JMF.’” (Id.)
B. Application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6)
4

Under FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(6), a court may “on motion and just terms...relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding...for any other reason [beyond those found in FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(1)-(5)] that justifies relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(6). A court is limited both in the scope of relief it may grant under FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(6) and the circumstances under which it may grant such relief:
[R]elief under Rule 60(b) is circumscribed by public policy favoring finality of judgments and termination of litigation. This is especially true in an application of subsection (6) of Rule 60(b), which applies only in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances which are not addressed by the first five numbered clauses of the Rule. This is because almost every conceivable ground for relief is covered under the other subsections of Rule 60(b). Consequently, courts must apply Rule 60(b)(6) relief only in unusual and extreme situations where principles of equity mandate relief. Blue Diamond Coal Co. v. Trustees of the UMWA Combined Benefit Fund, 249 F.3d 519 (6th Cir. 2001) (internal punctuation and citations omitted); accord Ford Motor Co. v. Mustangs Unlimited, Inc., 487 F.3d 465 (6th Cir. 2007)). In re-opening a final judgment, order or proceeding under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), a court must determine that extraordinary or exceptional circumstances exist to justify the re-opening. Ford Motor Co., 487 F.3d at 470. Defendants first claim is that the Court misapplied Rule 60(b) by re-opening the mental health care provisions even to a limited extent. See Def.s’ Mot. to Terminate Injunctive Relief Regarding Mental Health for the Hadix Facilities, docket # 2684, 18-20; see also Hadix v. Caruso, 248 F. Appx. 678, at 679 (Describing Defendants’ appeal of the Court’s re-opening under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6).) The Court disagrees. Exceptional circumstances underpinned the Court’s decision to re-open on a limited basis the mental health care provisions of the Consent Decree. The death of T.S. was an extraordinary event warranting urgent action. It occurred in a core Hadix facility (now closed). In applying FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(6), the Court strove to balance the public policy favoring
5

closure in litigation with the need for justice. The Court restricted the scope of the re-opening to specific, measurable steps carefully tied to the original Consent Decree and applied to a Hadix facility. The Court also scheduled a final injunctive hearing to determine whether the mental health care provisions should remain open, thus limiting the potential duration as well as the scope of the re-opening. The Court supported its decision to re-open the decree with detailed findings and facts (Opinion of Nov. 13, 2006, docket # 2186; Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of December 7, 2006, docket # 2233) that easily satisfy the Rule 60(b) standard. Moreover, the medical provisions of the Consent Decree have never been closed, and as the death of T.S. illustrates, medical and mental health issues often overlap.
Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendants’ claim that the mental health provisions of the Consent Decree were improperly re-opened. The remaining question is whether ongoing relief under the mental health provisions is warranted under the controlling legal standard.
C. Legal Standard: Systemic Deliberate Indifference Applicable law regarding the provision of mental health care to prisoners has changed significantly since the entry of the Consent Decree, through Congress’s enactment of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). The PLRA strictly limits the Court’s ability to grant prospective relief concerning prisoner conditions. The Court may grant such relief only after finding an ongoing violation of a constitutional or other Federal right, and the relief must be narrowly tailored. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1) (“Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff (or plaintiffs)).” Together, the Consent Decree and PLRA require that to obtain prospective relief,
6

Plaintiffs must demonstrate both a breach of the Consent Decree and that the breach has constitutional significance.
In this case, to demonstrate a claim of constitutional proportions concerning the provision of mental health care, Plaintiffs must show systemic deliberate indifference to Hadix prisoners’ serious mental health care needs. See Williams v. Mehra, 186 F.3d 685, 691 (6th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (“[P]roperly stated, the [constitutional] right at issue is [a prisoner’s] right not to have his serious medical needs treated with deliberate indifference.”) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976)). A claim of deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment has two components, one objective and one subjective. Comstock v. McCrary, 273 F.3d 693, 702 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994)). The objective component requires the plaintiff to show that the medical need at issue is sufficiently serious. Id., citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. The subjective component requires the plaintiff to show that a prison official being sued “subjectively perceived facts from which to infer substantial risk to the prisoner, that he did in fact draw the inference, and that he disregarded that risk.” Id. (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837). “A plaintiff alleging deliberate indifference must show more than negligence or the misdiagnosis of an ailment.” Id. (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106). However, “a plaintiff need not show that the prison official acted ‘for the very purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm will result.’” Id. (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835). Rather, the subjective element of deliberate indifference is the equivalent of reckless disregard of a substantial risk of serious harm. Id. (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 836). A court may infer from circumstantial evidence that a prison official had the requisite knowledge. Id. (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842).
D. Final Injunctive Hearing
7

Ultimately, the final injunctive hearing was delayed and rescheduled a number of times and for various reasons, including judicial reassignment and the request of the parties. It finally took place over the course of seven days in April, May, June and August of 2008. The Court heard extensive testimony from witnesses for both parties and the Office of the Independent Medical Monitor. Plaintiffs’ witnesses included: Dr. Terry Kupers, M.D., an expert in psychiatry; Robert Walsh, Ph.D., an expert in psychology; Jerry S. Walden, M.D., an expert in medicine; and Diana Childers (through video deposition preserved testimony). Defendants’ witnesses included: Jeffrey L. Metzner, M.D., an expert in psychiatry; Lee H. Rome, M.D.; John Charles Rushbrook, Ph.D.; Haresh Pandya, M.D.; Royal Calley, M.A.; Craig Crawford, M.A.; and Jared Baker, M.A. Testifying for the Office of the Independent Medical Monitor were Robert L. Cohen, M.D. and Henry Duglacz, M.D.
The parties also introduced numerous exhibits into evidence, including Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 1 - 106 (excepting Exhibits 37, 38, 42, 45 and 47), Defendants’ Exhibits A - SS, and OIMM Exhibits 1 - 22. The exhibits contain a broad range of materials, including, among other things, curriculum vitae of expert witnesses; expert reports; memoranda concerning medication continuation; mental health reports; SMHU rounding reports; MDOC policy statements; internal MDOC memoranda and electronic correspondence; medical records; restraints reports; case management meeting minutes; mental health care screening documents; Independent Medical Monitor reports; deposition recording excerpts; and specific case reports.
The Court now must determine whether the State has complied with the Court’s preliminary injunction, bearing in mind the observations of the Sixth Circuit concerning the impact of changes in the Hadix prisoner population on mental health needs, or whether ongoing relief is warranted, as
8

Plaintiffs urge. (See, e.g., Pl.s’ Trial Brief, docket # 2819.) The Court must also determine whether Plaintiffs have established a basis for ongoing mental health relief apart from any failure of the Defendants to comply with the preliminary injunction. The Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law on each of these issues follows. In making its findings of fact, the Court relies on its observations of the witnesses in open court, and on the analytical points cited in the following discussion.
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law regarding Preliminary Injunction 1. Mechanical Restraints
The preliminary injunction requires Defendants and all officers employed at Hadix facilities to “cease and desist from the practice of using any form of punitive mechanical restraints within Hadix facilities.” (November 2006 Order, docket # 2187.) It also requires Defendants to “develop practices, protocols and policies to enforce this limitation consistent with the Court’s instructions at section V.3.a of its Opinion.” (Id.) While the November 2006 Order prohibits the use of punitive mechanical restraints, the Court’s accompanying opinion clarifies that restraints may be used under certain limited circumstances, including “by medical and psychiatric staff to prevent self-harm, injury to staff, and interference with treatment, provided that the medical staff supervises the use of the restraints by daily physician orders and monitors the conditions of patients regularly . . . to ensure that patient health is not unduly compromised.” (Opinion of November 13, 2006, docket # 2186, at 34.)
The record indicates that the Defendants have complied with the requirements of the preliminary injunction concerning mechanical restraints, and the Court so finds as a matter of fact. They have banned the use of punitive mechanical restraints. Dr. Cohen, of the Office of the
9

Independent Monitor, testified during the injunctive hearing that he had not seen any use of mechanical in-cell restraints in the housing units following the ban. (Tr. Vol. V, docket # 2815, at 163.) Dr. Cohen did testify that he had seen mechanical restraints used in a medical setting, Duane Waters Hospital, as to two prisoners on hunger strikes. (Id.; see also Fourth Report of the Office of the Independent Medical Monitor, docket # 2773, at 4, 8, 14-17.) The instances of mechanical restraints Dr. Cohen describes occurred in a medical context, which the Opinion concerning the ban on restraints permitted as long as there was appropriate medical supervision. (See Opinion of November 13, 2006, docket # 2186.) Dr. Cohen’s report suggests that the medical supervision of one of the prisoners, MH2, may not have been proper. The problem appears to have had at least as much to do with the decision to force-feed Prisoner MH2 as with the use of restraints. Prisoner MH2's experience appears to have been at most an isolated incident, rather than part of a pattern of non-compliance. The record does not point to a systematic failure to comply with the Court’s order concerning mechanical restraints. Defendants have complied with the November 2006 Order as it pertains to banning mechanical restraints.
2. Mental Health Care Staffing The Court also ordered Defendants to develop a plan for adequate psychiatric and psychological staffing at Hadix facilities to ensure timely provision of routine and emergent psychiatric and psychological services. Defendants have complied, and the Court so finds as a matter of fact. Since the Court issued the preliminary injunction, several housing units have closed, and the size of the Hadix population has diminished significantly, naturally reducing the numbers of additional mental health personnel needed. See Hadix v. Caruso, 248 Fed. Appx. 678, 681-82 (6th Cir., Sept. 21, 2007). At the same time, Defendants have increased the number of mental health
10

care personnel, adding at least three psychologist positions at RGC. (See Def.s’ Second Amended Post-Hearing Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, docket # 2829, at ¶ 22.) Defendants have implemented an on-call psychiatry program that appears to be working. On-call records Defendants submitted for January, February and March 2008 reflect reasonably prompt response times, with most responses occurring within an hour of a call. (See Def.s’ Trial Ex. F.) Indeed, the longest delay the records show between a call and a response is approximately three hours, a time lapse not uncommon in private medical care outside of the prison system. (See id.) Defendants have complied with this aspect of the Court’s Order.
3. Daily Rounds The Court further ordered the Defendants to provide daily psychologist or psychiatrist rounds in the segregation unit at the Hadix facilities. Now that JMF has closed, there remains only one segregation unit in this case: the Special Management Housing Unit (“SMHU”) cells in RGC. Defendants have submitted evidence to show that daily rounds are being conducted in the SMHU. (See Def.s’ Trial Ex. D.) Although not required by the Court’s November 2006 Order, Defendants have also attempted to make the rounds more effective by having one psychologist assume primary responsibility for rounding in a segregation unit for several months at a time. (See, e.g., Def.s’ Revised Mental Health Care Plan, docket # 2601.) Defendants made this change upon the recommendation of Dr. Metzner, their expert in psychiatry. (See Tr. Vol. 1, docket # 2786, at 43.) Greater familiarity with the prisoners in his or her care should help the rounding psychologist better observe and respond to those prisoners’ mental health care needs. Indeed, the Court heard testimony from Jared Baker, a psychologist responsible for rounding in the SMHU over a period of several months. It was evident from Mr. Baker’s testimony that he knew well the various mental health care
11

needs of the prisoners in his care and that he had genuine concern for the well-being of those prisoners.
Plaintiffs acknowledge that Defendants have established appropriate weekday rounds in the SMHU. (Pl.s’ Trial Brief Reply, docket # 2830, at 11.) Citing the records in Defendants’ Trial Exhibit D, though, Plaintiffs contend that weekend rounds have been too short to be meaningful. (Id.) Plaintiffs note correctly that one of the weekend rounds reflected in the Exhibit lasted only five minutes though there were seven prisoners in the SMHU at the time. The other weekend rounds lasted longer, though not generally as long as weekday rounds. That weekend rounds tended not to last as long as weekday rounds does not demonstrate systemic deliberate indifference or failure to comply with the Court’s November 2006 Order. Weekend rounds are likely to be shorter because, as Jared Baker testified, the primary goal of weekend rounds is to identify prisoners in distress, while weekday rounds have a more comprehensive focus. (See Tr. Vol. III, docket # 2788, at 464.) Further, Dr. Metzner explained that where one person is conducting weekday rounds for a period of months, and getting to know the prisoners well, weekend rounds might be shorter, partly because it would not always be necessary to wake prisoners who were sleeping. (Tr. Vol. 1, docket # 2786, at 43-44.) The great majority of the records reflect regular rounding that even Plaintiffs have described as appropriate. Defendants have complied with the Court’s order to establish daily rounds.
4. Coordination of Mental Health and Medical Staff The Court ordered Defendants to develop protocols for the coordination of mental health and medical staff, require weekly conferences of the two disciplines, and provide training to prevent staff and administrative indifference to the provision of care. Defendants have complied with these requirements, and the Court so finds as a matter of fact. Dr. Cohen testified at trial that weekly case
12

management meetings with participants from various disciplines are occurring. (See Tr. V, docket # 2815, at 787-89.) Defendants’ Trial Exhibit F supports that testimony and reflects that both mental health and medical staff are participating. Defendants have also instituted training to curtail the risk of staff and administrative indifference through a program, “Offenders in our Care,” provided to all staff having contact with prisoners in the JMF administrative segregation unit (now closed) or the SMHU. The content of the training includes, among other things, an overview of mental illness and instruction on suicide prevention. (Def.s’ Trial Ex. C at 18). Plaintiffs argue that to comply more fully with the Court’s preliminary injunction, Defendants should provide that training to the rest of the staff in Hadix facilities. This may well be prudent, but the Court finds that it is not essential to satisfaction of the Court’s preliminary injunction requirements. Defendants’ actions to date concerning the coordination of mental health and medical staff reflect significant improvement in coordination and satisfy the terms of the Court’s November Order. The Defendants must have reasonable flexibility in implementing the coordination mandate of the Court. Defendants have complied with the Court’s order to coordinate mental health and medical staff.
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law regarding General Re-opening of Mental Health Care Plaintiffs assert that Defendants have failed to comply fully not only with the
Court’s November 2006 Order, but also with the Court’s May 2007 Order (docket # 2410), which rejected Defendant’s proposed mental health care plan as insufficient to cure existing health care violations. Plaintiffs also seek additional relief concerning mental health care beyond the scope of the November 2006 Order and any mental health plan required to address the Court’s stated concerns. (See Pl.’s Brief in Supp. of Mot. for Further Relief, Expedited
13

Treatment, and Waiver of Bond, docket # 2758.) Since the November 2006 and May 2007 orders, the mental health care needs of the Hadix class have changed along with the shifting size, scope and nature of the class. Defendants have responded meaningfully and adequately to the concerns underlying the Court’s November 2006 and May 2007 Orders. The Court sees no need to extend mental health relief as part of this nearly 30-year-old litigation. In the Court’s view, Plaintiffs have failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants are violating the Consent Decree provisions governing mental health care, or that any asserted violations of the Consent Decree are of constitutional proportions.
1. Mental Health Provisions of the Consent Decree It bears repeating that this case invokes enforcement of a 26-year-old consent decree. To prevail in this case, Plaintiffs must not only satisfy the constitutional standard of deliberate indifference, but also identify and prove a violation of the underlying consent decree. Plaintiffs have for the most part glossed over this aspect of the case and focused on claims of alleged deliberate indifference without any tether to the original Consent Decree’s specific requirements. In a new case challenging the conditions of confinement generally, or the provision of mental health care in particular, that may well be enough. But it is not enough in a consent decree case such as this, where the parties originally entered into a settlement without any adjudication of a constitutional violation at all. As in any consent decree litigation, the Court is bound to enforce the agreement of the parties, not write a new contract for the parties. Moreover, because of the Congressional changes to prison litigation under the PLRA, the Court may only enforce the contract of the parties on a prospective basis to the extent the contract breach is of constitutional significance.
14

The only Consent Decree provision Plaintiffs have alluded to that the Court believes is
even arguably implicated by Plaintiffs’ present claims is Section B.1.a.,1 the general provisions
on mental health care, which reads:
A prisoner shall be provided with psychological or psychiatric treatment if a physician or other health care provider, exercising ordinary skill and care at the time of observation, concludes with reasonable medical certainty:
(1) that the prisoner’s symptoms evidence a serious mental illness or injury;
(2) that such mental illness or injury is curable or may be substantially alleviated; and,
(3) that the potential for harm to the prisoner by reason of delay or the denial of care would be substantial. The right to treatment is, of course, limited to that which may be provided upon a reasonable cost and time basis and the essential test is one of medical necessity and not simply that which may be considered merely desirable.
This is too slender a contractual reed upon which to fashion the expansive relief requested by the
Plaintiffs. The record is devoid of testimony or other evidence linking the particulars of
Plaintiffs’ requested relief to a supposed breach of this provision of the Consent Decree.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proving by a preponderance of the
evidence a breach of the mental health provisions of the Consent Decree.
This conclusion in no way gives Defendants license to ignore the mental health care
needs of prisoners in their custody – whether within the shrinking Hadix class or not. Defendants
are always subject to this constitutional requirement, and injured plaintiffs may enforce their
1Plaintiffs have alluded on occasion to Section B.5, concerning inmate screening, though they have not explicitly tied claims for relief to this section of the Consent Decree. In any event, the proofs show that Defendants have inmate screening in place, and that they continue to work on refinements and improvements in the screening protocols. Accordingly, the proofs do not support a basis for extended relief tied to this section of the Consent Decree.
15

rights in appropriate individual or class actions. But this nearly 30-year-old case and 26-year-old consent decree is not a roving commission for this Court to address mental health care issues in the Hadix facilities of the Michigan Department of Corrections. The Court’s power is limited, in the first instance, by the agreement the parties crafted for themselves 26 years ago. As the Hadix class shrinks in size and scope, it is all the more important for the Court and the parties to honor this limit.
2. Deliberate Indifference Even if Plaintiffs had been able to meet their burden of proving a breach of the Consent Decree, the Court would find on this record that the Plaintiffs did not establish systematic deliberate indifference by Defendants to the serious mental health needs of the remaining Hadix prisoners. The evidence shows that Defendants have actively worked to improve the quality of mental health on a systemic level, not recklessly and systematically disregarded mental health concerns of Hadix prisoners. This is not to say that the mental health care in the Hadix facilities is ideal, or even as good as it might be. It is not the role of the Court, however, to impose upon a State the best possible practices as a matter of constitutional law. Rather, the Court must limit its intervention to situations of proven deliberate indifference.
a. Testimony of Dr. Metzner; Bridge Order The Court finds credible the report and testimony of Dr. Metzner, Defendants’ expert in psychiatry. In preparing his report, Dr. Metzner reviewed a wide range of documents material to the Court’s November 2006 and May 2007 orders; visited Hadix facilities; met with key mental health, medical and administrative staff; observed mental health rounds; attended a case management meeting. (Def.s’ Trial Ex. C at 1-3.) Dr. Metzner also consulted with Defendants
16

as they revised their mental health care plan to respond to the Court’s orders. He is wellacquainted with the Court’s concerns. Dr. Metzner’s report describes substantial improvements in Defendants’ provision of mental health care. For example, Dr. Metzner observes that Defendants have enhanced supervision of psychologists and have explicitly tasked a fullylicensed supervising psychologist to help coordinate communications among the Psychological Services Unit (PSU), Department of Community Health, Corrections Mental Health Program, and Department of Corrections medical staff. (Def.s’ Trial Ex. C at 8.) He also notes that Defendants have increased mental health care staffing. (Id. at 8-10.) Dr. Metzner opines that Defendants’ plan satisfactorily addresses the Court’s stated concerns, and the Court agrees.
In particular, Plaintiffs have emphasized risks presented by sudden discontinuations of psychotropic medication for prisoners coming into a Hadix facility. Defendants have responded to this concern by implementing a medication bridge order designed to minimize interruptions in inmates’ psychotropic medications. (Def.s’ Trial Ex. A.) The Bridge Order requires that each prisoner taking psychiatric medications when he arrives in a Hadix facility continues to receive those medications at least until an appropriate mental health practitioner has examined him and determined whether the medications remain necessary.) The preserved testimony of Diana Childers describes her efforts to see that her son would continue to receive medication following his incarceration. Ms. Childers indicated that a policy akin to the Bridge Order would have been helpful under the circumstances her son experienced. All parties appear to agree that the Bridge Order is a significant step forward in improving mental health care in Hadix facilities. The Bridge Order promises a meaningful reduction in abrupt, potentially dangerous interruptions in psychiatric medications.
17

The Court recognizes that Plaintiffs do not believe the Bridge Order is sufficient to address medication issues. In particular, Plaintiffs introduced evidence suggesting that some prisoners elect to end psychotropic medication after a consultation with a mental health professional, and that some prisoners have their medication terminated or modified after further examination. The Court finds that this evidence does not establish systematic deliberate indifference to the serious mental health needs of the Hadix class. At most, this evidence identifies possible limited cases of questionable diagnosis or treatment. But that does not amount to deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. The Bridge Order ensures that psychotropic medication will continue at least until a mental health professional has an opportunity to make a professional judgment of the prisoner patient’s needs.
b. Mr. Baker, SMHU Rounds and Professional Supervision; Craig Crawford
The Court finds credible the testimony of Jared Baker, a limited license psychologist who conducted rounds in the SMHU over a period of several months. Mr. Baker’s on-the-ground experience and practical perspective offer especially valuable insight into the provision of mental health care in the SMHU. Mr. Baker described receiving meaningful supervision throughout his rounding experience. His direct supervisor, Dr. Gartland, a fully-licensed Ph.D., accompanied him on rounds in the SMHU for the first week or two, showing him how to conduct rounds. (Tr. Vol. III, docket # 2788, at 454.) Dr. Gartland conducted monthly team meetings and was available to answer questions both in those meetings and informally. (Id. at 453, 490.) In addition, Dr. Gartland’s immediate supervisor, Dr. Walker, observed Mr. Baker’s rounding, and
18

Dr. Walker’s supervisor, Dr. Straeske, met with Mr. Baker to discuss rounding protocol. (Id. at 453-54.)
Mr. Baker described to the Court a careful rounding process that began each day with his checking several sources for current information about the inmates for whom he would be caring. (Id. at 454-55.) In addition to reviewing available written evaluations of the individuals in the caseload he was assigned, he checked for messages from unit nurses about inmates who might need intervention, and he checked with the officers in the SMHU about the officers’ own observations. (Id. at 455.) He also asked the officers about specific behaviors of inmates in his care, including, for example, “whether or not they have...taken showers, whether or not they have taken their meals...[a]ny odd or bizarre behavior that may identify mental illness in any way.” (Id. at 456.) Mr. Baker described prompt and confidential evaluations of inmates newlyassigned to the SMHU. (Id. at 456-57.) He remembered details about individual patients that someone offering perfunctory care would not have recalled. It was evident that he had come to know his prisoner patients well, and he showed evident care and concern for the inmates about whom he testified.
The Court also finds credible the testimony of Craig Crawford, Unit Chief for the Outpatient Mental Health Team. Mr. Crawford received questions about particular inmates through both direct and cross-examination. His responses reflected a degree of knowledge and concern that went well beyond mere trial preparation. Like Mr. Baker, he remembered details about his patients only a person deeply committed to his patients would have recalled. It was clear that he knew well the inmates for whom he cared. The Court also observed that Mr. Crawford demonstrated genuine warmth and concern for inmates in his care, particularly those
19

suffering from seemingly intractable combinations of mental and physical problems. Regardless of whether Mr. Crawford, or any other mental health professional always made exactly the best possible call, Mr. Crawford’s testimony showed the very opposite of deliberate indifference.
Caring for the mentally ill in a prison setting is a truly difficult undertaking. Mental health care and medical providers, as well as other MDOC staff, must balance a variety of competing concerns under challenging and at times dangerous conditions. The instances of forced medication discussed at trial illustrate the tangle of demands those responsible for sick inmates confront. In such cases, mental health care and medical providers, along with other MDOC staff, must balance serious medical need with the right of a person, incarcerated or otherwise, to make choices about his health, either on his own or through a duly appointed representative. The Court heard argument from the Plaintiffs concerning, for example, a terminally ill inmate on whom Defendants declined to force life-prolonging treatment because the inmate emphatically and repeatedly refused it. (See Pl.s’ Trial Ex. 86; see also Tr. Vol. VII, docket # 2840, at 1095.) Plaintiffs claim Defendants were deliberately indifferent to this inmate’s mental health and medical needs because they did not force the inmate to accept the unwanted treatment. A guardian appointed by the state court for this inmate – the inmate’s own son – agreed that treatment should not be provided, and supported the inmate’s decision to refuse treatment. (See Pl.s’ Trial Ex. 86.) Plaintiffs apparently believe Defendants should have triggered an internal administrative procedure to override the informed decision of the inmate and his court-appointed guardian, and to force the unwanted treatment on the unwilling inmate. The Court finds Plaintiffs’ attempt to use this case as an illustration of alleged deliberate indifference entirely misguided. This situation points not to deliberate indifference, but to the
20

difficulty and delicacy of the determinations mental health care, medical providers and other MDOC staff have to make. It also illustrates the thoughtful and sensitive balancing of these concerns by the Defendants, the very opposite of deliberate indifference.
c. Plaintiffs’ Experts The Court finds Plaintiff’s expert in psychiatry, Dr. Kupers, polished, well-informed and credible in many respects. However, his testimony is ultimately largely beside the point, in the Court’s view. Dr. Kupers identified many things the Defendants could do better. Indeed, Dr. Kupers often appeared to be an advocate for “best practices” care, which is laudable and sensible, but quite different than showing deliberate indifference. Indeed, when pressed by the Court on this point, the most Dr. Kupers could ultimately conclude was that there exists some unquantifiable risk of future harm if Defendants fail to adopt his recommendations. (Tr. Vol. II , docket # 2787, at 422-25.) But this falls far short of the deliberate indifference standard. The Court heard in Dr. Kupers’s testimony further evidence of the complexity of caring for the mentally ill in prison, but not evidence of deliberate indifference. The Court also notes that Dr. Kupers, in contrast to Defendants’ expert, had no real experience in actually making operational decisions within a prison setting. The Court does not credit at all the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert in medicine, Dr. Walden, whose testimony shed absolutely no light on the issues in this case. Dr. Walden simply walked through various medical records, selectively discussing fragments of patients’ experiences without explaining the context. In almost all cases discussed, he simply concluded with a blanket statement that the care did not amount to best practice, or resulted in a bad outcome. This ignores the controlling legal standard of deliberate indifference. Moreover, even
21

that conclusion rested on a fragmented review of selected records. It is not possible for the Court to draw any meaningful conclusions from Dr. Walden’s testimony. The testimony lacked coherence and had no persuasive effect.
The Court appreciates the testimony of Dr. Walsh, Plaintiff’s expert in psychology and the former administrator of psychological services for the Jackson Clinical Complex. In his role as administrator, Dr. Walsh was responsible for psychological services delivery at six area prisons and Duane Waters Hospital. Dr. Walsh’s testimony, though sincere and helpful, is not especially germane to the present situation. His testimony tended to focus on the practices and protocols that existed under his leadership and subsequent changes in those practices and protocols. His testimony offered much more insight into the past than into the current situation. Moreover, like Dr. Kupers, his testimony focused more on Defendants’ alleged failure to adopt “best practices,” not on alleged systematic, deliberate indifference. The Court could not base any finding of deliberate indifference on the testimony of Dr. Walsh.
d. Use of SMHU Plaintiffs argued throughout the hearings that the Defendants are using the SMHU improperly as a holding facility for the mentally ill. The Court rejects this argument. That some of the inmates in the SMHU suffer from mental illness further demonstrates the challenges of managing a prison. Dr. Kupers testified that mentally ill inmates often have difficulty following formal prison rules. (Tr. Vol. II, docket # 2787, at 250 (“[P]risoners with mental illness...have trouble conforming their behavior to what is expected. They get into disciplinary trouble.”)) Prisoners who do not obey those rules typically receive tickets for misconduct. Jared Baker testified that it is rare for prisoners to be housed in the SHMU other than for major misconduct:
22

“Most of the individuals that are placed [in the SMHU] are placed there for custody reasons versus safety. Most of the inmates are only there for what are considered major tickets at the institution.” (Tr. Vol. III, docket # 2788, at 473.) It is not surprising that some of the inmates who receive misconduct tickets and are moved to the SMHU also have mental illness. Moving an unruly inmate to the SMHU after his misconduct, whether that inmate has mental illness or not, is not the same as using the SMHU as a holding place for the mentally ill. It reflects a practical security decision, not deliberate indifference, particularly when Defendants have satisfied the Court, as previously noted, that they are making adequate health care rounds in the SMHU.
3. Conclusion Based on its consideration of the entire trial record, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to establish their case by a preponderance of the evidence. In particular, Plaintiffs have not established that Defendants failed to comply with the Court’s November 2006 preliminary injunction in any way that would support ongoing relief. Plaintiffs also have not demonstrated a violation of the mental health provisions of the Consent Decree. Nor have Plaintiffs demonstrated systematic deliberate indifference to the serious mental health care needs of the shrinking Hadix class. The Court will enter a separate order implementing this decision.
II. Termination of Injunctive Relief as to JMF The Court’s approval of Defendants’ August Transfer Plan (docket # 2593) became effective on October 17, 2007. (See Revised Opinion, docket # 2624, at 15). Following the approval of the plan, Defendants moved all prisoners from the Southern Michigan Correctional Facility (JMF) and closed the facility. (Def.s’ Mot. to Terminate Injunctive Relief Regarding the
23

Southern Michigan Correctional Facility, docket # 2666, Ex. 1, Aff. of Patricia Caruso at ¶ 2.) Defendants intend the closure to be permanent. (Id.) Defendants have moved that the Court terminate injunctive relief regarding JMF, and Plaintiffs raised no objection. (Id. at 4; Pl.s’ Resp. to Def.s’ Mot. to Terminate Injunctive Relief Regarding the Southern Michigan Correctional Facility (JMF), docket # 2671.)
The Court delayed approval of the motion, waiting to see whether any problems arose in connection with the implementation of the Transfer Plan. In addition, the Court was mindful that termination of the injunctive relief regarding JMF had potential to radically shrink the Hadix class, perhaps to the point of undermining the continuing viability of the action as a class action. The Court did not want to take such potentially significant action without awaiting word from the Court of Appeals on the most recent round of appeals. Now that the Court of Appeals has ruled on the latest appeals, and now that the parties have had more than enough time to assess any potential systematic problems with implementation of the transfer plan, the Court is prepared to grant the relief. Nothing in the record suggests a systemic problem with implementation of the Transfer Plan. And nothing of record suggests that the State has any intention of re-opening JMF. Indeed, Plaintiff do not oppose the relief. Accordingly, it is appropriate now to terminate injunctive relief in this case as to JMF, and the Court will by separate order grant Defendants’ motion to do so.
III. Motion to Terminate Injunctive Relief as to RRF Defendants have also moved to terminate injunctive relief as to the Dialysis Unit now at the Ryan Correctional Facility (RRF). The Dialysis Unit has a unique history within the Hadix litigation. In approximately 2001, Defendants contracted with a nephrologist, Dr. Middlebrook,
24

to establish and operate a dialysis center for MDOC prisoners. (Def.s’ Mot. to Terminate Injunctive Relief Regarding Ryan Correctional Facility’s (RRF) Dialysis Unit, docket # 2667, at ¶ 2.) Dr. Middlebrook established the Dialysis Unit at RRF, using equipment he owned. (Id.) In approximately 2003, when Defendants were still using a concentration model for health care, Defendants asked Dr. Middlebrook to move the Dialysis Unit to JMF, and he agreed. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Before the move, the Dialysis Unit had not been treated as a Hadix facility. After the move, because JMF was part of the SPSM-CC and a Hadix facility, the Dialysis Unit too became part of the SPSM-CC and a Hadix facility.
Early in 2007, as part of an overall cost-cutting plan, Defendants decided to close JMF and shift from a concentration to a dispersal model of health care. At Defendants’ request, Dr. Middlebrook agreed to move the Dialysis Unit back to RRF. Before the Dialysis Unit moved, Defendants submitted a plan to transfer the Dialysis Center and dialysis prisoners to RRF. The Court conditionally approved the plan on June 5, 2007. (Order of June 5, 2007, docket # 2465.) In approving the plan, the Court specified that its exercise of jurisdiction over RRF extended no further than the care and treatment of patients of the Dialysis Unit. (Id. at 2.) Defendants now posit that the Dialysis Unit is outside of the class definition and no longer a Hadix facility.
Because the Dialysis Unit has moved from JMF, which was part of the SPSM-CC, to RRF, which is not part of the SPSM-CC, it is a Hadix facility only if it provides support services to a Hadix facility. The Sixth Circuit recently considered a similar, though not identical, situation in this litigation. See Hadix v. Caruso, 297 Fed. Appx. 504 (6th Cir. 2008). In connection with fire safety improvements, Defendants had permanently closed Block 8, part of the original SPSM-CC, and moved the prisoners formerly housed there to Parnall Units A and B,
25

outside of the original SPSM-CC. Id. at 505-06. The Court terminated injunctive relief over Units A and B, reasoning that the units were neither part of the original SPSM-CC nor providing support services to a Hadix facility. Id. at 505-06. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, noting that Units A and B provided not a single support service to any existing Hadix facility and that there was no risk that the transfers to Units A and B were a ruse to shrink the Hadix class. Id. at 506-07. The Sixth Circuit explicitly rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that Units A and B were support facilities in that they replaced the functions of an original Hadix cellblock: “How can one facility provide ‘support services’ unless there is another facility to support?” Id. at 506. The Sixth Circuit also pointed out that “‘monitoring outside the SPSM-CC does not apply to transfers based on security or safety concerns or for other administrative reasons, but applies only to Hadix prisoners who are sent outside the confines of SPSM-CC temporarily for the purpose of receiving . . . care, with the anticipation that they will return to the SPSM-CC once treatment is complete.’” Id. at 506-07 (citing Hadix v. Johnson, Nos. 93-1551, 93-1555, 93-1559, 93-1560, 93-1642, 93-1643, 1995 WL 559372, at * 8 (6th Cir. Sept. 20, 1995)).
Plaintiffs emphasize that in Hadix v. Johnson, 367 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2004), the Sixth Circuit upheld the Court’s determination that Blocks 1 and 2 of Egeler Correctional Facility were Hadix support facilities, even though those Blocks were not within the original walls of the SPSM-CC and prisoners in Blocks 1 and 2 were not expected to be transferred to another Hadix facility. (See Pl.s’ Opp. to Def.s’ Mot. to Terminate Injunctive Relief Regarding Ryan Correctional Facility’s Dialysis Unit, docket # 2677, at 5-7.) Plaintiffs made the same argument in their appeal of the Court’s decision to terminate injunctive relief as to Units A and B. The Sixth Circuit panel rejected Plaintiffs’ argument. Hadix v. Caruso, 297 Fed. Appx. 504, 507
26

(6th Cir. 2008). It distinguished the earlier decision, pointing out that in the earlier case, Defendants had not contested the Court’s finding that Blocks 1 and 2 were delivering support services, and observing that Blocks 1 and 2 of Egeler provided support services to Duane Waters Hospital (DWH), itself a Hadix support facility. (Id.)
The Dialysis Unit differs from Units A and B in that it does provide a unique service. But does it provide this service in support of any Hadix facility, particularly in light of the closure of JMF? The record suggests that the Hadix prisoners requiring dialysis have been transferred to RRF. (See Order of June 5, 2007, docket 2465, (Approving transfer of dialysis patients to RRF).) In opposing Defendants’ motion, Plaintiffs have not argued that the Dialysis Unit is a Hadix support facility. Rather, they have analogized to Egeler Blocks 1 and 2 and emphasized deep concern about the conditions of the care provided in the Dialysis Unit. For the same reasons the Sixth Circuit applied in distinguishing Units A and B from Blocks 1 and 2, the Dialysis Unit is also distinguishable. There is no indication in the record that the Dialysis Unit supports any Hadix facility. There is also no indication in the record that Defendants have moved the Dialysis Unit for any improper reason. Rather, Defendants appear to have moved the Dialysis Unit as part of an overall plan to reduce costs while providing appropriate care. A move for such an administrative reason is perfectly acceptable.
Because the Dialysis Unit is neither part of the SPSM-CC nor a Hadix support facility, it lies beyond the Consent Decree. Accordingly, the Court will by separate order grant Defendants’ motion to terminate injunctive relief as to the Dialysis Unit. The Court appreciates Plaintiffs’ discussion of health care issues in the Dialysis Unit. However, the standard of care is a separate issue the Court cannot reach in this case unless it finds that the Dialysis Unit is a Hadix facility.
27

Correction of any constitutional violations associated with the provision of care in the Dialysis Unit must be pursued through new, separate litigation.
IV. Office of Independent Medical Monitor By Order of December 7, 2006, in the aftermath of the death of T.S., the Court expanded the role and power of the Associate Medical Monitor in the case, Dr. Robert Cohen. (Order, docket # 2233, at 56.) Among other things, the Order increased Dr. Cohen’s staff by at least three and required Defendants to provide office space to Dr. Cohen and his new staff at a Hadix facility. (Id. at 58-59.) Defendants appealed the Court’s Order, and the Sixth Circuit remanded the appeal. In its decision, the Sixth Circuit panel noted that “the closure of JMF will likely diminish the Medical Monitor’s role given that it will have far fewer Hadix prisoners to monitor after the closing of that facility.” Hadix v. Caruso, 248 Fed. Appx. 678, 682-83 (6th Cir., Sept. 21, 2007). The panel also commented that removing Units A and B from the reach of the consent decree would also reduce the role of the medical monitor. (Id. at 682.) The panel described an apparent contradiction between the Court’s March and September 2007 opinions. (Id. at 682-83) It observed that in the March decision, the court authorized the medical monitor to review complaints of former Hadix prisoners alleging inappropriate medical care in non-Hadix facilities to which they had been transferred and, if necessary, to order them returned to a Hadix facility, while the Court’s September decision suggested that empowering the medical monitor to do so might exceed the scope of the Consent Decree. (Id.) The panel remanded the appeal “to give the district court an opportunity to address the point and to consider whether recent developments make it necessary for the court to alter the Medical Monitor’s authority and mandate.” (Id. at 683.)
28

At the time the Court authorized the Medical Monitor to hear complaints from former Hadix prisoners, there was no court-approved Transfer Plan in place. Until the Court could satisfy itself that Defendants had submitted an appropriate transfer plan, the Court was reluctant to permit transfers without continued monitoring. Even after approving Defendants’ August Transfer Plan, the Court delayed granting Defendants’ unopposed motion to terminate injunctive relief as to JMF, waiting to make sure the transfers occurred as the Transfer Plan contemplated. The Court has seen no indication that the implementation of the Transfer Plan has not succeeded. Accordingly, the Court has terminated prospective relief as to JMF and RRF.
The closure of JMF and the removal of RRF and Units A and B from the reach of the Consent Decree reduce considerably the extent of the Medical Monitor’s duties. In addition, the Court’s findings and conclusions rejecting ongoing, or new mental health relief eliminate the original basis for expanding the Monitor’s duties. The Medical Monitor’s role should shrink accordingly. It is now appropriate to scale back the Medical Monitor’s role at least to the contours it held before the Court’s December 7, 2006 order expanding it. The Court will enter a separate order returning the Office of the Medical Monitor to the size and scope of authority it had before December 7, 2006.
V. Remaining Hadix Facilities In light of the closure of JMF, it is not entirely clear what, if any, Hadix facilities remain, and how many, if any, Hadix class members remain. Defendants have essentially argued that there is no primary facility left to support and that therefore, the class has disappeared. Plaintiffs have disputed this claim. The Court will schedule a status conference to address with the parties
29

how best to proceed on this issue, as well as any other matter addressing the future trajectory of this litigation.

Dated: March 31, 2009

/s/ Robert J. Jonker ROBERT J. JONKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

30

 
 Case 4:92-cv-00110-RJJ Doc #2905 Filed 04/01/09 Page 1 of 1 Page ID#13442

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

EVERETT HADIX, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

Case No. 4:92-CV-110

v.

)

)

HONORABLE ROBERT J. JONKER

PATRICIA CARUSO, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

NOTICE OF APPEAL

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that all Plaintiffs appeal against all Defendants to the United

States Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit from the Order and Opinion of the District Court on

March 31, 2009 (Dkt. Nos. 2903 and 2904).

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Elizabeth Alexander ELIZABETH ALEXANDER National Prison Project of the ACLU 915 15th Street, N.W., 7th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 393-4930

PATRICIA STREETER (P30022) 221 North Main Street Suite 300 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 (734) 222-0088

Dated: April 1, 2009

 
 Case C4:a9s2e-:cv0-90-01141204-RDJJocDumocen#t3:0030361F1ile0d900339/2029/11FilePda:g0e31/2o2f/220111PaPgaegIeD:#113931

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 11a0168n.06

Nos. 09-1424, 09-2255
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

FILED
Mar 22, 2011
LEONARD GREEN, Clerk

EVERETT HADIX et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

)

)

v.

)

)

PATRICIA L. CARUSO et al.,

)

)

Defendants-Appellees.

)

)

_______________________________________)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
O P I N I O N

Before: MOORE, SUTTON, and FRIEDMAN,* Circuit Judges. KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. This case, which has a procedural history
spanning more than thirty years, involves a civil-rights action brought by Michigan prisoners alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinement. The subjects of this consolidated appeal are two orders entered by the district court on March 31, 2009, and September 10, 2009, which relate respectively to the injunctive relief ordered in November 2006 and the plaintiffs’ motion to add four new class representatives. With respect to the March 31, 2009 order, we AFFIRM the district court’s termination of the relief granted in November 2006. We hold that we lack jurisdiction to consider the September 10, 2009 order, however, because the district court denied without prejudice the

*The Honorable Daniel M. Friedman, United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.

Case C4:a9s2e-:cv0-90-01141204-RDJJocDumocen#t3:0030361F1ile0d900339/2029/11FilePda:g0e32/2o2f/220111PaPgaegIeD:#213932
Nos. 09-1424, 09-2255 Hadix et al. v. Caruso et al.
motion to add new named plaintiffs, and the district court has not yet considered the merits of the motion in the first instance.
I. BACKGROUND In 1980, Everett Hadix and ten other prisoners brought a class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of all prisoners incarcerated at the State Prison of Southern Michigan, Central Complex (“SPSM-CC”) against various state prison officials. Brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the complaint alleged unconstitutional conditions of confinement. In 1985, the parties entered into a comprehensive Consent Decree, which was later approved by the district court, addressing various aspects of prison life, including safety, sanitation, hygiene, and protection from harm. The Consent Decree stated that its provisions were “intended by the parties to assure the constitutionality of the conditions under which prisoners are incarcerated at SPSM-CC,” although the decree contained neither an admission of liability on the part of the state prison officials nor any findings of constitutional violations. Joint Appendix (“J.A.”) in No. 09-1424 at 392 (Consent Decree). Section II.B. of the Consent Decree addresses mental-health issues inside the SPSM. The mandates of these provisions were officially terminated on January 8, 2001, but, in response to the tragic death of an inmate suffering from mental-health problems in 2006, the district court reopened several aspects of the mental-health-care provisions of the Consent Decree in November 2006. Specifically, the district court reopened section II.B., “limited to the provisions of [the November
2

Case C4:a9s2e-:cv0-90-01141204-RDJJocDumocen#t3:0030361F1ile0d900339/2029/11FilePda:g0e33/2o2f/220111PaPgaegIeD:#313933

Nos. 09-1424, 09-2255 Hadix et al. v. Caruso et al.

2006] Order and Preliminary Injunction.” R. 2187 (November 13, 2006 D. Ct. Order at 1). The

district court ordered that the defendants comply with the following:

•

“immediately cease and desist from the practice of using any form of punitive

mechanical restraints within Hadix facilities, and [] timely develop practices,

protocols and policies to enforce this limitation”;

•

“immediately work to develop a staffing plan for adequate psychiatric and

psychological staffing at Hadix facilities to ensure that routine and emergent

psychiatric and psychological services are provided in a timely way”;

•

“immediately work to provide daily psychologist or psychiatrist rounds in the

segregation unit at the Hadix facilities”; and

•

“immediately work to develop protocols for the coordination of mental health

and medical staff, and [] require weekly conferences of the two disciplines

which shall include . . . the treatment of prisoners in the segregation unit, and

which shall include necessary training to prevent staff and administrative

indifference to the provision of care . . . .”

Id. at 1–3 (emphasis removed). The district court also permitted the plaintiffs to undertake

“discovery as to mental health care in advance of a final injunctive hearing.” Id.

In ordering this preliminary injunctive relief, the district court was mindful of the

requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), which permits injunctive relief relating

to prison conditions only if the district court finds that such relief is necessary to correct a violation

of a federal right:

Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right. The court shall give

3

Case C4:a9s2e-:cv0-90-01141204-RDJJocDumocen#t3:0030361F1ile0d900339/2029/11FilePda:g0e34/2o2f/220111PaPgaegIeD:#413934
Nos. 09-1424, 09-2255 Hadix et al. v. Caruso et al.
substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). In the November 2006 order, the district court found that the use of mechanical restraints, the inadequate mental-health-professional staffing levels, the lack of daily rounds by a psychologist, and the absence of a protocol for coordination of the medical and mentalhealth staff constituted deliberate indifference, in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. After the November 2006 injunction was entered, this court heard several appeals in this case relating to the injunctive relief and other matters. See Hadix v. Caruso, 297 F. App’x 504, 2008 WL 4659809 (6th Cir. 2008) (unpublished opinion); Hadix v. Caruso, 248 F. App’x 678, 2007 WL 2753026 (6th Cir. 2007) (unpublished opinion). The parties also filed two motions in the district court in anticipation of a hearing on permanent injunctive relief. The defendants filed a motion to terminate the injunctive relief granted in November 2006, R. 2684, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for further injunctive relief, R. 2757. Ultimately, the district court ruled in favor of the defendants on both motions, R.2903 (March 31, 2009 D. Ct. Op.), prompting the plaintiffs’ appeal in No. 091424. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a motion to add four new class representatives because the previous—and sole remaining—named plaintiff was no longer a member of the Hadix class due to the fact that the facility at which he resided was determined to be no longer a Hadix facility. R.2915. The district court denied this motion without prejudice in an unnumbered docket entry on September 4, 2009, “pending outcome of the current appeal.” In response to the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of this order, R.2947, the district court stated that the motion for reconsideration was
4

Case C4:a9s2e-:cv0-90-01141204-RDJJocDumocen#t3:0030361F1ile0d900339/2029/11FilePda:g0e35/2o2f/220111PaPgaegIeD:#513935
Nos. 09-1424, 09-2255 Hadix et al. v. Caruso et al.
denied without prejudice because “it is prudent to await the decision of the Court of Appeals, so that all parties will have the benefit of that ruling before addressing the issues raised by Plaintiff’s motion . . .,” R. 2949 at 1. The plaintiffs’ appeal from this denial of reconsideration constitutes the second part of this appeal, No. 09-2255.
II. The Termination Of Relief Relating To The Mental-Health-Care Provisions The plaintiffs-appellants’ appeal of the district court’s March 31, 2009 opinion and order addresses both the district court’s decision to terminate the limited, preliminary injunctive relief it granted in November 2006, and the district court’s decision not to grant any new, additional injunctive relief. We have jurisdiction to consider this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). In addition, we review “decision[s] to grant or deny a preliminary or permanent injunction” for abuse of discretion. Kallstrom v. City of Columbus, 136 F.3d 1055, 1067 (6th Cir. 1998). “In determining whether the district court abused its discretion, we review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.” Hadix v. Johnson, 182 F.3d 400, 404 (6th Cir. 1999) (quoting Sandison v. Mich. High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 64 F.3d 1026, 1030 (6th Cir. 1995)). We will overrule “the district court’s weighing and balancing of the equities . . . only in the rarest of cases.” Id. (quoting Six Clinics Holding Corp., II v. Cafcomp Sys., Inc., 119 F.3d 393, 400 (6th Cir. 1997)). In addition to requiring the existence of a violation of a federal right before a district court may grant injunctive relief in a conditions-of-confinement case, the PLRA contains several other provisions providing for immediate termination of injunctive relief improperly granted and
5

Case C4:a9s2e-:cv0-90-01141204-RDJJocDumocen#t3:0030361F1ile0d900339/2029/11FilePda:g0e36/2o2f/220111PaPgaegIeD:#613936
Nos. 09-1424, 09-2255 Hadix et al. v. Caruso et al.
addressing the ability of the plaintiffs to keep in effect relief previously granted. These provisions remain focused on the existence of a violation of a federal right:
(2) Immediate termination of prospective relief.—In any civil action with respect to prison conditions, a defendant or intervener shall be entitled to the immediate termination of any prospective relief if the relief was approved or granted in the absence of a finding by the court that the relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right. (3) Limitation.—Prospective relief shall not terminate if the court makes written findings based on the record that prospective relief remains necessary to correct a current and ongoing violation of the Federal right, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and that the prospective relief is narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means to correct the violation. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2)–(3). Under this standard, the defendants could obtain termination of the relief granted in the 2006 injunction if they convinced the district court that there was no longer a “current and ongoing” constitutional violation. On the other hand, the plaintiffs could prevent the termination of the 2006 injunctive relief if the district court found that there was still a “current and ongoing” constitutional violation, and that “the prospective relief is narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means to correct the violation.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3). The district court heard testimony from both sides over seven days of hearings in April, May, June, and August of 2008, after which it issued a decision holding that there were no longer any constitutional violations in relation to the provision of mental-health care, that the plaintiffs had not shown any violations of the Consent Decree when seeking new injunctive relief, and that the state had complied with the requirements of the 2006 injunction. R.2903 (March 31, 2009 D. Ct. Op.).
6

Case C4:a9s2e-:cv0-90-01141204-RDJJocDumocen#t3:0030361F1ile0d900339/2029/11FilePda:g0e37/2o2f/220111PaPgaegIeD:#713937
Nos. 09-1424, 09-2255 Hadix et al. v. Caruso et al.
The district court therefore terminated all relief relating to mental-health care, resulting in the complete termination of section II.B. of the Consent Decree.1
With respect to the termination of relief already in effect from November 2006, the plaintiffs assert that the district court erred by applying the wrong standard for an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference violation and by failing to make certain necessary findings of fact under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a). The plaintiffs also argue that the district court erred in not modifying the Consent Decree, and in making clearly erroneous findings regarding the defendants’ efforts to comply with the 2006 injunction. With respect to the district court’s refusal to grant additional prospective relief, apart from that granted in November 2006, the plaintiffs assert that the district court again applied the wrong standard for deliberate indifference and failed to modify the Consent Decree or otherwise to find a breach of the Consent Decree by the defendants. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the district court. A. The District Court’s Conclusion That There Is No Eighth Amendment Violation
A claim of deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment contains two components, one objective and one subjective. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994); Comstock v. McCrary, 273 F.3d 693, 702 (6th Cir. 2001). The objective component requires that the plaintiff show a deprivation that is “sufficiently serious,” one that “pos[es] a substantial risk of serious harm.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. The subjective component requires that the plaintiff show that the prison
1We note, however, that several portions of the Consent Decree—apart from the mentalhealth provisions of section II.B.—remain open. Therefore, the termination of the mental-health provisions will not, in and of itself, end the entire case.
7

Case C4:a9s2e-:cv0-90-01141204-RDJJocDumocen#t3:0030361F1ile0d900339/2029/11FilePda:g0e38/2o2f/220111PaPgaegIeD:#813938
Nos. 09-1424, 09-2255 Hadix et al. v. Caruso et al.
officials had a “sufficiently culpable state of mind,” specifically that “the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Id. at 834, 837.
The plaintiffs claim that Farmer indicates that proof of the subjective component is not necessary when a party is seeking only injunctive relief, and that a previous opinion of this court in this litigation removes that requirement completely. Plaintiffs Br. in No. 09-1424 at 34–36 (citing Hadix v. Johnson, 367 F.3d 513, 526 (6th Cir. 2004)). We need not reach this issue, however, because, for the reasons that follow, even if the plaintiffs are correct that proof of only the objective component was necessary, we would affirm on the basis of the district court’s conclusion that there is no longer a “current and ongoing” constitutional violation.
First, it is important to put the injunctive relief at issue here in context. The November 2006 reopening of the Consent Decree was a “limited” one from the beginning, R. 2187 (November 13, 2006 D. Ct. Order at 1), requiring only “specific, measurable steps carefully tied to the original Consent Decree,” R.2903 (March 31, 2009 D. Ct. Op. at 6). Furthermore, as part of the November 2006 order, the district court also permitted the plaintiffs to undertake discovery “as to mental health care,” saving for a later date the question of whether permanent injunctive relief would be granted, R.2187 (November 13, 2006 D. Ct. Order at 1–2). “[T]hus,” the November 2006 order “limit[ed] the potential duration as well as the scope of the re-opening.” R.2903 (March 31, 2009 D. Ct. Op. at 6). As mentioned above, the district court ultimately held seven days of hearings through the
8

Case C4:a9s2e-:cv0-90-01141204-RDJJocDumocen#t3:0030361F1ile0d900339/2029/11FilePda:g0e39/2o2f/220111PaPgaegIeD:#913939
Nos. 09-1424, 09-2255 Hadix et al. v. Caruso et al.
spring and summer of 2008 on whether to grant permanent relief related to the mental-health
provisions of the Consent Decree.
In its March 31, 2009 opinion on the plaintiffs’ motion for additional relief and the
defendants’ motion to terminate the November 2006 injunctive relief, the district court engaged in
an extensive discussion of the testimony it heard in the seven days of hearings. In doing so, it made
findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the issue of compliance with the terms of the
preliminary injunction. Looking to the four specific issues identified in November 2006—the use
of mechanical restraints, mental-health-care staffing, daily rounds, and coordination of medical and
mental-health staff—the district court concluded that the defendants had complied with each of the
four parts of the November 2006 order granting a limited re-opening of the Consent Decree.
Had the district court concluded its analysis there, we would be forced to find error. As we
have noted earlier in the course of this litigation:
the relevant inquiry is not whether the defendants are in compliance with the consent decree; instead, pursuant to the PLRA, the district court must determine if the consent decree is currently necessary. To fulfill its statutory duty, the district court must make written findings as to whether “prospective relief remains necessary to correct a current and ongoing violation of the Federal right, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and that the prospective relief is narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means to correct the violation.” § 3626(b)(3). If the court finds that the current conditions at SPSM-CC do not violate the Constitution, then it should terminate the consent decree, regardless of whether the objectives of the consent decree have been achieved. If, on the other hand, the court finds that constitutional violations persist, then it should retain jurisdiction to enforce compliance with the consent decree, provided that the prospective relief set forth in the decree is necessary, narrowly drawn, and the least intrusive means to correct the violations.
9

Case C4:a9s2e-:cv0-90-01141204-RDJJocDumocen#t3:0030361F1ile0d900339/2029/11FilePda:g0e31/202o/2f 02111 PPaaggeeI:D1#013940
Nos. 09-1424, 09-2255 Hadix et al. v. Caruso et al.
Hadix v. Johnson, 228 F.3d 662, 673 (6th Cir. 2000) (emphasis in original). The district court did not end its consideration of the necessity of injunctive relief with these findings of fact, however. Instead, the district court proceeded to consider the issue left open in the November 2006 order: whether, with the benefit of having conducted a full evidentiary hearing, a “[g]eneral [r]e-opening” of the mental-health-care provisions was appropriate. R.2903 (March 31, 2009 D. Ct. Op. at 13). In this regard, the district court’s findings that the defendants had complied with the terms of the November 2006 preliminary injunction were relevant to its consideration of whether a current or ongoing constitutional violation warranted further injunctive relief.
The district court ultimately concluded that “Plaintiffs have failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants are violating the Consent Decree provisions governing mental health care, or that any asserted violations of the Consent Decree are of constitutional proportions.” R.2903 (March 31, 2009 D. Ct. Op. at 14). In reaching this conclusion, the district court found credible the report and testimony of one of the defendants’ experts in psychiatry, Dr. Jeffrey L. Metzner. Id. at 16–17. Dr. Metzner “reviewed a wide range of documents material to the Court’s November 2006 and May 2007 orders; visited Hadix facilities; met with key mental health, medical and administrative staff; observed mental health rounds; [and] attended a case management meeting.” Id. at 16. Noting several ways in which “Dr. Metzner’s report describes substantial improvements in Defendants’ provision of mental health care,” the district court agreed with Dr. Metzner’s conclusion that the defendants’ plan to respond to the district court’s orders “satisfactorily addresses the Court’s stated concerns.” Id. at 17.
10

Case C4:a9s2e-:cv0-90-01141204-RDJJocDumocen#t3:0030361F1ile0d900339/2029/11FilePda:g0e31/212o/2f 02111 PPaaggeeI:D1#113941
Nos. 09-1424, 09-2255 Hadix et al. v. Caruso et al.
The district court also relied upon the testimony of two other defense witnesses. First, it found credible the testimony of Jared Baker, “a limited license psychologist who conducted rounds in the [segregation unit] over a period of several months.” R.2903 (March 31, 2009 D. Ct. Op. at 18). In the district court’s view, “Mr. Baker’s on-the-ground experience and practical perspective offer especially valuable insight into the provision of mental health care in the [segregation unit]. Mr. Baker described receiving meaningful supervision throughout his rounding experience.” Id. He also “described prompt and confidential evaluations of inmates newly-assigned to the [segregation unit].” Id. at 19.
Second, the district court found credible the testimony of Craig Crawford, the Unit Chief for the Outpatient Mental Health Team. “His responses [to questions about particular inmates] reflected a degree of knowledge and concern that went well beyond mere trial preparation.” Id. The district court described him as “deeply committed to his patients.” Id. “Regardless of whether Mr. Crawford, or any other mental health professional always made exactly the best possible call, Mr. Crawford’s testimony showed the very opposite of deliberate indifference.” Id. at 20.
The plaintiffs argue that the intake-screening process at the Hadix facilities, which is designed to identify prisoners with mental-health needs as they enter the prison, is grossly inadequate, such that it constitutes deliberate indifference to the prisoners’ mental-health needs. The plaintiffs point to two relevant factors in the intake-screening process that, in their view, have an impact on the prospects of a prisoner with mental-health-care needs: (1) “the identity of the
11

Case C4:a9s2e-:cv0-90-01141204-RDJJocDumocen#t3:0030361F1ile0d900339/2029/11FilePda:g0e31/222o/2f 02111 PPaaggeeI:D1#213942
Nos. 09-1424, 09-2255 Hadix et al. v. Caruso et al.
psychiatrist who is randomly assigned to evaluate the prisoner,” and (2) “whether the prisoner arrives
with an existing prescription for psychotropic medications.” Plaintiffs Br. in No. 09-1424 at 40.
With respect to the importance of the identity of the psychiatrist, the plaintiffs presented
evidence that “discrepancies in the performance of [the prison’s] psychiatrists” undermine the
effectiveness of the defendants’ “bridge order,” which ensures that prisoners coming into a Hadix
facility while taking mental-health medication receive an examination by a mental-health practitioner
upon entrance to the SPSM. Id. at 9–14. To support the conclusion that these discrepancies pose
a substantial risk of harm, the plaintiffs point to the testimony of their expert in psychiatry, Dr. Terry
Kupers, and their expert in psychology, Dr. Robert R. Walsh. Id. at 41 (citing R.2787 (Testimony
of Dr. Terry Kupers at 291–92) and R.2815 (Testimony of Dr. Robert R. Walsh at 675–76)). The
district court, however, found neither expert’s testimony helpful. In particular, the district court
believed that Dr. Kupers’s testimony is “ultimately largely beside the point.” R.2903 (March 31,
2009 D. Ct. Op. at 21). In the district court’s view:
Dr. Kupers identified many things the Defendants could do better. Indeed, Dr. Kupers often appeared to be an advocate for “best practices” care, which is laudable and sensible, but quite different than showing deliberate indifference. Indeed, when pressed by the Court on this point, the most Dr. Kupers could ultimately conclude was that there exists some unquantifiable risk of future harm if Defendants fail to adopt his recommendations. But this falls far short of the deliberate indifference standard. The Court heard in Dr. Kupers’s testimony further evidence of the complexity of caring for the mentally ill in prison, but not evidence of deliberate indifference. The Court also notes that Dr. Kupers, in contrast to Defendants’ expert, had no real experience in actually making operational decisions within a prison setting.
Id. As for Dr. Walsh, the district court found him similarly unpersuasive:
12

Case C4:a9s2e-:cv0-90-01141204-RDJJocDumocen#t3:0030361F1ile0d900339/2029/11FilePda:g0e31/232o/2f 02111 PPaaggeeI:D1#313943
Nos. 09-1424, 09-2255 Hadix et al. v. Caruso et al.
Dr. Walsh’s testimony, though sincere and helpful, is not especially germane to the present situation. His testimony tended to focus on the practices and protocols that existed under his leadership [when he was the administrator of psychological services for the Jackson Clinical Complex] and subsequent changes in those practices and protocols. His testimony offered much more insight into the past than into the current situation. Moreover, like Dr. Kupers, his testimony focused more on Defendants’ alleged failure to adopt “best practices,” not on alleged systematic, deliberate indifference. The Court could not base any finding of deliberate indifference on the testimony of Dr. Walsh. Id. at 22. In addition, the district court was not persuaded that the evidence of discrepancies in the intake-screening process establishes a constitutional violation; the district court believed that “[a]t most, this evidence identifies possible limited cases of questionable diagnosis or treatment. But that does not amount to deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. The Bridge Order ensures that psychotropic medication will continue at least until a mental health professional has an opportunity to make a professional judgment of the prisoner patient’s needs.” Id. at 18. We see no clear error in these factual findings; we are not left with the “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Indmar Prods. Co. v. Comm’r, 444 F.3d 771, 777–78 (6th Cir. 2006). Indeed, “[w]hen findings are based on determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses, Rule 52(a) demands even greater deference to the trial court’s findings[.]” Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 575 (1985). The district court considered and rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the “risks presented by sudden discontinuations of psychotropic medication for prisoners coming into a Hadix facility” provided a basis for a finding of deliberate indifference. R.2903 (March 31, 2009 D. Ct. Op. at 17). In particular, the district court found that the defendants’ implementation of the bridge order
13

Case C4:a9s2e-:cv0-90-01141204-RDJJocDumocen#t3:0030361F1ile0d900339/2029/11FilePda:g0e31/242o/2f 02111 PPaaggeeI:D1#413944
Nos. 09-1424, 09-2255 Hadix et al. v. Caruso et al.
“promises a meaningful reduction in abrupt, potentially dangerous interruptions in psychiatric medications.” Id. at 17. In support of this finding, the district court noted the testimony of Diana Childers, who “indicated that a policy akin to the Bridge Order would have been helpful under the circumstances her son experienced.” Id. “All parties appear to agree that the Bridge Order is a significant step forward in improving mental health care in Hadix facilities.” Id. We see no clear error in these findings.
Given all of these factual findings by the district court, we do not believe that there was an objective risk of serious harm in violation of the Eighth Amendment with respect to the intakescreening process at the Hadix facilities. We therefore reject the plaintiffs’ argument to the contrary.
The plaintiffs further argue that an objectively intolerable risk of serious harm exists due to delays experienced by prisoners in need of mental-health treatment. To this end, they point to the delay in providing one delusional patient (who was refusing a CT scan for a suspicious mass in his pelvis) access to a psychologist and a psychiatrist. It took five days for this patient to be seen by a psychologist and sixteen days to be seen by a psychiatrist. The plaintiffs also point to the minutes of a staff meeting in 2008 which noted that staff members acknowledged that there existed “fail[ures] to identify mental illness and suicidality. Numerous instances of a failure to see patients timely. Very long waiting list.” Plaintiffs Br. in No. 09-1424 at 16 (quoting J.A. in No. 09-1424 at 1086–87). Furthermore, the plaintiffs point to testimony from Dr. Kupers that he found “[m]any examples” of unsupervised limited-license staff members serving as “gatekeepers” to psychiatrists. R.2787 (Testimony of Dr. Terry Kupers at 307). Dr. Kupers also stated his belief that limited-license
14

Case C4:a9s2e-:cv0-90-01141204-RDJJocDumocen#t3:0030361F1ile0d900339/2029/11FilePda:g0e31/252o/2f 02111 PPaaggeeI:D1#513945
Nos. 09-1424, 09-2255 Hadix et al. v. Caruso et al.
staff members had inadequate supervision. Id. at 308. Lastly, the plaintiffs point out that when Dr. Kupers was asked if he thought that “the level of delay in access to mental health services is exposing prisoners to a substantial danger of serious harm,” Dr. Kupers responded, “Absolutely it is.” Id. at 296.
We do not believe that this evidence requires reversal of the district court’s determination that there was no longer a current and ongoing constitutional violation. With respect to Dr. Kupers, as mentioned above, the district court did not find his testimony to be persuasive in establishing deliberate indifference. The district court noted, for example, that Dr. Kupers’s beliefs as to what constituted “best practices” do not necessarily establish deliberate indifference. Rather, “[t]he Court heard in Dr. Kupers’s testimony further evidence of the complexity of caring for the mentally ill in prison.” R.2903 (March 31, 2009 D. Ct. Op. at 21). Additionally, the five- and sixteen-day time span before services were provided to the patient who was refusing a CT scan and the staff-meeting minutes from 2008 are insufficient, in our view, to warrant a judgment that the defendants have been deliberately indifferent to prisoners’ serious medical needs, especially in light of the district court’s finding that great improvements have been made with respect to mental-health-care staffing, the provision of daily rounds, and the coordination of mental-health and medical staff, id. at 10–13, along with the district court’s confidence in the testimony of Metzner, Baker, and Crawford, id. at 18–21.
We therefore see no basis on which to reverse the district court’s determination that there was no longer a current and ongoing violation of the Eighth Amendment in the provision of mental-
15

Case C4:a9s2e-:cv0-90-01141204-RDJJocDumocen#t3:0030361F1ile0d900339/2029/11FilePda:g0e31/262o/2f 02111 PPaaggeeI:D1#613946
Nos. 09-1424, 09-2255 Hadix et al. v. Caruso et al.
health services at the Hadix facilities. We cannot say that the district court’s conclusions regarding an objectively “substantial risk of serious harm,” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834, were in error.2 B. The Plaintiffs’ Remaining Arguments
Given our agreement with the district court’s determination that there is no longer any constitutional violation with respect to the provision of mental-health care in the Hadix facilities, our consideration of the plaintiffs’ remaining arguments becomes simpler. First, the plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in failing to make certain findings of fact under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a). We see no merit in this argument. The district court made numerous findings of fact throughout its opinion, as discussed above, and these, we have determined, provided a sufficient basis for the district court’s legal conclusion—which we affirm today—that there was no longer an ongoing violation of the Eighth Amendment with respect to the provision of mental-health services in the Hadix facilities at the time of the district court’s judgment.
Second, in light of our determination that the district court did not err in concluding that there was no longer an ongoing violation of the Eighth Amendment, we need not address the plaintiffs’ argument that the district court erred in failing to modify or find a breach of the Consent Decree.
2We also do not adopt the plaintiffs’ argument that an Eighth Amendment violation has occurred due to “Defendants’ practice of allowing limited-license psychologists to stop referrals to psychiatrists.” Plaintiffs Br. in No. 09-1424 at 44. Although the plaintiffs have pointed to the testimony of Dr. Kupers that, in his view, limited-license psychologists and other mental-health staff members require much closer supervision than they currently receive, id. at 17, 19 (citing J.A. in No. 09-1424 at 903, 904, 907, 908, 914), we are not convinced that this constitutes an objectively intolerable risk of harm in the circumstances of this case. Dr. Kupers’s testimony relates to “best practices” care, which, as the district court found, does not establish deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause.
16

Case C4:a9s2e-:cv0-90-01141204-RDJJocDumocen#t3:0030361F1ile0d900339/2029/11FilePda:g0e31/272o/2f 02111 PPaaggeeI:D1#713947
Nos. 09-1424, 09-2255 Hadix et al. v. Caruso et al.
The PLRA precludes the grant or continuation of injunctive relief in the absence of a finding of a constitutional violation. Finally, because the district court determined that there is no “current and ongoing” constitutional violation, we need not address the plaintiffs’ argument that the district court made clearly erroneous findings of fact regarding the defendants’ efforts to comply with the 2006 injunction. C. Conclusion
For these reasons, we conclude that the district court did not err in determining that there was no longer a “current and ongoing” violation of the Eighth Amendment. We therefore affirm the district court’s termination of all injunctive relief related to the mental-health provisions of the Consent Decree.
III. The Denial Of The Motion To Add New Named Plaintiffs The appeal in No. 09-2255 relates to the district court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ motion to add four new class representatives, invoking Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, governing intervention. The need to add these new named plaintiffs arose from the fact that the district court determined in its March 31, 2009 order that the facility in which the sole remaining named plaintiff resided, the Ryan Correctional Facility, no longer constituted a Hadix facility, leaving no named Hadix class members. The district court denied without prejudice the motion to add new named plaintiffs in an unnumbered docket entry on September 4, 2009, “pending outcome of the current appeal.” The district court also denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, R.2947, on the ground that if the U.S. Court of Appeals upholds the district court’s March 31, 2009, order in Sixth Circuit Appeal No.
17

Case C4:a9s2e-:cv0-90-01141204-RDJJocDumocen#t3:0030361F1ile0d900339/2029/11FilePda:g0e31/282o/2f 02111 PPaaggeeI:D1#813948
Nos. 09-1424, 09-2255 Hadix et al. v. Caruso et al.
09-1424, the scope of the remaining class may be impacted, thereby affecting the propriety of intervention. R. 2949 (September 10, 2009 D. Ct. Order). More specifically, the district court stated that the motion for reconsideration was denied because “it is prudent to await the decision of the Court of Appeals, so that all parties will have the benefit of that ruling before addressing the issues raised by Plaintiff’s motion . . . .” Id.
The district court therefore did not consider on the merits the requirements of Rule 24, opting instead to deny the motion without prejudice to refiling. This decision, however, is not a “final decision” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because it does not “end[] the litigation on the merits.” Cunningham v. Hamilton County, 527 U.S. 198, 204 (1999). It also does not fall within the collateral order doctrine, a “practical construction” of section 1291, because it does not “conclusively determine the disputed question” of whether the individuals named in the motion may be added as new named plaintiffs. Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 349–50 (2006); see also Moldowan v. City of Warren, 578 F.3d 351, 368 (6th Cir. 2009). Indeed, the district court expressly contemplated the possibility of “renewal of the motion following the ruling and mandate of the Court of Appeals.” R.2949. Lastly, the decision below does not present issues that are “inextricably intertwined with an independently appealable issue,” see Turi v. Main Street Adoption Services, LLP, --- F.3d ----, No. 09-2229, 2011 WL 744154, at *4 (6th Cir. March 4, 2011), and it does not fall within the narrow set of appealable orders listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1292. As a result, we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial without prejudice of the plaintiffs’ motion to add new named plaintiffs.
18

Case C4:a9s2e-:cv0-90-01141204-RDJJocDumocen#t3:0030361F1ile0d900339/2029/11FilePda:g0e31/292o/2f 02111 PPaaggeeI:D1#913949 Nos. 09-1424, 09-2255 Hadix et al. v. Caruso et al.
IV. CONCLUSION For these reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court terminating all injunctive relief relating to the mental-health provisions of the Consent Decree. We also hold that we lack jurisdiction to consider the district court’s denial without prejudice of the motion to add new named plaintiffs.
19

Case 4C:9a2s-ec:v0-090-1141204-RJDJocDuomce#n3t:003036F1i1le0d903/92123/11FiPleadg: e032/022o/f220111 PaPgaegeID: 1#13950

Leonard Green Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540 POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202-3988

Tel. (513) 564-7000 www.ca6.uscourts.gov

Filed: March 22, 2011

Ms. Elizabeth R. Alexander American Civil Liberties Union National Prison Project 915 15th Street, N.W. 7th Floor Washington, DC 20005-0000
Mr. Daniel S. Korobkin ACLU Fund of Michigan 2966 Woodward Avenue Detroit, MI 48201
Ms. Patricia Annette Streeter 221 N. Main Street Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104-0000
Re: Case No. 09-1424 /09-2255 , Everett Hadix, et al v. Patricia Caruso, et al Originating Case No. : 92-00110
Dear Sir or Madam,
The Court issued the enclosed (Order/Opinion) today in this case.
Sincerely yours,
s/Bryant L. Crutcher Case Manager Direct Dial No. 513-564-7013

Case 4C:9a2s-ec:v0-090-1141204-RJDJocDuomce#n3t:003036F1i1le0d903/92123/11FiPleadg: e032/122o/f220111 PaPgaegeID: 2#13951
cc: Ms. Tracey Cordes Mr. A. Peter Govorchin
Enclosure Mandate to issue

 
 CaseC4a:9s2e-:c0v9-0-10412140-RDJoJcuDmoecn#t:3004601F1i0le9d20645/4153/1F1ilePda: g0e4/113o/f22011PagPeagIDe:#14018

Leonard Green Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540 POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202-3988

Tel. (513) 564-7000 www.ca6.uscourts.gov

Filed: April 13, 2011

Ms. Tracey Cordes U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Kalamazoo 410 W. Michigan Avenue Suite B-35 Federal Building Kalamazoo, MI 49007-0000
Re: Case No. 09-1424 /09-2255 , Everett Hadix, et al v. Patricia Caruso, et al Originating Case No. : 92-00110
Dear Clerk,
Enclosed is a copy of the mandate filed in this case.
Sincerely yours,

cc: Ms. Elizabeth R. Alexander Mr. A. Peter Govorchin Mr. Daniel S. Korobkin Ms. Patricia Annette Streeter
Enclosure

s/Bryant L. Crutcher Case Manager Direct Dial No. 513-564-7013

CaseC4a:9s2e-:c0v9-0-10412140-RDJoJcuDmoecn#t:3004601F1i0le9d20645/4153/1F1ilePda: g0e4/213o/f22011PagPeagIDe:#214019
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
________________ No: 09-1424 /09-2255
________________
Filed: April 13, 2011
EVERETT HADIX; RICHARD MAPES; PATRICK C. SOMMERVILLE; DANNY WALKER; MARK A. COLEMAN; TED SULLIVAN; ORVEL SIMMONS; TED RHODEPLA; CYLESTER VAN NUNNALLY; MARK LEMOTHE; MICHAEL ANTHONY GRAY; PERRY ALAN DAVIS; JAMES CHIPMAN; AL BUTTONS; JAMES ALEXANDER; JAMES HADIX; FRANK THOMAS; JAMES COVINGTON; WILLIAM LOVETT; ROBERT FLEMSTER; DARRYL STURGES; LEE D. MCDONALD; BRENT E. KOSTER; ROBERT HUDSON, JR.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants v. PATRICIA L. CARUSO; ROBERT BROWN, JR.; PAMELA WITHROW; MARJORIE VAN OCHTEN; JOHN PRELESNIK; FRANK ELO; WILLIAM F. GRANT; DALE FOLTZ; JOHN JABE; ELTON I. SCOTT; JAMES POGATS; ROY RIDER; CHARLES ANDERSON; BARRY MINTZES; DANIEL TRUDELL; DUANE SHOLES; CHARLES USTESS; DON P. LEDUC; GRAHAM ALLEN; JOHN OCWIEJA; NICK LUDWICK,
Defendants - Appellees
MANDATE Pursuant to the court's disposition that was filed 03/22/2011 the mandate for this case hereby issues today.
COSTS: None

 
 Case 4:92-cv-00110-RJJ Doc #3091 Filed 01/17/12 Page 1 of 6 Page ID#14389

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

EVERETT HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. PATRICIA CARUSO, et al.,
Defendants. __________________________________/

CASE NO. 4:92-CV-110 HON. ROBERT J. JONKER

OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Add New Named Plaintiffs and Supplemental Motion to Add New Named Plaintiffs (docket ## 3034, 3037). Based on its review of the record, and after thoroughly reviewing the parties’ motion papers, hearing oral argument on the motions, and carefully considering the applicable law, the Court now decides the motions in favor of Plaintiffs.
Factual and Procedural Background This prisoner civil rights class action began in 1980, when twenty-three inmates filed suit to protest conditions of confinement at the State Prison of Southern Michigan – Central Complex (the “SPSM-CC”). The class was certified in August, 1981 and defined as “all prisoners who are, or will be, confined at the [SPSM-CC].” The Court approved a proposed Consent Decree on May 13, 1985. In approving the Consent Decree, the Court noted that structural changes would likely occur in the SPSM-CC and might involve renaming parts of that facility. Therefore, the Court clarified that “the facility at issue in this lawsuit, [the SPSM-CC], including the Reception and Guidance Center, shall

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RJJ Doc #3091 Filed 01/17/12 Page 2 of 6 Page ID#14390
be defined as ‘all areas within the walls of . . . the [SPSM-CC] at the time this cause commenced and all areas which will supply support services under the provisions of this Consent Judgment, e.g. food service and Boiler Plant operations.’” (Order Accepting Consent J., docket # 213, Hadix v. Johnson, CA No. 80-73581.) Under the Consent Decree, the Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the judgment. (Id.)
The case has changed shape dramatically since it began. Among other things, the primary long-term housing units of the SPSM-CC have closed. The number of class members has diminished as a result. The nature of the class has also changed. At the outset of the case, the class consisted mainly of prisoners housed long-term in the SPSM-CC. Now the class consists mainly of prisoners housed temporarily in a Hadix facility before moving to the correctional facilities where they will be housed longer-term. As Hadix prisoners move to non-Hadix facilities, they cease to be members of the Hadix class. The focus of the case has also narrowed. Most of the Consent Decree provisions have been resolved and closed. Only certain subsections, all having to do with medical care, remain open at this point.
All twenty-three of the original named Hadix plaintiffs have died. A single named plaintiff, Clarence Moore, most recently represented the entire class. However, Mr. Moore is no longer housed in a Hadix facility, and therefore no longer a member of the class. Plaintiffs now seek to name new class representatives under FED. R. CIV. P. 24(a). Plaintiffs move to intervene Mark Gilman, 692705; Deandre Benson, 532243; Richard Girard, 49744; Mark Litwalk, 429994; Steven Hines, 230467; and Arnold Elijah, 140333, under FED. R. CIV. P. 24(a). According to Plaintiffs, Mr. Gilman is confined in Duane Waters Health Center (“DWH”); Mr. Benson is confined in the Reception and Guidance Center (“RGC”); Mr. Girard is confined in C Unit; and Messrs. Litwalk,
2

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RJJ Doc #3091 Filed 01/17/12 Page 3 of 6 Page ID#14391
Hines, and Elijah are all confined in Cellblock 3 of the Egeler Correctional Facility. Plaintiffs assert that each of the proposed named plaintiffs has non-routine medical needs. Defendants call into question whether each of these proposed named plaintiffs remains at the location Plaintiffs specify. (docket # 3052 at 7.) For the purpose of deciding Plaintiffs’ motion, the gravamen of which concerns whether inmates housed in RGC, DWH, C Unit, and Cellblock 3 are members of the Hadix class, it is unnecessary to resolve this factual dispute. Because inmates are no longer housed longterm in the SPSM-CC, it is to be expected that membership in the Hadix class will be temporary and that turnover in the named representatives will occur.
Legal Standard It is a prerequisite to maintaining a class action that the named representatives “fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(4). Affording plaintiffs the opportunity to provide substitution of adequate class representatives “is the common practice in cases where, although the current named representatives are inadequate, adequate representatives are known and available as substitutes.” Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. v. Smith, 172 F.R.D. 236, 244 at n. 3 (E.D. Mich. 1997). “It is firmly established that where a class action exists, members of the class may intervene or be substituted as named plaintiffs in order to keep the action alive after the claims of original named plaintiffs are rendered moot.” Graves v. Walton County Bd. of Educ., 686 F.2d 1135, 1138 (5th Cir. 1982) (citing, inter alia, Rogers v. Paul, 382 U.S. 198, 199 (1965)). Under Rule 24(a)(2), if a timely motion is filed, the court must permit anyone to intervene who . . . claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.
3

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RJJ Doc #3091 Filed 01/17/12 Page 4 of 6 Page ID#14392
Defendants challenge the propriety of substituting the proposed new class representatives on only one basis: namely, Defendants assert that the proposed new class representatives are not members of the Hadix class because, Defendants claim, the facilities in which they are housed are not Hadix facilities.
Discussion The core issue Plaintiffs’ motions raise is whether DWH, the RGC, C-Unit, and Cellblock 3 are Hadix facilities. If the answer is yes, then the inmates confined within those facilities are members of the Hadix class, and the Consent Decree applies to them. If not, then it would seem futile to add these new plaintiffs. The question turns on the definition of the Hadix facilities established in the Order approving the Consent Decree. That order explicitly describes the RGC as a Hadix facility. Defendants emphasize that RGC has moved to a different area within the walls of the SPSM-CC, but this does not change the analysis; it is undisputed that RGC remains within the walls of the original SPSM-CC. Under the Court’s Order approving the Consent Decree, RGC remains a Hadix facility. Moreover, the RGC continues to perform the same fundamental function it did at the time of the Consent Decree. Cellblock 3, similarly, is both part of RGC and within the walls of the original SPSM-CC. It too is a Hadix facility. DWH provides medical care to inmates housed in RGC. DWH thus supplies a support service to a Hadix facility and is itself a Hadix facility. Finally, the parties do not dispute that C-Unit, an extended care facility, supports DWH and RGC. Accordingly, inmates confined in RGC, DWH, C-Unit, and Cellblock 3 must at this time be treated as part of the Hadix class, under the terms of the class certification and the Order approving the Consent Decree.
4

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RJJ Doc #3091 Filed 01/17/12 Page 5 of 6 Page ID#14393
The proposed intervenors, as members of the Hadix class on this record, are positioned to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, as required by Rule 23(c)(4). Graves, 686 F.2d at 1138. The proposed intervenors also satisfy all the requirements of Rule 24(a)(2) on this record. Defendants have not challenged timeliness. It is undisputed that the proposed named plaintiffs claim interests relating to the subject of the action, the areas of medical care still open under the Consent Decree. Indeed, any member of the Hadix class could reasonably claim such interests. Disposition of the case may as a practical matter impair or impede their interests, and in the absence of a named plaintiff, existing parties do not adequately represent that interest. For these reasons, intervention is appropriate.
Next Steps Defendants argue that because inmates are no longer housed long-term in the SPSM-CC, circumstances have changed so fundamentally that the Hadix class no longer exists, and there is no need to name new class representatives. A response to a motion to intervene is not the proper vehicle for such an argument. In effect, Defendants are seeking a modification of the Consent Decree under FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b). If Defendants wish to pursue such a modification based upon “a significant change either in factual conditions or in law[,]” they are free, of course, to file a motion under Rufo and its progeny. Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992). More generally, it is now essential to identify with specificity the issues left to be litigated on the merits under the Consent Decree and applicable law. The starting point for the process will be a Joint Status Report to be prepared by the parties. The parties shall identify in that report the issues they believe are still open for litigation under the Consent Decree and applicable law. For each issue identified, the parties shall cite the section or sections of the Consent Decree they believe
5

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RJJ Doc #3091 Filed 01/17/12 Page 6 of 6 Page ID#14394
apply; a brief summary of their position on the issue; the discovery, if any, necessary to develop facts on the issue; the time needed to frame the issue for adjudication; and any other information they believe would be useful in assisting the Court to develop a litigation plan for whatever remains to be litigated in this case. The Joint Status Report shall be filed not later than March 16, 2012. Upon receipt and review of the Report, the Court will schedule a hearing, either by phone or in person, to discuss the Report and set deadlines for completion of the case.
Conclusion For these reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief they seek. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED: Plaintiffs’ Motion to Add New Named Plaintiffs and Supplemental Motion to Add New Named Plaintiffs (docket ## 3034, 3037) are GRANTED.

Dated: January 17, 2012

/s/ Robert J. Jonker ROBERT J. JONKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6

 
 Case 4:92-cv-00110-RJJ Doc #3130 Filed 06/22/12 Page 1 of 3 Page ID#15057

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

EVERETT HADIX, et. al., Plaintiffs,
v. PATRICIA CARUSO, et al.,
Defendants. ___________________________/

No. 4:92-cv-110 Honorable Robert J. Jonker

STIPULATION TO TERMINATE PROSPECTIVE RELIEF REGARDING HEAT ABATEMENT
The parties, through counsel, stipulate to the following to resolve the heat and temperature issue in this litigation:
RGC’s Cool Dome Operations 1. RGC – Charles E. Egeler Reception and Guidance Center (RGC) Operating Procedure entitled “Cool Dome Operations”, OP-RGC-03.04.100-A, (Stipulation Attachment 1) has been modified effective May 9, 2012 to have language consistent with the modified form and rules used in the RGC Cool Dome operation. The form and rules are attachments to OP-RGC-03.04.100-A and are included with this Stipulation as Stipulation Attachment 1-a (Notification of Heat Alert Conditions - Prisoner Choice) and 1-b (Cool Dome Prisoner Rules). 2. The Defendants have modified the form used to record a High Risk of Heat Related Illness (HRHRI) prisoner’s choice to go to the Cool Dome or stay in the cell block during a heat alert, so that the form is entitled “RGC Prisoner Notification of Heat Alert Conditions, Prisoner Choice” (instead of “RGC Prisoner Notification of Conditions, Prisoner Waiver”).

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RJJ Doc #3130 Filed 06/22/12 Page 2 of 3 Page ID#15058
3. The Defendants have added the phrase “including inhalers” to the list of items that may be taken to the Cool Dome by a HRHRI prisoner choosing to go to the Cool Dome during a heat alert. The Cool Dome prisoner rules have also been modified to ensure that if a prisoner’s disabilities prevent him carrying his prescribed medications or personal hygiene items to the Cool Dome, those items will be transported for him to the Cool Dome.
4. The Defendants have confirmed, by memorandum dated May 10, 2012 (Attachment 2), that RGC HRHRI prisoners who choose to go to the Cool Dome during a heat alert shall not be terminated from any assignment they may have or receive any assignment demotion or other assignment sanction.
5. The term of this Stipulation shall be two years from the date it is entered by the Court.
6. During the period of time the agreement is in effect, the Plaintiffs may continue to monitor the Defendants’ compliance with order(s) relating to heat and temperature. However, the Defendants shall not be responsible for Plaintiffs’ attorney fees and Plaintiffs’ costs, including Plaintiffs’ expert costs and fees, related to Plaintiffs’ monitoring of Defendants’ compliance with order(s) relating to heat and temperature.
7. During the term of this Stipulation, the MDOC shall maintain the Cool Dome as a continuous place of refuge during heat alerts, defined as the time during which one or more galleries in one or more cell blocks of RGC register a Heat Index (HI) of 90 or higher, and shall otherwise comply with the terms of this Stipulation.
2

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RJJ Doc #3130 Filed 06/22/12 Page 3 of 3 Page ID#15059

8. The parties agree that this Court’s June 5, 2007 Opinion (Dkt. No. 2466) and Order (Dkt. No. 2467) shall be terminated and of no further prospective effect as of the expiration of this Stipulation. AGREED TO AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:

/s/ Patricia A. Streeter, with consent Patricia A. Streeter (P30022) Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs 221 North Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 (734) 222-0088
/s/ Elizabeth Alexander, with consent Elizabeth Alexander Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs Law Offices of Elizabeth Alexander 1416 Holly Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20012 (202) 291-3774

/s/ A. Peter Govorchin A. Peter Govorchin (P31161) Counsel for Defendants Michigan Department of Attorney General Corrections Division P.O. Box 30217 Lansing, Michigan 48909 (517) 335-7021
/s/ Daniel S. Korobkin, with consent Daniel S. Korobkin (P72842) American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs 2966 Woodward Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48201 (313) 578-6824

Dated: June 22, 2012

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated:

Honorable Robert J. Jonker United State District Court Judge

APGCases/Hadix/Stip to Terminate Heat Abatement 6-22-12

3

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RJJ Doc #3130-1 Filed 06/22/12 Page 1 of 8 Page ID#15060

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

EVERETT RADIX, et. al.,

Plaintiffs,

No. 4:92-cv-110

v.

HONORABLE ROBERT J JONKER

PERRY M. JOHNSON, et. al.,

Defendants. ______________________________________________________.!

Attachment 1
RGC Operating Procedure 03-04-100-A

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RJJ Doc #3130-1 Filed 06/22/12 Page 2 of 8 Page ID#15061

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

.

RGC - Charles E. Egeler Reception and Guidance Center

OPERATING PROCEDURE

EFFECTIVE DATE
05/09/2012

NUMBER
03.04.100-A

SUPERSEDES
OP-RGC-03.04.1 00-A (03/16/2009)

SUBJECT
COOL DOME OPERATIONS

AUTHORITY
OP-CFA-03.04.100-E (05/21/01)

PAGE 1

OF

5

OBJECTIVE:
To establish a procedure of prisoner placement in the Cool Dome.
AUDITING:
The Warden has responsibility for ensuring this procedure is complete and accurate. This responsibility includes: 1) ensuring the procedure complies with all applicable Department administrative rules, policies, DOMs and procedures; 2) reviewing the procedure at the time of annual review; 3) submitting draft revisions when the procedure needs updating; and, 4) auditing staff compliance.
FORMS:
Notification of Heat Alert Conditions - Prisoner Choice -Attachment A Order- Everett Hadix, et al. v. Patricia Caruso, et al. Case No. 4:92-CV-110 Cool Dome Prisoner Rules- Attachment B
INFORMATION:
Prisoners who are designated as High Risk for Heat Related Illness (HRHRI} will be afforded the opportunity to move to the Cool Dome during periods of a declared heat alert.
Prisoners in the Special Management Housing Unit (SMHU) for medical reasons and who are on the HRHRI list will be escorted to Duane Waters Health Center (DWHC).
Showers will be provided to prisoners in the Cool Dome after evening meals.
When the Coot Dome is occupied, prisoners will be released to Food Service as a unit.
Cool Dome staff will ensure intake processing takes place without interruption.
A medical kite box will be provided. Medical professional, nursing call-outs and medication lines will be conducted as normal.
Each housing unit will monitor heat index readings during regular rounds (at least hourly}. The Heat Index reading (example: Heat Index 80) will be recorded in the respective logbook at the same time the round is noted.
The portable Heat Index Monitor shall remain set to alert staff whenever the. Heat Index reaches 90 degrees. Whenever staff notes a Heat Index of 90 degrees or higher, the control center shift commander will be contacted. The reporting unit staff member should note in the logbook the time of notification and who was contacted.
When not in use, the portable Heat Index Monitor will be secured in the officer's station cutter box.
Housing unit staff shall account for the Heat Index Monitor and its working condition at the beginning of each shift in the same manner as keys, radio and cutter knives.
PROCEDURE:

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RJJ Doc #3130-1 Filed 06/22/12 Page 3 of 8

DOCUMENT TYPE
RGC ~ Charles E. Egeler Reception and

EFFECTNE DATE
05/09/2012

Nut.18ER
03.04.1 00-A

Guidance Center Operating Procedure

Page ID#15062
?AGE 2 OF 5

Control Center Staff Housing Unit Staff
Shift Command
Housing Unit Staff
Prisoner Housing Unit Staff
Prisoner Housing Unit Staff
Prisoner Housing Unit Staff

DOES WHAT

1.

Monitors the National Weather Service and declares a heat alert when the Heat

Index (combination of temperature and humidity) is 90 or above.

2.

Monitors the Heat Index temperature recording devices in the housing units and

notifies the Control Center when the Heat Index reaches or exceeds 90

degrees in the unit.

3.

Notifies Warden and Health Care staff when a heat alert is issued In the block.

4.

Notifies each housing unit of heat alert and directs housing unit staff to contact

all prisoners who have been designated HRHRI.

5.

Instructs designated staff to report to the Cool Dome to prepare for prisoner

arrivals.

6.

Advises prisoners on the HRHRI that a Heat Alert has been declared.

7.

Instructs the prisoner(s) that he may proceed to the Cool Dome and remain

there during the Heat Alert period and presents prisoner with Notification of

Heat Alert Conditions- Prisoner Choice form.

8.

Accepts/rejects Cool Dome placement and signs Notification of Heat Alert

Conditions- Prisoner Choice form.

9.

Signs Notification of Heat Alert Conditions - Prisoner Choice form as witness

and provides prisoner with a copy of the Opinion and Order, Everett Hadix, et

al. v. Patricia Caruso, et al., Case No. 4:92-CV-110.

10. Exits cell and proceeds to Cool Dome, taking authorized property Items only.

11. Secures prisoner's housing unit cell (toplock or padlock) and personal property. Padlock will be provided for locker if the toplock mechanism malfunctions if prisoner does not have a padlock.
or
12. Declines Cool Dome placement and signs Notification of Heat Alert Conditions Prisoner Choice form.

13. Signs declined Notification of Heat Alert Conditions - Prisoner Choice form as witness and provides prisoner with a copy of the Opinion and Order, Everett Hadix, et al. v. Patricia Caruso, et al. Case No. 4:92-CV-110.
14. Forwards all completed Notification of Heat Alert Conditions - Prisoner Choice forms to the Housing/Intake Deputy Warden's Secretary.
15. Contacts Cool Dome staff with the number of prisoners being sent and logs

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RJJ Doc #3130-1 Filed 06/22/12 Page 4 of 8

DOCUMENT lYPE
RGC - Charles E. Egeler Reception and Guidance Center Operatin~ Procedure

EFFECTIVE DATE
05/09/2012

NUMBER
03.04.100-A

Page ID#15063
PAGE 3 OF 5

information.

Housing/Intake Deputy Warden's Secretary 16.

Retains a copy of each Notification of Heat Alert Conditions - Prisoner Choice form and forwards the originals to the Region Ill Litigation Unit, 4000 Cooper St., Jackson, Ml 49201.

Cool Dome Staff

17. Assigns bed, lockable Gortex box and issues Cool Dome rules.

NOTE: The lockable Gortex box and padlock are loaned to the prisoner for use only while in the cool Dome and secured at the bed which the prisoner has been assigned. Padlock combinations will not be provided to prisoners; padlocks will be returned to the officers prior to prisoners returning to their housing units.

18.\ logs the prisoner name, number and housing unit.

SMHU PRISONERS/HEAT ALERT CONDITIONS

One Block Staff

19. Escorts HRHRI prisoner to DWHC.

Control Center Staff

20. Continues to monitor National Weather Service reports. ·

Shift Command

21. Declares heat alert conditions are no longer in effect when the Heat Index drops below 85.

22. Advises all units that heat alert conditions are no longer in effect and prisoners may be returned to eir permanent housing units.

APPROVED:

PREPARED BY:

OW

5-/~-/~
Date

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RJJ Doc #3130-1 Filed 06/22/12 Page 5 of 8 Page ID#15064

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

EVERETT HADIX, et. al.,

Plaintiffs,

No. 4:92-cv-110

v.

HONORABLE ROBERT J JONKER

PERRY M. JOHNSON, et. al.,

Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------~/

Attachment 1-A
RGC Operating Procedure 03-04-100-A Attachment A- Notification of Heat Alert Conditions

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RJJ Doc #3130-1 Filed 06/22/12 Page 6 of 8 Page ID#15065

DOCUMENT TYPE

EFFECTNE DATE

NUMBER

RGC '- Charles E. Egeler Reception and Guidance Center Ooeratina Procedure

05/09/2012

03.04.1 00-A

PAGE 4 OF 5

ATTACHMENT A

NOTIFICATION OF HEAT ALERT CONDITIONS PRISONER CHOICE

On

at _ _ _ _ _ _ _ hours, HEAT ALERT conditions were declared

for the Charles Egeler Reception and Guidance Center.

After being advised by staff of my option of moving to the Cool Dome, I am accepting the option of moving during the Heat Alert Period.

After being advised by staff of my option of moving to the Cool Dome, I am declining the option of moving during the Heat Alert Period and choose to remain In my current housing cell.

Prisoner (Print}:

Name

Prisoner Signature:

Staff Witness:

Name

Number Employee ID

Lock Date Date

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RJJ Doc #3130-1 Filed 06/22/12 Page 7 of 8 Page ID#15066

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

EVERETT RADIX, et. al.,

Plaintiffs,

No. 4:92-cv-110

v.

HONORABLE ROBERT J JONKER

PERRY M. JOHNSON, et. al.,

Defendants.
______________________________________________________/

Attachment 1-B
RGC Operating Procedure 03-04-100-A
Attachment B- Cool Dome Prisoner Rules

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RJJ Doc #3130-1 Filed 06/22/12 Page 8 of 8 Page ID#15067

DOCUMENT 1YPE

EFFECTIVE DATE

NUMBER

RGC '-Charles E. Egeler Reception and Guidance Center Ooeratina Procedure

05/09/2012

03.04. i 00-A

PAGE 5 OF 5

ATTACHMENT B

COOL DOME PRISONER RULES

The Cool Dome is a specialized unit equipped to hold prisoners during periods of Heat Alert conditions. Prisoners will remain assigned to the Cool Dome only while Heat Alert conditions are in effect.
ALL RGC Housing Unit Rules apply unless otherwise noted here.
Prisoners may take the following articles into the Cool Dome with them as long as they are able to carry them:
V' Reading materials V' Necessary medications V' Daily hygiene items V' Legal/writing materials V' One Pair Underwear V' One Pair Socks V' Inhaler

0

Prisoners must remain in their assigned area while in the Cool Dome unless otherwise

authorized by staff.

•

Prisoners must have authorization from staff to use the bathroom facilities.

•

Prisoners may leave the Cool Dome for meals, yard and other activities as authorized.

•

Prisoners shall remain on their assigned bunk during count times.

When Heat Alert is cancelled, prisoners shall report directly back to their assigned housing unit. All property must be taken back to the prisoner's cell.

No personal property shall be stored in the Cool Dome when the prisoner returns to his cell after the heat alert is cancelled.

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RJJ Doc #3130-2 Filed 06/22/12 Page 1 of 2 Page ID#15068

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

EVERETT RADIX, et. al.,

Plaintiffs,

No. 4:92-cv-110

v.

HONORABLE ROBERT J JONKER

PERRY M. JOHNSON, et. al.,

_____D_e_fe_n_da_n_ts_.__________________________________________./

Attachment 2
May 10, 2012 Memo from Heidi Washington

Case 4:92-cv-00110-RJJ Doc #3130-2 Filed 06/22/12 Page 2 of 2 Page ID#15069

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
"Expecting Excellence Every Day"
MEMORANDUM

DATE:

May 10,2012

TO:

Curtis Beard, Classitication Director

FROM:

Heidi E. Washington, Warden Charles E. Egeler Reception and

SUBJECT: HRHRI Prisoners

Please be reminded that eligible HRHRI prisoners who elect to utilize the Cool Dome during a heat alert shall not be terminated from any assignment they may have or receive any assignment demotion or other assignment sanction.

HW:cmj

cc: Deputy Warden Kim Cargor Deputy Warden Dewayne Burton File

 
 933 F.Supp. 1362 (1996)
Everett HADIX, Richard Mapes, Patrick C. Sommerville, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr., Brent E. Koster, Lee D. McDonald, Darryl Sturges, Robert Flemster, William Lovett, James
Covington, Frank Thomas, James Haddix, James Alexander, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Perry Alan Davis, Michael Anthony Gray, Mark Lemothe, Cylester Nunnally, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Ted Sullivan, and Mark A. Coleman, Plaintiffs, v.
Perry M. JOHNSON, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P.
Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr., Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pam Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, and John Prelesnik, Defendants.
File No. 4:92:CV:110.
United States District Court, W.D. Michigan.
July 3, 1996.
1363 *1363 Michael J. Barnhart, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiffs.
Susan Przekop-Shaw, Asst. Attorney General, Michigan Dept. of Corrections, Lansing, MI, for Defendants.
1364 *1364 OPINION
ENSLEN, Chief Judge.
This matter is before the Court on defendants' motion for immediate termination of the Consent Decree, pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA" or "the Act"), Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, amending 18 U.S.C. § 3626, filed June 11, 1996.
Section 802 of the PLRA amends 18 U.S.C. § 3626, regarding appropriate remedies with respect to prison conditions. Section 3626(b) entitles a defendant or intervener in an action involving prison conditions to move for immediate termination of any prospective relief which was "approved or granted in the absence of a finding by the court that the relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right," unless the court makes such findings in writing as to the current conditions in the prisons subject to the decree. That section also provides for an automatic stay of any prospective relief that has already been approved or granted, beginning the 30th day after a motion for termination of that relief has been filed. The stay is to remain in effect until the court rules on the motion for termination of the relief.
FACTS
The complaint in this action was filed on August 12, 1980, and alleged violations of the First, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. On May 13, 1985, the Honorable John Feikens, of the Eastern District of Michigan, approved a Consent Decree that resolved almost all of the claims.[1] The terms of the Consent Decree involve twelve broad areas, and forty-four specific areas, of prison conditions. The portions of the case involving medical and mental health care and access to the courts were transferred to this Court from the Eastern District of Michigan in 1992 and 1993, respectively.
Over the years, the Court has conducted numerous hearings, and issued numerous orders regarding the rights and duties of the parties under the Consent Decree. Application of the PLRA to the Consent Decree in this case

will require the Court to reconsider each provision of the Decree and the associated plans and orders. The Court will have to determine whether, for each aspect of relief the defendants are providing or have been ordered to provide: the relief remains necessary to correct a current or ongoing violation of a Federal right; that any such relief extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right; that it is narrowly drawn; and is the least intrusive means to correct the violation.
Such a determination in this case necessarily will involve thorough reviews of the extensive records on the various issues that have been raised, ruled on, and in most cases appealed, over the last eleven years. The parties should be given every opportunity to present their arguments to the Court. A hearing concerning the medical care issues is already scheduled for September 1996, and similar hearings on the remaining issues will also need to be scheduled.
There is no possible way the Court could decide the motion to terminate the Consent Decree by July 10, 1996, when the PLRA provides that an automatic stay of all prospective relief that has been ordered throughout the years pursuant to the Consent Decree, is to take effect. Aside from the complexity of the issues presented, the parties will not even have completed the briefing schedule that is set forth in the Rules by that date.
The automatic stay imposed by the PLRA would suspend many prior rulings in this case which found that the defendants have an obligation under the Consent Decree to provide some form of relief. The imposition of a stay would have a material impact on the status of this case. The scope of that impact, and the automatic process of 1365 imposition, *1365 raise constitutional issues that must be considered by this Court.[2]
DISCUSSION
The Court ordered the parties to brief the issue of the constitutionality of the automatic stay provision. However, arguments as to the invalidity of the provision that are nonconstitutional in nature must be considered first, and the constitutional issues should be addressed only if it is necessary to resolve the matter. Jean v. Nelson, 472 U.S. 846, 854, 105 S.Ct. 2992, 2996-97, 86 L.Ed.2d 664 (1985) ("`Prior to reaching any constitutional questions, federal courts must consider nonconstitutional grounds for decision.'")
A. Supersession of the Stay Provision
Plaintiffs argue that the automatic stay provision is not yet in force pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act ("REA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2071, et seq. The REA gives the Supreme Court authority to prescribe the rules of practice and procedure to be followed in the federal courts. Section 2072(b) provides that "[a]ll laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect." Pursuant to the REA, the Supreme Court adopted what are now known as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on December 20, 1937.
Plaintiffs argue that the stay provision is in conflict with Rule 60(b), which provides that a motion for relief from judgment should be granted "[o]n motion and upon such terms as are just," and with Rule 62(b), which provides for a stay on a motion for a new trial or for judgment upon an exercise of discretion by the court. They argue that because the stay provision provides for an automatic, mandatory relief from judgment and a stay of the Court's orders, it is in conflict with the rules established by the Supreme Court, and thus pursuant to the supersession clause of the REA the provision does not take effect until and unless the Supreme Court amends the Rules.
The flaw in plaintiffs' arguments is that the stay provision is not in direct conflict with either Rule 60(b) or 62(b). In cases where the supersession clause has been used to prevent the application of a statute, the effect of the statute would be to preclude application of the relevant Rule. See, e.g., Cederbaums v. Harris, 484 F.Supp. 125, 128 (S.D.N.Y.1980) (Rule of Appellate Procedure controls where it provides for a broader definition of "excusable neglect" than the applicable statute); Griffith v. National Labor Relations Board, 545 F.2d 1194, 1197 n. 3 (1976), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 854, 98 S.Ct. 171, 54 L.Ed.2d 125 (1977) (where petition for review could be filed within 60 days after NLRB order under the applicable statute, but within a reasonable amount of time under the interpretation of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, petition filed within 79 days was timely).

Here, however, the Rules of Civil Procedure and the stay provision can coexist. The enforcement of the stay provision would not affect a court's authority to grant a relief from judgment or a stay in its discretion. Thus, it can not be said that the stay provision "conflicts irreconcilably" with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, Henderson v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 116 S.Ct. 1638, 1644, 134 L.Ed.2d 880 (1996).
Having resolved the only nonconstitutional argument for the invalidity of the automatic stay provision, the Court will address the constitutionality of the provision. Arguments that the PLRA is unconstitutional, other than those addressed below, were raised by plaintiffs in their brief. Those arguments apply more generally to the 1366 constitutionality of the PLRA as a whole, rather *1366 than specifically to the stay provision. Presumably, if those arguments are valid and the PLRA is indeed unconstitutional, the stay provision would be included in such a determination. However, because of the limited scope of the issue presently before the Court, the arguments addressing the constitutionality of the PLRA as a whole will not be addressed herein, and will be considered at a later time.
B. The Stay Provision Encroaches Upon the Powers of the Judiciary
Basic to the constitutional structure established by the Framers was their recognition that "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." The Federalist No. 47, p. 300 (H. Lodge ed 1888) (J. Madison). To ensure against such tyranny, the Framers provided that the Federal Government would consist of three distinct Branches, each to exercise one of the governmental powers recognized by the Framers as inherently distinct.
Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 57, 102 S.Ct. 2858, 2864, 73 L.Ed.2d 598 (1982).
The division among the Branches is preserved by our system of checks and balances. Where Congress passes a provision of law assigning power to one Branch, such that the authority and independence of another Branch is undermined, the provision should be struck down as contrary to the Constitution. Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 382, 109 S.Ct. 647, 660, 102 L.Ed.2d 714 (1989).
The function of the Judiciary is to "say what the law is" and to apply that law to the cases and controversies before it. U.S. Const. Art. III; Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). While Congress maintains authority to determine jurisdiction of the courts it has established, and to establish rules regarding the practice and procedure in the federal courts, the interpretation and application of the laws and the ultimate resolution of cases and controversies are solely within the province of the Judiciary. Id.
The Constitution "commands that the independence of the Judiciary be jealously guarded, and it provides clear institutional protections for that independence." Northern Pipeline, 458 U.S. at 60, 102 S.Ct. at 2866. When Congress enacts a rule which mandates the outcome of a case, such that the intervening step in which a court interprets and applies the rule on a case-by-case basis is effectively eliminated, Congress encroaches upon that power which has been reserved for the independent Judiciary. United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128, 20 L.Ed. 519 (1871) (Congress can not "prescribe a rule for the decision of a cause in a particular way.")
When evaluating acts of Congress under an Article III standard, the court should not take a formalistic approach, but should consider a number of factors "with an eye to the practical effect that the congressional action will have on the constitutionally assigned role of the federal judiciary." Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833, 851, 106 S.Ct. 3245, 3257, 92 L.Ed.2d 675 (1986). Among the factors which the Supreme Court has considered include the extent to which the non-Article III forum is exercising jurisdiction and powers that are "essential attributes of judicial power," the origins and importance of the rights that are at issue, and "the concerns that drove Congress to depart from the requirements of Article III." Id.
Examining these factors in the instant case, it is clear that through the stay provision of the PLRA, Congress has usurped a role that is exclusively judicial. The power to decide substantive issues of law, such as a motion to terminate the case, is a most basic attribute of the Judiciary's power under Article III. Through the stay provision,

Congress automatically grants the movants relief, albeit temporarily, with no provision for a case-by-case determination. This is akin to the issuance of a preliminary injunction, which even a court can not do without 1367 making a finding on the facts. See, *1367 In re DeLorean Motor Co., 755 F.2d 1223, 1228 (6th Cir.1985) (Before issuing an injunction the court must consider: (1) the likelihood of plaintiff's success on the merits; (2) whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if an injunction is not issued; (3) whether the injunction would harm others; and (4) whether the injunction would serve the public interest.)[3]
Furthermore, the rights that are at issue in the instant case derive from the most sacred of sources, the Constitution. As noted by the parties, the provisions of the Consent Decree are intended to "assure the constitutionality of the conditions under which the prisoners are incarcerated at SPSMCC." Consent Decree, Intro., ¶ 3. Unlike statutorily created rights, which Congress can create, modify, define, and terminate, Constitutionally created rights can not be abridged by an act of Congress. Northern Pipeline, 458 U.S. at 83, 102 S.Ct. at 2877-78.
The record does not provide information regarding the concerns which have caused Congress to provide for an automatic stay while the court considers the motion to terminate the Consent Decree. However, one can glean some congressional intent from the comment of one of the sponsors of the PLRA, who explained that its purpose is "to end frivolous lawsuits brought by prisoners, to remove our prisons from the control of Federal judges, and return control over them to our State and local officials." 142 Cong. Rec. S3703 (daily ed. April 19, 1996). While it is unquestionably true that Congress has the power to prospectively limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts, it is equally true that Congress lacks the power to invade the judicial province in cases and controversies in which the courts have rendered final judgment.
A consideration of the relevant factors leads to the conclusion that, through the stay provision of the PLRA, Congress attempts to perform a judicial function, and has therefore violated the doctrine of the separation of powers.
C. The Stay Provision Alters a Final Judgment of the Court
The stay provision implicates the doctrine of the separation of powers in an additional way, because it alters a final judgment of a judicial court of the United States. The limitations of Congress' power to alter existing judgments of United States' courts was recently explained in Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1447, 131 L.Ed.2d 328 (1995). Therein, the Supreme Court considered a law (Section 476 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, 105 Stat. 2236) which "resurrected" previously dismissed cases under Section 10(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by imposing less strict limitations periods for such claims. Faced with this scenario, the Supreme Court declared the Act unconstitutional because it retroactively required Article III courts to re-open cases which they had already decided. Id. at ___, 115 S.Ct. at 1453.
This conclusion derived from the Plaut Court's understanding that Article III, Section 1 was written, in part, for the express purpose of prohibiting Congress from undoing final judgments of the courts. Id. at ___ - ___, 115 S.Ct. at 1454-55. This analysis follows from Alexander Hamilton's own commentary on Article III, Section 1 to the effect that, "A legislature without exceeding its province cannot reverse a determination once made in a particular case; though it may prescribe a new rule for future cases." The Federalist No. 81, at 545 (J. Cooke ed. 1961). Hence, under the Plaut Court's analysis, any law which retroactively affects a final judgment of a court of the United States is unconstitutional.
1368 *1368 In so holding, the Plaut Court limited this rule to final judgments wherein the right to appeal has been exhausted, waived or elapsed. Id. at ___, 115 S.Ct. at 1457. Such a holding is consistent with the general understanding of a final judgment as one which resolves all legal issues (except execution) and concerning which the rights of appeal have been either exhausted, waived or have elapsed. Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 321 n. 6, 107 S.Ct. 708, 712 n. 6, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987); Johnston v. Cigna Corp., 14 F.3d 486, 489 n. 4 (10th Cir.1993), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1792, 131 L.Ed.2d 720 (1995); Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 1

F.3d 1487, 1500 (6th Cir.1993) (Keith, J., concurring), aff'd, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1447, 131 L.Ed.2d 328 (1995).

In the present case, the judgment in question is a Consent Decree relating to prison conditions. According to the Supreme Court,

[a] consent decree no doubt embodies an agreement of the parties and thus in some respects is contractual in nature. But it is an agreement that the parties desire and expect will be reflected in and be enforceable as a judicial decree that is subject to the rules generally applicable to other judgments and decrees.

Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 378, 112 S.Ct. 748, 757, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992). One of these rules is the rule relating to the finality of judgments. Thus, where appeals have been exhausted or the time for appeal has elapsed or been waived, consent decrees become final judgments. See Firefighters Local Union No. 1784 v. Stotts, 467 U.S. 561, 590, 104 S.Ct. 2576, 2594, 81 L.Ed.2d 483 (1984) (Stevens, J., concurring); Vogel v. City of Cincinnati, 959 F.2d 594, 598 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 827, 113 S.Ct. 86, 121 L.Ed.2d 49 (1992) . In this case, there is little doubt that the Consent Decree has become final by waiver of appeal since it provides that it "constitutes the final judgment and settlement in this matter" as to those issues addressed within.

Defendants' contention that the Consent Decree is not a final judgment is in error. They cite to Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 59 U.S. (18 How.) 421, 15 L.Ed. 435 (1855), for the proposition that Congress may modify the prospective effect of injunctive relief ordered by an Article III court. However, in that case the Supreme Court distinguished the situation from those in which an act of Congress affects a final adjudication of the private rights of parties because the right of navigation that was involved was a "public right common to all." Id. at 431. Constitutional rights, which are the rights involved in the instant case, unlike those in Wheeling & Belmont Bridge, are private. See, Rose v. City of Los Angeles, 814 F.Supp. 878, 881 (C.D.Cal.1993). Furthermore, the fact that a court may alter a final judgment, see Rufo, supra, does not affect the finality of the judgment, nor does it affect the inability of Congress to do so. See, Plaut, ___ U.S. at ___, ___, 115 S.Ct. at 1455, 1460.

Thus, the question becomes whether the automatic stay provision of the PLRA, which stays the enforcement of the Consent Decree, impermissibly and retroactively modifies a final judgment of the court. The Court finds that, like the statute in Plaut, the PLRA renders inoperative existing judgments of this Court. The distinction that it renders existing judgments unenforceable only temporarily is not significant. This only relates to the extent to which the Act impermissibly modifies existing judgments, not the fact that it operates to do so. Likewise, the fact that the Act depends on the filing of a motion by a litigant does not distinguish this case significantly from Plaut. The PLRA invites the very act of filing the motion by promising the suspension of relief without a prior judicial determination. In the same way, the modification of existing judgments involved in Plaut would not have been effective without the filing of motions for reinstatement by the plaintiffs. Nevertheless, the Plaut Court struck down the law because "`the law before us embodies risks of the very sort that our Constitution's `separation of powers' prohibition seeks to avoid.'" Plaut, ___ U.S. at ___, 115 S.Ct. at 1463 (quoting Breyer, J., concurring).

As the Supreme Court said in Plaut:

1369

[T]he separation of powers is a structural safeguard rather than a remedy to be applied *1369 only when specific harm, or risk of specific harm can be identified. In its major features (of which the conclusiveness of judicial judgments is assuredly one) it is a prophylactic device, establishing high walls and clear distinctions because low walls and vague distinctions will not be judicially defensible in the heat of interbranch conflict.

Id. These same high walls prohibit legislation of this type 0907 which has the effect of invalidating final judgments of this or any Court, including the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has made numerous constitutional rulings on this and other prison cases.

D. The Stay Provision Violates the Due Process Clause
Even assuming the PLRA stay provision did not violate the separation of powers doctrine, it nevertheless violates the vested rights doctrine, which is grounded in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Congress may not enact a statute which abrogates vested property rights without due process. U.S. Const.Amend. V.; Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, ___, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1497, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994). A judgment that has become final is a type of property right that is subject to this rule. State of Louisiana, ex rel. Folsom v. Mayor and Administrators of the City of New Orleans, 109 U.S. 285, 291, 3 S.Ct. 211, 215-16, 27 L.Ed. 936 (1883) (Bradley, J., concurring) (A judgment "is as much an article of property as anything else that a party owns."). This doctrine was clearly stated by the Supreme Court in 1898, when it declared:
It is not within the power of a legislature to take away rights which have been once vested by a judgment. Legislation may act on subsequent proceedings, may abate actions pending, but when those actions have passed into judgment the power of the legislature to disturb the rights created thereby ceases.
McCullough v. Virginia, 172 U.S. 102, 123-24, 19 S.Ct. 134, 142, 43 L.Ed. 382 (1898). See also, Hodges v. Snyder, 261 U.S. 600, 603, 43 S.Ct. 435, 436, 67 L.Ed. 819 (1923) ("the private rights of parties which have been vested by the judgment of a court cannot be taken away by subsequent legislation"); Memphis v. United States, 97 U.S. (7 Otto) 293, 296, 24 L.Ed. 920 (1877) (a judgment confers vested rights which are "secure against legislative invasion").
Due process requires, at the very least, notice and an opportunity to be heard before there is a deprivation of property. Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 550, 85 S.Ct. 1187, 1190-91, 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965). The determination as to what process is sufficient requires analysis of the private interest that will be affected, the risk of erroneous deprivation through the procedures used, the value of procedural safeguards, and the government's interest. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S.Ct. 893, 903, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976).
As explained above, see Section C, supra, the Consent Decree in this action constitutes a final judgment of this Court. Hence, the plaintiffs have a constitutionally protected property right in that consent judgment. See Johnston, 14 F.3d at 492-93. The stay provision of the PLRA takes from plaintiffs their vested right in the judgment, which they have had since 1985, without any process at all. The mere filing of a motion under the PLRA automatically suspends of its own force the operation of a final judgment after 30 days. In light of the clear law prohibiting such abrogations of vested rights, the stay provision can not be found to be constitutional.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds the stay provision located in § 802 of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(e), to be unconstitutional. Therefore, the prospective relief that has been awarded to the plaintiffs pursuant to the Consent Decree of the parties will not be stayed pending this Court's consideration of the defendants' motion to terminate the Consent Decree.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the automatic stay provided for in the Prison Litigation Reform Act is 1370 unconstitutional, and *1370 will therefore not take effect pending this Court's decision on defendants' motion to
terminate the Consent Decree.
[1] The issues of the right of prisoners to have independent attorneys provided, classification, and due process, were specifically reserved for submission to the court for resolution after a hearing on the merits. The issue of visitation had been previously dismissed on motion by defendants.

[2] The parties were ordered to submit briefs regarding the issue of the constitutionality of the stay provision. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2403, which entitles the United States to intervene in any action, suit or proceeding wherein the constitutionality of any Act of Congress affecting the public interest is drawn into question, the United States was given notice and was permitted to intervene. On July 1, 1996, the United States filed a motion for extension of the July 1 deadline for submitting its brief. The Court granted a one-day extension. On July 2, 1996, the Acting Solicitor General, Walter Dellinger, initiated a conference call with the attorneys and this Court to request a further extension. That request was denied, but the Court indicated that if the United States files a brief after this Opinion and Order are issued, it will be considered as a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
[3] There is no doubt that Congress can provide for automatic stays in certain circumstances. See, e.g., 11 U.S.C. § 362 (providing for an automatic stay of proceedings against a debtor when a bankruptcy petition is filed). However, such provisions preserve the status quo pending the court's decision. As noted above, the stay provision in question turns the status quo on its head, by suspending the relief that the plaintiffs have been deemed entitled to during the course of this litigation. In addition, it should be noted that Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution (the bankruptcy clause), when read in light of the history of bankruptcy law, gives Congress special powers to legislate in the area of bankruptcy law.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 965 F.Supp. 996 (1997)
Everett HADIX; Richard Mapes; Patrick C. Sommerville; Roosevelt Hudson, Jr.; Brent E. Koster; Lee D. McDonald; Darryl Sturges; Robert Flemster; William Lovett; James
Covington; Frank Thomas; James Haddix; James Alexander; Al Buttons; James Chipman; Perry Alan Davis; Michael Anthony Gray; Mark Lemothe; Cylester Nunnally; Ted Rhode; Orvel Simmons; Ted Sullivan; and Mark A. Coleman; Plaintiffs, v.
Perry M. JOHNSON; Barry Mintzes; Charles Anderson; William F. Grant; Dale Foltz; Daniel Trudell; Duane Sholes; John Jabe; James Pogats; Roy Rider; Charles Ustess; Don P.
Leduc; Elton I. Scott; Pam Withrow; Frank Elo; Marjorie Van Ochten; and John Prelesnik; Defendants.
Gary KNOP; John Ford; William Lovett, II; Ramando Valeroso; Gus Jansson; Pat Sommerville; Vernard Cohen; T. Jon Spytma; Robert Shipp; Butch Davis; Ron Mixon; and
Kerwin Cook, All individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated; Plaintiffs, v.
Perry M. JOHNSON; Robert Brown, Jr.; Dale Foltz; John Jabe; Theodore W. Koehler; John Prelesnik; and Jack Bergman, Defendants.
Nos. 4:92:CV:110, 1:84:CV:651.
United States District Court, W.D. Michigan.
May 23, 1997.
997 *997 William L. Fette, Cornell, Dalzell, Fette, Ramey, & Shek, Kalamazoo, MI, Patricia A. Streeter, Detroit, MI, Theresa A. Chamara, Bruce J. Ennis, Mark D. Schneider, Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Jenner & Block, Washington, DC, Elizabeth Alexander, Adjoa Aiyetoro, Nat. Prison Project of the ACLUF, Washington, DC, for plaintiffs in No. 4:92:CV:110.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Leo H. Friedman, Susan Przekop-Shaw, Corrections Div., Lansing, MI, Michael A. Nickerson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Accident Fund Div., Lansing, MI, Susanne Durk McAra, Health Professionals Div., Lansing, MI, for defendants in No. 5:84:CV:651.
Patricia A. Streeter, Neal Bush, Detroit, MI, Deborah A. LaBelle, Deborah LaBelle Law Offices, Detroit, MI, Elizabeth Alexander, Nat. Prison Project of the ACLUF, Washington, DC, Jeanne E. Mirer, Barnhart & Mirer, PC, Detroit, MI, Larry W. Bennett, Cox, Hodgman & Giarmarco, Troy, MI, Michael Barnhart, Law Offices of Michael J. Barnhart, Detroit, MI, for plaintiffs in No. 4:92:CV:110.
Michael Hayes Dettmer, U.S. Atty., Grand Rapids, MI, Timothy R. Payne, Laurie J. Weinstein, Margo Schlanger, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Litigation Section, Washington, DC, for U.S. in No. 4:92:CV:110.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., E. Michael Stafford, Asst. Atty. Gen., Leo H. Friedman, Susan Przekop-Shaw, Kim G. Harris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Corrections Division, Lansing, MI, Michael A. Nickerson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Accident Fund Division, Lansing, MI, Susanne Durk McAra, Health Professionals Division, Lansing, MI, for defendants in No. 4:92:CV:110.
ENSLEN, Chief Judge.

OPINION
These matters are before the Court on plaintiffs' motions for attorneys' fees for the time period between January 1, 1996 and December 31, 1996, filed on September 23, 1996, and April 14, 1997. The parties have resolved some of the issues with respect to attorneys' fees, but disagree over the hourly rate to which plaintiffs' counsel are entitled, and about certain hours for which plaintiffs' counsel are requesting compensation.
FACTS
These cases have been consolidated on the issue of access to the courts. Plaintiffs in both cases have been awarded attorneys' fees for the work their counsel have performed while monitoring the defendants' compliance with the Court's orders. The procedure the parties follow is that plaintiffs submit to defendants a report of the costs for each six month period. Generally, the parties reach an agreement on the issue of fees every six months. However, when, as now, they can not settle the issue among themselves, they request the Court's assistance. The present dispute over fees involves a question of law which arises from the passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub.L. No. 104-134, ("PLRA" or "the Act"), on April 26, 1996. Plaintiffs' motion of September 23, 1996 involves the period of January 1, 1996 through June 30, 1996. The April 14, 1997 motion is with respect to work performed between July 1, 1996 and December 31, 1996.
DISCUSSION
Both of the pending motions for fees raise the question of whether amendments contained in the PLRA apply to these cases. Furthermore, the September 23, 1996 motion raises specific objections by defendants to entries contained in plaintiffs' list of attorney fees and costs for January 1, 1996 through June 30, 1996.
Application of the PLRA
Section 803 of the Act amends 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, which applies to suits by prisoners with respect to prison conditions. Subsection (d) provides for attorneys' fees in such cases.[1]
998 *998 The parties disagree over whether the PLRA amendment applies to these actions. The defendants contend that the hourly rate for plaintiffs' counsel is limited by § 1997e(d)(3), whereas the plaintiffs argue that their counsel are entitled to the rate they have been receiving, which is $150 for attorneys Patricia Streeter, Michael Barnhart, Elizabeth Alexander, and Margaret Winter. Plaintiffs' other billing rates are: $130 for attorney Ayesha Kahn; $80 and $40 for law student interns; and $65 for law clerk Jenny Epstein.
The Supreme Court set forth the analysis to apply when determining whether a newly-passed statute applies to pending litigation in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994). The court must first look to "whether Congress has expressly prescribed the statute's proper reach." Id. at 280, 114 S.Ct. at 1505. If there is no such expressed intent for the application of the statute, the court follows the general presumption that it is to apply the law as it exists at the time the decision is rendered, unless the new statute would have a retroactive effect. Id. If the statute does have a retroactive effect, the presumption is that it should not be applied to the pending matter. Id.
Legislative Intent
Plaintiffs argue that the language of the statute itself indicates an intention by Congress that the statute should only be applied to cases that are filed after the PLRA was passed. They base this argument on the phrases in subsection (d)(1), "in any action brought" and "such fees shall not be awarded." Plaintiffs contend that these phrases are in the future tense and therefore apply only to future cases. In support of their argument, plaintiffs

cite to a recent case in which the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the language contained in § 1997e(a), which was also added by the PLRA, limits its application to cases filed after the PLRA was enacted. Wright v. Morris, 111 F.3d 414 (6th Cir.1997).
The Court disagrees with the plaintiffs' interpretation of the tenses of the two phrases in § 1997e(d)(1). The word "brought," although a past tense verb, can either be used in the past tense or in the future tense, depending upon other verbs used with it. For example, one can say "the suit was brought in federal court," or one can say, "the suit will be brought in federal court." Unlike in the subsection analyzed in Wright, which reads that "no action shall be brought ...," Congress did not put any modifying verbs in subsection (d). Without such a modification, the clause identifies only who may bring a suit, without specifying when the suit must be brought.
The phrase "shall not be awarded" is in the future tense, however it only can be interpreted to mean that the fees have not yet been awarded, not that the case has not yet been filed. There is no basis for plaintiffs' interpretation of that phrase as applying only in cases which have not yet been filed.
999 *999 Furthermore, the lack of clarifying language in section 803 of the Act does not support a finding that Congress expressly intended that the amendment to § 1997e would apply only to cases filed after the PLRA was passed. The fact that section 802 of the Act expressly provides that it applies to pending cases, and section 803 does not so provide, does not necessarily mean that section 803 does not apply to pending cases. Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 259-63, 114 S.Ct. at 1493-96 (rejecting the argument that where Congress explicitly provided for prospective application in certain sections of an act, all other sections of the act were meant to be applied retroactively).
Nor can plaintiffs successfully argue that previous versions of the bill conclusively establish legislative intent as to the application of the amendments to § 1997e. Plaintiffs note that the amendment to this section was originally included in section 802 of the PLRA, which contains the express provision that it should apply to cases arising before the enactment of the Act, but that in the signed version the amendment was contained in section 803. Without an explanation as to why the amendment was transferred to a different section, it is impossible for the Court to glean a general agreement as to the intended application of the amendments. Id. at 250-51, 114 S.Ct. at 1489-90.
Absent an ability to determine Congress' intent as to whether the amendments contained in Section 803 should apply to cases which arose prior to the enactment of the PLRA from either the plain language of the statute or the legislative history of the statute, the Court must turn to alternative methods for making such a determination.
Application of Principles of Statutory Construction
There are two principles of statutory construction which must be considered when determining whether to apply a statute to a case that is pending at the time the legislation was passed. The first is that the court should apply the law that is in effect at the time of its decision. Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 264, 114 S.Ct. at 1496. The second is that laws should not be applied retroactively. Id. The tension between these canons is resolved by applying the law in effect at the time the decision is made unless a statute would operate retroactively to events which occurred before the statute was passed. Id. at 280, 114 S.Ct. at 1505.
Applying these canons to the present issue, the Court must determine whether the PLRA would have a retroactive effect if applied to limit the plaintiffs' attorneys' hourly rate for work performed after April 26, 1996.[2] A statute is retroactive if "it would impair rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party's liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed." Id. The purpose of the rule is to avoid disruption of settled expectations as to the law at the time the parties acted. Id. at 252, 114 S.Ct. at 1490.
1000 In order to determine whether the PLRA would have a retroactive effect, the Court *1000 must first address the issue of what affect the application of the Act would have. The parties disagree over the hourly rate to which plaintiffs' counsel would be entitled under the PLRA. The section provides that an award of attorneys' fees shall be no higher than 150 percent of the hourly rate established under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(d), which sets forth the maximum hourly rate at which court-appointed attorneys in criminal cases may be compensated. The current

hourly rates are $65 for time spent in court, and $45 for time spent out of court. There is also a provision for determination by the Judicial Conference that attorneys within a particular circuit or district may receive $75 per hour for all of their time. Such a determination has been made for attorneys whose principal office is located in Detroit. The rate has also been set at $75 for attorneys with principal offices in Washington, D.C. Each of the attorneys in these cases has his or her principal office in either Detroit or Washington, D.C. Accordingly, the hourly rate for which plaintiffs' counsel may be compensated if the PLRA is applied is $112.50.[3]

The Court now turns to the question of whether reducing plaintiffs' attorneys' billing rate from $150 to $112.50 would be impermissibly retroactive. Plaintiffs argue that application of the attorney fee amendments would be retroactive and inequitable, and would disrupt their settled expectations as to their entitlement to fees. They argue that the existence of 42 U.S.C. § 1988 at the time they filed their lawsuits created an expectation of an award of reasonable attorneys' fees if they prevailed. Defendants, on the other hand, argue that while plaintiffs are entitled to collect attorneys' fees as the prevailing parties in these matters, plaintiffs do not have a right to a particular hourly rate.

At the time that these actions were filed, the law with respect to attorneys' fees was governed by 42 U.S.C. § 1988. That section provides that the court may award the prevailing party in a civil rights action, as are the present actions, reasonable attorneys' fees. Thus, when they were deciding whether to take these cases, plaintiffs' attorneys knew that if the claims were found to be meritorious, they would be able to collect a reasonable amount from defendants as reimbursement for their work. Their entitlement to collect fees was a consideration when they were making the decision to take on these cases, and is, therefore, a settled expectation which can not now be disrupted.

Even if plaintiffs' counsel had not had such an expectation when they decided to file these actions, they currently have settled expectations as to fees because the determinations that the plaintiffs are entitled to receive reasonable attorneys' fees were made long ago. As stated by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in an earlier decision in Hadix, "[t]he consent decree that governs this case virtually guarantees fee awards." Hadix v. Johnson, 65 F.3d 532, 535 (6th Cir.1995). Furthermore, this Court determined that with respect to the issue of access to the courts, which was not settled by the consent decree, plaintiffs were the prevailing parties and thus entitled to fees related to that issue. Hadix, Opinion & Order of Jan. 4, 1994, dkt. ## 256, 257, affd, No. 94-1158, 1995 WL 25416 (6th Cir. Jan. 23, 1995); Knop, Opinion and Order of Apr. 5, 1989 & Stipulation and Order of Feb. 17, 1994. Therefore, plaintiffs' entitlement to receive attorneys' fees from defendants is a settled expectation that can not be disrupted at this stage.

Having established that plaintiffs have a settled expectation to reasonable attorneys' fees, the Court must determine whether $112.50 per hour constitutes reasonable attorneys' fees. As the Sixth Circuit previously stated in Hadix,

1001

[a]ttorney fees under § 1988 are to be based on market rates for the services rendered. Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 283[, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 2469, 105 L.Ed.2d 229] (1989). Ordinarily, courts look to "[rates] prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably *1001 comparable skill, experience, and reputation." Blum [v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886,] 896 n. 11[, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 1547 n. 11, 79 L.Ed.2d 891] [(1984)]; see also American Fed'n of Gov't Employees, AFL-CIO Local 3882 v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 944 F.2d 922, 937 (D.C.Cir.1991) (a reasonable fee equates to a market-rate fee).

Hadix, 65 F.3d at 536.

This Court has determined that the hourly rates of $150 per hour for lead counsel, and $135 for associate counsel, accurately establish the prevailing market rate, and therefore constitute the basis for the calculation of reasonable attorneys' fees in accordance with § 1988. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed that determination. Id.

Applying the PLRA rate to plaintiffs' counsel would give them an hourly rate that is one-fourth less than the established prevailing market rates. The Court finds that such a reduction disrupts their settled expectations to

reasonable attorneys' fees. Therefore, the PLRA amendments to § 1997e(d) are impermissibly retroactive as applied to the present actions.[4]
For these reasons, the Court finds that § 1997e(d)(3) has an impermissible retroactive effect, and will not be applied to services performed by plaintiffs' counsel after April 26, 1996.[5]
Specific Hours in Dispute
For the time period of January 1, 1996 through June 30, 1996, there are a total of 714.2 hours in dispute with respect to three different categories of work performed by plaintiffs' attorneys.
Work Researching and Writing PLRA Brief
Defendants object to the fees request for time expended relating to issues raised in Hadix by the enactment of the PLRA. This time consists of 94.3 hours of work performed in the office of the National Prison Project,[6] 8.3 hours of work by Patricia Streeter, and 5 hours of work by Michael Barnhart. The defendants argue that this is an excessive amount of time for plaintiffs to have spent on the PLRA issue, because the plaintiffs' 83-page memorandum was almost identical to one filed in a case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Benjamin v. Jacobsen, No. 75-Civ-3073.
The plaintiffs do not dispute that the brief filed in this case and that filed in Benjamin were similar. However, they state that the portions of the briefs involving the equal protection and due process arguments were written by attorneys and staff at the National Prison Project for this case, and were shared with the attorneys involved in 1002 Benjamin. Thus, the work should be compensated in this case. Plaintiffs further state that the *1002 remaining portions of the briefs were adapted from the brief written by the Benjamin attorneys, and the plaintiffs have not sought compensation for time spent on those sections. Thus, time was actually saved in this case, because the plaintiffs in this case did not have to write the entire 83-page brief, which, as noted by Judge Feikens, would have taken many more hours than the 94 requested on behalf of the National Prison Project. Hadix, 947 F.Supp. at 1116.
With respect to the 13 hours of work performed by Ms. Streeter and Mr. Barnhart, the Court finds that that is a reasonable amount of time to spend adapting the Benjamin brief to the present case, and preparing the six-page declaration of Mr. Barnhart providing the history of the case. Again, much time was saved by utilizing the research performed by the Benjamin attorneys.
Defendants' objections to the 107.6 hours claimed by plaintiffs as time spent on the memorandum submitted to this Court regarding the constitutionality of the PLRA are overruled.
Work Related to Health Issues
Defendants object to 36.6 hours of time billed by Patricia Streeter, and 1 hour of time billed by Michael Barnhart, related to health issues in Hadix.
Defendants state that 6 of the hours claimed by Patricia Streeter were spent traveling to and from Jackson to pick up information and transport Ms. Alexander to the airport. Plaintiffs explain that those six hours of travel time on April 2 and 5, 1996 were required to attend meetings with co-counsel and plaintiffs' medical expert. Ms. Streeter also states that she picked up Ms. Alexander from the airport on the way to save the expense of car rental. The Court finds that the six hours are a reasonable expense in relation to the medical health issues.
Defendants also dispute the 30.6 hours that plaintiffs say Ms. Streeter worked in response to defendants' revised medical disabilities plans. They argue that this amount of time is excessive considering the scope of the issue. In defense of the amount of time spent, Ms. Streeter explained that she has primary responsibility among the three attorneys for the medical disabilities issues. Her response addressed two separate plans, and involved review of

various lengthy documents, and consultation with plaintiffs' expert. The Court finds the justification of the 30.6 hours sufficient, and defendants' objection is overruled.
The hour of Mr. Barnhart's time to which defendants object was spent on telephone calls related to transportation of prisoners to off-site locations for medical treatment. The Court does not accept defendants' argument that this is a non-consent decree issue, because the provision of medical treatment to SPSM inmates is a consent decree issue, even when done at a facility that is not covered by the consent decree. Therefore, defendants' objection to the hour billed for January 29, 1996 is overruled.
Work on Access to Courts Issue
Defendants object to the 348.8 hours billed by Ms. Streeter, and the 221 hours billed by Mr. Barnhart, on the issue of access to the courts for both Hadix and Knop. Defendants argue that this amount of time is excessive, particularly in light of the fact that Ms. Alexander billed only 72 hours on the issue for the Knop case.
The Court first notes that the appropriate amount of time can not be determined by comparing the time spent by Ms. Streeter and Mr. Barnhart to that spent by Ms. Alexander on the issue. As stated by the plaintiffs, and as was apparent to the Court at the hearings on the issue, each attorney had different responsibilities with respect to the issue of access to the courts. The work performed by each attorney was applicable to both cases, as they are proceeding jointly at this stage.
With respect to the reasonableness of the total number of hours spent on the issue, the Court agrees that the issue was particularly active during the period between January 1, 1996 through June 30, 1996. During that time the parties submitted briefs regarding the Plan for Legal Assistance, the Court ordered the parties to meet with the independent expert on the issue and develop and evaluate a revision of the Plan, and the Court conducted a 1003 status conference and a hearing *1003 on the issue. Given the extensive amount of work required on the issue of access to the courts during the relevant time period, the Court finds that the total of 569.8 hours is not unreasonable, and defendants' objection is overruled.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs' motions for attorneys' fees will be granted. The Court finds that the amendments to the provisions for attorneys' fees in prison condition cases contained in the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to the present actions.
ORDER
In accordance with the Opinion issued this date;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' motions for attorneys' fees, filed September 23, 1996 (dkt. # 805 in Hadix; dkt. # 1254 in Knop), are GRANTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' motions for attorneys' fees, filed April 14, 1997 (dkt. # 872 in Hadix; dkt. # 1288 in Knop), are GRANTED.
[1] Subsection (d) reads:
(1) In any action brought by a prisoner who is confined to any jail, prison, or other correctional facility, in which attorney's fees are authorized under section 1988 of this title, such fees shall not be awarded, except to the extent that-
(A) the fee was directly and reasonably incurred in proving an actual violation of the plaintiff's rights protected by a statute pursuant to which a fee may be awarded under section 1988 of this title; and

(B)(i) the amount of the fee is proportionately related to the court ordered relief for the violation; or
(ii) the fee was directly and reasonably incurred in enforcing the relief ordered for the violation.
(2) Whenever a monetary judgment is awarded in an action described in paragraph (1), a portion of the judgment (not to exceed 25 percent) shall be applied to satisfy the amount of attorney's fees awarded against the defendant. If the award of attorney's fees is not greater than 150 percent of the judgment, the excess shall be paid by the defendant.
(3) No award of attorney's fees in an action described in paragraph (1) shall be based on an hourly rate greater than 150 percent of the hourly rate established under section 3006A of Title 18, for payment of court-appointed counsel.
(4) Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a prisoner from entering into an agreement to pay an attorney's fee in an amount greater than the amount authorized under this subsection, if the fee is paid by the individual rather than by the defendant pursuant to section 1988 of this title.
[2] Many courts have already determined that applying the PLRA limitation on attorneys' fees for work performed prior to the enactment of the PLRA is impermissibly retroactive. Cooper v. Casey, 97 F.3d 914, 921 (7th Cir.1996) (application of PLRA would attach new legal consequences to services rendered by plaintiffs' counsel in advance of its passage); Jensen v. Clarke, 94 F.3d 1191, 1202-03 (8th Cir.1996) (PLRA was enacted well after both the liability and attorneys' fee determinations in the case); Weaver v. Clarke, 933 F.Supp. 831, 835 (D.Neb.1996) (declining to apply narrowed definition of prevailing party); Miller-Bey v. Stiller, No. 93-CV-7211 1-DT (E.D.Mich. Feb. 25, 1997) (Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation); Coleman v. Wilson, No. Civ. S-90-0520 LKK JFM P (E.D.Cal. Jan. 21, 1997) (Report and Recommendation); Gates v. Gomez, No. CIV S-87-1636 LKK JFM P (E.D.Cal. Jan. 8, 1997) (Order Adopting Report and Recommendation of Nov. 25, 1996); Hurley v. Coughlin III, No. 77 Civ. 3847(RLC) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 1996); Browning v. Vernon, No. CV 91-0409-SBLW (D.Idaho Oct. 2, 1996) (Report and Recommendation); Webb v. Ada County, CV 91-0204-S-EJL (D.Idaho Sept. 3, 1996) (Order Adopting Report and Recommendation); Anderson v. County of Kern, No. CIV F-90-0205 GEB JFM P (E.D.Cal. Sept. 30.1996) (Order Adopting Report and Recommendation); Chappell v. Gomez, C 93-4421 FMS (N.D.Cal. Aug. 8, 1996); Hadix v. Johnson, No. 80-73581 (E.D.Mich. May 30,1996); Glover v. Johnson, No. 77-71229 (E.D.Mich. May 30, 1996); Alexander S. v. Boyd, No. 3-90 3062-17 (D.S.C. May 29, 1996) (Order Awarding Attorneys' Fees).
[3] Plaintiffs argue that rather than applying the subsection of § 3006A entitled "payment for representation," the Court should apply the hourly rate for capital cases set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 848(q)(10) because the authority for that section is found in § 3006A(a). The Court fails to see the logic in this argument.
[4] Defendants' argument that applying the PLRA to work performed after April 26, 1996 is not retroactive because it would not affect events that have already been completed is persuasive. However, that is only one of the three tests for determining if a statute is retroactive. Here, the statute is impermissibly retroactive because it impairs rights the plaintiffs possessed when they acted.
[5] The Court is aware of a number of other cases in which attorneys' fees for work performed after the passage of the PLRA were at issue. In three of them, the courts specifically addressed the distinction between work performed before and after the enactment of the PLRA, and held that the PLRA cap on hourly rates does apply to services provided after April 26, 1996. Hadix v. Johnson, 947 F.Supp. 1113 (E.D.Mich.1996); Glover v. Johnson, No. 77-71229 (Dec. 4, 1996 E.D. Mich.); Duran v. Johnson, No. CIV 77-0721 JC (Apr. 3, 1997 D.N.M.). In two cases, the courts awarded fees at pre-PLRA rates for work done after the PLRA was enacted, but did not discuss the legal issues raised by the distinction. Miller-Bey v. Stiller, No. 93-CV-72111-DT (E.D.Mich. Feb. 25, 1997); Perrier v. City of Albuquerque, No. 95-943 RLP WWD (Dec. 17, 1996 D.N.M.) In another case, the work had been performed between April 18, 1996 and April 29, 1996, but involved the dispute over attorneys fees. Wolfgang v. Beasly, Civ. No. 94-74673 (Apr. 4, 1997 E.D. Mich.) The court noted that the circumstances therein were unusual. Id. at 3. Finally, the courts in two cases stated in dicta that they would not apply the PLRA rates to work performed after the Act was passed. Browning v. Vernon, No. CV 91-0409-S-BLW (D.Idaho Oct. 2, 1996); Chappell v. Gomez, C 93-4421 FMS (N.D.Cal. Aug. 8, 1996).

[6] The work of the National Prison Project was divided as follows: Elizabeth Alexander, 9.5 hours, Ayesha Khan, 75 hours, law clerk Jenny Epstein, 8 hours, and student interns, 1 hour.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 465 F.Supp.2d 776 (2006)
Everett HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Patricia L. CARUSO, et al., Defendants.
No. 4:92-CV-110.
United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division.
December 7, 2006.
777 *777 Elizabeth Alexander, Michael Barnhart, Patricia A. Streeter, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiffs.
A. Peter Govorchin, Lansing, MI, for Defendants.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
ENSLEN, Senior District Judge.
Step on a man's foot once, and a polite apology will do. Do it twice, and a profuse apology is in order. Do it thrice, and you have left the land of apology and entered the arena of self-defense.
I. FACTUAL FINDINGS
A. Hearing Process
1. Hearing was held in this matter on October 11-13, 2006 to receive proofs regarding three motions by Plaintiffs. 778 After hearing, which could not accommodate all of the parties' proofs, the Court issued a *778 scheduling Order,
on October 16, 2006, to receive additional proofs (exhibits, de bene esse depositions and other proffers). Said Order required the filing of all proofs regarding Plaintiffs' Motion to Reopen Judgment Regarding Mental Health Claims by October 31, 2006. Those proofs were duly filed and the Motion resolved by the Court's Opinion, Order and Preliminary Injunction of November 13, 2006. The balance of the supplemental proofs, regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for Further Relief and Motion for Order to Show Cause, were to be filed by November 17, 2006. That date was subsequently extended on November 17, 2006 due to the request by Defendants and in recognition of the demands of the briefing. The revised date was set for November 21, 2006. The supplemental briefing and exhibits were then timely filed by parties.[1]
B. A Brief Explanation of Terms
2. This case involves a long history and a department of state government, the Michigan Department of Corrections ("MDOC"), in love with acronyms and other linguistic short-hands. The basic terms are as follows: "CMS" refers to Correctional Medical Services, the for-profit company hired to provide medical staff for the MDOC, including specialty services staff, who are, generally speaking, independent contractors. "DWH" refers to the Duane L. Waters Hospital, the in-patient care facility at the MDOC, which facility was recently "demoted" in its licensing to a Health Care Center, though the reference to hospital has persisted in practice. DWH also contains an infirmary for convalescence of hospital patients. The "Hadix facilities" refers to the set of prison facilities, including DWH, which were part of the former Central Complex of the State Prison of Southern Michigan ("SPSCC") at Jackson, Michigan and/or were created to provide services in connection with those prison facilities. "RGC" refers to the Charles Egeler Reception and Guidance Center, a Hadix facility which receives new prisoners into the MDOC system.[2] "JMF," a Hadix facility, refers to the Southern Michigan Correctional Facility.

[3] JMF also houses a dialysis unit for providing dialysis services and a "C-Unit," a unit for convalescence and care of infirm dialysis patients and others. "Parnall," a Hadix facility, refers to the Parnall Correctional Facility. The G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility and Cooper Street Correctional Facility are also at Jackson, but are not Hadix facilities. "SERAPIS" refers to the ambulatory electronic medical record system used by the MDOC, the implementation of which has been a painfully slow process in its completion. "CCC" refers to Chronic Care Clinics, which are medical clinics used at Hadix facilities to regularly deliver care to chronically-ill prisoners.
C. Consent Decree and Violation Histories
3. This suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in 1980 to redress a variety of unconstitutional conditions, ineluding inadequate mental health care, at certain designated Jackson, Michigan prison facilities operated by prison officials of the MDOC pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In 1985, a 779 Consent Decree was entered by stipulation of the parties with the approval *779 of United States District Judge John Feikens.
4. Section II.A of the Consent Decree pertained to medical care for prisoners within the Hadix facilities. The section promised to each Hadix prisoner "medical services consistent with contemporary professional health care standards." (Consent Decree § II.A.1.) The Decree further promised a fully-licensed hospital, medical screening, regular access to health care unimpeded by custodial staff, and staffing and new procedures sufficient to fulfill those promises. (Id. at § II.A.1-5.) In addition to other important matters, including special diets and medicines, the Decree also promised that quality assurance audit processes would be used to insure proper health care access, adequate care and supervision of care providers. (Id. at § II.A.6-12.)
5. Judge Feikens initially transferred enforcement of the medical care provisions of the Consent Decree to this Court by Order of June 5, 1992 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Hadix v. Johnson, 792 F.Supp. 527, 528 (E.D.Mich.1992). The purpose of the Order was to promote uniformity and effectiveness of remedy in light of this Court's enforcement of a Consent Decree involving the same issues in a separate suit 0907United States v. Michigan, Case No. 1:84-cv-63. Id. See also Hadix v. Johnson, 228 F.3d 662, 665 (6th Cir. 2000) (discussing history of suit).
6. Despite the success of the Decree in fostering improved conditions as to many aspects of the Decree, the provision of health care has remained both a troubled and troubling aspect of the Decree. Progress in this suit was delayed between 1996 and 1999 due to appeals involving the interpretation and constitutionality of section 802 of the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), P.L. 104-134, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3626. In December 1999, after such delay, the Court conducted a compliance hearing. The result of that hearing was a February 18, 2000 set of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which determined that certain provisions of the Decree should be terminated, but found constitutional violations as to other portions requiring self-remedy by Defendants. (See Feb. 18, 2000 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law; Feb. 18, 2000 partial termination Order; Oct. 29, 2002 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law ("2002 Findings") at 1.)
7. Another evidentiary hearing was held in May 2002, which charted the progress of such self-remedy. The 2002 Findings following that hearing filled 266 pages and discussed hundreds of cases of inadequate or neglected medical care. Of particular concern in those Findings were the following failures: (a) the failure of the health care system to provide timely access to care to patients with urgent and emergent serious medical problems (2002 Findings ¶¶ 217 & 324); (b) the failure of the system to provide timely access to specialty care, which failures include the delaying of surgery of a lung cancer patient for over a year and the repeated failure to transport another patient to chemotherapy appointments (with one exception), which failures caused death in both cases (2002 Findings ¶¶ 728, 729 & 860); and (c) the failure of the system to provide a readable, comprehensive and current medical record to care providers (2002 Findings ¶¶ 790-867).
8. As a consequence of these and other Eighth Amendment violations, the Court enjoined Defendants to comply with the instructions for remedy in Section XIII of the Findings. (Order & Inj., Oct. 29, 2002.) Phase one of the medical remedy was the appointment of a medical monitor. (Id. at ¶¶ 1437-38.) After interview of candidates, 780 Robert Cohen, M.D., was appointed medical monitor pursuant to an *780 Order of this Court authorizing

independent monitor F. Warren Benton to so appoint him.[4] (Order of Apr. 21, 2003.) This appointment was to be followed by the development of a remedial plan by the Monitor and the parties. (See 2002 Findings ¶ 1440.) However, the requirement of a remedial plan was later vacated, not because it was inappropriate, but it was contained in the same paragraph which required a heat-related remedy as to which the parties came to an agreed resolution which involved vacating that paragraph. (See id. at ¶ 1442; Order of June 6, 2003.)[5] However, apart from those technical details, there continued at the time a mounting crisis in health care, which has fully consumed the resources of the parties, the Court and the Medical Monitor in seeking solution. We have been bailing, not sailing.
C. Medical Status Reports and Preliminary Injunction Plan
9. Dr. Cohen's first medical Status Report was filed with the Court on July 13, 2004. The second was filed on January 13, 2005. The third was filed on September 12, 2005. The basic similarity between all three was extensive commentary on gross failures of care, inadequate care, and preventable injury, disease, and loss of life. The Court also received emergency correspondence concerning systemic failures (collapse of pharmacy and the death of T.S.), which are discussed further. (Letter of June 2, 2006, Dkt. No.2035; Letter of Aug. 14, 2006, Dkt. No.2088.)
10. In particular, the Third Report noted a "crisis" in medical service provider staffing as of March 2005, which was exacerbated by the discharge of a delinquent doctor, Dr. Faghihnia. Another problem was that additional physician responsibilities were being placed upon the medical staff with the transfer of "C-Unit" a 0907 unit for treatment of dialysis patients and other chronically-ill patients too sick to live in general population to 0907 the Hadix facilities. (Third Report at 13 (Dkt. No. 1897 and also received as Pis.' Ex. 5A).)
11. Problem cases noted in the Third Report included, by way of example: patient 1, a patient who died of an untreated staph infection and gastro-intestinal bleeding while housed in administrative segregation (id. at 11); patient 2, a patient with HIV, Sicca Syndrome (chronic extreme dryness of the mouth and esophagus causing difficulty swallowing) and excessive weight loss (down to 108 pounds), who did not receive a pureed diet, and was not treated for abdominal pain, crumbled teeth and painful lesions (id. at 16-20); and patient 3, a 29-year-old cancer/HIV patient whose rectal cancer treatment was delayed by eight months due to delay in a simple diagnostic test and delay in referral for radiation (id. at 20-23). The Third Report included specific comments on 10 patients of 23 files surveyed, including dialysis patients, diabetics, and cancer patients, whose treatment were all grossly deficient and deemed representative of the facility care.
781 *781 12. During the later Preliminary Injunction hearing discussing the Third Report, Dr. Cohen also reported to the Court another instance of a prisoner death (A.R.) caused by grossly negligent care. In that case, a brittle diabetic was grossly overprescribed insulin by his physician and no in-patient care or endocrinologist consultation was ordered to monitor the diabetic's blood sugars and care. (Hr'g Tr. of Oct. 19, 2005 at 21.) The patient asked for a glucometer to self-monitor his blood sugars, which request was not granted, and then predictably died overnight of hypoglycemia, causing heart failure. (Id.) The medical staff also took some 20 minutes to respond to the emergency and the patient was not effectively treated by on-duty medical providers before the Emergency Medical Technicians arrived. (Id,; see also Order of Dec. 16, 2005, explaining case in greater detail.)
13. As a consequence of these and other failures, which the Court found to be violations of the Eighth Amendment, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, which Injunction required Defendants to propose a corrective plan for Court approval. (Prelim. Inj. of Oct. 19, 2005; see also Am. Prelim. Inj. of Nov. 23, 2005.) The Plan was timely filed by Defendants. (Plan re Prelim. Inj. of Oct. 19, 2005.) The Plan was some twenty pages in length and required, among other things, the following: (1) regular physician rounds in segregation (Plan 2); (2) the audit of medical care for chronically-ill prisoners in segregation and other selected cases as part of the quality assurance process (id. at 3); (3) the establishment of an infirmary at DWH for patients needing infirmary care with 24-hour nurse and physician staffing (id. at 3-4); (4) establishment of a Unitary Medical Record System including all laboratory studies, all medications, complete with a link between SERAPIS and the pharmacy computer system, and an expansion of SERAPIS to include all clinical areas (id. at 6); (5) automatic renewals of all chronic medications (id. at 9); (6) refinement of the job description of the Jackson

Medical Director to include more active medical service provider, dialysis and CMS oversight (id. at 11); (7) autopsies for all prisoner deaths (id.); (8) better communication, follow-up and monitoring regarding CMS referrals for specialty care (id. at 12-13); (9) monthly staff meeting regarding the Dialysis Program (id. at 14); and (10) enhanced staffing of service providers to meet the increased demands of the expanded clinical responsibilities at the Hadix facilities (id. at 19-20).
14. This Court held a hearing regarding such Plan on January 11, 2006. The next day, the Court approved the Plan with some important modifications including: (1) selected paragraphs were stricken as factually inaccurate; (2) the SERAPIS computer system, or equivalent system, was to be applied to pharmacy and laboratory records of prisoners at DWH and Unit; (3) monthly reports were required to specify the timeliness of specialty consultations, which were to be delivered in a timely way; (4) a full-time nephrologist or internist was to be added to the C-Unit; (5) all patients in segregation were to be medically reviewed within one week; and (6) Dr. Cohen was authorized to consult with a nephrologist to obtain specialty review of patient files as necessary. (Order of Jan. 12, 2006.) The language of the Plan document, which was drafted together by the parties and Dr. Cohen, expresses the parties' consensual understandings and relationship at the time. It did not express exact deadlines nor precise formulas for accomplishing certain objectives because the parties were working cooperatively at that time.
782 15. Defendants failed to timely appeal either the Preliminary Injunction or the *782 Order approving and implementing the Plan.
D. Possible Successes, Fiascos and Administrative Responses
16. Not all of the news about prisoner treatment at the Hadix facilities has been adverse. Defendants have implemented the December 2005 Plan and other beneficial programs since then, and are now reporting certain measures of systemic improvement as a consequence of those changes. (Defs.' Tr. Br. 1-5.) For example, they have reported hemoglobin ale averages for diabetic patients that show the percentage of patients in good control exceeding community averages for diabetic patients in good control. (Id. at 5; Craig Hutchinson, M.D., Dep. 5-6.) How much of this improvement is due to health care as opposed to dietary control or the general facility layout itself (i.e., prisoners have assigned diets and must walk distances to obtain food and services) is not known, though the numbers are positive nevertheless. Three other positive developments have also coalesced to the benefit of diabetic care: (1) the opening of the DWH infirmary described above; (2) a pilot program to provide glucometers to inmates to self-test their blood sugars; and (3) Defendants' recent decision to provide endocrinology consults to brittle diabetics who were not benefitting from standard internist care. (See Defs.' Tr. Br. 3; Hutchinson Dep. 101.) In the Court's judgment, these improvements are not only helpful, but essential to ensure adequate medical care to diabetic patients.
17. In part, the DWH infirmary was intended to address out-of-control diabetic patients such as A.R., who needed medical monitoring, especially at night, to guard him from deadly hypoglycemia reactions due to both a change in his insulin regime and poor control generally. Self-use of glucometers by able diabetic patients is the standard of care in the community for important reasons.[6]See Am. Diabetes Assoc., Standards of Med. Care in Diabetes (Position Statement), Diabetes Care 27 (Suppl.l): S15-S35 (A.D.A.2004.) Diabetics who are unsure whether they are experiencing the onset of hypoglycemia need to check their blood sugars emergently (in a matter of a few minutes when blood sugars are precipitously low) to determine whether to treat the hypoglycemia with glucose (sugared food stuffs) before they lose their capacity for self-treatment (unconsciousness). The testing is also required to avoid unnecessary self-treatment, which would otherwise expose them to hyperglycemia (which has long-term negative health consequences and short-term consequences when extreme) and fluctuations in blood sugar which would otherwise complicate their treatment.[7] This testing is particularly important at p.m. hours before the patient sleeps0907since a hypoglycemic reaction at night is likely to go untreated and, if severe enough, may cause death.
18. In the Court's judgment, the fact that self-monitoring is only now becoming available is an admission of past 783 error, though Defendants are to be commended nevertheless for their corrective actions. *783 They are also to
be commended for having determined that endocrinologist consultations are necessary for some diabetic patients

and will be made available. This is important because certain brittle diabetics, particularly type 1 diabetics whose longterm insulin regimes become ineffective over time and type 2 diabetics who are insulin dependent and experiencing difficulty with their regimes, often need specialist assistance to accomplish safe and effective treatment.
19. The infirmary beds at DWH were added in January 2006. (Defs.' Tr. Br. 3.) According to Defendants, this unit has greatly assisted patients returning from hospitalization. (Id.) Defendants are also now adding some 28 beds to C-Unit (dialysis patient unit), which beds are scheduled to be completed in mid-December 2006. (Id,; Barbara Hladki De Bene Esse Dep. 34.) Defendants anticipate that this will benefit care in C-Unit. (Id.)
20. Defendants also report success in maintaining HIV patents in Hadix facilities at a 73 percent full suppression rate. (Hutchinson Dep. 4.) In the opinion of Dr. Craig Hutchinson, M.D. this rate compares favorably with the state's overall rate of 81 percent given that the sickest of the HIV patients are channeled to the Hadix facilities. (Id.) Plaintiffs have challenged this assertion. In particular, as noted by Plaintiffs' counsel and Dr. Hutchinson, the number does not represent prisoners housed at C-Unit and Duane Waters Hospital (areas where the sickest inmates are located). (Id, at 51.) So, it is impossible to say whether the overall rates at the Hadix facilities represent a quality healthcare response.
21. Defendants also report the results of a prolonged experiment regarding their "pill lines" 0907lines to deliver medicines to certain inmates. They experimented with calling inmates to the "pill line" by "pod" instead of by "block" (the larger housing unit). (Defs.' Tr. Br. 3.) This experiment did not work and complicated the ability of patients, including diabetics, to get to the food hall to eat their meals. (Id.) They then tried calling inmates two "pods" at a time to the pill line, and found that this approach was far better. (Id. at 4.) They now plan to physically modify the pill delivery facilities to allow more inmates to line up inside (out of the inclement weather).[8](Id.) There was no plan, however, to speed delivery by use of more dispensing lines. The reason this ready solution was not proposed is obvious from the record as explained below: Defendants are grossly under-staffed for nursing care. (See also Debbie Roth Dep. 67-68.)
22. Another bit of news qualifies as both a fiasco and a belated success. The fiasco part of the story began on May 31, 2006 when Dr. Robert Cohen, M.D., the medical monitor, was visiting the Hadix facilities for a routine inspection. (Pis.' Ex. 5(B) at bates no. 322330; Trial Testimony ("T.T."), vol. Ill, 584.) Prisoners then informed him that medication refills due since May 26, 2006 had not been filed. According to Dr. Cohen, nothing was being done to address the debacle because when the pharmacy computer system was checked, it reported the unfilled orders as filled. (Id.) Dr. Cohen determined that this problem was not exactly recent in that it affected some prescription refills as early as May 19, 2006. (Id.) He also reported that as of the morning of June 1, 2006 pharmacy staff was, after deliberation, making no efforts to cure the problem. (Id.) The cause of the delay was the 784 loss of pharmacy staff (retirement of a pharmacist), *784 a failure of the SERAPIS computer system, and the delayed implementation of a new private pharmacy system for chronic medications. (Id.) Some effort was, however, being made by health care staff to fill some prescriptions through the local Walgreen's pharmacy, though "no rapid effective solution to this critical problem had been formulated or implemented." (Id.)
23. Based on Dr. Cohen's discussions with senior staff on the afternoon of June 1, 2006, he requested that the new outside remote vendor (PharmaCorr, Inc.) attempt to provide early and emergency refills of the chronic care medications. (Id.) Because of the grave concern and the lifesaving nature of the medicines involved, Dr. Cohen asked that daily reports be provided to help him and Department staff ascertain that all refills were being provided and the extent of the delays. (Id. at 322329-322331.) Dr. Pramsteller has shared these concerns in his testimony that certain chronic medications (e.g., cardiac medications, HIV medications, etc.) cannot be interrupted without creating "a big problem" (i.e., predictable bad outcomes). (See Pramsteller De Bene Esse Dep. 23.)
24. These events later caused the depositions of the Jackson Medical Complex Director of Nursing, Debbie L. Roth, and the Jackson Medical Complex Administrator, Barbara Hladki, to be taken. Ms. Hladki was deposed on September 21, 2006. Ms. Roth was deposed on September 29, 2006. As of the dates of their depositions, they were not fully aware of the crucial role that Dr. Cohen had played in restoring pharmacy services to many prisoners. (Hladki Sept. 21, 2006 Dep. at 48-50; Roth Dep. 24-28.) They were also not too keen to give Dr.

Cohen credit for acting emergently until confronted with the timing of his correspondence and the sequence of the events. (Id.)
25. The happy part of this fiasco was the early recruitment of PharmaCorr. This was happy for a variety of reasons. First of all, the Court has every reason to believe that PharmaCorr will function like other reliable commercial remote pharmacy services0907fill and place orders consistent with the standards of care in the community. That is, the prescriptions will be regularly filled by PharmaCorr staff with computer programs used to ensure that orders are provided timely and the ordered prescriptions are not contra-indicated either by patient health or drug interactions. Indeed, Barbara Hladki has already testified that her initial experience with PharmaCorr has been one which has improved automatic refills of chronically needed medicines. (Hladki Sept. 21, 2006 Dep. 31.)
26. Such improvement, though, is not without some complications in that Defendants do not anticipate that PharmaCorr will be connected to the SERAPIS medical records system until middle to late January 2007. (Defs.' Tr. Br. 2, 15.) Until then, Defendants cannot fully insure that pharmacy care meets community standards. Furthermore, Dr. Cohen expressed reservations at the time of hearing that the system had not yet obtained the functionality necessary to alert care providers about chronic medication orders requiring automatic renewal, which is an essential part of an operative pharmacy system. (T.T., vol.III, 585.)
27. Returning to the fiasco category, a brief comment is warranted as to the case of P.H. P.H. died of complications of treatable hyperthyroidism after his care was neglected for over a year because Defendants perennially ignored both his need for medical care and the care for paranoia which was causing him to refuse 785 medical treatment. Rather than simply repeat the Court's earlier discussion of the case in its *785 November 13, 2006 Opinion, the Court now adopts that discussion here by reference. Defendants have sought to add to that record with testimony of Bency Mathai, M.D., the physician who was responsible (together with the mental health team) for sending the paper work to Lansing to seek probate court appointment of a medical guardian to approve care on P.H.'s behalf. (Mathai De Bene Esse Dep. 7-16.) Dr. Mathai's account makes clear (consistent with Dr. Cohen's previous account) that she acted promptly and in the best interest of P.H. However, this testimony does nothing to excuse any subsequent delay caused by others in Lansing who received the paper work. (Id.) Nor does such testimony attempt to excuse or defend the very prolonged delay in medical treatment and psychological treatment caused by other providers that occurred prior to Dr. Mathai's consultation with P.H. The Court understands that the guardianship proceedings were intended to expedite treatment, but those proceedings did not begin until P.H. had been effectively delivered to the probate court system on the precipice of death.
28. The other certain fiasco that Dr. Cohen "discovered" during a routine visit was the August 6, 2006 death of T.S. This death was reported to the Court by letter of August 14, 2006. (Dkt. No.2088.) The Court has already commented extensively upon that death and the grossly defective medical and mental health care which promoted it. (See Op. of Nov. 13, 2006.) Rather than repeat those words again, the Court adopts them here by reference with two brief additions. The first is due to the recently released autopsy of T.S., which the parties have presented by Stipulation to become part of the evidentiary record. (Stip. of Nov. 17, 2006; attach. A & Order of Nov. 21, 2006 granting Stip.) The Autopsy Report, which was based in part on a Toxicology Report recently completed, gave the cause of death (consistent with Dr. Walden's prior opinion) as complications of hyperthermia and dehydration. (Id.) The complications likely caused an electrolyte imbalance that not irregularly causes heart arrhythmia and failure. (Id.)
29. Second, in advance of T.S.'s death, the Department of Corrections had announced a "case management" system to monitor medically high-risk inmates in administrative segregation. (Defs.' Tr. Br. 4.) As Defendants put it, that system "is not fool proof." (Id.) "Fool" is the operative word in that sentence, as applied to all care T.S. received prior to his death, including from custody, medical staff and psychological staff. Since the death of T.S., Defendants have taken steps to communicate a need for custody staff, medical staff and mental health staff to share information to protect patient welfare. (Defs.' Tr. Br. 4 & Ex. B.) At the same time, however, this effort must be conducted consistent with standards of medical confidentiality.
30. Defendants have also made a case management effort which is directed to prevent the lapse and failure of services in critical cases (e.g., cancer treatment, cardiac treatment, etc.). (Id.) It is not explained how this system

will reliably function, however, when many of the impediments which has caused a lack of service in the past (failure of transportation, unavailable specialists and indifferent and overworked providers) continue unabated.[9]
786 31. Defendants have announced in their Trial Brief another recent attempt to *786 study and reform their health care efforts. Exhibit C to the Trial Brief is a Request for Proposal 0907meaning that Defendants were seeking a bid as to a two-phase study of their health care system, with phase one to be completed by April 1, 2007 and phase two to be completed six months later. Defendants represent that they intend to employ the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (and any subcontractor it selects) to perform such study. (Defs.' Tr. Br. 5 & Ex. C.) At this point, it would be speculative to predict either any success or improvement as a consequence of a distant study, particularly when such studies in the past have only served to cut timber and line file drawers.
E. The Specialty Care Debacle Continued
32. Perhaps the most remarkable testimony the Court received at the last hearing involved the dialogue between Dr. Pramsteller, the Michigan Department of Corrections Medical Director, and Dr. Cohen, the medical monitor. Both were curious to know whether the rather tentative remedy in their Plan to fix specialty care delays, monthly reporting to the Court of delay numbers, had resulted in any improvement. The sheer numbers provided established that 30 to 40 percent of the specialty care was being provided outside of the time deemed medically necessary. (T.T., vol.HI, 589.) Dr. Pramsteller and Dr. Cohen, in order to assess the harm of such delay, randomly picked six cases of delayed specialty care from a list of such cases. (Id. at 589, 593.) In two of those cases, the delay did not threaten any imminent harm, though in one of those cases it may have caused prolonged pain. (Id. at 589-90.) In the remaining four cases, the delay was presenting the prospect of unnecessary death and grossly unnecessary suffering. In the case of D.R., a patient with blood in the urine, it took medical staff 40 days to perform testing (IVP x-ray), which showed that one of his kidneys was blocked and not functioning due to a kidney stone, and his treatment was further delayed for several weeks after the test was performed. (Id. at 590-91.)
33. Another patient C.W.S., a 50-yearold with coronary artery disease, had a stent in his left main coronary artery, the most dangerous place for blockage. (Id. at 591.) He had been using nitroglycerin and, because of increasing frequency of chest pain with activity and at rest, had increased nitroglycerin usage to several times per day. (Id.) He had chest pain radiating to his neck and arm with heavy substernal pressure. (Id.) This is the basic medical school definition of an impending heart attack. (Id.) Defendants' response was to schedule a 30-day consult. (Id.) C.W.S. had needed the consult immediately. (Id. at 591-92.) When he was finally seen, after more than 30 days, testing showed a 70-percent blockage of the left coronary artery with stenosis in the right coronary artery as well. In Dr. Cohen's opinion, the patient was fortunate to have survived the prolonged delay in treatment. (Id. at 593.) The patient was referred directly by the cardiologist for emergency coronary artery bypass surgery. At the time of the review by Drs. Cohen and Pramstaller, the surgery had taken place and the patient had returned to JMF. Remarkably, on the day of their review, physician staff at JMF were unaware that C.W.S. had surgery, and were not aware that he had returned to their facility.
34. J.F. was the third adverse delay case. He was a patient with end stage renal disease who was complaining about rectal bleeding and displayed two abnormal polyps during a barium enema on June 21, 2005. (Id.) He was 787 scheduled for a colonoscopy in two months, but, according to the chart, custody cancelled his appointment. *787 (Id.) He was then not seen again for the condition until the delay was discovered by medical staff on April 21, 2006 and his colonoscopy appointment rescheduled for July 24, 2006. (Id.) No attempt was made by providers to schedule the case emergently notwithstanding the past delay and real prospect of cancer. (Id. at 594.) Eighteen days after the colonoscopy took place, on August 11, 2006, the results were reported as high grade dysplasia, an abnormal, non-cancerous but possibly pre-cancerous lesion. (Id.) No follow-up was ordered despite the medical risk. (Id.)
35. D.U. was the last adverse case studied. D.U. had complained of a mole which was increasing in size on his back on June 25, 2005. He kited repeatedly and was then seen on July 8, 2005 and diagnosed with a "melanocystic skin mole" which the doctor (who no longer works for Defendants) determined should be "watched closely," but no biopsy was ordered. (Id. at 595.) Follow-up was ordered in two months, at which time (September

8, 2005) the doctor determined that the "mole" should be surgically removed within two weeks. As of October 10, 2005, this had not occurred. The patient saw a nurse on that date and complained that the growth had persisted for a long period of time, and he was told to use a hot compress. (Id.) An October 14, 2005 appointment to remove the "mole" was cancelled by a medical provider and rescheduled for October 21, 2005, which also did not occur. (Id.) The patient was seen by a physician assistant ("PA") and told the PA that he had family history of cancer. (Id.) This resulted in another request for surgical excision which was ignored. (Id.)
36. By January 20, 2006, the "mole" was seen by medical staff and was then a black-red mass measuring .5 by .7 inches square in the interscapular area with irregular margins. It was noted to be bleeding. On January 30, a physician performed a wide excision of the lesion and ordered follow-up care and testing. (Id. at 596.) A February 7, 2006 pathology report showed malignant melanoma. Thereafter, Dr. Fatu (staff physician) attempted to obtain the patient's immediate referral to the University of Michigan melanoma clinic for cancer treatment, but the attempt was somehow administratively derailed while the patient was sent to an oncologist instead of a melanoma treatment center. (Id.) The required urgent standard of care a 0907 sentinel node biopsy0907 which is used to determined if the metastatic cancer has spread to the lymph system was not performed until April 12, 2006 (another gross and inexcusable delay). That biopsy did show that the cancer had spread while the patient was not receiving effective cancer therapy. (Id.)
37. As noted above, these cases are remarkable both because they were randomly selected from a list of delayed referrals and because the system of monthly reports instituted in January 2006 provided full notice to Defendants of the dangerous treatment delays. The monthly specialty reports (Pis.' Ex. 88) themselves are interesting because they show relevant data as to specialty care. Dr. Pramsteller has testified that he regularly evaluates similar data, especially as to diseases such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes and dialysis patients0907which diseases have regular fatal outcomes and use significant economic resources. (Pramsteller De Bene Esse Dep. 35-36.) He further commented that the Hadix facilities require a large portion of the state medical resources because of the population of sick inmates housed there. (Id.) He classified cancer and heart disease as the two most expensive medical conditions. (Id.)
788 38. To take January 2006 and cancer as an example, the January 2006 report *788 showed 48 hematology/ oncology patients were seen at DWH in January and another 25 were "pending" to be seen at DWH. (Pis.' Ex.88 at bates no. 321678.) Offsite, nine hematology/oncology patients were seen and ten were pending. (Id.) Although the report listed two off-site cancer treatment centers, the report showed that no care was authorized as to those centers. (Id.) Later versions of the report did not even list those centers. The February 2006 data for onsite specialty care in this category showed 12 patients were seen, two were rescheduled, 13 were pending and five were past pending. (Id. at bates no. 321739.) As to offsite "radiation/oncology," five were seen, ten were pending and three were past pending. (Id. at bates no. 321740.) The March 2006 data for onsite specialty care in this category showed 16 patients seen, one rescheduled, 14 pending and seven past pending. (Id. at bates no. 321789.) The offsite numbers were 12 patients seen, 11 pending and six past pending. (Id. at bates no. 321791.) The April 2006 onsite numbers were 8 patients seen, two rescheduled, seven pending and six past pending. (Id. at bates no. 321846.) The April offsite numbers were 12 seen and seven pending with none past pending. (Id. at bates no. 321847.) The May onsite numbers were three seen, seven pending and three past pending. (Id. at bates no. 321902.) The May offsite numbers were nine seen, two rescheduled, six pending and two past pending. (Id. at bates no. 321903.)
39. To skip to the later months, the summary sheets are not informative as to cancer treatment because CMS shifted to an "automatic" approval process for cancer referrals to facilitate treatment. (Hutchinson Dep. 98-99.) This was done because, "We knew that simply the time required for even expeditious handling of all the pieces of paper ... would not deliver some of the cancer care within the time frames that needed to occur." (Id.) Although Dr. Hutchinson proclaims that CMS has caused a "fix" to the system, both the above examples, the statistics and the brute facts do not bear out that blithe conclusion. For the month of August, which lacks the summary sheet, the "patients seen" report still shows that many cancer patients were seen beyond the prescribed treatment parameters. For example, patient W.D. had a diagnosis of tongue cancer. (Pis.' Ex. 88 at bates no. 322119.) He was to be seen in ten days, but was seen in 43 days because of "first available specialist schedule...." (Id.) Similarly, M.W. had lung cancer and was to be seen in 21 days; he was seen in 27 days and no explanation was given for the delay. (Id.) Patient R.C. had T-Cell Lymphoma and was to be seen in 14 days; he was seen in 21

days with no explanation for the delay. (Id.) Patient X.W. also received delayed treatment for cancer of the esophagus. (Id.) Although some of these delays may seem inconsequential in length, the thorny problem for cancer patients is that their course of treatment (from initial symptoms, to diagnosis, to excision of the cancer (when possible) and to multiple follow-up procedures (radiation and chemotherapy)) requires multiple rounds of waiting and scheduling and potential cancellation due to illness, transport problems, doctor unavailability, etc. This scenario, in the best of circumstances, leaves the inmate fighting for life amidst both the intended and unintended, but equally profound, cords of custody.

40. Defendants themselves admit that they are unsatisfied with their own progress in improving the specialty referral process. Here is what defense counsel wrote:

Even with the Defendants' November 15, 2006 specialty care report, based on October data, the

789

percentage of DWHC specialty care requests reported as "excess" or "late" was twice that of the

*789 JMF and SMT facilities. While this last report is an improvement from the reports early this

year, more work needs to be done.

(Defs.' Tr. Br. 11.)

F. More Medical Malfeasance

41. Other negative cases were reported by Dr. Jerry Walden, M.D., Plaintiffs' medical expert. Those cases were discovered by Dr. Walden as a product of 13 days of medical tour and inspection by Dr. Walden in September and October 2005 and April and May 2006. (Pis.' Ex. 1B at 1.) Dr. Walden summarized these cases in his Report of July 10, 2006. (Id.)[10] Here are some of the low lights of what Dr. Walden found.
42. Regarding cancer treatment, Dr. Walden had concern about four patient files which he did not have access to for review: patients 105, 106, 107 and 108. (Id, at 27.) He was, however, able to review the charts of four other prisoners which showed remarkable indifference to patient well-being. In patient number 109, the patient was seen as a follow-up for blood in the urine in February 2004. (Id.) His family history showed cancer on both sides of his family. (Id.) Thereafter, he regularly saw physicians because he could not sleep at night due to bladder pressure while he continued to have blood in his urine. (Id.) These many visits were treated as either over-active bladder or bladder infection. (Id.) Finally, on August 9, 2004, a physician noted the possibility of bladder malignancy and testing was done. (Id.) The testing was inconclusive while the patient continued to complain of pain and had persistent blood in the urine. (Id. at 27-28.) After continued complaints, he was seen by urology, who scheduled him for cystocopy and DTP testing. (Id.) The testing was eventually performed on October 18, 2004 and on October 19, 2004, the test results showed a 6 centimeter tumor on the bladder. (Id.) The tumor, once discovered, was too large to permit transurethral resection of the tumor (the less invasive technique) so in March 2005, surgeons removed the patient's bladder and created a new bladder from his bowel. (Id.) As of May 2006, the patient had lost over 50 pounds. (Id.) The patient also complained that after the bladder surgery, doctors had difficulty reaching a urologist to treat his bladder symptoms and nearly caused a serious medical complication. (Id.)
43. Patient 110 was another like case. He had recurrent bladder cancer and blood in the urine was ignored for a prolonged period. (Id.) It took some six months between the time that blood in the urine was noted and a urologist appointment was eventually completed. (Id.)
44. Patient 111 was diagnosed and treated for metastatic cancer. (Id.) Although he was treated, he was denied pain medication over a two month period, and this denial caused the cancellation of one of his cancer appointments. (Id.)
790 *790 45. Patient 112 was another patient who was treated for malignant rectal cancer. (Id.) According to Dr. Walden's Report, the care was delayed by some five years because cancer care was not given soon after he arrived in custody. (Id.) A colostomy was eventually performed. (Id.) Dr. Walden is of the opinion that patient 112 will likely die of such cancer. (Id.)

46. As for cardiology, Dr. Walden's Report likewise discusses approximately 20 problematic patient records from 2005. (Id. at 14-17, 21-22.) He found a like number of problematic cases for 2006. (Id. at 17-21.) A few selected cases are cited now as exemplary of the kinds of indifferent care delivered at the Hadix facilities.
47. Patient 44 had extreme hyperlipidemia. (Id. at 17.) He had triglyceride levels 10 times normal levels and cholesterol of 444. (Id.) He was not seen on an appointment for repeat testing. (Id.) When he was seen next, an EKG was ordered and showed a septal infarction with possible inferior ischemia. (Id.) The care providers did not treat either the hyperlipidemia or the unstable cardiac condition. (Id.)
48. Patient 48 had hypertension that was over-treated with multiple medications. (Id. at 18.) His blood pressure was not regularly monitored and vital signs were not being recorded in his record. (Id.) He also had bleeding in his intestinal tract that was being ignored, with no plan for either a colonoscopy or a gastroscopy. (Id.)
49. Patient 53 complained of chest pain with activity. (Id, at 20.) An EKG was performed which showed abnormal results. (Id.) At the time, the patient had a very elevated cholesterol and a history of a past catheterization and long-term tobacco and cocaine use. (Id.) No urgent care was scheduled. Dr. Walden's comment: "This man needs a stress test or an emergency room visit now." (Id.)
50. As for diabetic patients, notwithstanding the positive comments made above, Dr. Walden's report noted some continued problems in the treatment of hypoglycemia, brittle diabetics and other diabetics with uncontrolled treatment regimes. Dr. Walden devotes some ten pages of his Report to such cases. (Id, at 5-14.) The cases noted below are representative of serious Hadix treatment failures regarding treatment of hypoglycemia. Indeed, Dr. Hutchinson similarly testified that to his knowledge, there were three or four patient deaths at Hadix facilities due to complication of hypoglycemia (which is treatable if promptly recognized and treated) within the last two years. (Hutchinson Dep. 51.)
51. Dr. Walden's overall impression was, "I am still amazed that the need to prevent hypoglycemia hasn't been more effectively addressed by the administration and that CMS has not focused on this problem." (Pis.' Ex. IB at 5.) Dr. Walden noted some death cases due to hypoglycemia and further noted that although the policy is to treat all patients with blood sugar readings of less 50 mg/dl with intravenous glucose, this does not regularly occur. (Id.)
52. Patient 4 died of hypoglycemia. (Id. at 5-6.) He had a severe hypoglycemic reaction without any referral to a physician. (Id.) He later died of complications of a second instance of severe hypoglycemia. (Id.)
53. Patient 20 is a paraplegic who is wheelchair-bound. (Id, at 11.) His care was complicated by the fact that custody transport to specialist appointments sometimes left him unable to eat his meals and, thus, prone to hypoglycemia. (Id.)
54. Patient 22 had severe hypoglycemia on March 12, 2006 and was unconscious. (Id. at 12.) He was treated 791 with IV glucose. (Id.) However, post-reaction *791 adjustment to his regime did not occur consistent with
community medical standards. (Id.)
55. Patient 25 is a dialysis patient with a recent history of severe hypoglycemia. (Id.) He was given a Glucagon injection (a chemical that induces the liver to produce glucose) for hypoglycemia on March 28, 2006. (Id.) This followed several earlier incidents of serious hypoglycemia. (Id.) On March 20, 2006 his blood glucose readings were 26, 31, 53 and 76 mg/dl, respectively, and he received two Glucagon injections. (Id.) At 11:55 p.m., staff was called to his cell when he was unresponsive and his blood sugar was 39 mg/dl; he then received his third Glucagon injection of the day. (Id.) He did not have successful follow-up care and Dr. Walden (who had warned Defendants) noted that his care had not improved as of June 14 (since he had other reactions on or about June 12). (Id.) This is clearly an example of a patient needing urgent specialist care whose needs have been underserved. (Id,)
56. Other serious patient care/treatment problems were noted in the following areas: access to health care (id. at 22-AA); medical record deficiencies (id, at 24-25); treatment of methicillin-resistant staphlycoccus infections (id. at 25-27); dialysis care deficiencies (id. at 29-35); surgical care (id. at 35-36); custody treatment (id. at 36-39);

nursing issues (id. at 39-41); and medication problems (id, at 41-42). Also remarkable in his Report are prolonged discussions of cases in which CMS delayed patient care and other cases in which delayed and/or negligent care were a factor in patient deaths. (Id. at 42-64.)
G. How Much to Make of a Bunch of Deaths
57. One of the issues repeated in the briefing and argument is the statistical question of how to treat the individual gross treatment failures. Defense counsel argues in part that the treatment failures do not show deliberate indifference to the "class as a whole." (Defs.' Tr. Br. 6.) The basis for this argument is given as Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996), a case in which the Supreme Court repelled a request for class-wide relief as to First Amendment access violations because only two actual deprivations to class members were shown and the "constitutional violation has not been shown to be systemwide...." Lewis, 518 U.S. at 360,116 S.Ct. 2174.
58. When the Supreme Court made that announcement, it most assuredly did not mean that every class member must be a victim of a violation for system-wide relief to stand. What it did mean was that occasional violations which are not rooted in systemic causes, do not warrant systemwide relief. As an example, the number of inmates with untreated cancer at any given month is small as a percentage of the total prison population (between 10 to 50 at the Hadix facilities as an example). However, the systemic failure to timely treat those persons is clear from the statistics given that there was a 30 to 40 percent delay rate past the physician assigned deadlines for timely care of prisoners generally and a similar rate of delay for cancer patients. Furthermore, the rate of non-care and delayed care is even higher given that the record reflects that physicians were often not protective enough of the right to treatment in assigning treatment dates, and often failed to take the initial diagnostic steps necessary to promptly diagnose cancer. Many deaths have occurred because of such systemic failures, and these failures have occurred in regular treatment patterns (e.g., deaths due to delinquent treatment of hypoglycemia, delinquent treatment of dialysis patients, etc.)
792 *792 59. The testimony of Dr. Creekmore, explained at length in the Court's November 13, 2006 Opinion and adopted here by reference, likewise supports a conclusion that Defendants' malfeasance was systemic. This is particularly so given the history of a facility which has not met constitutional standards repeatedly. Defendants may wish that by simply pointing out an obvious red herring0907that most people are not sick most of the time regardless of their medical treatment0907they may wish away their involvement in this suit. It is not so. Wake up Dorothy. You are not in Kansas anymore.[11]
H. Work Without Workers
60. Apart from the individual case failures explained above, even Defendants' staff has testified that staffing and related facility failures are making the job of delivering timely and necessary medical care untenable. Debbie Roth, the Director of Nursing, testified that she had current staff vacancies (which were being addressed by temporarily using nurses from other facilities) and also that even if all vacancies were filled, the full staff complement would have difficulty in performing assigned work due to the sheer volume and complexity of the work. "If I was fully staffed in all my facilities, it would still be difficult for the nurses to keep up with the workload.... We need more allotted staff positions, and we need more staff, both." (Roth Dep. 50.)
61. Regarding the SMT facility, Roth testified that she needed "two additional R.N.s for the day shift, two on the afternoon shift and one on the night shift." (Id. at 51.) She also testified that additional staff was necessary to cover vacation and sick leave for regular staff. (Id.) Regarding JMF, she testified that three additional staff positions were necessary and a third night-shift nurse would also be beneficial. (Id, at 52.) Similarly, she testified that RGC needed three additional staff nurses, though not a night-time nurse given that RGC involves short-term prisoner stays, shorter daily hours of operation, and a smaller percentage of very sick inmates.
(Id. at 52-53.)
62. These opinions were shared by Dr Cohen both about nursing and physician staffing. Dr. Cohen testified:

There have been critical nursing and physician shortages at the Hadix facilities over the last six months. During a three month period, [in JMF] there were only two physicians and one physician assistant on limited duty providing care. This situation exist[ed] almost through September and resulted in extreme delays in physician review of abnormal laboratory studies, especially consultations and their ability to see nurse referrals from sick call and kite evaluation. The inadequate physician staffing compromises the ability of nurses to refer patients for M.D. evaluation and schedules were so packed in September that physicians at JMF could not followup on their own patients because their schedules were so filled up for weeks ... ahead.

Correctional Medical Services has been aware for a long time that they have been unsuccessful

[in] recruiting and retaining physicians in the Hadix facilities, and this is documented in the minutes

between CMS and MDOC, but they have not taken yet the necessary action to provide direct

employment, including benefits, accrued vacations, and health insurance to the vast majority of

their physician employees. If they do so, they would become much more competitive and would

have access to a large pool of board certified physicians whose immigration status requires them

793

to *793 have full-time jobs in order to remain in this country.

Nursing staffing in the Hadix facilities has been in disarray. The fact that in September just as these hearings were approaching the nursing staff was three days behind in their evaluation of kites is due to the inadequate number of nursing staff.....

(T.T., vol.111, 580-82.)

63. Dr. Cohen's comments about the kite system are important to understand. The kite system is utilized by prisoners to communicate important requests for services, advice and medicine. Typical kites might ask for a prescription refill, indicate that a prisoner needs to see a physician regarding an ailment or ask for clarification regarding medical advice or a treatment regime for the prisoner. When these requests go unanswered, particularly as to a chronically-ill population dependent on daily medications and treatment advice, they create the real possibility of patient injury and death. Dr. Cohen discovered during one of his September tours that JMF nursing staff were three days behind in responding to kites and notified MDOC administrative staff. Debbie Roth, following up on Dr. Cohen's investigation, received confirmation from a substitute RN (one drafted from another facility) that there was a three-day-old stack of kites to be reviewed. (Roth Dep. 48.) Roth then drafted still other staff, two RNS from other facilities, to address the three-day backlog of kites at JMF, but could not reduce staffing at other facilities for any prolonged period due to the needs at those facilities. (Id. at 48-50.) In other words, the conditions that caused this problem have persisted and make repetition of this and other critical problems likely.

64. A related staffing issue is the use of LPNs almost exclusively at the Hadix facilities to meet required staffing. Fifty percent of the RN staffing is provided by contract staffing. (Roth Dep. 70.) Of that group, 60 percent are LPNs, even though they are assigned to replace RNs. (Id. at 55.) This has resulted in the use of LPNs to take action on prison kites, actions which they are not qualified to perform in some cases. (Id.) This situation contradicts Defendants' previous representations that prisoner kites were being reviewed exclusively by RNs. (See 2002 Findings at ¶ 89.) The medication kites that the LPNs review typically may have symptom components (e.g., I need more inhalers because I used them too quickly).

65. Craig Hutchinson, M.D., of CMS had a somewhat less dire opinion about the staffing inadequacies. He viewed the Hadix facilities as 92-93 percent fully staffed though "I haven't done an accounting of the hours...." (Hutchinson Dep. 23.) In Hutchinson's opinion, the only physician shortage was the failure to obtain one physician for RGC (who needed to be replaced due to recent retirement), Defs.' Tr. Br. 7, and additional physician hours for the dialysis unit. (Hutchinson Dep. 23.) He explained that this shortage was due to the fact that the hiring was to be done by Dr. Deon Middlebrook (the nephrologist who provides hours at the dialysis unit and who works for CMS as an independent contractor with his physician employees). (Hutchinson Dep. 17, 23-26.) More particularly, he explained that the unfilled physician hours were due to the fact that one of Dr. Middlebrook's physician hires dropped out after he attended CMS orientation. (Id.) According to Dr. Hutchinson, Dr. Middlebrook is still attempting to hire for those hours. (Id.) Defendants' briefing admits that the dialysis unit is understaffed, but argues that the under-staffing does not jeopardize patient health and asks for an opportunity to present

supporting testimony at hearing in January. (Defs.' Tr. Br. 8.) Defendants' briefing does not explicitly comment on 794 the absence of nurse staffing, *794 presumably because Plaintiffs' motion had specifically requested additional
physician staffing only. (See Defs.' Tr. Br. 5-6.)
66. Defendants have submitted the De Bene Esse Deposition of Barbara Hladki on the subject of their hiring plans. According to her testimony, she has received tentative administrative approval for two additional LPNs and a third position (either a nurse or pharmacy technician) for JMF. (Hladki De Bene Esse Dep. at 33-34.) Hladki speculated that the "spending plan" would be approved in committee the next week and then she would be authorized to seek the new staff in January. (Id.) Hladki explained that it would take another two weeks to one month to fill the positions, but she did not explain in her answer why past openings had not been readily filled. (Id.) Indeed, defense counsel in the briefing accuses the Court and the media of making these positions difficult to fill, and says that one-half of recent applicants have cancelled interviews. (Defs.' Tr. Br. 7.) As of November 2, 2006, JMF had five nursing vacancies out of 13 allocated positions. (Hladki De Bene Esse Dep. 36.) RGC had one vacancy out of seven allocated positions. (Id. at 37.) Parnall had one vacancy out of seven allocated positions. (Id.)
67. Interestingly, the testimony of Dr. Hutchinson and Barbara Hladki assumed the staffing of JMF was adequate even if not compliant with the Court-ordered Plan. The Plan set the minimum staff levels for JMF at four physicians and one mid-level provider. (Plan at 20.) This staffing was in addition to other additional staff for other parts of the Hadix facilities, including new staffing of the dialysis unit. (Plan at 19-20.) Defendants admit that they have not complied with this requirement0907 having employed only three physicians and one physician's assistant. (Defs.' Resp., Dkt. No. 2219, at 10.) They deem this as a sufficiently good-faith response even though no permission to deviate from the Plan was ever sought or extended.
I. Workers Without Computers
68. One important side alley discussed during the recent hearing involves the implementation of the SERAPIS system0907 which was a requirement of the Preliminary Injunction. As specified above, the Preliminary Injunction required the expansion of SERAPIS to lab reports, the pharmacy and DWH, but did not provide an exact deadline for completion. This requirement was not an idle one. Since a landmark report of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the medical profession generally has recognized that an electronic medical record is the preferred method of recording keeping for health care in order to reduce errors associated with handwriting, prevent medication errors, expedite service and facilitate stable and remote access to patient records. See Institute of Medicine, The Computer-Based Patient Record: An Essential Technology for Health Care (National Academy Press 1991); see also Institute of Medicine, To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System (National Academy Press 2000) (discussing cost in lives of medical error and strategies for prevention). As Dr. Cohen put it in his testimony, "You have to ... do it, otherwise you end up with the charts which are unreadable and have bad effects." (T.T., vol. Ill, at 586.) Another huge advantage of the technology is that it allows one to rapidly search a patient record for pertinent information. (Pramsteller De Bene Esse Dep. 13.)
69. Furthermore, it appears that Defendants agree that the expansion of SEAPIS or a SERAPIS compatible system to all parts of the Hadix facilities, including records for in-patient care at C-Unit and DWH, is an important 795 goal which must be *795 met soon. (See Greifinger T.T., vol. Ill, 468-71.) It is possible to use SERAPIS for all ambulatory care, lab studies and prescriptions, but the system is not configured for in-patient care at C-Unit or DWH because it does not accommodate nursing notes. (Id.) Defendants are presently working at finding a SERAPIS-compatible system which can be used for in-patient care and which has connectivity to Foote Hospital, the Jackson public hospital where prisoners are often transferred when care is not appropriate or available at DWH. (Id.) According to the De Bene Esse Deposition of Richard Russell, the process of working toward an inpatient electronic record envisions making such record compatible with regional electronic medical records (such as those maintained by the Department of Community Health and the Veterans Administration) and is well underway. (Russell De Bene Esse Dep. 29-36.)
70. Defendants were late to the game in both their overall program and in instituting the Court-ordered expansion, beginning some of that work only this fall. (Hladki De Bene Esse Dep. 38.) Nevertheless, Hladki

promises that implementation of SERAPIS at DWH and C-Unit regarding lab orders and prescriptions (but not as to in-patient care records) will be completed by January 2007. (Id. at 9-10.) Defendants also are presently working to ensure that PharmaCorr will have connectivity with SERAPIS by the end of January 2007. No promises were made about the participation of certain specialty care providers, such as Dr. Middlebrook, who have not used SERAPIS, (see Pramsteller De Bene Esse Dep. 40.), and whose future participation is likely to be limited to instructing others to use the system on their behalf. Older specialists who provide valuable services (e.g., care of a large number of dialysis patients) must be handled with some care, however, to coax them into the system without alienating their services. Such a loss might be catastrophic for patients.[12]
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. LEGAL STANDARDS

1. Contempt Standards

71. The standards for adjudicating civil contempt were given by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Glover v. Johnson, 138 F.3d 229 (6th Cir.1998) as follows:

In a civil contempt proceeding, the petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent violated the court's prior order.

A litigant may be held in contempt if his adversary shows by clear and convincing evidence that "he violate[d] a definite and specific order of the court requiring him to perform or refrain from performing a particular act or acts with knowledge of the court's order." Id. at 707 (citation omitted). It is the petitioner's burden-here, the plaintiffs'-to make a prima facie showing of a violation, and it is then the responding party's burden to prove an inability to comply. See Huber v. Marine Midland Bank, 51 F.3d 5, 10 (2d Cir.1995). This court has explained:

[T]he test is not whether defendants made a good faith effort at compliance but whether "the defendants took all reasonable steps within their power to comply with the court's order."

796

*796 [G]ood faith is not a defense to civil contempt. Conversely, impossibility would be a defense

to contempt, but the Department had the burden of proving impossibility, and that burden is

difficult to meet. Although diligence is relevant to the question of ability to comply, the

Department's evidence of diligence alone does not satisfy that burden.

"[I]nability to comply would be a defense but defendants would be expected to show this `categorically and in detail.'"

Glover, 138 F.3d at 244 (quoting Glover v. Johnson, 934 F.2d 703, 708 (6th Cir.1991) (internal citations omitted)).

72. As noted above, the exercise of contempt powers is a dire exercise and one requiring all manner of fair and due process to respondents. The exercise of contempt powers is also, however, a necessary part of any judicial system of courts of general jurisdiction. See Bridges v. State of Cal, 314 U.S. 252, 285, 62 S.Ct. 190, 86 L.Ed. 192 (1941) (citing United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32, 11 U.S. 32, 34, 3 L.Ed. 259 (1812)). Without that power, courts would lose their legitimacy and watch idly as their decrees furnished only morbid entertainment to those willing to disregard them.

73. When a civil contempt finding is made, the question becomes what sanctions are sufficient but not excessive to coercive the ordered conduct. In considering civil contempt sanctions, the Court may consider such penalties as coercive imprisonment, see, e.g., Matter of Campbell, 761 F.2d 1181, 1184 (6th Cir.1985), and coercive and conditional fines, see, e.g., United States v. Work Wear Corp., 602 F.2d 110, 116 n. 14 (6th Cir.1979); see also In re Special Proceedings, 373 F.3d 37, 46 (1st Cir.2004); United States v. Mongelli 2 F.3d 29 (2d Cir.1993) (affirming coercive fines of $10,000 a day).

2. Eighth Amendment Standards

74. "Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs" violates the Eighth Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). The Eighth Amendment standard has both objective and subjective components. Id. Thus, to be liable, a defendant must know of and disregard an excessive risk to prisoner health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970. However, in an injunctive case, proof of the subjective component is straightforward:

In this case, we are concerned with future conduct to correct prison conditions. If these conditions are found to be objectively unconstitutional, then that finding would also satisfy the subjective prong because the same information that would lead to the court's conclusion was available to the prison officials.

Hadix v. Johnson, 367 F.3d 513, 526 (6th Cir.2004).

75. One of the cases cited with approval in Farmer was the Supreme Court's previous decision in Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993). Helling said the following about future threats of injury:

It would be odd to deny an injunction to inmates who plainly proved an unsafe, life-threatening

condition in their prison on the ground that nothing yet had happened to them. The Courts of

Appeals have plainly recognized that a remedy for unsafe conditions need not await a tragic

event. Two of them were cited with approval in Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 352, n. 17, 101

S.Ct. 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 ... (1981). Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291 (C.A.5 1974), held that

inmates were entitled to relief under the Eighth Amendment when they proved threats to personal

797

safety from *797 exposed electrical wiring, deficient firefighting measures, and the mingling of

inmates with serious contagious diseases with other prison inmates. Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d

559, 572 (C.A.10 1980), stated that a prisoner need not wait until he is actually assaulted before

obtaining relief.

Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33-34, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993).

76. To explain this matter in the vernacular, a prisoner who receives a sentence of 2-10 years, deserves to do 2-10 years. What he does not deserve is a de facto and unauthorized death penalty at the hands of a callous and dysfunctional health care system that regularly fails to treat life-threatening illness.

3. PLRA Standards

77. As to the injunction requests, the controlling legal standards are the Eighth Amendment legal standards explained above, when combined with the PLRA injunction standards applicable under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1) in prison condition cases and the injunction standards explained below. However, the PLRA on its face and in its meaning does not apply to contempt requests. Jones-El v. Berge, 374 F.3d 541, 545 (7th Cir.2004); Essex Co. Jail Annex Inmates v. Treffinger, 18 F.Supp.2d 445, 462 (D.N.J.1998). Section 3626(a), which was enacted as section 802(a) of the PLRA, states in pertinent part:
Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right. The court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief.
18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1).

4. Permanent Injunction Standards

78. Since this determination represents a final adjudication of Plaintiffs' requests for injunctive relief, following the earlier Preliminary Injunction hearing, the standards require final findings as to whether Plaintiffs have clearly shown an entitlement to relief on the merits and whether an injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable harm. The following case law explains the pertinent standards.

79. In Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, the Supreme Court gave an able explanation of the controlling legal standards as follows:

It goes without saying that an injunction is an equitable remedy. It "is not a remedy which issues

as of course," Harrisonville v. W.S. Dickey Clay Mfg. Co., 289 U.S. 334, 337-338, 53 S.Ct. 602, 77

L.Ed. 1208 ... (1933), or "to restrain an act the injurious consequences of which are merely

trifling." Consolidated Canal Co. v. Mesa Canal Co., 177 U.S. 296, 302, 20 S.Ct. 628, 44 L.Ed.

777 ... (1900). An injunction should issue only where the intervention of a court of equity "is

essential in order effectually to protect property rights against injuries otherwise irremediable."

Cavanaugh v. Looney, 248 U.S. 453, 456, 39 S.Ct. 142, 63 L.Ed. 354 ... (1919). The Court has

repeatedly held that the basis for injunctive relief in the federal courts has always been irreparable

injury and the inadequacy of legal remedies. Rondeau v. Mosinee Paper Corp., 422 U.S. 49, 61,

798

95 S.Ct. 2069, 2077, 45 L.Ed.2d 12 (1975); Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. *798 61, 88, 94 S.Ct.

937, 951, 39 L.Ed.2d 166 (1974); Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 506-507, 79

S.Ct. 948, 954-955, 3 L.Ed.2d 988 (1959); Hecht Co. v. Bowles, supra, at 329, 64 S.Ct. at 591.

Where plaintiff and defendant present competing claims of injury, the traditional function of equity has been to arrive at a "nice adjustment and reconciliation" between the competing claims, Hecht Co. v. Bowles, supra, at 329, 64 S.Ct. at 592. In such cases, the court "balances the conveniences of the parties and possible injuries to them according as they may be affected by the granting or withholding of the injunction." Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 440, 64 S.Ct. 660, 675, 88 L.Ed. 834 (1944). "The essence of equity jurisdiction has been the power of the Chancellor to do equity and to mold each decree to the necessities of the particular case. Flexibility rather than rigidity has distinguished it." Hecht Co. v. Bowles, supra, 321 U.S., at 329, 64 S.Ct., at 592.

In exercising their sound discretion, courts of equity should pay particular regard for the public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction. Railroad Comm'n. v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496, 500, 61 S.Ct. 643, 645, 85 L.Ed. 971 (1941).

Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 311-12, 102 S.Ct. 1798, 72 L.Ed.2d 91 (1982). See also Kallstrom v. City of Columbus, 136 F.3d 1055, 1067 (6th Cir. 1998); City of Parma v. Levi, 536 F.2d 133, 135 (6th Cir.1976). As implied above, and consistent with the PLRA, injunctive relief involving matters subject to state regulation may be no broader than necessary to remedy the constitutional violation.

See Knop v. Johnson, 977 F.2d 996, 1008 (6th Cir.1992)

80. While saying so, the Supreme Court in Weinberger also explained the importance of the legal principles which give rise to equity jurisdiction:

Moreover, the comprehensiveness of this equitable jurisdiction is not to be denied or limited in the absence of a clear and valid legislative command. Unless a statute in so many words, or by a necessary and inescapable inference, restricts the court's jurisdiction in equity, the full scope of that jurisdiction is to be recognized and applied. `The great principles of equity, securing complete justice, should not be yielded to light inferences, or doubtful construction.'

Weinberger, 456 U.S. at 313, 102 S.Ct. 1798 (citation omitted).

81. The Court also concurs with the argument of Plaintiffs' counsel that where previous violations have been adjudicated, then a presumption of further injury inures to Plaintiffs' benefit. See Thompson v. City of Los Angeles, 885 F.2d 1439, 1449 (9th Cir.1989); Qiu v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 140, 148 (2d Cir.2003); NAACP, Jacksonville Branch v. Duval Co. Sck, 273 F.3d 960, 988-89 (11th Cir.2001). While the Court agrees with this proposition, this agreement does not in any way affect the outcome of this suit, which would be the same regardless of the presumption in light of the record.
B. CONTEMPT ANALYSIS
82. Plaintiffs have requested contempt regarding six provisions of the Plan (as adopted and approved by the later 799 Order).[13] The non-compliance at issue concerns: (1) the requirement that Defendants *799 enhance their
mortality review by the use of outside reviewers; (2) the requirement that Defendants pursue other options to obtain autopsy results; (3) the requirement that Defendants assure there is a prompt review of all specialist reports; (4) the requirement that Defendants assure that medications and laboratory studies be entered in SERAPIS at DWH; (5) the requirement of additional physician staffing at JMF; and the (6) the failure to assure a full time equivalent nephrologist or internist for the dialysis unit. Plaintiffs ask for a finding of contempt on each issue and entry of a coercive fine.
1. Mortality Review Process
83. The October 19, 2005 Preliminary Injunction required Defendants to submit a plan to accomplish various objectives, including, to "provide for assessment and medical review of all prisoner patient deaths...." (Prelim.Inj.2.) Defendants then submitted their Plan which provided: "Defendants intend to enhance their mortality review process through the use of outside professional reviewers who will provide a timely and complete review of all patient deaths...." (Plan 2) (emphasis added.) On January 12, 2006, Defendants' Plan was approved by Order of the Court, with revisions not relevant to the above provision. (Order of Jan. 12, 2006 at 1.)
84. As to compliance, Defendants' Revised May Compliance Report stated in pertinent part,
While Defendan[ts] have not ruled out the use of an outside agency [to conduct mortality reviews], it has become apparent that prior to following through with outside reviews the Department needs to streamline the internal review process so that the review occurs closer to the event.
(Rev. May 2006 Compliance Report 2.) Barbara Hladki later wrote in August 2006 to Plaintiffs to indicate that this objective "is not being aggressively pursued at this time." (Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Show Cause, Attach. 1 at 4 & Attach. 2.) Defendants never did accomplish the outside review objective, but did, however, increase the speed of its internal regional review of mortality cases.
85. Contempt sanctions are inappropriate in this instance. The Plan language was worded vaguely and in terms of Defendants' "intent" as opposed to a specific requirement to accomplished a set objective within a set time frame. Defendants have made some progress in their internal review and it cannot be said that they have violated a "clear and specific" order by clear and convincing evidence.
2. Autopsy Reports
86. The Plan language provides in pertinent part:
By statute, the need for an autopsy in Michigan is the sole determination of the County Medical Examiner, the prisoner's family, and in some cases may be requested by two or more registered voters in the county. It is not always possible to obtain an autopsy as this is not in the control of the Defendants. The Defendants will request an autopsy for all unexpected deaths. The Defendants are also pursuing other options to be able to obtain an autopsy in all cases.

(Plan 13.) (emphasis added.)
87. Plaintiffs contend in their Motion that Defendants have violated the underscored language because no "other options" are being pursued. (Pis.' Br. 3.) The statutory authority referenced by Defendants in the Plan, assigning authority to the County Medical Examiner, is found at Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 52.202-52.207. The County Medical Examiner is required by statute to conduct investigations (investigations are preliminary to autopsies under § 800 52.205) in cases of "unexpected deaths," *800 deaths without "medical attendance," and in other circumstances listed in the statute. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 52.202. Other physicians are required to alert the Medical Examiner when the physicians believe that an "unexpected death" or other statutory circumstance warrants investigation. Michigan Compiled Laws § 52.207 also mandates investigation by the medical examiner upon a petition by "six electors" of a county. However, investigation is preliminary to autopsy and does not eliminate the medical examiner's discretion. The medical examiner of Jackson County, according to the hearing evidence, has determined as matter of his discretion not to routinely do such autopsies, even when he has received requests, due to dangers of blood-borne disease. (Hutchinson De Bene Esse Dep. 9-10.)
88. In this instance, contempt sanctions are not warranted. The requirement of the pursuit of "other options" is vague, does not require specific conduct, and it is difficult to discern on this record what, if any, further conduct would result in additional autopsies. Therefore, this request is denied.
3. Processing of Handwritten Specialist Reports
89. The Plan requires that "Defendants shall ensure that there is a prompt review of all specialist reports (both handwritten and dictated) ..." (Plan 15.) The Plan also says that "CMS should not `pend' consultation while awaiting dictated consults...." (Id.) Notwithstanding, the record does show that on rare occasions, certain CMS' doctors pend specialty consultations while awaiting their dictation of handwritten notes. (See Pls.' Tr. Br., Dkt. No. 2216, at 9-10, citing references to Pls.' Exs. 88 & 89.) The rate of these pending consults was relatively rare, though, approximating only two per month, with violations not reported every month. (Id.)
90. This rate (though still requiring improvement) represents a very dramatic improvement from pre-Plan levels. The improvement is explained by the work of Dr. Mattai who now regularly checks all "pended" decisions with the objective of eliminating the practice as far as possible. (Mattai Dep. 24-29.) The remaining delays are explained as a product of requests by CMS for more information as to the requested consultations to determine whether the services were medically necessary. (Hutchinson Dep. 19-22.) The record further shows that Dr. Mattai is taking steps to help assure that these rare events do not negatively impact patient care. (Mattai Dep. 24-29.)
91. Upon review of such record, and in light of the substantial improvement and substantial compliance with the Plan, the Court finds that contempt sanctions are not appropriate as to this issue.
4. SERAPIS0907Medication and Lab Orders at DWH
92. The Plan required that Defendants "[e]xpand the SERAPIS system to include all clinical areas ... including... DWH...." No deadline was established. Barbara Hladki's August 30, 2006 response to Plaintiffs indicates that progress has been made on the general goal, but there is not compliance as to DWH medication and lab orders. (Pls.' Br. in Supp. of Mot. for Order to Show Cause, Attach. 1 at 4.) As noted above, Ms. Hladki's most recent testimony is that the process of SERAPIS implementation for labs and medications is now underway and is expected to be completed by January 2007.
93. Plaintiffs argue the case of Bambu Sales, Inc. v. Ozak Trading Inc., 58 F.3d 849, 853 (2d Cir.1995), which held that the failure of an order to set a "doomsday" did not prevent enforcement in the absence of prompt 801 compliance. That case involved *801 the imposition of a dismissal order due to non-compliance with a discovery order. Notwithstanding, the more germane case is probably the case of Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President, Office of Admin., 1 F.3d 1274, 1277 (D.C.Cir.1993). In Armstrong, the district court ordered the Executive Office to issue new policy without a deadline and held the Executive Office in contempt for failing to do so in a four-month period, but the D.C. Circuit reversed because the underlying order did not contain a deadline.

94. The reason that the Armstrong case is more germane is that it involved the kind of task at issue here a 0907 complicated administrative task that may take extended administrative work, consultation with others, etc. An order absent a deadline is not meaningless. Rather, the best construction of such an order is that it requires action within a "reasonable time." However, since a "reasonable time" is such a broad and flexible concept as applied to complex administrative and technical tasks, the conclusion follows that there has been no showing of a clear violation of a "clear and definite" order as to this element of the Plan.
5. JMF Hiring
95. Defendants were ordered to increase staffing at JMF to cover new clinical responsibilities for the dialysis program and to increase staffing at JMF to serve prisoners in segregation. (Plan 21-22.) These are separate and independent requirements. (Id.) Staffing of JMF was to include "four physicians and one midlevel [provider]." (Id.) Defendants have not provided these staffing levels. According to Plaintiffs' Brief, Defendants were only providing two physicians and one midlevel provider at JMF as of mid-August 2006, and Dr. Cohen viewed this failure as critical. (Pls.' Br. 5.) Barbara Hladki's August 30, 2006 Response showed additional staffing 0907i.e., three physicians and one mid-level provider at JMF, (Id., Attach. 1 at 2), though this is still short of the required staffing levels. Another problem noted in the briefing is that the mid-level provider is restricted and cannot see patients with certain communicable diseases. (Id. at 5 n. 2.)
96. Defendants' post-trial briefing likewise admits the short staffing levels. (Defs.' Resp., Dkt. No. 2219, at 10.) The briefing is a bit disingenuous in that it implies that additional dialysis staffing (which is a separate element of the Plan) may be counted toward meeting the five provider limit (which was clearly not the intent of the Plan). However, even if the dialysis staffing is counted, the staff is still short as the briefing admits. (Id.) Defendants' argue that this was "substantial compliance" with the Plan and that "[o]ne MSP for 69 patients is a very low patient to MSP ratio." [14]
97. Arguments about the necessity of the services, of course, are not germane. The train long ago left the station on whether the additional staffing was necessary0907when Defendants agreed to the Plan and failed to challenge its implementation and enforcement. The staffing is not in substantial compliance because the Plan promised five full-time MSPs and what is presently being provided are four full-time MSPs. This situation is also distinguished 802 from the SERAPIS situation mentioned *802 above in that the hiring of an additional physician is not a complicated matter. It is a matter of simply placing an advertisement and offering sufficient compensation and benefits to attract capable candidates. Such hiring is routinely done by the MDOC in short-time frames, such as 30 days. (See Hladki De Bene Esse Dep. at 33-34.) The record does not show that the hiring was not done due to difficulty of finding a qualified applicant or confusion about a deadline. Rather, it shows that the hiring was not done because Defendants made a deliberate choice not to comply with the requirement. This is contemptuous and demands a finding of civil contempt and an appropriate civil contempt remedy.
98. Defendants are held in civil contempt for failing to meet this staffing obligation. To remedy this contempt, the Court makes the following coercive sanctions: Defendants are fined $1 million dollars, the payment of which is suspended for a period of 120 days from entry of the contempt sanction. If within the 120 day period the additional staffing is engaged, then Defendants shall file a sworn true affidavit with the Court so testifying, which shall have the effect of exonerating the fine.[15] Additionally, to ensure prompt hiring, Defendants shall do the following: If an applicant is not engaged within the first month of advertisement, then starting on the first day of the second month, they shall increase the offered compensation and/or benefits by a factor of 30 percent in whatever manner they deem fit.[16] Every month thereafter that the position remains open, the offered compensation and/or benefits shall be increased by another factor of 30 percent vis-a-vis the first month amount until hiring is completed. If the position remains unfilled for more than 120 days, in addition to the million dollar sanction, an additional sanction of $10,000 per day shall be assessed for every day the position remains unfilled. It is not hard to fill a physician position, you simply have to try.

6. Full Time Physician at the Dialysis Unit
99. This Court's Order of January 12, 2006 specifically amended Defendants' Plan to require that Defendants employ an additional internist or nephrologist such that the total hours of that person and Dr. Middlebrook in the dialysis unit would equal the hours of a full-time physician. (Order of Jan. 12, 2006 at ¶ 2(d).) No specific deadline for compliance was given. This requirement was deemed a separate requirement from the other JMF staffing because the physician hired would have to have fluency in nephrology and because additional services would have be dedicated solely to nephrology. Defendants have employed an internist who works 20-hours a week in the unit and Dr. Middlebrook or his partner work another eight to 12 hours per month in dialysis. (Pls.' Ex. 109C at 3.) This is far short of the 40-hour requirement. The average has been 24 hours per week. (Defs.' Resp., Dkt. No. 2219, 13.) There are also significant questions about whether the physicians even work as many hours as 803 credited them. (T.T., vol. Ill, at 582-83.) These failures are significant because *803 the dialysis unit serves approximately 75 patients with end-stage renal disease and other significant chronic diseases which complicate their treatment.[17] (Third Report of the Assoc. Monitor 53.) These patients need timely and effective service on a regular basis to simply stay alive until the next round of dialysis.
100. Defendants argue in their briefing that there has been substantial compliance with the Plan and Order, not because they have hired sufficient physician hours, but because the dialysis patients are being sufficiently treated by the combination of available physician hours and the services of outside specialists to whom the patients are referred offsite.[18] While the Court appreciates that Defendants are using an outside specialist to increase the percentage of patients with fistulas as opposed to shunts, given the unnecessary suffering and complications shunts cause, the Court has not asked them their opinion about the adequacy of their care. The Court has asked them why they are not complying with the Plan and Order which were neither stayed or appealed. Their answer of "substantial compliance" as to this staffing is a bare fig leaf hiding a gaping chasm. This argument assumes that 16 hours of physician services per week is not an important commodity to dialysis patients requiring regular, life-sustaining care. Like the issue of JMF staffing, this staffing requirement was sufficiently explained and required minimal effort to accomplish. The clear failure to accomplish it, whether due to the assignment of the task to the unmotivated or the simple refusal of Defendants to comply, requires a finding of contempt.
101. Defendants are held in civil contempt for failing to meet this staffing obligation. To remedy this contempt, the Court makes the following coercive sanctions: Defendants are fined $1 million dollars, the payment of which is suspended for a period of 120 days from entry of the contempt sanction.[19] If within the 120 day period the additional staffing is engaged, then Defendants shall file a sworn true affidavit with the Court so testifying, which shall have the effect of exonerating the fine.[20] Additionally, to ensure prompt hiring, Defendants shall do the following: If an applicant is not engaged within the first month of advertisement, then starting on the first day of the second month, they shall increase the offered compensation and/or benefits by a factor of 30 percent in whatever manner they deem fit. Every month thereafter that the position remains open, the offered compensation and/or benefits shall be increased by another factor of 30 percent vis-a-vis the first month amount until hiring is completed. If the position remains unfilled for more than 120 days, in addition to the million dollar sanction, an 804 additional sanction of $10,000 per day shall be assessed for every day the *804 position remains unfilled. Try, try, try again.
C. INJUNCTION ANALYSIS
1. Plan and Order Terms
102. There seems to be no real disagreement between the parties that the Plan and Order adopting it should continue. As Defendants put it, "Defendants have been implementing its provisions ... [and] are now beginning to see the benefits of many of those implemented Plan provisions...." (Defs.' Tr. Br. 1.) Plaintiffs' position is that "[s]ince the approval of Defendants' Plan, many of its provisions have proven insufficiently rigorous to prevent continued denials of necessary medical care to the Plaintiff class." (Pls.' Tr. Br., Dkt. No. 2217, at 2.) "Plaintiffs

urge the Court to require additional modification of the current Defendants' Plan." (Id.) Defendants, to the contrary, "oppose Plaintiffs' requests for further relief as unwarranted by the facts and as an overly intrusive interference with and encumbrance of the already difficult task of administrating health care services in the Hadix facilities." (Defs.' Tr. Br., Dkt. No. 2220, at 1.)
103. Given the history of the Plan and implementation Order and the record evidence, including evidence of preventable death, illness and suffering which prompted them, the Court finds that (1) continuation of the Plan and Order provisions is necessary to prevent irreparable injury and violations of the Eighth Amendment as to class members0907including, unnecessary and preventable death, illness and suffering 0907due to systemic causes; and (2) there is no legal remedy available to address the interests sought to be protected. Furthermore, continuation of these provisions are consistent with the PLRA provisions. The Plan was authored jointly by Defendants and others, and its implementation has been welcomed by Defendants as a means of improving care, and is not an overly intrusive action which would contradict the PLRA requirements. In so approving it, the Court makes one initial modification of the Plan, which is supported by the testimony of Dr. Cohen at hearing. ( See T.T., vol. Ill, at 586.) That is, the Court will require the final implementation of the SERAPIS as to lab orders and medications at DWH and as to the PharmaCorr pharmacy system to be completed by February 1, 2007. Defendants have already promised in their briefing that SERAPIS will be completed by that date, so the practical effect of this Order is only to prevent against the kind of back-sliding which Dr. Cohen warned could have seriously adverse patient consequences.
2. JMF Staffing, Other Staffing and Related Issues
104. Due to delays in care, including the provision of medicines, surgery and other specialty care caused by the unavailability of JMF and dialysis unit physicians to promptly see patients, the Court concludes (consistent with the relief ordered above) that: (1) the ordering of the additional JMF staffing and dialysis staffing discussed above is necessary to prevent irreparable injury and violations of the Eighth Amendment as to class members 0907 including, unnecessary and preventable death, illness and suffering0907due to systemic causes; and (2) there is no 805 legal remedy available to address the interests sought to be protected.[21] The Court also *805 finds that such remedy is proper under the above mentioned PLRA provisions because it is non-intrusive (a part of Defendants' original Plan as implemented) and the imposition of this requirement will reduce the burdens of this litigation upon Defendants by assisting in the prompt provision of services to class members.
105. Further additional staffing has also been requested by Plaintiffs in light of the record evidence that persons employed within the system with responsibilities for staffing (e.g., Debbie Roth) have expressed opinions that staffing is inadequate and complicates patient care, as well as other record evidence. The under-staffing has caused regular delays of patient appointments with the certain consequence that patients' care has been delayed and they have suffered unnecessarily in the interim. Such testimony, and the general condition of health care, make clear that staff shortages must be addressed to assure prompt delivery of care. For this reason, the Court will order a comprehensive staffing plan to be filed by Defendants, which shall include a statement of Defendants' plans regarding strategies for recruiting and retaining staff. Plaintiffs and the Associate Monitor are free to comment on the Plan in advance of hearing.
106. This Court finds that the injunctive order described in the preceding paragraph is (1) necessary to prevent irreparable injury and violations of the Eighth Amendment as to class members 0907including, unnecessary and preventable death, illness and suffering0907due to systemic causes (particularly the delay in patient care caused by the nursing absences); and (2) there is no legal remedy available to address the interests sought to be protected. As such, the Court approves an injunctive order requiring the making of such a plan to be timely implemented by Defendants. The Court likewise finds that such remedy is proper considering the terms of the PLRA in that the filing of such a plan will permit Defendants all necessary flexibility to address the constitutional violations at issue and will not be overly intrusive or otherwise prohibited by the PLRA.
107. Plaintiffs has also requested that two additional MSP floaters be mandated to cover hours at JMF and RGC when regulars MSPs are unavailable. This request appears moot. JMF and RGC already have two floaters assigned. (Mattai Dep. 37, 89.) The Court assumes that Plaintiffs still have concerns about the reliability of those

floaters given that nursing floaters (a separate subject) have not been reliably available. The record on this issue is insufficient to support injunctive relief. Nevertheless, the Court does direct Defendants to brief, for consideration at the plan approval hearing, the issue of the availability of existing floaters to provide services during leave of regular staff.
108. Plaintiffs has also requested that the Court enjoin Defendants to implement a scheduling committee to increase provider productivity. This the Court assuredly will not do. Provider productivity is principally a money issue and it is not one which negatively impacts Plaintiffs' care. That is, it is unimportant in terms of the delivery of necessary services whether Plaintiffs are adequately served by a few productive workers or many unproductive ones. This is a resource allocation issue which is properly within Defendants' administration and control. Relief is denied on this issue because such issues are within the sole province of Defendants and are not properly the subject of intrusive federal action. In saying so, the Court understands that efficiency is related to staffing itself. However, remedies as to staffing, though more costly, are less intrusive and to be preferred under the PLRA 806 because *806 they do not involve the courts in staff supervision of correctional employees.
109. Finally, Plaintiffs have requested that a plan be ordered to assure completion of CCC enrollment at RGC. The competing evidence on this point is not persuasive. The Court accepts the testimony of Ms. Hladki that CCC enrollment is proceeding according to plan and selected failures are being addressed with staff. (See Hladki De Bene Esse Dep. 18.) As such, the Court determines that an injunction on this subject should not issue because irreparable harm does not support it.
3. Specialty Care Issues
110. Both the persuasive testimonies of Dr. Cohen and Dr. Walden demonstrate clearly and beyond peradventure that the specialty referral process is "profoundly deficient." (T.T., vol. Ill, at 402, 589-96.) Such care is routinely delayed beyond the time medically necessary. Furthermore, the delays tend to topple one upon the other for patients with regular needs for specialty service (e.g., cancer patients). Such delays routinely cause unnecessary death, illness and extreme suffering. In light of such record, it is clear that injunctive relief is necessary to prevent further irreparable harm to class members.
111. Plaintiffs have requested that the Court order a 20-percent reduction in the specialty care delays as a starting point in addressing the problem. Although it is clear that remedy is essential, this exact formulation of the remedy is problematic for some important reasons. First of all, when the care providers are, for example, saying that a patient suffering a heart attack may be seen in 30 days, then no validity should attach to the service-times currently being assigned. Credible expert testimony also supports that Defendants' record-keeping and statistics are error-ridden and not to be relied upon as evidence of adequate care. (See Creekmore Report 1-4; T.T., vol. Ill, 536; Ferguson De Bene Esse Dep. 128-84; Pls.' Ex. 2A at 27.) It is possible that those figures can be made reliable in the future, but at present they cannot serve as a solid basis for corrective action. The other reason that a blanket reduction is not the wisest policy is that a bland 20-percent reduction does nothing to distinguish between the most urgent cases and those which are less than urgent.
112. Plaintiffs have correctly determined, in the Court's judgment, that two root causes of specialty delay are: (1) provider unavailability; and (2) transport problems. To this list, one may add a third factor, namely that a persistent and daily effort is not made to reschedule dropped appointments within short-time frames. The Court believes that injunctive relief should be narrowly crafted to address these three issues. Therefore, the Court will at this juncture simply require the filing of a plan by Defendants which addresses these objectives by devoting real resources to the problems0907additional transport officers, additional specialty providers and additional staff making daily efforts to reschedule dropped appointments quickly. This effort should, as explained above, concentrate the effort upon providing services to those most urgently in need of services.
113. This Court finds that the injunctive order described in the preceding paragraph is (1) necessary to prevent irreparable injury and violations of the Eighth Amendment as to class members 0907including, unnecessary and preventable death, illness and suffering0907due to systemic causes; and (2) there is no legal remedy available to address the interests sought to be protected. As such, the Court approves an injunctive order requiring the 807 making of such a plan to be timely implemented by Defendants. The Court likewise *807 finds that such remedy

is proper considering the terms of the PLRA in that the filing of such a plan will permit Defendants all necessary flexibility to address the constitutional violations at issue and will not be overly intrusive or otherwise prohibited by the PLRA.
114. Plaintiffs have also requested additional relief as to specialty care, in-patient clinics with endocrinologists and psychiatrists. The record presently indicates that Defendants are working on these issues to make appointments and/or possibly schedule in-patient treatment when medically necessary. Given this effort, the Court does not presently find that other injunctive relief is necessary as to these issues to prevent irreparable harm. Due to the risk of hypoglycemia deaths, the Court will, however, closely monitor this issue in the future.
4. Further SERAPIS Expansion and Transfer Assessment Forms
115. Under the umbrella of SERAPIS, Plaintiffs have clustered two additional injunctive requests. Aside from the SERAPIS implementation which has been ordered above (concerning DWH lab and medication orders and PharmaCorr connectivity), the sole remaining issue is whether SERAPIS (an ambulatory record system) or a SERAPIS-compatible system must be expanded to include DWH and Unit in-patient care. The record deems this to be essential to patient services, but provides little guidance as to the practical difficulties of doing so and the time frames necessary to achieve success. The Court certainly believes that expansion is essential for the provision of adequate patient care and must commence at a rapid pace. However, at the same time, it is important to get this process right and to end with a product that works well with SERAPIS and has connectivity with Foote Hospital and other regional systems. Because the record is insufficient to mandate hard deadlines on such issues, the Court finds that the present record does not support immediate injunctive relief since the terms of that relief and the practical difficulties of implementation cannot be determined on the present record.
116. While the Court has declined this invitation for immediate injunctive relief, the Court nevertheless does expect that Defendants will continue their present efforts toward an in-patient electronic record which is compatible with SERAPIS and has connectivity with Foote Hospital and other regional systems. That objective should be reached in the short-term and not the long-term. In saying so, the Court further expects that Defendants will exercise all possible diligence and study to determine the best possible system to assist medical staff and patients. With the freedom and flexibility to choose their own path in this area, comes the responsibility that it be done correctly and as expeditiously as possible.
117. Also mentioned under the same rubric is Plaintiffs' request that Defendants be ordered to include special accommodation lists (a form for disabled prisoners) as part of the standard patient overview within SERAPIS. Defendants represent that they are presently able to do so and will show at the forthcoming hearing in January that the system is reliable. For these reasons, the Court determines, at present, that injunctive relief is not necessary and would violate the terms of the PLRA.
5. Kite System Expansion and HUM Review
118. Plaintiffs have also requested two items of relief relating to the operation of the kite system, which as noted above permits prisoners to make health care requests regarding systems, services, advice and medicines. The 808 first is expansion of *808 the kite system to DWH. The kite system is not used as to in-patient care at DWH. The reason it is not used is that nursing staff is assigned to those places to provide in-patient care and while doing so, typically answer questions and respond to verbal requests on a routine basis. Furthermore, a prisoner who is dissatisfied with the level of response may file a grievance to address the issue. (Hladki De Bene Esse Dep. 52-55.) While the Court agrees with Plaintiffs' counsel that prisoners need timely response and help at DWH, the place this should start is by verbal communication. Adding another layer of impersonal communication, to a system already bogged down with it, is not likely to increase the level of care or serve the Plaintiff class' overall interests. The Court simply finds that the present record does not support such injunctive relief to so expand the kite system since such expansion would be inconsistent with the PLRA provisions and is not supported by a sufficient showing of irreparable harm.

119. Plaintiffs' second related request is that the HUM (Health Unit Manager) be made to regularly review the help line, kite logs and Urgent/Emergent logs. The Court understands that these logs are already being reviewed by other personnel. Furthermore, the objective sought by Plaintiffs (protection of critical cases) is currently being addressed by Defendants' development of a case management system for critical cases. The entry of the injunction would be inconsistent with the PLRA provisions and is not supported by a sufficient showing of irreparable harm.
6. Reporting of Unexpected Deaths and Significant System Failures
120. Both Plaintiffs and the Associate Monitor have requested that Defendants regularly report unexpected deaths and significant system failures. This request is supported by the fact that recent catastrophic events went unreported until discovered by the Associate Monitor during chance visits. Interestingly, Defendants state that they "do not have any problem with taking up ... the idea of reporting to the Associate Monitor on a regular basis certain events." (Defs.' Tr. Br. 14.) At this juncture, the Court simply finds that a separate reporting requirement is unnecessary because the relief described below will require sufficient reporting to address this issue.
7. Disability Remedies
121. Plaintiffs have requested disability remedies in eight separate categories. Some of the relief sought is incredibly farreaching, including the establishment of a 150-bed air conditioned assisted living center.[22] The record, including Plaintiffs' Exhibits 2A, 2B and 2C and the deposition testimony of Debbie Roth, certainly support that there are large unmet needs in the system, which affect both Hadix prisoners and others.
122. At the same time, however, the record is unclear as to systemic causes and the extent of any relief which should be ordered to address the short-comings of the present system. The Court also believes that the relief 809 described later in this decision will provide sufficient relief to Hadix *809 prisoners on disability issues provided that Defendants make available sufficient patient beds and living quarters and arrangements for the uncertain number of inmates needing assisted living. For these reasons and because of the PLRA restrictions as to overly intrusive remedies, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' various requests for relief as to disabilities should be presently denied with the exception of the remedies described in the following paragraphs.
8. Office of the Independent Monitor
123. Both Plaintiffs and the Medical Monitor have requested that the Court order the establishment of an Independent Monitor's Office with special powers to take corrective actions regarding patient care. The specific draft proposal for the office asks for the creation of office facilities with sufficient staff and administrative support to accomplish the following goals: (1) monitor the sanitation of the dialysis unit and DLW; (2) accomplish a onetime review of pain relief practices; (3) monitor the adequacy of physician and nursing staffing; (4) monitor the implementation of SERAPIS; (5) monitor the treatment of renal patients; (6) monitor the pharmacy system and delivery of prescription drugs to Hadix patients; (7) monitor the promptness of specialty care consultations; (8) receive and investigate all manner of prisoner complaints about their medical care; and (9) receive appropriate and requested information from the parties, including medical records, so that such information may be shared and evaluated by the Independent Medical Monitor. (See Pls.' Mot. for Further Relief 5-6 & Attach. 1 at item 9.)
124. Why do such a thing? The answer is many faceted. In the private market place, consumers are protected by competitive pressures and choice. That is, if your doctor does not serve you adequately, you get a second opinion. There is little opportunity for second opinions in prison medical service. You get one opinion, that of the prison or CMS physician. If you do not like it, you kite or grieve it, but you are too often told to pound sand. While it is true that federal courts are sometimes an effective check on this abuse, the sad fact is that the circumstances which create effective checks on prison conditions usually happen only after the prisoner has been either killed or severely injured. This is because the private market place of attorneys is not interested in taking other cases because they do not generate sufficient income.

125. So what about the prisoner whose treatment (he feels) is likely to jeopardize his health and he wants injunctive relief? That prisoner, after going through the grievance process, files a federal action where typically nothing happens in a hurry. He may move for immediate injunctive relief, but he is lacking the one thing he needs to obtain it a 0907 supporting medical opinion that he will be seriously harmed if additional or different care is not provided. Such cases, almost universally, run into the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals' precedent in Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857, 860 n. 5 (6th Cir.1976), and similar cases, which stand for the proposition that federal courts will not intervene merely due to differences of opinion as to treatment decisions. Westlake mows down those cases like a scythe cuts wheat.
126. But what about the present Plaintiffs' counsel and medical monitor? The sad fact is that neither presently have the resources to protect prisoners' interests in obtaining timely treatment of serious medical conditions. Plaintiffs' counsel and the medical monitor typically will bring matters to the Court's attention only after serious injury and/or death has resulted from medical indifference and systemic failures. Notwithstanding the grave 810 systemic *810 failures of the current medical system, the prisoners within it presently lack the means to protect their own health and to prevent medical indifference from killing and injuring them. This situation does not whimper for a remedy. It cries aloud in a voice acknowledged by all but the deaf and defiant.
127. Starting today, however, prisoners shall have a voice in their medical care at Hadix facilities. The Court finds that the present system is systematically defective, dangerous and readily results in preventable death, illness and suffering due to untreated serious medical conditions. The Court further finds that (1) the establishment of an Office of the Independent Monitor capable of receiving and acting on prisoner complaints, and otherwise improving medical care at the Hadix facilities, is necessary to prevent irreparable injury and violations of the Eighth Amendment as to class members; and (2) there is no legal remedy available to address the interests sought to be protected. Furthermore, the establishment of the Office shall be by plan of Defendants, which shall permit them sufficient freedom that the resulting Office is not overly intrusive or otherwise in violation of the PRLA provisions. In particular, intervention will be limited to those causes in which at least two physicians of the Office concur that some form of treatment or services is not being timely provided, or where relief from custodial constraints (e.g., placement in a medical setting instead of segregation), is necessary to prevent death, illness or suffering due to an untreated serious medical condition.
128. Therefore, it is now necessary to establish basic parameters and ground rules for such Office. Beginning with facilities, Defendants shall supply the Office and its staff, including the Associate Monitor, office space on the grounds of the Hadix facilities. The Office staff, including the Associate Monitor, shall have fullcard access to all of the Hadix facilities, and shall have the powers to interview prisoners, review medical records, receive and act upon prisoner complaints and petitions, inspect prison conditions throughout the facilities, including those in segregation. Defendants shall accommodate and assist the Office and its staff in completing all assigned duties. Defendants shall urgently report unexpected deaths and significant system failures to the Office.
129. Duties assigned to the Monitor shall include all of the duties mentioned in the draft proposal. They shall also include the duties to: (1) study staffing, access to and repair of equipment, and facility issues, including hospital and long-term care bed availability, at any time that it appears that any of these factors are preventing the treatment of serious medical conditions or causing harm or injury to prisoners with disabilities; (2) take corrective action as to failures of care and non-treatment; (3) intervene with custodial officers and medical officers whose treatment of prisoners violate the Eighth Amendment; (4) revise the statistics of Defendants so that the statistics fairly portray the matters being studied; (5) set new or different treatment dates regarding specialty care and medical case management, and to review and revise Defendants' Specialty Care Reports so that those Reports represent treatment realities; (6) mandate remedial care in secure locations outside the Hadix facilities (e.g., a secure cancer treatment center) when necessary for corrective action; and (7) mandate prompt and secure transfer of prisoners to medical care both within and outside of the Hadix facilities.
130. These duties require significant staffing. Therefore, Defendants shall employ for the Associate Monitor a full811 staff of medically qualified applicants. The applicants *811 will be finally selected by the Associate Monitor and
serve at the pleasure of the Associate Monitor. The applicants must include the following: (1) a full-time physician; (2) a full-time nurse investigator; (3) a full-time administrative support staff member; and (4) such consultants as

are necessary to complete required studies. The Office shall be given an annual budget sufficient to permit the employment of consultants and to otherwise function efficiently and perform the assigned duties.
131. The Office will make all decisions regarding patient care by consensus determinations of the Associate Monitor and the Office physician. Any case as to which they fail to reach consensus will not result in directions to Defendants to provide different or additional medical care. The decisions of the Office will be recorded in meeting minutes which shall be kept by the administrative support staff member. Those meetings may be conducted with one or more participants expressing decisions over the telephone, or electronically. The supporting records for all treatment decisions shall likewise be regularly kept as will all prisoner requests. Any prisoner filing a petition for medical services with the office shall not be transferred during the term that the petition is under consideration, nor during the term of any ordered treatment, except with the express and voluntary agreement of the prisoner. Defendants shall incorporate, in their forthcoming plan, procedures to ensure that frivolous petitions are promptly disposed of, and do not frustrate legitimate prisoner transfers. The plan shall also include protocols for insuring that custodial and medical officers, and independent contractors, follow the directions of the Office and that the directions of the Office do not interfere with safe and secure transportation and housing of prisoners.
132. This plan, as well as the plans discussed in the preceding paragraphs, shall be filed within 90 days of the entry of the Final Injunction.[23] Hearing shall follow on the plans soon thereafter.
CONCLUSION
133. A Permanent Injunction shall enter granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Order to Show Cause and Motion for Further Relief, which order shall require remedy of Defendants' contemptuous conduct and provide injunctive relief as explained in the Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
A new day has dawned for the Hadix facilities and prisoner medical care. Let us greet it with the joy that a new day demands. Those who will curse it, and other progress, shall only resign them selves to pain, hardship and eventual irrelevancy.
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
In accordance with the Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law entered this date:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the additional exhibits and post-hearing filings of the parties referenced in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are ADMITED for the purpose of the record of the proceedings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Order to Show Cause and Motion for Further Relief (Dkt. Nos. 2099 & 2105) are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
812 *812 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are held in contempt for violation of the JMF hiring requirements of the Preliminary Injunction Plan and Order of Jan. 12, 2006.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants, their agents and assigns, shall promptly remedy their contempt regarding the JMF hiring requirements subject to the coercive provisions of § IIB.5 of the Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are held in contempt regarding the full-time physician hiring requirement within the dialysis unit of the Preliminary Injunction Plan and Order of Jan. 12, 2006.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants, their agents and assigns, shall promptly remedy their contempt regarding the full-time physician position subject to the coercive provisions of § IIB.6 of the Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the terms of the Preliminary Injunction Plan and Order of Jan. 12, 2006 are APROVED AND ADOPTED as the Final and Permanent Injunction in this matter together with the additions described herein.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants, their agents and assigns, are HEREBY ENJOINED to complete the implementation of SERAPIS as to DWH and C-Unit lab orders and medications, and to establish connectivity and utility of SERAPIS with the electronic systems of PharmaCorr, Inc. regarding on-going pharmacy services on or before February 1, 2007.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants, their agents and assigns, shall provide additional staffing throughout its Hadix facilities, and particularly, additional nursing staff; the exact staffing levels, shall be determined after further study and hearing. Defendants' staffing plan shall be filed within 90 days of this date, consistent with § IIC.2 of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants, their agents and assigns, shall redress delays in specialty care through a plan, to be filed within 90 days, which is accordance with § IIC.3 of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants, their agents and assigns, shall redress failed medical care, through a plan which creates an Office of the Independent Monitor on the grounds of the Hadix facilities, which Plan shall be consistent with the Court's instructions in § IIC.8 of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and which shall be filed within 90 days.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other relief sought by Plaintiffs is DENIED, though requests for heat-related remedies are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE subject to further hearing.
[1] Least the effort be misunderstood, the documents and exhibits filed fill some five fullsized litigation boxes.
[2] This facility is also often referenced as "Egeler."
[3] JMF refers to its honorary title, the Josephine McCallum Facility.
[4] The Court wishes to express its enduring gratitude to Dr. Cohen for accepting this difficult appointment and for persevering in the midst of the systemic problems in the Hadix health care system.
[5] There was much else on the parties' plates at the time. The Findings related to not only medical care, but also heat-related injury and fire safety. The heat-related injury and fire safety aspects were appealed. Those appeals, after remand and substantive modifications, resulted in the entry of a heat-related injury plan and also, eventually after further findings, in an amended fire-safety plan. (See Order of June 6, 2003; Order of June 19, 2003; and Am. Fire Safety Inj. of Aug. 21, 2006.) The fire safety appeal and amendment process in particular shows that the wheel of the law, though it grinds slow, grinds fine.
[6] Diabetic patients who are unable to provide for their own well-being because of mental defect or disease present a separate problem, and one probably requiring long-term hospitalization or other extensive remedies.
[7] Of course, the other component to this issue is that diabetic patients are provided and allowed to store adequate food stuffs in their living quarters, and emergency food stuffs are available to custody officers to provide to prisoners suffering hypoglycemia. Special care must also be given to the treatment of diabetics in administrative segregation, many of whom simply cannot be safely housed there. Those who can be safely housed, particularly those who are insulin dependent, will require hyper-vigilance on the part of staff to prevent deadly outcomes.
[8] This is a significant issue because infirm patients, when made to wait extended periods of time in the cold, will (out of concern for self-preservation) be discouraged from timely receiving and using life-saving medicines.
[9] (See also B. Mathai Dep. 60-62, commenting on the administrative segregation health "vetting" process. Interestingly, Dr. Mathai speculated that custody officers would not have listened to physicians' orders regarding the custodial treatment of T.S. If this is true, then the entire system is doomed to failure.)
[10] Plaintiffs have moved, post-hearing, to formally admit Plaintiffs' Exhibits 1A and IB, which were discussed at length, without objection, in the hearing testimony, but not formally admitted. (Pis.' Tr. Br. 4 n. 2.) This request will

be granted. In so doing, the Court also formally receives all of the posthearing submissions of the parties (de bene esse depositions and exhibits), expressly including Plaintiffs' Exhibit 5 (compilation of reports and documents pertinent to medical care), Plaintiffs' Attachment 1 to Trial Brief (a clarifying appendix meant to explain the prisoner medical references), Plaintiffs' Proffer (Dkt. No. 2218), the T.S. autopsy and toxicology reports, and all de bene esse depositions and documents filed by Defendants.
Should the Court of Appeals have cause to review this record later, it is also advised to consult the prisoner key presented during hearing. The prisoner key presented at hearing did contain some slight errors, which was resolved by revision of the key. (See Pis.' Tr. Br. 4 n. 2.)
[11] Apologies to Noel Langley, lead author of the 1939 screenplay. The Wizard of Oz.
[12] Plaintiffs are none too complimentary of Dr. Middlebrook and their concern is shared to some degree by Defendants' Medical Director, Dr. Pramsteller. (See Pramsteller De Bene Esse Dep. 37.) With that said, since Dr. Middlebrook and his practice group are providing extensive services to the dialysis unit, and since it may be very difficult to replace those services and the loss of the services even temporarily might cause patient deaths, care must be given to that relationship.
[13] Plaintiffs made a seventh request in their moving papers, but have since withdrawn it. (Pis.' Tr. Br., Dkt. No. 2216, at 2 n. 1.)
[14] This argument fails to appreciate that staffing levels at the Hadix facilities must be much lower than staffing levels at other facilities because the MDOC elects (due to the presence of the dialysis unit and DWH) to send it sickest prisoners to the Hadix facilities. Indeed, the record shows that physician schedules for September 2006 were so packed that inmates were scheduled several weeks out to be seen regarding health concerns. (T.T., vol. III, at 581.)
[15] Of course, a false certification would not exonerate the fine and, should a false certification be filed, then Plaintiffs may move both to enforce the payment of the contempt sanction and for additional sanctions against Defendants and/or the affiant.
[16] The Court does share Dr. Cohen's opinion that enhanced benefits is the best manner for maintaining a longterm workforce. This is because, in the past, some care providers have left CMS' employment due to absence of health insurance. However, in saying so, the Court leaves the issue of compensation and benefits solely to Defendants and CMS.
[17] Defendants put the current number at 69, which may or may not be accurate. (See Defs.' Resp., Dkt. No. 2219, 13.)
[18] There is, however, a significant problem as to offsite services. Although offsite services are appropriate as to occasional services which are not emergent, as to emergency services and those which are regularly performed (care pertinent to bi-weekly dialysis), the lack of rapid and regular availability forecloses essential services from being performed and creates grave risks to patient health.
[19] Lest Defendants be confused, this is a separate million dollars from that expressed in the previous contempt finding.
[20] Of course, a false certification would not exonerate the fine and, should a false certification be filed, then Plaintiffs may move both to enforce the payment of the contempt sanction and for additional sanctions against Defendants and/or the affiant.
[21] Defendants had asked in their Trial Brief to further put off a decision on the dialysis unit staffing until after hearing of January 2007. The Court declines this invitation. Defendants have received more than adequate opportunities to present testimony. The request for further delay, if granted, would only serve to jeopardize the interests of dialysis patients.
[22] The record on that item is a cloudy one. On the one hand, Defendants' Director of Nursing Debbie Roth testified that Hadix prisoners needed as many as one hundred assisted living beds. (Roth Dep. 76.) On the other

hand, Dr. Mattai testified that the number was a much smaller fraction of that total number. (See Mattai De Bene Esse Dep. 45 & 48.) Defendants also represent that the MDOC is presently exploring plans for a large assisted living center in the Upper Peninsula which would meet state-wide needs, including the Hadix facilities. (Defs.' Tr. Br. 15.)
[23] Plaintiffs also requested heat-related remedies, but have post-poned presentation of evidence pending later hearing. As such, those requests are denied without prejudice and may be renewed by later hearing.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 492 F.Supp.2d 743 (2007)
Everett HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Patricia L. CARUSO, et al., Defendants.
No. 4:92-CV-110.
United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division.
April 3, 2007.
744 *744 Elizabeth Alexander, Washington, DC, Michael Barnhart, Patricia A. Streeter, Ann Arbor, MI, for Plaintiffs.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
ENSLEN, Senior District Judge.
In order to resolve issues presented during the evidentiary hearing of January 31, 2007-February 1, 2007 and in post-hearing filings, the Court now announces its following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52, the Court reaches the following Findings of Fact:
General Background
1. By Order of February 18, 2000, in accordance with written findings of that date, this Court denied Defendants' Motion to Terminate the Consent Decree and required Defendants to self-remedy constitutional violations, including the Eighth Amendment constitutional violation that Defendants had subjected prisoners with heatrelated illnesses to conditions of incarceration at the Southern Michigan Correctional Facility ("JMF") and the Charles E. Egeler Correctional Facility ("Egeler" also known as "Reception and Guidance Center" or "RGC") which exposed them to an unnecessary risk of heat-related injury and death. (See Dkt. No. 1372 at ¶¶ 299, 338; Dkt. No. 1373 at 1.)
745 *745 2. The summer heat conditions at those facilities were not self-remedied between 2000 and 2002. (Dkt. No. 1658 at ¶ 1152.) The Court in February 2002 required Defendants to prepare a plan for the purpose of assuring that prisoners at risk of heat-related injury were not exposed to levels of heat and humidity in residence areas exceeding a heat index of 90. (Id. at ¶ 1442.)
3. The reason for setting the safety level at a heat index of 90 was that expert medical testimony showed that heat illness contributes to unnecessary death in two ways: by direct heat injury and by exacerbation of preexisting illness, especially for high-risk groups including persons with cardiac and pulmonary disease, high blood pressure, the elderly, chronic invalids, persons taking certain medications such as diuretics, and persons suffering from severe obesity. (See Dkt. No. 1658 at ¶¶ 1167-69.) In terms of setting the precise limits of safety for heat-related illness, the 90 heat index level was determined because data showed that heat injury risk begins at levels as low as an 80 heat index with a marked increase of heat-related injury and death at 90. (See id.)
4. Defendants' subsequent 2002 plan provided prisoners with a special accommodation, allowing them to receive medical leave from work on heat alert days and to receive lower level housing as a further accommodation. (Dkt. Nos. 1686 & 1703.) This plan was approved on July 2, 2003 pending further evidentiary hearing. (Dkt. No. 1721.)
5. At the time of the evidentiary hearing, the parties also submitted a Stipulation limited to the issue of conditions in the segregation cells of JMF (pods C, D & E.) (Dkt. No. 2295.) Said Stipulation provided that Defendants would take steps to ensure that the heat index for those cells would not exceed 90. (Id.) The Stipulation was consensual, but did not provide that its entry may be used as concession of other heat-related issues before the

Court. (Id.) Indeed, when the Court approved the Stipulation, the approval reserved for later determination the issue of whether the Stipulated relief was consistent with requirements of the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3626. (Dkt. No. 2316.)
6. On February 20, 2007, Defendants announced a plan to close all of JMF and Cellblock 7 of Egeler. (Dkt. No. 2328.) Based on this notice, Plaintiffs moved for injunctive relief to ensure that medically-fragile prisoners who are subject to the Hadix Decree are not injured by transfer from the Hadix facilities. Plaintiffs' requests for injunctive relief were granted by injunctive orders entered on February 22, 2007 and March 6, 2007. (Dkt. Nos. 2331 & 2343.) The later Amended Preliminary Injunction prohibits prisoner transfers pending Court approval of a transfer plan, which has not yet occurred.
Medical Evidence of Heat Risk and Injury
7. At the recent evidentiary hearing, this Court heard medical testimony from a single witness 0907 Dr. Jerry Walden, M.D. No contrary medical expert was called by Defendants nor was contrary medical testimony presented by Defendants.
8. Dr. Walden testified that both temperature and humidity (the components of the heat index) are important to assessing the risk of heat-related injury to a particular person. Humidity is important because it interferes with effective cooling through use of the sweat glands. (Trial Testimony ("T.T.") 102-03.) Other important factors include: acclimatization (the human body's adjustment to a regular heat-level at a particular time); the length of 746 exposure to extreme heat conditions; *746 and the presence of heat-related illnesses which either interfere with effective cooling and/or may cause illness or death due to the body's inability to cope with the demands of extreme temperature. (Id. at 103, 108-10.)
9. At the Hadix facilities, a large number of prisoners/large percentage of prisoners have been classified at risk of heat-related injury due to their medical conditions. As of September 29, 2006, there were some 1,364 prisoners at JMF (523), Egeler (207) and the Parnall Correctional Facility ("Parnall") (634) classified as having heat-related illnesses.[1] (Pls.' Ex. 34-A at 1; T.T. 111-13.) Dr. Walden was of the opinion that the percentage and number of Hadix prisoners subject to heat-related injury was even larger. (T.T. 111-13.)
10. The above numbers represent a large increase in both the numbers and percentages of Hadix prisoners classified at risk for heat-related injury since 2000. (C. Pulitzer 12/21/06 De Bene Esse Dep. at 19, stating that there was a 60 percent increase in the number of at-risk inmates between 2000 and 2006.) For example, at JMF, for 2006, 36 percent of inmates were at risk of heat-related injury according to Defendants' statistics. (Id.) In part of JMF, block 5, fully one-half of prisoners were at risk for heat-related injury, (Id. at 19-20.) The increase is typical of both a growing "special needs" prisoner population caused by more life sentences, and a reflection of a policy of placing prisoners with special needs close to the Duane Waters Hospital ("DWH") (now a health care center), for the purpose of facilitating care. (Id. at 21.)
11. One of the reasons for separately listing prisoners at high risk of heat-related injury has been to allow them access to accommodations to prevent their injury and death. This is the import of Defendants' current heatrelated injury plan, which is intended to ensure prisoners at risk of heat-related injury are assigned cells at the base or first gallery (as opposed a higher level) with the expectation that those levels will be cooler than the higher levels. (See Defs.' Ex. 4/Pls.' Ex. 28A at 3.) Notwithstanding this expectation, the effect of the policy is significantly undercut by the large number of prisoners who waive the lower cell placements. (See, e.g., Pls.' Exs. 39, 44 & 45.) Plaintiffs' disability expert, Elizabeth Alexander, was of the opinion that such waivers may have been caused by prison staff s directing of prisoners to sign waivers. (See Pls.' Ex. 2A at 100 ¶ A-21.)[2]
12. The significant number of prisoners at risk for heat-related injury has been a continuing concern for the Hadix facilities because statistics show a certain causal connection between "heat waves" and heat-related injuries and 747 death. That is, statistics show that prior to air conditioning, the risk of death during a "heat wave" was *747 three times the normal rate and the risk of death to an infirm population (such as a nursing home population) was three to five times the normal rate of death. (T.T. 104.) A "heat wave" is defined as heat-alert conditions (heat index of 90) which persist for at least three days or longer. (Id.)

13. Defendants' own recent statistics and discovery responses very likely greatly understate the frequency and severity of heat-related illness. A discovery response for the summer of 2005 listed only three prisoners as suffering from heat-related illness. (Pls.' Ex. 29.) However, telephone logs for the same time period listed at least eight such incidents. (Pls.' Ex. 30.) Further, both of those lists were focused on spotting the most easily recognized forms of heat-related illnesses 0907 prisoners complaining of heat stroke symptoms, including hyperthermia and dizziness during heat waves. The numbers do not reflect an endeavor to document the number of heat-related deaths caused by heat waves. Documenting those kinds of deaths is difficult due to the multiple causes at work and the need for specific information, such as core body temperature, at the time of death. (See T.T. 107-08; Pls.' Ex. 1A at Appx. D-1.[3])
14. Despite the difficulty of assessing deaths due to heat wave conditions, one death due to heat-related conditions was documented in 2006. Michigan prisoner T.S. died on August 6, 2006 of complications of hyperthermia and dehydration. (T.T. 133-34; Pls.' Ex. 256 at 1 & 8.) T.S., though only 21 years old, was subject to risk of heat-related illness due to his prescription regime for mental illness. (Id.) His mental health issues, e.g., hallucinations, also complicated his intake of fluids, and his health was further compromised by his treatment by custody staff 0907 T.S. was locked to a cement bed for prolonged periods of time without water or effective medical care. (T.T. 133-35; Pls.' Ex. 256.) Although in response to this tragedy, Defendants are now apparently compliant with Court-ordered restrictions which prevent such prolonged restraints and require medical attention for the mentally ill, they have not announced any policy which will prevent heat-related injury from occurring to mentallyill persons while housed in general population.[4]
15. Another case which documents both an instance of heat-related death and Defendants' failure to document such cases, was the case of A.F., who died in 2001. (T.T. 132-33.) Defendants failed to timely treat A.F.'s symptoms of congestive heart failure; he was taking Nitroglycerin at the time and did not receive a timely "lay-in" (permission to stay in his cell) for a heat-alert day (heat index of 107) when he collapsed dead of a heart attack after walking to his cell block. (Id.) Defendants failed to investigate or document his heat-related death. (Dkt. No. 1658 at ¶ 1242.) During the same summer, Plaintiffs documented many other cases of heat-related illness, five of which were conceded by Defendants' Medical Director, Dr. George Pramstellar, D.O. (Id. at ¶¶ 1243-68.) During the same time period, prisoners suffered many other medical problems that were related to the hot weather conditions, e.g., increased use of inhalers for asthma or increased need for other medications. (Id. at ¶ 1247.)
748 *748 16. Prisoners in Michigan are at heightened risk for heat-related injury during summer months because of the difficulty of acclimatizing one's body to summer conditions during a short summer season with some very hot days. (T.T. 103.)
17. During heat wave conditions, increased ventilation alone is ineffective in preventing heat-related injury. (Id. at 249-50.)
Pertinent Summer Heat Conditions
18. During the summer of 2001, there were 35 heat alert days at the Hadix facilities and ten days in which the heat index measured between 105 and 130. (Dkt. No. 1658 at ¶ 1171.)
19. During the summer of 2006, based on Accuweather heat index data for the Jackson, Michigan area, there were 17 heat alert days and two days (August 1-2, 2006) with a heat index in excess of 105. (Pls.' Ex. 37A.)
20. The summer heat data for 2005 was consistent with the general temperature data for past years and the data for particular blocks reflects that in-cell temperatures are warmer than outdoor temperatures due to the nature of the cell construction. (Pls.' Ex. 1A at Appx. D-1; C. Pulitzer 12/21/06 De Bene Esse Dep. 13; Pls.' Ex. 48 at 3.) In fact, Plaintiffs' architectural expert, Curtis Pulitzer, who has long experience with the Nadir facilities, testified that the "steel box" construction of the JMF cell blocks envisioned air-conditioning because such cells generate tremendous heat during summer conditions. (Pulitzer Dec. 21, 2006 Dep. 13.) Notwithstanding the disagreement of Defendants' architect at the time, Defendants however completed JMF without air-conditioning of prisoner living space, though staff quarters were air-conditioned. (Id.) This was determined to be a political choice of policy makers as opposed to a rational cost or design decision of architects. (Id. at 13-14.)

21. Air-conditioning of prisoner residence space at the Hadix facilities is limited to health care facilities which are treating very seriously-ill prisoners (i.e., DWH and C-Unit of JMF). (Interim Report of C. Pulitzer, Pls.' Ex. 4A at 4; T.T. 133.) In fact, it was the recent testimony of Thomas Faussett, the manager of the physical plant for the Michigan Department of Corrections, that even if air conditioning for prisoner residence areas was costcompetitive with ventilation, it would not be done by Defendants. (T. Faussett De Bene Esse Dep. 33-35.)

22. Summer temperatures in Michigan, as in other places, vary from year to year; though it is certain that over an extended period of years summer temperatures in certain "heat wave" years will cause high incidence of "heat wave" deaths, i.e. ten times the normal rate. (T.T. 104.)

Defendants' Heat Reduction Evaluation Plan

23. Defendants' plan to address summer heat conditions at the Hadix facilities was summarized as follows in their Status Report Regarding Heat Reduction Evaluation Final Plan of March 16, 2007. (Dkt. No. 2359.) This Heat Reduction Evaluation Final Plan proposes that Defendants spend $929,833 for facility modifications to Blocks 1, 2 and 3 of Egeler, which includes mostly the installation of very large ventilation fans and duct work, but not the installation of air cooling equipment. (Id.) The Plan also provides in pertinent part,

This plan does not propose any remedial actions for 7-Block, RGC. Nor does the plan include any

749

proposal for lower 6-Block (pods A and B, GP Level IV) or for cell blocks 5 and 4 (GP Level II)

*749 because Defendants intend to close those blocks as soon as practicable.

(Id. at summary pages 1-2.)

24. Defendants' Plan does not make any provision for its contradiction of the Court's Amended Preliminary Injunction, which conditions future transfers on court approval premised upon a manner of transfer which is not likely to cause medical injury to at-risk prisoners. Nor does Defendants' Plan make any provision for its own admission in its filing of March 2, 2007 that the rate of transfers from JMF has been slow and "[a]t this rate it will take an excess of three years to transfer the JMF prisoners to other locations. . . ." (Dkt. No. 2338 at 3.)

25. Defendants' Plan also calls into question whether their earlier Stipulation to ensure that the heat index within the segregation pods of JMF does not exceed a heat index of 90 was proposed in good faith, particularly since the Plan contains no fail-safe prescriptions to cover the very likely event that JMF segregation will not be evacuated before the coming summer months. Further, the Stipulation was based upon a cost estimate and evaluation of Defendants' architects which stated that it was likely, during summer conditions, that the interior conditions of segregation (left untreated) would be that of the "outside conditions plus 10%." (Pls.' Ex. 264 at 1.) Thus, this evaluation recommended that air be "tempered" (meaning "air conditioned") to at least 78 degrees F. to achieve sufficient cooling of the segregation air. (Id.) This is also obvious given the pertinent summer conditions 0907 i.e., some summer days involve temperatures significantly above 90 degrees F. 0907 such that no amount of dehumidifying can reduce the heat index below 90 degrees without some level of air cooling.

26. The same conclusion applies to Defendants' Plan regarding the Egeler/RGC blocks which Defendants intend to treat with large ventilation fans 0907 marketed under the brand name Big Ass Fans. (See Dkt. No. 2359, Attach. 1-3.) Because increased ventilation will not significantly affect either of the two components of the heat index (high temperature and high humidity) which jeopardize health, it will not assist in the provision of healthful living conditions. (See Shane Puckett De Bene Esse Dep. 19) (effect of the ventilation would be to change the "perceived temperature" as opposed to reducing the heat index below outside ambient temperatures); Robert Recher De Bene Esse Dep. 76 (Defendants' architect cannot assure that the fan renovations will reduce summer heat indexes below 103); Michael Chonko De Bene Esse Dep. 10-14, 20, 43-44, 75 (plan would slightly reduce temperature, would not affect humidity and would result in only minimal reductions in heat index conditions). Further, because this plan focuses on "destratifying" air in cell blocks, Dkt. No. 2359, Attach. 1, it also works at cross-purposes to Defendants' previous heat-related injury plan (which provided lower level housing to prisoners at risk with the expectation that those levels would be cooler).

27. Defendants' conjecture for why the Plan might create healthful conditions, which is based upon advertising and not scientific study or reliable data, is that the fans may facilitate sweating by cell residents. The pertinent

health regulation relating to this theory is the American Society of Heat, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc. ("ASHRAE") Standard 55-2004. (Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy). (Defs.' Ex. I-1/Dkt. No. 2329-10.) This ASHRAE standard allows the use of increased ventilation for the purpose 750 of increasing the perceived comfort of healthy residents and of facilitating their increased *750 perspiration. (Id. at 6, § 5.2.3.) The standard specifically states that it does not apply to a population of unhealthy adults. (Id. at 2, § 2.3.) The reason for this limitation is that unhealthy persons, including the large number of Hadix prisoners suffering from chronic illnesses and heat-related illnesses, often lack the physiological capacity to cool by perspiration. (T.T. 109-11.) Additionally, since increased perspiration requires additional cardiac activity, it may further jeopardize the health of persons suffering from cardiac and circulation disease. (Id.)
28. Another troubling aspect of Defendants' Plan is that it utilizes a product, Big Ass Fans, which has been primarily marketed for other uses 0907 large sports stadiums as opposed to enclosed residential spaces. (C. Pulitzer 2/23/07 De Beize Esse Dep. 17-21.) As such, Plaintiffs' architectural experts believe that its application to a residential setting would be problematic due to proximity of the large fans to living spaces and the attendant effects of noise, dust and air movement. (Id.) Plaintiffs' experts also point out that Defendants have not completed computer modeling and, as such, have no basis to predict whether the fans would produce sufficient in-cell velocity of air movement. (Id.; see also Chonko Dep. 8.)
29. Defendants' Plan also assumes that during day-time hours, importation of outside air will be minimized to prevent heat transfer. Defendants intend to minimize the importation of fresh air during daytime hours to a rate of five cubic feet per minute. (Becher Dep. 7.) This level of ventilation is below the level deemed safe in the Consent Decree. (See Consent Decree 7, ¶ I.S, requiring 7 cfm year-round transfer and 54 cfm exhaust during summer months.) Ventilation is a separate Consent Decree health requirement which fosters health by preventing the build-up of noxious gases and fumes in living space.
30. Defendants' Plan does include some other minor but positive changes to Blocks 1, 2 and 3. These include: the installation of energy efficient lighting to Block 1, (Did. No. 2359, Attach.2); the installation of solar reflective coating to the windows of Block 2, (id.); the installation of energy efficient lighting to Block 2, (id. at 3); and the installation of lights and coatings to Block 3 identical to that applied to Block 2, (id). While these are positive changes to the facilities in terms of the summer heat load, these will not significantly reduce the summer air temperatures or prevent injury to unhealthy residents. (See T.T. 24-25; Pls.' Ex. 31B at Bates 325821; Dkt. No. 2359, Attach. 2-3.)
31. Without some level of air cooling, in addition to dehumidifying, Defendants have no prospect of assuring that cell conditions for the Hadix facilities maintain a heat index of less than 90 during hot summer months.
32. Air conditioning is a norm and required feature of prisons serving "special needs" prisoner populations. (C. Pulitzer 2/23/07 De Bene Esse Dep. 11.) Given the level of health care needs at the Hadix facilities, those facilities qualify as a "special needs" prisoner population.
33. Defendants' previous estimates for air conditioning have exaggerated the costs of such systems by pricing the most expensive options for such systems (i.e., cold-water chiller piping systems) and neglecting systems which are commonly used for business and commercial applications (i.e., Trane air conditioning units). (T.T. 35-37, 73-83.) Plaintiffs priced such permanent air conditioning units for blocks 1-7 at a total price of $4,913.172, or between $600,000-$800,000 per block depending upon the features of the block. (T.T. 78; Pls.' Ex. 266.)
751 *751 34. Further, since Plaintiffs have only requested relief on behalf of high-risk prisoners, Pls.' Tr. Br. 24, then, assuming that Defendants would select certain of the blocks to house such prisoners together, the remedy would only be required for those blocks containing the high-risk prisoners.[5] The testimony of Plaintiffs' architects also supported that such systems could be operational in a short-time period and temporary systems could be employed until permanent systems were in place. (T.T. 42.)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil 52, the Court reaches the following Conclusions of Law:
Eighth Amendment Standards

35. "Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs" violates the Eighth Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). The Eighth Amendment standard has both objective and subjective components. Id. Thus, to be liable, a defendant must know of and disregard an excessive risk to prisoner health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970. However, in an injunctive case, proof of the subjective component is straightforward:

In this case, we are concerned with future conduct to correct prison conditions. If these conditions are found to be objectively unconstitutional, then that finding would also satisfy the subjective prong because the same information that would lead to the court's conclusion was available to the prison officials.

Hadix v. Johnson, 367 F.3d 513, 526 (6th Cir.2004).

36. The decision in Farmer did not limit the protection of the Eighth Amendment to medical care only, but also extended it to other conditions necessary for prisoner health and safety 0907 including food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and reasonable steps to guarantee prisoner safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844, 114 S.Ct. 1970. The temperature and humidity conditions within prisoner dormitories are one such aspect, since prison officials may not, consistent with Eighth Amendment values, cause the expected deaths of prisoners subject to heat-illness by exposing them to high heat and humidity conditions. See Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 189 (3d Cir.1993) (holding that prisoner who suffered heat stroke repeatedly due to cell conditions had cognizable Eighth Amendment/civil rights claim against jailers); Bush v. Viterna, 795 F.2d 1203, 1208 (5th Cir.1986) (stating that use of a "hot box" to punish prisoners was properly assumed to be a violation of the Eighth Amendment).

37. One of the cases cited with approval in Farmer was the Supreme Court's previous decision in Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993). Helling said the following about future threats of injury:

It would be odd to deny an injunction to inmates who plainly proved an unsafe, life-threatening

condition in their prison on the ground that nothing yet had happened to them. The Courts of

752

Appeals *752 have plainly recognized that a remedy for unsafe conditions need not await a tragic

event. Two of them were cited with approval in Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 352, n. 17, 101

S.Ct. 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 . . . (1981). Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291 (C.A.5 1974), held that

inmates were entitled to relief under the Eighth Amendment when they proved threats to personal

safety from exposed electrical wiring, deficient firefighting measures, and the mingling of inmates

with serious contagious diseases with other prison inmates. Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 572

(C.A.10 1980), stated that a prisoner need not wait until he is actually assaulted before obtaining

relief.

Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33-34, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993).

PLRA Standards

38. As to the relief requested, the controlling legal standards are the Eighth Amendment legal standards framed by Farmer and Helling together with the PLRA injunction standards applicable under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1) in prison condition cases. Section 3626(a), which was enacted as section 802(a) of the PLRA, states in pertinent part:

Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right. The court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief.

18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1).

Permanent Injunction Standards

39. Since this determination represents a final adjudication of Plaintiffs' requests for injunctive relief as to heatrelated injury, the standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 require final findings as to whether Plaintiffs have clearly shown an entitlement to relief on the merits and whether an injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable harm. The following case law explains the pertinent standards.

40. In Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, the Supreme Court explained the controlling legal standards as follows:

It goes without saying that an injunction is an equitable remedy. It "is not a remedy which issues

as of course," Harrisonville v. W.S. Dickey Clay Mfg. Co., 289 U.S. 334, 237-338, 52 S.Ct. 602, 77

L.Ed. 1208 . . . (1933), or "to restrain an act the injurious consequences of which are merely

trifling." Consolidated Canal Co. v. Mesa Canal Co., 177 U.S. 296, 302, 20 S.Ct. 628, 44 L.Ed.

777 . . . (1900). An injunction should issue only where the intervention of a court of equity "is

essential in order effectually to protect property rights against injuries otherwise irremediable."

Cavanaugh v. Looney, 248 U.S. 453, 456, 39 S.Ct. 142, 63 L.Ed. 354 . . . (1919). The Court has

repeatedly held that the basis for injunctive relief in the federal courts has always been irreparable

injury and the inadequacy of legal remedies. Rondean v. Mosinee Paper Corp., 422 U.S. 49, 61,

95 S.Ct. 2069, 2077, 45 L.Ed.2d 12 (1975); Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 88, 94 S.Ct. 937,

951, 39 L.Ed.2d 166 (1974); Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover; 359 U.S. 500, 506-507, 79 S.Ct.

753

948, 954-955, 3 L.Ed.2d 988 (1959); Hecht *753 Co. v. Bowles, supra, at 329, 64 S.Ct., at 591.

Where plaintiff and defendant present competing claims of injury, the traditional function of equity has been to arrive at a "nice adjustment and reconciliation" between the competing claims, Hecht Co. v. Bowles, supra, at 329, 64 S.Ct., at 592. In such cases, the court "balances the conveniences of the parties and possible injuries to them according as they may be affected by the granting or withholding of the injunction." Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 440, 64 S.Ct. 660, 675, 88 L.Ed. 834 (1944). "The essence of equity jurisdiction has been the power of the Chancellor to do equity and to mold each decree to the necessities of the particular case. Flexibility rather than rigidity has distinguished it." Hecht Co. v. Bowles, supra, 321 U.S., at 329, 64 S.Ct., at 592.

In exercising their sound discretion, courts of equity should pay particular regard for the public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction. Railroad Comm'n. v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496, 500, 61 S.Ct. 643, 645, 85 L.Ed. 971 (1941).

Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 311-12, 102 S.Ct. 1798, 72 L.Ed.2d 91 (1982). See also Kallstrom v. City of Columbus, 136 F.3d 1055, 1067 (6th Cir. 1998); City of Parma v. Levi, 536 F.2d 133, 135 (6th Cir.1976). As implied above, and consistent with the PLRA, injunctive relief involving matters subject to state regulation may be no broader than necessary to remedy the constitutional violation. See Knop v. Johnson, 977 F.2d 996, 1008 (6th Cir.1992).

41. While saying so, the Supreme Court in Weinberger also explained the importance of the legal principles which give rise to equity jurisdiction:

Moreover, the comprehensiveness of this equitable jurisdiction is not to be denied or limited in the absence of a clear and valid legislative command. Unless a statute in so many words, or by a necessary and inescapable inference, restricts the court's jurisdiction in equity, the full scope of that jurisdiction is to be recognized and applied. `The great principles of equity, securing complete justice, should not be yielded to light inferences, or doubtful construction.'

Weinberger, 456 U.S. at 313, 102 S.Ct. 1798 (citation omitted).

Legal Application

Plaintiffs have requested the entry of an injunction requiring that all prisoners classified at high-risk for heatrelated injury be housed in areas in which the heat index is reliably maintained below a heat index of 90.

Plaintiffs have shown success on the merits because the requirements of safe Eighth Amendment custody are violated by housing high-risk inmates in facilities which are routinely at heat index levels above 90 during summer months when it is known that such heat conditions will reliably cause heat injury and death.
43. The Injunction in question is necessary to prevent irreparable harm, including bodily injury and death. Defendants' own plans for heat-reduction will not significantly reduce heat-exposure for highrisk inmates and will likely also cause a dangerous lack of ventilation during summer months.
44. The scope of the Injunction will be narrowly tailored: it will permit Defendants to use temporary equipment to reliably achieve a heat index below 90 for high-risk inmates so that Defendants, should they wish to preserve an 754 option to close a given facility in the future, will retain that option without the loss of the *754 costs of permanent installation of air handling units.
45. The scope of the Injunction to be entered meets the limitations of the PLRA in that it extends no further than necessary to correct the Eighth Amendment violation, is narrowly tailored and is the least intrusive means of correction of the violation. This remedy also fosters public safety since it will both facilitate the work of correctional officers while in prisoner residential areas and will also facilitate the health and cordiality of the affected inmates.
46. Accordingly, an Injunction shall enter requiring that Defendants house all prisoners within the Hadix facilities who are at high-risk for heat related injury within cell blocks in which the summer heat index is reliably maintained below a heat index of 90. Defendants are afforded latitude to plan the manner of this remedy and the placement of affected inmates, but shall file a plan within 45 days, together with a construction schedule, which implements this remedy by July 15, 2007. The plan shall detail whether Defendants intend to maintain a segregation facility within the Hadix facilities and whether they intend to house prisoners in segregation on heat alert days, and, if so, shall provide that segregation facilities are maintained below a heat index of 90 while housing high-risk prisoners.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Injunction sought by Plaintiffs shall enter, Defendants' Heat Reduction Evaluation Final Plan is rejected, and Defendants shall file a remedial plan consistent with the Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
[1] The Sixth Circuit's 2004 decision relating to the District Court's jurisdiction made clear that it had jurisdiction over parts of Egeler, JMF and Parnall regarding ventilation/health-safety issues. See Hadix v. Johnson, 367 F.3d 513, 517-18 & n. 7 (6th Cir.2004). It also noted wisely that when constitutional violations were present, it was not in the interests of judicial efficiency to begin a second suit to correct them. Id.
[2] While this may be true in some cases, it is difficult to generalize as to all prisoners. Some prisoners may have waived lower cell placements simply because they did not notice an appreciable difference in cell temperatures at the different housing levels; others may have waived placement because an existing cell placement served what they perceived to be a greater interest (e.g., a safe placement next to reasonable neighbors or a placement next to a cell neighbor who assists a prisoner meeting special disability needs). It is difficult to generalize without survey information, which is absent on this record.
[3] Dr. Walden suspected two cases as possible heat-related deaths at the Hadix facilities for 2005, but lacked the sufficient information to draw a definitive conclusion.
[4] They have also planned to no longer subject persons on psychotropic medications to segregation placements within the Hadix facilities, with the exception of dialysis patients. They have also planned to move dialysis patients, but have not yet done so.
[5] The Court understands that the structure of such a remedy might create a perverse incentive for Defendants to minimally classify those at risk of heat-related injury. The safe-guard in this instance is the Office of the Independent Medical Monitor created as part of the Court's Final Injunction of December 2006, which is

empowered to oversee such classifications. Obviously, Defendants' decisions relating to future prisoner housing will reflect proper concerns not only about heat-related injuries, but also about safety and security of prisoners and correctional staff.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 461 F.Supp.2d 574 (2006)
Everett HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Patricia L. CARUSO, et al., Defendants.
No. 4:92-CV-110.
United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division.
November 13, 2006.
575*575 576*576 Elizabeth Alexander, Michael Barnhart, Patricia A. Streeter, for Plaintiffs.
A. Peter Govorchin, for Defendants.
OPINION
ENSLEN, Senior District Judge.
Say a prayer for T.S. and the others who have passed. Any earthly help comes far too late for them.
I. BACKGROUND
1. Procedural History
This Court held an evidentiary hearing regarding Plaintiffs' Motion to Reopen Judgment Regarding Mental Health Care and Issue a Preliminary Injunction on October 11-13, 2006. Also considered during the hearing were two other motions by Plaintiffs, which will be determined later. The Court has now received supplemental proofs and post-hearing briefs from the parties as to the Motion to Reopen. Given the significance of the substantive issues, the Court now resolves the Motion without delay.
A short primer on the history of mental health care at the Hadix facilities maybe necessary to understand the present controversy. This suit was filed in the Eastern District of Michigan in 1980 to redress a variety of unconstitutional conditions, including inadequate mental health care, at certain designated Jackson, Michigan prison facilities operated by prison officials of the Michigan Department of Corrections pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In 1985, a Consent Decree was entered by stipulation of the parties with the approval of United States District Judge John Feikens. Section II.B of the Consent Decree pertained to mental health care for prisoners within the Hadix facilities.
Judge Feikens initially transferred enforcement of medical care and mental health care provisions of the Consent Decree to this Court by Order of June 5, 1992 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Hadix v. Johnson, 792 F.Supp. 527, 528 (E.D.Mich. 1992). The purpose of the Order was to promote uniformity and effectiveness of remedy in light of this Court's

enforcement of a Consent Decree involving the same issues in a separate suit — United States v. Michigan, Case No. 1:84-cv-63. Id. See also Hadix v. Johnson, 228 F.3d 662, 665 (6th Cir.2000) (discussing history of suit).
Mental health care at the facilities was routinely monitored by the Court until 2001. On January 8, 2001, the Court granted Defendants' request to terminate enforcement of the mental health provisions of the Consent Decree effective upon ten days after the filing of an Updated CQI Monitoring and Data Validation document. (Order of Jan. 8, 2001.) The document was filed by Defendants on January 23, 2001. (Dkt. No. 1437.) Thus, the termination became effective in early February 2001. Plaintiffs moved on September 8, 2006 to reopen the terminated provisions 577*577 and for a preliminary injunction pertaining to mental health care. The cause for the Motion was the tragic death of a Michigan prisoner, T.S., and other fatal cases in which inmates' deaths were attributable to delays or malfeasance in the provision of mental health care.
2. Death of T.S.
On August 6, 2006, Michigan prisoner T.S. died. The basic circumstances of his death were discovered by medical monitor Dr. Robert Cohen, M.D. between August 7, 2006 and August 10, 2006, and conveyed to the Court by letter of August 14, 2006. (Dkt. No.2088.) T.S. was a twenty-one-year-old male with a history of mental illness. He was placed in the segregation unit at JMF (a Hadix facility) beginning on August 2, 2003; he spent five days in two segregation cells at JMF locked in four-point restraints to concrete slab beds without any effective medical or mental health care. He was unlocked shortly before he died.
T.S.'s death was investigated by both the Michigan Department of Corrections and by Plaintiffs. The following account is taken from trial exhibits, including custody logs, overhead in-cell videotape and portable videotape of the events between August 2, 2006 and August 6, 2006. The basic road map for the events is Plaintiffs' Exhibit 106A, which provides a time log. There are some slight discrepancies as to time of certain events between the log book and the video time recordings (of some ten minutes); the Court utilizes the time log in Exhibit 106A as the best record of the time sequence of the recorded events. (See also Pls.' Ex. 42, at bates nos. 320947-320971 (custody log); Pls.' Ex. 106B (video excerpts); Pls.' Ex. 106C (complete hand-held video); Pls.' Ex. 106D (complete overhead video).)
T.S. arrived at JMF in March 2006 and was housed as a level II general population prisoner. (Pls.' Ex. 106A at 1.) On July 31, 2006, he was transferred by custody staff from general population to administrative segregation due to disobedience of custodial orders. On August 2, 2006, at 1239 hours he was placed in soft standing restraints (locking leather and vinyl restraints around his hands, feet and waist). (Id.) He then flooded his sink and was placed on "top of the bed restraints" at 1327 hours. (Id. at 2.) "Top of the bed restraints" are according to policy "the securing of both arms and legs to a bed. . . ." (Pls.' Ex. 42, MDOC Operating Procedure, bates no. 320597, emphasis in original.) Prisoners so secured are to be observed every 15 minutes and to be offered bathroom and water drinking breaks every two hours. (Id. at bates no. 320598.)
In practice, "top of the beds restraints" is a euphemism for chaining an inmate's hands and feet to a concrete slab. T.S.'s "bed" was composed of a concrete slab with four metal, arc-

shaped handles emanating from the slab for the purpose of receiving the locking restraints. (See Pls.' Ex. 106-B.) Two of the handles, positioned in the longitudinal middle of the bed, were across from each other at the outside edges of the bed to receive the hand and waist restraints. (Id.) The remaining two handles were positioned across from one another at the outer edges of the foot of the bed to receive the feet restraints. (Id.) A small mattress pad was provided, but was not used for much of the restraint because T.S. removed it and/or because he urinated on the bed. (Pls.' Ex. 106A at 3-4.) For many hours of the restraint, T.S. was naked and laid in his own urine. (Id. at 4-9.) On one occasion, T.S. refused to cooperate with his restraint; this prompted five correctional officers to use a large plexiglass shield and place their weight upon T.S. while they locked him, screaming, 578*578 to the slab with chains. (Pls.' Ex. 106B.) On August 5, 2006, T.S. was removed from his cell for one hour for treatment of a urine burn on his back at Duane Waters Hospital. (Pls.' Ex. 106A at 6.) Apparently, such treatment never occurred because T.S. urinated on an examination table at the hospital. (Op. & Decl. of Jerry Walden, M.D. ¶ 26; trial transcript ("T.T."), vol. 1, 131 (testimony adopting declaration).)
Much of the defiant and self-destructive behavior of T.S. is explained as a product of untreated mental illness. T.S. had a documented history of bipolar disorder, depression, hyperactivity disorder and suicide attempts. (Walden Decl. ¶ 3.) T.S. was seen on August 2, 2006 by an outpatient social worker, Francis Duffy.[1] (Pls.' Ex. 103, F. Duffy Dep. 53-54.) Duffy determined that T.S. was "floridly psychotic. Exhibiting symptoms consistent with his description of manic episodes prior to incarceration." (Duffy Dep. Ex. 10.) Duffy thus referred T.S. to the "CSP" — id. — meaning the Crisis Stabilization Program that hospitalizes and treats mentally ill prisoners at the Huron Valley Men's Facility (a prison psychiatric hospital). (See Duffy Dep. 41 & 4'7.) Duffy had no expectation that T.S. would be transferred immediately, though, since he planned to examine T.S. the following day. (See Duffy Dep. Ex. 10.) The prior suicide attempts noted by Duffy referred to a series of suicide attempts in the Kalamazoo County Jail (T.S. stabbing himself in the stomach and attempting hanging); the hanging was attempted while T.S. was housed in the Kalamazoo Regional Psychiatric Hospital and nearly resulted in his death. (Walden Decl. ¶ 19.)
Duffy completed a referral form for T.S. on the morning of August 3, 2006 before examining T.S. again later in the day. (Duffy Dep. 71.) The referral form was marked "Emergent" and noted that "Prisoner decompensated . . . in detention cell . . . Prisoner remained agitated . . . Associations loose, disintegrated. Unable to determine if prisoner is responding to internal stimuli. . . ." (Duffy Dep. Ex. 9 at 1.) Duffy also noted that T.S.'s psychiatric medications could not be changed due to the absence of an on-site psychiatrist. (Id. at 2.)
The same day Duffy received an email that the referral had been received. (Duffy Dep. 71.) He later received an email that day that the referral had been approved. (Id. at 72.) T.S. was not transferred that day, though. Defendants blame the failure to transfer upon a "transfer coordinator" (secretary) at Huron Valley who failed to transmit the transfer order to JMF, together with the scheduled leave of the transferring psychiatrist on Friday, August 4, 2006 and Mr. Duffy's past reliance on email correspondence to affect transfer orders. (See Defs.' Resp., Dkt. No. 2177, at 5.)
The immediate consequence of the failure to transfer was that a psychotic man with apparent delusions and screaming incoherently was left in chains on a concrete bed over

an extended period of time with no effective access to medical or psychiatric care and with custody staff telling him that he would be kept in four-point restraints until he was cooperative. (See Pls.' Ex. 106B.) At the time of these incidents, there was no on-site psychiatric coverage for JFM because the staff psychiatrist 579*579 was on "an extended leave." (Walden Decl. ¶¶ 40-41.)
T.S. was prescribed several medications, including psychothropic medications, while at JMF. (Id. at ¶ 45.) These included Lithium (which is known to cause kidney failure if adequate hydration is not maintained and Lithium levels are not regularly and closely monitored, particularly when doses are changed); Seroquel (an antipsychotic medication, which exposes patients to risks of dehydration, tachycardia and impairment of temperature auto-regulation); Hydrochlorothiazide (which must be monitored to prevent electrolyte imbalance and which could also contribute to Lithium toxicity); Levothyroine (which manages hypothyroidism); Gemfibrizol (which manages hyperlipidemia, but may cause depression in some patients); and Atenelol (which can interfere with temperature regulation). (See id.; Pls.' Ex. 114.) T.S. also had multiple cardiac risk factors, including hypertension, obesity and hyperlipidemia. (Walden Decl. ¶ 2.)[2]
During T.S.'s restraint, the conditions at the institution were hot and humid. Two of the days were designated "heat alert" days with heat index readings around 100 degrees. (Id. ¶ 35; see also Pls.' Ex. 106B (depicting perspiring officers complaining about heat); Pls.' Ex. 243 (Accuweather Temperature Chart).[3]) In Dr. Walden's opinion, dehyrdration severely affected T.S.'s health on August 2-3, 2006. (Id.) Throughout the restraint, T.S. was offered water by officers and often refused. (See Pls.' Ex. 106A; Walden Decl. ¶ 27.)
On August 6, 2006 at 0610 hours, T.S. was moved to another cell, but "top of the bed restraints" were continued. (Pls.' Ex. 106A at 8.) Four hours later, T.S. was taken to a shower. (Id.) At the time, he was clearly weakened and needed assistance in rising and walking. (Pls.' Ex. 106B.) After the shower, he was taken back to his cell via wheelchair and placed again in "top of the bed restraints." (Id.) He was removed from the restraints at 1358 hours after prolonged "sleeping." The prolonged "sleeping" was also the reason given by staff psychologist Allan Small for not examining T.S. on August 6, 2006 on repeated occasions. (Walden Decl. ¶ 29.)
At 1359 hours, T.S. fell face first onto the concrete floor. (Pls.' Ex. 106A at 8; Pls.' Ex. 106B.) Custody staff then assisted T.S. to sit back onto the slab. (Id.) Some minutes later T.S. fell off the toilet and laid on the floor until assisted by custody staff at 1457 hours. (Id. at 9.) At that time, nurse Charles Boltjes attempted to take a pulse and/or blood pressure from T.S. in both arms. (Id. & Pls.' Ex. 106B.) Then T.S., in apparent concern for his declining health, asked Boltjes about the readings and he responded, "It's faint, but I heard it." (Pls.' Ex. 106B.) No blood pressure, pulse, temperature or other vital readings were ever recorded by Boltjes in connection with that visit. (Walden Decl. ¶ 30.) No emergency care was summoned even though Boltjes (as reflected in his comment) had observed low cardiac output, which failure to summon emergency 580*580 care was not clinically appropriate.[4] (See T.T., vol. I, 134.) One hour later Boltjes returned to pass medication and found T.S. not breathing. (Pls.' Ex. 106A at 9.) C.P.R. was attempted, but was unsuccessful. T.S. was then taken by ambulance to Foote Hospital and pronounced dead at 1655 hours. (Pls.' Ex. 42 at bates no. 320853.)

The official incident report of the death contains one particular gross misstatement of fact. The report stated in part that "[the prisoner] was taken off TOBR restraints at 1400 hours and showed no visible health complications." (Pls.' Ex. 42 at bates no. 320842.) This conclusion is directly contradicted by the videotape displaying T.S.'s declining physical state, which was obvious. Dr. Walden concluded that the most likely cause of death for T.S. was dehydration and arrhythmia. (Walden Decl. ¶ 43.) Walden also opines that the death was entirely preventable had timely medical and psychiatric care occurred. (Id.)
Another striking feature of the care received by T.S. was that neither custody staff (who checked on T.S. on regular intervals), nor psychological and nursing staff (who all saw T.S. in a state of decline) took any action to summon emergency care when the need to do so was obvious. As Dr. Pramstaller, the Michigan Department of Corrections Medical Director, put it, "I think there were opportunities for all the disciplines to have taken a more active role in advocating for the welfare of Mr. T.S. and unfortunately that did not happen." (T.T., vol.II, 244.) Dr. Pramstaller testified later, "I think in looking at the tapes in particular it was very apparent in the tapes that T.S. was having, number one, mental deterioration, and number two, physical deterioration. I thought that there was ample opportunity for custody officers, for mental health professionals and for nursing to have intervened and brought in a psychiatrist, brought in a medical doctor, or just done something to intervene. And that was not done." (T.T., vol.II, 272.)
Similarly, Dr. Robert Cohen, M.D., the medical monitor in this suit and a person with extensive experience not only in medicine but in the supervision of psychiatric care, testified T.S.'s medical treatment records reflected that T.S. had experienced a progressive deterioration of his mental status in the five months preceding his death. (T.T., vol.III, 577.) Dr. Cohen noted that T.S.'s medications had been modified once he arrived at JMF, but that following the modifications of his medications on May 16, the next follow-up was scheduled to take place three months later. (Id.) According to Dr. Cohen, this was too long an interval given the substantial medication changes ordered by the psychiatrist. (Id.) This treatment was, in his opinion, clinically inappropriate. (Id.) He also opined that restraint beds and other forms of punitive restraints have predictable fatal consequences which have caused them not to be used in some correctional systems. (Id.) He further opined that T.S.'s medical condition needed careful medical monitoring during a heat wave — which did not occur. (Id.)
3. Department Restraint Policies
On the subject of restraint policies, T.S.'s death was reported widely in media 581*581 and has caused Defendants to change some of its practices regarding the use of "top of the bed restraints." Defendants continue to assert that "top of the bed restraints" are useful in two instances: (1) to discourage prisoners who are not overtly mentally ill, but engaged in selfdestructive behaviors such as cutting themselves or inserting foreign objects into bodily cavities; and (2) to discourage disruptive prisoners who present a threat to others and/or a threat of property damage. (Defs.' Resp., Dkt. No. 2177, at 22.) No testimony was presented as to the frequency of these instances or the advantage of this approach over other correctional policies.

Nevertheless, Director Patricia Caruso has issued a Director's Office Memorandum, DOM 2006-13, dated October 23, 2006 and effective November 1, 2006. (Id. Ex.G.) Said Memorandum limits the use of "top of the bed restraints" to a six-hour period at prisons within the Jackson Complex (which includes the Hadix facilities). (Id. at 1-2.) At the end of such period, the prisoner, if still disruptive, is to be taken to a medical or psychiatric unit for medical or psychiatric treatment (if appropriate) or, if no treatment is necessary, is to be taken to a "hardened cell" where restraints other than "top of the bed restraints" may be used to address behavioral issues, if necessary. (Id.) The policy, on its face, does not limit the number of times "top of the bed restraints" may be used in a calendar year or other period as to a single prisoner, nor does it specify a waiting period between the time of a prisoner's release from "top of the bed restraints" before a new round of "top of the bed restraints" may be reauthorized. (Id.) The policy does require a health evaluation of prisoners, by medical staff, before a prisoner is placed on "top of the bed restraints." (Id.)
This change in policy has been judged insufficient by both Dr. Cohen, the medical monitor, and Dr. Robert Griefinger, Defendants' expert witness. Dr. Cohen testified that, for the purposes of the ethical standards of the American Medical Association, "torture refers to the deliberate, systematic or wanton administration of cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatments or punishments during imprisonment or detainment." (T.T., vol.III, 575.) This is significant because physicians are required by their ethical standards to "oppose and must not participate in torture for any reason. Participation in torture includes, but is not limited to, providing or withholding any services, substances, or knowledge to facilitate the practice of torture." (Id.) Dr. Cohen classified the use of "top of the bed restraints" or other forms of restraints for punitive reasons as "torture" within that definition. (Id. at 578-79.) Dr. Cohen favored the total discontinuation of the practice because any use of the practice is likely to contribute to future prisoner deaths. (Id.) Dr. Griefinger, similarly, testified that it was unethical for a physician to provide medical clearance for any form of punitive restraints. (Id. at 500.)
4. The Case of P.H.
Dr. Cohen began the hearing with testimony concerning another prisoner death associated with inadequate psychiatric and medical care. P.H. died on August 17, 2006 at Duane Waters Hospital of congestive heart failure and suffered from end-stage heart and liver disease. (T.T., vol.I, 15.) His death was a foreseeable complication of untreated hyperthyroidism, a serious medical condition which caused P.H.'s deadly complications. (Id.) P.H. refused to take his medication for hyperthyroidism because he suffered multiple delusions that he was being poisoned and if his condition improved he would be sent to another institution to be injured or killed. (Id.)
582*582 P.H. was examined by Allan Small (the psychologist who was also assigned to care for T.S.'s week-end care) on January 19, 2005. (Id. at 15-16.) Small noted that P.H. expressed concerns about JMF staff colluding with staff from another facility to "silence him," but did not schedule P.H. for any follow up visit or other treatment. (Id.) One month later Small saw P.H. again about complaints that mail room staff were secretly collaborating against P.H. (Id. at 17.) At this time, Small believed that P.H. may have been suffering paranoid delusions, but did not schedule follow up care because P.H. refused care. (Id.)

Come May 2005, P.H. was seen by the JMF lead psychologist (David Arend) with more complaints about secret mail room plots. Arend assessed P.H. as illogical, but not mentally ill. (Id.) That same day, P.H. was admitted to Duane Waters Hospital with multiple life threatening conditions; he had thyrotoxicosis (a high level of thyroid hormone in the blood) which in turn caused atrial fibrillation, ischemic heart disease, and congestive heart failure. (Id. at 18-19.) P.H. was on several medications for his heart, blood pressure and thyroid, but refused treatment of the root cause, hyperthyroidism, because of paranoia. (Id.) He had a significant weight loss of 40 pounds (132 pounds after weight loss). (Id.)
This hospital visit led to a psychiatric visit with Dr. Wilanowski. She noted paranoid delusions on P.H.'s behalf which caused him to refuse treatment, and also fantastical thinking that he would receive a large settlement against the MDOC. (Id. at 19-20.) Dr. Wilanowski was hopeful that antipsychotic medication, Xyprexia, might relieve his symptoms so that he could be persuaded to treat his hyperthyroidism. (Id.)
Over the next year, P.H.'s medical condition deteriorated drastically without any improvement in his paranoid thinking. (Id. at 20-21.) P.H. saw an endocrinologist in May and August 2005, but the endocrinologist (who asked to see P.H. for further treatment) was not accommodated by Dr. Ivens of Correctional Medical Services ("CMS"), the company that arranges and pays for specialist services, because Dr. Ivens wanted the case managed without the specialist referral. (Id.)
For the next ten months, P.H. had multiple hospitalizations and consistently refused treatment for the hyperthyroidism. (Id. at 22.) By June 2006, his death seemed imminent and Dr. Mathai demanded from mental health staff that they determine whether P.H. was competent to continue to refuse medical care. (Id.) In response, Dr. Wilanowski prepared a standard form indicating that P.H. was not competent to refuse medical care on June 15, 2006. (Id.) That form was sent to Lansing for approval and sat idle, notwithstanding that the form dealt with a life-threatening emergency. On July 17, 2006, Defendants finally relented and sent the form onto the Attorney General's Office, who then petitioned the probate court for an order authorizing medical treatment. A hearing was not set until August 2006, by which time P.H. was in St. Joseph's Hospital in Ann Arbor. He was transferred back to DWH on August 15, 2006 and died there two days later without treatment. (Id. at 24-25.)
Dr. Cohen concluded from this medical chart that neither medica staff nor psychological staff effectively managed the case, and their delay was exacerbated by the failure to treat an emergency request for treatment as such. (Id.) According to Dr. Cohen, the toxic goiter that resulted in heart and liver failure which killed P.H. could have been cured in days had treatment 583*583 been timely ordered. (Id.) Dr. Cohen found the psychological and psychiatric's staff indifference to P.H.'s condition particularly troubling. (Id. at 26.)
5. Other Cases of Treatment Failure
Plaintiffs' expert Dr. Walden also prepared an expert report on July 10, 2006. Although mental health care was not an explicit or implicit objective of that report, nevertheless it is significant that Dr. Walden discovered many instances of medical treatment failure which were causally related to inadequate psychological and psychiatric services at the Hadix facilities. Many of these cases pertain to inmates with treatable illness, who declined

treatment, and were not offered psychological counseling though the conditions warranted it. Patient 15 received medical advice that he was in need of a second dialysis graft (for treatment of kidney failure). He refused. There is no record of counseling to encourage care (which is the standard of care for dialysis patients who tend to suffer from depression and die if care is neglected). (Pls.' Ex. 1B at 9; see also Second Report of Dr. Robert Cohen, M.D., at 7.) Defendants have provided a record that patient 15 was seen by Psychological Services Unit ("PSU") L.L.P. Kevin Tolsma on August 17, 2006. The disposition was "TNR" — treatment not required. Patient 15 was not seen by a psychiatrist or given counseling according to the notation. (Russell Proffer, Ex. F.)[5]
Also not counseled was patient 41, who was diagnosed with lung cancer and refused heart catheterization which was the prerequisite for his cancer treatment. At the time, the tumor had not spread and was likely treatable. (Pls.' Ex. 1B at 16.) There is no record of services for patient 41 between July 7, 2006 and September 2, 2006. (Russell Proffer, Ex. F.)
Other cases of failure to provide or document mental health counseling regarding medical issues include: patient 102, who needed surgery for a resistant staph infection and refused such, Pls.' Ex. 1B at 26, 44; patient 87, who suffered from heart failure and did not take his heart medication, and also did not follow up his physician's recommendation for a prostate biopsy, id. at 39; patient 1, a diabetic with juvenile onset diabetes, a history of many insulin reactions and poor blood sugar management who died of renal failure without counseling, id. at 6, 48; patient 86 refused surgery for a brain tumor after meeting with Dr. Faghihnia, a physician with a history of poor client communication, id. at 79-80; Third Report of the Associate Monitor 27-29; and patient 83, a patient with concerns about neurosurgery for arteriovenous malformation, id. at 78-79; T.T., vol. 1, 123. None of these cases were referred for service between July 7, 2006 and September 2, 2006. (Russell Proffer, Ex. F.)
Also remarkable in Dr. Walden's Report is the history of recent suicides and related deaths occurring in the absence of effective mental health care. Patient 156 killed himself after coming off of suicide watch and expressing the frustration that his medications no longer worked and he needed to "silence the voices." (Pls.' Ex. 1B at 53.) An effective drug for patient 156, Geodon, was not available to the prescribing psychiatrist because it had been apparently left off the CMS formulary as a cost-cutting measure. (Id.; T.T., vol. I, 125.) Patient 133 killed himself by overdosing on medication after learning that his children and former wife had died in an 584*584 automobile accident. Dr. Walden suspects that the "system" knew of the accident and failed to provide timely counseling. (Id. at 40.)
Patient 165 died of cancer. He was found lying in his feces, after having lost 60 pounds on a "hunger strike." (T.T., vol.I, 124-25.) He was treated as a malingerer without psychological examination, but was discovered to have suffered from a fatal brain tumor which caused delirium. (Id.) Patient 165 needed coordinated medical and mental health care. The same was true of patient 229. Patient 229 spent two weeks in four-point restraints. (Pls.' Ex. 1B at 73-74.) Like T.S., he was on multiple psychotropic medications. (Id.) As Dr. Walden concluded less than one month before T.S. died,
Here is another patient who would profit from medical teaming with psychiatry. He should not be in a general ward and should be in DWH or a unit where he can be monitored daily

by both psych and medicine. In hospitals today, restraint orders have to be written daily and justified each day. Such a need is absolutely critical.
(Id.)
6. Inadequate Psychological/Psychiatry Staffing
Another factor in the recent spate of delinquent care is the absence of available staff to provide necessary services. JMF currently houses 1,452 prisoners, including a segregation unit. (R. Russell Proffer, Ex. D, Arend Memo at 1.) All but 219 of those prisoners are assigned to the JMF PSU; the others are assigned to the Department of Mental Health Outpatient Mental Health Team ("OPMHT"). (Id.)
After Dr. Weller took medical leave, JMF was left without an onsite psychologist for a seven week period.[6] (Rushbrook Mem., Pls.' Ex. 5H, at 1.) When some coverage was restored to JMF on August 8, 2006, this was accomplished by sharing the psychiatrist assigned to the RGC (Reception and Guidance Center) facility. (Id. at 1-2.) The RGC services themselves are crucial because they provide beginning services to prisoners entering the Michigan prison system.
Defendants have filed the Proffer of Richard Russell to demonstrate the provision of services to JMF inmates while Dr. Weller was on leave. The Proffer does say psychiatric services were available during Dr. Weller's leave. (Russell Proffer ¶ 7.) However, once the Affidavit and attachments are examined and understood, they demonstrate quite the contrary. Exhibit F shows 21 evaluations between July 7, 2006 and September 9, 2006; each of these being conducted by the three PSU limited license psychologists — Small, Arend and Tolsma. (Russell Proffer, Ex. F.) Of those 21 evaluations, only five were referred for services after the initial evaluation. (Id.) The complaints ranged between anxiety, paranoia, self-injury and suicide. (Id.) Only one case, a suicide case on July 28, was referred to the Crisis Stabilization Program, meaning that the inmate would be transferred to the Huron Valley facility for hospitalization and further care. (Id.) Two cases, dated August 25 and August 28, were marked as "PSU" meaning they would receive further services from the PSU limited license staff. 585*585 (Id.) Two other cases, dated August 15 and August 23, were marked as "OPT," meaning they would receive services from the Community Mental Health limited license staff. (Id.) Cases which did not receive service included: July 7, patient on hunger strike; July 24, patient comment "suicidal"; July 31, patient comment "self-injury threats"; August 9, patient comment "self-injury"; and August 14, patient comment "paranoia." (Id.)
The general impression the document gives is that PSU staff were fulfilling rote paperwork requirements in seeing patients, but would not provide actual services except in rare cases. This is exceptional given that the Court knows from extensive past experience of proofs, regarding the mental health care at the Hadix facilities, that a very significant percentage of prisoners at this facility (which is largely housed with ill inmates due to its proximity to Duane Waters Hospital) experience significant mental illness on a regular basis and would benefit from regular treatment.

Perhaps one reason for the reluctance to provide services at JMF is that the PSU staff are professionally ill-equipped for the tasks designated them. For example, Allan Small is a limited license psychologist. (Pls.' Ex. 105,' A. Small Dep. 6-7.) This means that he must be supervised by a fully licensed psychologist. (Id.) The fully licensed psychologist that supervises Small and all other PSU staff is the regional director. (Id.) Small is more directly supervised by another psychologist — Marie Alcala-Cardew, who works at the Parnall facility and supervises other PSU staff. (Id.) Alcala-Cardew is also a limited license psychologist. (Id. at 14.) According to Small, his contacts with the regional director are limited to email correspondence (mostly about reporting) and he had only one face-to-face meeting with the regional director in the last year. (Id.)
The OPMHT staff has similar "qualifications." For instance, Francis Duffy is a limited license psychologist and is the most senior member/unit chief of his service team. (Pls.' Ex. 103, Duffy Dep. 7, 13.) The supervision of PSU and OPMHT staff contradicts the legal requirements of the Michigan statute. Michigan Compiled Laws section 33.1-8111(2) requires that a limited license holder practice under the supervision of a license holder. As the record shows, limited license holders were not supervised with the exception of the formality of a reporting relationship to a distant boss who saw them once a year.
Furthermore, the absence of qualified staff to perform advanced tasks had real documented consequences as noted above. P.H.'s case was not treated emergently and it became so due to prolonged avoidance of the case by ill-equipped staff. Similarly, T.S., and others, did not receive regular psychiatric care, blood testing for psychiatric drugs, and modification of their medications, which grossly affected those patients' outcomes. The failure to transfer T.S. in a timely way, though argued as an "isolated" problem, was not necessarily so. (See R. Russell, T.T., vol. II, 318.) Soon after Richard Russell discovered the nontransfer of T.S., he tracked other cases in August 2006 and found that the new cases were benefitted by the new tracking policy which worked to ensure that the transfer occurred timely. (Id.) Russell could not say how regular transfers were before the change in policy. (Id.)
7. Systemic Nature of Constitutional Violations
Plaintiffs' Expert, Mark Creekmore, Ph. D., also testified persuasively at the hearing regarding "root cause analysis" and other factors pertinent to whether observed 586*586 constitutional violations are indicative of the level of care at Hadix facilities. His testimony was that certain sentinel events, especially including deaths, are important in analyzing the quality of services provided by an organization because they suggest what are typical responses of the system to a given set of events. (T.T., vol.III, 537.) This kind of analysis becomes particularly important when statistical records are shown to be flawed. Dr. Creekmore concluded that the statistics kept by the Department were not sufficient to permit a systemic analysis of the service system and for continuous quality improvement. (Id. at 536.) Dr. Creekmore also discussed the use of policy, flow charts and other communication strategies to avoid service "silos" — cases in which service was provided by service providers who were unaware of important facts because those facts were communicated to others but not to them. (Id. at 543-44.) These comments were specifically directed at the current division of labor between physicians, nurses, psychiatrists, psychologists and other health care staff. (Id.)

Another subject noted by Dr. Creekmore was the prevalence of missed appointments. (Id. at 554.) This suggested to Dr. Creekmore that staffs time was not being effectively managed, and that patient outcomes were being adversely affected by delays in treatment caused by a failure to manage care effectively. (Id.) Such a system unnecessarily expends resources treating a significant illness which could have been avoided by prompt treatment. (Id.) Although some of these observations were directed to medical care, the general concepts are applicable to the evidence of mental health care treatment on this record. The failures of staff to effectively treat T.S. and other mentally-ill patients signify a systemic failure of the mental health system to provide effective treatment.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
The present Motion asks for relief under both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a), Rule 60(b)(6), and 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). The Court begins by examining the general requirements for a preliminary injunction under Rule 65.
The Court must consider four factors: (1) whether there is a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether there is proof of irreparable harm to the moving party without the injunction; (3) whether substantial harm to others will be caused by the injunction; and (4) whether the public's interest is favored by the issuance of the injunction. Jones v. City of Monroe, 341 F.3d 474, 476 (6th Cir.2003); Nightclubs, Inc. v. City of Paducah, 202 F.3d 884, 888 (6th Cir.2000); Basicamputer Corp. v. Scott, 973 F.2d 507, 511 (6th Cir.1992). This evaluation focuses on all four factors — rather than any particular factor. In re De Lorean Motor Co., 755 F.2d 1223, 1228-30 (6th Cir.1985).
III. PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT ("PLRA") STANDARDS
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2), a preliminary injunction may not issue unless it is:
. . . narrowly drawn, extend[s] no further than necessary to correct the harm . . ., and [is] the least intrusive means to correct that harm. The Court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the preliminary relief and shall respect the principles of comity. . . .
18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). Although much was made of the enactment of the PLRA at the time, its actual standards are consistent with traditional norms of non-interference 587*587 with state regulation of prisons. However, such norms and standards must, as the statute recognizes, give way to constitutional standards to prevent ongoing violations, including those under the Eighth Amendment.
IV. RULE 60(b) STANDARDS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides in pertinent part:
On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule

59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. A motion under this subdivision (b) does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation. . . .
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).
V. LEGAL ANALYSIS
1. Evidentiary Objections
Defendants seek to exclude some of the opinion testimony of Drs. Walden and Cohen pertaining to the adequacy of mental health treatment of Hadix prisoners. Defendants base this argument upon the holding in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the District Court's gatekeeping role under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, and the fact that neither physician is a licensed psychiatrist.
Although this argument might have some validity as to a physician with little or no practice in areas concerned with mental health (e.g., an orthopaedic surgeon), it does not track well given the experience and training of Doctors Walden and Cohen. Both physicians have prolonged histories as primary care physicians (Walden, a family doctor, and Cohen, an internist). In that capacity, both doctors regularly see patients experiencing some degree of mental illness and are required to make professional judgments as to whether to treat such illness, treat the illness in consultation with a specialist, or refer for specialist care. Furthermore, Doctors Walden and Cohen have both worked as correctional medical officers and in that role have supervised psychological care teams. Put simply, their training as physicians and their work experiences make them more than qualified to offer the opinions offered during the recent hearing. (See T.T., vol. I, 7-14 (Cohen); T.T., vol. I, 113-21 (Walden).)
Furthermore, even to the extent that the opinions relate to the need of various patients to have psychological and psychiatric care, the opinions are still admissible. The closest similar case is Walker v. Soo Line R. Co., 208 F.3d 581, 588 (7th Cir. 2000). In that case, the Seventh Circuit upheld the use of the testimony of a physician about psychiatric matters because the physician was the head of a team which included psychologists and the physician could give proper testimony based on her work experience and discussions with other 588*588 team members. Id. The experiences of Drs. Walden and Cohen similarly qualify them to offer their opinions. Also supporting this result are the decisions in Jahn v. Equine Servs., PSC, 233 F.3d 382, 389 (6th Cir.2000); and Dickenson v. Cardiac & Thoracic Surgery of E. Tenn., 388 F.3d 976, 982 (6th Cir.2004). The cases cited by Defendants, including Smelser v. Norfolk So. Rory. Co., 105 F.3d 299 (6th Cir.1997), deal with disparate factual scenarios and do not support exclusion of expert testimony in this instance.

2. Relief under Rule 60(b)(6)
Defendants maintain that three cases demonstrate that Rule 60(b)(6) relief cannot lie granted after termination of a portion of a consent decree — Vazquez v. Carver, 18 F.Supp.2d 503, 513 (E.D.Pa. 1998), aff'd, 181 F.3d 85 (3d Cir.1999); Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Rouse, 129 F.3d 649 (1st Cir.1997); and Hawaii County Green Party v. Clinton, 124 F.Supp.2d 1173 (D.Haw.2000). With all due respect, only one of those cases, the Hawaii Green Party case, stands for the propositions cited. The Court does not view that case as persuasive authority which should be relied upon in this instance because of the differing factual circumstances present herein and because of the controlling law of the United States Supreme Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994) is the case usually cited in the context of Rule 60(b)(6) relief from a prior judgment. In Kokkonen, the Supreme Court held that a stipulation for dismissal of an entire action which did not retain jurisdiction for enforcement of a settlement agreement could not later justify Rule 60(b)(6) relief to obtain enforcement of the settlement agreement. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 378-79, 114 S.Ct. 1673. It did so in part because it viewed the doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction, as pertaining to a dismissed diversity suit, as an insufficient basis for federal jurisdiction given that the ancillary claim (breach of settlement) was unrelated to the dismissed claim (breach of agency). Id. at 380-81, 114 S.Ct. 1673. The Court also distinguished cases in which the district court had retained jurisdiction by a term of the judgment for the purposes of settlement enforcement, or "incorporated the terms of the settlement agreement in the order." Id. at 381, 114 S.Ct. 1673.
It is apparent upon even causal inspection of the Kokkonen ruling that the hard stop it intended for settlement enforcement of dismissed cases does not apply in this instance. First of all, this is not an instance in which all jurisdiction was previously abandoned by a complete dismissal of the case. Rather, the Court has continued Consent Decree enforcement of medical health and fire safety provisions to prevent further constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Second, the Consent Decree, which was a settlement agreement, was expressly part of the judgment (though not part of the partial termination order).
The decision in Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Rouse, 129 F.3d 649, 662 (1st Cir.1997) in fact recognized that renewed unconstitutional conditions as to a terminated decree would warrant a "new round of proceedings." The question of whether that "new round of proceedings" should be initiated under Rule 60(b)(6) or by separate action is a discretionary issue which presents itself both to the moving counsel and to the district court saddled with such a motion. The answer to that question, of course, depends upon the context. When a suit is finally terminated and Rule 60(b)(6) relief would be inconsistent 589*589 with the usual rules of process and fair adjudication, then courts should routinely turn such requests aside. However, in the present case, wherein enforcement is on-going and `the terminated Consent Decree provisions have a decided impact on the future termination of live Consent Decree provisions, Rule 60(b)(6) relief is not only possible, but it is necessary for the District Court to fulfill its constitutional and statutory role. In particular, many of the repeated and recurrent problem cases noted by Drs. Cohen and Walden concern the cracks between medical care and mental health care. Without a system that effectively addresses both

areas, Eighth Amendment constitutional health care violations will continue as a by-product of unconstitutional mental health care.
Furthermore, in the present case, Consent Decree enforcement has been transferred from the Eastern District to prevent inconsistent adjudications as to the Jackson facilities. Any attempt to fracture the lawsuit by forcing separate actions on related topics would do a grave disservice to both prisoners and administrators by forcing them to function under multiple enforcement regimes. In a word, the equities of this suit demand Rule 60(b)6 relief. The scope of such relief will be determined in addressing Plaintiffs' requests for preliminary injunctive relief.[7]
3. Preliminary Injunctive Relief
Plaintiffs have made four requests as part of their Motion: (a) the elimination of punitive mechanical restraints, including, but not limited to "top of the bed restraints;" (b) the requirement that Defendants maintain psychological and psychiatric staff levels sufficient to reliably deliver necessary psychological and psychiatric services; (c) the requirement that Defendants institute daily rounds by a psychiatrist in the segregation unit; and (d) the requirement that Defendants develop protocols for appropriate coordination of medical and mental health care, and meetings between psychological, psychiatric and medical care providers to coordinate care for prisoners.
a. Use of Punitive Restraints at Hadix facilities
This topic is interesting because it raises not only the typical Eighth Amendment issues regarding provision of medical and mental health care to prisoners, but also the concept of when punitive treatment in prison crosses the bloody line of torture so as to be prohibited by the Eighth Amendment as an illegal act of punishment. A brief review on the history of torture in the United States is, therefore, helpful. The review will be presented after another summary of the relevant Eighth Amendment mental health/medical care standards.
"Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs" violates the Eighth Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). The Eighth Amendment standard has both objective and subjective components. Id. Thus, to be liable, a defendant must know of and disregard an excessive risk to prisoner health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970. However, in an injunctive case, proof of the subjective component is straightforward:
590*590 In this case, we are concerned with future conduct to correct prison conditions. If these conditions are found to be objectively unconstitutional, then that finding would also satisfy the subjective prong because the same information that would lead to the court's conclusion was available to the prison officials.
Hadix v. Johnson, 367 F.3d 513, 526 (6th Cir.2004). Likewise, deliberate indifference to serious psychological needs violates the Eighth Amendment. Clark-Murphy v. Foreback, 439 F.3d 280, 292 (6th Cir.2006);[8] Greason v. Kemp, 891 F.2d 829, 834 (11th Cir.1990).

Regarding torture, the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments," was ratified as part of the Bill of Rights (the first ten Amendments) on December 15, 1791 when so ratified by the State of Virginia (after ratifications of other states such that two-thirds of the states had then ratified the Bill of Rights in accordance with Article V of the Constitution). The turn of phrase "nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" was borrowed from the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which meant to prohibit the imposition of punishments which were not statutorily authorized or otherwise clearly excessive. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 169-70, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). The drafters and adopting states, at the time, were primarily concerned with banning barbarous methods of execution and torture once practiced in England and then practiced in other countries such as France and Spain. Id. Indeed, Patrick Henry objected before the Virginia Assembly to the language of the original Constitution for its failure to contain a torture prohibition. Id. at 169-70 & n. 17, 96 S.Ct. 2909.
While this was so, it was arguable from the beginning as to what exactly was prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. The backdrop to the Amendment was the Act of April 30, 1790, which established the first set of legislated punishments for various offenses against the United States. Session II, ch. 9, 1 Stat. 112-19. The Act allowed such punishments as the use of the pillory for perjury, limited to one hour (section 18), and capital punishment (hanging) for murder and treason, (sections 4, 30 & 33).[9] Id. The Act included grisly provisions allowing post-mortem dissection of murderers by surgeons and denial of clergy to murderers (to ensure their damnation) (sections 4 and 31). Id. This first penal code was enacted after the proposal of the Bill of Rights. See Hamelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 980, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991) (discussing history of statute).
This legacy was confronted by the Supreme Court in 1878 in the case of Wilkerson v. State of Utah, 99 U.S. 130, 25 L.Ed. 345 (1878), which was asked the question of whether a sentence issued under a Utah statute which gave a convicted murderer the choice between hanging, shooting and beheading was unconstitutional when the statute was later amended by another statute which authorized execution but did not 591*591 specify a method of execution. The Wilkerson Court said that,
Difficulty would attend the effort to define with exactness the extent of the constitutional provision which provides that cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted; but it is safe to affirm that punishments of torture, such as those mentioned by the commentator referred to, and all others in the same line of unnecessary cruelty, are forbidden by that amendment to the Constitution. . . .
Wilkerson, 99 U.S. at 135-36. The Wilkerson Court did not, however, set aside the Utah sentence.
Some eleven years later, a district court in Georgia considered without amusement a county jail keeper who was receiving federal prisoners and, on more than one occasion, shackled a prisoner by the neck to the cell grating. Judge Speer found that the unlawful act was cruel and unusual punishment and subjected the prisoner to an unreasonable risk of death; thus, he held the jailer in contempt. In re Birdsong, 39 F. 599, 600 (D.Ga.1889). Here is how he said it:

This principle of the common law is of force in this country as in England, and thus we see that neither this court, nor, indeed, the highest court in the land, would assume, even after full hearing, to exercise the power to chain up by the neck a prisoner for disorderly conduct, even the most atrocious, and even though committed in the actual presence of the court. Had any judge of America done with the most degraded convict what this jailer admits he did with the person of this prisoner, his impeachment would be inevitable. Well, may a jailer arrogate to himself powers which are withheld from the courts?. . . . The proposition is unworthy of any intelligent mind trained in the letter or the philosophy of the law. But we are not left in the determination of this question to the consideration of those great fundamental principles announced for the protection of the individual against unlawful punishments and penalties. The authorities are equally clear in their denial of the power exercised by the jailer with this prisoner. At common law it was not lawful to hamper a prisoner with irons, except to prevent an escape. `Otherwise,' it is declared, (1 Russ. Crimes, 420,) `notwithstanding the common practice of jailers, it seems unwarrantable and contrary to the mildness and humanity of the laws of England by which jailers are forbid to put their prisoners to any pain or torment.' Sir Edward Coke, perhaps the most erudite of English lawyers, certainly profoundly versed beyond any in the principles of the common law, although noted for his harshness and severity to prisoners, declared that `by the common law it might not be done.' 2 Inst. 381. In consonance with the spirit of the ancient law, the statute of 4 Geo. IV., c. 64, Sec. 10, subset. 12, provides that no prisoner shall be put in irons by the keeper of any prison except in case of urgent and absolute necessity. 4 Bac. Abr. 479; Encyclopaedia Britannica, tit. `Prison Discipline.' And by the same act the jailer was provided power to punish prisoners for disorderly conduct, and for profane cursing and swearing; but the broad intelligence and humane spirit of parliament limited the maximum penalties for such conduct to close confinement in the refractory or solitary cells, and a diet of bread and water only, for any term not exceeding three days. . . . [This punishment] was, in fact, punishment by the pillory, but a pillory where the links of the trace chain and the padlock encircling the bare neck of the prisoner were substituted for the wooden 592*592 frame. This punishment was abolished in England in 1837. 7 Wm. IV., and 1 Vict. c. 23. It was done away with in France in 1832, and in this land of humanity and lawful methods it was forbidden by the act of congress of February 28, 1839, (5 St. at Large, 322;) and yet the jailer testified that this was his usual method for the punishment of refractory prisoners, — a method which called imperatively for the ruling of the court declaring it illegal.
. . . . We declare, however, that there is not, nor has there been at any time in the history of the state, any law of any character which will justify or condone the act of chaining for hours a prisoner by the neck, in a standing position, as a means of punishment for any offense whatever. . . .
Much has been said as to the character of the individual who was punished. This is not a question of individuals. . . . If the jailer is judge, jury, and executioner, can it be predicted with certainty what will be the character or color of the next victim of the chain and padlock? It is a rule we are considering, — a rule for the protection of the unfortunate as well as of the vicious. The constitution forbids a cruel or unusual punishment, and there is no syllable relative to the character or color of the victim in that matchless charter for the preservation of right and the prohibition of wrong. In consideration of the premises, and to emphasize its judgment that an unwarrantable and illegal punishment has been inflicted on this prisoner, and to protect this and other prisoners, the court assesses a penalty of $50, with costs, against the jailer. . . .

In re Birdsong, 39 F. at 600-03.
In Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 30 S.Ct. 544, 54 L.Ed. 793 (1910), the Supreme Court reached a similar holding. It held that a punishment inflicted in the Islands of the Phillipines, 15 years of hard labor in candena (meaning leg and hand irons) for a fraud offense was "cruel and unusual punishment" banned by the Eighth Amendment. The Weems decision was subsequently explained by the Supreme Court in Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 100-01, 78 S.Ct. 590, 2 L.Ed.2d 630 (1958) (plurality opinion), a post-World War II case, which held unconstitutional the World War II punishment of denaturalizing a soldier for desertion. Trop held that punishments aside from fines, imprisonment and execution are constitutionally suspect exercises under the Eighth Amendment. Trop, 356 U.S. at 100, 78 S.Ct. 590. It further said of the Weems holding:
The Court recognized in that case that the words of the Amendment are not precise, and that their scope is not static. The Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.
Trop, 356 U.S. at 100-01, 78 S.Ct. 590.
This progress has not stopped with Trop since numerous Supreme Court decisions have relied upon evolving social standards in measuring the constitutional propriety of severe governmental sentences and punishments. See, e.g., Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) (holding that execution of those 18 years or younger at the time of their offense offends evolving Eighth Amendment standards); Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002) (holding that execution of the mentally ill violates contemporary Eighth Amendment standards); Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 96 S.Ct. 2978, 49 L.Ed.2d 944 (1976) (plurality decision) (holding that mandatory death penalty statutes for certain 593*593 offenses violated evolving Eighth Amendment standards).
More recently the principles of Birdsong and Weems were applied by the Eighth Circuit to prohibit disciplinary corporal punishment by state corrections officers. Jackson v. Bishop, 404 F.2d 571 (8th Cir. 1968) prohibited the use of the strap (whipping) as a prison disciplinary method by the State of Arkansas. The words of the decision are worthy of repetition:
. . . . The federal courts, including this one, entertain a natural reluctance to interfere with a prison's internal discipline. This is true with respect to federal institutions, . . ., as well as to state prisons,. . . .
However, the courts, including this one, have not hesitated to entertain petitions asserting violations of fundamental rights and, where indicated, to grant relief. In Glenn v. Ciccone, which we have just cited, this court clearly indicated that `a factual showing of cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment' would support interference by a federal court. 370 F.2d at 363. We have made a like statement in many other cases. . . . Although the Eighth Circuit cases just cited concern a federal institution, the principle, of course, has equal application to a state penitentiary.....

This takes us then to a consideration of the meaning and scope of the Eighth Amendment's proscription of the infliction of `cruel and unusual punishments.'. . . .
In Kemmler, 136 U.S. at 446-447, 10 S.Ct. at 933, the Court describes, as within the constitutional prohibition, punishments which are `manifestly cruel and unusual, as burning at the stake, crucifixion, breaking on the wheel, or the like' and, as cruel, those which `involve torture or a lingering death.' And it said that the word `cruel,' as used in the Eighth Amendment, `implies there something inhuman and barbarous, — something more than the mere extinguishment of life.' 136 U.S. at 447, 10 S.Ct. at 933. In O'Neil v. Vermont, supra, 144 U.S. at 339-340, and 364, 12 S.Ct. 693, 36 L.Ed. 450, Mr. Justice Field, in dissent (joined by Justices Harlan and Brewer, 144 U.S. at 370-371, 12 S.Ct. 693, 36 L.Ed. 450), advanced the thought that the Amendment's `inhibition is directed, not only against punishments of the character mentioned, but against all punishments which by their excessive length or severity are greatly disproportioned to the offenses charged.' He went on to say that although a state has the power to whip for petty offenses, `repulsive as such mode of punishment is,' the increase of such punishment by accumulation for multiple offenses could be both unusual and cruel.
. . . .
In summary, then, so far as the Supreme Court cases are concerned, we have a flat recognition that the limits of the Eighth Amendment's proscription are not easily or exactly defined, and we also have clear indications that the applicable standards are flexible, that disproportion, both among punishments and between punishment and crime, is a factor to be considered, and that broad and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and decency are useful and usable. We recognize that some of these utterances by the Court were made in concurrence or dissent or in the approach, evidently now superseded, through the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause rather than jointly through the Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments. All this, however, strikes us as of no import because we read and ascertain in the totality of the 594*594 language used the basic attitude of the entire Court to the Eighth Amendment. With these principles and guidelines before us, we have no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that the use of the strap in the penitentiaries of Arkansas is punishment which, in this last third of the 20th century, runs afoul of the Eighth Amendment; that the strap's use, irrespective of any precautionary conditions which may be imposed, offends contemporary concepts of decency and human dignity and precepts of civilization which we profess to possess; and that it also violates those standards of good conscience and fundamental fairness enunciated by this court in the Carey and Lee cases.
Our reasons for this conclusion include the following: (1) We are not convinced that any rule or regulation as to the use of the strap, however seriously or sincerely conceived and drawn, will successfully prevent abuse. The present record discloses misinterpretation and obvious overnarrow interpretation even of the newly adopted January 1966 rules. (2) Rules in this area seem often to go unobserved. Despite the January 1966 requirement that no inmate was to inflict punishment on another, the record is replete with instances where this very thing took place. (3) Regulations are easily circumvented. Although it was a longstanding requirement that a whipping was to be administered only when the prisoner was fully clothed, this record discloses instances of whippings upon the bare buttocks, and with consequent injury. (4) Corporal punishment is easily subject to abuse in the hands of the

sadistic and the unscrupulous. (5) Where power to punish is granted to persons in lower levels of administrative authority, there is an inherent and natural difficulty in enforcing the limitations of that power. (6) There can be no argument that excessive whipping or an inappropriate manner of whipping or too great frequency of whipping or the use of studded or overlong straps all constitute cruel and unusual punishment. But if whipping were to be authorized, how does one, or any court, ascertain the point which would distinguish the permissible from that which is cruel and unusual? (7) Corporal punishment generates hate toward the keepers who punish and toward the system which permits it. It is degrading to the punisher and to the punished alike. It frustrates correctional and rehabilitative goals. This record cries out with testimony to this effect from the expert penologists, from the inmates and from their keepers. (8) Whipping creates other penological problems and makes adjustment to society more difficult. (9) Public opinion is obviously adverse. Counsel concede that only two states still permit the use of the strap. Thus almost uniformly has it been abolished. It has been expressly outlawed by statute in a number of states. See for example, N.D. Cent.Code § 12-47-26 (1960); S.D.Code § 13.4715 (1939). And 48 states, including Arkansas, have constitutional provisions against cruel or unusual punishment. Ark. Const. art. 2, § 9.
We are not convinced contrarily by any suggestion that the State needs this tool for disciplinary purposes and is too poor to provide other accepted means of prisoner regulation. Humane considerations and constitutional requirements are not, in this day, to be measured or limited by dollar considerations or by the thickness of the prisoner's clothing. . . .
The district court's decree is vacated and the case is remanded with directions to enter a new decree embracing the 595*595 injunctive relief heretofore granted but, in addition, restraining the Superintendent of the Arkansas State Penitentiary and all personnel of the penitentiary system from inflicting corporal punishment, including the use of the strap, as a disciplinary measure.
Jackson v. Bishop, 404 F.2d 571, 577-81 (8th Cir.1968) (Judge Blackman) (some citations omitted). See also Nelson v. Heyne, 491 F.2d 352 (7th Cir.1974) (prohibiting the use of paddling and the medically unsupervised use of tranquilizers as to juvenile inmates); Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992) (holding that the use of excessive and malicious force against a prison inmate may violate the Eighth Amendment even though the force did not cause physical injury).
This brings us to the present situation — whether the use of mechanical in-cell restraints as a disciplinary method and/or control mechanism by officers of the Michigan Department of Corrections at the Hadix facilities violates the Eighth Amendment. The Court finds that it does. In making this finding, the Court is persuaded by the reasoning in Jackson. Each of the arguments against whipping applies with equal force to punitive restraint mechanisms, a practice prohibited by the common law. Those mechanism only frustrate the process of correction and impose unreasonable duties upon correctional officers attempting to maintain that regime. Those mechanisms, much more so than whipping, pose a deadly risk to the persons restrained because it subjects those persons to a known unreasonable risk of heart attack, dehydration and asphyxiation as testified by the medical monitor and Plaintiffs' expert witness. The risk can no longer be overcome by medical monitoring because correctional physicians now recognize that punitive restraints are a form of torture which

cannot be ethically facilitated by physician services, including facilitative medical monitoring. Such was the testimony of three of the four physicians who testified during the hearing, with the exception of Dr. Pramstaller.
This position also represents a consensus of the medical community, as demonstrated by its new ethical rules which were motivated by recent attention to the untoward Abu Ghraib scandal involving detainee abuse. Furthermore, the President recently approved, on October 17, 2006, the Military Commission Act of 2006, PL 109-366, 120 Stat. 2600. That Act governs treatment of unlawful foreign combatants held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and provides procedures for those persons' trial and detention. The Act provides, at section 949s, that,
Punishment by flogging, or by branding, marking, or tattooing on the body, or any other cruel or unusual punishment, may not be adjudged by a military commission under this chapter or inflicted under this chapter upon any person subject to this chapter. The use of irons, single or double, except for the purpose of safe custody, is prohibited under this chapter.
120 Stat. 2600, 2617. If the punitive use of irons is to be prohibited as to foreign unlawful combatants, then a fortiori its use should be prohibited within Hadix facilities out of deference to those inmates' constitutional rights.
Defendants have argued in their papers that their own six-hour policy provides a sufficient remedy which should be approved. This argument is wholly unconvincing. The substitution of six hours of evil for unlimited evil, though an improvement, does not win the day. The sixhour policy is limited to restraint beds and does not prohibit the use of other dangerous restraint devices at the end of the six-hour 596*596 period. It does not contain restrictions on the use of cumulative periods of restraint and it does nothing to prevent death within the first six hours. Further, the fact that physicians regard such treatment as torture and will not facilitate it means that the process could only be continued by either forsaking medically necessary examinations or commissioning medical officers to violate their professional ethical rules. The Court will do neither.
The Court finds that the Defendants' practice constitutes torture and violates the Eighth Amendment. Its cessation is required immediately to prevent further loss of life, loss of dignity and damage to both inmates and correctional officers. The Court finds that this prohibition is favored by all of the Rule 65(a) factors such that a preliminary injunction supporting the prohibition should enter. The Court further finds that this prohibition is compliant with the PLRA provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a) for limited injunctive relief. Although this injunction does not permit choice as to punitive restraints, the PLRA does not require this flexibility because such options are constitutionally prohibited. The prohibition will be worded to make its terms clear to Defendants and not to infringe upon any legitimate uses of mechanical restraints, and to otherwise comply with the PLRA provisions.
What legitimate uses of mechanical restraints will be permitted in Hadix facilities? The use of in-cell restraints for punitive reasons, correction, to prevent in cell "disruption," in cell "destruction of property," or "observation other than by physicians or psychiatrists" is prohibited. Restraints may still be used for transportation of prisoners, for movement of

prisoners between secure locations, for the safe provision of services to prisoners, and for temporary emergency reasons such as to quell a riot or to provide emergency officer or prisoner safety. Restraints may be used to arrest prisoners engaged in escape or other crime, such as assault. Restraints may also be used loy medical and psychiatric staff to prevent self-harm, injury to staff, and interference with treatment, provided that the medical staff supervises the use of the restraints by daily physician orders and monitors the conditions of patients regularly and around the clock to ensure that patient health is not unduly compromised.
This prohibition does not prevent the Director from protecting prisoner health, which may be accommodated by delivery of self-destructive and mentally-ill prisoners to doctors. It also does not prevent the Director from protecting life and property, which may be accommodated by the delivery of destructive inmates to secure living quarters without furniture or fixtures. Both of those contingencies are already part of the existing Director's Office Memorandum.
b. Psychological and Psychiatric Staffing Levels
The evidence showed that patients with serious psychological and psychiatric needs were not timely seen, were not provided services consistent with clinical standards of care, and in many cases the failures of service caused tragic patient consequences, including death. Defendants' arguments that the staffing levels were only temporarily low ignores both fact and logic. The staffing levels themselves appear inadequate given that staffing is not effectively supervised by a full-license psychologist and given that the present level of staffing does not reliably result in the provision of necessary services to emergent and other serious cases. The provisions made for staff absence put the burden of those absences on the prisoner population. The use of distant doctors to continue psychiatric medications 597*597 without patient interviews, blood testing and regular patient visits is clinically inappropriate and highly dangerous to the prisoners served. Overall, the record supports Rule 60(b)(6) relief and a Rule 65(a) injunction. Specifically, each of the Rule 65(a) factors favors the issuance of the injunction.
Because of the PLRA's insistence upon giving Defendants' maximum flexibility in meeting constitutional requirements, the Court will order only that Defendants maintain staffing necessary to provide prisoners with routine and emergency access to psychiatric and psychological services on a daily basis. Defendants will be permitted to file with the Court a staffing plan, within 45 days, compliant with the Court's Opinion and Preliminary Injunction for approval. The plan should identify how many additional staff members are necessary to provide required services, and should specify the qualifications of those persons. The plan must include additional staffing to ensure full-time psychiatric coverage at JMF and a substitute psychiatrist for periods of leave. It must also include adequate staffing to ensure daily psychologist rounds in segregation, and that those rounds are not limited due to staff leave. It must further include additional staffing to ensure that limited license staff are properly supervised. Additionally, the plan should identify its means and methods for hiring and retaining the necessary staffing level. The ordering of such plan is compliant with the PLRA provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a) for limited injunctive relief. The relief is limited, tailored to the constitutional violations, and is addressed in a fashion to permit Defendants choices between possible staffing options.

c. Requirement of Daily Rounds in the Segregation Unit
Plaintiffs have wisely requested daily psychologist rounds in the segregation unit. This request is supported by the record evidence that mentally ill prisoners, including T.S., are often housed in segregation and often have psychiatric needs which will not be accommodated without those rounds due to lack of movement and prisoner inability to request care. Segregation is also physically demanding and places prisoners with mental illness at heightened risk of mental decompensation and conflict with correctional officers. These phenomena are well known in the corrections community. The failure to take corrective action in light of the observed clear failures of mental health care in the segregation unit warrants a finding of both an Eighth Amendment violation and a need for injunctive relief. As such, the Court finds that the requested injunction should issue because the request is favored by each of the Rule 65(a) factors. Without such relief, prisoners will continue to be hidden in segregation without access to necessary and sometimes lifesaving care.
In order to accommodate the Director's need for flexibility and choice in the implementation of this requirement, though, the Court will order its implementation as part of the "plan" explained above. Defendants should explain, when they explain how the new staffing will be provided, when a psychologist or psychiatrist will be available for segregation rounds. However, given the necessity of those rounds to save human life, the Court urges Defendants to make this a priority in their scheduled planning. The ordering of such plan is compliant with the PLRA provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a) for limited injunctive relief. The relief (like the other relief described in this Opinion) is limited and tailored to the constitutional violations, and is addressed in a fashion to permit Defendants flexibility in meeting constitutional 598*598 requirements and not to unduly intrude upon State operation of the prison system.
d. Require Protocols for Medical/Mental Health Staff and Interdisciplinary Meetings
Cases like T.S., P.H. and others listed by Dr. Walden, show that there are a large number of complicated cases with interdisciplinary problems that unfortunately are being regularly mistreated and/or ignored by staff. The phenomenon is now a regular feature of the system. Cases which can be described by the disciplines as either medical or mental health are described by the competing disciplines as within the ken of the other, and no attempt is made to coordinate care. Rather, unless the patient is very active in seeking care (which is often times impossible due to mental limitations), the patient simply falls into the black hole between the disciplines with predictable results-suffering, aggravation of symptoms, aggravation of the costs of treatment, and sometimes death. Therefore, the Court finds, that this pattern and practice of nontreatment and uncoordinated treatment constitutes an Eighth Amendment violation because it routinely deprives patients of necessary services for serious medical and mental health needs. Remedy is necessary and one will be ordered which allows Defendants maximum flexibility and minimal intrusiveness consistent with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). The below described remedy meets this requirement.
Because of the seriousness of the violation, the Court also approves the issuance of a preliminary injunction to address the chronic failure identified above. Because the regular Eighth Amendment violations cause irreparable harm, including unnecessary pain and

aggravation of injury, the Court further determines that each of the Rule 65(a) factors favors the issuance of relief. The substance of this Injunction will require the development of a plan that insists upon coordination of care between the disciplines. Also, given that the case of T.S. and other cases of patient care, demonstrated widespread provider indifference to patient care, the Court will also order that Defendants require staff to attend, as part of their meetings, a training, the content of which should be approved by Dr. Cohen, the medical monitor, to redress such indifference. Part of this training should include instruction about the care providers' role in insuring that patients are treated humanely by custody staff and insuring that patients' medical and mental health care is timely provided by them and is not delayed by administrators of the Director and/or administrators and staff of CMS.
Here is the basic message: You are valuable providers of life-saving services and medicines. You are not coatracks who collect government paychecks while your work is taken to the sexton for burial. If a patient does not receive necessary medical or psychological services, including medicines and specialty care, it is not his problem, it is your problem, a problem that must be solved at lunch, nights or weekends, if necessary. If someone in the bureaucracy, including CMS, is stopping you from providing necessary services in a timely way, or stopping the patient from obtaining necessary specialist care or medicine, you should pester the malefactors until they respond and the services are provided. If they still won't relent, you are to relay their names, including correct spellings and addresses at which they may be arrested, to the medical monitor so those persons may be held in contempt and jailed, if necessary. The days of dead wood in the Department of Corrections are over, as are the days of CMS intentionally 599*599 delaying referrals and care for craven profit motives.
VI. CONCLUSION
An Order shall enter granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Reopen Judgment Regarding Mental Health Claims and Issue a Preliminary Injunction. The Preliminary Injunction shall order the remedies sought by Plaintiffs, including a ban on punitive restraints at the Hadix facilities, a requirement that Defendants assess staffing needed to provide routine and emergency access to both psychiatric and psychological services and plan to do so emergently, a requirement that the new staff implement daily psychologist rounds in the segregation unit, and a requirement that Defendants develop protocols for appropriate coordination of medical and mental health care and require staff attendance of coordination and training meetings.
"The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons." Attributed to Feodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky, Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations, no. 1527 (Library of Congress 1989).
God bless T.S. and the others. Their lives were short, but their legacies may be long.
ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
In accordance with the Opinion of this date;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Reopen Judgment Regarding Mental Health Care and Issue a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 2102) is GRANTED and section II.B of the Consent Decree is reopened limited to the provisions of this Order and Preliminary Injunction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants and all officers employed at Hadix facilities shall immediately cease and desist from the practice of using any form of punitive mechanical restraints within Hadix facilities, and Defendants shall timely develop practices, protocols and policies to enforce this limitation consistent with the Court's instructions at section V.3.a of its Opinion. These matters shall be reported to the Court as part of a plan for Court approval within 45 days of this Order and Preliminary Injunction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall immediately work to develop a staffing plan for adequate psychiatric and psychological staffing at Hadix facilities to ensure that routine and emergent psychiatric and psychological services are provided in a timely way, which plan shall be filed for Court approval within 45 days of this Order and Preliminary Injunction, and which plan shall be consistent with the Court's instructions at section V.3.b of its Opinion.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall immediately work to provide daily psychologist or psychiatrist rounds in the segregation unit at the Hadix facilities, and shall report their staffing proposal to accommodate this requirement to the Court for approval in the plan specified in the preceding paragraphs, consistent with the Court's instructions at section V.3.c of its Opinion.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall immediately work to develop protocols for the coordination of mental health and medical staff, and shall require weekly conferences of the two disciplines which shall include, but not be limited to the treatment of prisoners in the segregation unit, and which shall include necessary training to prevent staff and administrative indifference to the provision of care, consistent with the Court's instructions 600*600 at section V.3.d of its Opinion. The proposal developed shall be filed with the Court for approval as part of the plan discussed in the preceding paragraphs.
IT FURTHER ORDERED that the requirement of Plaintiffs' posting of security pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) is WAIVED due to Plaintiffs' indigence and their high likelihood of success upon final hearing.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall be permitted discovery as to mental health care in advance of a final injunctive hearing. The parties shall contact Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody and arrange to appear before her for a scheduling conference to set discovery and motion filing deadlines on mental health issues. The final injunctive hearing will be later scheduled for a three-day evidentiary hearing at an appropriate interval after the motion filing deadline so established.
[1] Duffy was an employee of the Michigan Department of Community Health assigned to work within JMF. (See Duffy Dep. 42.)
[2] In particular, Lithium is known to subject patients to risk of toxicity, electrolyte imbalance, delusion, tachycardia and death. (T.T., vol.1, 133-35.) Lithium also increases urination even while a patient is dehydrating. (Id.) T.S.'s

Lithium levels were not monitored for a prolonged period preceding his restraint and death. (Id.) This was not clinically appropriate. (Id.)
[3] Defendants' interior cell measurements of temperature were lower, but not so low that heat, humidity, and hydration were not a significant concern for T.S. in the context of this restraint.
[4] Plaintiffs refer to Boltjes' conduct as arguably constituting criminal negligence. (Pls.' Trial Br. 3.) The Court agrees with that characterization. While it is true that the medical examiner has not announced an official cause of death, the delay in doing so suggests both that in depth toxicology work is being performed and full consideration given to ascribing a manner of death suggesting criminal liability.
[5] The Court understands that Russell's Proffer was tracking a slightly later time period then that of Dr. Walden's Report. However, the document is still very informative in that it shows whether or not the prisoners were referred for new service in the later time frame.
[6] The Rushbrook Memorandum also asserts that the "prisoner . . . was not in administrative segregation; he was in an observation cell located in the segregation unit. . . ." (Rushbrook Mem. at 1.) Whatever metaphysical distinction was intended by that remark is unimportant; T.S. was treated by staff as a malefactor and was told that his restraints would continue until he was cooperative.
[7] One of those requests, the request for a limitation on punitive restraints, does not absolutely depend upon the reopening of the mental health provisions. This is because, given the nature of the relief, it may be properly ordered as part of this Court's jurisdiction over the medical care provisions.
[8] Clark-Murphy involved a large number of MDOC staff members who, according to the estate, caused the decedent-prisoner's death by failing to emergently treat his medical and psychiatric conditions and exposing him to hot temperatures while on psychotropic drugs. This death occurred significantly before T.S.'s death. This death and lawsuit and the regular discussions in the Hadix suit about the risks of dehydration of such patients provided Defendants with ample notice in advance of T.S.'s death of such risks.
[9] A pillory was a locking wooden framework, with holes for the head and: hands, used to retrain offenders and expose them to public ridicule.

 
 Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
2005 WL 2243091 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, W.D. Michigan.
Everett HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Perry JOHNSON, et al., Defendants.
No. 4:92-CV-110. | Sept. 14, 2005.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Deborah A. Labelle, Deborah Labelle Law Offices, Patricia A. Streeter, Ann Arbor, MI, Elizabeth Alexander, Washington, DC, Jeanne E. Mirer, Pitt, Dowty, McGehee, Mirer & Palmer, P.C., Royal Oak, MI, Michael Barnhart, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiffs.
A. Peter Govorchin, Leo H. Friedman, State of Michigan Attorney General Office, Lansing, MI, for Defendants.
Opinion
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
ENSLEN, Senior J.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND ISSUES PRESENTED *1 1. In 1980, Everett Hadix and other prisoners incarcerated at the State Prison of Southern Michigan, Central Complex (“SPSM-CC”) brought a class action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against various state officials charged with the operation of SPSM-CC. See Hadix v. Johnson, 367 F.3d 513, 515-17 (6th Cir.2004).1 (See also Dkt. Nos. 1846 & 1863.) The inmates asserted that their conditions of confinement violated their rights under the First, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Hadix, 367 F.3d at 515-17.
2. Five years later, on April 4, 1985, the parties entered into a comprehensive Consent Decree covering most aspects of health care; fire safety; sanitation; safety and hygiene; overcrowding and protection from harm; volunteers; food service; management; operations; access to courts; and mail. Id.
3. Though the state officials admitted no liability on the inmates’ claims, the Decree explicitly stated that it was

intended by the parties to assure the constitutionality of the conditions under which prisoners are incarcerated at SPSM-CC. Id. Under the Consent Decree’s terms, the state officials could apply for termination of the decree when they were in compliance with all decree provisions. Id. The District Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Consent Decree until compliance was achieved. Id.
4. In 1992, the District Court for the Eastern District transferred the medical and mental health components of the Consent Decree to this Court.2 Id.
5. The Consent Decree in this case provides: “This was an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other applicable statutes seeking declaratory and equitable relief with respect to the conditions of confinement at ... SPSM-CC.... Plaintiffs are prisoners at the SPSM-CC and represent themselves and the class of all prisoners who are now or will be confined within said institution. Defendants are state officials charged under Michigan law with the operation of SPSM-CC.” (Consent Decree, Intro. at 1.)
6 At the time of the entry of the Consent Decree, April 1985, SPSM-CC consisted of Cell Blocks 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12 and administrative segregation (which was the hospital). (See Jan. 8, 2002 Aff. of Barbara Hladki; Dkt. Nos. 1540 & 1846.) 6-Block only consisted of galleries base through 3. The 4th gallery (also known as “top 6”) was part of the Reception and Guidance Center. Block 7 was then, as it is now, the Reception and Guidance Center. (Id.) Cell Blocks 1 and 2 were the North Complex, and Cell Blocks 9, 10 and 16 were the South Complex. (Id.) Block 16 was demolished and is being replaced with a new housing unit. (Id.) A and B units, which are now part of the Reception and Guidance Center, did not exist at the time the Consent Decree was entered, and when they were first built they were part of the Parnall Correctional Facility. (Id.) C Unit did not exist at the time the Consent Decree was entered, and is now administered by the Egeler Correctional Facility. (Id.) The Duane Waters Hospital did not exist at the time the Consent Decree was entered. (Id.)
*2 7. The Sixth Circuit in Hadix v. Johnson, 367 F.3d 513, 517-18 (6th Cir.2004), affirmed that the locations of the cellblocks at the time that the Consent Decree was approved do not control whether a particular facility is governed by the Consent Decree. (See also Opinion, Mar. 31, 2005, Dkt. No. 1863 at 8-11.)
8. In April of 1996, Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), Pub.L. No. 104-134, 100 Stat. 1321-66 (1966). “Enacted in part in response to criticisms that federal courts had overstepped their
1

Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
supervisory authority in prison conditions cases, the PLRA was specifically intended to limit the use of court-enforced consent decree cases and to restrict ‘the ability of Federal judges to affect the capacity and conditions of prisons and jails beyond what is required by the Constitution and Federal law.” ’ Hadix, 228 F.3d at 665 (citing Hadix, 144 F.3d at 931 (internal quotation omitted)).
9. After enactment of the PLRA, Defendants moved for termination of the Consent Decree in the Eastern District pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2). Hadix, 228 F.3d at 665-66. On November 1, 1996, the Eastern District denied Defendants’ motion to terminate the Consent Decree, ruling that the termination provisions of the PLRA were unconstitutional on separation-of-powers grounds. Id. at 666. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed the Eastern District’s judgment. Hadix v. Johnson, 133 F.3d 940, 941 (6th Cir.1998). The Sixth Circuit remanded the case to the Eastern District for consideration of the merits of Defendants’ termination motion. Id.
10. On March 18, 1999, the Eastern District issued its ruling on Defendants’ motion for termination, and focused its attention on whether there had been substantial compliance with the Consent Decree with regard to the facilities designated in the break-up plan. Hadix v. Johnson, 45 F.Supp.2d 584 (E.D.Mich.1999). The Eastern District unconditionally terminated certain portions of the Consent Decree, and conditionally terminated other provisions. On October 5, 2000, the Sixth Circuit reversed the Eastern District’s order terminating the Consent Decree, and remanded the case. Hadix v. Johnson, 228 F.3d 662 (6th Cir.2000).
11. On March 18, 1999, the Eastern District also transferred sections I.P., I.Q., and I.S. of the Consent Decree (regarding water temperatures, housing temperatures and ventilation, respectively) pertaining to Facility B (formerly Cell Blocks 4 and 5, now the Southern Michigan Correctional Facility or JMF) to this Court. (E. Dist. Dkt. No. 1342; Dkt. No. 1863.) See also Hadix, 367 F.3d at 515-17. The Eastern District further transferred to this Court Defendants’ proposed alternatives to Facility A (Cell Blocks 1, 2 and 3 of the Egeler Correctional Facility or SMN). Id. The Eastern District explained that the rationale for transfer was that health care was implicated in these provisions.
12. On December 2-3, 1999, this Court conducted hearings on the medical health care provisions of the Consent Decree and other issues transferred by the Eastern District. Id. Subsequently, on February 18, 2000, this Court issued its Order and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. (Dkt. Nos. 1372 & 1373.) This Court determined that Plaintiffs sustained their burden by proving the existence of constitutional violations with regard to section II.A.3.6, II.A.4.a, II.A.5.a, II.A.7, and

II.A.11, and that Plaintiffs failed to sustain their burden of proving the existence of constitutional violations as to the remaining health care provisions of the Consent Decree and terminated its jurisdiction over those provisions. Additionally, this Court found that the temperature, ventilation and fire safety conditions at JMF, Egeler, and Administrative Segregation supported a finding of constitutional violations. Hadix, 367 F.3d at 515-17. The February 18, 2000 Order was not final, as the Court reserved judgment on termination of other portions of the Consent Decree and the entry of any remedial order.3 Id.
*3 13. On November 15, 2000, the Eastern District transferred to this Court the fire safety issues which are the same as to those concerning Facility A previously transferred. (E.Dist.Dkt. No. 1432.)
14. On June 27, 2001, the Eastern District issued its Order of Termination, terminating its jurisdiction over all sections of the Consent Decree remaining in the Eastern District. (E.Dist.Dkt. No. 1442.)
15. Following the transfer of the fire safety issues at Egeler, but prior to the transfer of the same issues at Parnall, the Court held a hearing on Defendants’ motion for termination of injunctive relief pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b). The Court thereafter issued findings in which it concluded that Defendants’ failures to address the fire safety dangers at the Egeler Facility had resulted in current and ongoing constitutional violations. (Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Feb. 18, 2000 (“2000 Findings”), Dkt. No. 1372 at 51.)
16. Defendants were also ordered on May 2, 2001 to report on their remedial plans to address fire safety. (Dkt. No. 1443). In response, Defendants failed to propose any remedy for the fire safety violations. (Dkt. No. 1445 at 2.)
17. On May 6-8, 2002, this Court conducted hearings on the remaining medical health care provisions of the Consent Decree and other issues transferred by the Eastern District. The issues included fire safety in both the Egeler and Parnall facilities in May 2002. Subsequently, on October 29, 2002, this Court issued its Order and Injunction and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. (Dkt. Nos. 1658 & 1659.) The Court determined that the existing system of health care continues to violate Sections II.A.3.6, II.A.4.a, II.A.5.a, II.A.7, and II.A.11 of the Consent Decree and the Eighth Amendment. Hadix, supra, 367 F.3d at 517. The Court further found that Defendants’ failure to protect prisoners from heat-related illnesses and the risk of injury from smoke and fire for prisoners with disabilities and chronic diseases resulted in violations of the Consent Decree and Constitution. Id. The Court found a constitutional violation with regard to the lack of fire safety in Blocks 1-3 and 7 of the Egeler Facility and Block 8 of the Parnall
2

Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
facility. (Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Oct. 29, 2002 (“2002 Findings”), Dkt. No. 1658 at 263.)
18. The Court again ordered further submissions on the appropriate remedy for the constitutional violation with regard to fire safety. (2002 Findings 264.)
19. Consistent with the 2002 Findings, the Court later ordered the parties to further brief whether any alternative to compartmentalization,4 consistent with Section VIII of the Consent Decree, was constitutionally sufficient as a fire safety remedy. (Id.) After briefing, on February 25, 2003, this Court issued its Injunction ordering compartmentalization of the facilities as the fire safety remedy, since other proposed remedies were not constitutionally sufficient. (Dkt. Nos. 1696 & 1697.)
*4 20. On December 23, 2003, Defendants submitted a fire remedy plan including compartmentalization, entitled “State Prison of Southern Michigan Fire Safety and Egress Report for Cell Blocks 1, 2, 3, & 7 and Cell Block 8.” (“Plan”) (Dkt. No. 1739.) Defendants further indicated that subject to certain conditions they would voluntarily proceed with that portion of the Plan which concerned: 1. Expansion of the fire protection system to provide fire protection throughout each cell block;
2. Removal of the transformers and other electrical equipment that are no longer in use in the basement;
3. Increasing the guardrail height at the open side of the walkway at each tier of elevated cells; and
4. Removal of the unenclosed storage areas and laundry facilities and construction of a one-hour rated wall around the laundry facility at the Parnall Correctional Facility.
The portions of the Plan that Defendants did not agree to complete voluntarily were: a) installation of a mechanical smoke exhaust system in Cell Blocks 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8; b) replacement of the manual remote cell door locking system in Cell Blocks 1, 2 and 3 with a remote electronic cell door locking/unlocking system; and, c) installation of a vertical dividing wall on each side of Egeler’s Cell Blocks 1, 2 and 3 and across the center of the atrium in 7 and 8 Blocks.
21. On February 2, 2004, this Court issued its Order preliminarily approving Defendants’ fire safety plan pending further hearing. (Dkt. No. 1751.)
22. On February 25, 2003, the Court issued an injunction requiring completion of the Plan:
The very substantial failures of these facilities to allow for timely egress in the event of a fire, to exhaust smoke,

to sprinkle fire, and to unlock doors means, simply, that many inmates in each facility would likely suffer smoke inhalation or death in the event of fire. Simply put, these risks are grave and unacceptable.
(Dkt. 1696 at 1-2.)
23. The Court ordered Defendants to implement the break-up plan developed pursuant to Section VIII of the Consent Decree, with the additional step of subdividing Egeler so that the exit distance from any cell would not exceed 150 feet. In addition, the Court ordered Defendants to correct the deficiencies previously found in the unlocking systems, exhaust systems and sprinkler systems of Blocks 1-3 and 7-8, or adopt other ameliorative changes that would offer equivalent levels of fire protection. (Id.)
24. Defendants appealed to the Sixth Circuit from the injunction issued by this Court. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the fire safety issue to this Court, asking the Court to identify the point at which the fire safety deficiencies in the record become constitutional violations. The Court of Appeals noted the following:
[T]his Court was informed at oral argument that Defendants have taken steps to remedy some of the problems noted by the district court, such as removing the dry transformers from the basement and installing additional sprinklers. It is unclear to us whether those remedies are sufficient to cure the constitutional violations at the Hadix facilities.
*5 Hadix, 367 F.3d at 529.5
25. On July 29, 2004, Defendants’ counsel advised the Court, Court Monitor, and the Plaintiffs that pursuant to Defendants’ Plan, “MDOC maintenance staff have removed the six transformers and four oil switches from the basement of Parnall’s 8-Block.” (Dkt. No. 1846.)
26. On August 5, 2004, this Court issued its Order which provided in part that the parties should file simultaneous briefs on the process which should be used to resolve the fire safety remand from the Sixth Circuit. (Dkt. No. 1771.)
27. On August 17, September 7, and September 17, 2004, Defendants’ counsel advised the Court, Court Monitor, and the Plaintiffs that as part of Defendants’ voluntary
3

Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
self-remedy, the transformers and all electrical equipment had been removed from the basement in Egeler Cell Blocks 1, 2, 3 and 7, and Parnall Cell Block 8. (Dkt. No. 1846.)
28. On September 28, 2004, this Court issued its Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 1775), which provided for the filing of a detailed schedule for fire safety improvements planned, discovery, site visits by the experts, and an evidentiary hearing. Subsequently, on October 14, 2004, Defendants filed their Schedule for Fire Safety Improvements. (Dkt. No. 1785.)
29. On October 12, 2004 and December 1, 2004, Defendants’ counsel advised the Court, Court Monitor, and Plaintiffs that pursuant to Defendants’ Plan, the MDOC completed the removal of the unenclosed storage areas and laundry facilities and had increased the guardrail height in Egeler Cell Blocks 1, 2, 3 and 7 and Parnall Cell Block 8. (Dkt. No. 1846.)
30. On February 28, 2005, Defendants filed their Expedited Motion to Dismiss the Court’s Attempt to Exercise Jurisdiction Over Facilities Not Subject to the Consent Decree and/or Issues and Facilities Previously Terminated by the Federal Court. (Dkt. Nos. 1846 & 1847.)
31. On March 31, 2005, this Court issued its Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. Nos. 1863 & 1864.) The Court held that the fire safety issues before the Court did not include cell blocks at the JMF Facility and Blocks 9 and 10 of the Parnall Facility. (Id.) JMF had been dismissed by the Eastern District on a finding that the plan for that facility had been fully implemented; Blocks 9 and 10 of the Parnall Facility are non-Hadix facilities. (Id.) This Court denied Defendants’ Motion as to the “support” facilities for Cell Block 8 of the Parnall Facility and the Egeler Facility. (Id.)
32. On April 29, 2005, the parties filed a Stipulation to Terminate Jurisdiction Over Certain Areas Regarding Fire Safety Issues, which was approved by Order of May 4, 2005. (Dkt. Nos. 1876 & 1878.) These areas concerned the Parnall creamery; Parnall meat processing plant; Jackson prison complex power plant; Parnall chow hall; Egeler chow hall; and MSI shoe factory/box and carton factory in Parnall. (Id.)
33. The parties filed a Stipulation, on August 1, 2005, to terminate fire safety relief as to the MSI laundry, which was approved by Order of August 4, 2005. (Dkt. Nos. 1893 & 1894.)
*6 34. The only remaining “support facility” at issue is the SMT/MSI metal furniture factory. The SMT/MSI metal furniture factory is a two-story building with a

basement. The only issue for the SMT/MSI metal furniture factory concerns the storage and handling of xylene fluids on the second floor painting area and the storage of mineral fluids on the first floor.
35. The Court held an evidentiary hearing on May 5-6, 2005 on whether the lack of fire safety at the facilities violates the Eighth Amendment and, if so, what remedy is necessary to address that violation.
II. BACKGROUND OF THE WITNESSES
A. EXPERT WITNESSES 36. Curtiss Pulitzer is a licensed architect with over 29 years of experience in the planning and development of justice facilities in more than 40 states including prisons in Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, and the District of Columbia. He has worked on the planning and design of six different reception centers, including both new and renovated facilities. (Hearing Transcript (“Tr.”) 217-18; Pls. Ex. 2.) He provided credible expert testimony.
37. Michael DiMascio is an expert in fire protection engineering. He is a registered Professional Fire Protection Engineer. His education includes a degree in civil engineering and an M.S. degree in fire protection engineering. He has experience with large correctional facilities and with older correctional facilities. He is a member of a number of professional organizations, including the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the Building Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA), NFPA 921 Technical Committee (Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigators) (Past Member), and the NFPA 101, Code for Safety to Life from Fire in Buildings and Structures, Subcommittee on Detention and Correctional Occupancies. (Pls.’ Ex. 1A.) He provided credible expert testimony.
38. Dr. Jerome Walden graduated from the University of Michigan Medical School and is certified by the American Board of Family Physicians. He is the founder and executive director of the Packard Community Clinic. His previous positions include serving as Chief Medical Officer of the U.S. Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana. He was selected by the Michigan Academy of Family Physicians as the Family Physician of the Year in 2000. He has testified as an expert witness in a number of cases, and has served as the Plaintiffs’ expert witness in this case since 1999. (Pls. Ex. 3A at 1-2; see also Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 2-3.) He provided credible expert testimony.
39. Elizabeth J. Ferguson is Plaintiffs’ expert in aging and disability systems, programs and services. She has
4

Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
testified for Plaintiffs on prior occasions in this case and has previously provided expert testimony regarding aging and disabilities service systems. (2002 Findings ¶ 45; 2000 Findings ¶ 27.) She provided credible expert testimony.
*7 40. Wayne G. Carson is a consulting fire protection engineer and operates his own firm. Mr. Carson has consulted for governmental and non-governmental agencies. He is a licensed engineer in five states and the District of Columbia, and has been qualified as a fire safety expert in many states, and in this Court. He has inspected over 75 correctional facilities around the country. He is very familiar with the Life Safety Code and has done extensive past committee work, including drafting code provisions, regarding the Life Safety Code, the Fire Protection Handbook and the BOCA National Building Code. (See also Tr. 189-90.) He has authored numerous papers and publications. He provided credible expert testimony.
41. Frederick W. Mowrer is an Associate Professor in the Department of Fire Protection at the University of Maryland. (Tr. 143.) He holds a Ph.D. in Fire Protection Engineering and Combustion Science; an M.S. in Engineering; and a B.S. in Fire Protection and Safety Engineering. Prior to his present position, Dr. Mowrer was a lecturer in civil engineering at the University of California (Berkley) and a fire protection engineer. Dr. Mowrer is a registered fire protection engineer in the State of California. Dr. Mowrer has held and continues to hold numerous positions with the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, NFPA, International Association of Fire Safety Science, and the International Standards Organization. Dr. Mowrer has received numerous awards and honors in the field of fire protection. Dr. Mowrer has authored or contributed to over 100 publications. He provided credible expert testimony.
42. Dr. George Pramstaller is the MDOC’s Chief Medical Officer. (2002 Findings ¶¶ 39-41.) He has extensive medical experience within MDOC and in private practice. (Id.) Prior to assuming his current position, he was MDOC Director of Medical Services for Region I. (Id.) Dr. Pramstaller is a certified Correctional Health Professional, a Fellow-American College of Osteopathic Family Physicians, and Board Certified in Family Practice. Dr. Pramstaller is a member of numerous professional associations, including the Society of Correctional Physicians and the American Correctional Health Services Association. He is on the Board of Directors of the National Commission on Correctional Health Care. (Id.) He provided credible expert testimony.
B. LAY WITNESSES 43. Thomas R. Smith is employed as Project Manager

with Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr and Huber, Engineers, Scientists and Architects, Grand Rapids, Michigan. (Tr. 127-28.) He holds a Master’s Degree in architecture. (Id.) He is a Project Manager on large multi-discipline projects, typically institutional occupancies such as health care, hospitals, long-term care, nursing facilities and detentional occupancies. (Id.)
44. Eugene Fushi is employed by the MDOC as a Regional Fire Inspector. (Id. at 12.) Mr. Fushi oversees the prisons within the Jackson region, including the Egeler and Parnall Facilities. (Id.)
*8 45. Barbara Hladki is employed by the MDOC as Administrator, Jackson Medical Complex, Bureau of Health Care Services. (Id. at 110-11.) Her duties include the supervision of all health care staff within the Jackson Medical Complex (with the exception of mental health staff and medical service providers), quality assurance, audits, and reviews. (Id.)
46. Thomas Meeker is employed by the MDOC as a Resident Unit Officer (RUO) in 8-Block at Parnall. (Id. at 76.) He has been assigned to 8 Block for the last five to seven years, and has been working at the Parnall Facility for 19 years. (Id. at 78.) He is currently assigned work during first shift hours (5:18 a.m.-1:18 p.m.). (Id.)
47. Ronald Embry is employed by the MDOC as an Assistant Resident Unit Supervisor (ARUS) in 8-Block at Parnall. (Id. at 81-82.) He has been assigned to Block 8 for five years. (Id.) Embry has supervisory responsibilities over the RUOs and reports to a Resident Unit Manager (RUM). (Id.) His working hours are 8:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m., with the exception of Mondays when his hours are 11:00 a.m.-7:30 p.m. (Id.)
48. William Denman is currently employed as the RUM for Block 7. (Id. at 103.) He has held his current position since December 2004. Previously, he was the RUM at Blocks 1, 2 and 3 for over 11 years. (Id.)
49. Robert Hughes was, at the time of hearing, a prisoner incarcerated within the MDOC. (Tr. 326-28.) He was housed in Block 1 (the Reception Center) at the time of a fire in his housing unit in December 2004. (Id.) At the time of the fire, his movement was slowed because he uses a wheelchair due to paralysis. (Id.)
50. Donald Donaldson was, at the time of hearing, a prisoner incarcerated within the MDOC. (Tr. 339-40.) He was housed in Block 10 at the time of a fire in his housing unit in March 2005. (Id.)
51. Ronald Kovaleski was, at the time of hearing, a prisoner incarcerated within the MDOC. (Tr. 345-46.) He is a Plaintiff representative in the action and has testified on prior occasions. He provided testimony about fire
5

Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
drills and evacuation procedures at Block 8. (Id.)
III. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF BLOCKS
A. BLOCKS 1, 2 AND 3 52. The cells in Blocks 1-3 are arranged back-to-back in the center of the block and face the outer walls. (See Pls.’ Ex. 23.)
53. Blocks 1-3 are approximately 276 feet long by 59 feet wide by 42 feet high. (2002 Findings ¶ 1387.)
54. The ceiling height in Blocks 1-3 is 51 feet. (Id. ¶ 1398.)
55. There are also 16 cells for the disabled and 24 quarantine cells in Block 1. The quarantine cells have solid doors with a food slot and must be individually unlocked. Some of the cells for the disabled are singles; others are doubles. (Tr. 26-27, 222, 249-50, & 329.)
56. Cell Block 1 contains a series of observation or quarantine and handicapped cells located at base level. (Id. at 26.) These cells need to be key released by an officer. (Id. at 27.) The quarantine cells have solid fronts, but do not protect against smoke inhalation. (Id.) The rest of the cells on the base level and all of the cells on the first through fourth galleries have open fronts and may be released remotely by the breaker bar at each end of the gallery. However the locking mechanisms have been frequently broken. The diagram of the cell blocks is depicted at Defendants’ Exhibit 2.
*9 57. The MDOC has raised the rail heights in the cell blocks from 36 to 48 inches by adding a third rail and additional vertical railings in each gallery. (Id. at 43.)
58. Cell Blocks 1, 2 and 3 have been fully sprinkled by adding sprinklers to the attic, basement, and end spaces of the cell blocks. (Id. at 44.)
59. Defendants represented that loose laundry combustibles that had been stored at the ends of Cell Blocks 1, 2 and 3 were removed. (Id.) However, at the time of Plaintiffs’ expert tour on March 18, 2005, there was a pile of laundry in a laundry bin near the laundry room in Block 8. The laundry pile was approximately three feet by six feet by four feet. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 19-20.)
B. BLOCK 7 60. Block 7 is a five-story open structure with five tiers of open-front cells on either outside wall facing each other across an open common area. It is 362 feet long by 59 feet wide by 51 feet high. The block contains approximately

19,000 square feet. (2002 Findings ¶ 1388.) A diagram of the cell block is depicted in Defendants’ Exhibit 2.
61. The galleries are about three feet wide and have a pinch point, a narrowing of the gallery, to 20 or 24 inches wide. (Tr. 252; Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 16 & 18.)
62. The atrium in Block 7 has fixed chairs and tables. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 14; Tr. 252.)
63. The MDOC has raised the rail heights in the cell blocks from 36 to 48 inches by adding a third rail and additional vertical railings in each gallery. (Tr. 43.)
64. Cell Block 7 has been fully sprinkled by adding sprinklers to the attic, basement, and end spaces of the cell blocks. (Id. at 44.)
65. The replacement bedding under the officer’s station has also been removed. (Id. at 45.)
66. Ms. Ferguson testified that fixed seats in restaurants and courtrooms were examples of furniture arrangements that provided defined aisles. (Tr. 284.) One area of Block 7’s atrium contains fixed seats and tables. (Id.)
C. BLOCK 8 67. Block 8 of Parnall is approximately 287 feet long by 51 feet high. (2002 Findings ¶ 1185.) Like Block 7, Block 8 is a five-story open structure with five tiers of cells on either outside wall facing each other across an open common area. (Id. ¶¶ 1185 & 1388.)
68. The galleries in Block 8 are also between 30 and 36 inches wide and have pinch points at the center of each which measure 24 inches wide. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 16, 18.)
69. Parnall Cell Block 8 cells are all open front cells that can be opened electronically from the end of the galleries and from the control center, in addition to being able to be unlocked by the officer’s key. A diagram is provided at Defendants’ Exhibit 2.
70. The MDOC has raised the rail heights in the cell blocks from 36 to 48 inches by adding a third rail and vertical railings in each gallery. (Tr. 43.)
71. Cell Block 8 has been fully sprinkled by adding sprinklers to the attic, basement, and end spaces of the cell blocks. (Id. at 44.)
*10 72. The loose laundry combustibles that had been stored at the ends of Cell Block 8 were removed; and a one-hour rated, fire-door laundry room in 8 Block has been completed. (Id.)
6

Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
D. THE SMT/SMI METAL FURNITURE FACTORY 73. This building has a walk-in basement level and two upper floors. There is no fire safety issue on the basement level. In one end of the first floor, there is a painting operation. As part of that operation, xylene is used to clean the paint equipment. It is stored in multiple 55-gallon drums in a locked metal cage. The cage is ventilated to the outside by a 16 inch fan. Plaintiffs contended that the drums should have be grounded and bonded as well as surrounded by industrial fire safety walls. Defendants represented in a post-hearing brief that after the May 5-6, 2005 hearing, they have grounded and bonded the xylene drums. (Defs.’ Proposed Finding ¶ 66.) Plaintiffs also contended that the drums should be sealed around the hand pumping equipment in the top of the drums. Defendants also represented in a post-hearing brief that after the hearing, they applied and installed seals on the drums. (Id.)
74. On the second floor of the metal furniture factory there is another lockable metal cage area where several 55-gallon drums of mineral spirits used for lubrication and cleaning are stored. The parties disagreed whether additional modifications are required in the metal furniture factory with regard to the storage and handling of the xylene and mineral spirits. Mr. DiMascio testified that the metal factory lacks a proper chemical storage and dispensing area, meaning the area is not surrounded by sufficient fire safety walls for flammable industrial uses given the quantity of chemicals. (Tr. 312.) In their post-hearing brief, Defendants represented that “The same issues described for the xylene barrels have been resolved in the same way for the mineral spirits barrels.” (Defs.’ Proposed Findings ¶ 66.)
IV. PRISONER CHARACTERISTICS
A. EGELER
1. CLASSIFICATION 75. The Egeler Correctional Facility is now the reception center for all male prisoners.
76. PD 04.01.150 Reception Center Services, effective February 14, 2005, governs the processing of prisoners into the facility and preparing those prisoners for transfer to their first permanent location. (Pls.’ Ex. 6.)
77. Prisoners arriving in Egeler are treated as Level V prisoners for purposes of personal property, Defs.’ Ex. 4, and state issue property, Defs.’ Ex. 3. This is significantly less property than prisoners in Egeler possessed in 2002 when Egeler was a Level II general population prison. (Tr. 104-05.)

78. Prisoners arriving at Egeler and not receiving immediate placement in the hospital or Unit C, are placed in Blocks 1, 2 or 3.
79. Block 1 contains a group of cells on Base on the south side that are called quarantine cells. These cells are used for segregation and for prisoners with medical problems. Suicidal prisoners are commonly housed there. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 7-8.)
*11 80. After the prisoner’s initial health screening and classification, they move to Block 7 to await transfer to their regular housing assignment in another facility.
81. Information gained through the intake history and physical examination is relevant to making housing decisions. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 32.)
82. Prisoners frequently do not provide their history or receive their physicals for 15 days. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 32-33; Pls.’ Ex. 5 at 3.)
83. On average, 243 prisoners enter the reception process at Egeler each week. (Pls.’ Ex. 46 at 5.)
84. Defendants estimate that healthy prisoners without special needs are transferred from Egeler within 30 days. (Pls.’ Ex. 46 at 5.) Policy provides that intake processing shall normally be completed within four weeks of arrival at Egeler. (Pls.’ Ex. 6 at 7.)
85. Prisoners with serious health problems who remain for more than 30 days are typically housed in Block 7. (Tr. 218; Pls.’ Ex. 46 at 5; Pls.’ Ex. 7B.)
2. HEALTH CHARACTERISTICS 86. It is a persistent characteristic of these Hadix facilities that they involve a relatively high percentage of infirm prisoners. (See ¶ 402 infra.)
87. The prisoners arriving as new commitments and as parole violators come in with a mix of health characteristics. As prisoners are health screened, some of them are listed in the MDOC’s HC-251 and/or HC-261 reports. HC-251 lists prisoners who are eligible for a special accommodation. HC-261 lists prisoners who are assigned to a chronic care clinic. (Defs.’ Exs. 21, 24, 25 & 26.)
88. Prisoners are much more likely than would be members of the general public to meet the criteria for enrollment in a chronic care clinic. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 34-35.)
89. With minor exceptions, a prisoner must have a serious 7

Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
medical condition to qualify for enrollment in a chronic care clinic. For example, the criteria for enrollment in the Cardiac Chronic Care Clinic are cardiomyopathy, coronary artery disease, dysrhythmia or cardiac arrhythmia, congestive heart failure, valvular heart disease, peripheral vascular disease or other circulatory diseases. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 35-37.) The enrollment is not affected by medication which controls the condition.
90. All of these are serious diseases in that they are potentially life-threatening and entail a high rate of morbidity, even though individual cases vary in their degree of severity. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 37.)
91. Most of these diagnoses require medical monitoring, attention to vital signs and medical history, attention to weight, and attention to laboratory data. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 38.)
92. Most of the people in the chronic care clinics are on medication and have one or more significant disorder requiring continual monitoring, medication and treatment. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 146-47.)
93. Ms. Hladki, in her testimony, cautioned that one should not attempt to reach conclusions based on the information in the HC-251 and HC-261 alone regarding the qualitative state of a prisoner’s health condition. (Tr. 118-20.) Ms. Hladki referred to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 38, which represented a compilation of those prisoners who have been identified on the April 5, 2005 HC-251 and HC-261 forms. This listing was also correlated with the prisoners’ lock locations. However, Ms. Hladki stated on cross examination that the H-251 forms do contain a level of function evaluation. (Tr. 124.)
*12 94. Under the Department’s chronic care clinic system, a person with hypertension would be assigned a chronic care clinic. (Tr. 126.) This same person would most likely be identified as “at risk of heat-related illness” and therefore be on the HC-251 list. (Id.) Treatment of the condition by medication would not affect either the clinic assignment or the prisoner’s “heat-related illness” status. (Id.) A prisoner’s inclusion on the HC-251 is not always indicative of a mobility problem. However, there has never been evidence that the health care system has enrolled people in chronic care clinics unnecessarily; rather the system has historically failed to enroll persons who should be enrolled, and failed to assure continuity of medications for persons with chronic diseases, including hypertension. (See 2002 Findings ¶ ¶ 83-102.)
95. Approximately 20 percent of the population in Egeler is enrolled in a chronic care clinic. This percentage does not include those persons who have yet to receive their history and physical, and therefore have yet to be evaluated for enrollment. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 32-33; Pls.’ Ex. 46 at 5.)

96. In light of the fact that physicals are frequently not completed until the prisoner’s fifteenth day in Egeler, and that Defendants estimate the average stay in Egeler at 30 days, the percentage of prisoners who qualify for a chronic care clinic could be higher. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 98.)
97. Parole violators who have been out of prison for one year or less do not receive new history and physical examinations. The policy that excludes parolees returning to prison within a year from the requirement of a new history and physical has no exception for parolees who report new diseases, or who have abnormal vital signs. (Pls.’ Ex. 5 at 3.)
98. The only health appraisal required by policy for parolees returning to prison within a year does not include any physical examination beyond the collection of vital signs and a dental screening and examination. (Pls.’ Ex. 5 at 3-4.)
99. Medical conditions that require diagnosis and treatment sometimes go untreated because new histories and physicals are not provided to all prisoners, particularly in light of the high level of disease in the Hadix population. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 24.)
100. New prisoners frequently do not receive their history and physical until the prisoners are almost half-way through their stay in Egeler which means that, at any given time, there are a large number of prisoners whose degree of health risk in the event of a fire has not been fully determined. (See Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 98.)
101. Ms. Ferguson and Dr. Walden reviewed Defendants’ data reported in Defendants’ Monthly Report of Prisoners Disabilities and Accommodations (HC-251), the Service Area Clinic Reports (HC-261), and the location reports for prisoners at both the Egeler (Pls.’ Ex. 39) and Parnall facilities (Pls.’ Ex. 40). (Tr. 258-59; Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 20-21.)
*13 102. The HC-251 is commonly called the accommodation report. It lists the prisoner’s name, number, diagnoses based on a functional assessment, and the listing of the special accommodations provided to each prisoner. Each of the individually-based assessments and treatment decisions are entered into the a database reflecting the medical determinations made at various points in the process. These data are generated in a monthly report, the HC-251. (Tr. 259.)
103. Associated with each disability description in the HC-251 is a code for “Level of Functioning.” The codes are: I (independent), A (needs assistance), and D (dependent). (Pls.’ Ex. 17.)
104. The HC-251 lists only chronic or permanent 8

Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
accommodations. For conditions that last six months or less, medical details are used instead. (Tr. 260.)
105. Every prisoner in a facility is listed on the HC-251, whether or not they have a disability or accommodation. (Id.)
106. In contrast, not every prisoner is listed on the HC-261, the Chronic Care Clinic report, which is limited to prisoners enrolled in one of the seven chronic care clinics. (Id. at 260-61.)
107. Each clinic list contains the names and numbers of the prisoners assigned to that chronic care clinic and the most significant three diagnoses for which they were seen in the most recent visit, so that review of the HC-261 provides a sense of the reasons for enrollment in the chronic care clinic. (Id.)
108. Despite the limited information available and the fact that many prisoners in Egeler at any given time have not received a full health review, Dr. Walden identified 38 prisoners who were likely to be at heightened risk in a fire but not housed on Base. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 47-64; see also Pls.’ Exs. 37 & 39; Pls.’ Proposed Findings, Attach. A.)
109. The prisoners Dr. Walden identified included eight housed on Fourth Gallery and nine on Third Gallery of one of the Egeler cellblocks. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 47-64; see also Pls.’ Exs. 37 & 39.)
110. The 38 Egeler prisoners identified by Dr. Walden included a patient who had been noted by Defendants to have a level of functioning requiring assistance by virtue of his HIV infection. An HIV infection would not by itself constitute a mobility impairment. All of the other Egeler prisoners identified by Dr. Walden had been diagnosed by Defendants with either respiratory or cardiac disease, or both. In the majority of cases, these prisoners carried additional diagnoses that Dr. Walden also considered in making his determinations. Among the prisoners identified were prisoners with a visual or hearing impairment, or both.6 (160657 & 192354 (both), 197427 (visual impairment, level of functioning classified as requiring assistance)). Dr Walden also identified prisoners with restrictions on their ability to stand (217074, housed on fourth gallery), or medical orders that had not been followed to house the prisoner on base (248988, housed on third gallery; 278398, 391369 and 525249 housed on fourth gallery; see also 309953, medical order for no heights but housed on second gallery). Prisoner 251306, although not on Dr. Walden’s list, was housed on the fourth gallery despite having cardiac and circulatory problems that Defendants classified as a level of functioning needing assistance. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 52-54, 58, 60-61, 63-64; see also Pls.’ Exs. 37 & 39.)

*14 111. Ms. Ferguson, in consultation with Dr. Walden, developed five categories of conditions that could lead to difficulties during a fire evacuation. These categories are as follows: difficulty with mobility; breathing; strength and endurance; vision and hearing impairments; or mental or behavioral issues. (Tr. 261.)
112. The categories Ms. Ferguson developed are consistent with the criteria for enrollment in the Disabilities Chronic Care Clinic. In order to be enrolled in that clinic, a prisoner must have at least one of the following diagnoses, functional impairments or structural problems: • Paraplegia, limb amputations, wheelchair-dependent for mobility, history of skin grafts or flap to buttocks or other pressure areas;
• Individuals requiring assistance with daily living due to body control problems;
• Individuals who require mobility devices for activities of daily living;
• Loss of visual or auditory function which affects activities of daily living;
• History of resolved/cured pressure ulcers;
• Diagnosed neuromuscular diseases such as Multiple Sclerosis or Parkinson’s, which result in a functional deficiency;
• Paralysis of any extremity;
• Any physical or body area impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities;
• Unresolved or fluctuating accommodation needs;
• Patients whose physical functional disability limits participation in services, programs and/or activities; or
• Brain injury.
(Pls.’ Ex. 34B at 2.)
113. Ms. Ferguson also considered Defendants’ training material for preparation of the HC-251 and related forms. Those materials include a definition of respiratory disease, which would tend to indicate a compromised ability to walk or climb stairs. (Pls.’ Ex. 17 at 7.)
114. Ms. Ferguson considered Defendants’ criteria for determining that a prisoner is at high risk for heat-related injury. The entire set of criteria is as follows: enrollment in the cardiovascular or pulmonary chronic care clinic; over 65 years of age; undergoing renal dialysis; pregnant;
9

Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

or confined to a wheelchair. (Defs.’ Ex. 35 at 2 (OP-03.04.100-E (5/21/01))) (May 2002 hearing record.)
115. Based on Ms. Ferguson’s functional categories as informed by the enrollment criteria for the disabilities and respiratory chronic care clinics and the heat risk criteria, Ms. Ferguson identified 258 data entries indicating prisoners who would have difficulty with mobility, breathing, strength and endurance, or following directions out of the Egeler population of 1445 prisoners. (Pls.’ Ex. 37; Tr. 261, 262-63; Pls.’ Ex. 39C at 57.)
116. At least 34 of the 258 prisoners identified at Egeler have respiratory conditions that impair their walking 100 yards or one flight of stairs. Twenty-two of these were placed on First Gallery (second floor) or above. (Pls.’ Ex. 37 at 1.)
117. At least nine of the 258 prisoners identified are coded as “LOF A” (level of functioning: needs assistance); three of these were placed on First Gallery or above. (Pls.’ Ex. 37 at 1.) There may be other such prisoners because these calculations were based on incomplete screening data. (Tr. 264; Pls.’ Ex. 37.)

the very reasons they have been placed on Base. (Pls.’ Ex. 37 at 1.) Many such prisoners have significant impairments and will probably be released last of all in the event of a fire. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 67-68, 78.)
119. Ms. Ferguson identified 60 prisoners at Egeler at risk for heat-related illness. (Tr. 264; Pls.’ Ex. 37 at 1.)
120. Ms. Ferguson identified 17 prisoners at Egeler as placement mistakes. For these, the HC-251, prepared by medical staff, notes prisoners in need of ground floor housing (Base) who were not housed on Base, which is evident from the prisoners’ location. (Tr. 264; Pls.’ Ex. 37 at 1.)
121. Ms. Ferguson identified 16 prisoners at Egeler with asthma or chronic airway obstruction who are not listed on the HC-251 with respiratory disease, and who were placed on First Gallery or above. (Pls.’ Ex. 37 at 1.)
122. Of the prisoners at Egeler, 20 percent, or 292, are enrolled in chronic care clinics, as follows:

	  
*15 118. Ninety-eight of the 258 prisoners identified at Egeler were on Base and would have difficulty exiting for

Egeler	  Chronic	  Care	  Clinic	  (“CCC”)	  Enrollment	  Data	  04/05/05	  

	  	  

	  

Cardiac/HTN	  Clinic	  

66	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

Diabetic	  Clinic	  

2	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

Disability	  Clinic	  

42	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

Endocrine	  Disorder	  Clinic	  

28	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

Gastrointestinal	  Clinic	  

37	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

Generic	  Clinic	  

0	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

Hep	  C	  Clinic	  

20	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

Infectious	  Disease	  Clinic	  

15	  

10

Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
	  	   	   Neurologic	  Disorder	  Clinic	   	  	   	   Pulmonary	  Clinic	   	  	   	   All	  CCCs	   	  	   	  
(Tr. 264; Pls.’ Ex. 37 at 29.)
123. Fifty prisoners identified at Egeler had respiratory conditions that could put them at risk in a fire. That is about the same percentage as shown in national studies. (Tr. 264-65.)
124. After eliminating duplicates resulting from prisoners who had more than one problem in exiting, Ms. Ferguson identified 199 prisoners, or fourteen (14%) percent of the population at Egeler, who are at significantly elevated risk of harm in a fire or emergency evacuation in comparison to the norm. (Id. at 265.)
125. Of the 199 prisoners, 144 would need extra time to travel across the gallery, down the steps, and out the doors. (Tr. 268.)
126. There are prisoners in wheelchairs confined in Block 1. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 11.)
3. POTENTIAL IMPAIRMENTS TO FIRE PROTECTION AND EGRESS 127. Prisoners with physical problems, including orthopedic problems, neurological problems, cardiac problems, pulmonary problems, diabetics, persons with HIV, the mentally ill, and persons with communicative disabilities or lack of English would have particular difficulties in evacuating the cellblocks. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 25-26.)
128. Prisoners at a reception center are entering very unfamiliar surroundings, and can be bewildered and uncertain. (Tr. 219.)
129. Staff report that there are not enough base level cells available for prisoners who require such housing for health reasons, and that it can take a month or more for a prisoner with a medical need for base level housing to be

	  	   	   14	   	  	   	   68	   	  	   	   292	   	  	   	  
moved to base from another gallery. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 13.)
*16 130. Defendants estimate that approximately six prisoners for whom English is a second language go through the classification process each month. (Pls.’ Ex. 46 at 8.)
131. Prisoners going through the reception process at Egeler sometimes do not understand that they are expected to open the door to their cell when they hear the fire alarm, i.e. they wait for the doors to be opened. (Pls.’ Ex. 21A at 034.)
B. PARNALL
1. CLASSIFICATION 132. Prisoners in Parnall are classified as Level I, the lowest level of custody. (Tr. 95.)
133. The prisoners in Block 8 are considered general population prisoners even if they are enrolled in a chronic care clinic. (Id. at 243.)
134. Their cell doors are open most of the day. (Id. at 92.)
135. The prisoners leave their cells and the block for the cafeteria, job assignments, law library, health care, visits and yard recreation.
2. HEALTH CHARACTERISTICS 136. In Block 8, Dr. Walden identified 58 prisoners who were likely to be at heightened risk during a fire but were not housed on the ground level. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 68-80; see also Pls.’ Exs. 38, 40; Pls.’ Proposed Findings, Attach. B.)
137. The prisoners identified included ten housed on fourth gallery and 15 housed on third gallery. (Pls.’ Ex.
11

Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

3B at 68-80; see also Pls.’ Exs. 38 & 40.)
138. The great majority of the 58 prisoners identified by Dr. Walden had been diagnosed with either respiratory or cardiac disease, or both. In the majority of cases, these prisoners carried additional diagnoses. Among the prisoners identified were 124266, with lumbar disc displacement and pelvic displacement, noted by Defendants to have an orthopedic deformity classified as requiring assistance; 135363, also with an orthopedic deformity classified as requiring assistance, in addition to diabetes, respiratory disease, limitations on lifting, and HIV infection; 147207, with cardiac disease classified as requiring assistance among other diagnoses; 157121, with cardiac and respiratory disease, noted to require permanent air conditioning among his unusual accommodations; 164755, with both visual and hearing impairments classified as requiring assistance; 166484, with cardiac disease classified as rendering him disabled, yet is housed on Second Gallery; 166760, with both cardiac disease and chronic airway obstruction (emphysema), as well as a visual impairment classified as requiring assistance; 265113, with glaucoma and a hearing impairment classified as requiring assistance, who is noted as having communication difficulties, yet is housed on Fourth Gallery; 303611, with cardiac disease classified as requiring assistance as well as diabetes and obesity; 368151, with acquired traumatic brain injury and visual impairment classified as requiring assistance but is housed on Third Gallery; 466500, with an orthopedic deformity, cardiac disease and respiratory disease, as well as a visual impairment classified as requiring assistance yet is housed on Fourth Gallery. Prisoner 516312, identified by Dr. Walden, would be attempting to descend stairs with the help of crutches or a cane. Pursuant to Defendants’ health care policy, he should have a medical order for base level housing but apparently does not. He is housed on Fourth Gallery. Further, Prisoners 127748 (Third Gallery), 135363 and 271651 (Third Gallery), 316603 and 423321 (Fourth Gallery), 466500 (Fourth Gallery), and 516312 (First Gallery) have medical orders for base housing but are not housed on the base level. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 69, 71-74, 77, 80.)

140. There were 351 prisoners in Block 8 as of 2002; for all of Parnall, Blocks 8, 9 and 10, there were 1023 prisoners. (Pls.’ Ex. 38 at 24.)
141. At least 30 of the 174 prisoners identified in Block 8 have respiratory conditions that impair their walking 100 yards or one flight of stairs, based on Defendants’ health care criteria. Twenty-two of these prisoners were placed on First Gallery (the second floor) or above. (Pls.’ Ex. 38 at 1; Tr. 266.)
142. At least 26 of the 174 prisoners identified in Block 8 have visual or hearing impairments that may interfere with their hearing or visually following directions. Defendants coded these 26 prisoners “LOF: A” (needs assistance). Twenty of these prisoners were placed on first gallery or above. (Pls.’ Ex. 38 at 1; Tr. 266.)
143. Fifty-five of the 174 prisoners identified in Block 8 were on the base level. They will have difficulty exiting for the very reasons they have been placed on base. (Pls.’ Ex. 38 at 1.)
144. One Hundred Twelve of the 174 prisoners identified in Block 8 are listed as at risk for heat-related illness. (Pls.’ Ex. 38 at 1.)
145. Ten of the 174 prisoners identified in Block 8 have asthma or chronic airway obstruction, but are not listed on the HC-251 with respiratory disease, and were placed on First Gallery or above. (Pls.’ Ex. 38 at 1.)
146. Seven of the 174 prisoners identified in Block 8 are noted as “placement mistakes” in the Table “comments” column. Staff had identified these prisoners in the HC-251 as in need of ground floor housing, but they were housed at some other level by custody staff. (Pls.’ Ex. 38 at 1; Tr. 266.)
147. Sixty-five percent of the total Parnall population are enrolled in chronic care clinics and nearly half of them are either in the cardiac or pulmonary chronic care clinic. (Tr. 266; Pls.’ Ex. 38 at 24.)

*17 139. Ms. Ferguson applied the same analytic methods she used in Egeler to Block 8 of the Parnall Facility (Pls.’ Ex. 40). Her findings are summarized in a table of 174 data entries identifying prisoners who would have difficulty with mobility, breathing, strength and endurance, or following directions. (Pls.’ Ex. 38; Tr. 265.)

148. There are 663 prisoners at Parnall who are enrolled in a chronic care clinic, as follows (Pls.’ Ex. 38 at 24; Pls.’ Ex. 40B.):
	  

Parnall	  Chronic	  Care	  Clinic	  Enrollment	  Data	  04/05/05	  

	  	  

	  

Cardiac/HTN	  Clinic	  

222	  

	  	  

	  	  

12

Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
	   Diabetic	  Clinic	   	  	   	   Disability	  Clinic	   	  	   	   Endocrine	  Disorder	  Clinic	   	  	   	   Gastrointestinal	  Clinic	   	  	   	   Generic	  Clinic	   	  	   	   Hep	  C	  Clinic	   	  	   	   Infectious	  Disease	  Clinic	   	  	   	   Neurologic	  Disorder	  Clinic	   	  	   	   Pulmonary	  Clinic	   	  	   	   All	  CCCs	   	  	   	  
149. Forty of the 174 prisoners identified in Block 8 have respiratory conditions that would put them at risk, more than double the percentage in national studies. (Pls.’ Ex. 38 at 1; Tr. 266.)
150. After eliminating duplicates resulting from prisoners who had more than one problem in exiting, Ms. Ferguson identified 160 prisoners in Block 8 as having conditions that could lead to difficulties in exiting and are at significant risk of harm in fire or emergency evacuation. That figure is 46 percent of the prisoners in Block 8. (Tr. 267; Pls.’ Ex. 38.)
*18 151. Of those 160 prisoners in Block 8, 103 would require extra time to travel along the galleries, down the steps and out the doors. (Tr. 268.)

	   1	   	  	  
	   49	  
	  	   	   112	   	  	   	   59	   	  	   	   9	   	  	   	   65	   	  	   	   33	   	  	   	   28	   	  	   	   88	   	  	   	   663	   	  	   	  
152. In Block 8, prisoners who are identified as being at risk of heat-related illness are asked to sign written waivers in order to maintain their housing assignments. (Pls.’ Ex. 36.) A typical waiver (Pls.’ Ex. 36A-1) reads as follows: You have been identified as being at risk of heat related illness. As such, an effort will be made to house you on the Base or First Gallery. If necessary, you may be moved to another housing unit to accommodate a low cell placement.
If you believe it is not necessary for you to be placed on a lower gallery and would like to remain in your currently assigned cell, you may sign in the indicated position below.
I choose to remain in my currently assigned cell.
13

Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
153. Ms. Ferguson performed a comparison of the prisoners in Block 8 who signed such cell placement waivers in the year 2004 (Pls.’ Ex. 36A-1) to their health data reported in the HC-251s (Pls.’ Ex. 36A-2) and HC-261s (Pls.’ Exs. 36A-3, 36A-4). The results are shown in a table of 36 prisoners. (Pls.’ Ex. 36A; Tr. 267.)
154. Thirty-six cell placement waivers were signed by Block 8 prisoners in the months from May to September, 2004. (Pls.’ Ex. 36A at 1.)
155. Each of the 36 prisoners who signed cell placement waivers in 2004 was still at the Parnall Facility as of November 2, 2004. (Pls.’ Ex. 36A at 1.)
156. Six of the 36 prisoners who signed cell placement waivers in 2004 have respiratory conditions that impair their walking 100 yards or one flight of stairs. (Pls.’ Ex. 36A at 1.)
157. Seven of the 36 prisoners who signed cell placement waivers in 2004 have visual or hearing impairments that may interfere with their hearing or visually following directions. All seven are coded “A” (needs assistance). (Pls.’ Ex. 36A at 1.)
158. Nine of the 36 prisoners who signed cell placement waivers in 2004 are listed as at risk for heat-related illness and have no description of a disability on the HC-251, but are enrolled in a clinic on the HC-261. Of these, six are in the cardiac chronic care clinic. (Pls.’ Ex. 36A at 1.)
159. Ms. Ferguson performed a similar analysis for 42 prisoners who were asked to sign cell placement waivers in Block 8 in April 2005. This analysis was combined with the corresponding analysis for 2004 to provide a comprehensive table. (Pls.’ Ex. 36B; Tr. 267.)
160. Of the prisoners in Block 8 who signed cell placement waivers in 2004 or 2005, 55 were in Block 8 in April 2005. Seven prisoners from Exhibit 36A are not listed on the HC-251 for April 2005. One prisoner from Exhibit 36A (175733) moved to a cell on First Gallery. One prisoner (224533) is listed on Fourth Gallery in an April 2005 report, but no signed waiver was provided by Defendants. (Pls.’ Ex. 36B at 1; Defs.’ Ex. 28.)
161. Of those prisoners in Block 8 in April 2005 who signed waivers, seven have respiratory conditions that impair their walking 100 yards or one flight of stairs. (Pls.’ Ex. 36B at 1.)
*19 162. Of those prisoners in Block 8 in April 2005 who signed waivers, nine have visual or hearing impairments that may interfere with their hearing or visually following directions. These nine prisoners are coded “A” (needs

assistance). (Pls.’ Ex. 36B at 1.)
163. Fourteen prisoners in the combined group who signed cell placement waivers in 2004 and 2005 are listed as at risk for heat-related illness and have no description of disability on the HC-251. Six of these are enrolled in the Cardiac Chronic Care Clinic, and three are not listed in any chronic care clinic. (Pls.’ Ex. 36B at 1.)
164. In view of the risks to these prisoners and others in a fire or an emergency evacuation, Ms. Ferguson recommended that these prisoners should not be asked to sign a waiver of this medical accommodation. (Tr. 268; Pls.’ Ex. 36.)
165. Exiting down five stories utilizing open stairways is not safe, particularly in a fire under smokey conditions with floors possibly wet and slippery from sprinklers. (2002 Findings ¶ 1290.)
166. Given that in Parnall 60 percent of the population have serious health problems, there are a number of prisoners who will take their time going down stairs. The stairs would be the only means of evacuation. Because stairs will be the only means to reach an exit, a panic would likely ensue in the event of a serious fire. This is a potentially life-threatening situation. (Tr. 232-33.)
167. If there were a fire, a cell door that would not open would pose a life-threatening situation to the prisoner in the cell, particularly for a prisoner with health problems. (Tr. 232.)
168. An advantage of constructing a smoke compartment is that it would address the security staff’s hesitancy (i.e., to avoid security risks and dangers of riot) to releasing prisoners from a prison block during an emergency. If there is an exit to an adjacent smoke compartment, the option to evacuate is more likely to be used. (Tr. 321-22.)
169. Sixty percent of prisoners in Block 8 are enrolled in a chronic care clinic, a rate of disease that is radically higher than the rate one would expect in the general population. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 83.)
170. For a period of time shortly before hearing, there was a prisoner in Block 8 confined to a wheelchair. At the time of hearing, Block 8 housed a prisoner on crutches. (Tr. 117.)
171. As of May 5, 2005, there were no prisoners in a wheelchair housed in Cell Block 8. (Tr. 86.)
172. Parnall is not designated as a wheel chair accessible facility. (Tr. 118.)
173. Everyone on the base level in Block 8 has a physical limitation that requires their housing at that level. (Tr. 80.)
14

Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
174. A prisoner in general population, even if identified on the HC-251 and/or HC-261 as being in a chronic care clinic, is generally able to walk to the cafeteria, to the prison store, to classes, to a job assignment, and otherwise function while incarcerated. (Tr. 244.)
3. POTENTIAL IMPAIRMENTS TO FIRE PROTECTION AND EGRESS *20 175. The large number of prisoners with chronic diseases in Parnall results in significant and unusually high numbers of persons who may be unable to evacuate from the cellblock at a normal speed, and whose difficulties might also impair the evacuation of other prisoners. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 25-26; Tr. 256.)
V. OPERATIONAL AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS, INCLUDING FIRE SAFETY PROVISIONS
A. RISK FACTORS AND CONDITIONS 176. According to Defendants’ evacuation diagram of the base level of Block 7, if prisoners evacuate from the mid-point of Fourth Gallery and travel in opposite directions, they must travel 246 feet to the farthest exit. (Pls.’ Ex. 27 at 006.)
177. According to Defendants’ evacuation diagram of Fourth Gallery of Block 8, if prisoners in Block 8 evacuate from the midpoint of Fourth Gallery of the block and travel in opposite directions, they must travel 258 feet to the farthest exit. (Pls.’ Ex. 27 at 008.)
178. The total distance a prisoner must travel to exit is over 200 feet in all cellblocks. (Tr. 193.)
179. There are only two officers in each side of the housing units during the night shift, which places the population at extreme risk in a serious fire situation. The staffing level on the night shift has been reduced from three to two per side of the cellblock. (Tr. 221-22.) However, there may be additional staff who could respond to fire emergencies from other cell blocks and the control center.
180. Prisoners are at greatest risk at night when they must be awakened before they can be evacuated. (Tr. 222.)
181. Defendants’ staff admitted that a fire at night would result in a longer evacuation time because those in need of evacuation would be sleepy. (Tr. 69.)
182. On the night shift, the Resident Unit Manager and other non-custody staff are not likely to be in the housing

unit. (Tr. 73.)
183. Even though some support staff can assist in the event of a fire emergency, to do so they must travel substantial distances, between 600-800 feet, to the facility. Back-up staff would have to travel to the control center to get extra emergency keys and then return a distance of 600-800 feet to assist in opening cells. (Tr. 222, 224; see also Pls.’ Exs. 25 & 26.) The time involved to obtain the keys may be from one to three minutes, and the time required to manually unlock all cells may be about two minutes per side. (Id.)
184. When prisoners arrive on base during an evacuation in Egeler, staff must open doors to let them out into the yard. (Tr. 226.)
185. There is not enough room to pass another person on the stairs in Block 7. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 16-17, 19.)
186. There is also not enough room to pass another person on the stairs or the pinch points in Block 8. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 16-17, 19.) It would be difficult to exit if someone were attempting to climb the stairs during exiting. (Tr. 98.)
187. The risks are not limited to the persons with a disability or other problem. If one of these prisoners fell, or had a condition that caused him to move more slowly than others, then other prisoners would be placed at increased risk of harm. (Tr. 256; see also Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 145.) However, this has not been a problem during fire drills and past evacuations.
*21 188. The stairs in all the cellblocks lack non-skid coverings and feel somewhat slippery. This is especially true of Block 1. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 9.)
189. The floor near the shower in Block 2 was, upon inspection, wet and slippery. If and when the sprinklers would go off, the water on the floor would be very slippery. The floors had similar composition in each of the housing units. (Tr. 251, 253.)
190. The gallery in Block 7 feels slippery, even when dry. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 16.)
191. The terrazzo floor in Block 7 is highly polished and a bit slippery. About a third of the open space in the atrium in Block 7 is occupied by square tables set at an angle that are bolted to the floor. There are about ten feet of unencumbered space on each side of the tables. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 14.)
192. Prisoners in Egeler undergoing the reception process are allowed to keep their personal legal property, which includes books, pleadings, documents and correspondence. Qualifying legal property is permitted without limitations in amount. In addition, prisoners in
15

Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
Egeler for reception processing are allowed religious items other than reading material, personal addresses, prescription glasses and medically necessary items. (Pls.’ Ex. 6 at 2; Pls.’ Ex. 19 at 3-4.) However, according to prison staff, prisoners in Egeler usually have minimal personal property with them during their residence at Egeler.
193. A number of prisoners at Egeler receive medical accommodations that would increase the fuel available in a fire. These accommodations7 include the following: cotton blanket (133045); cotton blanket (136057); mattress (136169); cotton blanket (152363); non-wool blanket (168576); extra sheet (190524); extra sheet (197090); extra pillow (200156); extra bedding (unspecified) (207303); extra sheet (220836); cotton blanket (231840); extra pillow (233507); sheets (234899); cotton blanket (245575); sheet (249428); extra pillow (257849); sheet (266171); cotton blanket (269530); sheet (271373); extra bedding (unspecified) (341839); sheet (361175); sheet (380243); blanket (449279); sheet (494020); and extra sheet (510124). (Pls.’ Ex. 39A.)
194. At the time of Plaintiffs’ expert tour on March 18, 2005, there was a pile of laundry in a laundry bin near the laundry room in Block 8. The laundry pile was approximately three feet by six feet by four feet. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 19-20.)
B. FIRE PROTECTION AND ALARM SYSTEMS 195. The MDOC’s policy on fire safety and Operating Procedures on Fire Control and Emergency Evacuation and Fire Department Response, Defendants’ Exhibits 4-9, outline the physical plant requirements and staff operational requirements.
196. MDOC policy requires that Mr. Fushi conduct annual inspections of the correctional facilities, including the housing units. (Tr. 16.) The last inspection of Egeler was in November 2004 and Parnall in May 2005. (Id.)
197. During his inspections, Mr. Fushi looks for any possible violations of the Life Safety Code and any changes that might negatively affect the fire safety and operation of the facility. (Id. at 17.) He also examines the facility to ensure its compliance with MDOC fire safety policy, both operationally and administratively. (Id.)
*22 198. Each sprinkler head activates individually. The sprinkler head is designed to activate when its heat sensor is exposed to a temperature of 135-265 Fahrenheit. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 12-13.)
199. In a fire in December 2004 that resulted in prisoner and staff injuries, the prisoner tampered with the sprinkler, and it did not activate. (Pls.’ Ex. 33A-8.)

However, that fire still did not spread to other cells and other than the prisoner who set the fire in his cell, there were no other prisoner injuries related to the fire.
200. It is not difficult to incapacitate a sprinkler. (Tr. 308.)
201. Recent fires in the cellblocks were not discovered by smoke detectors. The detectors may not always actually function in a manner that contributes to fire safety. (See Pls.’ Ex. 33A-2 at 006, 010, 012; Tr. 89, 341-43; Pls.’ Ex. 33B-1.) In one case, the fire was extinguished before enough smoke developed to set off the detectors.
202. Dr. DiMascio believes that a sprinkler in a cell where a fire has been set by a prisoner will resolve the problem if the sprinkler has not been compromised. (Id. at 308.) He also testified that it is not difficult to compromise a sprinkler, and that anyone with a working knowledge of a sprinkler could do so. (Tr. 303.)
203. In the case where the ceiling temperature in the cell above the cell fire reaches 175 degrees, the sprinkler (if operational and not compromised) would be triggered. (Id. at 318.)
C. UNLOCKING MECHANISMS 204. Within 8 Block, when the locks are working, there are three ways of unlocking the cells: 1) electronic release at the end of each gallery; 2) manual release at the end of each gallery; and 3) remote electronic release from a distant control center. (Id. at 62.)
205. The release mechanisms in Cell Blocks 1, 2 and 3 are all manual except for the gallery gates. (Id. at 69.) Cell doors in Blocks 1, 2 and 3 do not open automatically or electronically. The only electronic release operates on expanded metal gates at the end of each gallery. These doors are electronically opened from the control center only. A key lock is also provided on the end doors of each gallery with every officer having a key to open the doors manually in case of electronic failure. (Pls.’ Ex. 28; see also Pls.’ Ex. 46 at 9-10.)
206. The custody staff often have keys to unlock the cell blocks. (Id. at 71.) The “emergency keys” located in the control center are for the fire department. (Id.)
207. The gates at the end of the galleries are no longer locked or lockable in 8 Block. (Id. at 95-96.) The gates remain open all the time. (Id.)
208. Dr. Walden accepted a 7 Block officer’s explanation that it was quicker to manually release the prisoners from their cells than it was to use the remote electronic gang release. He also stated that in the event of a major fire,
16

Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
however, conditions in the cellblocks would rapidly deteriorate to the degree that staff would be unlikely to be able to unlock all cells manually. (Walden Dep. 90.)
*23 209. There are 20 breaker boxes in each cellblock in Blocks 1-3. These breaker boxes must be operated to unlock all the cells. Two of the breaker boxes are on each of the five levels on each side. Within each box, a breaker bar must be attached and then turned manually to open half the cells on that side of that level. (Tr. 223-24.)
210. The cell doors in Blocks 1-3 are opened in an emergency by a manual gang release at the end of each gallery. Each manual gang release breaker will open one-half of a gallery. Cell doors can also be opened manually by using a cell key to open each door one at a time. (Pls.’ Ex. 28; see also Pls.’ Ex. 46 at 9-10.)
211. Staff in Block 1 indicated that using the breaker bar to open the locks on each gallery individually might work as well or better than having the gallery locks opened from the control center. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 11-12.)
212. A fire drill report for Block 3 dated October 5, 2004 notes the following: “Several prisoners did not open their cell doors when brakes were thrown so had to be keyed out by the SCBA [self-contained breathing apparatus] teams. It appears that newer prisoners did not know if this was a fire drill or al[a]rm was for lockdown.” (Pls.’ Ex. 21A at 034.)
213. The usual process for opening cells doors in each of Blocks 1, 2 and 3 requires opening twenty separate breaker boxes on the galleries. The same process is required in Blocks 7 and 8. In Blocks 7 and 8, there are also electronic release mechanisms in a control center in a separate building that can open cell doors one at a time, or by sections. (Pls.’ Ex. 28; see also Pls.’ Ex. 46 at 9-10.)
214. Blocks 7 and 8 also resemble Blocks 1, 2 and 3 in having breaker box release systems that must be opened at 20 separate locations. In Blocks 7 and 8, however, there is a backup remote control release system. (Tr. 223.)
215. If manual release is necessary in Block 7 or 8, a lever in the control box at the end of each gallery must first be thrown to switch the electric release system off. A manual release lever must then be thrown at the end of each gallery to open a group of cell doors at a time. Individual cells can also be opened manually by using a “T” handle bar located in each control box. (Pls.’ Ex. 28; see also Pls.’ Ex. 46 at 9-10.)
216. The group override unlocking mechanism in Block 8 does not work when the cells are placed on the “closed mode;” even if it worked, it is potentially unsafe to have the only remote release system outside the block, given the delay in accessing the system. (Pls.’ Ex. 26 at 004.)

217. Neither the quarantine cells nor the cells for the disabled can be operated by the breaker bar system, but must be individually unlocked. (Tr. 223.)
218. The locking mechanisms frequently break down and fail to open cell doors and other cellblock locks. These lock failures involve both the doors of individual cells and locking mechanisms for groups of cells. (See generally Pls.’ Ex. 32.)
*24 219. Between January 1, 2004 and November 18, 2004, there were 18 locking mechanism failures affecting one or more cells in Block 1. At least two of these failures affected groups of cells. One of these failures was not repaired for 89 days. (Pls.’ Ex. 32 at 1; Pls.’ Ex. 30.)
220. Between January and November 2004 in Block 1 North, ten percent of all the locks were out of service, some for as long as two months; in Block 2 North, approximately 15 percent of all the locks were out of service. (Tr. 231-32; Pls.’ Ex. 30.)
221. Between January 1, 2004 and November 18, 2004, there were 39 locking mechanism failures affecting one or more cells in Block 2. At least 13 of these failures affected groups of cells. One of these failures was not repaired for 80 days. (Pls.’ Ex. 32 at 1-2; Pls.’ Ex. 30.) Defendants represent that these failures involve locks that fail to lock, and that there are no records of prisoners being locked in their cells and unable to be released.
222. Between January 1, 2004 and November 18, 2004, there were 49 locking mechanism failures affecting one or more cells in Block 3. Eighteen of these failures affected groups of cells. One of these failures was not repaired for 79 days. An outside door that would not unlock was not repaired for ten days. Three locking mechanisms affecting groups of cells were not repaired for over a month. (Pls.’ Ex. 32 at 2-3; Pls.’ Ex. 30.) Defendants represent that these failures involve locks that fail to lock, and that there are no records of prisoners being locked in their cells and unable to be released.
223. Defendants’ lock repair records for Block 7 are incomplete and contain too little information to evaluate. (Compare Pls.’ Ex. 30 at 15-17 to Pls.’ Ex. 30 at 1-14.) Moreover, Defendants’ fire drill records for Block 7 contain notes indicating that two locking mechanism failures were discovered during fire drills, but there is no entry in Defendants’ lock repair records indicating that any locking problem was reported on the date of the fire drills, or shortly following that date. (Compare Pls.’ Ex. 21A at 011, 021 to Pls.’ Ex. 30 at 15-17.) Therefore, a preponderance of the evidence suggests that Block 7 experiences locking mechanism problems at a rate similar to that of the other cellblocks.
17

Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
224. In the period January 1, 2004 to February 23, 2004, there were 22 locking mechanism failures affecting one or more cell in Block 8. Four of these failures affected groups of cells, and one failure affected all cells. One of these failures was not repaired for 103 days. (Pls.’ Exs. 32 at 4; Pls.’ Ex. 29.)
225. The severe problems with the locking systems are not new. A substantial number of the cell locking mechanisms did not work in 2002. (2002 Findings ¶ 1385.)
226. Curtis Pulitzer testified that in his experience, he has never seen a locking system as badly deteriorated as the system in Blocks 1-3 that was not replaced as a matter of course. (Tr. 232.)
D. FIRE DRILLS AND SIGNAGE *25 227. Fire drills are important to familiarize both staff and prisoners with the process of evacuation in a threatening situation. (Id. at 229-30.)
228. Only mock drills are conducted at night when there are the fewest number of staff. (Id. at 229.)
229. Mr. Fushi recently made recommendations regarding changes to the Egeler Facility’s operation of fire drills to provide greater consistency between shifts. (Id.)
230. Mr. Fushi opined that fire drills should be varied. (Id. at 18.) Ideally, during drills, you would start in the middle of the cell block and evacuate away from the center of the block. (Id.) However, the recommended approach is to practice alternative ways to evacuate. (Id.)
231. Mr. Fushi recommended revisions of all the evacuation diagrams in the cell blocks to better inform staff and prisoners. (Id. at 18-19.)
232. There is a fire drill report that is prepared after each fire drill. (Id.; Defs.’ Exs. 10 & 11.)
233. MDOC reports do not identify which fire drills involve actual prisoner evacuation. (Tr. 28-29.) To determine whether a particular drill involved actual prisoner evacuation, the log book would have to be examined. (Id. at 28.) It is also impossible to tell from the fire drill reports how many prisoners were in the housing unit at the time of the drill. (Id. at 206.) Likewise, one cannot discern from a drill report the number of prisoners housed in quarantine cells at the time of the drill. (Id. at 28-29.)
234. Necessary qualitative operational information is not contained in the evacuation reports other than a fire drill happened in a particular block. (Tr. 229.)

235. Since no drills are being done at night, the validity of the times shown in the reports in comparison to the time an actual evacuation would take is very questionable. (Tr. 230-31.) There are also conflicting interpretations of what the evacuation times recorded in the fire drills refer to, which make such times suspect. (Id. at 228-29.)
236. In the Egeler Facility, given the turnover rate, the fact that a fire drill is done quarterly on each shift, and that 1,000 prisoners are coming into the facility per month, it is likely that many prisoners will never have participated in a fire drill. (Id. at 229-30.)
237. Defendants’ Exhibit 11 reflects fire evacuation drill reports involving staff only without actual prisoner evacuation. (Id. at 20-22.) The purpose of this drill is to ensure the training of staff on third shift (10:00 p.m.-6:00 a.m.) without having to evacuate the prisoners at night. (Id.)
238. During third shift staff drills, the staff walk through the evacuation procedure and conduct simulated fire drills. (Id.) The purpose of drills is to train officers and staff on the procedures to be followed in case of fire. (Id.) The third shift officers actually go through the procedures and simulate all their responsibilities.
*26 239. The MDOC’s Policy Directive and Operating Procedures do not mandate any particular time to evacuate during a fire drill. (Id.) Likewise, the Life Safety Code does not mandate any particular time for evacuation. (Id.)
240. Fire inspectors who do monthly inspections of the facilities, review the evacuation reports, and Mr. Fushi reviews the reports on an annual basis. (Id. at 30.)
241. The range of elapsed times for evacuations set forth in Defendants’ Exhibit 10 is 5-20 minutes. (Id.)
242. Defendants represent that the evacuation diagrams within the cell blocks have been corrected since the tour in March 2005. (Id. at 68.) In an actual emergency, direction will be provided by MDOC staff. (Id. at 68-69.)
243. When a fire drill takes place in a housing unit, all staff in the housing unit, including non-custody staff, are expected to be involved. (Id. at 72.) Custody staff in the housing unit are the first responders, but custody staff from other blocks are also used. (Id.)
244. The MDOC requires facilities to conduct one fire drill per shift per quarter. (Id. at 74.) Each resident unit manager independently schedules the times of the drills. (Id.)
245. RUO Meeker has never observed prisoners getting 18

Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
“caught” or blocked in an exit or a stairwell during a fire drill. (Id.)
246. ARUS Embry has been in 8-Block during fire drills and also a fire incident. (Id.)
247. ARUS Embry has never observed prisoners experience foot traffic congestion along the gallery walkways or stairways during a fire drill. He also stated that prisoners “take their time” during a fire drill. (Id. at 97.)
248. During a fire drill, the first prisoners evacuated are on Base level. (Id.) An exception is the quarantine cells in Block 1 that are normally not evacuated in fire drills. The situation varies in the event of an actual fire incident. (Id.)
249. Prisoner aides assist to evacuate disabled prisoners, which aides are assigned to particular prisoners. (Id. at 101.) While ARUS Embry has never observed a prisoner aide not doing his job during a fire drill, id., this assistant would be unreliable in the event of an actual fire. (Tr. 226-27; see also Pls.’ Ex. 12 at 7.)
250. Custody staff are expected to personally check to make sure every cell has been evacuated during an evacuation drill. (Id. at 102.)
251. Variation in fire drill times in a prison is expected. (Id. at 205.) Evacuation during a fire drill would not directly relate to the issue of evacuation during emergencies, since some of the fire incident reports indicate evacuation in five or seven minutes. (Id. at 205-06.)
252. A primary purpose of fire drills, as set forth by the codes, is to familiarize people with evacuation procedures in the event of an actual fire. (Id.)
253. Ronald Kovaleski, a resident of Block 8, has participated in fire evacuation drills. He observed handicapped prisoners assisted by prisoner aides during the fire drill. (Id. at 347.) Kovaleski has never observed anyone being injured in the stairways during a fire drill, but did observe prisoners slip and fall on the stairs on Block 8. (Tr. 348.)
1. BLOCK 1 *27 254. Fire drills in Block 1 have taken up to 16 minutes to complete. (Pls.’ Ex. 21A at 033.) Fire drills in Block 1 use only one exit, although in an actual fire, staff and prisoners would be expected to use an additional exit. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 6-7.) During a routine fire drill, the prisoners in the Block 1 south quarantine area are not released from the block. (Tr. 110.)

255. Diagrams for evacuation routes in Blocks 1 and 2 of the Egeler Facility indicate that prisoners are to travel the entire length of their gallery to exit. (See Pls.’ Ex. 27 at 002, 003.) As of March 18, 2005, the posted evacuation signs in Block 1 were upside down, so that it was difficult to determine where the reader was. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 4, 6; Tr. 250.)
256. In addition, the evacuation drawing posted on the south side of Block 1 indicated that prisoners were to evacuate in the opposite direction from the direction indicated in the evacuation sign posted on the north side, which was confusing. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 9.) Mr. Fushi testified at hearing that the cell block diagrams have been re-drafted to correctly describe exit routes.8
2. BLOCK 2 257. Fire drills in Block 2 have taken up to 15 minutes to complete. (Pls.’ Ex. 21A at 002.)
3. BLOCK 3 258. Fire drills in Block 3 have taken up to 20 minutes to complete. (Pls.’ Ex. 21A at 025.) Staff outside Block 3 who are expected to respond in a fire drill do not always hear or respond to fire drills. (Pls.’ Ex. 21A at 007, 019.)
4. BLOCK 7 259. Fire drills in Block 7 have taken up to 19 minutes to complete. (Pls.’ Ex. 21A at 035.)
260. Although there are three exits in Block 7, fire drills are never practiced using two of the exits that might need to be used in the event of an actual fire. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 15; Tr. 253.)
5. BLOCK 8 261. Fire drills in Block 8 have taken up to 20 minutes to complete. (Pls.’ Ex. 21B at unnumbered page 3.)
262. Thomas Meeker, a Corrections Officer in Block 8, testified that fire drills are generally conducted by releasing prisoners starting on the base level. (Tr. 77.) ARUM Ronald Embry confirmed that testimony. (Id. at 98-99.) Those drills do not involve practice on responding to different fire locations. (Id. at 77, 81-82, 87.)
263. MDOC policy provides that, after the area immediately at risk from fire is evacuated, fire evacuation should start at the top of the cellblock and start down. (Pls.’ Ex. 10 at 7; Pls.’ Ex. 14 at 10; Tr. 36-37, 255; Pls.’
19

Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
Ex. 3B at 11.)
264. Fire drills should not be routinely conducted in the same way. Because the location of a fire cannot be predicted, staff should practice alternative fire scenarios. (Tr. 18.) The best way to prepare for a real fire is to conduct fire drills in the way staff would be expected to perform in a real fire. (Id. at 99-100.)
265. Cell doors are not open in Block 8 during count or at night. Notwithstanding that fact, fire drills are conducted only when the cell doors are open. (Id. at 92-94.)
*28 266. In Block 8, most of the time there are four officers and three supervisors involved in a fire drill. (Id. at 99.) In contrast, if a fire occurred at night time in Blocks 1-3 or Block 8, only two officers would be in the cellblock. (Pls.’ Ex. 46 at 1-2.)
E. OPERATIONAL POLICIES 267. An actual fire incident will generate a critical incident report, written testimony of the personnel involved, and a fire incident report. (Tr. 31-32; Def.s’ Exs. 12a-20c.) It may also include an investigation report by the Michigan State Police. (Tr. 32.)
268. The MDOC’s policy does not require the evacuation of the prisoner population in a cell block whenever a fire incident within a cell block occurs. (Id. at 33.) It is better to evaluate and only evacuate the necessary prisoners that you have to during a fire, since many of the fires are very small. (Id.) Also, unnecessary prisoner evacuations may jeopardize the security of an entire cell block. (Id.) How to make evacuation decisions is a part of staff training. (Id. at 33.)
269. Mr. Fushi has the authority to make recommendations regarding fire safety operational changes. (Id. at 40.) He has made recommendations concerning the response of the SCBA team. (Id.) Evacuation is one response to a fire, and fire suppression is a totally separate response. (Id. at 42.)
270. The local fire department, Blackman Township, is two or three miles away and can respond to a fire emergency. (Id. at 15.) During the MSI Laundry fire in October 2003, the actual time between notification and arrival of the fire department was 15 minutes. (Defs.’ Ex. 19b.) The Blackman Township fire department is invited to participate in an annual “pre-fire plan” with the facilities to review equipment changes and refresh on procedures in the prison for getting in to respond to a fire. (Id. at 15-16.)
271. Policy provides that fire emergency keys used to unlock exit and egress doors have a rivet attached so they

can be identified by feel and sight. (Defs.’ Ex. 5.)
272. Egeler and Parnall facility operating procedures require staff from the control center and other parts of the facility not involved in a fire incident to respond to a housing unit where there is a fire incident. (Defs.’ Exs. 6 & 8.)
273. In Block 7, there is a laundry exchange where prisoners will drop their linen in tubs and pick up new linen. (Tr. 107.) The tubs are rotated between the cell block and quartermaster building; these tubs are removed before the end of second shift and are not in the cell block overnight. (Id. at 108.)
274. Staffing policies applicable to Blocks 1, 2, 3 and 8 assign only two correctional officers to each entire cellblock during the night shift. (Pls.’ Ex. 46 at 1-2.) Staff have no practice in attempting an actual evacuation of a block with only two officers; fire drills in Block 8 involving actual evacuation typically have involved four officers and three supervisors. (Tr. 99.)
*29 275. Policy requires that, in an evacuation at Egeler, one staff member is to open the cells and the other is to walk the galleries to see if prisoners have evacuated. (Pls.’ Ex. 12 at 7.) Two officers, however, are required just to open the cells. (Tr. 225.) There are a total of four staff who could assist the two officers on the 10-6 shift in Block 7. (See Pls.’ Ex. 24 at 001; Pls.’ Ex. 47.)
276. There is no SCBA (self-contained breathing) equipment in the Block 8 housing unit. This equipment allows rescue of persons trapped as a result of fire and smoke. (See Pls.’ Ex. 47; Pls.’ Ex. 10 at 5, ¶ 23.)
277. Only mock drills are conducted at night, when there are the fewest number of staff. (Tr. at 229.) The drills are inadequate to prepare for a real fire emergency, particularly in light of the limited staffing on the night shift. (Tr. 221.)
278. Policy requires that the Prisoner Guidebook is to include training in the event of a fire. The Guidebook contains one paragraph of instructions which is limited to informing prisoners to learn the posted evacuation routes, listen to instructions, and crawl under the smoke to an exit. (See Pls.’ Ex. 9 at 1; Pls.’ Ex. 22 at 6.)
279. Good practice requires that the regional fire administrator or inspector make the decision regarding when fire drills occur. The fact that the RUM makes these decisions calls into the question the validity of the drills. (Tr. 234.)
F. STAFF PERFORMANCE
20

Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
280. Parnall Operating Procedure requires that in an evacuation cells are to be unlocked from the top of the block down. (See Pls.’ Ex. 10 at 7.) Defendants’ staff do not follow this policy. (Tr. 77, 98-99.)
281. The Operating Procedures at Egeler, Pls.’ Ex. 12 at 2, require that the cells occupied by disabled prisoners be specially identified with a blue card as follows:
Handicapped prisoners are located within Housing Units, 1, 2, and 3, C-Unit and Duane Waters Hospital (DWH). The handicapped prisoners are identified by a blue card at the master count board in the housing unit and also by a 1″x1″ blue card with an “H” stamped on it attached to the name tag on individual cells.
282. In Block 2, a number of frail prisoners were in cells that did not have blue tags. These included at least two crutch users, one prisoner using a cane, and one prisoner who was blind. (Tr. 250.)
283. The duties of the officers during the emergencies, such as dealing with a fire, could prevent them from assisting prisoners with disabilities who might need assistance because of visual or physical handicaps, or because that prisoner had become disoriented. Such delays would add risk for people with compromised respiratory systems. (Tr. 255.)
284. Prisoner helpers cannot always be relied upon in a fire situation, because the aides may be fending for themselves. (Tr. 226-27; see also Pls.’ Ex. 12 at 7.)
285. Eugene Fushi has witnessed MDOC fire drills. (Tr. 23.) Since fire drills are a training exercise, they are not a surprise to staff; the drills commence with the sounding of the fire alarm or using the public address system. (Id. at 24.) Once a fire drill commences, all procedures are to be simulated. (Id.) No later than 20 minutes before a fire drill, there is typically an announcement to prisoners that a fire drill will occur. (Tr. 346-47.)
*30 286. It is RUO Meeker’s experience that some prisoners do not evacuate during a fire drill; these prisoners exit when ordered by custody staff. (Id.)
287. Defendants’ expert Carson is of the opinion that it is not important that everyone have the opportunity to practice in a drill to reduce or eliminate the risk of dying in a fire. (Id. at 206-07.) He believes that practice by custody staff is most important. (Id.) Carson examined Defendants’ fire drill practices. (Id.)
288. Under Defendants’ practices, any staff, including

non-custody staff in a housing unit, are trained to respond to a fire emergency. This includes the RUM or the ARUS. (Id. at 72.) Yard staff, control room staff, and staff from other housing units are available to assist on-duty officers, including during the 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. shift. (Id.)
G. CONDITIONS DURING AN ACTUAL EVACUATION 289. In Egeler during an evacuation, two custody officers, one on each end, would have to climb the five levels to the top gallery. The officers would first be required to open the breaker bar boxes with a key. The boxes would be difficult to find in a smoky environment. After a breaker box was opened, the officer would begin to release the breaker bars. (Id. at 225.)
290. Because the cells in the Egeler Facility are arranged back-to-back, after a custody officer opened the cells on Fourth Gallery on one side, the officer would be required to cross over to the other side and open the breaker box there with a key, use the bar again to open the next group of cells, then go down the stairs and begin the process again on the next level. This process would continue until the officers reached the Base level and had opened all the cells. (Id. at 225.)
291. Fire safety dictates that people should not have to exit a building down smoke-filled stairs. (Id. at 314.) Defendants’ expert agreed that if stairs are to be used for egress, they must be enclosed in a smoke-free compartment. (Id. at 142.)
292. While an atrium does serve as a reservoir for smoke, in order to accomplish evacuation, the smoke must be kept above the area used for egress. A smoke-removal system is necessary to keep smoke above the level of the evacuation route. (Id. at 313-14.) When a building becomes smoke-filled, due to the dangers of smoke inhalation, it is critical that persons be evacuated out of the exposure from smoke and hot gasses. (Id. at 317.)
VI. FIRE CODE COMPLIANCE
A. BUILDING AND FIRE PREVENTION CODES 293. Defendants’ mechanical engineering expert David Sproul accepted the findings of Rosser Fabrap, the architecture and engineering firm retained by the State of Michigan, that:
... all of the cell blocks at Egeler violate the “means of egress” requirement of the [Building Officials Code Administrators] (“BOCA”) Code; the stairs that would be used for evacuating the cell blocks in
21

Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
Egeler are inadequate in size, enclosure, location, and discharge; and the five-story mezzanine design in the Egeler cell blocks violates the atrium requirement in the BOCA Code. [2002 Findings ¶ 1296.]
*31 294. The BOCA Code would not permit a five-tiered cellblock such as those at Egeler or Parnall. (2002 Findings ¶ 1393.)
295. The BOCA Code permits a ceiling height up to 23 feet as long as one of the exits does not require prisoners to descend stairs for more than 23 feet. The BOCA ceiling height requirement serves to reduce the number of people at risk. The intent of the ceiling height requirement is to assure compartmentalization, reducing the population at risk from a fire in a particular unit and assuring that prisoners can move horizontally to the next unit in the event of fire, rather than being required to negotiate distances in excess of what is permitted by the Code. (2002 Findings ¶ 1399.)
B. LIFE SAFETY CODE AND ITS EQUIVALENCY 296. To assure reasonably fire safe housing units, Defendants must combine consideration of the needs of the population, adequacy of staffing, operating procedures for evacuation that are understood, and applicable fire codes. The totality of these factors must go into the planning and design of the Hadix facilities. (Tr. 221.)
297. Defendants stated in their State Prison of Southern Michigan Egress Report dated December 12, 2003, Pls.’ Ex. 50 at 7, that:
Section 15-3.1.3 of the [Life Safety Code] allows multi-tiered open cell blocks to be considered a single story building if the cell block is provided with a smoke control system and the entire cell block is provided with fire protection.
298. Blocks 1-3 and 7-8 do not have a smoke control system as such a system is defined by the applicable codes. (2002 Findings ¶¶ 1404-05.)
299. The distance a prisoner must travel in 1-3 Blocks and 7-8 Blocks to exit the block exceeds the maximum travel distance of 150 feet permitted by the Life Safety Code. (Id. ¶ 1391.)
300. Chapter 15 of the LSC addresses existing detention facilities; it provides parameters for the life safety

functions or physical requirements for existing prison facilities. (Tr. 130-31.) The LSC permits evaluation of an existing facility for equivalency, to determine if it meets the general overall requirements for life safety in Chapter 15 based on 13 different parameters developed in 1998. (Tr. 191; Defs.’ Exs. 30a & 30b.) Passing the Life Safety Code does not necessarily equate with providing life safety for residents, and no one test can be used to determine fire safety given the variety of structures and differing abilities of residents. (See ¶¶ 305 & 306 infra.)
301. The provisions of the Life Safety Code include a mechanism for assessing whether the fire safety provisions in a given facility are consistent with the level of safety required under the code, even if the facility does not in all respects comply with the code. (Tr. 138-39.) Equivalency was a method for developing a system for evaluating existing facilities for compliance with the level of fire safety intended by the LSC. (Id. at 191.)
302. The 13 equivalency parameters are: construction; hazardous areas; fire alarm; smoke detection; automatic sprinklers; interior finish (corridors and egress); interior finish (other areas); cell/sleeping room enclosure; separation of resident housing areas from other areas; exit system; exit access; vertical openings; and smoke control. (Defs.’ Exs. 30a & 30b.) The form provided pursuant to the Life Safety Code equivalency provisions assigns a weighted score to each safety item listed in the form. (Tr. 134.)
*32 303. A cell block passes the equivalency under the LSC if the number is positive at the conclusion of the analysis. (Id. at 137.) In the analysis presented by Defendants, the cell blocks all had non-negative numbers, id. at 138, and passed the equivalency requirement of the LSC. (Id. at 192.) Plaintiffs effectively challenged the validity and significance of this opinion because: (a) the determinations of equivalency by qualified experts are dependent on subjective factors (id. at 141-42); (b) the distance between the cell blocks and the control center is such that a fire department may not be timely notified for alarm purposes; and (c) the operations of the cell blocks and the locking systems pose potential dangers and delays in terms of evacuation.
304. Defendants presented two different methodologies for assessing equivalency: 1) the life safety evaluation system, and 2) Dr. Mowrer’s modeling. (Id. at 204.)
305. At the same time, the physical limitations of the buildings’ occupants must be taken into account when determining whether provision for horizontal exiting in an emergency is required, or whether travel distances must be reduced. Moreover, it is certainly critical to consider whether occupants, in the event of a fire, would be required to exit down open stairs. (Tr. 142, 232-33.)
22

Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
306. Plaintiffs’ expert, Michael DiMascio, reviewed the life safety equivalency scoring performed by Mr. Smith. (Id. at 315.) He agreed with defense expert’s conclusion that Blocks 7 and 8 satisfied the equivalency system. (Id.) However, he was of the opinion that the prisoners in the Hadix facility were at substantial risk of serious harm in the event of a fire given all of the pertinent circumstances. (Id. at 309, 321.)
C. CONDITIONS IN OTHER NON-HOUSING AREAS 307. There were several hundred gallons of hazardous materials stored in 55-gallon drums on the first floor of the metal furniture factory. (Id. at 310-11.)
308. There were well over 120 gallons of xylene, a very flammable chemical, stored in the factory during Mr. DiMascio’s inspection; two 55-gallon drums were in use to dispense xylene. Xylene was being poured from the 55-gallon drums into five-gallon pails that were then used to soak spray gun parts. There was also ordinary electrical equipment in the area where the xylene was dispensed. (Id. at 312.)
309. As noted above, the MDOC has adopted and implemented recommendations concerning the use of rubber seals for the xylene drums and grounding and bonding the drums. (Id. at 46-47.) It has also adopted and implemented a recommendation that all flammable liquids be stored on the first floor of the industrial building in a non-accessible, locked cage. (Id. at 54-55.) There is also an exhaust fan in the caged area that exhausts directly outside. (Id. at 48.)
310. It was also recommended that the xylene had to be enclosed in a one-hour rated fireproof room. (Id. at 48.) An examination of NFPA 30, which discusses xylene storage, provides that the current storage of the xylene is acceptable. (Id. at 48-50, 52-54.)
VII. ACTUAL FIRE EXPERIENCE IN THE CELL BLOCKS *33 311. In the history of the Hadix facilities, multiple fires have been fairly common. (Tr. 227.) During a site visit in the 1980s, the Court, accompanied by counsel in the case of United States v. Michigan, directly observed smoke emitting from more than one cell in Block 5.
312. The history of serious riot conditions in other prisons must also be taken into consideration in developing a fire safety system. For example, in the Attica riot, the New Mexico penitentiary riots, and the Camp Hill riots in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, there was an effort on the part of prisoners working together to set simultaneous fires.

(Tr. 227-28.)
313. A prisoner on first gallery of Block 8 ignited a few papers and a sheet in a trash can, then placed his mattress over the fire. There was so much smoke produced by this fire that a prisoner in a cell on the other side of the atrium from the fire could not see the cell directly across from him. (2002 Findings ¶ 1416.)
314. A Carolina jail experienced a catastrophic fire with loss of life. Like the Hadix facilities, that jail had manual locks on the cells and was configured in a linear fashion, although it differed in other respects. (Tr. 234-35.)
315. Since December 2004, the Parnall and Egeler facilities have experienced two fires resulting in a total of four injuries to prisoners or staff. There were no injuries to prisoners other than those responsible for setting the fires.
316. From January 1, 2001 to May 5, 2005, there have been no fire incidents in Block 3 at Egeler. (Id. at 38-39.)
A. DECEMBER 2004 FIRE IN BLOCK 1 317. On December 13, 2004, Prisoner No. 228931 set a fire in his cell (14-B-1) in the quarantine area on the south side of Block 1. (Pls.’ Ex. 33A-1; Pls.’ Ex. 33A-3 at 2.) This cell had a solid front. (Tr. 34-35; see also Pls. Ex. 33A-8 (videotaped staff report regarding fire).) The prisoner disabled the sprinkler. (Pls.’ Ex. 33A-8 at 54:47.)
318. At the time this fire started, there were about six prisoners on the base level of Block 1 South. (Tr. 330.) The fire generated an extremely large amount of black smoke from Cell 14-B-1. (Pls.’ Ex. 33A-2 at 14.)
319. Prisoner 185558 was in Cell 18-B-1, two doors down from this fire. (Pls.’ Ex. 33A-6 at 8.) Cell 18-B-1 has a solid front door with a food slot in the middle. (Tr. 327-28.) The smoke came into his cell through the crack of the door; there were no vents in his cell. (Id. at 329.)
320. The prisoner who set the fire was moved several cells down, from Cell 14 to Cell 3, but not evacuated. (Pls.’ Ex. 33A-2 at 1; see also Pls.’ Ex. 33A-2 at 6; Pls.’ Ex. 33A-8.)
321. The Base level on the south side was not released by the officer evacuating the other prisoners in Block 1. In the officer’s report, he notes that when the block alarm sounded, he released the breaker bars to allow the evacuation of prisoners from first through fourth galleries. There is no reference to releasing the prisoners on base (“I broke first thru fo[u]rth galleries to get prisoners out of the building.”). (Pls.’ Ex. 33A-2 at 10.)
23

Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
*34 322. At trial, Defendants did not contest the fact that the quarantine cells on the base level of Block 1 South were not evacuated. (See Tr. 35.) Defendants, though, believed that evacuation was unnecessary. The area not evacuated is the same area that staff never practice evacuating in fire drills. (Id. at 110.)
323. As a result of this fire, one staff member was transported first to Duane Waters Hospital Emergency, and then to the civilian hospital within 20 minutes of the fire. (Pls.’ Ex. 33A-2 at 2, 8; Pls.’ Ex. 33A-5.) Two prisoners in the immediate area of the fire (228931 & 185558) were taken to Duane Waters Hospital for medical treatment several hours later, after the prisoners who had been evacuated returned. (Tr. 327-28, 332-33.; Pls.’ Ex. 33A-5.). They were treated for smoke inhalation. (Pls. Ex. 33A-5; Tr. 334.)
324. The characteristics of the smoke and how it behaved in this Block 1 fire, tr. 327-29, undermines Defendants’ proffered testimony that the solid doors in quarantine cells provide substantial protection from smoke in the event of a fire. (Id. at 27-28.)
B. MARCH 2005 FIRE IN BLOCK 10 325. On March 23, 2005, a fire started on the catwalk of Block 10 onfFirst gallery behind cells 68-70. (Pls.’ Ex. 33B-1; Tr. 341.) The catwalk on first gallery consists of an open grate. (Tr. 341.)
326. The fire was reported as started at 12:50 a.m. (Pls.Ex. 33B-1.) The fire, caused by a cigarette, ignited a seven-foot long piece of cardboard lying on the catwalk. (Pls.’ Ex. 33B-1.) One prisoner hit the fire with a broom, causing flames to shoot up three to four feet. (Tr. 342.) When others saw the flames, they started shouting; the lights were out at the time. (Id.) Another prisoner threw his coffee on the fire, which extinguished it. (Id.)
327. The smoke was intense. After it reached the ceiling, the smoke descended on the tiers and thickened. (Id. at 342-43.) At least eight minutes elapsed before any staff responded. (Id.) The building was not evacuated. (Id. at 343; Pls.’ Ex. 33B-1.)
328. At 1:18 a.m., Prisoner 194520 in Cell 63-B-10, one level below the fire, was taken to Duane Waters Hospital for difficulty breathing due to the smoke from this fire. (Pls.’ Ex. 33B-2; Pls.’ Ex. 33B-1; Pls.’ Ex. 33B-4 at 3.) Prisoner 194520 was enrolled in the cardiac chronic care clinic and was a known asthmatic. (Pls.’ Ex. 33B-3; Pls.’ Ex. 33B-4 at 3.) Prisoner 194520 was diagnosed with and treated for: (1) an acute asthmatic attack secondary to smoke inhalation (resolved), and (2) smoke inhalation. (Pls.’ Ex. 33B-4 at 4.)

C. BLOCK 8 FIRE 329. ARUS Ronald Embry has been in 8 Block during fire drills and a fire incident. (Id. at 87; Defs.’ Ex. 16.) The Fire Incident Report (Defs.’ Ex. 16) was prepared by ARUS Embry. The fire involved a prisoner igniting trash in a trash can on the third gallery. (Tr. 88.)
330. ARUS Embry smelled smoke; Officer Reneman extinguished the fire with a fire extinguisher, and the trash can was taken outside. (Id. at 89.) The evacuation of the cell block commenced once smoke was observed, and the entire cell block was evacuated. (Id.) The evacuation of the cell block took either 15 or 18 minutes. (Id. at 90.) No falls or injuries were reported.
*35 331. Normal operations at 8 Block provide that the cell doors are open unless it is count time or at night. (Id. at 92-93.) The gates at the end of the galleries are no longer locked or lockable in 8 Block. (Id. at 95-96.) The gates remain open all the time. (Id.) Prisoners may evacuate out of both the front and rear entrances of Cell Block 8. (Id. at 96.)
VIII. POTENTIAL CONDITIONS IN EVENT OF FIRE
A. BASIC CHARACTERISTICS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODEL
1. THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF THE MODEL 332. Professor Frederick B. Mowrer was retained by Defendants to develop a model of the conditions that would prevail in the Hadix cellblocks in the event of a fire. (Tr. 143-44, 149-50.) According to him, fire modeling is an attempt to calculate the conditions resulting from a fire within a room or a building over a period of time instead of as just a snapshot of any particular moment. (Tr. 143-44; Defs.’ Ex. 1.)
333. Fire modeling appreciates that fuel has a given potential for producing energy in a fire, but that fires can vary in the rate that fuel is consumed, and this variance in the rate of fuel consumption determines the length of time that the fire will burn. (Tr. 145.)
334. Another principle of fire modeling is that the arrangement of the fuel will affect the rate of fuel consumption. In a given arrangement, the transfer of heat may be insufficient to sustain combustion, while a different arrangement may enhance combustion. (Id. at 145-46.)
335. Another known characteristic of fires is that, as smoke rises in an enclosed space, the smoke entrains fresh
24

Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
air, with the result that the volume of smoke increases but the smoke itself becomes less concentrated. When the smoke plume reaches the top of an enclosed space, the smoke begins to bank down and become more concentrated. (Id. at 167-68.)
336. Dr. Mowrer used two approaches to fire modeling. One was zone modeling and one was computational fluid dynamics (“CFD”). A zone model assumes that the temperature of the smoke produced by the fire will be uniform, while a CFD model allows a calculation of the temperature in different parts of the smoke plume. (Id. at 147-48.)
337. Dr. Mowrer used a zone model to predict conditions in Blocks 1, 2 and 3 in the event of a fire and CFD models of a fire to predict conditions in smaller cell groupings. (Id. at 148-49.) Dr. Mowrer did not produce a zone model of a fire in Block 7 or 8 (Defs.’ Ex. 1 at 21), but it was his opinion that conditions during a fire in the Egeler and Parnall cellblocks would be about the same once the smoke descended to the level of the fire. (Tr. 184.)
2. PHYSICAL SPACE ASSUMPTIONS OF THE MODEL 338. Dr. Mowrer visited the cell blocks in March 2005 and walked through cell blocks 2, 3 and 8 and perhaps an additional cell block being either 1 or 7. (Id. at 150.) Dr. Mowrer was provided with drawings in which he could calculate dimensions and he checked some measures while in the blocks. (Id. at 150-51.)
*36 339. Dr. Mowrer’s fire model assumes that the ceiling below the attic is solid so that the space in the attic does not act as a smoke reservoir for smoke generated by a fire in the cell block. This is a conservative assumption because it results in a calculation of a faster dispersal of smoke. (Id. at 152-53.)
340. Dr. Mowrer’s model relied on the dimensions in Block 3 of Egeler because it was the smaller of the four cell blocks in the Egeler Correctional Facility and therefore, had the volume to contain smoke of the four blocks. (Id. at 164.)
341. Prior to inspecting the Hadix facilities, Dr. Mowrer developed a report, but following his inspection, he had to modify that report because some of his prior assumptions did not fit with the actual block conditions. (Id. at 151-52.) For example, he had assumed that, in the event of a fire, smoke from the fire would rise through the ceiling up into the attic where it would then bank down. After he actually saw the attic, he changed his models to assume that smoke from a fire would bank down at the ceiling and not penetrate the attic. (Id. at 152.)

3. ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT COMBUSTIBLES IN THE MODEL 342. Fire modeling considers the fuels involved in the fire, including both the volume and composition of the fuels. (Id. at 144.)
343. Dr. Mowrer’s modeled fire was based on an assumption of a mattress being set on its longest edge in the back of the cell and the prisoner’s property piled within that space between the mattress and the wall when combusted would generate a fire that was 3′ x 6′ and was thus considered a fairly severe fire. (Id. at 154-55.) He also assumed considerable fuel would be available for the fire-i.e., the inventoried items, a television set, all state issued clothing, and a footlocker of paper. (See Id. at 155-59.)
344. There are standard references which determine the heat energy contained within different materials per certain volumes or weights. (Id. at 145.) Dr. Mowrer performed calculation by using the standard references together with a property inventory from a representative cell. The volumes and weights of these materials were used to calculate the energy content or the heat of combustion of the modeled fire. (Id. at 146; Defs.’ Ex. 1, App. D.) Dr. Mowrer also assumed that the materials in the cell were piled in the back of the cell and ignited to produce a rapid fire. (Tr. 147.)
345. Notwithstanding the changes that Dr. Mowrer made in his assumptions regarding the amount of property available to prisoners, Dr. Mowrer’s model did not consider all the property that is available to a prisoner in either Egeler or Block 8. Among the additional items of available property are shaving cream, gel, shower cap, glue, facial tissues, shoe polish, domino games, photo albums, playing cards, and many other items. (See Pls.’ Ex. 8; see also Tr. 289; Pls.’ Ex. 19, Attach. C.) He also did not consider that Parnall inmates are permitted to possess an additional footlocker of legal materials.
*37 346. A number of prisoners at Egeler receive medical accommodations that would increase the fuel available in a fire, which accommodations were not considered by Dr. Mowrer. These accommodations relate to prisoners who are afforded additional bedding materials, including mattresses. Some 25 prisoners at Egeler were listed as receiving such accommodations, see Pls.’ Ex. 39A, and the number may be greater at any particular time due to Egeler’s function as a reception center.
4. ASSUMPTIONS AND FINDINGS ABOUT SMOKE 347. Tenability limits are measurements of the conditions
25

Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
that are tolerable for human life. (Tr. 183.)
348. According to the NFPA Fire Protection Handbook, which is one of the authorities that Dr. Mowrer relied on in developing his zone models, see Defs.’ Ex. 1 at 1, one of the major hazards presented in a fire is impaired vision, which hinders escape from the fire. (Pls.’ Ex. 1C at 8-23.) There is a standardized formula for determining the extent to which a fire obscures visibility. (Id. at 8-23.) The Handbook states the following:
People’s response to obscuration of vision and its detrimental effects on movement speed and wayfinding efficiency is highly variable. Visibility requirements for escape depend to a large extent on the size of the enclosure and the occupants’ familiarity with escape routes. Suggested tenability limits for optical density have ranged from 0.5/m (2 m-visibility), for occupants of small rooms who are familiar with escape routes, down to about 0.065/m (15-m visibility) for large enclosures in which occupants are unfamiliar with their surroundings. (Id.)
349. A significant limitation of the zone model is that the model assumes that smoke density is uniform throughout, just as it assumes that smoke temperature will be uniform throughout. This limitation is inherent in the zone model. In reality, the smoke closer to the source of the fire will have higher concentrations of soot, heat and other combustion by-products. (Tr. 289, 291-92, 301-02.)
350. This limitation of the model is particularly important in Blocks 1, 2 and 3. These Blocks contain tiers of cells arranged in the center of each block, in large part dividing the block in two. If there were a fire on one side of the cellblock, the smoke would be denser on the side of the fire. (Id. at 291-93.)
351. As a result, conditions on that side of the cellblock will involve higher concentrations of soot, carbon monoxide, heat, and visibility than if the cellblock were configured like Blocks 7 and 8, with an open atrium in the center. Prisoners on the side of the cellblock where the fire started would be exposed to higher concentrations of combustion by-products than predicted by the Mowrer zone model. (Id. at 291-93; see also Pls.’ Ex. 50.)
352. The impairment of Prisoner 194520, who was confined one tier below a fire in Block 10, also illustrates the level of precision of the zone model used by Dr. Mowrer, which assumes that a prisoner below the level of the fire would not be affected by smoke. That is,

tenability findings assuming a healthy population cannot be generalized to a population wherein a large percentage suffer grave impairments, particularly respiratory impairments.
*38 353. Another serious problem with the inherent inability of a zone model to predict differences in smoke densities is illustrated by the smoke plume from a cell fire on a lower tier. The smoke plume would engulf a growing number of cells on each tier as it ascended. (Tr. 302-03.) The smoke within this plume would remain substantially denser than the smoke within the rest of the cellblock. This denser area of smoke would extend from the level of the fire to the ceiling. (Tr. 302-03.) Within this plume, tenability conditions would decrease far faster than predicted by the zone model. (Compare Tr. 302-03 to Defs.’ Ex. 1 at 17.) Therefore, visibility would fall below tenability limits on segments of multiple tiers significantly before the times predicted by the zone model.
354. Although Defendants’ policy provides that the area in the vicinity of a fire is to be evacuated first (Pls.’ Ex. 10 at 5, ¶ 19; Pls.’ Ex. 12 at 4, ¶ 1), Defendants’ policy cannot address the problems caused by a potential fire’s smoke plume because that policy is limited to cells in the vicinity of the fire and the policy does not and cannot provide for cell releases on segments of multiple tiers first.
355. The Mowrer report analyzed temperature, soot production and carbon monoxide but did not analyze carbon dioxide or hydrogen chloride or the alkalines from the burning of wool, all of which are either asphyxiants or irritants. (Tr. 308.) Dr. Mowrer explained that the most serious toxic problem is from carbon monoxide. His report indicated that the type of fires modeled would be expected to produce a level of carbon monoxide of 16.9 parts per million (“p.p.m.”). (Defs.’ Ex. 1.) That is less than one-third of the allowable 8 hour/day, 40 hour/week exposure allowed by NIOSH, according to Dr. Pramstaller. Some prisoners would be exposed to smoke from a serious cell fire for no more than 20 minutes, and most of the prisoners would be exposed for a much shorter period of time.
356. Of the materials in the property list used by Dr. Mowrer for his assumptions, about twenty (20%) percent are plastic, including a plastic television. Soot production rates when plastics are burned can be four to ten times that of normal cellulosics. (Tr. 304.)
357. Dr. Mowrer agreed that the yield factor for soot from some plastics is higher than the yield factor he had assumed. If the fuel load consumed in an actual fire had a higher yield factor than the fuel assumed by Dr. Mowrer, the higher smoke yields would produce even lower visibility and lower tenability. (Tr. 182.)
26

Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
358. If plastic materials are taken into account, the visibility predicted under the Mowrer zone model drops dramatically. For example, Dr. Mowrer’s Model predicts that a fire on Fourth Gallery in Egeler would result in visibility falling to 16-17 meters in 108 seconds. If the plastic fuels available in the cells are taken into account, the visibility on Fourth Gallery predicted by the model falls to eight meters in 108 seconds. (Tr. 304-05.)
*39 359. According to Dr. Mowrer’s zone model, smoke from a base level fire in Blocks 1, 2 and 3 will fill the upper tiers down to the ceiling of the first tier in approximately 11 minutes. (Defs.’ Ex. 1 at 15, 23.) Assuming Dr. Mowrer’s model, it would also take about 11 minutes for smoke to reach the same level in Block 8. (Tr. 294.)
360. The model predicts that during the first approximately two minutes, average visibility within the smoke layer will have fallen to less than six meters. Within approximately ten minutes, average visibility will have fallen to two meters. (Defs.’ Ex. 1 at 17.) Moreover, visibility within the first tier will fall below fifteen meters sometime between five and ten minutes after the fire begins. (Defs.’ Ex. 1 at 23.)
361. Accordingly, even if one applies the less demanding visibility standard noted by the NFPA Fire Protection Handbook, in approximately ten minutes from the beginning of the fire, average visibility within the smoke layer will be reduced to a level below that required for escape from the fire. In fact, conditions in the cellblocks more closely resemble the conditions for which visibility of 15 meters is necessary, but Dr. Mowrer’s model predicts that visibility will fall below that level in the smoke layer in less than a minute. (See Defs.’ Ex. 1 at 17; Pls.’ Ex. 1C at 8-23.)
362. In the event of a fire on the top tier in Blocks 1, 2 and 3, Dr. Mowrer’s model indicates that the top tier will fill with smoke within 108 seconds. Although it could have been done, Dr. Mowrer made no calculations regarding the visibility or the concentration of toxic substances in the smoke layer in such a fire after the first 108 seconds. (Defs.’ Ex. 1 at 19; Tr. 184-85.)
363. If Dr. Mowrer had modeled conditions within a top tier fire after the first 108 seconds, the model would have shown a deterioration in tenability conditions. Oxygen depletion would also occur most rapidly in a top tier fire. (Tr. 186-87.)
364. The time until visibility levels fall below tenability limits predicted by the model will in fact be substantially below the times predicted in Dr. Mowrer’s model if a correction is made for his failure to include calculations based on the amount of plastic available as fuels in the

cells. As noted, although Dr. Mowrer predicted that visibility would fall to 16 or 17 meters in the event of a Fourth Gallery fire, if the calculation were corrected to reflect the portion of the fuel which would consist of plastics, visibility on the fourth tier would decrease to eight meters in the first 108 seconds. (Compare Tr. 304-05 to Defs.’ Ex. 1 at 19.)
365. Dr. Mowrer’s model, even without necessary corrections that would decrease the time until non-tenable conditions, predicts that visibility would fall below minimally tenable limits in a period of time less than the evacuation times recorded by Defendants during fire drills. Dr. Mowrer’s model predicts that visibility in a base fire in Block 1, 2 or 3 will fall below minimally tenable levels in approximately ten minutes, but evacuation times in practice drills are generally more than ten minutes, and range up to 15-20 minutes. (Defs.’ Ex. 1 at 17; Pls.’ Ex. 1C at 8-23; Pls.’ Ex. 21A at 002, 025, 033.)
*40 366. In Blocks 1, 2 and 3, temperatures in cells directly above a cell containing a fire could reach close to 175 Fahrenheit. (Tr. 177.) One may safely assume that injury will occur to a person exposed to a temperature of 175 Fahrenheit as part of a prison fire. (Tr. 297.)
367. The temperature at the floor level in the cells directly above a fire in Block 8 is predicted to reach 130-140 Fahrenheit. It is normally not recommended that fire fighters enter buildings without protective gear when the temperature exceeds 130 Fahrenheit. (Id.)
368. If there were two fires in a single cell, visibility would be one-half that predicted by the Mowrer model because the amount of smoke has a linear relationship to visibility. (Id. at 299.) If there were two fires in a single cell, using the same total amount of combustible materials as in the Mowrer model, the total smoke from the fire would be produced in approximately half the time. (Id. at 291.)
369. If two fires were set in separate cells in the same cellblock, the amount of smoke produced would be double the amount produced by a single fire. (Id. at 180-81.) There would be a higher heat release rate, more soot production, and the smoke layer would drop faster because the heat release rates are higher. (Id. at 290-91.)
370. If the extra footlocker of property available in Parnall is considered in the Mowrer model, the predicted length of a fire until exhaustion of fuel increases by 27 minutes. (Id. at 299.)
371. Dr. Mowrer relied on the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE) Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering to determine the types of combustion gases that would be produced by his modeled fire. (Id. at
27

Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
159-60.) Dr. Mowrer explained that the modeled fire produced carbon dioxide in the greatest quantity and, in terms of a toxic gas, carbon monoxide was the primary toxin. (Id. at 160.)
372. Based on the materials available to prisoners in the cells and the modeled fire, Dr. Mowrer estimated that the carbon monoxide concentration from these fires would reach a value of something around 16.9 parts per million. (Id. at 161; Defs.’ Ex. 1.) The SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering states that the lethal limit of carbon monoxide is shown to be approximately 5,700 parts per million for a 30 minute exposure. (Defs.’ Ex. 1.)
373. The carbon monoxide to health relationship is an inverse relationship. That means that the higher level of carbon monoxide, the shorter amount of time it will take to reach a lethal level. Analogously, the lower level of carbon monoxide present will yield a much longer period of exposure before there are lethal consequences. Given Dr. Mowrer’s calculation, one would not expect a single or even a double fire in the cell blocks to cause a carbon monoxide death to a healthy inmate, id. at 161-62, although this calculation cannot be generalized to unhealthy inmates.
374. Mr. Carson’s review of Dr. Mowrer’s fire modeling has confirmed his previous opinion that the large open space in the cell blocks, the atrium, would have an efficacious effect on dissipating the smoke in the cell blocks and lead to or assist with the preservation of life safety. (Id. at 195.)
*41 375. Dr. Mowrer’s fire model included a sensitivity analysis predicting what has been seen historically in multi-tiered open cell facilities. (Id. at 196.) The model looked at a severe situation (i.e., no sprinkler activation, no one doing anything) and concluded that a fire event would not be a significant event given the large volume. (Id.) In the event of an actual fire, Dr. Mowrer would expect that the smoke in Egeler Blocks 1, 2 and 3 would quickly spread uniformly throughout the cell block. (Id. at 177.)
376. If there was a vertical divider in the cell blocks (Egeler 1, 2 and 3), it would affect the concentration of the build-up in smoke in the air space generated or resulting from the plume. (Id. at 320.) Such a vertical divider would increase the concentration of the plume by having the smaller air space to fill. (Id.) You would have the potential to fill the block faster. (Id.)
377. Dr. Mowrer’s model demonstrated a fire on the Base Gallery in Block 3 as producing smoke that would expand and spread to the ceiling and then flow down from the ceiling until the level of smoke reached a height of approximately 2 meters from the ground in about 25 minutes. (Id. at 168.) However, because of such a large

volume of space and the space in the cell block to fill with smoke, the smoke would not be at a very high temperature relative to the fire temperature. (Id. at 169.)
378. Dr. Mowrer’s model predicted that a fire on the Base Gallery would expose the entire cell block to the smoke conditions but because of the dilution that occurs, there would be very mild conditions. A fire on Fourth Gallery would put the prisoners on Fourth Gallery quickly into contact with the smoke but, if those people could be moved out of harm’s way efficiently, with the fire up that high the flow of the smoke would tend to stop at the level of the fire and the rest of the block would not be exposed. (Id. at 170.)
379. Dr. Mowrer’s initial modeling did not factor in the effect of fire suppression represented by the sprinklers in the prisoners’ cells or outside intervention by staff. Knowing the specifications of the in-cell sprinkler system, the model would indicate that the sprinklers would activate in about 30 seconds and would quickly suppress a fire (assuming that sprinklers were operational and not deactivated).
380. It is Mr. Carson’s conclusion that the prisoner population in the cell blocks can be evacuated before the situation becomes untenable. (Id.)
5. ASSUMPTIONS AND FINDINGS ABOUT FLASHOVER 381. Flashover is the stage in a fire in an enclosed space that occurs when the temperature reaches approximately 600 C, or about 1100 F. At the point that flashover occurs, the remaining fuels in the enclosed space ignite almost instantly. (Tr. 165-66.)
382. Dr. Mowrer prepared a FDS model of what would happen within the cell where a fire originates in Blocks 1, 2 and 3. The model predicts “thermal conditions within the cell representative of flashover conditions,” so that flashover would be imminent. (Defs.’ Ex. 1 at 10, 22.)
*42 383. If the fuel available in a Block 8 cell were arranged in the most dangerous way, flashover in such a cell would also become a possibility. (Tr. 180.) However, in such an event, flashover would become irrelevant because the materials creating the flashover would be consumed and because other materials in the immediate area are not combustible. (Id. at 165-66.)
IX. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND REMEDY 384. The Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause forbids conditions that involve the ‘wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain,’ or are
28

Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
‘grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime ...’ Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981); Hadix, 367 F.3d at 513.
385. To succeed in an Eighth Amendment challenge, Plaintiffs must establish two elements: (1) a single, identifiable necessity of civilized human existence is being denied (objective prong); and (2) the defendant prison official acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind (subjective prong). Hadix, 367 F.3d at 513; see also Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991); Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 867 (6th Cir.2000).
386. “Prisoners have the right not to be subjected to the unreasonable threat of injury or death by fire ...” Hoptowit v. Spellman, 753 F.2d 779, 783-84 (9th Cir.1985). The contemporary standards of civilized decency that currently prevail in society determine whether conditions of confinement are cruel and unusual. See Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 346. It is those contemporary standards, and not courts’ own “notions of enlighted policy” that are controlling. Tillery v. Owens, 907 F.2d 418, 426 (3rd Cir.1990). To satisfy this prong, “extreme deprivations are required ...,” Hudson v. McMillan, 503 U.S. 1, 9, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992), and only deprivations denying “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities” are grave enough to create a violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347. Harsh and uncomfortable prison conditions do not automatically create such a violation. Dixon v. Godinez, 114 F.3d 640, 642 (7th Cir.1997) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994)). However, a “remedy for unsafe conditions need not await a tragic event.” Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33-34, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993). See also Hill v. Marshall, 962 F.2d 1209, 1211, 1215 (6th Cir.1992) (holding that failure to provide prophylactic medication to prevent the possible future development of active tuberculosis is “actual injury,” even though prisoner did not develop active tuberculosis).
387. With respect to the subjective prong, there is no violation of the Eighth Amendment unless the defendant is “aware of the facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists” and he draws “that inference.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Even if the defendant draws such an inference, he is not liable if he took reasonable steps to avert the harm. Id. at 835-36. Rather, deliberate indifference can best be compared to criminal law’s “subjective recklessness.” Id. at 839-40. In Farmer, the Court, concerned with the subjective component, explained that an “inmate seeking an injunction on the ground that there is a contemporary violation of a nature likely to continue must adequately plead such a violation; to survive summary judgment, he must come forward with evidence from which it can be inferred that the defendant-officials were at the time suit

was filed, and are at the time of summary judgment, knowingly and unreasonably disregarding an objectively intolerable risk of harm, and that they will continue to do so ...” Id. at 845-46. In this case, we are concerned with future conduct to correct prison conditions. If those conditions are found to be objectively unconstitutional, then that finding would also satisfy the subjective prong because the same information that would lead to the court’s conclusion was available to the prison officials responsible for those conditions.
*43 388. The Court concludes that it violates contemporary standards of decency to expose prisoners to housing in which, if a serious fire occurs, scientific evidence predicts that conditions will become untenable well before the staff can reliably evacuate the prisoners.
389. The Court’s consideration in this regard is informed by the determination of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that the Eighth Amendment’s objective component is violated by forcing a prisoner with a serious medical need for a smoke-free environment to share his or her cell with a prisoner who smokes. Talal v. White, 403 F.3d 423, 426 (6th Cir.2005); Hunt v. Reynolds, 974 F.2d 734, 736 (6th Cir.1992). The Court is persuaded that requiring prisoners to bear the risk of death from fire in an unsafe cellblock is at least equally inconsistent with contemporary standards of decency as is exposing prisoners with a serious medical need for a smoke-free environment to passive environmental smoke.
390. In cases like this one concerned with prison officials’ future conduct with regard to prison conditions, “[i]f those conditions are found to be objectively unconstitutional, then that finding [also satisfies] the subjective prong [of deliberate indifference] because the same information that would lead to the court’s conclusion is available to prison officials.” Hadix, 367 F.3d at 526; see also Farmer, 511 U.S. at 846 n. 9 (“If, for example, the evidence before a district court establishes that an inmate faces an objectively intolerable risk of serious injury, the defendants could not plausibly persist in claiming lack of awareness, any more than prison officials who state during the litigation that they will not take reasonable measures to abate an intolerable risk of which they are aware could claim to be subjectively blameless for purposes of the Eighth Amendment, and in deciding whether an inmate has established a continuing constitutional violation a district court may take such developments into account.”).
B. CASE ANALYSIS 391. In determining whether prison conditions constitute cruel and unusual punishment, courts “must examine the effect upon inmates of the condition of the physical plant[,]” including heat and ventilation. Rhodes, 452 U.S.
29

Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
at 364 (Brennan, Blackmun and Stevens, JJ., concurring).
392. Other Eighth Amendment cases involving similar fire danger problems include: Tillery v. Owens, 719 F.Supp. 1256 (W.D.Pa.1989), aff’d on other grounds, 907 F.2d 418 (3d. Cir.1990); Cody v. Hillard, 599 F.Supp. 1025 (D.S.D.1984), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 830 F.2d 912 (8th Cir.1987); and Laaman v. Helgemoe, 437 F.Supp. 269 (D.N.H.1977). See also Women Prisoners of the Dist. of Columbia v. Dist. of Columbia, 877 F.Supp. 634 (D.D.C.1994); Carty v. Farrelly, 957 F.Supp. 727 (D.Vi.1997); Toussaint v. McCarthy, 597 F.Supp. 1388 (N.D.Cal.1984); Capps v. Atiyeh, 559 F.Supp. 894 (D.Or.1983); Leeds v. Watson, 630 F.2d 674 (9th Cir.1980); Santana v. Collazo, 714 F.2d 1172 (1st Cir.1983); Masonoff v. Bissonette, 899 F.Supp. 782 (D.Mass.1995); Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir.1982); Miles v. Bell, 621 F.Supp. 51 (D.Conn.1985); French v. Owens, 777 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir.1985). Such cases are of somewhat limited assistance in terms of making legal conclusions as to separate prison facilities, since the findings, conclusions and remedies must be tailored to the particular facilities.
C. ASSESSMENT OF CONDITIONS IN THIS CASE
1. Physical and Operational Conditions Related to Fire Safety *44 393. Many of the cases discussed above in which other courts found constitutional violations involved more obvious intrinsically dangerous physical conditions than do the facts of this case.
394. The parties agree that the subject housing units do not meet certain current requirements of the BOCA Code. Defendants’ mechanical engineering expert David Sproul accepted the findings of Rosser Fabrap, the architecture and engineering firm retained by the State of Michigan, that: ... all of the cell blocks at Egeler violate the “means of egress” requirement of the [Building Officials Code Administrators] (“BOCA”) Code; the stairs that would be used for evacuating the cell blocks in Egeler are inadequate in size, enclosure, location, and discharge; and the five-story mezzanine design in the Egeler cell blocks violates the atrium requirement in the BOCA Code.
(2002 Findings ¶¶ 1296 & 1298.)
395. The BOCA Code would not permit a five-tiered cellblock such as those at Egeler or Parnall. (2002 Findings ¶ 1393.) The BOCA Code permits a ceiling height up to 23 feet as long as one of the exits does not require prisoners to descend stairs for more than 23 feet. The purpose of the BOCA ceiling height requirement is to

reduce the number of people at risk. The intent of the ceiling height requirement is to assure compartmentalization, reducing the population at risk from a fire in a particular unit and assuring that prisoners can move horizontally to the next unit in the event of fire, rather than being required to negotiate distances in excess of what is permitted by the Code. (Id. ¶ 1399.)
396. However, the failure of an old prison building to comply with a contemporary building code does not, by itself, constitute a constitutional violation.
397. The subject buildings also do not meet certain requirements of the Life Safety Code. Defendants stated in their State Prison of Southern Michigan Egress Report dated December 12, 2003, that:
Section 15-3.1.3 of the [Life Safety Code] allows multi-tiered open cell blocks to be considered a single story building if the cell block is provided with a smoke control system and the entire cell block is provided with fire protection.
(Pls.’ Ex. 50 at 7 (Defs.’ Plan). Blocks 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 do not have a smoke control system as such a system is defined by the applicable codes. (2002 Findings ¶¶ 1404-05.) The distance a prisoner must travel in these blocks to exit the block exceeds the maximum travel distance of 150 feet permitted by the Life Safety Code. (2002 Findings ¶ 1391.)
398. The provisions of the Life Safety Code include a mechanism for assessing whether the fire safety provisions in a given facility are consistent with the level of safety required under the code, even if the facility does not in all respects comply with the code. (Tr. 138-39; Defs.’ Exs. 30a & 30b.) The expert testimony confirmed that the Life Safety Code deemed the facilities technically compliant. (Tr. 130, 315.)
*45 399. However, the Life Safety Code does not include an assessment of all of the factors pertinent to these housing units, including the needs of the population, the adequacy of staffing, the operating procedures for evacuation that are understood, and applicable fire codes. The totality of these factors must go into the planning and design of the Hadix facilities.
400. In the history of the Hadix facilities, fires have been fairly common. Since December 2004, the Parnall and Egeler facilities have experienced two fires resulting in a total of four injuries to prisoners or staff. There were no injuries to prisoners other than those responsible for setting the fires. From January 1, 2001 to May 5, 2005, there have been no fire incidents in 3-Block at Egeler.
30

Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
401. In the history of the Hadix facilities, simultaneous fires have been fairly common. During a site visit during the 1980s, the Court, accompanied by counsel in United States v. Michigan, directly observed smoke emitting from more than one cell in 5-Block. Also, in last few years alone, the Court has heard evidence concerning isolated fires in the Hadix facilities. These fires, even though there is a minimal risk of the fires spreading to other cells and even though the “fuel supply” in each cell is somewhat limited, each present the possibility of smoke inhalation injury to the occupants of the cell as well as the occupants of the immediate surrounding cells, and particularly those with compromised health.
402. Furthermore, in the event of multiple cell fires due to riot or disturbance (which is part of the history of the Hadix facilities), there is a significant possibility (depending on the number of fires and the fuel supply) that the fires would cause smoke inhalation injury to all prisoners in the block and that those prisoners, especially those who are medically impaired, would be unable to evacuate to safety. The total distance some prisoners must travel to evacuate during a fire is over 200 feet in all cellblocks, which is unacceptable for prisoners suffering from physical and medical handicaps (e.g., mobility impairments, breathing impairments, cardiac impairments, etc.) The disproportionate number of impaired inmates at the Hadix facilities is unlikely to change in the future given that the housing of impaired inmates is a direct consequence of the facilities proximity to Duane Waters Hospital. The housing of disabled and chronically ill prisoners at the Hadix facilities avoids the additional transportation expenses and medical risks which would be caused by housing the prisoners at a remote facility.
403. There are only two officers in each side of the housing units during the night shift, which places the population at extreme risk in a serious fire situation. The staffing level on the night shift has been reduced from three to two per side of the cellblock. While there may be additional staff who could respond to fire emergencies from other cell blocks and the control center, to do so they must travel substantial distances, between 600-800 feet, to the facility. Backup staff would have to travel to the control center to get extra emergency keys and then return a distance of 600-800 feet to assist in opening cells. The time involved to obtain the keys may be from one to three minutes, and the time required to manually unlock all cells may be about two minutes per side.
*46 404. The local fire department, Blackman Township, is two or three miles away and can respond to a fire emergency. During an the MSI Laundry fire in October 2003, the actual time between notification and arrival of the fire department was 15 minutes.

405. In many stairways used for fire evacuation, there is also not enough room to pass another person on the stairs, particularly at pinch points.
406. The locking mechanisms frequently break down and fail to open cell doors and other cellblock locks. These lock failures involve both the doors of individual cells and locking mechanisms for groups of cells. For example, between January 1, 2004 and November 18, 2004, there were 18 locking mechanism failures affecting one or more cells in Block 1. At least two of these failures affected groups of cells. One of these failures was not repaired for 89 days. Between January and November 2004 in Block 1 North, ten (10%) percent of all the locks were out of service, some for as long as two months; in Block 2 North approximately fifteen (15%) percent of all the locks were out of service. Between January 1, 2004 and November 18, 2004, there were 39 locking mechanism failures affecting one or more cells in Block 2. At least 13 of these failures affected groups of cells. One of these failures was not repaired for 80 days. Between January 1, 2004 and November 18, 2004, there were 49 locking mechanism failures affecting one or more cells in Block 3. Eighteen of these failures affected groups of cells. One of these failures was not repaired for 79 days. An outside door that would not unlock was not repaired for ten days. Three locking mechanisms affecting groups of cells were not repaired for over a month. In the period January 1, 2004 to February 23, 2004, there were 22 locking mechanism failures affecting one or more cell in Block 8. Four of these failures affected groups of cells, and one failure affected all cells. One of these failures was not repaired for 103 days. The severe problems with the locking system are not new. A substantial number of the cell locking mechanisms did not work in 2002. (2002 Findings ¶ 1385.)
407. Defendants represent that many of these failures involve locks that fail to lock, and that there are no records of prisoners being locked in their cells and unable to be released. The Court is concerned, nevertheless, that the locking systems, which are essential elements in the fire evacuation system, are in such an unreliable condition.
408. Fire drills in Block 1 have taken up to 16 minutes to complete. Fire drills in Block 2 have taken up to 15 minutes to complete. Fire drills in Block 3 have taken up to 20 minutes to complete. Fire drills in Block 8 have taken up to 20 minutes to complete.
2. Prisoners at heightened risk 409. The Court’s determinations are informed by factors that did not play a role in any of the other legal cases mentioned above. A significant factor in this case that differentiates it from the cases cited in the remand opinion
31

Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
is the very high number of prisoners at heightened risk in the event of a fire due to chronic and disabling medical conditions. These heightened risks derive from several different characteristics of the prison population in the Hadix facility, including the number of prisoners who would not be able to exit as rapidly as other prisoners because of mobility problems; those who would be significantly higher at risk of a heart attack, seizure, or asthma attack; and those with communication problems that would interfere with following directions.
*47 410. A substantial number of prisoners in Blocks 1, 2 and 3 would be at significantly heightened risk of harm in the event of smoke inhalation.
411. At the Egeler Facility, the percentage of prisoners with mobility issues is approximately one and one-half to twice as high as the percentage of persons in the general population with comparable mobility problems.
412. The Egeler prisoners are at particular risk, especially those in quarantine who are not let out, those with mobility limitations, and those with breathing problems on upper levels.
413. Based on the evacuation times experienced in Defendants’ drills, a significant number of prisoners in Blocks 1-3 are at substantial risk of serious harm in the event of a fire.
414. Prisoners with health problems sometimes take more time to transfer to their destination facility following the reception process, resulting in a concentration of such prisoners in Block 7.
415. The extended length of the galleries in Block 7, the narrow and slippery galleries, and the level of lighting combine with the increased number of prisoners with health problems to place prisoners in Block 7 at heightened risk in the event of a fire.
416. A substantial number of prisoners in Block 7 would be at significantly heightened risk of harm in the event of a fire. The percentage of persons at heightened risk in the event of a fire is much greater than the percentage in the general population who would be at heightened risk.
417. Based on the evacuation time experienced in Defendants’ drills, a significant number of prisoners in Block 7 are at substantial risk of serious harm in the event of a fire.
418. There are many more people with functional limitations in Block 8 than in the general adult working-age population. In Block 8, the percentage of the population at risk in the event of fire because of mobility problems rises to four to five times the national prevalence rate.

419. Overall, there are substantial numbers of prisoners in Block 8 who are at significantly heightened risk of harm in the event of a fire. The percentage of prisoners at heightened risk in Block 8 is much higher than the percentage in the general population.
420. Based on the evacuation times experienced in Defendants’ drills, a significant number of prisoners in Block 8 are at substantial risk of serious harm
421. Large numbers of the prisoners in the Hadix facilities do not have the capability to descend stairs and travel 250 feet or more to an exit in an orderly fashion before conditions become untenable.
422. Large numbers of the prisoners with special medical conditions in the Hadix facilities are at increased risk from smoke and fire, particularly those with chronic cardiac disease and pulmonary disease.
423. In order to ensure fire safety, it is necessary to consider the capabilities of the occupants within a facility if they do not fall within the norms of a general population.
424. Defendants’ renovations to the housing units do not address concerns with a fire or emergency for those prisoners who would have difficulty with mobility, breathing, strength and endurance, and following directions.
*48 425. In light of the skeleton staff and lack of drills on the third shift, there is substantial reason to think that actual times during a fire emergency would be even longer than the times shown in fire drills in the event of an actual fire.
426. Under current conditions, neither formal policy (evacuating prisoners with medical conditions on Base last) nor current practice (evacuating such prisoners first) is safe. In the case of an actual fire, the practice of evacuating Base prisoners first would dangerously delay removing prisoners from the higher galleries where the smoke would be thickest. At the same time, prisoners on Base who are at heightened risk in the event of smoke inhalation, or who exit particularly slowly, cannot be safely maintained on Base without a smoke removal system.
427. When prisoners would be released from the top down in an emergency, traffic jams or chaotic conditions could develop, particularly if people were noisy getting out. In certain instances, weaker or functionally-limited persons could be injured or could become a barrier for others.
32

Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
3. Implications of New Analytical Models 428. Another significant factor in this case is that advances in technology make possible more accurate and refined models of the expected consequences of a fire in one of the cellblocks. In this case, the models proffered by Defendants demonstrate, in light of all the circumstances in this case, the highly probable consequence of a serious fire would be the inability to remove all the occupants of the cellblock before conditions became completely unsafe. In reaching this conclusion, the Court is considering the condition of the prisoners; the shocking lack of a reliable unlocking system; the inability of the current fire protection devices to remove smoke during the exiting process; the extremely long distances, pinch points, and unenclosed stairways that prisoners must traverse to exit; and the other evidence presented by the parties.
429. Professor Frederick B. Mowrer was retained by Defendants to develop a model of the conditions that would prevail in the Hadix cellblocks in the event of a fire. He testified that fire modeling is an attempt to calculate the conditions resulting from a fire within a room or a building over a period of time instead of as just a snapshot of any particular moment. Fire models are developed in light of the principles that fuel has a given potential for producing energy in a fire, but that fires can vary in the rate that fuel is consumed, and this variance in the rate of fuel consumption determines the length of time that the fire will burn. Another principle of fire model-building is that the arrangement of the fuel will affect the rate that fuel will be consumed in a fire. In a given arrangement, the transfer of heat may be insufficient to sustain combustion, while a different presentation of the fuel would burn readily. Another known characteristic of fires is that, as smoke rises in an enclosed space, the smoke entrains fresh air, with the result that the volume of smoke increases but the smoke itself becomes less concentrated. When the smoke plume reaches the top of an enclosed space, the smoke begins to bank down and become more concentrated. *49 • Dr. Mowrer’s zone model predicts that smoke density from a fire on Base will reach untenable visibility levels within ten minutes. Within approximately ten minutes, average visibility will have fallen to two meters. This is about half of the time in which Defendants’ fire drills demonstrate that the faculties may take for evacuation. Moreover, because Dr. Mowrer’s zone model cannot show the expected much higher density within the smoke plume of a fire, in fact a fire on Base would be expected to result in segments of multiple tiers reaching untenable visibility levels much earlier than the ten minutes predicted by the zone model.
• Dr. Mowrer’s model predicts that temperatures in the cell above the tier where the fire starts would reach approximately 175 F., a temperature high enough to cause injury.

• Dr. Mowrer’s zone model is also intrinsically unable to describe the variations in smoke density within the smoke plume from a fire. The concentration of smoke on the side of cellblock where the fire occurs will be much higher than the concentration of smoke on the other side.
• If two fires were set in separate cells in the same cellblock, the amount of smoke produced would be double the amount produced by a single fire. There would be a higher heat release rate, more soot production, and the smoke layer would drop faster because the heat release rates are higher.
430. Given all the relevant factors, including the high risk population, the long distances that must be traveled to reach safety, the pinch points that do not allow two people to pass each other, the open stairs, the lack of a reliable unlocking system, the lack of a remote release system in Egeler, the deficient training and supervision of staff, the lack of a sufficient staff to accomplish cell release in the event of a fire at night, and the short period of time before conditions become intolerable in comparison to the length of time that evacuation can be expected to take, loss of life can be expected if a significant fire occurs in the Hadix facilities.
431. There is a very substantial, life-threatening risk to the prisoners in the event of a fire in the Hadix facilities. There is an absolute probability that the population in Blocks 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 would be put at substantial risk of inhalation of smoke that is serious, indeed, life threatening.
D. Finding of Constitutional Violation and Remedy 432. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that there are current and ongoing constitutional violations with regard to fire safety. Prospective relief retaining Section III of the Consent Decree remains necessary to correct that violation. The remedy set forth below extends no further than necessary to correct the constitutional violations. This remedy is also narrowly drawn and appropriately part of the least intrusive means to correct the violation, particularly because it is the remedy that Defendants previously submitted as their remedial plan, with minimal necessary additions.9 See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1).
*50 433. In view of the history of hearings on this issue and the fact that Defendants have previously been provided with the opportunity to develop an appropriate remedial plan, the Court adopts the remedial plan previously submitted by Defendants on December 30, 2002, with certain revisions as set forth below. (See Defs.’ Brief/Plan to Comply with the Court’s Injunction
33

Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
Pertaining to Heat-Related Illness and Defs.’ Br. Regarding Alternatives to Compartmentalization to Remedy Alleged Fire Safety Problems and Risks, Dec. 30, 2002, Attach. 1.)
434. The Court will accordingly issue an injunction which reduces the current life threatening risks posed by the current conditions to a risk that is less than substantial by the following remedies:
(A) The creation of horizontal exits through the creation in each block of two smoke compartments, the electrification of the cell doors in the Egeler Facility with remote control capability from the control center, and introduction of an adequate smoke exhaust system in all five blocks;
(B) The replacement of the locking system, which has been subject to a shocking rate of failures in the locking systems and has outlived its useful life; and
(C) The management of xylene and other flammable chemicals stored at the MSI factory by either the construction of a fire safety storage room for the chemicals or the reduction of the total quantity of the stored flammable chemicals to a volume of less than 120 gallons.
435. To provide maximum flexibility as to remedy, Defendants may invoke the provisions of the stipulation of the parties ordered by the Court on June 8, 1990 establishing the SPSM Decentralization Team (SDT). As ordered by the Court on November 27, 1992, the SDT may consider, and approve by consensus, alternative technical and operational means to remedy the unconstitutional conditions by providing the same level of fire safety redress as that ordered. Involvement of the SDT was intended to facilitate decisions during the design and construction process, and to permit the evaluation and expeditious adoption, without the involvement of the Court, of alternative technical approaches that achieve comparable results.
436. These remedies would address the needs identified by Plaintiffs’ medical and disabilities experts, who indicated that changes would have to include reduction in the travel distances and travel times, and greater consideration of the mobility, vision, and other problems that these prisoners have. (Pls.’ Ex. 3B at 80, 85; Tr. 271.)
437. The horizontal wall in each block would divide the block in half. It would extend from the ceiling to the Base. A door in the middle of each gallery would allow everyone to exit horizontally at each level from the side involved with the fire to the smoke-free side. (Tr. 236.)
438. The new horizontal wall with an exit door would make it unnecessary for prisoners to exit down

unenclosed stairs. (Id. at 232, 322-23.). If there were a fire in a stairway, which is a likely scenario, prisoners would still be able to use the horizontal exit to reach the safe side without having to use the stairs. (Id. at 236.) Prisoners would have to use stairs only after moving out of the area of danger through the door. They could conceivably remain in the smoke-free compartment and not have to be evacuated from the building. This arrangement would have the added benefit of not requiring an outside evacuation of the prisoner population, which is undesirable. (Id. at 237.) Defendants’ expert had concurred that it is undesirable to evacuate prisoners. (Id. at 139.)
*51 439. Although the construction of the horizontal wall and exit will increase the density of smoke in the area where the fire is located, all of the remedies must be considered in combination. The remote release system will remove prisoners from their cells quickly, so they can start evacuating without having to wait for a guard to release their locks manually. The smoke removal system should also maintain the level of the smoke above the area of egress. The cell release system, in combination with the smoke evacuation system and the smoke barrier, work together to protect prisoners. (Id. at 322-23.) Compartmentalization will also reduce the number of prisoners exposed to fire in any given incident.
440. Defendants’ Fire Safety and Egress Report dated December 12, 2003 (“Defendants’ Report”) was prepared to address the deficiencies found by the Court in the 2002 Findings. (Pls.’ Ex. 50.) Defendants’ Report explained the benefits of the horizontal wall: ... The construction of the horizontal exit reduces the number of building occupants in one smoke/fire compartment by one half, therefore also reducing the number of occupants who have to be removed from their cells by one half.
It is our opinion that constructing a horizontal exit will reduce the time required for occupants to exit the smoke/fire compartment and greatly improve the safety of the occupants. (Pls.’ Ex. 50 at 5, 17.)
441. Defendants’ Report also addressed the deficiencies in smoke exhaust:
The smoke control system will exhaust a minimum of 150,000 cubic feet per minute out of each smoke compartment ... Installing the smoke control system will improve the safety of the occupants within the cell block by evacuating smoke out of the open tier cell block design. It will allow more time and greater visibility for occupants of the cell block to exit the
34

Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

smoke/fire compartment. (Pls.’ Ex. 50 at 6.)
442. The new proposed smoke control plan described in Defendants’ Report would exhaust a minimum of 150,000 cubic feet per minute (“CFM”). This would greatly enhance the smoke exhaust capabilities that are there now which are fairly minimum. (Tr. 239.) This was the capacity recommended by Mr. DiMascio in the 2002 hearing. (2002 Findings ¶ 1404.)
443. Defendants’ Report also described the benefits of addressing the lack of a remote unlocking mechanism in Blocks 1, 2 and 3:
The remote unlocking mechanism will allow the staff at the guard station within each of the three cell blocks to remotely unlock the cell doors. This will decrease the time required to unlock the cells. It is our opinion that modifying the existing unlocking mechanisms to remotely unlock the cells will decrease the time required to exit the cells and greatly increase the safety of the occupants. (Pls.’ Ex. 50 at 6.)
444. A remote cell release system should have a release from a central location on Base where officers could activate buttons that would open the cells. This was not done in Blocks 7 and 8. If that location became uninhabitable because of smoke, or the officers became disabled, the control center could remotely unlock the cells. (Tr. 238-39.)
*52 445. In light of the continued deterioration of the

locking system since the 2002 hearing, the remedies addressed in Defendants’ Report are not sufficient, and the locking system must be replaced in a comprehensive and reliable manner.
446. In summary, the plan for remediation set forth in Defendants’ Report, with the addition of the repair of the locking system, would correct the life safety deficiencies at the Hadix housing facilities. It would aid prisoners in exiting their cells as quickly as possible from the onset of hazardous conditions. It would provide a smoke barrier that would have the effect of dividing the exposed population in half and the additional advantage of requiring only horizontal travel to an area of safe refuge. The smoke exhaust system would evacuate smoke early (offsetting effects of the density of smoke resulting from reducing the volume of space within the compartment). The plan set forth in Defendants’ Report would also substantially address the fire safety needs of those prisoners with health problems.
447. To correct the fire safety hazards caused by the improper storage of flammable chemicals in the metal furniture factory, Defendants should either remove the chemicals from the inside location, reduce the quantity of the flammable liquids stored to an amount such that fire safety wall is not required (less than 120 gallons10), or construct a flammable liquid storage and handling room for storage and dispensing of the flammable liquids.
An Injunction shall enter consistent with these findings, requiring the implementation of the fire safety remedy herein determined as the minimal and least intrusive remedy to correct the intentional constitutional violation found.
	  

Footnotes

1

The history of this case is also stated in other decisions of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, see Hadix v. Johnson, 228 F.3d 662

(6th Cir.2000); 144 F.3d 925 (6th Cir.1998); 143 F.3d 246 (6th Cir.1998); 133 F.3d 940 (6th Cir.1998), and of the District Courts,

see Hadix v. Johnson, 45 F.Supp.2d 584 (E.D.Mich.1999); 947 F.Supp. 1113 (E.D.Mich.1996); 947 F.Supp. 1100

(E.D.Mich.1996); 933 F.Supp. 1360 (E.D.Mich.1996); 879 F.Supp. 743 (E.D.Mich.1995); 896 F.Supp. 697 (E.D.Mich.1995); 792

F.Supp. 527 (E.D.Mich.1992); 740 F.Supp. 433 (E.D.Mich.1990); 712 F.Supp. 550 (E.D.Mich.1989); 694 F.Supp. 259

(E.D.Mich.1988).

2

On January 8, 2001, this Court entered its order terminating in all respects Section II.B (mental health care) of the Consent Decree.

3

This case is considerably more complex than these fire safety findings indicate. Many aspects of the case-mental health, legal

access, temperature, water and particular health care issues-have resulted in termination of District Court jurisdiction. However,

two very significant issues have remained due to persistent Constitutional violations-fire safety and health care. The statement of

the litigation history herein excludes reference to many of the terminated issues.

4

Compartmentalization refers to physical modifications which divide the cell blocks into smaller units to limit the spread of fire and

smoke, and to facilitate access to safe refuge by reducing the distance a prisoner travels to exit and to eliminate the need to use

stairs to exit.

35

Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

5

The Court also understands because of its long history with this case that compartmentalization was originally agreed upon in the

Consent Decree as a security feature, but was later championed by Plaintiffs, but not Defendants, for its potential as a fire safety

remedy. See Hadix, 367 F.3d at 519.

6

The prisoner numbers referenced in this paragraph and others have been used to record prisoner medical issues while safeguarding

the privacy of the prisoners at issue.

7

The numbers listed identify prisoners receiving the accommodations.

8

Similar signage problems were observed as to the other cell blocks. However, Eugene Fushi testified that all of the posed drawings

have since been corrected.

9

While saying so, the Court understands that Defendants do not consent to compartmentalization. With that said, though, this

compartmentalization remedy is drafted by Defendants as the most effective compartmentalization remedy in their judgment.

10

(Based on industry standards, see tr. at 31.)

	  

36

 
 Hadix v. Caruso, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)
2007 WL 1657397 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, W.D. Michigan,
Southern Division.
Everett HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Patricia CARUSO, et al., Defendants.
No. 4:92-CV-110. | June 5, 2007.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Elizabeth Alexander, Washington, DC, Michael Barnhart, Patricia A. Streeter, Ann Arbor, MI, for Plaintiffs.
Opinion
OPINION
RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN, Senior United States District Judge.
*1 This matter is before the Court to address in expedited fashion the subject of whether Defendants’ heat-related injury plan should receive Court approval. The parties have provided expedited briefing on the subject. The expedition of the process has been necessary because the plan is to be implemented by July 15, 2007 and any delay in its implementation is likely to prevent any effective remedy during the warmest of the 2007 heat alert days. While the Court would like to entertain oral argument on this matter, the Court’s present scheduling and the pressing nature of the remedy do not permit such.
In order to understand the scope and nature of the remedy needed, one must revisit the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of April 3, 2007 (hereafter “Findings”). This Court found based on one-sided medical testimony presented during the January 2007 hearing that the present summer conditions at the Hadix facilities pose an unacceptable risk of heat-related injury to those Hadix prisoners classified at high risk for heat-related injury. (See Findings ¶¶ 8-9, 11-12, 16, 18-20, 31, 34, 42-43.) The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that prisoners be housed in humane conditions of confinement which do not expose them to life-threatening conditions. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994); Helling v.

McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33-34, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993). While the Eighth Amendment only prohibits deliberate indifference to known unconstitutional conditions, once prison officials are put on notice of those conditions in the context of an ongoing litigation, their failure to correct the conditions will warrant injunctive relief to prevent further exposure to life-threatening conditions. See Hadix v. Johnson, 367 F.3d 513, 526 (6th Cir.2004).
In light of such legal requirements, this Court found that a Permanent Injunction should enter requiring Defendants to house prisoners at high risk for heat-related injury within facilities with a reliable heat-index below 90. Defendants have complied with the Permanent Injunction by forwarding a plan for Court approval which provides for: (1) the use of temporary air conditioning units (trailer-based units) for Blocks 4, 5, and 6 on heat alert days; and (2) the use of a “Cool Dome” air-conditioned facility on the grounds of the Egeler Reception and Guidance Center (“RGC”) to house RGC and 7 Block at-risk prisoners during heat alert days. Defendants believe that this plan, though not without some discomfort and inconvenience for some of the affected prisoners, would provide a sufficient remedy to comply with the Court’s requirements and would prevent avoidable heat-related injury. (See Defs.’ Resp. 2-5; 2nd Supplement 1-3.) Defendants also foresee that the use of the Cool Dome could serve other department needs during the non-summer seasons by providing additional space for needed storage and/or staff usage. (Defs.’ Resp. at 5-7.)
*2 Plaintiffs have objected to the plan. Plaintiffs express concern that the operation of the Cool Dome would expose prisoners to undue risk of physical violence from other prisoners, would fail to provide adequate sanitation (because prisoners would have to leave the Cool Dome to use restroom facilities), would disrupt the delivery of medications and medical care to affected prisoners, would jeopardize prisoner access to their personal property including court papers, and would provide inadequate facilities which do not accommodate the needs of handicapped prisoners. Plaintiffs also express concern that the Cool Dome remedy, as implemented, may be waived by prisoners, such that it may not be utilized by a sufficient number of them to render it effective. The Court has reviewed these arguments with a shared concern for the plight of the affected prisoners. Plaintiffs have also filed evidence (the Affidavit of Clarence Moore) which supports the notion that prison officials may have retaliated against prisoners in Blocks 4-7 for exercising their rights under the Eighth and First Amendments to the Constitution.1
Notwithstanding, the terms of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1), require that
1

Hadix v. Caruso, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)
prospective relief be limited and that intrusions upon public institutions not adversely impact their operations:
Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right. The court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief.
18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1). Furthermore, the traditional stance in equity of the courts is to provide public officials with sufficient discretion in implementing effective remedies and to pay special attention to the public consequences of injunction relief. See Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 311-12, 102 S.Ct. 1798, 72 L.Ed.2d 91 (1982); Knop v. Johnson, 977 F.2d 996, 1008 (6th Cir.1992).
Given the lateness of the season and the flexibility which must be afforded to public administers in administering constitutional remedies, the Court’s only choice at this point of time is to approve Defendants’ chosen heat-related remedies for this season with conditions to make the implementation of the remedy consistent with constitutional standards. To do otherwise would be to loose the 2007 summer season without an effective remedy.
As such, Defendants’ remedy will be approved subject to the following conditions:
(1) Defendants shall take steps to ensure that all Cool Dome prisoners with disabilities shall be provided with accommodations for their disabilities consistent with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq. Defendants’ plans to do so shall be shared with Plaintiffs and the Court on a timely basis.
*3 (2) Defendants shall provide at no cost to the Cool Dome prisoners locks to secure property at RGC (and also Block 7, if necessary) and messengers to retrieve property when there is an urgent reason for doing so (i.e., access to medication, access to court papers in order to meet a

filing date, etc.)
(3) Defendants shall ensure that American Public Health Association standards for sanitation (toilets and washbasins) are met as to Cool Dome prisoners, namely at least one toilet and one sink per every eight prisoners within the Cool Dome shall be provided. At least, one third of those toilet/sink combinations shall be provided inside the Cool Dome and the remainder shall be provided immediately outside the facility. These facilities shall be maintained in a sanitary condition during occupancy.2 The Monitor shall also verify the lists for those to be housed in the Cool Dome and may add additional prisoners at risk of heat-related injury to the list based upon his review of patient records and independent clinical judgment.
(4) Defendants shall plan and take active steps to ensure that Cool Dome housing does not interfere with prisoner access to medical care and prescriptions and shall share such plans on a timely basis with both Plaintiffs and this Court.
(5) Defendants shall plan and take active steps to ensure that Cool Dome housing does not pose any unnecessary security risk to prisoners and shall share such plans on a timely basis with both Plaintiffs and this Court.
(6) Defendants shall cease and desist from punitive measures (including the non-provision of regular services afforded other inmates) which retaliate against class members for exercising their constitutional rights.
(7) Defendants shall file with the Court not later than June 15, 2007 an implementation schedule for the heat-related remedies described herein together with affidavits of responsible officials attesting to the feasability of the implementation by July 15, 2007, the effectiveness of Defendants’ plans to meet the Court’s required conditions, and the steps which have been taken to eliminate any retaliation against prisoners.
(8) Defendants shall survey the percentage of prisoners who do not utilize the Cool Dome remedy and shall report to the Court by September 30, 2007 both the percentage of prisoners not utilizing the remedy and the reasons given for not utilizing the remedy by the prisoners who waive it. Prior to accepting a waiver, Defendants shall provide the prospective Cool Dome prisoner with a copy of this Opinion and the Order implementing it, and shall advise each prisoner that the Court has ordered the remedy to be implemented consistent with constitutional standards. Plaintiffs may, but are not required to, file a motion not later than October 15, 2007 seeking a different remedy for the 2008 summer season.
Accordingly, an Order shall enter approving Defendants’ heat-related injury plan subject to the conditions set forth herein.
2

Hadix v. Caruso, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

	  

Footnotes

1

Defendants, post-briefing, filed a “Status Report,” which attempted to contradict Mr. Moore’s characterization of their conduct as

retaliatory. While Defendants do not deny that some regular services are being denied Hadix prisoners, they represent that the

denials are not retaliatory in nature (i.e., postal services were denied due to temporary malfunction of a postage machine and other

services were temporarily suspended due to the projected closing date of prison facilities). Defendants do not dispute, however, the

concept, firmly established in Sixth Circuit law, that they are not free to retaliate for the exercise of First Amendment rights. See

Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 394 (6th Cir.1999) (en banc ). Plaintiffs have also moved to strike the Status Report since it

is made without evidentiary support. While Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike will be denied given the limited authority of the Court to

strike pleadings under Rule 12(f), see Stabilisierungsfonds Fur Wein v. Kaiser Stuhl Wine Distributors Pty. Ltd., 647 F.2d 200, 201

(D.C.Cir.1981), it is significant that Defendants’ representations are not supported by affidavit, declaration or deposition.

2

See American Public Health Association Task Force on Correctional Health, Standards for Health Services in Correctional

Institutions 151-52 (3d Ed.2003) (setting forth the one to eight ratio as the proper standard for sinks/toilets in a dormitory setting).

The above health standards reflect a recognition of the need for basic sanitation within living quarters. This is also very necessary

for the Hadix population given that many of the inmates have health conditions which contribute to frequent urination (enlarged

prostate, diabetes, etc.).

	  

3

 
 Hadix v. Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
2005 WL 2654287 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division.
Everett HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Perry M. JOHNSON, et al., Defendants. No. 4:92-CV-110. | Oct. 13, 2005.
Opinion
ORDER
ENSLEN, Senior J. *1 Defendants, through counsel, have moved for reconsideration of this Court’s September 14, 2005 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Injunction Concerning Fire Safety. Plaintiffs have timely opposed the Motion. Upon review of the briefing, oral argument is

unnecessary.
Pursuant to Western District of Michigan Local Civil Rule 7.4(a), reconsideration is appropriate only if the movant “demonstrate[s] a palpable defect by which the Court and the parties have been mislead ... [and] that a different disposition must result from the correction thereof.” Defendants’ Motion fails this standard and those applicable under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60. Defendants wrongly assume that “[t]he Court’s 2005 Findings [are] premised on ... Section 15.3.1.3 of the Life Safety Code.” (Defs.’ Br. at 2.) This assumption is contradicted by ¶¶ 396, 430 and 431 of the Findings and by this Court’s intent to follow the remand directions of the Sixth Circuit by focusing on the actual fire safety conditions. Defendants’ positions are likewise mistaken for the other reasons argued by Plaintiffs. (See Pls.’ Br. at 2-6.)
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. No.1902) is DENIED.
	  

1

 
 Hadix v. Caruso, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
2006 WL 2830062 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, W.D. Michigan,
Southern Division.
Everett HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Patricia L. CARUSO, et al., Defendants.
No. 4:92-CV-110. | Oct. 2, 2006.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Elizabeth Alexander, National Prison Project of the ACLUF, Washington, DC, Michael Barnhart, Patricia A. Streeter, Ann Arbor, MI, for Plaintiffs.
Leo H. Friedman, A. Peter Govorchin, MI Dept. Attorney General, Lansing, MI, for Defendants.
Opinion
ORDER
RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN, Senior District Judge.
*1 This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Appeal of United States Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody’s Order of August 29, 2006. Said Order partially struck Defendants’ belated witness list by striking the testimony of two expert witnesses and potentially limiting the testimony of a third expert witness. Oral argument is unnecessary given the issues raised, and given the Court’s familiarity with the issue from discussions during the July 12, 2006 status conference.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the review of a magistrate judge’s pretrial orders is limited to whether the orders are “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980); Flournoy v. Marshall, 842 F .2d 875, 876-77 (6th Cir.1988). This standard is necessarily deferential; it does not permit reversal unless the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that an error has been made. See United States v. Kellams, 26 F.3d 646, 648 (6th Cir.1994) (citing Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573-74 (1985)); Chakales v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 79 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir.1996).1
What is at issue here is the potential testimony of Ronald Shanky, M. D., Rafael Javier, M.D., and potentially some testimony of Robert Greifinger, M.D.2 The Order

excluded such testimony pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f) due to belated listing of the witnesses, belated disclosure of expert reports, and belated disclosure of related discovery.3 The Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the exclusion of such testimony was the proper and just sanction for the late disclosures. The cases of Power Ventures Inc. v. City of Westfield, 296 F.3d 43, 46-47 (1st Cir.2002) and Rosario-Diaz v. Gonzalez, 140 F.3d 312, 315-16 (1st Cir.1998) support this result. While the Court understands that the focus of federal prison litigation, by statute, is the constitutionality of current prison conditions, see 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3), this does not mean that all rules of case management and discovery are suspended in pursuit of what happened in the last instant. Rather, the presentation of testimony must still abide by the ordinary rules of case management and discovery in order to ensure that competing parties have fair access to information and can fairly test the conclusions of their adversaries.
In affirming this decision, the Court has weighed the factors of the importance of the testimony, the prejudice to the opposing party of allowing the late testimony, the possibility of curing prejudice through delay of trial, and the explanation for the party’s failure. See Rushing v. Kansas City So. R.R. Co., 185 F.3d 496, 509 (5th Cir.1999) (citing cases). These factors support the Magistrate Judge’s decision to exclude the testimony notwithstanding the significance of the testimony. Plaintiffs would be greatly prejudiced were they forced to confront such testimony without adequate preparation and discovery. The hearing cannot be delayed since there have been a spate of prisoner deaths under dire circumstances suggesting constitutional violations by Defendants and further suggesting that significant injunctive relief may be urgently necessary to correct the violations. Defendants’ extension request was caused by Defendants’ noncompliance with clear scheduling requirements. Due to the repeated nature of Defendants’ noncompliance in this case, the Court regards such noncompliance as intentional and warranting correction. There is a strong need to reinforce the rule of law and to prevent untimely practice in this case given its longstanding nature. See also Clarksville-Montgomery County Sch. Sys. v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 925 F.2d 993, 998 (6th Cir.1991) (citing cases and discussing district courts’ broad authority under Rule 16).
*2 THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s Order of August 29, 2006 (Dkt. No. 2108) is DENIED and the Order is AFFIRMED.
	  
1

Hadix v. Caruso, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

Footnotes

1

Although the Court applies the “clearly erroneous” standard, the Court would reach the same resolution even if a “de novo ”

standard were applied.

2

The witness filing deadline was given by the Court’s Order of February 6, 2006 approving the partial stipulation of January 26,

2006. Defendants’ witness list was filed some 20 days late and included two newly disclosed expert witnesses-Shansky and

Javier-as to whom reports were not timely provided. Dr. Greifinger’s first expert report was timely disclosed, though his amended

(second) report was untimely. Dr. Greifinger’s amended expert report will be received at the conclusion of the October evidentiary

hearing provided that Plaintiffs are given adequate further discovery as to his amended expert report; if not, then Defendants

should be limited to the first report and testimony in support of the first report as explained more completely in the Order of

August 29, 2006.

3

Defendants were required by the Order of February 27, 2006 to provide the names of individuals referenced in expert reports as

well as the supporting medical documentation relied upon by the expert. (Order of Feb. 27, 2006 ¶ 3.)

	  

2

 
 Hadix v. Caruso, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
2006 WL 2865506 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, W.D. Michigan,
Southern Division.
Everett HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Patricia L. CARUSO, et al., Defendants.
No. 4:92-CV-110. | Oct. 3, 2006.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Deborah A. Labelle, Deborah Labelle Law Offices, Michael Barnhart, Patricia A. Streeter, Ann Arbor, MI, Elizabeth Alexander, Washington, DC, Jeanne E. Mirer, Pitt, Dowty, McGehee, Mirer & Palmer, P.C., Royal Oak, MI, for Plaintiffs.
Opinion
ORDER
RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN, Senior District Judge.
*1 This matter is before the Court on Defendants Patricia Caruso et al.’s Motion to Quash [Plaintiffs’] Discovery Subpoena of Allan Small, a non-party witness. Small is the psychologist who was on duty on August 6, 2006, the date of the infamous prisoner death in segregation, and has been subpoenaed to produce a copy of the videotape recordings relating to the August 6, 2006 death. The Motion is opposed by Plaintiffs, who seek to enforce the discovery subpoena. This Motion is resolved without argument due to its urgency and the straight-forward nature of the issues in dispute.
Defendants’ arguments, in favor of quashing the subpoena, concern the service of the subpoena and witness fees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b), the fact that Small was not listed as a trial witness,1 the interests of Defendants in prison security, and the interests of the decedent’s estate in the privacy, name and likeness of the decedent.
Plaintiffs’ response adequately answers these concerns. First of all, Allan Small is not a party to these proceedings and Defendants lack standing to move to quash the discovery subpoena. Brown v. Braddick, 595 F.2d 961,
Footnotes

967 (5th Cir.1979) (citing authorities); McNerney v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., 164 F.R.D. 584, 587-88 (W.D.N.Y.1995) (citing authorities); Washington v. Thurgood Marshall Academy, 230 F.R.D. 18, 21 (D.D.C.2005) (citing authorities).
Although the lack of standing makes further rulings unnecessary, the Court also makes the following observations for the purpose of facilitating the cooperation of the parties and prompt resolution of controversies. The objections about service were implicitly waived by Defendants’ counsel’s acceptance of service without objection, and by the parties’ implicit practices in this case which have utilized informal service practice to reduce Defendants’ costs in the suit (i.e., formal practices would result in greater attorney services by Plaintiffs and greater costs, which Defendants would then be obligated to pay under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 28 U.S.C. § 1920). Defendants’ concerns about the “security” of Hadix facilities is not threatened by disclosure of the tape. The tape, according to past briefing, shows only in-cell prisoner treatment and its disclosure would not, in the Court’s judgment, degrade security in any way. Defendants’ concerns about the privacy interests of the deceased are substantial-as indicated by the Court’s Order of September 28, 2006. However, Plaintiffs have also obtained express permission from the attorney for the estate for Plaintiffs to “obtain” the tape for discovery purposes. (Pls.’ Resp., attach. 1.) As such, those concerns do not prevent enforcement of the subpoena.
The Court will also modify its Order of September 28, 2006 to facilitate the filing of a copy of the tape by the Independent Medical Monitor.2 This modification will have the effect of sealing the tape from public disclosure. This is regrettable in light of the rule of openness of public proceedings, but is necessary in this case because the decedent’s estate has not waived its privacy interests in the use and full disclosure of the taped images.
*2 THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Quash (Dkt. No. 2122) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Order of September 28, 2006 is AMENDED as follows: The requirement of filing a redacted copy is VACATED. The original copy shall remained SEALED and not disclosed to the public, except for Plaintiffs’ counsel and proper representatives of the decedent’s estate.
	  
1

Hadix v. Caruso, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

1

The late listing is proper in view of the fact that this evidence arose belatedly.

2

Said Order required, as a condition for filing the tape, that the tape be filed in both an original and redacted format. The

Independent Monitor has since informed the Court, though, that the redaction of the tape is practically speaking impossible due to

the very significant editing which would be involved.

	  

2

 
 Hadix v. Caruso, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment Declined to Follow by Jenkins v. DeKalb County, Georgia, N.D.Ga., March 12, 2007
2006 WL 2925270 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, W.D. Michigan,
Southern Division.
Everett HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Patricia L. CARUSO, et al., Defendants.
No. 4:92-CV-110. | Oct. 6, 2006.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Deborah A. Labelle, Deborah Labelle Law Offices, Michael Barnhart, Patricia A. Streeter, Ann Arbor, MI, Elizabeth Alexander, Washington, DC, Jeanne E. Mirer, Pitt, Dowty, McGehee, Mirer & Palmer, P.C., Royal Oak, MI, for Plaintiffs.
Opinion
OPINION
RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN, Senior District Judge.
*1 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal of United States Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody’s Order of September 19, 2006, which denied Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of peer review medical documents requested in discovery. Oral argument is unnecessary in light of the briefing.
STANDARD OF REVIEW Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the review of a magistrate judge’s pretrial orders is limited to whether the orders are “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980); Flournoy v. Marshall, 842 F .2d 875, 876-77 (6th Cir.1988). This standard is necessarily deferential; it does not permit reversal unless the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that an error has been made. See United States v. Kellams, 26 F.3d 646, 648 (6th Cir.1994) (citing Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573-74 (1985)); Chakales v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 79 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir.1996).

LEGAL ANALYSIS Upon review of the argument, the decision of the Magistrate Judge shall be affirmed. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has had limited opportunity to consider and resolve this question. In United States v. Michigan, 940 F.2d 143, 161-66 & n. 12 (6th Cir .1991), the Sixth Circuit criticized this Court’s failure to recognize a peer review privilege, but reversed the decision permitting access to the documents not based upon the privilege per se, but because the order in question unduly modified the underlying Consent Decree (which provided that only a summary of the peer review documents would be released). The Sixth Circuit did, however, in dicta, criticize an earlier ruling which failed to recognize the privilege. Id. at 163 n. 12. Plaintiffs argue that a medical peer review privilege should not be recognized under Federal Rule of Evidence 501 because of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Univ. of Pa. v. E.E.O.C., 493 U.S. 182 (1990), which refused to adopt an “academic peer review privilege,” the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Virmani v. Novant Health Inc., 259 F.3d 284, 289 (4th Cir.2001), which refused to adopt a “medical peer review privilege” in the context of a racial discrimination employment suit, and Agster v. Maricopa County, 422 F.3d 836, 839-40 (9th Cir.2005), which refused to apply the privilege in the context of a prisoner’s wrongful death suit arising under both federal and state law.
Many of the decisions which have followed the University of Pennsylvania decision have applied it overly broadly to contexts which were not intended by the Supreme Court and which belie the intent of Rule 501 (to allow a flexible approach to the federal common law of privilege which serves important national interests). This treatment is reminiscent of some noteworthy words of wisdom by author Mark Twain:
We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it-and stop there; lest we be like the cat that sits down a hot stove-lid. She will never sit down a hot stove-lid again-and that is well, but also she will never sit down a cold one anymore.1
*2 The cold stove that precedent has ignored since the University of Pennsylvania decision is the widely recognized interest of the medical profession, acting to serve society, to eliminate incompetent physician practices by a peer review of physician performance. These interests were recognized by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and affirmed on appeal in the case of Bredice v. Doctors Hosp., Inc., 50
1

Hadix v. Caruso, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

F.R.D. 249 (D.D.C.1970), aff’d 479 F.2d 920 (D.C.Cir.1973) and other cases until the University of Pennsylvania decision put some judges at fear of recognizing new privileges, particularly in view of Congress’ failure to adopt a federal peer review privilege in statutory law. But cf. Weekoty v. United States, 30 F.Supp.2d 1343 (D.N.M.1998) (recognizing privilege); Stringfellow v. Oakwood Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24416 (E.D.Mich. Oct. 21, 2005) (recognizing privilege) (Defs.’ Resp., Ex. 1).
Medical peer review, unlike academic peer review, is variously protected by the laws of all 50 states, which shield peer review documents from civil discovery. Virmani, 259 F.3d 284, 290; see also Charles David Creech, The Medical Review Committee Privilege: A Jurisdictional Survey, 67 N.C. L.Rev. 179, 179-80 (Nov.1988). The purpose of those laws is obvious on their face. If medical malpractice suitors are permitted access to institutionally self-critical analysis, then the self-critical analysis and attendant improvements of medical services will stop. See HCA Health Servs. of Va., Inc. v. Levin, 530 S.E.2d 417, 420 (Va.2000). The Virmani decision, which did not recognize the privilege in the context of employment discrimination, nevertheless agreed that the pervasiveness of the recognition of a privilege by the States is a significant factor in determining the application of the potential privilege. Virmani, 259 F.3d at 289-90 (citing Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 12-13 (1996) (recognizing psychotherapist privilege)). Virmani, however, sidestepped the recognition of the privilege because the privilege was created for medical malpractice cases and there was no clear consensus by state legislators that the privilege be applied to discrimination suits. Virmani, 259 F.3d at 291.
In the present case, the sidestepping analysis of the Virmani case is not persuasive nor applicable. The Ninth Circuit’s analysis in Agster is applicable but not persuasive. Prisoner civil rights cases founded on Eighth Amendment claims that doctors failed to provide adequate medical care are the federal equivalent of state medical malpractice suits (with the caveat that liability in such suits depends on a showing of intentional or reckless disregard of the prisoner’s rights). These suits are the very object of the state statutes which create the peer review privilege, especially as it relates to peer review of prison facilities. In Michigan, like other states, by statute the documents of a peer review committee are protected from civil discovery. See Feyz v. Mercy Mem ‘l Hosp ., 719 N.W.2d 1, 11-12 & nn. 52-55 (Mich.2006); Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 331.531-533; Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.20175(8). As noted by the Michigan Supreme Court,

the privilege is applied broadly and prevents even the Attorney General from obtaining documents in connection with criminal proceedings. Feyz, 719 N.W.2d at 12 n. 52.
*3 Furthermore, unlike the Title VII, antitrust and criminal contexts in which discovery has been allowed by some courts, the Court’s experience in this case has not confirmed that discovery of these materials is necessary to protect prisoners’ Eighth Amendment interests. Rather, those interests may be protected by an individualized review of the prisoners’ own medical records, a task which is made easier in this case by the appointment of the Independent Medical Monitor. The Monitor regularly reviews such files and also investigates prisoner complaints regarding insufficient medical care. As such, the Court finds that it is fit and proper in this context to recognize and apply a peer review privilege which prevents discovery of peer review materials. A contrary ruling would eliminate candor in the peer review process and translate it into a kind of perfunctory administrative review which would not protect prisoner life or health.
Alternatively, even were the Court to disagree with the Magistrate Judge’s decision recognizing the peer review privilege, the Court would nevertheless shield such materials from discovery on an alternative ground. The alternative ground is that the peer review process, including its confidentiality, must be preserved in order to facilitate the proper delivery of medical care at the Hadix facilities. Peer review of medical performance is important in any institution and has added importance as to public health care of a vulnerable (prison) population. Peer review is also essential to the prison context because non-medical administrators lack the expertise to review the competence of medical doctors and staff. See Casiano v. Gonzales, 2006 WL 229956, 2 (N.D.Fla.2006) (discussing peer review system of a U.S. Bureau of Prisons’ facility in Florida). This Court will not upset that safeguard for discovery which can be obtained by other means.2
CONCLUSION
For the reasons given, an Order shall enter denying Plaintiffs’ Appeal and affirming the decision of the Magistrate Judge.
	  

Footnotes

1

Samuel Clemens, Following the Equator ch. 11 (Am.Pub.Co.1898).

2

Hadix v. Caruso, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

2

Plaintiffs’ brief also includes a “throw away” argument that Defendants have waived the privilege. This argument has not been

articulated clearly enough or supported sufficiently enough to warrant a finding that the privilege has been waived as to the

requested documents.

	  

3

 
 Hadix v. Caruso, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
2006 WL 1851231 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, W.D. Michigan,
Southern Division.
Everett HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Patricia CARUSO, et al., Defendants.
No. 4:92-CV-110. | June 30, 2006.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Deborah A. Labelle, Deborah Labelle Law Offices, Michael Barnhart, Patricia A. Streeter, Ann Arbor, MI, Elizabeth Alexander, Washington, DC, Jeanne E. Mirer, Pitt, Dowty, McGehee, Mirer & Palmer, P.C., Royal Oak, MI, for Plaintiffs.
Opinion
ORDER
RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN, Senior District Judge.
*1 This matter is before the Court to consider Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of its Order of May 15, 2006. Said Order determined that Defendants’ Detailed Alternative Plan (“DAP”) was a sufficient fire safety remedy regarding cell blocks 1, 2, 3 and 7 of the Egeler facility and Block 8 of the Parnall facility. More

particularly, the Court determined that the DAP should be approved, in lieu of the existing court ordered remedy, pursuant to requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), because injunctive relief must be “narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the violation ..., and ... [must be] the least intrusive means to correct the violation....” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1). Defendants oppose such Motion for Reconsideration.
Pursuant to Western District of Michigan Local Civil Rule 7.4(a), reconsideration is appropriate only when the movant “demonstrate[s] a palpable defect by which the Court and the parties have been mislead ... [and] that a different disposition must result from the correction thereof.” Plaintiffs’ Motion fails to meet this standard. The various arguments against the DAP were previously considered and rejected after sufficient hearing and multiple briefings. Plaintiffs’ re-couched arguments and speculation about future events are not sufficiently supported on this record to warrant delay of significant improvements of life safety affecting many prisoners included within the DAP. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ requests for further hearing and/or discovery on these issues, which would delay an already protracted litigation, have insufficient prospects for success on the merits. See Hadix v. Johnson, 398 F.3d 863, 865 (6th Cir.2005) (noting protracted length of suit in 2005).
For these reasons and those given by Defendants’ in their Response in Opposition;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. No.2031) is DENIED.
	  

1

 
 Hadix v. Caruso, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)
KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment Remanded by Hadix v. Caruso, 6th Cir.(Mich.), September 21, 2007
2007 WL 710136 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, W.D. Michigan,
Southern Division.
Everett HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Patricia L. CARUSO, et al., Defendants.
No. 4:92-CV-110. | March 6, 2007.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Elizabeth Alexander, Washington, DC, Michael Barnhart, Patricia A. Streeter, Ann Arbor, MI, for Plaintiffs.
Opinion
OPINION
RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN, Senior United States District Judge.
*1 As the record reflects, Defendants announced their planned closure of the Southern Michigan Correction Facility (“JMF”) and Block 7 of the Reception and Guidance Center (“RGC”) on February 20, 2007. The next day the Court heard Plaintiffs’ oral motion for temporary restraining order during a court hearing planned for a separate purpose. Following that, the Court issued a Preliminary Injunction which halted non-routine prisoner transfers from JMF while the parties completed further briefing on the issue of whether additional or different injunctive relief was necessary to prevent irreparable harm to prisoners subject to transfer from JMF. That briefing has been completed and causes this Opinion and Amended Preliminary Injunction to issue.1
I. BACKGROUND The basic background for this controversy is well-known to the parties, but bears repeating for those new to this controversy. The Hadix facilities, of which JMF and RGC are part, have long been subject to a Consent Decree mandating remedy for violations of prisoner-patients’ rights to adequate health care for serious medical illness, including chronic diseases. As part of this Decree, the Duane Waters Hospital (“DWH”), now a health care center, was constructed as a means for delivering

necessary health care services to prisoners with serious medical needs. The construction of the facility and its use, in connection with the RGC, to identify prisoners needing medical care and channel them to surrounding facilities where medical care could be delivered on-site, together with regular medical clinics for the chronically-ill, was a necessary response to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976), which first recognized an Eighth Amendment right to medical care for prisoners with serious medical needs. Prior to Estelle, medical care by jails and prisons was not a right and was subject to capricious denials by custody staff. See Mark Taylor, Prisoners of the System, Modern Healthcare (Special Report) 25 (Feb. 19, 2007). Ever since Estelle, custody systems, including those in Michigan, have struggled to comply with the minimal medical care needs of this complex patient population which, in large measure, did not receive regular medical services before incarceration. Id.
As described above, since the construction of DWH, the Hadix facilities surrounding JMF have housed an increased percentage of persons with serious medical needs. This is in part a consequence of the aging of the prison population in general, but also a consequence of selection of sick inmates for housing at or near DWH to assure adequacy of care. Defendants have no other state correctional medical hospital for prisoners outside of DWH and the Hadix facilities. Care outside of the Hadix facilities is greatly limited by both the medical staffing and the number of transport officers available at those facilities. When inmates are identified either at RGC or another facility as needing a higher level of medical treatment, then they have in the past been routinely transferred to JMF to improve their access to and regularity of medical care. According to the Medical Monitor, Dr. Robert L. Cohen, M.D., the percentage of prisoners enrolled in Chronic Care Clinics at JMF (clinics to treat chronic illness such as diabetes or heart failure) is “at least half” of the prisoners at JMF. (Cohen Memo., Pls.’ Attach. 3, at 1.) JMF has also, in the recent past, housed and treated a unit of 65-70 dialysis patients who need access to dialysis three times a week, in addition to other medical care for serious illness. (Id.) Additionally, JMF has been the site of a recently constructed transitional care unit which provides an intermediate level of medical service to JMF prisoners discharged from Foote Hospital or other hospitals, but still in need of 24-hour on-site medical assistance before their return to JMF. DWH also provides acute care for JMF patients requiring 24-hour nursing and physician care (but not acute hospitalization).
*2 For examples, diabetics who have been experiencing regular bouts of hypoglycemia (low blood sugar), which
1

Hadix v. Caruso, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)
is not an irregular cause of death for diabetic patients, have received care at DWH until stabilized. These capacities were created under Court supervision because of the high clinical acuity of the JMF patient population. The same group of diabetic patients, through a pilot project, has had access to the patients’ own glucometers and testing supplies which have assisted in the prevention of unnecessary hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia in that prisoner population. Taking away such equipment and supplies in the context of a medical transfer would invite gross and avoidable complications to those patients’ medical care.
While the history of the Hadix facilities has not been without some success and some improvements of medical care for affected prisoners, there has also been a continued history of constitutional violations of the Eighth Amendment, which in some cases have been egregious. This last fall, the Court heard evidence regarding this subject and in December 2006 issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as well as a Permanent Injunction to remedy Eighth Amendment violations. The Permanent Injunction included as part of its formula of remedies the creation of an on-site Office of Independent Medical Monitor (“OIMM”) to assist prisoners with chronic and untreated serious medical illness to obtain prompt treatment of those conditions.
This work has coincided with recent disputes in the state government about the taxing and expenditure of state resources. This dispute has crystallized during the current budget year and, if the public announcements are to be believed, now requires prompt and drastic cuts in public spending to achieve the requirement of a balanced state budget. Part of the Governor’s current cost-cutting agenda is to reduce the number of Michigan prisoners during the current budget year, which plan includes the planned closure of JMF. The reduction of prisoners is welcomed by Plaintiffs, both because it favors Plaintiffs’ interests in release from custody, but also because it is likely to reduce service delivery failures of the health care system by reducing the number of elderly and ill prisoners who are served by such system. (Pls.’ Br. 1.)
With that said, Plaintiffs do not support a wholesale transfer (as opposed to release on parole or due to clemency) of prisoners at JMF to other facilities without any sufficient plan to provide medical services at those facilities. (Id. at 1-2.) For this reason, Plaintiffs have moved to modify the previously entered Preliminary Injunction to include 12 terms which, if implemented, would have the effect of stalling prisoner transfers of persons with chronic and serious illness pending further planning and remedial action by Defendants to prevent the transfers from resulting in delay and denial of care for serious medical conditions.
One of the ongoing terms of the Consent Decree which

has not been terminated requires: “Prior to transfer to another facility or other substantial travel, each inmate shall continue to be evaluated by qualified health care personnel to assess suitability for travel or other institutional reassignment.” (Consent Decree 8, ¶ II.A.3.b.) Defendants’ past practice to accomplish such transfers has been the completion of a complete transfer assessment screening of prisoners. In 2002, the Court found that error and omissions in the transfer process perpetuate harm to prisoners by discontinuing medical care. (2002 Findings ¶ 925.) Since then, Defendants were given the opportunity to present evidence that they have cured defects in the transfer assessment process, but failed to do so during the last set of evidentiary hearings. Indeed, prior to those hearings, Plaintiffs’ expert, Elizabeth J. Ferguson, studied some 40 prisoner transfer cases to comment on the effectiveness of the assessment process. What she found was that 19 of 40 cases surveyed involved failures to access medical and accommodation2 issues which resulted in unnecessary suffering and treatment delays. (Ferguson Report, Dkt. No.2054, Attach. at 20.) Of those cases, the majority did not received necessary follow-up care following transfer. (Id.) Ms. Ferguson also determined that Defendants have ceased auditing the transfer process. (Id. at 23.) As reflected in her Report, this is a significant failure because:
*3 Errors and omissions in the transfer clearance process at the sending institution add to deficiencies in continuity of care .... [including] omission of specialty consultation visits, medications, dietary referrals or accommodations .... Such review and documented omissions at the sending institution perpetuate harm and discomfort to prisoners because of breaks in health care delivery. (Id. at 19, emphasis in original.) It is significant that these documented problems have occurred in the context of small prisoner transfers. A mass prisoner transfer of severely ill prisoners with chronic medical conditions poses grave facilities/resource issues which tend to prevent the adequate delivery of care. This is especially true when the movement of such prisoners is away from the primary treatment source (DWH) for those prisoners. Dr. Cohen described this problem superbly in his recent February 27, 2007 communication with the parties regarding the necessity of a prisoner transfer protocol and use of a “transfer grid” which analyzes the ability of the receiving institution to provide required medical services for serious medical needs:
Based upon my experience of the current deficiencies in access to specialty care and chronic care at the Hadix facilities, institutions which have been the focus of MDOC’s efforts to bring medical care in the state up to minimal constitutional standards, at this point I have no reason to believe that the other facilities in the state will
2

Hadix v. Caruso, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)
be able to handle the clinical responsibilities that the transfer “grid” suggests.
* * *
How could we access the adequacy of the receiving institutions to absorb the Hadix prisoners? We could look at the medical staffing: RN, LPN, MSP (MD and mid-level) at each of those facilities. We could determine the number of patients at each of those facilities currently receiving chronic care, and estimate those that should be in chronic care but are not. We could determine the number of patients with disabilities requiring special programs, housing, wheel-chairs, etc. in these facilities and determine the number of additional beds available for this group of disabled prisoners. We could then compare each of these facilities, according to these criteria, with what is known about the capacity, adequacy and inadequacy of care at the Hadix facilities.
The above describes the necessary planning exercise that must be done before the proposed mass transfer. There needs to be a medical transfer plan, not just a medical transfer protocol. For dialysis, there needs to be a detailed plan, including the chronic care of these patients, as well as a plan for referral for transplantation. For oncology, there needs to be a plan. For specialty care, there also has to be a plan, specific and detailed, including the description of any necessary enhanced transportation as well as specific description of specialty care capacity actually available at the receiving sites. If a non-Hadix facility is less able to get its patients to specialty care in a reasonable time frame than the Hadix facilities, transferring prisoners to these facilities will have predictable adverse health effects.
*4 (Feb. 27, 2007 Memo., Attach. 3 to Pls.’ Br., 2-3.) Dr. Cohen’s comments bear on not only the availability of medical service providers at the receiving facilities, but the availability of transport officers at the receiving facilities. This could be a problem with any large transfer of this chronically ill prisoner population given that the population’s needs dictate a large number of specialty care appointments. The February 16, 2007 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care shows both a large number of patient appointments for specialty care and a large percentage of appointments not occurring within the medically necessary time frame set by the medical care providers. For January 2007, at all Hadix facilities, there were 327 scheduled appointments for specialty care; some 260 patients were seen by specialty care providers. (Feb. 16, 2007 Monthly Report at Jackson Complex summary

page.) The same month 129 patients (one-half of those seen) were seen past the medically necessary time frames. (Id.) Another 98 referrals were listed as pending past the dates medically necessary for the appointments. (Id.) These numbers reflect delay in medical treatment and omit instances where the delay is due to a patient falling ill, refusing treatment, or being unavailable either due to a writ issuing or the prisoner dying. (Id.)
Such specialty care referrals are not negligible matters. They relate to care for cancer, cancer diagnosis, HIV treatment, cardiology, ophthalmology and and other serious medical conditions as to which a failure to treat timely will contribute toward unnecessary death, disease and suffering. The more detailed portion of the Report explained some delays for legitimate reasons (such as a patient being hospitalized for another condition or being unavailable for transport due to a temporary quarantine to prevent the spreading of disease), but other missed appointments were either wholly unexplained or the explanation reflected a lack of resources to provide the services in a timely manner (e.g., “no detail” pending consultations, appointment cancelled by care provider without explanation, or first appointment available with care provider).
Similarly, the December 2006 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care reflects the same trends for the affected prisoners. Two hundred and three specialty care appointments were conducted during November 2006. (Dec.2006 Monthly Report at Jackson Complex summary pages.) The percentage of those patients seen within the medically assigned time frames is not recorded on the summary pages, but it is clear from reviewing the report that a large percentage of the appointments are after the dates deemed medically necessary and some of the appointments were significantly after those dates. Ninety-one patent appointments were listed at “past pending.” (Id.)
Such numbers explain the depth and breadth of the treatment needs of the affected population. A large percentage of the prisoners being transferred have chronic and serious medical needs which require prompt treatment. Another large percentage of them require specialty care. A plan to transfer such inmates without provision for treatment is a sure recipe for violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.
*5 Other appropriate areas of concern regarding this prison population relate to the history of past violations observed at the Hadix facilities. One past example was the closure of the Parke Davis facility in March 1994. Then Defendants moved a small number of prisoners, 19, en masse. A subsequent report about the transfer prepared by Dr. Craig Hutchinson, M.D. and Elizabeth Ferguson showed that many of the transferred prisoners received
3

Hadix v. Caruso, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)
inadequate care as a consequence of the transfers. (See Op. of Oct. 25, 1994 at 3-6.) The number of prisoners to be transferred in connection with the planned closure of JMF and the extent of their medical illness is a far graver situation than was the Parke Davis closure.
Dr. Cohen’s Report of February 12, 2007 also contains several important conclusions relevant to the operation of the Hadix facilities. Dr. Cohen has observed that the present system for reordering medications for prisoners receiving ambulatory care is essentially broken. This is because the contract which was implemented to replace on-site pharmacists, involving PharmaCorr Corporation, a subsidiary of Correctional Medical Services, Inc. (“CMS”), does not involve PharmaCorr renewing medications for ambulatory care. According to Dr. Cohen, there have been no efforts by PharmaCorr staff to address the problems of continuity of medications for ambulatory patients. In addition, CMS physicians have not taken responsibility for renewing necessary chronic medications which have expired. Thus, there is no functioning system to assure reordering chronic medications for patients receiving critically necessary chronic medications (e.g., anti-rejection drugs for a patient with a kidney transplant, etc.). Requests for medication renewals for these patients have been piling up on physician desks without action. (Feb. 12, 2007 Report 1.)
Two related problems are lack of supervision because of CMS’ failure to supervise medical doctors and a lack of professionalism by the unsupervised staff. For example, Dr. Cohen cites instances of CMS physicians routinely cancelling appointments, without reason, at the time of those appointments. (Id. at 2.) These problems are reminiscent of the pharmacy problems experienced in April 2006. That is, when it was announced that the Hadix on-site pharmacy was closing, a pharmacist chose to take leave and there was no provision for the dispensing of medications until emergency measures were taken at Dr. Cohen’s request. To put the matter bluntly, when Defendants close a facility, motivation by staff tends to dwindle and unless staff is both dedicated to the tasks performed and highly professional, required tasks will not be performed. That scenario appears to be repeating in terms of the present operations of physician staff at JMF.3
Another aspect of the timing of this facility closure announcement is interesting from the standpoint of the relief granted in the Permanent Injunction of December 2006. That Injunction required the filing of a plan for establishment of the OIMM with the duties to assess prisoner complaints regarding denial of medical care and the power to direct Defendants to provide medical supplies and treatment to prisoners upon consensus determination of the Medical Monitor and his physician staff member. It was a further provision of the Injunction that prisoners filing complaints with the OIMM not be transferred away from the Court’s jurisdiction during the

pendency of the complaint and any ordered treatment. This was a deliberate requirement because the complaint procedure itself was necessary to provide timely prisoner access to time-sensitive needs for medicine and treatment. Thus, the Injunction fashioned respected the Eighth Amendment rights of prisoners, but also the First Amendment rights of prisoners to petition both the courts and prison officials for effective remedies for constitutional deprivations. See Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 394 (6th Cir.1999) (en banc ). Any mass prisoner transfer before the OIMM complaint procedures are finalized jeopardizes the effectiveness of the remedy previously ordered.
*6 Defendants are aware of the present record, but argue against the modification of the Preliminary Injunction on several fronts. Defendants point to paragraph 2 of the Consent Decree which defines the class of prisoners as “all prisoners who are now or will be confined within said institution ....” (Consent Decree ¶ 2.) The reference to “said institution” was a reference to the State Prison of Southern Michigan Central Complex. (Id.) Defendants reason that because the class definition is so limited, this suit may not include limitations on transfers because those limitations affect only the medical care delivered at prisons outside the Hadix facilities. This argument is mistaken for several reasons. One, as explained above, the Court has recently found that there are pervasive Eighth Amendment denials of health care within the Hadix facilities which must be remedied by the OIMM overseeing the delivery of care and preventing transfer while the overseeing of care occurs. This is not an expansion of the Court’s jurisdiction, but rather is the essential and necessary means to ensure that effective Eighth Amendment remedies are afforded to the affected class members.
This same rationale applies to restrictions sought by Plaintiffs on the transfer of prisoners currently using glucometers and inhalers. The non-provision of such staples to prisoners in the past has caused several prisoner deaths within the Hadix facilities. The Court has previously found that the provision of such medical staples to prisoners is necessary to prevent regular hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia, and the expected complications of both, including death. (Dec.2006 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law ¶ 16.) That finding was an express finding that Defendants’ previous methods of addressing diabetic control for those patients (try limited testing at nursing stations and hope for the best) did not meet community standards and so violated the Eighth Amendment. The limitation upon transfer is not meant to exert control over other facilities, but is rather intended to insure that constitutional remedies are not frustrated by transfers during a course of corrective treatment for past medical/Eighth Amendment violations at the Hadix facilities.
4

Hadix v. Caruso, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)
II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION STANDARDS This Motion is governed by the standards for relief under both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). Under Rule 65(a), the Court must examine four factors: (1) whether there is a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether there is proof of irreparable harm to the moving party without the injunction; (3) whether substantial harm to others will be caused by the injunction; and (4) whether the public’s interest is favored by the issuance of the injunction. Jones v. City of Monroe, 341 F.3d 474, 476 (6th Cir.2003); Nightclubs, Inc. v. City of Paducah, 202 F.3d 884, 888 (6th Cir.2000); Basicomputer Corp. v. Scott, 973 F.2d 507, 511 (6th Cir.1992). This evaluation focuses on all four factors-rather than any particular factor. In re De Lorean Motor Co., 755 F.2d 1223, 1228-30 (6th Cir.1985).
III. PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT (“PLRA”) STANDARDS *7 Under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2), a preliminary injunction may not issue unless it is:
... narrowly drawn, extend[s] no further than necessary to correct the harm ..., and [is] the least intrusive means to correct that harm. The Court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the preliminary relief and shall respect the principles of comity ....
18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). These PLRA standards are consistent with traditional norms of non-interference with the state regulation of prisons. However, such norms must, as the statute recognizes, give way to constitutional standards to prevent ongoing Eighth Amendment violations.
IV. EIGHTH AMENDMENT STANDARDS “Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs” violates the Eighth Amendment. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104; Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). The Eighth Amendment standard has both objective and subjective components. Id. In order for liability to attach, a state actor must both know of and disregard an excessive risk to prisoner health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. However, in prison conditions cases, the subjective element is routinely proven by the history of past violations at the facility and the apparentness of the current and ongoing problems. As

the Sixth Circuit has instructed:
In this case, we are concerned with future conduct to correct prison conditions. If these conditions are found to be objectively unconstitutional, then that finding would also satisfy the subjective prong because the same information that would lead to the court’s conclusion was available to the prison officials.
Hadix v. Johnson, 367 F.3d 513, 526 (6th Cir.2004). See also Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33-34, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993) (citing cases).
The purpose of these requirements in a modern system of penal justice is both obvious and essential. A prisoner serving a term of confinement is required by law to serve such term in humane conditions of confinement. The Eighth Amendment forbids the States from imposing either a de facto death penalty or torture by non-delivery of essential medical services for serious medical needs.
V. LEGAL ANALYSIS
A. Likelihood of Success The above factual scenario equates with a likelihood of success of approximately 110 percent. It is one thing to dismantle a constitutionally-required system of medical care with a detailed plan for the provision of care at other facilities. It is quite another to do so without any plan for the provision of care for a large number of chronically ill prisoners with serious medical needs. Plaintiffs’ own assessment of the situation is an accurate one-it would take a miracle to place a mass prisoner transfer of seriously ill prisoners on top of a collapsing medical system and not expect disastrous consequences. While Divine rescue remains available to religious adherents and others, such has never been a sufficient or diligent plan for fulfilling the objectives of civil government. It can reliably be predicted that a certain segment of the prisoner population to be transferred, due to their ongoing need for medical care, the provision of which has not been planned, will perish upon transport, though only after suffering unnecessarily due to the non-provision of essential medical services (e.g., diabetics not provided insulin or glucometers, cancer patients not provided radiology, high blood pressure patients and cardiac patients not provided medications, surgery or follow-up care, etc.) The Eighth Amendment and the PLRA both require that the transfer of such a prisoner population not occur until a plan is fixed which will prevent medical injury upon the transfer of such patients. The contours of the Eighth Amendment must depend upon more than vain
5

Hadix v. Caruso, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)
hope and patent dereliction of duty.
*8 Defendants have argued, as noted above, that transfer restrictions should not be allowed because the Consent Decree is limited to prisoner treatment at Hadix and because such restrictions violate the import of such cases as Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 79, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987) and Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976). As noted above, the class definition is not violated by remedial efforts for class members which restrict their transfer until corrective care is delivered or transfer is allowed on the remedial condition that corrective care is delivered at another institution. To say otherwise would be to strip the federal courts of their traditional powers in assuring constitutional compliance, including compliance under the Eighth Amendment.
Further, neither Turner nor Meachum dealt with any situation remotely like this one (a failing prison medical system transferring prisoners away from a source of treatment and federal court jurisdiction). Turner does stand for the proposition that federal courts are ill-equipped to deal with complex matters of prison administration. The Court agrees with that premise, though it is quite beside the point. Turner dealt with the question of what standard of scrutiny should apply to prison regulations affecting the exercise of a prisoner’s constitutional rights-a question not at issue here. Meachum dealt with prison transfers of prisoners to a higher security level, another question which is not apropos. While both of those cases, and others, counsel deference to the administrative decisions of prison officials, they do not counsel blanket acceptance of plans that are likely to cause wholesale Eighth Amendment violations both at the transferring and receiving institutions. Restrictions on inmate transfer which are intended to only effectuate Eighth Amendment remedies, and to prevent further Eighth Amendment violations in the process, are not prohibited by such case law, nor by any other rational reflection upon the purposes and powers of an effective judiciary.
B. Irreparable Harm Loss of life and unnecessary exposure to disease and illness are the likely consequences of transfer without medical provision and protection. These consequences constitute irreparable harm under the Eighth Amendment case law.
C. Harm to Others The Court understands that Defendants intend to save the State facility/personnel/staffing costs by closing a prison facility and that these financial savings are impossible

without closing some Michigan prison. This is understandable and a laudable goal. Nevertheless, Defendants’ interests in financial savings does not equate with the interests of inmates in serving their sentences within humane conditions of confinement. The harm to Defendants is not irreparable as compared to the irreparable harms posed to the affected prisoners. Further, the cost savings sought by Defendants remain possible should Defendants either design a system for the humane transfer of prisoners to other facilities capable of serving prisoners’ medical needs, close other prisons which do not house seriously ill inmates, transfer JMF prisoners to other Hadix facilities which will not be closed, or parole or grant clemency to the affected prisoners.
D. Interests of the Public *9 The public’s interest favors respect for the public policies announced in the Constitution, including the Eighth Amendment. Humane conditions of confinement are part of that document, such that the public’s interest strongly favors the injunction sought.
As such, the Court determines that the balance of all of the factors sought strongly favors the preliminary injunction sought by Plaintiffs. The terms of the Preliminary Injunction to be granted are explained below.
E. PLRA Compliance The Court is mindful of both the PLRA limitations and the constitutional duties created by both Estelle and Farmer. In light of the history of constitutional violations at the Hadix facilities and the dire need for injunctive relief, the Court further finds that the preliminary injunction terms described below are in compliance with the terms of the PLRA, described above, which limit injunctive relief against state prison officials.
F. Terms of Preliminary Injunctive Relief 1. Defendants shall timely file a transfer plan. As noted in Dr. Cohen’s February 27, 2007 Memorandum, any sufficient plan to transfer prisoners currently receiving chronic medical care must assess the capacity of the receiving institution to deliver sufficient care to both the transferred prisoners and the existing population of the receiving institution. This plan must provide a specific and detailed statement as to how chronic care patients will receive continued and regular chronic care appointments, specialty care, and hospital care at the receiving institution. The plan must specify the staffing available at the receiving institution and assess the current pre-transfer work load upon available staffing. The plan must also explain how the receiving institution will provide regular
6

Hadix v. Caruso, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)
dialysis care as to dialysis patients, and transportation for patients to specialty care appointments, including cardiac patients, oncology, etc. The plan should further assess whether the facility may humanely house disabled persons and the receiving institutions capacities (including special housing units) to receive and humanely house disabled prisoners. No prisoner transfers to reduce the JMF prisoner population shall be made until such transfer plan is submitted and approved by the Court.4
2. All prisoners selected for transfer as part of the closure plan shall be screened by a Registered Nurse according to policy. The screening shall include a full review of the prisoners’ full medical records, including any unfiled documents (e.g., recent lab results).
3. Defendants shall ensure that all prisoners within any of the four categories listed below shall received a face-to-face transfer assessment by a Medical Service Provider (“MSP”) before transfer to another facility, other than another Hadix facility. The MSP shall also conduct a full review of medical records, including unfiled documents, of the transferring patients in those four categories. The four categories are: (1) prisoners enrolled in any Chronic Care Clinic; (2} prisoners who either have a pending specialty care appointment, have had such appointment within the previous two months, or have a condition requiring regular future specialty care appointments; (3) prisoners confined in single cells due to either gender identity issues or bowel management issues; or, (4) prisoners with an accommodation for a wheelchair, walker, or elevator detail.
*10 4. Defendants shall augment their existing “transfer grid” regarding medical care and disabilities accommodations to include the following information to assure that class members are not transferred to facilities that are unable to provide for their medical needs: (1) a list of facilities that have no physicians available on-site; and (2) a list of facilities that do not accept prisoners requiring a chronic care program.
5. Defendants shall ensure that prisoners who are receiving or are scheduled for radiation therapy or chemotherapy shall remain as close as possible to a therapy site and that those prisoners’ transfers do not interfere, delay or prevent their therapies. The transfer grid shall include the following categories for designation by a nurse or MSP: (1) Prisoners who must remain in the Jackson area due to needs for medical treatment; and (2) Prisoners who must remain within 90 minutes’ time travel of the Jackson area. This latter category shall include all prisoners (i.e., not limited to cancer patients) who can be reasonably expected to require access to Foote Hospital, or one or more of the specialty clinics offered at DWH, unless an equivalent routinely scheduled specialty clinic is offered at another location accessible to the prisoner at his contemplated transfer facility.

6. Defendants shall permit transferring prisoners who possess glucometers and inhalers to retain those items at their new institutions, and shall continue to supply medically necessary supplies to those prisoners to enable them to continue to use the glucometers and inhalers (e.g., lancets, glucose testing strips and inhaler cartridges).
7. Defendants shall not transfer prisoners needing any special housing, including access to regular or specialty medical care, disability accommodation, or access to mental health care, unless such housing needs will be met at the receiving facility. Prisoners who are transferred in violation of this requirement may request remedial action by written complaint to the OIMM, who shall review such complaints and are empowered to determine such complaints and, when appropriate, to grant return of transferred prisoners to a Hadix facility in such cases as the Medical Monitor and his physician staff member determine by consensus that the transfer was in error and return to a Hadix facility is necessary to prevent current and ongoing deprivations of the prisoner’s rights to medical care, mental health care or disability accommodation. Defendants shall comply with any direction of the OIMM in this regard.
8. Defendants shall ensure that MSPs carrying out the face-to-face screenings described above shall select the receiving facilities for transferring prisoners based upon the augmented transfer grid described herein.
9. Defendants shall make available to the OIMM all transfer summaries, transfer orders, and related documents for prisoners transferring from Hadix facilities. Defendants shall also make available to the OIMM prisoner location reports, accommodation reports, SERAPIS patient overview documents, special accommodation lists and chronic care enrollment reports for the purpose of auditing prisoner transfers. The OIMM shall audit transfers by selecting and reviewing a sufficient sample of the transfers to ensure the safety of transferred prisoners.
*11 10. Defendants shall make available to the OIMM, upon the OIMM’s request and within two weeks of any request, complete medical records of any transferring or transferred prisoner.
11. Defendants shall not transfer dialysis patients until the OIMM has certified in writing that the transfer does not, in the collective judgment of the Medical Monitor and his physician staff, pose any significant threat to the continuity and quality of dialysis services to such patients. Defendants shall provide the OIMM with access to any proposed new dialysis prisoner-patient residential and treatment facilities for the purpose of the OIMM determining whether to make any such certification.
7

Hadix v. Caruso, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

G. Future Scheduling

such request shall be heard together with the final hearing on the mental health proofs, which hearing was previously scheduled to be conducted in November 2007.

1. Filing of Transfer Plan Should Defendants elect to continue JMF closure transfers, they shall file a transfer plan within 45 days of this Opinion. The Plan shall be in compliance with the Court’s instructions herein.
2. Final Hearing as to Permanent Injunctive Relief Should Plaintiffs continue to seek permanent injunctive relief regarding these prisoner transfers, final hearing on

CONCLUSION
An Amended Preliminary Injunction should issue which grants Plaintiffs’ Motion and affords preliminary injunctive relief as described in this Opinion.
	  

Footnotes

1

Further hearing has not been requested by Defendants and is not necessary given the previous hearing and the briefing received.

2

Accommodations include such medically necessary items as wheelchairs, canes, glasses, prosthetic limbs, specialty footwear, etc.

3

Dr. Cohen also notes a lack of nursing leadership amidst changes to the facility operations as another source of grave concern.

(Feb. 12, 2007 Report 2.)

4

Plaintiffs separately moved to stop all transfers from JMF until a food borne virus outbreak at the facility on February 27, 2007

could be confirmed not to be an outbreak of Norovirus. While this request would be proper in another circumstance, it is

unnecessary in this instance because the delay for planning (which will take at least 45 days) will provide Defendants more than

enough time to diagnose and treat such illness, should it be present, before the resumption of transfers.

	  

8

 
 Hadix v. Caruso, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)
2007 WL 1341864 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, W.D. Michigan,
Southern Division.
Everett HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Patricia L. CARUSO, et al., Defendants.
No. 4:92-CV-110. | May 4, 2007.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Elizabeth Alexander, Washington, DC, Michael Barnhart, Patricia A. Streeter, Ann Arbor, MI, for Plaintiffs.
Opinion
ORDER
RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN, Senior United States District Judge.
*1 This Court’s November 13, 2007 Preliminary Injunction required Defendants to submit for Court approval a plan to redress deficiencies in mental health care and staffing at the Hadix facilities, including to address injuries caused by the use of punitive restraints. Defendants submitted a Physical Restraint/Mental Health Care Plan on December 28, 2006 (Dkt. No. 2256). Plaintiffs then filed timely Objections to the Plan on February 9, 2007. This Court heard argument on Defendants’ Plan on February 21, 2007. The following day the Court approved a Preliminary Injunction (which also dealt with the transfer of prisoners from Hadix facilities), which ordered Defendants to engage in further meetings with Independent Medical Monitor Robert Cohen, M.D. for the purpose of finalizing a plan for Court approval. Dr. Cohen, despite his best efforts, has not been able to persuade Defendants to make necessary changes to the Plan to prevent further imminent harm to prisoners by the use of physical restraints and the denial of necessary mental health care.
On April 25, 2007, Dr. Cohen filed a Special Report with the Court indicating deficiencies in Defendants’ Plan. These deficiencies included: the failure of the Plan to provide sufficient safe restraint facilities (mental health beds for the housing of self-destructive mentally-ill prisoners and “safe” cell areas for the housing of mentally stable but destructive prisoners); the failure of the Plan to

sufficiently integrate mental health services offered by the Psychological Services Unit (“PSU”) and the Outpatient Mental Health Services (“OMHS”); the failure of the Plan to provide an emergency mental health unit for RGC and SMT; the failure of the Plan to provide observation suicide beds in cell areas where staff can routinely, sufficiently and continuously observe suicidal prisoners’ conditions in order to protect their well-being; the failure of the Plan to provide for adequate supervision of mental health staff and protocols for the oversight of psychiatric prescriptions; the failure of the Plan to account for the complete usage of beds at the Huron Valley Hospital facility and to take protective measures in that instance to ensure delivery of necessary mental health care to Hadix prisoners; the failure of the Plan to make mandatory referrals to Psychiatry for suicidality and significant deteriorations of mental health; the failure of the Plan to provide a Monthly Monitoring Report as requested by the Independent Medical Monitor; and the failure of training materials to address the death of T.S. and the need for non-MDOC produced training materials to be used, which materials should include a video depiction of T.S.’s death and a discussion of the necessity of prompt, insightful and compassionate mental health care to prevent such deaths.
Upon review, the Court concurs with Plaintiffs’ Objections and the Report of the Independent Medical Monitor. The Plan does not provide sufficient facilities and services to prevent violations of the Eighth Amendment caused by in cell physical restraints and denial of necessary mental health care. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994); Clark-Murphy v. Foreback, 439 F.3d 280, 294 (6th Cir.2006) (citing cases); Comstock v. McCrary, 273 F.3d 693, 702 (6th Cir.2001) (citing cases). The further facilities and services requested by the Independent Medical Monitor are essential to prevent death and serious injury to prisoners within the Hadix facilities. Additionally, the Court is concerned that the mental health intake process at RGC be sufficiently rigorous to ensure identification of all prisoners in need of mental health services. The revised Plan should include as a component the further study of this issue by the Office of the Independent Medical Monitor with Defendants’ active assistance in the study.
*2 THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Objections (Dkt. No. 2312) are GRANTED and Defendants’ present Plan (Dkt. No. 2256) is REJECTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall submit a revised Plan addressing all of the Court’s concerns as to the insufficiencies of the Plan within 30 days, and subject to penalties for contempt pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 401.
1

Hadix v. Caruso, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that should Plaintiffs disapprove of the revised Plan, they shall file objections within seven days of the filing of the revised Plan.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that should Plaintiffs object, then Defendants shall file a written response

within seven days of the filing of the objections, and the Independent Medical Monitor shall file a further report with this Court not later than seven days after the filing of Defendants’ response.
	  

2

 
 Hadix v. Caruso, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)
KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment Remanded by Hadix v. Caruso, 6th Cir.(Mich.), September 21, 2007
2007 WL 1341958 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, W.D. Michigan,
Southern Division.
Everett HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Patricia L. CARUSO, et al., Defendants.
No. 4:92-CV-110. | May 4, 2007.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Elizabeth Alexander, Washington, DC, Michael Barnhart, Patricia A. Streeter, Ann Arbor, MI, for Plaintiffs.
Opinion
OPINION
RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN, Senior United States District Judge.
*1 This Court’s December 7, 2006 Injunction required Defendants to submit separates plans providing remedies to systematic defects in their medical care staffing and the delivery of specialty care services. The Court’s Injunction likewise required the filing of a plan to establish an Office of the Independent Medical Monitor (“OIMM”), which would be effective in addressing the widespread denial of necessary medical services to Hadix prisoners. Defendants have submitted plans on these subjects for Court review. (See Dkt. No. 2347.) Plaintiffs have responded in opposition to these plans. They regard these plans as grossly deficient in many details, including its provisions relating to medical care staffing, increased provision of specialty care services and the operation of the OIMM. (Dkt. No. 2371.)
Subsequent to Plaintiffs’ Response, the Court’s Independent Medical Monitor filed a Special Report with the Court on April 25, 2007 discussing those plans. The Report was critical of the plans in some respects, particularly the failure of the plans to reduce the percentage of delayed specialty care appointments. (Apr. 25, 2007 Report 5.) According to the Monitor, Defendants are presently providing specialty care within medically acceptable time frames only 63 percent of the time. (Id.) The Monitor believes that a 90 percent goal is the appropriate goal for these specialty care appointments.

(Id.) The Court agrees with this assessment given that these appointments are necessary in many instances to attempt to save the lives of the affected prisoners and the delay in services regularly results in avoidable suffering and disease. The Monitor was unable to assess certain aspects of the medical staffing due to uncertainty created by Defendants’ recently announced plan to close the Josephine McCallum Facility (“JMF”), uncertainty created due to the recent movement of Hadix prisoners from Block 8 of the Parnall Correctional Facility (“Parnall”) to buildings A and B of Parnall, and uncertainty created by other closure plans. (Id. at 1-4, 7.)
Other deficiencies in the plans consist of the failure to plan sufficiently for the future operations of the OIMM and to address the procedures necessary to ensure that Defendants and their staff comply with directives of the OIMM, including directives to provide remedial care to prisoners whose health has been injured as a consequence of Defendants’ deliberate indifference to prisoner care. One recent example is telling because it shows exactly how deliberate the indifference to medical care has become and how necessary are such remedial directives. In the course of the hearing testimony last fall, the Independent Medical Monitor, Robert L. Cohen, M.D. explained the situation of one cancer patient, D.U., whose had received delayed access to specialty care. D.U. presented with a melanocystic skin mole and had a family history of cancer, but was made to wait over six months for substantive care while he received “hot compresses” and excuses. (Dec. 7, 2006 Findings of Fact ¶ 35.) He did not receive a lymph biopsy until some ten months later, which by then showed that the cancer had spread while the patient was not receiving effective therapy. (Id.) Notwithstanding that these deficiencies were brought to Defendants’ attention at hearing, D.U.’s later treatment itself showed continued deliberate indifference to his medical needs. In fact, the OIMM has received and verified complaints from D.U. that his cancer treatment in 2007 has been significantly interrupted by Defendants because they failed to order cancer treatment drugs in a timely way and placed one-half orders for certain of the cancer drugs he required.1 (See Apr. 25, 2007 Sealed Memo. of OIMM re D.U.)
*2 Defendants have also filed a transfer plan as required by the Court’s March 6, 2007 Preliminary Injunction. Their initial transfer plan was filed on March 15, 2007. (Dkt. No. 2357.) They also filed a revised and more detailed plan on April 20, 2007. (Dkt. No. 2397.) The latter was filed after Plaintiffs had responded in opposition to the original transfer plan. (Dkt. No. 2377.) On April 30, 2007, the Court received a Special Report from the Office of the Independent Medical Monitor regarding the transfer plan. (Dkt. No. 2404.) Such Report faults Defendants’ revised transfer plan in several
1

Hadix v. Caruso, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

respects. It faults the plan for suggesting that movement of prisoners to non-Hadix facilities will likely improve their medical access to care when the medical staffing for those facilities is at a much higher staffing ratio (more prisoners per care providers) than the Hadix facilities. (Report 6-8.) The Report also faults the transfer plan’s conclusion that spreading out prisoners amongst 35 prison facilities will somehow improve their access to specialty care when those prisoners will still be subject to the limitations of the list of CMS’ specialty care providers, which is not otherwise modified by the transfer plan and will be subject to greater transportation difficulties to receive periodic and necessary care.2 This is troubling because CMS has chronically provided belated specialty care to persons with life-threatening illnesses (cancer patients, cardiology patients, etc.) and the plan and associated documents provide no basis for a conclusion that CMS will be better able to provide specialty care to those patients as a consequence of the transfer. (Id. at 8-9 .) The Report likewise faults Defendants’ assertions that transfer can be accomplished while protecting the health of fragile dialysis patients and while ensuring chronically ill patients’ access to chronic medications. (Id. at 9-10.) The record of Defendants’ performance at these tasks indicates that their blithe conclusions about future performance have no basis in science or fact. (Id.)
Upon review, the Court concurs with Plaintiffs’ objections to the transfer plan and remedial plans and the Special Reports of the Independent Medical Monitor. The plans do not provide sufficient facilities and services to prevent further violations of the Eighth Amendment caused by denial of necessary medical care. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994); LeMarbe v. Wisneski, 266 F.3d 429, 437 (6th

Cir.2001) (holding that delay in referring patient for specialist care was evidence of an Eighth Amendment violation); Oxendine v. Kaplan, 241 F.3d 1272, 1278 (10th Cir.2001) (same); Wynn v. Southward, 251 F.3d 588, 594 (7th Cir.2001) (holding that delay in providing necessary heart medication constituted evidence of Eighth Amendment violation).
Further, future plans by Defendants must appreciate the future of continued federal court intervention until a remedial framework is shown to cure current and ongoing violations of the Eighth Amendment . The concept that federal intervention may end simply by moving prisoners outside of one building within the Court’s jurisdiction across the street to another building outside of it, has been previously rejected by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and is not likely to be accepted in future court filings. See Hadix v. Johnson, 367 F.3d 513, 518 n. 7 (6th Cir.2004); Hadix v. Johnson, no. 93-1551, 1995 WL 559372 at ----6 (6th Cir. Sept.20, 1995) (unpublished decision).3 For this reason, any amended plans should likewise anticipate that future plan approval is likely to be conditioned upon the extent to which the transfer of prisoners make future federal remedial efforts workable (e.g., a transfer to a large number of facilities is less workable than a transfer to a smaller number of facilities due to the inherent difficulties of exercising federal jurisdiction over a large number of prison facilities).4
*3 Therefore, an Order rejecting the plans shall enter consistent with the Court’s Opinion and the Reports of the Independent Medical Monitor.
	  

Footnotes

1

Physicians, including physician administrators, who place budgetary constraints above patient health and who order drugs in

smaller quantities than necessary to save funds in the oft-hand chance that the patient might either die or be paroled before the

drugs are fully used are not worthy of the title of physicians.

2

The requirement in the Court’s December Findings that Defendants devote “real resources” (Dec. 7, 2007 Findings ¶¶ 112-13) to

specialist staffing did not require a specific approach, but did require that Defendants adopt an approach which devoted additional

resources to a solution-e.g., requiring CMS to employ more specialists, requiring CMS to pay specialists enhanced fees for quicker

appointments, or employment of a competing company or medical school which could compete with CMS based upon which

entity could provide the quickest appointment. These solutions have not been tried and the plan approach does not suggest any use

of additional resources to improve results.

3

The implicit suggestion made in such plans is that the Court is willing to sign off on a shell game which substitutes mere

movement of prisoners for significant improvement in medical health care. The Court will not. The Court often sentences criminal

financial miscreants for various versions of financial shell games. Playing such shell games as a substitute for significant

improvements in the delivery of medical care is an idea unworthy of just public administration or federal oversight.

4

This Opinion and the accompanying Order are directed toward speeding plan approval because of the obvious insufficiencies of the

plans presented. The Order will require cancellation of the pending hearing on plan approval. It is the Court’s hope that future plan

approval will be rapid, either without hearing due to the agreement of the parties upon the revised plans or after prompt hearing to

resolve minimal disagreements of the parties as to the revised plans.

2

Hadix v. Caruso, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)
	  
3

 
 Hadix v. Caruso, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)
KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment Remanded by Hadix v. Caruso, 6th Cir.(Mich.), September 21, 2007
2007 WL 1434795 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, W.D. Michigan,
Southern Division.
Everett HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Patricia L. CARUSO, et al., Defendants.
No. 4:92-CV-110. | May 14, 2007.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Elizabeth Alexander, Washington, DC, Michael Barnhart, Patricia A. Streeter, Ann Arbor, MI, for Plaintiffs.
Opinion
ORDER
RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN, Senior United States District Judge.
*1 Defendants recently, as part of their Detailed Alternative Plan (to address fire safety), moved prisoners in Block 8 of the Parnall Correctional Facility (a Hadix facilitiy which was within the walls of the old State Prison of Southern Michigan-Central Complex) to two prison buildings, Buildings A and B, which are part of Parnall, but outside the old Central Complex. (See Dennis Straub April 2, 2007 Aff. ¶¶ 3-4; Mar. 23, 2006 Detailed Alternative Plan 3.) Defendants’ Motion asks that the Court terminate jurisdiction as to Block 8 (which is undisputed), but also asks that the Court not exercise jurisdiction over prisoners at the transferee facilities (which is disputed). Oral argument is unnecessary in light of the briefing. See W.D. Mich. L. Civ. R. 7.2(d).
Defendants’ request to terminate jurisdiction as to Block 8 will be granted because the Block has been permanently closed.
Defendants’ request that the Court not exercise jurisdiction over Buildings A and B of the Parnell Correctional Facility will be denied. This request would be proper if Defendants had complied with Section XI of the Decree-which calls for termination of the Decree “[a]fter Defendants have complied with all of the provisions of this Consent Judgment.” (Consent Decree 33.) Of course, this has not occurred. While the

implementation of the fire safety remedy appears to have been effective in addressing fire safety concerns of the transferring prisoners, the change in location has come amidst persistent and regular denials of the prisoners’ Eighth Amendment rights to health care services, including specialty services. The Court recently adjudicated those violations in December 2006 and enjoined Defendants to make remedial plans to address the denial of health care to these inmates. (Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law & Permanent Inj. of Dec. 7, 2006.) A failure to exercise jurisdiction over Facilities A and B would deprive class members of essential remedies to address constitutional violations of their health care. This request will be denied and the Court will instead exercise jurisdiction over Buildings A and B as de facto Hadix facilities.
This approach does not represent any significant expansion of Court jurisdiction, but is rather narrowly tailored to ensure that adjudicated remedies are applied consistent with Constitutional standards and the inherent authority of the federal courts to ensure that their remedial orders are not frustrated. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 55-58, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991). The Sixth Circuit has previously ruled that federal jurisdiction over conditions may not be frustrated by simply transferring inmates outside of the Central Complex. See Hadix v. Johnson, 1995 WL 559 372 ----6 (6th Cir. Sept. 20, 2005). It has also ruled that maintaining jurisdiction over clear constitutional violations affecting class members is a proper and efficient means of asserting federal authority. See Hadix v. Johnson, 367 F.3d 513, 518 n. 7 (6th Cir.2004). Given the very grievous violations of inmates’ constitutional rights and the recent reports of the Independent Medical Monitor suggesting that this treatment has not abated, it is imperative that federal jurisdiction over remedy not lapse.
*2 For these reasons, the reasons argued at length in Plaintiffs’ Response (Dkt. No. 2402) and the reasons explained by the Court in its Opinion of May 4, 2007;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Terminate the Court’s Consent Decree Jurisdiction Over 8-Block of the Parnall Correctional Facility (Dkt. No. 2374) is GRANTED to the extent that jurisdiction over 8-Block of Parnall Correctional Facility is TERMINATED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that jurisdiction shall continue over Hadix class members transferred to Buildings A and B of the Parnall Correctional Facility, which buildings are deemed de facto Hadix facilities for the purpose of remedy.
1

Hadix v. Caruso, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007) 2

 
 Hadix v. Caruso, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)
2007 WL 1741779 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, W.D. Michigan,
Southern Division.
Everett HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Patricia CARUSO, et al., Defendants.
No. 4:92-CV-110. | June 11, 2007.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Elizabeth Alexander, Washington, DC, Michael Barnhart, Patricia A. Streeter, Ann Arbor, MI, for Plaintiffs.
Opinion
OPINION
RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN, Senior United States District Judge.
*1 Pending before this Court is Plaintiffs’ expedited Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery Regarding Possible Contempt of Court, Retaliation against Class Members, and Alleged Bad Faith Conduct by Defendants. Defendants have timely responded in opposition to the Motion. Oral argument is not possible given the emergency nature of the relief requested and the Court’s schedule.
This case has been pending on my docket as well as other prisoner litigation for many years. Lawyers representing Defendants have often changed, and some have been more helpful to the Court than others. For quite some time, A. Peter Govorchin has been the only defense counsel appearing in the Court and has appeared “overworked .” In writing this Opinion, I am impressed by the civility and competence of all counsel and their efforts to expedite the issues currently pending.
Defense counsel deserves particular credit for his advocacy, his professionalism and his legal ability as demonstrated in his recent court filings. His Response indicates that Defendants’ decision to close the Southern Michigan Correctional Facility (“JMF”) was based upon a cost analysis by Michigan Department of Corrections’ officials and was not based upon a primary purpose to avoid federal jurisdiction over the Hadix facilities. (See Resp. 2-6.) The Response advances this point

persuasively, also arguing that the parties should be directing their efforts toward improvement of conditions rather than discovery, wherever possible. The Court agrees with Defendants that “emergency discovery” should not be conducted for the mere purpose of determining a contempt motion.
Notwithstanding, the Court believes that the discovery sought in this matter should be provided for a separate, but related purpose-the determination of whether to approve future transfer plans. The express logic of Defendants, that JMF closure is related to per prisoner cost, is persuasive. However, this argument does not disclose important details pertaining to future plan approval. For example, it fails to compare costs for all level IV MDOC facilities. It also fails to disclose the relative medical costs per prisoner at JMF versus other level IV MDOC facilities. Should the evidence indicate that Defendants intend to achieve significant medical cost savings for a class of inmates whose rights to medical treatment have been previously violated, then it is not likely that such a plan would be approved, with one caveat. That is, if Defendants can present persuasive evidence that the delivery of care at the new facilities is more effective in terms of both cost and performance. This is a concern because the Court realizes from past filings that the patient to provider ratio at the non-Hadix facilities is much higher than the ratio at the Hadix facilities. This scenario creates a concern that care will not be provided as needed upon transfer absent corrective action and protective conditions. One apparent example is that the movement of Hadix prisoners away from the Duane Waters Health Care Center may increase the transportation costs for prisoners needing hospital services and may also make hospital and specialty services less accessible to some prisoners.
*2 The Court has read with interest the recent filings of the parties and the Independent Medical Monitor. The filings appreciate something which has sometimes been ignored in discussion-that medical services for serious needs is required by the Eighth Amendment and the United States Supreme Court’s precedents. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976), Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994).
Since last November, the Court has received over 200 prisoner letters from prisoners not incarcerated at Hadix facilities but alleging that the authors have routinely not been treated for serious and often life-threatening medical conditions at these facilities.1 The Court continues to receive large numbers of letters by non-Hadix prisoners who are routinely informed by me that they have no standing in Hadix and advising if they want judicial relief, they will need to file suit, either in the Eastern or Western
1

Hadix v. Caruso, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

District of Michigan. On some occasions, I forward such letters to counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants as well as the Medical Monitor. In other cases, I do not.
This Court has received some 21 letters from prisoners at the G. Robert Cotton Facility. The Cotton Facility is a multi-level facility, including level IV housing, which was not mentioned in Defendants’ cost comparisons. Medical complaints from Cotton include, but are not limited to: alleged untreated multiple sclerosis, alleged untreated or incorrectly treated diabetes, alleged untreated infections, alleged untreated heart disease and other heart-related conditions, alleged lack of follow-up care for hepatitis C, alleged untreated pain and denial of specialist care, and alleged failure to provide inmates with prescribed medications.
I have attached to this Opinion a sealed Appendix which contains the above Cotton Facility correspondence. (Attached Sealed App. 1.) The purpose of the Appendix is to provide a record of the correspondence while keeping the correspondence confidential. In addition to those letters, I have received photographs of inmates, depicting untreated medical conditions, such as hernias. Some of these letters from non-Hadix prisoners, if accurate, may demonstrate that the MDOC may be generating cost savings by not treating serious medical conditions. This raises the issue of whether Defendants’ pending transfer plan is bona fide and should be approved as consistent with equity and constitutional standards. While the Court

cannot assess the truth or falsity of many of the letters it receives, the frequency of such letters and the serious nature of the matters set forth in the Appendix warrant inquiry in the form of the discovery order of this date, particularly in light of the expected filing this month of Defendants’ renewed transfer plan.
In accordance with this Opinion, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery Regarding Possible Contempt of Court, Retaliation against Class Members, and Alleged Bad Faith Conduct by Defendants shall be granted in part and denied in part. Discovery shall be permitted limited to the issues of whether the renewed JMF transfer plan proposed by Defendants is bona fide and whether the JMF transfer is calculated to result in adequate medical care for Hadix prisoners. The schedule for such discovery shall be as follows: all written discovery requests, including deposition notices, shall be submitted by Plaintiffs within three days; all depositions shall be scheduled within 15 days; and Defendants’ responses to written discovery requests shall be submitted within 15 days of service. In making this Order, the Court is cognizant of the attendant demands upon defense counsel of more discovery, but urges defense counsel to obtain greater assistance from others within the Office of the Michigan Attorney General, so as to accomplish defense representation expeditiously.
	  

Footnotes

1

The Court has also received a large number of letters from Hadix prisoners and the Office of the Independent Medical Monitor has

received more than 250 complaints concerning prisoner medical treatment.

	  

2

 
 Hadix v. Caruso, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)
2007 WL 2021862 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, W.D. Michigan,
Southern Division.
Everett HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Patricia L. CARUSO, et al., Defendants.
No. 4:92-cv-110. | July 6, 2007.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Elizabeth Alexander, Washington, DC, Michael Barnhart, Patricia A. Streeter, Ann Arbor, MI, for Plaintiffs.
Opinion
ORDER
RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN, Senior United States District Judge.
*1 Pending before this Court is Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order or, in the Alternative, Motion to Quash Subpoena. On June 18, 2007, Plaintiffs’ counsel served a subpoena upon Director Patricia Caruso, compelling her appearance to testify at a deposition and produce certain documents. This deposition, one of five, was originally scheduled for Thursday June 28, 2007. In light of the recent Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision, the parties agreed to reschedule the depositions for July 9, 10 and 11, 2007. Defendants now move this Court for a protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) or in the alternative, to quash the Director Caruso’s subpoena pursuant Rule 45(C).
Defendants first argue the Court should grant a protective order on the basis that Director Caruso is a high ranking official and no exceptional circumstances exist requiring such a deposition. Relying upon United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409, 422, 61 S.Ct. 999, 85 L.Ed. 1429 (1941), and its progeny, Defendants make the broad assertion that the practice of deposing high ranking government officials should be discouraged. However, in Morgan, the Supreme Court relied significantly upon the quasi-judicial role of the high ranking official deposed, the Secretary of Agriculture, in finding such a deposition was improper. Id. Therefore, Morgan does not set forth any general rule prohibiting or limiting depositions of public officials in general. Moreover, this Court notes that in at least one

case in this district a Deputy Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections has given testimony. See Knop v. Johnson, 667 F.Supp. 467, 505 (W.D.Mich.1987).
The Court further recognizes the exceptional circumstances surrounding this litigation. Although Defendants make a strong point that to allow Director Caruso’s deposition in every case in which she is a named defendant would hamper her ability to conduct business, the Court does not believe that such an argument applies in this context. The present litigation and the scope of discovery, specifically decisions regarding the closure of a prison facility, are such that it is likely Director Caruso has direct and unique knowledge on the subject. Therefore, unlike most cases in which Director Caruso has the dubious honor of being named a defendant, in the present case there exists the likelihood of relevant firsthand knowledge. Moreover, the Court recognizes that as a result of the expedited discovery, Plaintiffs were put in the abnormal situation of serving deposition notices before Defendants were required to respond to written discovery. (See Order, June 11, 2007.) This obviated the procedure with which to identify more specifically the individual who made the decision to close Southern Michigan Correctional Facility (“JMF”).1
Pursuant to Rule 26(c) it is the burden of the party seeking the protective order to show “good cause” to justify a protective order. See Dove v. Atlantic Capital Corp., 963 F.2d 15, 19 (2d Cir.1992); see also Galaviz-Zamora v. Brady Farms, Inc., 230 F.R.D. 499, 501 (W.D.Mich.2005) (citing Nix. v. Sword, 11 Fed.App. 489, 500 (6th Cir.2001)). Defendants argue good cause exists because there are other lesser ranking officials who “could provide answers to any of the potential questions the Plaintiffs’ counsel might have.” (Mot. at 3.) Despite the general assertion that lesser ranking officials have such knowledge, Defendants themselves point out that those individuals are “tasked with the day-to-day operations of MDOC’s medical health care and financial activities. A function that is not the Director’s” (Mot. at 4.) It is clear the pertinent information Plaintiffs seek from Director Caruso relates to her knowledge and/or her decision regarding the closure of JMF. One would be hard pressed to describe such a decision as one falling within the category of “day-to-day.” As a result, the Court finds Defendants have not shown good cause that a protection order should be issued. Where it appears likely Director Caruso has direct and relevant knowledge on the decision to close JMF, and it is likely that such a decision was logically within the purview of her position (therefore putting her in the position of having unique knowledge of the issues) such a deposition request is proper. See Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 420, 91 S.Ct. 814, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971), abrogated on other grounds by Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99,
1

Hadix v. Caruso, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

105, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977) (remanding case to district court with leave to require explanation from officials of the Department of Transportation of their actions).
*2 To the extent Defendants seek to quash the subpoena pursuant to Rule 45(c) for the reason that such a deposition is “harassment” the Court finds the argument is without merit. As described above, given the exceptional circumstances surrounding this case and the likelihood of

Director Caruso’s direct and relevant knowledge, one could not describe Plaintiffs’ request as one of harassment. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order or, in the Alternative, Motion to Quash Subpoena (Dkt. No. 2510) is DENIED.
	  

Footnotes

1

The Court notes Plaintiffs are still awaiting three such requests for production. (Resp. at 8.)

	  

2

 
 Hadix v. Caruso, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)
2007 WL 162279 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, W.D. Michigan,
Southern Division.
Everett HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Patricia L. CARUSO, et al., Defendants.
No. 4:92-CV-110. | Jan. 16, 2007.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Elizabeth Alexander, Washington, DC, Michael Barnhart, Patricia A. Streeter, Ann Arbor, MI, for Plaintiffs.
Opinion
ORDER AMENDING OPINION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN, Senior United States District Judge.
*1 Defendants, through counsel, have moved for a technical amendment to the Court’s Opinion and Permanent Injunction of December 7, 2006. Sentence Two of Paragraph 130 of the Court’s Opinion contains the requirement that “... Defendant shall employ for the Associate Monitor a full-staff of medically qualified applicants.” Defendants’ Amended Motion for Relief from Judgment and Reconsideration requests that the words “shall employ” be amended to instead require that Defendants “shall fund” such positions. (Am.Mot.¶ 9.)

This amendment would have the effect of making these new employees the employees of the Associate Monitor rather than those of state government. The advantage of this amendment is that it avoids complications of state law which prevent hiring outside the civil service system and likewise avoids possible violations of state collective bargaining agreements with state employees.
Plaintiffs, in response to the Motion, concur with the request. In particular, the request is appropriate because it is consistent with the requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(B), respecting state law to the extent that it does not prevent federal remedy of unconstitutional conditions. The Court reads Plaintiffs’ concurrence as dependent upon an implied condition. That is, that the disbursements be sufficient to provide not only the employment of the required staff, but also the provision of sufficient support services (e.g., personnel, payroll and recruiting services) to ensure the prompt and continued employment of the required staff of the Associate Monitor. So understood, the Court concurs with said amendment.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Amended Motion for Relief from Judgment and Reconsideration (Dkt. No. 2249) is GRANTED and sentence two of Paragraph 130 of the Court’s December 7, 2006 Opinion is AMENDED nunc pro tunc to read: “Therefore, Defendants shall disburse funds to the Associate Monitor for the Associate Monitor to employ a full staff of medically qualified applicants.”
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Permanent Injunction of December 7, 2006 shall be deemed to relate to the amended Opinion language.
	  

1

 
 Hadix v. Caruso, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

2005 WL 3454410 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division.
Everett HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Patricia L. CARUSO, et al., Defendants.
No. 4:92-CV-110. | Dec. 16, 2005.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Deborah A. Labelle, Deborah Labelle Law Offices, Patricia A. Streeter, Ann Arbor, MI, Elizabeth Alexander, National Prison Project of the ACLUF, Washington, DC, Jeanne E. Mirer, Pitt, Dowty, McGehee, Mirer & Palmer, P.C., Royal Oak, MI, Michael Barnhart, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiffs.
A. Peter Govorchin, Leo H. Friedman, MI Dept. Attorney General, Lansing, MI, for Defendants.
F. Warren Benton, Court Monitor, Larchmont, NY, for Intervenor.
J. Franklin James, East Carolina University, Department of Psychiatric Medicine School of Medicine, Greeneville, NC, pro se.
Diane Hartmus, Peekskill, NY, pro se.
Robert L. Cohen, MD, New York, NY, pro se.
Opinion

ORDER

ENSLEN, Senior J.
*1 Defendants have moved for relief from judgment and/or reconsideration of the Court’s grant of an October 19, 2005 Opinion and Preliminary Injunction.1 Oral argument is unnecessary.

1

The Preliminary Injunction was later amended on

November 23, 2005 nunc pro tunc.

Under local rule, reconsideration is warranted only if the movant “demonstrate [s] a palpable defect by which the Court and the parties have been mislead ... [and] that a different disposition must result from the correction

thereof.”W.D. Mich. L.Civ.R. 7.4(a). Defendants’ Motion fails this standard and those applicable under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60.
Most of the briefing focuses on one problem case noted by Dr. Cohen (the independent medical monitor). The case was serious and provided a sentinel instance of extremely reckless medical care contributing to the premature death of a patient (A.R.) experiencing a complex medical problem (adult onset diabetic with regular hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia). However, there were many other sentinel cases noted in the Court’s Opinion, Dr. Cohen’s Third Report and Dr. Walden’s analysis of sixteen recent death cases. Those cases, independent from A.R.’s case, document regular, systematic and serious deficiencies in the health care system for prisoners at the Hadix facilities. Those deficiencies were known by Defendants and were not corrected despite repeated requests by this Court.
Regarding A.R.’s case, both Defendants and Plaintiffs’ medical experts agree that Dr. Mial, without examining A.R., made an overly aggressive increase of both A.R.’s a.m. and p.m. insulin dosages on July 1, 2005. (Hutchinson Aff. ¶ 7; Walden Aff. ¶ 12.) The type of insulin administered (Humulin 70/30) is a combination of short and long acting insulins. (Id.) The peak efficiency of the p.m. dosage of that insulin (4-8 hours after injection) would have coincided with A.R.’s sleeping hours (i.e., when he was not conscious to treat his own hypoglycemia and prevent it from becoming severe). (See Pls.’ Ex. D, table 51-1.) Insulin, though necessary for bodily function and to prevent hyperglycemia, is dangerous since extreme hypoglycemia may cause death. (Pls.’ Ex. 2, 2; Physician Desk Reference, 1854 (Thompson 2003 ed.)) For this reason, blood glucose levels must be regularly monitored. A.R.’s blood glucose level was monitored only twice on the day death of his death and was not monitored after an evening reading of 119 mg/dl (which was lower than his ususal evening reading). (Walden Aff. ¶ 22.) This was so despite the fact that medical care workers knew that A.R. had a history of many episodes of hypoglycemia in the recent past and had denied A.R.’s request for a glucometer (to self-monitor blood glucose levels). (Id.) On July 15, 2005, at 6:00 a.m., A.R. was treated at the Duane Waters Emergency Room for severe hypoglycemia; his a.m. and p.m. insulin was then reduced somewhat (25 units a.m. and 15 units p.m.2). (Hutchinson Aff. ¶ 11.) He was not hospitalized other than emergency room care during that incident.

2

A unit is one/one-hundred of a cubic centimeter. The

reduced dosages were still higher than the dosages A.R.

received prior to Dr. Mial’s July 1, 2005 increases. The

original increases by Dr. Mial were from 20 to 30 units

in the a.m. and 10 to 20 units in the p.m.

1

Hadix v. Caruso, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

*2 A.R. suffered another extreme hypoglycemic reaction at 1:45 a.m. on August 9, 2005 and died. (Id. ¶ 13.) The medical examiner attributed his death to diabetes and its complications. His blood glucose at the time of death was 25 mg/dl. Normal blood glucose is between 72-144 mg/dl. (Pls.’ Ex. D, 434.) Formal nursing protocols require treatment of hypoglycemia at 70 mg/dl regardless of the presence of other symptoms of hypoglycemia. (Pls.’ Ex.C, 1.) When a patient loses consciousness due to severe hypoglycemia, the recognized effective treatments are intravenous glucose or dextrose, or, if glucose or dextrose are unavailable, an injection of glucagon.3(Pls.’ Ex. D, 436.) While intravenous glucose was administered by emergency workers at 2:10 a.m. (with some delay attributable to difficulty establishing an I.V.), no prior injection of glucagon was given.4(See id.)

3

As recognized by Dr. Hutchinson, glucagon is not

intended for primary treatment because, if the liver has

exhausted supplies of glycogen, it will not be effective.

(See Hutchinson Aff. ¶ 16; Pls’ Ex. D, 436.) However,

it had previously been used for A.R., effectively, to

treat prior incidents of hypoglycemia. (Walden Aff. ¶

18.)

4

Glucogon was not available to E.M.T. staff, who did

not carry it, but was available to nursing and physician

staff.

Apart from gross failures in both the over-prescription of insulin and the emergency response, this case illustrates several other systemic failures of the medical care system to treat this case effectively which were in the contemplation of M.D.O.C. medical care workers at the time: (1) a failure to hospitalize or closely treat A.R. after many episodes of hypoglycemia (Walden Aff. ¶ 22); (2) a failure to closely monitor his blood sugars after controversial changes in insulin dosage (Id. ¶ 8); and (3) a failure to refer the patient for endocrinologist care (Id. ¶¶ 6, 24-25.) It is true, as noted by Dr. Hutchinson, that patients such as A.R., with a history of insulin dependent Type II diabetes and serious neuropathy, have high rates of mortality. (Hutchinson Aff. ¶ 4.) However, the overall care delivered in this case was reckless and most likely contributed to a premature death.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Relief from Judgment and/or Reconsideration (Dkt. No.1922) is DENIED.
	  

2

 
 Hadix v. Caruso
United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division July 13, 2006, Decided Case No. 4:92-CV-110

Reporter: 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47663 EVERETT HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PATRICIA CARUSO, et al., Defendants.
Subsequent History: Appeal denied by, Affirmed by Hadix v. Caruso, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72008 (W.D. Mich., Oct. 2, 2006)

Melvin Smith # 167153, movant, Pro se, State Prison Of Southern Michigan, Jackson, MI.
James C. Reilly # 203296, movant, Pro se, Parnall Correctional Facility, Jackson, MI.

Prior History: Hadix v. Caruso, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS James Charles Cannon # 237039, movant, Pro se, Parnall

46818 (W.D. Mich., June 30, 2006)

Correctional Facility, Jackson, MI.

Counsel: [*1] For Everett Hadix, Richard Mapes, Patrick C. Sommerville, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr., Brent E. Koster, Lee D. McDonald, Darryl Sturges, Robert Flemster, William Lovett, James Covington, Frank Thomas, James Haddix, James Alexander, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Perry Alan Davis, Mark Lemothe, Cylester Nunnally, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Ted Sullivan, Mark A. Coleman, Danny Walker, plaintiffs: Elizabeth Alexander, National Prison Project of the ACLUF, Washington, DC.; Michael Barnhart, Patricia A. Streeter, Ann Arbor, MI.

Wellington L. Drake # 229939, movant, Pro se, Parnall Correctional Facility, Jackson, MI.
Mark H. Roberts # 197305, named as Charles M.H. Roberts, movant, Pro se, Parnall Correctional Facility, Jackson, MI.
William T. Mears # 180220, movant, Pro se, Parnall Correctional Facility, Jackson, MI.
Albert Eugene McKinley # 177679, movant, Pro se, Parnall Correctional Facility, Jackson, MI.

For Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr., Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, Patricia L. Caruso, defendants: A. Peter Govorchin, Leo H. Friedman, MI Dept Attorney General (Corrections), Corrections Division, Lansing, MI.

Avis A. Fee # 265115, movant, Pro se, Parnall Correctional Facility, Jackson, MI.
Judges: Richard Alan Enslen, Senior United States District Judge.
Opinion by: Richard Alan Enslen

For USA, defendant: A. Peter Govorchin, MI Dept Attorney General (Corrections), Corrections Division, Lansing, MI.
Ronald Kovaleski # 213896, movant, Pro se, Parnall Correctional Facility, Jackson, MI.

Opinion [*3] ORDER In accordance with the Court's rulings of July 12, 2006;

Richard Thompson # 311040, movant, Pro se, [*2] Marquette Branch Prison, Marquette, MI.
Ronald L. Jordan # 125764, movant, Pro se, Marquette Branch Prison, Marquette, MI.
For Special Master, unknown: F. Warren Benton, Court Monitor, Larchmont, NY.
Diane Hartmus, unknown, Pro se, Peekskill, NY.
Robert L. Cohen, MD, Medical Monitor, unknown, Pro se, New York, NY.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the evidentiary hearing scheduled for October 11-13, 2006 shall commence as earlier scheduled.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that such hearing will consider as a priority matter medical care issues, which may include requests by Plaintiffs for injunctive relief; and before consideration of other issues, such as termination of Consent Decree provisions.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all issues not presented at such hearing will be heard at a later hearing, not to exceed two days in length, which will be later

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47663, *3

scheduled by notice of this Court for a date or dates within 45

days of October 13, 2006.

/s/ Richard Alan Enslen

Dated in Kalamazoo, MI:

Senior United States District Judge

July 13, 2006

Page 2 of 2

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

EVERETT HADIX, et al.,

Plaintiffs, v. PATRICIA CARUSO, et al.,

CASE NO. 4:92-CV-110 HON. ROBERT J. JONKER

Defendants. __________________________________/

OPINION

A. Introduction and Overview

This prisoner civil rights case spans approximately thirty-five years. It began in 1980 when

twenty-three inmates filed suit in the Eastern District of Michigan to protest conditions of

confinement at the State Prison of Southern Michigan – Central Complex (“SPSM-CC”). In 1981,

the Court certified the class, defined as “all prisoners who are, or will be, confined at the [SPSM-

CC].” In May, 1985, the Court approved a proposed Consent Decree encompassing a range of

confinement issues such as sanitation, health care, safety, overcrowding, and security. At that time,

the Court foresaw likely structural changes at the SPSM-CC, and so when it approved the Consent

Decree, the Court explicitly clarified that “the facility at issue in this lawsuit, [the SPSM-CC],

including the Reception and Guidance Center, shall be defined as ‘all areas within the walls of . . .

the [SPSM-CC] at the time this cause commenced and all the areas which will supply support

services under the provisions of this Consent Judgment, e.g. food service and Boiler Plant

operations.’” (Order Accepting Consent J., docket # 213, Hadix v. Johnson, CA No. 80-73581). Under the Consent Decree, the Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the judgment. Id.
The “likely structural changes” the Court foresaw occurred, resulting in fundamental changes in the size and nature of the Hadix class. Indeed, the operation and function of SPSM-CC today is very different than at the time of the Consent Decree. As a result, the Hadix class has become much smaller and more transient. Previously, the Hadix class comprised mainly prisoners housed longterm in the SPSM-CC, but very few long-term housing blocks remain. Now the class consists primarily of prisoners housed temporarily in the Reception and Guidance Center (“RGC”) before moving to the correctional facilities where they will be housed longer-term.1 Beyond the prisoners housed temporarily at RGC, the Hadix class consists only of prisoners hospitalized in Duane Waters Hospital (“DWH”) and prisoners housed in C-Unit, which is the step-down unit for DWH.
These changes at SPSM-CC itself, as well as market changes in the delivery of health care outside of prison, highlight a difficulty built into decades-long constitutional litigation over structural reform. Litigation is an important vehicle for vindicating constitutional rights, and this litigation has been in many ways indispensable in driving improvements necessary to bring SPSM-CC into compliance with constitutional requirements. But litigation is a blunt and slow-moving instrument. It cannot keep up with changes both inside and outside the walls of a prison subject to a consent decree entered over thirty years ago. This is certainly true after three decades of supervision of
1When a Hadix prisoner moves to a non-Hadix facility, he is no longer in the Hadix class. Hadix v. Caruso, No. 4:92-CV-110, 2009 WL 891709 at *1 (W.D. Mich., March 31, 2009) (aff’d Hadix v. Caruso, 420 F. App’x 480 (6th Cir. 2011)). This opinion also summarizes other changes to the Hadix class over the years. Id.
2

SPSM-CC, particularly over generally-worded health care provisions crafted long before fundamental structural changes in the market for health care services generally.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) addresses this structural problem by ensuring that prospective injunctive relief ends, unless Plaintiffs can demonstrate an ongoing consent decree violation of constitutional magnitude. The only open provisions of the Consent Decree in this case after thirty-five years of litigation are those dealing with a variety of health care issues. After reviewing the evidence in this case, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate ongoing Consent Decree violations of constitutional magnitude. Accordingly, the Court is terminating ongoing injunctive relief over the medical provisions of the Consent Decree. Because this terminates the only still open provisions of the Consent Decree, this has the effect of terminating all federal supervision over the Hadix facilities and the Hadix class, and of bringing this case to an end. Of course, all prisoners – whether part of the Hadix class or not – continue to enjoy the constitutional protection against deliberate indifference by their jailors to their serious medical needs, and the State of Michigan remains bound to provide medical care that meets the constitutional standard. But going forward, that constitutional standard can be enforced in individual cases that raise the issue. The Court finds no basis for further federal supervision under the Hadix Consent Decree.
B. Consent Decree and Orders for Prospective Relief This Court has previously terminated federal supervision over all aspects of the Hadix Consent Decree other than five subsections concerning medical care at Hadix facilities. These subsections address medical screening before transfer to another facility; a sick call access plan; professional staffing; a chronic disease plan; and health records. Plaintiffs assert that several orders entered in this case between 1993 and 2007 on various issues related to health care also remain open
3

and continue to require Defendants to provide prospective relief. These orders comprise: (1) Order of March 26, 1993 (docket # 142), based on the provision concerning a chronic disease plan; (2) Order of July 25, 1994 (docket # 405), based on the provision concerning access to healthcare; (3) Order of November 18, 1996 (docket # 822), based on the provisions concerning medical screening before transfer and a chronic disease plan; and (4) Permanent Injunction of December 7, 2006 (docket # 2234), based on the provisions concerning health records; professional staffing; and access to health care. Defendants disagree and move for termination of prospective relief under the open Consent Decree subsections. The Court conducted a bench trial to address the dispute.
C. Evidence Presented at Trial At trial, the Court heard extensive evidence from the parties. Plaintiffs’ witnesses included: Karen Elizabeth Saylor, M.D., an expert in medicine in the correctional setting, and Hadix class members Edward Alexander, Jr.; John Legree (de bene esse); Richard Girard (de bene esse); William Ross (de bene esse); Keith Boyette (de bene esse); Louis Ransom (de bene esse); George Billups (de bene esse); James Tennant (de bene esse); Michael White (de bene esse); and Charles Richard Culp, Jr. Defense witnesses included: Erin Elizabeth Orlebeke, M.D., the Chief Medical Officer for Corizon Health, Inc. (“Corizon”)2 in Michigan; Lynn Marie Larson, D.O., a physician at DWH; Mark Boomershine, P.A., a physician’s assistant at RGC; Emmanuelle Genna, physical therapist; Janak Bhavsar, M.D.; Heidi Elizabeth Washington, Warden; Heidi Lee Reilly, R.N.; Nathanial Abraham Neusbaum, R.N., Acting Director of Nursing at DWH; Judy L. Crisenberry, R.N., Acting Unit Manager at RGC; Melissa M. Schulz, R.N.; Maxine Evelyn Collard, R.N., Nursing and Medical
2The MDOC contracts with Corizon or its related entity, Quality Correctional Care of Michigan, PC (also referred to in this Opinion as “Corizon”), for the provision of medical care in the MDOC system.
4

Assistant Supervisor in C-Unit; Elizabeth Solomon, Regional Health Information Manager for the MDOC; Chad Jeremy Zawitz, M.D., an expert in medicine in the correctional setting; Matthew John Reeves, Ph.D., expert in statistical analysis; Wenjiang Fu, Ph.D., expert in statistical analysis; Courtney Ann Wetzel, R.N., Manager of Nursing at DWH; Carol Marie Griffes, R.N., Acting Director of DWH; Penny Lynn Crapser, Pharmacy Assistant; Leslie Jones, Records Administrator; and Lisa Lanette Paquette, Medical Record Supervisor at RGC.
The parties also introduced numerous exhibits into evidence, including Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 1-8; 11-12; 15-21; 23-27; 29-30; 32; 34A and B - 41A and B; and 42, and including Defendants’ Exhibits A-E; G-Z; AA-EE; GG-UU; WW 2-6, 9-12, 14-16, 18, 21, 22; and XX. The parties submitted additional materials with supplemental briefing. The parties’ exhibits encompass a broad range of materials, including curriculum vitae of exert witnesses; expert reports; standing orders; intake questionnaires; NCCH guidelines; NextGen templates; Corizon collaboration/supervision guidelines; selected kites; critical incident reports; medication incident reports; Transfer Assessment Screen; kite audits; policy directives; operating procedures; and select patient records.
D. Legal Standards The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) strictly limits the Court’s ability to grant prospective relief concerning prisoner conditions. The Court may grant such relief only after finding an ongoing violation of a constitutional or other Federal right, and the relief must be narrowly tailored. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1) (“Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff (or plaintiffs)”). The Sixth Circuit has emphasized that
5

the relevant inquiry is not whether the defendants are in compliance with the consent decree; instead, pursuant to the PLRA, the district court must determine if the consent decree is currently necessary. To fulfill its statutory duty, the district court must make written findings as to whether ‘prospective relief remains necessary to correct a current and ongoing violation of the Federal right, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and that prospective relief is narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means to correct the violation.’ § 3626(b)(3). If the Court finds that the current conditions at the SPSM-CC do not violate the Constitution, then it should terminate the consent decree, regardless of whether the objectives of the consent decree have been achieved. If, on the other hand the court finds that constitutional violations persist, then it should retain jurisdiction to enforce compliance with the consent decree, provided that the prospective relief set forth in the decree is necessary, narrowly drawn, and the least intrusive means to correct the violations.
Hadix v. Caruso, 420 F. App’x 480, 485 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Hadix v. Johnson, 228 F.3d 662,
673 (6th Cir. 2000) (emphasis in original)).
To demonstrate a claim of constitutional proportions concerning the open provisions of the
Consent Decree, Plaintiffs must show by a preponderance of the evidence systemic deliberate
indifference to Hadix prisoners’ serious medical needs. See Williams v. Mehra, 186 F.3d 685, 691
(6th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (“[P]roperly stated, the [constitutional] right at issue is [a prisoner’s] right
not to have his serious medical needs treated with deliberate indifference.”) (citing Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976)). A claim of deliberate indifference under the Eighth
Amendment has two components, one objective and one subjective. Comstock v. McCrary, 273 F.3d
693, 702 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994)). The objective
component requires the plaintiff to show that the medical need at issue is sufficiently serious. Id.,
citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. The subjective component requires the plaintiff to show that a
prison official being sued “subjectively perceived facts from which to infer substantial risk to the
prisoner, that he did in fact draw the inference, and that he disregarded that risk.” Id. (citing Farmer,
6

511 U.S. at 837). “A plaintiff alleging deliberate indifference must show more than negligence or the misdiagnosis of an ailment.” Id. (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106). However, “a plaintiff need not show that the prison official acted ‘for the very purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm will result.’” Id. (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835). Rather, the subjective element of deliberate indifference is the equivalent of reckless disregard of a substantial risk of serious harm. Id. (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 836). A court may infer from circumstantial evidence that a prison official had the requisite knowledge. Id. (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842).
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Open Consent Decree Provisions
In making its findings of fact, the Court relies on its observations of witnesses in open court, and on the analytical points cited in its discussion. The Court notes that medical care in the Hadix facilities occurs in a demanding environment involving thousands of interactions with patients. Elizabeth Solomon, Regional Health Information Manager for the MDOC, testified that her review of the NextGen electronic medical records for prisoners in the Hadix facilities in the six-month period between August 2012 and March 2013 reflected 211,000 “patient encounters.” The same records show that between August 2012 and February 2013, a total of approximately 42,000 prescriptions for prisoners in the Hadix facilities were filled. Based on this and other similar information in the record, the Court emphasizes that its focus is on the overall system of medical care provided to the Hadix class. Providing this medical care is a big and complex task. Evidence of individual, anecdotal problems is certainly proper and helpful to the Court in assessing how the systems are working. But a system on this scale can never be perfect, whether inside or outside of prison. The focus of the Court is on determining whether at the system level, there is any
7

demonstrated, ongoing need for federal Consent Decree supervision to ensure constitutional compliance.
1. Medical Evaluation before Transfer Section II.A.3.b of the Consent Decree provides, in its entirety: Prior to transfer to another facility or other substantial travel, each inmate shall continue to be evaluated by qualified health care personnel to assess suitability for travel or institutional reassignment. The preponderance of the evidence presented at trial amply demonstrates that Defendants have implemented a process that satisfies the requirements of this subsection, and the Court so finds as a matter of fact. The preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding of systemic deliberate indifference in the transfer evaluation process. There is no ongoing constitutional violation, and therefore no basis for ongoing prospective relief under this subsection.
A. RGC RGC’s function is to receive all newly-committed adult male felons from all of Michigan’s counties and, among other things, determine how they will be placed within the greater MDOC system. RGC operates as a maximum security prison. At any one time, approximately 1100 - 1150 prisoners are housed at RGC. The average length of stay at RGC is 30 - 45 days. Typically a minimum of 20 prisoners go through intake each day, and the number is often higher, ranging from 20 - 80. Defendants’ expert, Dr. Zawitz, works in a similar environment. Since 2004 Dr. Zawitz has been a practicing physician at the Cook County Jail in Chicago, which is among the largest single site urban correctional facilities in the United States, with a daily census from approximately 8,000 - 11,000 detainees. His experience at the Cook County Jail offers particular insight into the
8

provision of medical care in correctional setting with a large and transient population, and the Court finds his testimony particularly credible.
MDOC policy requires that each prisoner have a medical examination as part of the intake process, and that each prisoner have a second medical examination – a health clearance physical – before transfer from RGC to another facility. The preponderance of the evidence presented at trial, including without limitation the testimony of Dr. Zawitz, demonstrates that intake screening typically occurs within hours after an inmate’s arrival at RGC. On a typical day, a supervising nurse and up to three additional nurses staff the screening area and perform the evaluations. The screening area is in close physical proximity to staff physicians and other medical providers. Intake evaluations include, among other things, taking vital signs and weight; obtaining consent for laboratory testing; reviewing the inmate’s medical history; initiation of tuberculosis testing; and instruction to the inmate on how to complete a kite form. Nurses conducting the screening use a template medical history form available on NextGen3 in taking medical histories, and they document inmates’ medical problems in the NextGen problem list. There was no evidence at trial that arriving inmates do not receive an intake physical. Plaintiffs argue that the intake physical should include more specific questioning of inmates, but the Court finds nothing that rises to the level of systemic deliberate indifference in the intake process.
Nor does the evidence reveal systemic constitutional deficiencies in the health clearance process for transferring prisoners. MDOC policy requires that each prisoner have a health clearance physical performed in person by a medical provider before transfer to another facility. Evidence
3NextGen is a shorthand reference to the electronic medical record program used throughout the Michigan prison system, including the Hadix facilities.
9

presented at trial, including without limitation the testimony of Dr. Janak Bhavsar, a physician at RGC, reflects that the health clearance physical involves, among other things, taking a complete medical history, including family history and social history that would affect overall health; a full physical examination; and a review of laboratory tests. The purpose of the physical to ensure that the prisoner can be transferred safely from a medical perspective.
After a medical provider conducts the health clearance physical, a nurse completes a transfer assessment screen detailing the prisoner’s health conditions. Heidi Reilly, R.N., who is part of the medical staff at RGC, testified that she routinely completes such transfer assessment screens and described in detail the process she and other nurses follow to do this. She explained that once the medical provider has completed a health clearance physical and updated the medical record, a nurse collects the file. The nurse reviews the file and assigns it a code reflecting whether a prisoner may be transferred safely and what particular conditions a receiving facility would have to satisfy for the prisoner to be housed there given the prisoner’s medical needs. For example, a file might be assigned a code reflecting that the prisoner needs to be assigned to a facility within 50 miles of a prison hospital such as Duane Waters due to a particular medical condition, or that there are no medical restrictions on where the prisoner may be housed, or that the prisoner may not be transferred at that time. The nurse checks records for the prisoner’s chronic care requirements; restricted medications; mental health issues; and certain laboratory tests and disclosures. He or she then updates a transfer assessment screen accordingly. Other parts of the transfer assessment screen populate automatically with information already in the records. The nurse then checks a print preview of the Transfer Assessment Screen for accuracy and completeness; locks the document; puts the document in the chart; and takes a copy to the medical records department.
10

Testimony at trial, including that of Lisa Paquette, health information manager at RGC, reflects that the health information managers complete data entry on a daily basis for all of the inmates who have been cleared for transfer. They review the transfer assessment screen against the resources of the facility to which the prisoner is being transferred, and if the facility does not have resources to provide appropriate medical care to the prisoner, he will remain at RGC pending transfer to a facility that does have such resources.
Plaintiffs contend it would be preferable for the intake examination to include more specific questions regarding potential disabilities. Plaintiffs acknowledge that the intake examination includes inquiry regarding disability. The degree of specificity of the inquiry does not support a finding of deliberate indifference. Plaintiffs also object to the transfer assessment process in place based on Dr. Saylor’s report that she found incomplete information and other mistakes in some of the individual transfer assessment screens she reviewed. This is not the same as finding systemic deliberate indifference in the transfer assessment process. The Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that even though mistakes sometimes occur in completing the forms, there is nothing that amounts to systemic deliberate indifference.
B. DWH and C-Unit Because DWH and C-Unit are medical facilities, inmates are not transferred out of them other than through a medical evaluation process. The Court finds no evidence establishing that prisoners are transferred out of DWH and C-Unit with a transfer process that shows systemic deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs.
11

C. Summary
The MDOC has in place a system for intake; health clearance physicals; and transfer
assessment that satisfies the requirements of the Consent Decree and the Constitution. Accordingly,
Consent Decree Section II.A.3.b must be closed.
2. Access to Health Care
Section II.A.4.a of the Consent Decree provides, in its entirety:
Within 60 days from the date of the entry of the Judgment in this matter, the Department will submit a plan by which all inmates will be afforded daily access on each weekday to a sick call register. Any inmate who registers for sick call shall within 24 hours receive an appointment to be seen by medical staff within a reasonable time given the particular medical complaint, except those registering on a Friday may receive appointments on the following Monday. Inmates shall be afforded direct access to a register, which health care staff then collect.
The Department’s plan for direct access to health care must provide at least equivalent daily access on weekdays for inmates in segregation units (administrative, punitive, protective). While the procedure may differ for such inmates, the access may be no less.
The Department’s plan shall make adequate provisions to assure that inmates will be transported as needed from housing or other areas to the health care facility.
In a case where a correctional officer suggests that an inmate might be seriously mentally ill, the Department will provide immediate access to professional mental health staff.
The Department’s plan shall provide for implementation within 90 days after its adoption or approval.
The preponderance of the evidence presented at trial demonstrates that Defendants have
implemented processes to ensure the kind of prompt access to medical attention this subsection
requires, and the Court so finds as a matter of fact. The preponderance of the evidence does not
support a finding of systemic deliberate indifference in the medical access processes. There is no
12

ongoing constitutional violation, and therefore no basis for ongoing prospective relief under this subsection.
The processes for requesting medical attention differ among the three Hadix facilities. RGC uses a kite system. Nurse Heidi Reilly testified regarding the kite process at RGC. On a daily basis, kites are gathered from the cell blocks and brought to the medical area, where they are date-stamped. A registered nurse reviews and groups the kites into categories such as medical, dental, mental health, and optical. The medical kites are triaged. If a medical kite concerns a condition requiring an examination, a nurse conducts the initial exam and brings in another medical provider as needed. Melissa Schulz, R.N., who also works at RGC, testified that the nurse would typically examine the prisoner either the day the kite was received or the next business day, but if the kite described an emergent condition, the prisoner would be seen the same day. Maxine Collard, who supervises nurses and medical assistants in C-Unit, described a similar kite process. In C-Unit, Custody delivers kites to Healthcare. If the kite describes an urgent or emergent situation, the kiting prisoner sees a physician or physician assistant either in C-Unit or in the emergency room at DWH the same day. If the condition is not urgent or emergent, the patient is evaluated by a registered nurse the next day.
Courtney Wetzel, manager of nursing at DWH, testified that nurses at DWH make daily rounds. She also explained that as one nursing shift ends and another begins, the nurses at DWH meet to discuss each patient’s particular condition and treatment, and they complete a nursing worksheet that amounts to a status report on each patient. Daily rounding and close collaboration between nurses obviate to some extent the need for kites in DWH. Dr. Lynn Larson, one of the physicians employed by Corizon and assigned to DWH, also testified that each unit in DWH
13

maintains a “doctor board” on which nurses regularly list patient concerns with the priority of each concern. Dr. Larson testified that in her experience, these boards offer an efficient mechanism for her quickly to assess and respond to patient needs in an acute care setting. She testified that she considers doctor boards preferable to kites in an acute care setting such as DWH, while she considers kites more efficient in a non-emergent setting such as RGC. Ms. Wetzel also described the physician boards, explaining that non-emergent issues are noted there and that the physicians can check the boards readily. Mr. Neusbaum, acting assistant director of nursing at DWH, testified that the standard practice in DWH and C-Unit is to respond to non-emergent medical kites within 24 hours and examine prisoners with non-emergent kites within 48 hours.
Judy Crisenberry, Acting Health Unit Manager at RGC testified that she conducts audits of the kite process to make sure that staff are following the established protocols. Mr. Neusbaum testified, and Ms. Griffes confirmed, that he and Ms. Griffes also conduct such audits for DWH and C-Unit. An audit process assists in identifying and correcting any problems in the health care delivery system.
Plaintiffs argue that Defendants have not satisfied the requirements of the Consent Decree regarding access to healthcare, but the evidence provided is, in the Court’s view, too limited and anecdotal to support a finding of systemic deliberate indifference. Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Saylor, identifies isolated instances in which she disagrees with the response provided to kites. Plaintiffs also contend that Defendants have failed to comply with the access to healthcare requirements because Defendants’ written policy does not require responses to kites within 24 hours. But fundamentally, the Consent Decree calls for prompt access to care, and a preponderance of the evidence at trial reflected that the kite and doctor board systems in place provide that access. That
14

not every kite receives a response within 24 hours does not amount to constitutional deliberate indifference.
The MDOC has in place a system for access to healthcare that satisfies the requirements of the Consent Decree and the Constitution. Accordingly, Section II.A.4.a must be closed.
3. Professional Staff Section II.A.5.a of the Consent Decree provides, in its entirety: Professional staff are responsible to provide adequate medical care to meet each inmate’s serious medical needs. The physicians are the health authority in all cases requiring medical judgment. Physicians shall assure continued, appropriate supervision and direction of all health care. To accomplish this supervision, the physician will meet appropriate contemporary professional standards for supervision, including appropriate use of standing orders and protocols. Dental staffs are to be professionally supervised by dentists. The preponderance of the evidence presented at trial demonstrates that the professional staffing and supervision requirements this subsection establishes have been satisfied, and the Court so finds as a matter of fact. The preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding of systemic deliberate indifference in medical supervision and staffing in the Hadix facilities. There is no ongoing constitutional violation, and therefore no basis for ongoing prospective relief under this subsection.
A. Adequacy of Staffing Dr. Orlebeke, the chief medical officer for Corizon in Michigan, testified that she has ultimate oversight responsibility for all the medical providers at the Hadix facilities. “Medical providers” in this context are physicians (M.D. and D.O.), physician assistants (P.A.), and nurse practitioners (N.P.). On weekdays, there are six or seven medical providers at DWH; six medical providers at RGC; and one medical provider at C-Unit. Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, a physician is present in the emergency room at DWH. (Id.)
15

During his time at RGC, Dr. Zawitz observed the use of “surge staffing” due to an atypically heavy intake volume of over 100 inmates. He noted that there were a total of two physicians, three physician assistants, and two nurse practitioners assigned to RGC. Medical and nursing supervision was available at all times. Dr. Zawitz pointed out that “[t]he Cook County Jail processes 3-10 times as many inmates on any given day but actually has fewer [medical providers] available than the Hadix site.”4 Based on all he observed, he opined that the medical staffing at RGC was sufficient. Dr. Zawitz also observed appropriate staffing at C-Unit. He noted that routine staffing included at least three nurses present at all times, plus a medication-pass nurse. Routine staffing also included one physician for four 10-hour shifts weekly, and a physician assistant covering non-chronic care appointments one day a week. An emergency room physician at DWH was available at all times.
Evidence at trial reflected appropriate use of standing orders and protocols at RGC. Dr. Zawitz found that medical staff followed standing orders for a variety of common medical conditions, such as heart disease, asthma, and thyroid imbalances, as well as for chronic diseases. Dr. Zawitz observed that all of the medical providers were aware of these standing orders and most knew the requirements of the standing orders from memory.
B. Adequacy of Supervision Dr. Orlebeke testified that all mid-level providers are supervised by physicians, regardless of whether the mid-level provider is identified as the primary medical provider. Each mid-level provider has a “collaboration agreement” with his or her supervising physician detailing the physician’s expectations and framework appropriate care. Dr. Larson noted that a physician is
4Defs.’ Ex. PP, Zawitz report, p. 11. 16

always involved in each patient’s care. Dr. Larson testified that Dr. Orlebeke is her supervising physician and that she and the other physicians have peer reviews twice a year.
Mark Boomershine, P.A., testified that he has worked as a P.A. at RGC since 1982. A licensed physician with whom he works in close proximity and sees “almost daily” supervises him. All the medical providers share responsibility for every patient, but the physicians have final responsibility. Mr. Boomershine’s supervising physician conducts at least ten reviews of Mr. Boomershine’s casework each month, and Dr. Orlebeke reviews him annually.
As manager of nursing at DWH, Courtney Wetzel manages the nursing staff. She testified that she provides direct supervision to the nursing staff and provides direct patient care from time to time. She reassigns members of the nursing team as patient needs shift to maintain appropriate coverage.
Dr. Saylor, Plaintiff’s expert, acknowledges that there are adequate numbers of medical staff at the Hadix facilities. Plaintiffs contend that professional reviews should occur more frequently. Plaintiffs also argue that physician assistants and nursing staff should be supervised more closely. But Plaintiffs have not shown any systemic deliberate indifference linked to staffing and supervision in the Hadix facilities.
The preponderance of the evidence at trial reflects a system of consistent and adequate medical staffing and supervision that satisfies the Consent Decree and the Constitution. Accordingly, Section II.A.5.a of the Consent Decree must be closed.
17

4. Chronic Disease Plan Section II.A.7 of the Consent Decree provides, in its entirety: Within 120 days of the entry of the Judgment in this matter, the Department will submit a professionally designed plan to provide for systematic follow-up care for inmates with chronic disease. Said plan shall be implemented within 120 days after approval or adoption. The preponderance of the evidence presented at trial demonstrates that Defendants have implemented a process that satisfies the requirements of this subsection, and the Court so finds as a matter of fact. The preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding of systemic deliberate indifference in the process for providing follow-up medical care for inmates with chronic diseases. There is no ongoing constitutional violation, and therefore no basis for ongoing prospective relief under this subsection. The Court finds particularly persuasive testimony from Drs. Orlebeke, Zawitz, and Larson. Dr. Orlebeke testified that the medical guidelines the National Commission on Correctional Healthcare (“NCCH”) promulgates regarding chronic care establish the protocol required for chronic care in the Hadix facilities. Under this protocol, patients with chronic illnesses are categorized in three groups based on how well-controlled their illnesses are. Medical providers are expected to see patients whose chronic illnesses are in “good” control at least once every six months; patients whose chronic illnesses are in “fair control” at least once every three months; and patients whose chronic illnesses are in “poor” control at least once a month. Dr. Larson testified that nurses see extended care patients daily and that physicians see them at least monthly. Mr. Boomershine testified that he uses the NCCH guidelines to assess the degree of control and time frames for responding to chronic illnesses. Dr. Zawitz observed at RGC that medical providers routinely followed the chronic care
18

guidelines, which included enrollment in a chronic care clinic to ensure regular examinations based on the degree of control of disease. He found copies of the guidelines readily available at RGC, C-Unit, and DWH. In discussions with medical providers at the Hadix facilities, he found all were familiar with the chronic care guidelines. Dr. Zawitz found that when chronic care appointments are scheduled in NextGen, they remain active in the NextGen record so that if a prisoner is transferred before an appointment occurs, medical staff at the new site would have notice of the appointment. The appointment would also be noted on the transfer assessment screen.
Plaintiffs point to instances in which chronically ill prisoners were not scheduled for followup appointments automatically. Plaintiffs also object that the some of the NCCH guidelines in use at the Hadix facilities date back to 2001 and should be updated, and Plaintiffs argue that the NCCH guidelines should be adopted as the formal policy of the MDOC for the treatment of the chronically ill. None of these arguments supports a finding of deliberate indifference in connection with chronic disease care in the Hadix facilities.
The preponderance of the evidence at trial reflects a system of chronic disease care that satisfies the Consent Decree and the Constitution. Accordingly, Section II.A.7 of the Consent Decree must be closed.
5. Problem-Oriented Health Records Section II.A.11 of the Consent Decree provides, in its entirety: Health records are maintained in accord with the Modified Problem-Oriented Health Records format. Within one year of the entry of Judgment in this matter, the Department will take appropriate measures to assure that this medical record keeping procedure has been and continues to be fully implemented.
19

The preponderance of the evidence presented at trial demonstrates the well-established use of problem-oriented medical records at the Hadix facilities. Defendants have implemented a process that satisfies the requirements of this subsection, and the Court so finds as a matter of fact. The preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding of systemic deliberate indifference in the use and maintenance of problem-oriented medical records. There is no ongoing constitutional violation, and therefore no basis for ongoing prospective relief under this subsection.
The Court bases its findings on, among other evidence presented at trial, testimony from Dr. Orlebeke, Mr. Boomershine, and Ms. Solomon. Dr. Orlebeke testified that in her opinion, the NextGen electronic medical record, which has been used in the Hadix facilities since 2010, is a problem-oriented medical record. Mr. Boomershine testified that he can readily access a patient’s problem list in the patient’s NextGen medical record to ascertain the prisoner’s medical history quickly. Elizabeth Solomon, Regional Manager of Health Information Services for the MDOC, supervises medical records staff throughout the region. She testified that she believes NextGen is a problem-oriented medical system. She elaborated that its main organizing component is a diagnosis tab containing all the past diagnoses for the patient, including both chronic and nonchronic problems.
Plaintiffs object that the NextGen medical record system is cumbersome and inefficient. Even accepting this as true, NextGen remains a problem-oriented medical system that captures inmates medical data, and Plaintiffs have not shown systemic deliberate indifference regarding a problem-oriented medical system.
20

The preponderance of the evidence at trial reflects that the MDOC has in place a problemoriented medical records system that satisfies the Consent Decree and the Constitution. Accordingly, Section II.A.11 of the Consent Decree must be closed.
F. Orders for Prospective Relief Each of the four orders Plaintiffs contend require ongoing prospective relief (docket ## 142 405, 822, 2334) addressed specific issues at specific times. The purpose of each order is to ensure compliance with the Consent Decree and the Constitution. Two of the orders are over twenty years old. One is nineteen years old. The most recent is nearly a decade old. All are subject to the ongoing requirements of the PLRA. No one is contending that Defendants are in contempt of any of the orders. There was no sign at trial that Defendants are in contempt of any of the orders. To the contrary, the evidence at trial reflects that Defendants are functionally, if not literally, in compliance with all of the orders. To the extent Defendants are not in literal compliance with any of the orders, the Court finds as a matter of fact that Defendants are not acting in a way that shows deliberate indifference or contempt. Accordingly, to the extent the orders remain open and require prospective relief, the orders must be closed.
Conclusion Over the course of thirty-plus years, this litigation has brought about critical improvements in conditions at the SPSM-CC. The litigation has served an important purpose and achieved valuable results. The objectives of the Consent Decree have been realized. The Court finds no ongoing constitutional violation requiring that the still-open provisions of the Consent Decree, and the related Orders also discussed in this Opinion, remain open. Accordingly, the Court will
21

terminate ongoing injunctive relief under the provisions of the Consent Decree and Orders at issue. This has the effect of bringing the case to an end.

Dated: September 29, 2015

/s/ Robert J. Jonker ROBERT J. JONKER CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22

 
 Case 4:92-cv-00110-RJJ ECF No. 3440 filed 09/29/15 Page 1 of 1 PageID.18930

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

EVERETT HADIX, et al.,

Plaintiff, v. PATRICIA CARUSO, et al.,

CASE NO. 4:92-CV-110 HON. ROBERT J. JONKER

Defendants. __________________________________/

ORDER

In accordance with the Opinion issued concurrently with this Order, IT IS ORDERED:

1. Consent Decree Sections II.A.3.b; II.A.4.a; II.A.5.a; II.A.7; and II.A.11 are

CLOSED.

2. To the extent Plaintiffs seek ongoing prospective injunctive relief under orders issued

earlier in the case (docket ## 142, 405, 822, 2334), the request is DENIED. The

orders are CLOSED.

3. There being no Consent Decree provisions open, and no further basis for prospective

injunctive relief, federal supervision over the Hadix facilities and the Hadix class is

terminated.

Dated: September 29, 2015

/s/ Robert J. Jonker ROBERT J. JONKER CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Hadix v. Johnson
PC-MI-003-008
No. 96-2548
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
EVERETT HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees
v. PERRY JOHNSON, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Intervenor
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS INTERVENOR
ISABELLE KATZ PINZLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
DAVID K, FLYNN MARIE K. McELDERRY
Attorneys Department of Justice P.O. Box 66078 Washington, D.C. 20035-6078 (202) 514-3068

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT For the reasons stated in Argument I of this brief, this Court does not have jurisdiction over this appeal, and it should, therefore, be dismissed. If this Court disagrees with our jurisdictional argument, oral argument may be useful in light of the fact that the State's appeal presents issues of first impression concerning the proper interpretation of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, codified at 18 U.S.C.A. 3626.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
STATEMENT OF SUBJECT MATTER AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES STANDARD OF REVIEW
STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . .
A. Course Of Proceedings And Disposition Below 1. Prior history 2. Passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act 3. Motions under the PLRA 4. The Decision Below
C. Facts SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ARGUMENT:
I. THIS COURT LACKS JURISDICTION OVER THIS APPEAL
II. SECTION 3626(b)(3) OF THE PLRA REQUIRES A COURT TO INQUIRE INTO CURRENT CONDITIONS BEFORE RULING ON A MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE TERMINATION UNDER SECTION 3626(b)(2)
III. THE DISTRICT COURT HAS EMPLOYED THE PROPER STANDARD IN MAKING ITS PRELIMINARY RULINGS ON THE MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE TERMINATION
CONCLUSION
DESIGNATION OF APPENDIX CONTENTS
-l-

PAGE
1 2 3 3
3 3
4 7 9 12 14
15
20
24 2 8

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES:
Board of Educ. v. Powell. 498 U.S. 237 (1991)
Carson v. American Brands. Inc.. 450 U.S. 79 (1981)
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.. 337 U.S. 541 (1949)
Columbus Bd. of Educ. v. Penick. 443 U.S. 449
(1979)
Freeman v. PiLLS, 503 U.S. 467 (1992)
Groseclose v. Put ton. 788 F.2d 356 (6"- Cir. 1986) (per curiam) v. Johnson, 694 F. Supp. 259 (E.D. Mich. 1988), judgment aff'd in part, vacated in part, Knop v. Johnson. 977 F.2d 996 (&'•'- Cir. 1992), cert, denied, 507 U.S. 973 (1993)
iii v. Johnson. 792 F. Supp. 527 (E.D. Mich. 1992)
v. Johnson. 933 F. Supp. 1360 (E.D. Mich. 1996)
v. Johnson. 933 F. Supp. 13 62 (W.D. Mich. 1996)
Hadix v. Johnson. 947 F. Supp. 1100 (E.D. Mich. 1996)
Knop v. Johnson. 685 F. Supp. 636 (W.D. Mich. 1988), judgment aff'd in part, vacated in part, Knop v. Johnson. 977 F.2d 996 (6":- Cir. 1992), cert, denied, 507 U.S. 973 (1993)
v. Johnson. 977 F.2d 996 (6*h Cir. 1992), cert, denied, 507 U.S. 973 (1993) v. Norris. 929 F.2d 1111 (6th Cir.), cert, denied, 502 U.S. 863 (1991)
Louisiana v. United States. 380 U.S. 145 (1965)
-ii-

PAGE 23 19 16 23 23 19
3, 12, 13 4, 13 4, 9 8, 21 17
13 4, 13
3 23

CASES (continued):
Milliken v. Bradley. 418 U.S. 717 (1974)
Missouri v. Jenkins. 115 S. Ct. 2038 (1995)
Eiylfil v. MQ£i£, 100 F.3d365 (4th Cir. 1996)
Switzerland Cheese Ass'n v. E. H o m e ' s Mkt.. 385 U.S. 23 (1966)
Transportation Cybernetics. Inc. v. Forest Transit Comm'n. 950 F.2d 350 (7th Cir. 1992) . . . .
United States v. Michigan. 18 F.3d 348 (6th Cir.), cert, denied, 115 S. Ct. 312 (1994) . . . .
United States v. Michigan. 868 F. Supp. 89 0 (W.D. Mich. 1994)

PAGE 23 23
24
19
14, 19 22 22

CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES:
United States Constitution: First Amendment Fifth Amendment, Due Process Clause Eighth Amendment Ninth Amendment Fourteenth Amendment
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), codified at 16 U.S.C.A. 3626
18 U.S.C.A. 3626 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(a)(l) 18 U.S.C.A. 3626 (a) (1) (A) 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(a) (2) IB U.S.C.A. 3626(b)(l) 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(b) (1) (A) 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(b)(2) IB U.S.C.A. 3626(b)(3) 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(e) 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(e)(l) IB U.S.C.A. 3626(e)(2) IB U.S.C.A. 3626(e) (2) (B) 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(g)(2) 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(g)(7) 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(g)(8)

12 8
2, 12, 25, 26 12 12
passim
4 5 4 4 5 5 passim passim 6 22 2, 7, 22 7 4 6 6

-ill-

STATUTES (continued):
PLRA (continued):
Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-70 (1996):
§ 802 § 802 (b) (1) § 802 (b) (2) § 802(e) (2) § 810
Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA) , 42 U.S.C 1997 e_£ &SSU
28 U.S.C. 1291
28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(l)
28 U.S.C. 1343
28 U.S.C. 2403
42 U.S.C. 1983
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
H.R. Rep. No. 21, 104"'r Cong., I5' Sess. (1995)

PAGE
4 6 7 7 6
22
2, 16
1 7 1, 3, 12
6

-IV-

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
NO. 96-2548 EVERETT HADIX, et al. ,
Plaintiffs-Appellees v. PERRY JOHNSON, et al. ,
Defendants-Appellants and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Intervenor
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS INTERVENOR
STATEMENT OF SUBJECT MATTER AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION This suit was brought by plaintiffs-appellees, inmates of the State Prison of Southern Michigan, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, concerning the constitutionality of the conditions of their confinement. The district court's jurisdiction was based upon 28 U.S.C. 1343. State officials (hereinafter the State) filed a motion for immediate termination of the Consent Decree, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(b)(2) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). In the November 18, 1996, order from which this appeal was taken,

- 2the district court (1) reserved a final determination on the State's motion, including the question whether the immediate termination provision is constitutional, pending this Court's decision on the constitutionality of the automatic stay provision of the PLRA, 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(e) (2) in three pending appeals (Nos. 96-1907, 1908, and 1943); (2) identified twenty provisions of the Consent Decree that are appropriate for termination if the immediate termination provision of the PLRA is constitutional; (3) found current constitutional violations with respect tc six aspects of medical care covered by the Consent Decree; and (4) found noncompliance with two provisions of the Consent Decree that do not involve a constitutional violation.
The order involved in this appeal is not a final order appealable under 28 U.S.C. 1291, nor is it among the types of interlocutory orders made appealable by 28 U.S.C. 1292(a) (D . Accordingly, this appeal should be dismissed.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES^' 1. Whether the order of the district court is appealable 2. Assuming this Court has jurisdiction, whether the immediate termination provisions of the PLRA, 18 U.S.C.A.
'-' The State also seeks review of the district court's finding that it is in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as to six areas of medical health care. As argued in Part I of this Brief, this Court does not have jurisdiction to review those findings in this appeal. In any event, the United States has intervened in this case solely to address the constitutionality of the PLRA and issues of interpretation that bear on its constitutionality; our participation on the merits of this case is only as amicus. Accordingly, we do not address here the correctness of the district court's findings on those issues.

- 33626(b)(2) and (b)(3), permit the district court to receive evidence about current conditions to determine whether any existing prospective relief "remains necessary to correct a current or ongoing violation of the Federal right" and is narrowly tailored within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(b)(3).
STANDARD OF REVIEW If this Court has jurisdiction over this appeal, questions of interpretation of the PLRA involve solely legal issues, which are subject to de. novo review. Long v. Norris. 929 F.2d 1111, 1114 (6th Cir.), cert, denied, 502 U.S. 863 (1991).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. Course Of Proceedings And Disposition Below
1. Prior history In 1980, prisoners confined at the State Prison of Southern Michigan (SPSM) filed suit against various state officials of the Michigan Department of Corrections pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the conditions of their confinement violated the Constitution of the United States and state law. See Hadix v. Johnson, 694 F. Supp. 259, 262 (E.D. Mich. 1988). In 1985, the district court approved a Consent Decree designed to address those claims (E.D. R. 199: Consent Decree; E.D. R. 208: Opinion) .-/ In 1992, the portions of the Decree involving medical and

-' "E.D. R. " refers to docket entries in Hadix v. Johnson.

N c 80-CV-73581 (E.D. M i c h ) (Feikens, J . ) . "R

" refers to

docket entries in Hadix v. Johnson No. 92-CV-110 (W.D. M i c h )

(Enslen, J . ) .

- 4-
mental health care were transferred to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Michigan (Judge Enslen). Hadix
v. Johnson. 792 F. Supp. 527, 528-529 (E.D. Mich. 1992).*'
2. Passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
On April 26, 1996, the President signed into law the Prison
Litigation Reform Act. Section 802 of the Act, which consists of
amendments to 18 U.S.C.A. 3626, establishes standards for the
entry and termination of prospective relief in civil actions
concerning conditions in prisons, jails, and juvenile detention
facilities.1' With regard to the entry of such relief, Section
3626 (a) (1) (A) provides:
Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prisor. conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right. The court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief.-7
Termination of relief is governed by several sections of the
-' Jurisdiction of the part of the case concerning access to courts was likewise transferred to the Western District. Knop v. Johnson, 977 F.2d 996, 1014 (6th Cir. 1992), cert, denied, 507 U.S. 973 (1993); see Hadix v. Johnson. 933 F. Supp. 1360 (E.D. Mich. 1996).
-' The Act does not apply to habeas corpus proceedings challenging "the fact or duration of confinement in prison." 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(g)(2).
' Section 3626 (a) (2) provides that preliminary injunctive relief entered under the Act "shall automatically expire" 90 days after its entry if the court fails to make the required findings

- 5-
Act. In general, defendants are entitled to request the
termination of prospective relief according to a time schedule
set out in Section 3626(b)(1)(A), which provides:
In any civil action with respect to prison conditions in which prospective relief is ordered, such relief shall be terminable upon the motion of any party or intervener --
(i) 2 years after the date the court granted or approved the prospective relief;
(ii) 1 year after the date the court has entered an order denying termination of prospective relief under this paragraph; or
(iii) in the case of an order issued on or before the date of enactment of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 2 years after such date of enactment.
Section 3626 (b) (2), however, provides for the immediate
termination of relief that was entered without the findings
required by Section 3626(a)(1):
In any civil action with respect to prison conditions, a defendant or intervener shall be entitled to the immediate termination of any prospective relief if the relief was approved or granted in the absence of a finding by the court that the relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.
When termination is sought under either Section (b)(1) or
(b)(2), the standard applicable to the termination decision is
set out in Section 3626(b)(3), which provides that relief shall
not terminate
if the court makes written findings based on the record that prospective relief remains necessary to correct a current or ongoing violation of the Federal right, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and that the prospective relief is narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means to correct the violation.
Procedures for motions to terminate prospective relief are

- 6-
set out in Section 3626 (e):
(1) Generally. -- The court shall promptly rule on any motion to modify or terminate prospective relief in a civil action with respect to prison conditions.
(2) Automatic Stay. -- Any prospective relief subject to a pending motion shall be automatically stayed during the period --
(A)(i) beginning on the 30th day after such motion is filed, in the case of a motion made under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (b); [and]
* **** (B) ending on the date the court enters a final order ruling on the motion.
For the purposes of all of these provisions, prospective
relief includes injunctive relief ordered under a consent decree.
See 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(g)(7), (g)(9).
The Act contains a provision concerning retroactivity,
stating that "IN GENERAL" Section 3626 "shall apply with respect
to all prospective relief whether such relief was originally
granted or approved before, on, or after the date of the enact-
ment of this title." Pub. L, No. 104-134, § 802(b)(l), 110 Stat.
1321-70 (1996). Finally, the Act contains a severability
provision that preserves the remainder of its provisions in the
event that any portion is held to be unconstitutional. Pub. L.
No 104-134, § 810, 110 Stat. 1321-77 (1996).
Taken together, the PLRA's provisions reflect Congress's
concern that relief in prison reform cases be narrowly tailored
to address violations of federal rights. See H.R. Rep. No. 21,
104th Cong., 1st Sess. 24 n.2 (1995) (subsection (a)(l))
(hereinafter H.R. R e p . ) ; H.R. Rep. at 26 (subsection (b)(2)). As
applicable to relief entered after the PLRA's effective date, the

- 7Act is designed to establish a uniform remedial structure, and tc provide for periodic review of decrees to determine whether they remain necessary to remedy violations of federal rights. As applicable to decrees entered before the PLRA's passage, the Act seeks to ensure that continuing relief satisfies the new requirements of the PLRA.
3. Motions under the PLRA. On June 10, 1996, the defendants filed motions pursuant to Section 802(b)(2) of the PLRA, 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(b)(2), in both district courts having jurisdiction over the Hadix Consent Decree, for immediate termination of the Decree and subsequent orders granting prospective relief (R. 715: Motion; E.D. R. 1068: Motion). The defendants asserted in their motions that. by operation of Section 802 (e) (2) of the PLRA, 18 U.S.C.A. 3626 (e) (2), all prospective relief in the Decree would be stayed automatically beginning on the 30th day after the filing of the motion for immediate termination and ending on the date "the court enters a final order ruling on the motion." (R. 715: Motion,- Brief in Support of Defendant's Motion at 9; E.D. R. 1068: Motion; Brief in Support of Defendant's Motion at 910) .£' In addition, at the time the PLRA was passed, two appeals were pending in this Court from earlier orders of the district
-' On September 6, 1996, the court granted the motion of the United States to intervene in this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2403, in order to address the constitutionality of the PLRA (R. 795: Order).

- 8court (Nos. 94-2008, 96-1422). The State filed motions in this Court for immediate termination of the relief granted in those orders. On July 2, 1996, this Court denied the State's motions for immediate termination and remanded the appealed orders to the district court for "reconsideration in light of the recent amendments to 18 U.S.C. § 3626" (R, 746: Order at 2 ) .
On July 3, 1996, the district court issued a decision in which it stated that there was "no possible way" that it could decide the motions to terminate before the automatic stay provision would take effect, given the "complexity of the issues presented" and the need for thorough briefing. Hadix v. Johnson, 933 F- Supp. 1362, 1364 (W.D- Mich. 1996). It held, therefore. that the automatic stay provision of the PLRA "usurped a role that is exclusively judicial," in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers. 933 F. Supp. at 1366. The court also held that the automatic stay provision violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by abrogating plaintiffs' vested property right in the Consent Decree without an opportunity for hearing. 933 F. Supp. at 1366-1369. Accordingly, it ruled that the automatic stay would not take effect pending its decision on the motion for immediate termination. 933 F. Supp. at 1369-1370.
The defendants appealed the district court's order (R. 74 9: Notice of Appeal). They also filed an emergency motion in this Court for a stay of proceedings in the district court, to the extent that the court proposed to hold evidentiary hearings on the motion for immediate termination. Specifically, the motion

- 9-
sought a stay of the hearings scheduled for September 5-6, 1997,
on delivery of medical health care at SPSM. They also sought a
writ of mandamus to require the district court to rely solely on
the existing record in ruling on the motion for immediate
termination, or, alternatively, to have this Court rule on the
motion for immediate termination directly. On September 4, 1996,
this Court denied the motion for stay of the September 5-6
hearings (R. 799: Order at 2)- On September 17, 1996, this
Court denied the motion for a writ of mandamus, as well as a stay
of further proceedings, and expedited the appeal of the July 3,
19?S, order (R. 803: Order).-7 Oral argument in that appeal
was held on February 4, 1997, and the case is under submission.
4. The Decision Below.
On December 13, 1995, prior to the passage of the PLRA, the
district court had issued an Order and Opinion establishing a
schedule leading to compliance hearings concerning the medical
provisions of the Decree (R. 604: Opinion; R. 605: Order) i
-•' On October 1, 1996, this Court consolidated, for purposes of submission, the appeal from Judge Enslen's July 3, order, with an appeal of a similar order issued on July 5, 1996, by the district court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Judge Feikens) in the portion of the Hadix litigation over which it has jurisdiction, Hadix v. Johnson. 933 F. Supp. 1360 (appeal No. 961943), and with the appeal of Judge Enslen's July 3, 1996, order in United States v. Michigan (appeal No. 96-1907) .
£' The court also denied the motion of the Hadix plaintiffs and the United States to consolidate the compliance hearings in Hadix with those on medical care in United States v. Michigan (R. 679: Opinion at 3-4). In addition, it granted the United States' motion for continuation of its status as arnicus in this case, but limited its participation in the compliance hearings to submission of briefs and presentation of oral argument (R. 679: Opinion at 6 ) .

- 10 Those hearings were held on September 5-6, 1996 (R. 833: Tr. 9/5/96; R. 834: Tr. 9/6/96).
On November 18, 1996, the district court entered the order and opinion that are the subject of this appeal, making a preliminary ruling on the compliance issues addressed in the September hearings. The court decided certain issues raised by the defendant's motion for immediate termination of the Consent Decree but left two issues to be decided in the future. First, the order reserved a final determination on the State's motion for immediate termination pending this Court's decision on the constitutionality of the automatic stay provision (R. 823: Order at 2 ) . The district court stated that it "remains of the opinion" it entered when holding the automatic stay provision unconstitutional, i.e.. "that the Consent Decree constitutes a final judgment, and by requiring the Court to alter that judgment pursuant to new standards, the PLRA impermissibly invades upon the province of the judiciary" in violation of separation of powers principles (R. 822: Opinion at 7 ) . The court stated that this Court's decision in the automatic stay appeals "will determine how the [immediate termination] motion will ultimately be decided," because if this Court "decides that the Consent Decree is a final judgment, it necessarily follows that the provisions of the PLRA that attempt to alter the Decree are unconstitutional" (R. 822: Opinion at 7-8). However, if this Court "decides that Congress does have the power to alter the Consent Decree," the district court "will apply the PLRA

- 11 standards to the Decree, and terminate those provisions that do not meet the requirements of § [3626](b)(3)" (R. 822: Opinion at 8). Accordingly, the district court declined to rule on the issue, preferring to wait for the guidance soon to be provided by this Court.
The other still unresolved issue is what kind of prospective relief should remain in effect in this case. The court recognized that "Section 3626(b) (3) specifically provides that where there is a current violation of a Federal right, the court shall not terminate the prospective relief, provided that the specific relief is narrowly tailored" (R. 822: Opinion at 9:.
The district court's order dealt mainly with the first findings required under Section 3626(b)(3) in order to retain prospective relief, i.e., whether there is a current or ongoing violation of a constitutional or federal statutory right that requires a remedy. With one exception, however, the issue whether the prospective relief in the Decree is narrowly tailored, as required by the PLRA, remains to be decided.
In particular, based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the court identified twenty provisions of the Consent Decree over which it concluded that it "no longer need retain supervision" (R. 823: Order at 2-3; R. 822: Opinion at 8 ) . The court stated that, although it could not actually terminate those provisions, they will "maintain the status of 'appropriate for termination' until all of the requirements of the Decree are fulfilled, unless * + * conditions revert to a state of serious

- 12 violations" (R. 822: Opinion at 8).-' However, if the immediate termination provision of the PLRA is determined to be constitutional, the court will terminate those provisions (R. 822: Opinion at 8 ) . In addition, the court found noncompliance with two provisions of the Consent Decree that do not involve constitutional violations (R. 823: Order at 3 ) . Finally, the court found current constitutional violations with respect to six aspects of medical care covered by the Consent Decree (R. 823: Order at 3 ) . As to one of those areas, i.e., the Sick Call Access Plan (Section II.A.4.a. of the Decree, E.D. R. 199: Consent Decree at 9), the court also found that the relief provided in its order of July 25, 1994, "is necessary to correct the current violation, and is narrowly drawn and not intrusive' (R. 822: Opinion at 24).
C. Facts On September 18, 1980, prisoners incarcerated at the State Prison of Southern Michigan-Central Complex (SPSM) filed suit against various state officials charged with the operation of SPSM, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Hadix. 694 F. Supp. at 262. They asserted that the conditions of confinement at SPSM violated their rights under the First, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution (E.D. R. 199: Consent Decree at
-' The court did not actually terminate any provision of the Decree because the Decree does not permit piecemeal termination of its provisions (R. 822: Opinion at 8 ) . See E.D R. 199: Consent Decree at 33 ("After Defendants have complied with all of the provisions of this Consent Judgment, Defendants may apply to terminate the jurisdiction of the Court.").

- 13 1). On May 13, 1985, the district court approved a consent decree designed "to assure the constitutionality of the conditions under which prisoners are incarcerated" at SPSM (E.D. R. 199: Consent Decree at 1 ) . The Decree addressed sanitation, safety, and health; health care; fire safety; overcrowding and protection from harm; use of volunteers; access to courts; food service; management; operations; inmate mail; compliance; and inspection procedures (E.D. R. 199^ Consent Decree). In addition, it provided that the areas of classification and Due Process, and two issues concerning access to courts would be submitted to the court for a hearing on the merits (E.D. R. 199. Consent Decree at 1-2) .—'
The portions of the Decree addressing medical and mental health care were transferred to the Western District of Michigan Hadix v. Johnson. 792 F. Supp. 527, 528-529 (E.D. Mich. 1992: , Over the years, the district court has entered numerous orders concerning the medical health care issues of the Decree.
—' On July 1, 1988, the district court issued a decision finding that SPSM's library, legal assistance, and grievance programs failed to provide meaningful access to the courts as required by Constitution. Hadix, 694 F. Supp. at 291-292. An appeal from that judgment was consolidated with an appeal of an order issued by Judge Enslen in Knop v. Johnson. 685 F. Supp. 636 (W.D. Mich. 1988). This Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, vacated the entire remedial order in Hadix and remanded the access to courts issue to the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. Knop v. Johnson, 977 F.2d 996 (6th Cir. 1992!, cert, denied, 507 U.S. 973 (1993'.
The classification issue was referred by stipulation for resolution in United States v. Michigan.

- 14 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The order involved in this appeal reserves a ruling on the constitutionality of the PLRA and, in the interim, resolves only some of the issues relevant to a final ruling on the State's PLRA motion for termination of the relief in the Consent Decree. It makes findings that current or ongoing constitutional violations exist with respect to the State's provision of medical care to SPSM inmates, but leaves for later determination whether the prospective relief in the Decree should be retained in its present form or modified in accordance with the PLRA's remedial standards. Because it disposes of less than all of the issues necessary to a decision on the State's motion, the court's order is not appealable. See Transportation Cybernetics, Inc. v. Forest Transit Comm'n. 950 F.2d 350, 352 (7th Cir. 1992) . Specifically, it is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. 1292 (a) (1) because the court has not refused tc dissolve the injunctive relief in the Decree. It has merely taken some initial steps along the road to resolving the State's motion for termination of that relief. Accordingly, we argue in Part I that this appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If this Court should disagree with our submission on appealability, however, it should nonetheless reject the State's argument that the district court erred in allowing the parties to create a record reflecting current conditions in the facilities covered by the Decree. The State's reading of the statute poses a serious constitutional question concerning Congress's power to

- 15 limit the remedial authority of the judiciary to redress unconstitutional conduct. Instead, however, in enacting Section 3626(b)(3), Congress manifested its intention that a court deciding a motion to terminate relief granted in a prison conditions suit inquire into the existence of "a current or ongoing violation of the Federal right." That provision necessarily gives the court the power to examine current conditions.
Finally, the district court's preliminary ruling on the State's termination motion demonstrates that it fully appreciates the fact that a court must find a current or ongoing violation cf a Federal constitutional or statutory right in order to maintain prospective relief in a prison conditions Consent Decree.
ARGUMENT I
THIS COURT LACKS JURISDICTION OVER THIS APPEAL The State contends (Br. vii) that this Court has jurisdiction to review the district court's order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(l). Under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(l), this Court has jurisdiction over interlocutory orders of the district courts "granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions." Appellants' theory of jurisdiction is that the district court has denied injunctive relief because its order "suppresses the termination provisions mandated by a congressional act" (Br. vii). Because appellants are seeking termination of the

- 16 -
injunctive relief in the Decree, however, the issue is really
whether the district court has refused to dissolve an injunction
Since the district court has not finally ruled on the State's
motion for immediate termination, it is wrong to claim that it
has refused to dissolve the injunctive relief.
In considering the appealability of this order, it is useful
to contrast it with other orders entered by the court under the
PLRA. For example, the district court's July 3, 1996, order
ruling that the automatic stay provision is unconstitutional and
cannot, therefore, be implemented, was effectively a refusal to
dissolve an injunction, albeit temporarily. Although the
district court had not yet refused to dissolve that injunction
permanently, it did refuse to suspend the enforceability of that
judgment during the time it takes for the court to determine
whether any of the prospective relief in the Decree meets the
PLRA's requirements.^' The July 3, 1996, order was therefore
appealable under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a) (1) .
The order appellants seek to appeal here can also be
'— The district court's July 3, 1996, order finding the automatic stay provision unconstitutional is also appealable under 28 U.S.C. 1291 pursuant to the judicially-recognized exception to the final judgment rule for "collateral orders." Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The constitutionality ruling is one of
that small class [of decisions] which finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated.
Id. at 546.

- 17 contrasted to the order entered by the district court for the Eastern District of Michigan concerning the portion of the Hadix Decree over which it has jurisdiction. On November 1, 1996, Judge Feikens issued an order denying the State's motion for termination of the Hadix Decree and associated orders because of the court's conclusion that Sections 3626(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the PLRA violate separation of powers principles and are, therefore, unconstitutional. Hadix v. Johnson, 947 F. Supp. 1100, 1109-1112 (E.D. Mich. 1996). It did not schedule hearings under Section 3626 (b) (3) of the PLRA nor in any way suggest that it intended cc consider terminating or modifying any of the relief in the Decree It simply held the immediate termination provisions unconstitutional and denied the PLRA motion for immediate termination. This Court has jurisdiction over the appeal from that order (Hadix v. Johnson, No - 96-2582) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 12S2(a!(1) because the district court's order refused to dissolve or modify the injunctive relief in the Decree in light of the PLRA.
Here, however, the district court's ruling has two components, neither of which has the requisite finality to make it appealable. First, the court reserved a final determination on the State's motion until this Court has ruled on the constitutional issues in the appeals pending before it (R. 823: Order at 2-3). Thus, the State's contention (Br. vii) that the district court's November 18 order "found the immediate termination provisions mandated by [the PLRA] unconstitutional"

- 18 is belied by the order itself. In the opinion accompanying that order, the court states (R. 822: Opinion at 9 ) :
[T]he issue of whether the Consent Decree is final is determinative of the validity of the PLRA.
Therefore, the Court will refrain from deciding again the issue of whether Congress may order the courts to alter consent decrees over which they maintain supervisory jurisdiction. See also R. 822: Opinion at 38 ("the Court is refraining at this time from a holding regarding the constitutionality of §3626(b)(2) & (3) of the PLRA ") Consequently, unlike Judge Feikens' November 1 decision, which conclusively denied the State's motion for termination because it held the termination provisions unconstitutional. Judge Enslen's November 18 order is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1) as one that refuses to dissolve an injunction. Second, the court announced that it would make a preliminary ruling on the State's PLRA termination motion in the event that such a ruling becomes necessary after the constitutional issue is resolved. It reviewed evidence introduced during its previously scheduled hearings to monitor compliance with the Consent Decree and made findings about the first prong of Section 3626(b)(3) -whether there is a "current or ongoing violation of the Federal right" as to the adequacy of medical services to respond to the serious needs of prisoners. Except for one area, however, it has not made findings concerning the second prong, i.e., whether the prospective relief in the Decree "extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, * * * is

- 19 narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means to correct the violation." 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(b)(3). Indeed, the court's order states that there are two issues remaining for decision on the State's motion, the second of which is "whether prospective relief is tailored as required by the PLRA" (R. 823: Order at 2). In order for a post-judgment order to be appealable, it should at least dispose of all of the issues raised by the postjudgment motion. Transportation Cybernetics, Inc. v. Forest Transit Conrn'n, 950 F.2d 350, 352 (7th Cir. 1992).
As an exception to the final judgment rule, 28 U.S.C. 1292 (a) (1) should be narrowly construed. Carson v. American Brands. Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 84 (19811 The federal appellate jurisdictional statutes express a policy against piecemeal appeals. Switzerland Cheese Ass'n v. E. Home's Mkt.. 385 U.S. 23, 25 (1966). Reviewing this order will not serve that policy. First, the court has not yet decided an issue that could be dispositive, i.e.. the constitutionality of the immediate termination provisions of the PLRA. Further, although the court has made findings as to the first element required for retention of prospective relief under Section 3626(b)(3), it has not done so for the narrow tailoring component. The district court's decisions on the narrow tailoring issue "could alter the 'appellate perspective.'" Groseclose v. Dutton. 788 F.2d 356, 361 (6th Cir. 1986) (per curiam). In short, the district court simply has not yet issued a final and appealable order determining whether to grant or deny the State's motion to

- 20 -
terminate in whole or in part and more specifically has not
decided whether any or all of the prospective relief in the
Decree meets the remedial standards of the PLRA. Until the
district court does so, this Court does not have jurisdiction to
review preliminary rulings en route to such a final order.
II
SECTION 3626(b)(3) OF THE PLRA REQUIRES A COURT TO INQUIRE INTO CURRENT CONDITIONS BEFORE RULING ON A MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE TERMINATION UNDER SECTION 3626(b)(2)
If this Court holds that it has jurisdiction over this
appeal, it should reject the State's argument (Br. 28-31) that
the PLRA does not authorize the creation of a new evidentiary
record for purposes of resolving a motion for immediate
termination.
Section 3626(b)(2) of the PLRA provides that
[i]n any civil action with respect to prison conditions, a defendant or intervener shall be entitled to the immediate termination of any prospective relief if the relief was approved or granted in the absence of a finding by the court that the relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.
18 U.S.C.A. 3626(b)(2).
Although the district court has entered subsequent orders
that were predicated on constitutional violations, much of the
relief in the original Consent Decree is not supported by the
findings required by Section (b)(2). Accordingly, the PLRA
requires the district court to determine if Section (b) (3)'s
" [1]imitation" on (b) (2) is applicable. Section (b) (3) provides

- 21 (emphasis added):
Limitation. -- Prospective relief shall not terminate if the court makes written findings based on the record that prospective relief remains necessary to correct a current or ongoing violation of the Federal right, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and that the prospective relief is narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means to correct the violation. 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(b)(3). Section 3626(b)(3) is, therefore, intended to preserve the inherent power of a court, presented with a motion for immediate termination under Section 3626(b)(2). tc retain relief that is necessary, and narrowly drawn, to remedy constitutional violations.
Contrary to the State's argument, although 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(b)(3) requires that the appropriate findings be "based on the record," nothing in the statute's language or legislative history indicates that such findings must be made only on the factual record that exits at the time the motion is filed, which, after all, was developed in the past, and, in some cases, under a different standard. Rather, the statute's requirement that a court deciding a defendant's motion to terminate must inquire into the existence of "a current or ongoing violation of the Federal right" necessarily gives the district court the authority to examine current conditions. The court in this case has ruled that it does not have the information about such current conditions necessary for it responsibly to apply the standard set by Section (b)(3), and has invited the parties to create that record. See Hadix v. Johnson. 933 F. Supp. 1362, 1364 (W.D. Mich. 1996' . The PLRA did not change the basic fact that " [o]nee

- 22 the jurisdiction of the court has been invoked, that court has an obligation to exercise its jurisdiction meaningfully." United States v. Michigan. 18 F.3d 348, 352 (6th Cir.), cert, denied, 115 S. Ct. 312 (1994).
Indeed, the State itself argues (Br. 29, n.ll (emphasis in original)) that "past violations alone are insufficient to warrant federal jurisdiction in the absence of any current violations of federal right [sic] or real threat of future violations." Yet it would deny the district court to right tc inquire whether such current violations exist by insisting that the statute forbids the creation of a current record.—
The State is also in error in arguing that Congress could nor have intended for the district court tc supplement the existing record because it expected the district courts to act on the motion for immediate termination within 30 days (Br. 30-31) . While the PLRA requires the court to rule "promptly" on a motion for immediate termination, 18 U.S.C.A. 3626 (e) (1), and appears to provide that the automatic stay will take effect 30 days after such a motion is filed, 18 U.S.C.A. 3626 (e) (2), nothing in the statute requires the final determination on such a motion to be made within 30 days.
Moreover, if the PLRA is construed as the State would have it -- to forbid a district court from supplementing the existing
—' The process followed by the district court here has nothing to do with whether CRIPA authorizes the United States to conduct investigations prior to filing a complaint. Thus, the State's reliance on the district court's decision in United States v. Michigan. 868 F. Supp. 890, 895 (W.D. Mich. 1994) is inapposite.

- 23 -
(and often old) record in order to determine whether a current
constitutional violation exists, whether a past constitutional
violation remains unremedied, or whether there is an imminent
threat of a return to unconstitutional conditions -- the statute
would pose a serious constitutional question about Congress's
authority to limit the courts' remedial authority to redress
unconstitutional conduct effectively.—'' The State has failed
to demonstrate that such a constitutionally suspect result was
the clear intent of Congress in enacting the PLRA.
Accordingly, the district court did not err in holding
hearings on the motion for immediate termination, and allowing
the parties to present evidence as to current conditions. That
process carries out Congress's manifest intent that the court
inquire whether relief is still needed to address current
conditions, not past ones- Thus, the State's request (Br. 48:
"'' A decision that Congress denied the judiciary the basic authority to remedy constitutional violations would raise serious constitutional questions. Similarly, in our view, a serious constitutional question would be raised if the PLRA was read to require a court to terminate relief upon a finding that unconstitutional conduct has halted, even if the court also finds that the violation has not been fully remedied, or that the defendant is poised to resume the unconstitutional conduct. Hence, the PLRA should be read to maintain the district court's core authority to remedy the proximate effects of past unlawful acts, and to issue prospective relief where there is the present danger of imminent recurrence of a violation of the Constitution or federal statutory right. Freeman v. Pitts. 503 U.S. 467, 490499 (1992); Board of Educ. v. Powell. 498 U.S. 237, 248-250 (1991); Columbus Bd. of Educ. v. Penick. 443 U.S. 449, 461 (1979). See also Milliken v. Bradley. 418 U.S. 717 (1974); Missouri v. Jenkins, 115 S. Ct. 2038, 2048-2049 (1995); Louisiana v. United States, 380 U.S. 145, 154 (1965) (courts have "not merely the power but the duty to render a decree which will so far as possible eliminate the [unconstitutional] effects of the past as well as bar like [unconstitutionality] in the future";.

- 24 that this Court rule that the PLRA does not authorize further fact-finding by the district court, or any form of discovery by the plaintiff class, and that this Court order the district court to decide the motion for immediate termination upon the existing record, should be denied.
Ill THE DISTRICT COURT HAS EMPLOYED THE PROPER STANDARD IN MAKING ITS PRELIMINARY RULINGS ON THE MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE TERMINATION The State argues (Br. 31-36) that the district court erroneously concluded that the Consent Decree in this case creates a constitutional right and thus that violations of the Decree itself are "current or ongoing violation[s] of the Federal right" within the meaning of Section 3626(b) (3). — ' The State's argument mischaracterizes the court's ruling. The district court's order divides the medical health care provisions of the Decree into three categories. First, for a variety of reasons, the court found twenty provisions of the Decree appropriate for termination if the immediate termination provisions of the PLRA are ultimately determined to be constitutional (R. 622: Opinion at 14-15). The court stated that, if this Court "decides that the PLRA applies to the Consent Decree," it will terminate those provisions because there is no
—'' Where a consent decree provision affords relief that goes beyond what is required to remedy a constitutional violation, it would be contrary to the intent of the PLRA for a court to rule that a violation of such a provision constitutes a "current or ongoing violation of the Federal right" for purposes of Section 3626(b)(3). See Plvler v. Moore. 100 F.3d 365, 369 (4th Cir. 1996).

- 25 current violation of a federal right with regard to them (R. 822. Opinion at 8 ) . Conversely, if the PLRA is determined to be unconstitutional, those provisions will not be subject to the court's active supervision "unless * * * conditions revert to a state of serious violation[]" (R. 822: Opinion at 8 ) .
Concerning a second category of provisions, the court found that there was a current or ongoing violation of a federal right. As to those provisions, the court in each instance found a constitutional violation, not simply a violation of the Decree. The court prefaced its findings on the propriety of terminating relief by setting forth the standard for finding an Eighth Amendment violation, noting that "[e]ach of the claims involving medical care invokes the Eighth Amendment" (R. 822: Opinion at 16)- It then proceeded to apply that standard to the provisions of the Decree.
As to Section II.A.3.b., the district court found that "the defendants are currently in violation of both the Consent Decree and the Eighth Amendment with respect to the transfer of inmates," because the "failure to conduct a proper evaluation of an inmate before he is transferred constitutes deliberate indifference by the defendants to the serious risk of harm that is likely to occur" (R. 822: Opinion at 20).
The court also found that "the defendants are in violation of [the] provision of the Consent Decree [concerning access to sick call], and with plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment rights" because the "mishandling of numerous kites [requests for medical care]

- 26 -
rises to the level of a deliberate indifference to prisoners'
needs" (R. 822: Opinion at 24 (emphasis added)). Similarly, the
court found "seriously inadequate supervision [by physicians], as
well as lack of appropriate use of standing orders and protocols,
in relation to decisions about access to sick call, urgent care,
and specialty clinics, which rises to the level of an Eighth
Amendment violation" (R. 822: Opinion at 26-27).
As to the provision of the Decree concerning follow-up care
for inmates with chronic disease (Section II.A.7), the court
found that conditions supporting the constitutional violation it
had identified in 1993 "remain[] the same today" (R. 822:
Opinion at 32). The opinion issued in support of the March 26,
1993 order found
instances of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The indifference occurs because responsible medical staff are not systematically informed about the status of medication compliance when non-compliance could result in serious harm to the prison population and staff. It is deliberate because the lack of systematic information results from an affirmative policy not to systematically monitor compliance with medication orders.
(R. 141: Opinion at 11-12).
The court also found that the defendants' noncompliance with
Section II.A.11 of the Decree regarding maintenance of health
records was a violation of the Eighth Amendment because the "lack
of proper record-keeping and development of treatment plans can
present serious risks to the health and safety of prisoners" (R.
822: Opinion at 34). Finally, the court found that evidence
introduced in a hearing on April 29. 1994, showed that "treatment

- 27 of the frail, disabled, and chronically ill prisoners * * * represent[ed] deliberate indifference to their needs in a way that shocked the conscience" (R. 822: Opinion at 35). The court stated that, on October 25, 1994, it ordered defendants to develop a plan to "assure that prisoners with chronic illnesses and disabilities are identified, that their needs are assessed and accommodated, and that continuity of care is provided" (R. 822: Opinion at 35). The court found that "[i]nasmuch as a constitutional violation has been found, but the remedy has not yet been fully implemented, • • * termination is not yet appropriate" (R. 822-. Opinion at 31). — '
Thus, contrary to the State's contention, the court did not base its determinations that any provision of the Decree could be maintained under PLRA standards solely on the basis of a violation of the Decree. In fact, it found violations of two previsions of the Decree that did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation (R. 823: Order at 3 ) . As to Section II.A.6 of the Decree, concerning the provision of "medical and dental prostheses when necessary to meet the serious health needs of any inmate" (E.D. R. 199: Consent Decree at 11), the court found that while "delays in prosthetic care may harm prisoners and prolong the suffering associated with their conditions, the
^— The State disputes whether the court made any finding of constitutional violation in 1994 (Br. 14). Regardless whether it did, however, the court has now found that there is a current constitutional violation that has not been remedied. If that finding is upheld by this Court, it is sufficient to satisfy Section 3626 (b) (3) of the PLRA.

- 28 record does not support a finding that there is deliberate indifference to a risk to inmate health or safety" (R. 822: Opinion at 31). The court therefore stated that "in the event that the PLRA is determined to be constitutional, this provision would be terminated" (R. 822: Opinion at 31).
The fact that the court made this distinction demonstrates that it understood that the PLRA requires a finding of violation of a underlying federal right before relief can be maintained under the PLRA. When the district court rules finally on the termination motion, it will first decide whether the PLRA is constitutional. If the court then goes on to apply the PLRA to this Decree, its actions so far demonstrate that it will do so with a proper understanding of its standards.
CONCLUSION The Court should dismiss this appeal.
Respectfully submitted, ISABELLE KATZ PINZLER
Acting Assistant Attorney General
DAVID K. FLYNN MARIE K. McELDERRY
Attorneys Department of Justice P.O. Box 66078 Washington, D.C. 20035-6078 (202) 514-3068

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2548 EVERETT HADIX, et al. ,
Plaintiffs-Appellees v. PERRY JOHNSON, et al. ,
Defendants-Appellants and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Intervenor

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

INTERVENOR'S DESIGNATION OF APPENDIX CONTENTS

Intervenor United States, pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule

ll(b), hereby designates the following filings in the district

court's record, in addition to those designated by appellants, as

items to be included in the joint appendix:

DESCRIPTION OF ENTRY

DATE

RECORD ENTRY NO.

Consent Decree17

May 13, 1985 R. 199 (E.D. Mich.)

Opinion Approving Consent Decree

April 4, 1985 R. 208 (E.D. Mich.)

Order Accepting Consent May 13, 1985 Decree

R. 213 (E.D. Mich.)

1 Defendants-Appellants' designation of the contents of the appendix states that the Consent Decree appears at R. 651. According to the docket entries for the Western District of Michigan in this case, however, R. 651 is not the Consent Decree.

- 2-

DESCRIPTION OF ENTRY

DATE

Order

Dec. 13, 1995

Opinion

Dec. 13, 1995

Defendants' Motion For Immediate Termination Of The Consent Decree Pursuant To The Prison Litigation Reform Act

June 10, 1996

Opinion And Order Denying A Stay Of The Consent Decree

July 3, 1996

Motion By United States To Intervene With Brief In Support

Sept. 5, 1996

Order Granting Motion To Sept. 6, 1996 Intervene Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. 2403(a)

RECORD ENTRY NO R. 605 R. 604 R. 715
R. 738, 739 R. 794
R. 795

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that two copies of the foregoing Brief For

The United States As Intervenor were served by first class mail,

postage prepaid, on the following individuals and counsel of

record:

Susan Przekop-Shaw, Esquire
Assistant Attorney General Corrections Division Plaza One Building 101 South Washington Square Lansing, Michigan 48909

Suite 900

Dr. F. Warren Benton 149 Beach Avenue Larchmont, New York 10538

Elizabeth Alexander, Esquire National Prison Project 1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 410 Washington, DC 20009

Patricia A. Streeter, Esquire One Kennedy Square, 1816 Detroit, Michigan 48226

Michael Barnhart One Kennedy Square, 1420 Detroit, Michigan 48226
Deborah LaBelle 3310 Cadillac Tower Detroit, Michigan 48226

This 20th day of March, 1997.

Marie K. McElderry Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Post Office Box 66078 Washington, D.C. 20035-6078 (202) 514-3068

 
 Hadix v. Johnson
PC-MI-003-009
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
EVERETT HADIX, et al., Pi ,-iintif f s-Appellees
PERRY JOHNSON, et al., Defendants-Appellants
and UNITED STATES OF AMEKICA,
InUorvenor-Appellee
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITFD STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
PROOF BRIEF FOR THE TOUTED STATES
AS I N T E R V E N O R - A P P E L J L E E
ISABELLE KATZ PINZLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
DAVID K. FLYNN MARIE K. McELDERRY
Attorneys Department of Justice P.O. Box 66078 Washington, D.C. 20035-6078 (202) 514-3068

STATEMENT S HOARDING ... AL ARGUMENT For the reasons stated in Argun- t I of this brief, this Court does not have jurisdiction c>v this appeal, and it should, therefore, be dismissed. If this <"-rt disagrees with our jurisdictional argument, oral argu^' t may be useful in light of the fact that the State's appeal pr:- --Tits issues of first impression concerning the proper in' rpretation of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, codified at ;8 Q..S.C.A. 3626.

TABIK OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT REGARDING »-RAL ARGUMENT
STATEMENT OF SUBJECT 'JYTTER AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION .
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES STANDARD OF REVIEW STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A. Course Of Proceedings And Disposition Below 1. Prior history . . 2. Passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act 3. Motions under the PLRA 4. The Derision Below
C. Facts SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ARGUMENT:
I. THIS COURT LACKS JURISDICTION OVER THIS APPEAL
II. SECTION 3626(b)(3) OF THE PLRA REQUIRES A COURT TO INQUIRE INTO CURRENT CONDITIONS BEFORE RULING ON A MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE TERMINATION UNDER SECTION 3626(b)(2)
III. THE DISTRICT COURT HAS EMPLOYED THE PROPER STANDARD IN MAKING ITS PRELIMINARY RULINGS ON THE MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE TERMINATION
CONCLUSION
DESIGNATION OF APPENDIX CONTENTS
-1-

PAGE
L 2 3 3 .3 3
4 7 9 12 14
15
20
24 28

' ;LK OF AUTHORITIES

CASES:

Board of Educ. v. U •.'.• \J,1, 498 U.S. 237 (1991)

Carson v. Ame.r j r^ri i.:n<J s . Inc.; 450 U. S . 79 (1981)

v. Bjengf ' cj.i i • -"• . Loan Corp. . 337 U.S. 5 ^ "';49)

Columbus Bd. of

,. v. Ppnick, 443 U.S. 449

(1979)

Freeman v. P_i£tll, ';01 U.S. 467 (1992)
Groseclose v. £I.J.;.;..;•.:. '88 F.2d 356 (6th Cir. 1986) (per curiam)
Hadix v. Johns^':, ::94 i<\ Supp. 259 (E.D. Mich '••88), judgment aff'd in part, vacated in )-,,\., KriQp v. Johnson. 977 F.2d 996 (6th Ci <:' :-92J, cert, denied, 507 U.S. 973 (1993)
Hadix v. Johnson, V*2 F. Supp. 527 (E.D. Mich. 1992)
Hadix v. J_QimSQii. '33 F. Supp. 1360 (E.D. Mich, 1996)
Hadix v. Johnson, 933 F. Supp. 1362 (W.D. Mich. 1996)
Hadix v. Johnson, 947 F. Supp. 1100 (E.D. Mich. 1996)
Knop v. Johnson, 685 F. Supp. 636 (W.D. Mich. 1988) judgment aff'd in part, vacated in part-, ng v. Johnson. 977 F.2d 996 (6th Cir. 199/-), cert, denied, 507 U.S. 973 (1993)
Knop v. Johnson. 977 F.: 1 9 9 6 (6th Cir. 1992), cert, denied, 507 ^ S. 973 (1993)
Long v. Norrisf 929 F.?d 1111 (6th Cir.), cert, denied, 502 J.S. 863 (1991)
Louisiana v. United States, 380 U.S. 145 (1965)

-ii-

PAGE 23
. . 19 16
23 23 19
3, 12, 13 4, 13 4, 9 8, 21 17
13 4, 13
3 23

CASES (continued):

PAGE

Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974)

23

Missouri v Jenkins, 115 S. Ct. 2038 (1995)

23

Plyler v. r o o m , 100 F.3d 365 (4th Cir. 1996)

24

Switzerlari Cheese Ass'n v. E. H o m e ' s Mkt. ,

385 U.S. 23 (1966)

19

Transpor t at. i o n _Cy b e m e t i c s . Inc. v. Forest ^;;,1_ C.QinmJJl, 9 5 0 F . 2 d 3 5 0 (7th C i r . 1 9 9 2 )

. . . . 14, 1 9

United St:a?...-.n v. Michigan, 18 F.3d 348 (6th Cir.),

cert, denied, 115 S. Ct. 312 (1994)

22

United States v. Michigan, 868 F. Supp. 890

(W.D. Mirh. 1994)

22

CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES:

United States Constitution: First Amendment Fifth ^Tiendment, Due Process Clause Eight-h Amendment Ninth Amendment Fourteenth Amendment

12 8
. . 2, 12, 25, 26 12 12

Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), codified at 18 U.S.C.A. 3626

passim

18 U.S.C.A. 3626
18 U.S.C.A. 3626(a)(l)
18 U.S.C.A. 3626 (a) (1) (A) 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(a)(2) 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(b)(l) 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(b) (1) (A) 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(b)(2) 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(b)(3) 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(e) 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(e)(l) 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(e)(2) 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(e) (2) (B) 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(g)(2) 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(g)(7) 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(g)(8)

4
5
4 .. 4
5 5 passim passim 6 22 2, 7, 22 7 4 ... 6 6

-in-

STATUTES (• tinued) :
PLRA (continued): 1 h L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-70 (1996): " 802 2 H02(b) (1)
5 •••'!.•?! ( b ) ( 2 )
S cJ2(e) (2) § 810
Civi'i Right:; of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA) , 42 U.S.C 1997 fit seq.
28 U S.C. 1291
28 U.S.C. 3292 (a) (1)
28 U.S.C. 1543
2 8 U.S.C. ?-0 3
42 U.S.C. i\ 33
LEGI' ATIVE HISTORY: H.R. Rep. No. 21, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. (1995)

PAGE
4 6
7
7 6
22 2, 16 passim
1 7 1, 3, 12
6

-IV-

IN THE UNITED STATES COU.- OF APPZ-LS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2548 EVERETT HADIX, et al.,
Plaint iffs-Appp !. 1 ees v. PERRY JOHNSON, et al.,
Defendants Appellants and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Intervenor-Appellee
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
PROOF BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS INTERVENOR-APPELLEE
STATEMENT OF SUBJECT MATTER AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION This suit was brought by plaintiffs-appellees, inmates of the State Prison of Southern Michigan, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, concerning the constitutionality of the conditions of their confinement. The district court's jurisdiction was based upon 28 U.S.C. 1343. State officials (hereinafter the State) filed a motion for immediate termination of the Consent Decree, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(b)(2) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). In the November 18, 1996, order from which this appeal was taken,

- 2-
t;he district court (1) reserved a final o\?termination on the
State's motion, including the question w/;i::her the immediate
termination provision is constitr.it "• onal, : ••-riding this Court's
decision on the constitutionality uC : I,.: .-i>;t,omatic stay provision
of the PLRA, 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(e)(2) '<:, '•'<>oe pending appeals
(Nos. 96-1907, 1908, and 1943); (2) ! • :t ified twenty provisions of the Consent Decree that are app^'p1-' to for termination if the
•'.u.nediate termination provision of Lhr ;<LJ<A is constitutional;
(3) found current constitutional violations with respect to six
aspects of medical care covered by the Consent Decree; and (4)
found noncompliance with two provisions of the Consent Decree
that do not involve a constitutior. ;•-."! violation.
The order involved in this appeal is not a final order
appealable under 28 U.S.C. 1291, nor is it among the types of
interlocutory orders made appealable by 28 U.S.C. 1292(a) (1) .
Accordingly, this appeal should be dismissed. STATEMENT OF Tlu<.. ISSUES17
1. Whether the order of the district court is appealable.
2. Assuming this Court has jurisdiction, whether the
immediate termination provisions of the PLRA, 18 U.S.C.A.
-f The State also seeks review of the district court's finding that it is in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as to six areas of medical health care. As argued in Part I of this Brief, this Court does not have jurisdiction to review those findings in this appeal. In any event, the United States has intervened in this case solely to address the constitutionality of the PLRA and issues of interpretation that bear on its constitutionality; our participation on the merits of this case is only as amicus. Accordingly, we do not address here the correctness of the district court's findings on those issues.

3 3626(b)(2) and (b)(3), permit the u"strict court to receive evidence about current conditions to determine whether anyexisting prospective relief "remains necessary to correct a current or ongoing violation of ; 'e Federal right" and is narrowly tailored within the soaring of 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(b)(3).
STANDARD OF REVIEW If this Court has jurisdirr -i on over this appeal, questions of interpretation of the PLRA iri-olve solely legal issues, which are subject to de novo review. long v. Norris, 929 F.2d 1111, 1114 (6th Cir.), cert, denied, 502 U.S. 863 (1991).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. Course Of Proceedings " -'d Disposition Below
1. Prior history. In 1980, prisoners confi '• <-d at the State Prison of Southern Michigan (SPSM) filed suit against various state officials of the Michigan Department of Corrections pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the conditions of their confinement violated the Constitution of the United States and state law. See Hadix v. Johnson. 694 F. Supp. 259, 262 (E.D. Mich. 1988). In 1985, the district court approved a Consent Decree designed to address those claims (E.D. R. 199: Consent Decree; E.D. R. 208: Opinion) .-; In 1992, the portions of the Decree involving medical and
-1 "E.D. R. " refers to docket entries in Hadix v. Johnson. No. 80-CV-73581 (E.D. Mich.) (Feikens, J . ) . "R. " refers to docket entries in Hadix v. Johnson, No. 92-CV-110 (W.D. Mich.) (Enslen, J . ) .

- 4-
mental health care were t >-.-.. referred to the United States District
Court for the Western ^'; iriot of Michigan (Judge Enslen). Hadix
v. Johnson, 792 F. Supp • l>27, 528-529 (E.D. Mich. 1992).^
2. Passage of the n 'son Litigation Reform Act.
On April 26, 1996, f \-<-.. President signed into law the Prison
Litigation Reform Act. "eor,ion 802 of the Act, which consists of
amendments to 18 U.S.C.A. 3 6?^, establishes standards for the
entry and termination of p. : :jpective relief in civil actions
concerning conditions in pi-'sons, jails, and juvenile detention
facilities.-' With regard to the entry of such relief, Section
3626(a)(1)(A) provides:
Prospective relif::f ';'. any civil action with respect to prison conditions ..ball extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve, -jay prospective relief unless the court finds that•:••:'•h relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than n« oe^sary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right. The court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief.-''
Termination of relief is governed by several sections of the
-' Jurisdiction of the part of the case concerning access to courts was likewise transferred to the Western District. Knop v. Johnson. 977 F.2d 996, 1014 (6th Cir. 1992), cert, denied, 507 U.S. 973 (1993); see Hadix v. Johnson. 933 F. Supp. 1360 (E.D. Mich. 1996).
-1 The Act does not apply to habeas corpus proceedings challenging "the fact or duration of confinement in prison." 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(g)(2).
-' Section 3626(a)(2) provides that preliminary injunctive relief entered under the Act "shall automatically expire" 90 days after its entry if the court fails to make the required findings.

•- 5 -
Act. In general, defendants are entitled to request the
termination of pro? n-ruiive relief according to a time schedule
set out in Section ;;,.,f> (b) (1) (A), which provides:
In any civil act I'm with respect to prison conditions in which prospect 've relief is ordered, such relief shall be terminable upon the motion of any party or intervener --
(i) 2 years ^Cter the date the court granted or approved the protective relief;
(ii) 1 year ifter the date the court has entered an order denying ' rmination of prospective relief under this par^g--; nh; or
(iii) in the rase of an order issued on or before the date of ennc'.;>-:nt of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 2 years nfi.r-.: such date of enactment.
Section 3626(b) (2) , however, provides for the immediate
termination of relief that was entered without the findings
required by Section 3626(a)(1):
In any civil action with respect to prison conditions, a defendant or intervener shall be entitled to the immediate termination of any prospective relief if the relief was approved or granted in the absence of a finding by the court that the relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.
When termination is sought under either Section (b)(1) or
(b)(2), the standard applicable to the termination decision is
set out in Section 3626(b)(3), which provides that relief shall
not terminate
if the court makes written findings based on the record that prospective relief remains necessary to correct a current or ongoing violation of the Federal right, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and that the prospective relief is narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means to correct the violation.
Procedures for motions to terminate prospective relief are

- 6-
set out in Secti.i 3626 (e) :
(1) Gem-.rally. -- The court shall promptly rule on any motion t - modify or terminate prospective relief in a civil act.i ou with respect to prison conditions.
(2) Aui.' -1 -jtic Stay. -- Any prospective relief subject to • ;. •ading motion shall be automatically stayed durij j the period --
(' (1) beginning on the 30th day after such motion 's filed, in the case of a motion made under t sragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (b); [and]
***** ill)ending on the date the court enters a final Oi'"3er ruling on the motion.
For the purposes of all of these provisions, prospective
relief includes ir.junctive relief ordered under a consent decree.
See 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(g)(7), (g)(9).
The Ai.. I- contains a provision concerning retroactivity, stating that. !TN GENERAL" Section 3626 "shall apply with respect
to all prospective relief whether such relief was originally
granted or approved before, on, or after the date of the enact-
ment of this title." Pub. L. No. 104-134, § 802(b)(l), 110 Stat .
1321-70 (l')'J6). Finally, the Act contains a severability
provision that preserves the remainder of its provisions in the
event that any portion is held to be unconstitutional. Pub. L.
No. 104-134, § 810, 110 Stat. 1321-77 (1996).
Taken together, the PLRA's provisions reflect Congress's
concern that relief in prison reform cases be narrowly tailored
to address violations of federal rights. See H.R. Rep. No. 21,
104th Cong., 1st Sess. 24 n.2 (1995)(subsection (a)(1))
(hereinafter H.R. Rep.); H.R. Rep. at 26 (subsection (b)(2)). As
applicable to relief entered after the PLRA's effective date, the

- 7Act i.: designed to establish a uniform remedial structure, !;d to provide for periodic review of decrees to determine whether hey remain nooossary to remedy violations of federal rights. As applicable to decrees entered before the PLRA's passage, the- Act seeks [ ,, ensure that continuing relief satisfies the new requ ' r < ; t-nts of the PLRA.
3. f7! Iions under the PLRA. On J :;;e 10, 1996, the defendants filed motions pursuant to Section 8:.;:;b)(2) of the PLRA, 18 U.S.C.A. 3626 (b) (2), in both district ruurts having jurisdiction over the Hadix Consent Decree, for immediate termination of the Decree and subsequent orderb y> gating prospective relief (R. 715: Motion; &.D. R. 1063: Motion). The defendants asserted in their motions that, by opeiViion of Section 802 (e) (2) of the PLRA, 18 U.S.C.A. 3626 (e) (2), all prospective relief in the Decree would be stayed automatically beginning on the 30th day after the f'il >ng of the motion for immediate termination and ending on the date "the court enters a final order ruling on the motion." (R. 715: Motion; Brief in Support of Defendant's Motion at 9; E.D, R. 1068: Motion; Brief in Support of Defendant's Motion at 910) >' In addition, at the time the PLRA was passed, two appeals were pending in this Court from earlier orders of the district
-1 On September 6, 1996, the court granted the motion of the United States to intervene in this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.O 2403, in order to address the constitutionality of the PLRA (R. 795: Order).

- 8 -.
ccur: (Nos. 94-2008, 96-1422). The State filed motions in this Court for immediate termination of the relief granted in those orders. On July 2, 1996, this Court denied the Stat. "s motions for Immediate termination and remanded the appealed orders to the '•:.-: riot court for "reconsideration in light of the recent , .-.dments to 18 U.S.C. § 3626" (R. 746: Order at 2 ) .
On July 3, 1996, the district court issued a decision in which it stated that there was "no possible way" that it could deride the motions to terminate before the automatic stay provision would take effect, given the "complexity of the issues presented" and the need for thorough briefing. Hadix v. Johnson, 9V3 F. Supp. 1362, 1364 (W.D. Mich. 1996), It held, therefore, that the automatic stay provision of the PLRA "usurped a role that is exclusively judicial," in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers. 933 F. Supp. at 13 66. The court also held that the automatic stay provision violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by abrogating plaintiffs' vested property right in the Consent Decree without an opportunity for hearing. 933 F. Supp. at 1366-1369. Accordingly, it ruled that; the automatic stay would not take effect pending its decision on the motion for immediate termination. 933 F. Supp. at 1369-1370.
The defendants appealed the district court's order (R. 74 9: Notice of Appeal). They also filed an emergency motion in this Court for a stay of proceedings in the district court, to the extent that the court proposed to hold evidentiary hearings on the motion for immediate termination. Specifically, the motion

- 9-
sought a stay of the hearings scheduled for September 5-6, 1997,
on delivery of medical health care at SPSM. They also sought a
writ of mandamus to require the distri:: court, to rely solely on
the existing record in ruling on the motion for immediate
termination, or, alternatively, to have this Court rule on the
motion for immediate termination directly. On September 4, 1996,
this Court denied the motion for stay of the September 5-6
hearings (R. 799: Order at 2 ) . On September 17, 1996, this
Court denied the motion for a writ of n^ndamus, as well as a stay
of further proceedings, and expedited I':e appeal of the July 3,
1996, order (R. 803: Order) .2/ Oral aioument in that appeal
was held on February 4, 1997, and the case is under submission.
4. The Decision Below.
On December 13, 1995, prior to the passage of the PLRA, the
district court had issued an Order and Opinion establishing a
schedule leading to compliance hearings concerning the medical
provisions of the Decree (R. 604: Opinion; R. 6 05: Order),-f
1J On October 1, 1996, this Court consolidated, for purposes of submission, the appeal from Judge En.slen's July 3, order, with an appeal of a similar order issued on July 5, 19 96, by the district court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Judge Feikens) in the portion of the Hadix litigation over which it has jurisdiction, Hadix v. Johnson. 933 F. Supp. 1360 (appeal No. 961943), and with the appeal of Judge Enslen's July 3, 1996, order in United States v. Michigan (appeal No. 96-1907).
-' The court also denied the motion of the Hadix plaintiffs and the United States to consolidate the compliance hearings in Hadix with those on medical care in United States v. Michigan (R. 679: Opinion at 3-4). In addition, it granted the United States' motion for continuation of its status as amicus in this case, but limited its participation in the compliance hearings to submission of briefs and presentation of oral argument (R. 679: Opinion at 6 ) .

- 10 Those hearings were held on September 5-6, 1.996 (R. 833: Tr. 9/5/96; R. 834: Tr. 9/6/96).
On November 18, 1996, the district court entered the order and opinion that are the subject of this appeal, making a preliminary ruling on the compliance issues addressed in the September hearings. The court decided certain issues raised by the defendant's motion for immediate termination of the Consent Decree but left two issues to be decided in the future. First, the order reserved a final determination on the State's motion for immediate termination pending this Court's decision on the constitutionality of the automatic stay provision (R. 823: Order at 2 ) . The district court stated that it "remains of the opinion" it entered when holding the automatic stay provision unconstitutional, i.e., "that the Consent Decree constitutes a final judgment, and by requiring the Court to alter that judgment pursuant to new standards, the PLRA impei nissibly invades upon the province of the judiciary" in violation of separation of powers principles (R. 822: Opinion at i) . The court stated that this Court's decision in the automatic stay appeals "will determine how the [immediate termination] motion will ultimately be decided," because if this Court "decides that the Consent Decree is a final judgment, it necessarily follows that the provisions of the PLRA that attempt to alter the Decree are unconstitutional" (R. 822: Opinion at 7-8). However, if this Court "decides that Congress does have the power to alter the Consent Decree," the district court "will apply the PLRA

- 11 standards to the Decree, and terminate those provisions that do not meet the requirements of § [3626](b)(3)" (R. 822: Opinion at 8). Accordingly, the district court declined to rule on the issue, preferring to wait for the guidance soon to be provided by this Court.
The other still unresolved issue is what kind of prospective relief should remain in effect in this case. The court recognized that "Section 3626(b)(3) specifically provides that where there is a current violation of a Federal right, the court shall not terminate the prospective relief, provided that the specific relief is narrowly tailored" (R. 822: Opinion at 9 ) .
The district court's order dealt mainly with the first findings required under Section 3626(b)(3) in order to retain prospective relief, i.e., whether there is a current or ongoing violation of a constitutional or federal statutory right that requires a remedy. With one exception, however, the issue whether the prospective relief in the Decree is narrowly tailored, as required by the PLRA, remains to be decided.
In particular, based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the court identified twenty provisions of the Consent Decree over which it concluded that it "no longer need retain supervision" (R. 823: Order at 2-3; R. 822: Opinion at 8 ) . The court stated that, although it could not actually terminate those provisions, they will "maintain the status of 'appropriate for termination' until all of the requirements of the Decree are fulfilled, unless * * * conditions revert to a state of serious

- 12 violations" (R. 822: Opinion at 8 ) . 2 / However, if the immediate termination provision of the PLRA is determined to be constitutional, the court will terminate those provisions (R. 822: Opinion at 8 ) . In addition, the court found noncompliance with two provisions of the Consent Decree that do not involve constitutional violations (R 823: Order at 3 ) . Finally, the court found current constitut- i onal violations with respect to six aspects of medical care covered by the Consent Decree (R. 823: Order at 3 ) . As to one of those areas, i.e., the Sick Call Access Plan (Section II,A.4.a. of the Decree, E.D. R. 199: Consent Decree at 9 ) , tbe court also found that the relief provided in its order of July 25, 1994, "is necessary to correct the current violation, and is narrowly drawn and not intrusive" (R. 822: Opinion at 24).
C. Facts On September 18, 198 0, prisoners incarcerated at the State Prison of Southern Michigan Central Complex (SPSM) filed suit against various state officials charged with the operation of SPSM, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Hadix, 694 F. Supp. at 262. They asserted that the conditions of confinement at SPSM violated their rights under the First, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution (E.D. R. 199: Consent Decree at
l' The court did not actually terminate any provision of the Decree because the Decree does not permit piecemeal termination of its provisions (R. 822: Opinion at 8 ) . See E,D, R, 199: Consent Decree at 33 ("After Defendants have complied with all of the provisions of this Consent Judgment, Defendants may apply to terminate the jurisdiction of the Court.").

- 13 1). On May 13, 1985, the district court approved a consent decree designed "to assure the constitutionality of the conditions under which prisoners are incarcerated" at SPSM (E.D. R. 199: Consent Decree at 1 ) . The Decree addressed sanitation, safety, and health; health care; fire safety; overcrowding and protection from harm; use of volunteers; access to courts; food service; management; operations; inmate mail; compliance; and inspection procedures (E.D. R. 199; Consent Decree). In addition, it provided that the areas of classification and Due Process, and two issues concerning access to courts would be submitted to the court for a hearing on the merits (E.D. R. 199: Consent Decree at 1-2) .—/
The portions of the Decree addressing medical and mental health care were transferred to the Western District of Michigan. Hadix v. Johnson. 792 F. Supp, 527, 528-529 (E.D. Mich. 1992), Over the years, the district court has entered numerous orders concerning the medical health care issues of the Decree.
—' On July 1, 1988, the district court issued a decision finding that SPSM's library, legal assistance, and grievance programs failed to provide meaningful access to the courts as required by Constitution. Hadix, 694 F. Supp. at 291-292. An appeal from that judgment was consolidated with an appeal of an order issued by Judge Enslen in Knop v. Johnson. 685 F. Supp. 636 (W.D. Mich. 1988). This Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, vacated the entire remedial order in Hadix and remanded the access to courts issue to the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. Knop v. Johnson, 977 F.2d 996 (6th Cir. 1992), cert, denied, 507 U.S. 973 (1993).
The classification issue was referred by stipulation for resolution in United States v. Michigan.

- 14 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The order involved in this appeal reserves a ruling on the constitutionality of the PLRA and, in the interim, resolves only some of the issues relevant to a final ruling on the State's PLRA motion for termination of the relief in the Consent Decree. It makes findings that current or ongoing constitutional violations exist with respect to the State's provision of medical care to SPSM inmates, but leaves for later determination whether the prospective relief in the Decree should be retained in its present form or modified in accordance with the PLRA's remedial standards. Because it disposes of less than all of the issues necessary to a decision on the State's motion, the court's order is not appealable. See Transportation Cybernetics, Inc. v. Forest Transit Comm'n, 950 F.2d 350, 352 (7th Cir. 1992). Specifically, it is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1) because the court has not refused to dissolve the injunctive relief in the Decree. It has merely taken some initial steps along the road to resolving the State's motion for termination of that relief. Accordingly, we argue in Part I that this appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If this Court should disagree with our submission on appealability, however, it should nonetheless reject the State's argument that the district court erred in allowing the parties to create a record reflecting current conditions in the facilities covered by the Decree. The State's reading of the statute poses a serious constitutional question concerning Congress's power to

- 15 lima i. 1. iie remedial authority of the judiciary to redress unconstitutional conduct. Instead, however, in enacting Section 3626(b)(3), Congress manifested its intention that a court deciding a motion to terminate relief granted in a prison conditions suit inquire into the existence of "a current or ongoing violation of the Federal right." That provision necessarily gives the court the power to examine current conditions.
Finally, the district court's preliminary ruling on the State's termination motion demonstrates that it fully appreciates the fact that a court must find a current or ongoing violation of a Federal constitutional or statutory right in order to maintain prospective relief in a prison conditions Consent Decree.
ARGUMENT I
THIS COURT LACKS JURISDICTION OVER THIS APPEAL The State contends (Br. vii) that this Court has jurisdiction to review the district court's order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1). Under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1), this Court has jurisdiction over interlocutory orders of the district courts "granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions." Appellants' theory of jurisdiction is that the district court has denied injunctive relief because its order "suppresses the termination provisions mandated by a congressional act" (Br. vii). Because appellants are seeking termination of the

- 16 -
injunctive relief in the Decree, however, the issue is really
whether the district court has refused to dissolve an injunction.
Since the district court has not finally ruled on the State's
motion for immediate termination, it is wrong to claim that it
has refused to dissolve the injunctive relief.
In considering the appealability of this order, it is useful
to contrast it with other orders entered by the court under the
PLRA. For example, the district court's July 3, 1996, order
ruling that the automatic stay provision is unconstitutional and
cannot, therefore, be implemented, was effectively a refusal to
dissolve an injunction, albeit temporarily. Although the
district court had not yet refused to dissolve that injunction
permanently, it did refuse to suspend the enforceability of that
judgment during the time it takes for the court to determine
whether any of the prospective relief in the Decree meets the PLRA's requirements.—7 The July 3, 1996, order was therefore
appealable under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1).
The order appellants seek to appeal here can also be
—/ The district court's July 3, 1996, order finding the automatic stay provision unconstitutional is also appealable under 28 U.S.C. 1291 pursuant to the judicially-recognized exception to the final judgment rule for "collateral orders." Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The constitutionality ruling is one of
that small class [of decisions] which finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated.
Id. at 546.

- 17 contrasted to the order entered by the district court for the Eastern District of Michigan concerning the portion of the Hadix Decree over which it has jurisdiction. On November 1, 1996, Judge Feikens issued an order denying the State's motion for termination of the Hadix Decree and associated orders because of the court's conclusion that Sections 3626(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the PLRA violate separation of powers principles and are, therefore, unconstitutional. Hadix v. Johnson, 947 F. Supp. 1100, 1109-1112 (E.D. Mich. 1996). It did not schedule hearings under Section 3626(b)(3) of the PLRA nor in any way suggest that it intended to consider terminating or modifying any of the relief in the Decree. It simply held the immediate termination provisions unconstitutional and denied the PLRA motion for immediate termination. This Court has jurisdiction over the appeal from that order (Hadix v. Johnson, No. 96-2582) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1) because the district court's order refused to dissolve or modify the injunctive relief in the Decree in light of the PLRA.
Here, however, the district court's ruling has two components, neither of which has the requisite finality to make it appealable. First, the court reserved a final determination on the State's motion until this Court has ruled on the constitutional issues in the appeals pending before it (R. 823: Order at 2-3). Thus, the State's contention (Br. vii) that the district court's November 18 order "found the immediate termination provisions mandated by [the PLRA] unconstitutional"

- 18 is belied by the order itself. In the opinion accompanying that order, the court states (R. 822: Opinion at 9 ) :
[T]he issue of whether the Consent Decree is final is determinative of the validity of the PLRA.
Therefore, the Court will refrain from deciding again the issue of whether Congress may order the courts to alter consent decrees over which they maintain supervisory jurisdiction. See also R. 822: Opinion at 38 ("the Court is refraining at this time from a holding regarding the constitutionality of §3626 (b) (2) & (3) of the PLRA,11), Consequently, unlike Judge Feikens' November 1 decision, which conclusively denied the State's motion for termination because it held the termination provisions unconstitutional, Judge Enslen's November 18 order is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1) as one that refuses to dissolve an injunction. Second, the court announced that it would make a preliminary ruling on the State's PLRA termination motion in the event that such a ruling becomes necessary after the constitutional issue is resolved. It reviewed evidence introduced during its previously scheduled hearings to monitor compliance with the Consent Decree and made findings about the first prong of Section 3626(b)(3) -whether there is a "current or ongoing violation of the Federal right" as to the adequacy of medical services to respond to the serious needs of prisoners. Except for one area, however, it has not made findings concerning the second prong, i.e., whether the prospective relief in the Decree "extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, * * * is

- 19 narrowly drawn and the least, intrusive means to correct the violation." 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(b)(3). Indeed, the court's order states that there are two issues remaining for decision on the State's motion, the second of which is "whether prospective relief is tailored as required by the PLRA" (R. 823: Order at 2 ) . In order for a post-judgment order to be appealable, it should at least dispose of all of the issues raised by the postjudgment motion. Transportation Cybernetics, Inc. v. Forest Transit Comm'n. 950 F.2d 350, 352 (7th Cir. 1992).
As an exception to the final judgment rule, 28 U.S.C. 1292(a) (1) should be narrowly construed. Carson v. American Brands, Inc.. 450 U.S. 79, 84 (1981)„ The federal appellate jurisdictional statutes express a policy against piecemeal appeals. Switzerland Cheese Ass'n v. E. Home's Mkt.. 3 85 U.S. 23, 25 (1966). Reviewing this order will not serve that policy. First, the court has not yet decided an issue that could be dispositive, i.e., the constitutionality of the immediate termination provisions of the PLRA. Further, although the court has made findings as to the first element required for retention of prospective relief under Section 3626(b)(3), it has not done so for the narrow tailoring component. The district court's decisions on the narrow tailoring issue "could alter the 'appellate perspective.'" Groseclose v. Dutton, 788 F.2d 356, 361 (6th Cir. 1986) (per curiam). In short, the district court simply has not yet issued a final and appealable order determining whether to grant or deny the State's motion to

- 20 -
terminate in whole or in part and more specifically has not
decided whether any or all of the prospective relief in the
Decree meets the remedial standards of the PLRA. Until the
district court does so, this Court does not have jurisdiction to
review preliminary rulings en route to such a final order.
II
SECTION 3626(b)(3) OF THE PLRA REQUIRES A COURT TO INQUIRE INTO CURRENT CONDITIONS BEFORE RULING ON A MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE TERMINATION UNDER SECTION 3626(b)(2)
If this Court holds that it has jurisdiction over this
appeal, it should reject the State's argument (Br. 28-31) that
the PLRA does not authorize the creation of a new evidentiary
record for purposes of resolving a motion for immediate
termination.
Section 3626(b)(2) of the PLRA provides that
[i]n any civil action with respect to prison conditions, a defendant or intervener shall be entitled to the immediate termination of any prospective relief if the relief was approved or granted in the absence of a finding by the court that the relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.
18 U.S.C.A. 3626(b)(2).
Although the district court has entered subsequent orders
that were predicated on constitutional violations, much of the
relief in the original Consent Decree is not supported by the
findings required by Section (b)(2). Accordingly, the PLRA
requires the district court to determine if Section (b)(3)'s
"[1]imitation" on (b)(2) is applicable. Section (b)(3) provides

- 21 (emphasis added):
Limitation. -- Prospective relief shall not terminate if the court makes written findings based on the record that prospective relief remains necessary to correct a current or ongoing violation of the Federal right, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and that the prospective relief is narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means to correct the violation.
18 U.S.C.A. 3626(b)(3). Section 3626(b)(3) is, therefore, intended to preserve the inherent power of a court, presented with a motion for immediate termination under Section 3626(b)(2), to retain relief that is necessary, and narrowly drawn, to remedy constitutional violations.
Contrary to the State's argument, although 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(b)(3) requires that the appropriate findings be "based on the record," nothing in the statute's language or legislative history indicates that such findings must be made only on the factual record that exits at the time the motion is filed, which, after all, was developed in the past, and, in some cases, under a different standard. Rather, the statute's requirement that a court deciding a defendant's motion to terminate must inquire into the existence of "a current or ongoing violation of the Federal right" necessarily gives the district court the authority to examine current conditions. The court in this case has ruled that it does not have the information about such current conditions necessary for it responsibly to apply the standard set by Section (b)(3), and has invited the parties to create that record. See Hadix v. Johnson, 933 F. Supp. 1362, 1364 (W.D. Mich. 1996). The PLRA did not change the basic fact that "[o]nee

- 22 the jurisdiction of the court has been invoked, that court has an obligation to exercise its jurisdiction meaningfully-" United States v, Michigan, 18 F.3d 348, 352 (6th Cir.), cert, denied, 115 S. Ct. 312 (1994).
Indeed, the State itself argues (Br. 29, n.ll (emphasis in original)) that "past violations alone are insufficient to warrant federal jurisdiction in the absence of any current violations of federal right [sic] or real threat of future violations." Yet it would deny the district court to right to inquire whether such current violations exist by insisting that the statute forbids the creation of a current record.-'
The State is also in error in arguing that Congress could not have intended for the district court to supplement the existing record because it expected the district courts to act on the motion for immediate termination within 30 days (Br. 30-31), While the PLRA requires the court to rule "promptly" on a motion for immediate termination, 18 U.S.C.A. 3626 (e) (1), and appears to provide that the automatic stay will take effect 30 days after such a motion is filed, 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(e)(2), nothing in the statute requires the final determination on such a motion to be made within 3 0 days.
Moreover, if the PLRA is construed as the State would have it -- to forbid a district court from supplementing the existing
—/ The process followed by the district court here has nothing to do with whether CRIPA authorizes the United States to conduct investigations prior to filing a complaint. Thus, the State's reliance on the district court's decision in United States v. Michigan, 868 F. Supp. 890, 895 (W.D. Mich. 1994) is inapposite.

- 23 -
(and often old) record in order to determine whether a current
constitutional violation exists, whether a past constitutional
violation remains unremedied, or whether there is an imminent
threat of a return to unconstitutional conditions -~ the statute
would pose a serious constitutional question about Congress's
authority to limit the courts' remedial authority to redress
unconstitutional conduct effectively.—7 The State has failed
to demonstrate that such a constitutionally suspect result was
the clear intent of Congress in enacting the PLRA.
Accordingly, the district court did not err in holding
hearings on the motion for immediate termination, and allowing
the parties to present evidence as to current conditions. That
process carries out Congress's manifest intent that the court
inquire whether relief is still needed to address current
conditions, not past ones. Thus, the State's request (Br. 48)
w A decision that Congress denied the judiciary the basic authority to remedy constitutional violations would raise serious constitutional questions. Similarly, in our view, a serious constitutional question would be raised if the PLRA was read to require a court to terminate relief upon a finding that unconstitutional conduct has halted, even if the court also finds that the violation has not been fully remedied, or that the defendant is poised to resume the unconstitutional conduct. Hence, the PLRA should be read to maintain the district court's core authority to remedy the proximate effects of past unlawful acts, and to issue prospective relief where there is the present danger of imminent recurrence of a violation of the Constitution or federal statutory right. Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 490499 (1992); Board of Educ. v. Powell. 498 U.S. 237, 248-250 (1991); Columbus Bd. of Educ. v. Penick. 443 U.S. 449, 461 (1979). See also Milliken v. Bradley. 418 U.S. 717 (1974); Missouri v. Jenkins, 115 S. Ct. 2038, 2048-2049 (1995); Louisiana v. United States. 380 U.S. 145, 154 (1965) (courts have "not merely the power but the duty to render a decree which will so far as possible eliminate the [unconstitutional] effects of the past as well as bar like [unconstitutionality] in the future").

- 24 that this Court rule that the PLRA does not authorize further fact-finding by the district court, or any form of discovery by the plaintiff class, and that this Court order the district court to decide the motion for immediate termination upon the existing record, should be denied.
Ill THE DISTRICT COURT HAS EMPLOYED THE PROPER STANDARD IN MAKING ITS PRELIMINARY RULINGS ON THE MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE TERMINATION
The State argues (Br. 31-36) that the district court erroneously concluded that the Consent Decree in this case creates a constitutional right and thus that violations of the Decree itself are "current or ongoing violation [s] of the Federal right" within the meaning of Section 3626 (b) (3) .ii/ The State's argument mischaracterizes the court's ruling.
The district court's order divides the medical health care provisions of the Decree into three categories. First, for a variety of reasons, the court found twenty provisions of the Decree appropriate for termination if the immediate termination provisions of the PLRA are ultimately determined to be constitutional (R. 822: Opinion at 14-15). The court stated that, if this Court "decides that the PLRA applies to the Consent Decree," it will terminate those provisions because there is no
—' Where a consent decree provision affords relief that goes beyond what is required to remedy a constitutional violation, it would be contrary to the intent of the PLRA for a court to rule that a violation of such a provision constitutes a "current or ongoing violation of the Federal right" for purposes of Section 3626(b)(3). See Plvler v. Moore. 100 F.3d 365, 369 (4th Cir. 1996).

- 25 current violation of a federal right with regard to them (R. 822: Opinion at 8 ) . Conversely, if the PLRA is determined to be unconstitutional, those provisions will not be subject to the court's active supervision "unless * * * conditions revert to a state of serious violation[]" (R. 822: Opinion at 8 ) .
Concerning a second category of provisions, the court found that there was a current or ongoing violation of a federal right. As to those provisions, the court in each instance found a constitutional violation, not simply a violation of the Decree. The court prefaced its findings on the propriety of terminating relief by setting forth the standard for finding an Eighth Amendment violation, noting that "[e]ach of the claims involving medical care invokes the Eighth Amendment" (R. 822: Opinion at 16)- It then proceeded to apply that standard to the provisions of the Decree.
As to Section II.A.3.b., the district court found that "the defendants are currently in violation of both the Consent Decree and the Eighth Amendment with respect to the transfer of inmates," because the "failure to conduct a proper evaluation of an inmate before he is transferred constitutes deliberate indifference by the defendants to the serious risk of harm that is likely to occur" (R. 822: Opinion at 20).
The court also found that "the defendants are in violation of [the] provision of the Consent Decree [concerning access to sick call], and with plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment rights" because the "mishandling of numerous kites [requests for medical care]

- 26 -
rises to the level of a deliberate indifference to prisoners'
needs" (R. 822: Opinion at 24 (emphasis added)). Similarly, the
court found "seriously inadequate supervision [by physicians], as
well as lack of appropriate use of standing orders and protocols,
in relation to decisions about access to sick call, urgent care,
and specialty clinics, which rises to the level of an Eighth
Amendment violation" (R. 822: Opinion at 26-27).
As to the provision of the Decree concerning follow-up care
for inmates with chronic disease (Section II.A.7), the court
found that conditions supporting the constitutional violation it
had identified in 1993 "remain[] the same today" (R. 822:
Opinion at 32). The opinion issued in support of the March 26,
1993 order found
instances of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The indifference occurs because responsible medical staff are not systematically informed about the status of medication compliance when non-compliance could result in serious harm to the prison population and staff. It is deliberate because the lack of systematic information results from an affirmative policy not to systematically monitor compliance with medication orders.
(R. 141: Opinion at 11-12).
The court also found that the defendants' noncompliance with
Section II.A.11 of the Decree regarding maintenance of health
records was a violation of the Eighth Amendment because the "lack
of proper record-keeping and development of treatment plans can
present serious risks to the health and safety of prisoners" (R.
822: Opinion at 34). Finally, the court found that evidence
introduced in a hearing on April 29, 1994, showed that "treatment

- 27 of the frail, disabled, and chronically ill prisoners * * * represent[ed] deliberate indifference to their needs in a way that shocked the conscience" (R. 822: Opinion at 35). The court stated that, on October 25, 1994, it ordered defendants to develop a plan to "assure that prisoners with chronic illnesses and disabilities are identified, that their needs are assessed and accommodated, and that continuity of care is provided" (R, 822: Opinion at 35). The court found that "[i]nasmuch as a constitutional violation has been found, but the remedy has not yet been fully implemented, * * * termination is not yet appropriate" (R. 822: Opinion at 37).—'
Thus, contrary to the State's contention, the court did not base its determinations that any provision of the Decree could be maintained under PLRA standards solely on the basis of a violation of the Decree. In fact, it found violations of two provisions of the Decree that did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation (R. 823: Order at 3 ) . As to Section II.A.6 of the Decree, concerning the provision of "medical and dental prostheses when necessary to meet the serious health needs of any inmate" (E.D. R. 199: Consent Decree at 11), the court found that while "delays in prosthetic care may harm prisoners and prolong the suffering associated with their conditions, the
—; The State disputes whether the court made any finding of constitutional violation in 1994 (Br. 14). Regardless whether it did, however, the court has now found that there is a current constitutional violation that has not been remedied. If that finding is upheld by this Court, it is sufficient to satisfy Section 3626(b)(3) of the PLRA.

- 28 record does not support a finding that there is deliberate indifference to a risk to inmate health or safety" (R. 822: Opinion at 31). The court therefore stated that "in the event that the PLRA is determined to be constitutional, this provision would be terminated" (R. 822: Opinion at 31).
The fact that the court made this distinction demonstrates that it understood that the PLRA requires a finding of violation of a underlying federal right before relief can be maintained under the PLRA. When the district court rules finally on the termination motion, it will first decide whether the PLRA is constitutional. If the court then goes on to apply the PLRA to this Decree, its actions so far demonstrate that it will do so with a proper understanding of its standards.
CONCLUSION The Court should dismiss this appeal.
Respectfully submitted, ISABELLE KATZ PINZLER
Acting Assistant Attorney General
DAVID K. FLYNN MARIE K. McELDERRY
Attorneys Department of Justice P.O. Box 66078 Washington, D.C. 20035-6078 (202) 514-3068

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2548 EVERETT HADIX, et al. ,
Plaintiffs-Appellees v. PERRY JOHNSON, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Intervenor-Appellee

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

INTERVENOR-APPELLEE'S DESIGNATION OF APPENDIX CONTENTS

Intervenor-Appellee United States, pursuant to Sixth Circuit

Rule 11(b), hereby designates the following filings in the

district court's record, in addition to those designated by

appellants, as items to be included in the joint appendix:

DESCRIPTION OF ENTRY

DATE

RECORD ENTRY NO.

Consent Decree ^

May 13, 1985 R. 199 (E.D. Mich.)

Opinion Approving Consent Decree

April 4, 1985 R. 208 (E.D. Mich.)

Order Accepting Consent May 13, 1985 Decree

R. 213 (E.D. Mich.)

1 Defendants-Appellants' designation of the contents of the appendix states that the Consent Decree appears at R. 651. According to the docket entries for the Western District of Michigan in this case, however, R. 651 is not the Consent Decree

- 2-

DESCRIPTION OF ENTRY Order

DATE Dec. 13, 1995

Opinion

Dec, 13, 1995

Defendants' Motion For Immediate Termination Of The Consent Decree Pursuant To The Prison Litigation Reform Act

June 10, 1996

Opinion And Order
Denying A Stay Of The Consent Decree

July 3, 1996

Motion By United States To Intervene With Brief In Support

Sept. 5, 1996

Order Granting Motion To Sept. 6, 1996 Intervene Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. 2403(a)

RECORD ENTRY NO. R. 605 R. 604 R. 715
R. 73 8, 73 9 R. 794
R. 795

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the foregoing Proof Brief For The

United States As Intervenor-Appellee was served by first class

mail, postage prepaid, on the following individuals and counsel

of record:

Susan Przekop-Shaw, Esquire
Assistant Attorney General Corrections Division Plaza One Building 101 South Washington Square Lansing, Michigan 48909

Suite 900

Dr. F. Warren Benton 149 Beach Avenue Larchmont, New York 10538

Elizabeth Alexander, Esquire National Prison Project 1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 410 Washington, DC 20009

Patricia A. Streeter, Esquire One Kennedy Square, 1816 Detroit, Michigan 48226

Michael Barnhart One Kennedy Square, 1420 Detroit, Michigan 48226

Deborah LaBelle 3310 Cadillac Tower Detroit, Michigan 48226

This 20th day of March, 1997.

Marie K. McElderry Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Post Office Box 66078 Washington, D.C. 20035-6078 (202) 514-3068

 
 792 F.Supp. 527 (1992)
Everett HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Perry JOHNSON, et al., Defendants.
No. 80-CV-73581.
United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, S.D.
June 5, 1992.
528 *528 Patricia A. Streeter, Michael J. Barnhart, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiffs.
Thomas C. Nelson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Corrections Div., Lansing, Mich., for defendants.
ORDER OF TRANSFER
FEIKENS, District Judge.
At a hearing held May 1, 1992, I denied, without prejudice, plaintiffs' motion to adopt the mental health orders entered in USA v. Michigan, File No. 1:84:CV:63, Honorable Richard A. Enslen, United States District Judge for the Western District of Michigan. I likewise denied, without prejudice, defendants' motion for this court to relinquish control and supervision of the mental health provisions of the Hadix Consent Decree.[1] Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), I now ORDER that the medical and mental health provisions of the Hadix Consent Decree (Section II), be TRANSFERRED to Judge Enslen for further proceedings as he deems appropriate.
In 1984 the Hadix plaintiffs were granted amicus curiae status in the USA case, and since that time have monitored compliance with the Hadix mental health provisions by their involvement in that case. I find that by tacit understanding the Hadix parties did not pursue the mental health provisions of the Hadix Consent Decree before this court because those issues were being dealt with by Judge Enslen in the USA case. I now find that for the sake of uniformity, and in the hope of attaining finality, Judge Enslen should have jurisdiction over the mental health provisions (Section II.B.) of the Hadix Consent Decree. I also find that the medical health provisions (Section II.A.) of the Hadix Consent Decree are so intertwined with the mental health provisions that all of Section II should be transferred to Judge Enslen.
Section II of the Hadix Consent Decree is entitled "Health Care." Subsection A is entitled "Medical Care," and subsection B is entitled "Mental Health Care." It is important to note that medical care and mental health care both fall under the more general rubric of health care. The two sections are more intertwined than that, however. In the Medical Care subsection, Section II.A.2 provides for the construction of a hospital facility adequate to meet inmates' medical and mental health needs. Section II.A.4.a., which provides for the submission of a plan for access to health care, details that for cases of serious mental illness, the Department of Corrections (Department) will provide immediate access to professional mental health staff. Section II.A.8.b., which provides for the training of Department personnel, requires such training to include recognition of the signs and symptoms of mental illness, mental retardation, and chemical dependency. Section II.A.12.d., discussing quality assurance, provides that mental health audits shall be prepared annually.
In the Mental Health Care subsection, Section II.B.1.c. provides that the subsections on access to health care (II.A.4.), outside alternative care (II.A.5.d.), staffing at the new hospital at SPSM (II.A.5.c.), training (II.A.8.), medication distribution (II. A.10.), records (II.A.11.), and quality assurance (II.A.12.) shall apply to the provision of care for serious mental illness as well.
529 Furthermore, in defendants' tri-annual compliance report, submitted by Barbara *529 Hladki, the Consent Decree Coordinator, defendants' reports on medical services compliance, mental health services compliance, and medical provisions as applied to mental health all appear together in one section of the report. March 11, 1992 tri-

annual compliance report for Hadix v. Johnson. This further reinforces my conclusion that these two areas are best dealt with together.
ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), Section II (Health Care) of the Hadix Consent Decree is hereby TRANSFERRED to Judge Enslen for further proceedings as he deems appropriate. The related law of the case, including general provisions of the Hadix Consent Decree, plans and orders that pertain to jurisdiction, inspection, compliance, monitoring, and enforcement, shall continue to apply to Section II. This action will permit Judge Enslen to conduct combined evidentiary hearings in the Hadix and USA cases, thereby avoiding duplicative proceedings. This order is also consistent with defendants' motion to transfer for purposes of consolidation, filed in August of 1989. All other provisions of the Hadix Consent Decree remain under the jurisdiction of this court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
[1] Adopted by order of this court dated May 13, 1985.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 65 F.3d 532 (1995)
Everett HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
Perry JOHNSON, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 93-2282, 93-2349.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued December 5, 1994. Decided September 18, 1995.
533 *533 Michael Barnhart, Barnhart & Mirer, Detroit, MI, Elizabeth R. Alexander, Chief Staff Counsel (argued and briefed), National Prison Project, Washington, DC, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Susan Przekop-Shaw, Sanna Durk McAra (briefed), Office of the Attorney General, Corrections Division, Lansing, MI, Kim G. Harris (argued), Michigan Department of Attorney General, Corrections Division, Lansing, MI, for defendants-appellants.
Before: NELSON, NORRIS, and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges.
DAVID A. NELSON, Circuit Judge.
This is a prisoner civil rights case in which the defendants challenge fees awarded to the plaintiffs' lawyers for monitoring a consent decree. The plaintiffs retained out-of-town expert counsel, and in calculating the fees such counsel were to receive under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 the district court used hourly rates of $250 for lead counsel and $135 for secondary counsel. Because we conclude that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of showing the necessity of employing out-of-town expert counsel, and because we do not believe that the district court properly took into account the nature of the monitoring work in question, we shall vacate the award and send the case back with instructions to calculate the award for lead counsel under a lower hourly rate.
I
This suit, in which a prisoner named Everett Hadix and others challenged the conditions of their confinement at 534 the State Prison of Southern Michigan, was filed as a class *534 action in 1980. Most of the issues were settled
in 1985 by a consent decree entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
Two Detroit attorneys monitored the defendants' compliance with the mandates of the Hadix decree from 1988 until March of 1993. These attorneys were compensated at a rate of $150 per hour for lead counsel and $135 for associate counsel.
For many years, the Hadix class of inmates monitored the medical and mental health portions of the Hadix decree in their role as amicus curiae in a similar civil rights suit filed by the federal government. After this court substantially limited the amicus role of another group of Michigan inmates (the "Knop class") in United States v. Michigan, 940 F.2d 143 (6th Cir.1991), the role that the Hadix amici had been playing in that case was likewise cut back.[1] Detroit counsel apparently began spending much more time working directly on Hadix issues, and the plaintiffs added two local attorneys to assist with routine monitoring of the Hadix decree.
Portions of the Hadix decree involving medical care, mental health, and access to courts issues were transferred to the Western District of Michigan in June of 1992. Following the transfer the plaintiffs sought out fee petitioner Elizabeth Alexander, of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Prison Project, and asked her to take on the Hadix medical and mental health issues. Ms. Alexander, a nationally recognized expert in federal court institutional litigation, is also counsel of record for the Knop class in its amicus role in United States v. Michigan. She entered an appearance in Hadix and began working on the health care issues in this case.

In April of 1993 a fee application was filed covering 224.8 hours of work for Ms. Alexander at a rate of $300 per hour and 4.3 hours of work for David Fathi (also with the National Prison Project) at a rate of $170 per hour, plus costs and expenses. Over objection by the defendants, the district court awarded fees at a rate of $250 per hour for Ms. Alexander and $135 per hour for Mr. Fathi. The defendants do not dispute that plaintiffs' counsel are entitled to fees by virtue of the consent decree; they challenge only the rates used to calculate the award.
II
The defendants contend that the hourly rates used by the district court were unreasonably high, especially in view of the fact that the rates were applied to monitoring activity for which a fee award was guaranteed under the terms of the consent decree. The defendants suggest that the rate applied to Ms. Alexander's work should not have been $250, but a "Detroit rate" of $150.[2] We agree.
Section 1988 places the award of reasonable attorney fees within the discretion of the court. 42 U.S.C. § 1988; Crabtree v. Collins, 900 F.2d 79, 82 (6th Cir.1990). Because of "the district court's superior understanding of the litigation and the desirability of avoiding frequent appellate review of what essentially are factual matters," an award of attorneys' fees under § 1988 is entitled to substantial deference. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1941, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983); Louisville Black Police Officers Org., Inc. v. City of Louisville, 700 F.2d 268, 274 (6th Cir.1983) ("Louisville BPO"). Accordingly, we review a district court's award of attorney 535 fees, including the fee rate, only for abuse of discretion. Monroe Auto Equipment v. UAW Local *535 878, 981 F.2d 261, 269 (6th Cir.1992), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 2396, 124 L.Ed.2d 298 (1993). The trial court, however, must provide a clear and concise explanation of its reasons for the fee award. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437, 103 S.Ct. at 1941; Louisville BPO, 700 F.2d at 273.
The primary concern in an attorney fee case is that the fee awarded be reasonable. See Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 893, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 1545, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984). A reasonable fee is "one that is `adequate to attract competent counsel, but ... [does] not produce windfalls to attorneys.'" Id. at 897, 104 S.Ct. at 1548 (quoting S.Rep. No. 94-1011, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 6 (1976) U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1976, pp. 5908, 5913). When fees are sought for an out-of-town specialist, courts must determine (1) whether hiring the out-of-town specialist was reasonable in the first instance, and (2) whether the rates sought by the out-of-town specialist are reasonable for an attorney of his or her degree of skill, experience, and reputation. Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal, Inc., 670 F.2d 760, 768-69 (7th Cir.1982); Maceira v. Pagan, 698 F.2d 38, 40 (1st Cir.1983). A corollary of this rule is that judges may question the reasonableness of an out-of-town attorney's billing rate if there is reason to believe that competent counsel was readily available locally at a lower charge or rate. Chrapliwy, 670 F.2d at 769.
In the case at bar we are persuaded that the fee petitioners failed to carry the initial burden of showing that it was necessary to resort to an out-of-town specialist. The record is devoid of any suggestion that local counsel made any attempt to investigate the availability of competent counsel in the local market. The petitioners seek to justify their choice of Ms. Alexander by pointing to her nationally recognized expertise in institutional reform litigation, as well as her familiarity with the case. But Section 1988 does not guarantee civil rights plaintiffs the best counsel in the country; it guarantees them competent counsel. Proof that Ms. Alexander has a national reputation for expertise in this kind of litigation does not constitute proof that her expertise was necessary in this phase of the present litigation.
The case at bar is unlike most complex institutional litigation, where the time commitment and uncertainty of payment often discourage economically rational private attorneys from becoming involved. The predominant reason institutional reform plaintiffs usually have difficulty finding counsel, as the Supreme Court observed in connection with contingent-fee arrangements, is that "in any legal market where the winner's attorney's fees will be paid by the loser ... attorneys [are likely to] view [the] case as too risky (i.e., too unlikely to succeed)." City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557, 564, 112 S.Ct. 2638, 2642, 120 L.Ed.2d 449 (1992).
No such risk is present here. The consent decree that governs this case virtually guarantees fee awards. The case is hardly renowned for a lack of litigiousness, moreover, and it shows few signs of winding down. From counsel's standpoint, Hadix more closely resembles a cash cow than a bottomless pit. It is highly likely that the

guaranteed stream of income this litigation offers would prove a more potent lure for competent counsel than the more ephemeral promise of a fee award at counsel's usual rate in the case of victory 0907 and it is the desire to "achieve the ... goal of mirroring market incentives" that drives the policy underlying the fee-shifting statutes. Dague, 505 U.S. at 563-65, 112 S.Ct. at 2642; see also Student Public Interest Research Group v. AT & T Bell Laboratories, 842 F.2d 1436, 1449 (3d Cir.1988).[3]
Under these circumstances, and without challenging the district court's finding that this case presents unusually complex legal and factual issues, we simply cannot believe that competent counsel capable of handling complex litigation would not have been available locally at a significantly lower rate. See Chrapliwy, 670 F.2d at 769. 536 Hourly rates should not exceed what is necessary *536 to encourage competent lawyers within the relevant community to undertake legal representation. Coulter v. State of Tennessee, 805 F.2d 146, 148-149 (6th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 914, 107 S.Ct. 3186, 96 L.Ed.2d 674 (1987). Accordingly, we believe that the district court abused its discretion in awarding fees to Ms. Alexander at a rate which apparently falls toward the high end of the range of rates charged by partners in large Detroit law firms.
Attorney fees under § 1988 are to be based on market rates for the services rendered. Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 283, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 2469, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989). Ordinarily, courts look to "[rates] prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation." Blum, 465 U.S. at 896 n. 11, 104 S.Ct. at 1547 n. 11; see also American Fed'n of Gov't Employees, AFL-CIO Local 3882 v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 944 F.2d 922, 937 (D.C.Cir.1991) (a reasonable fee equates to a market-rate fee).
The community market rule has the principle virtue of being the easiest way to cope with the "inherently problematic" task of ascertaining a reasonable fee in a situation where "wide variations in skill and reputation render the usual laws of supply and demand largely inapplicable...." Plyler v. Evatt, 902 F.2d 273, 277 (4th Cir.1990), citing Blum, 465 U.S. at 895-96, 104 S.Ct. at 1547-48. Determining the ordinary fee for similar work in the relevant community does not, however, mean that courts must invariably divorce themselves from the case at hand and go through the lengthy calculus of ascertaining the range of rates that private law firms charge locally, estimating whether the public interest work involved is analogous to work that would command ordinary or premium rates, and then determining where the public interest lawyer's experience and reputation would place him within the range. Frequently, there are procedural shortcuts available that help place fee claims in their proper perspective, and keep litigation over fees from becoming 0907 as it has in the case at bar 0907 "a second major litigation." Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437, 103 S.Ct. at 1941.
In the case of private attorneys, for example, where an attorney requesting fees has well-defined billing rates, those rates can be used to help calculate a reasonable rate for a fee award. McDonald v. Armontrout, 860 F.2d 1456, 1459 (8th Cir.1988). As the Third Circuit has noted, normal billing rates usually "provide an efficient and fair short cut for determining the market rate." Gulfstream III Assoc., Inc. v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., 995 F.2d 414, 422 (3d Cir.1993). We believe the case at bar provides an analogous situation. Here, the litigation has been ongoing since 1980, and the monitoring work for a decade. Lead local counsel, Michael Barnhart, has been involved in the case, particularly its mental health issues, since 1983, and is himself a highly experienced public interest attorney whose practice is centered in metropolitan Detroit. The fees he commands 0907 which no one is challenging on appeal 0907 are periodically adjusted upward, presumably in response to changes in the local market. Accordingly, we assume these fees already reflect the ordinary market rate for private attorneys of similar reputation and experience in the community, and are presumptively reasonable. See Blum, 465 U.S. at 895-96, 896 n. 11, 104 S.Ct. at 1547-48, 1547 n. 11. Because local counsel failed to prove that they needed additional counsel more experienced than they, the rates that local counsel presently receive provide an efficient and fair shortcut for determining Michigan's community market rate for this type of litigation.
Consequently, we find that local counsel's present rates 0907 $150 per hour for lead counsel, $135 per hour for associate counsel 0907 accurately establish the prevailing market rate for complex institutional reform litigation. Although the plaintiffs say that as early as 1989 Ms. Alexander was receiving $190 per hour for in-court activities and $150 per hour for out-of-court activities in the related case of Knop v. Johnson, the Knop court specifically rejected an award of median market fees and granted a premium rate for an out-of-town expert. Knop v. Johnson,

537 712 F.Supp. 571, 583 (W.D.Mich.1989). As we have already stated, the plaintiffs failed to *537 establish the need for an out-of-town expert in the instant case.
For the foregoing reasons, we VACATE the award of fees and REMAND the case to the district court for entry of an award not inconsistent with this opinion.
[1] The Hadix class is limited to inmates in the Central Complex of the State Prison for Southern Michigan. The Knop class includes other areas of the State Prison for Southern Michigan, as well as three other Michigan prisons. For some of the procedural history of these lawsuits, see Knop v. Johnson, 977 F.2d 996 (6th Cir.1992), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 1415, 122 L.Ed.2d 786 (1993); United States v. Michigan, 940 F.2d 143 (6th Cir.1991).
[2] In their briefs, the defendants primarily focus on the rates applied to the work of Ms. Alexander. We tailor our comments in the text accordingly. The defendants have not persuaded us that the district court used an unreasonable rate for Mr. Fathi. That rate, $135 per hour, is the same that local associate counsel receive.
[3] Although the parties agree that the reasonable-hours-times-reasonable-hourly-rate method is appropriate in the instant case, we note that in the private sector, law firms are increasingly turning to alternative billing methods, such as flat fee arrangements, which are more cost-predictable. Mike France, Clock's Running on Billable Hours, Nat'l Law J., Dec. 19, 1994, at C1.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 144 F.3d 925 (1998)
Everett HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
Perry M. JOHNSON, et al., Defendants-Appellants (96-1851/1908/1943), United States of America, Intervenor (96-1908/1943). UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
STATE OF MICHIGAN, et al., Defendants-Appellants (96-1907).
Nos. 96-1851, 96-1943, 96-1907 and 96-1908.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued February 4, 1997. Decided May 20, 1998.
926789 *926 *927 *928 *929 Susan Przekop-Shaw (argued and briefed), Michael A. Nickerson (briefed), Office of the Attorney General, Corrections Division, Lansing, MI, for Defendant-Appellant Perry Johnson in No. 96-1851.
Susan Przekop-Shaw (argued and briefed), Leo H. Friedman, Office of the Attorney General, Corrections Division, Lansing, MI, for Defendants-Appellants in Nos. 96-1907 and 96-1908.
Lisa C. Ward, Asst. Atty. Gen., Susan Przekop-Shaw (argued and briefed), Leo H. Friedman, Office of the Attorney General, Corrections Division, Lansing, MI, for Defendant-Appellant Perry Johnson in No. 96-1943.
Patricia A. Streeter (briefed), Detroit, MI, Deborah A. LaBelle (argued and briefed), Law Offices of Deborah LaBelle, Ann Arbor, MI, Michael Barnhart (briefed), Detroit, MI, for Plaintiff-Appellee Everett Hadix in No. 96-1851.
Lisa J Stark, Marie K. McElderry, (argued and briefed), Special Litigation Section, Steven H. Rosenbaum (briefed), U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Patricia A. Streeter (briefed), Detroit, MI, Elizabeth R. Alexander, Chief Staff Counsel (argued and briefed), National Prison Project, Washington, DC, Deborah A. LaBelle (argued and briefed), Law Offices of Deborah LaBelle, Ann Arbor, MI, Michael Barnhart (briefed), Detroit, MI, for Plaintiff-Appellee Everett Hadix in No. 96-1908.
Patricia A. Streeter (briefed), Detroit, MI, Deborah A. LaBelle (argued), Law Offices of Deborah LaBelle, Ann Arbor, MI, Michael Barnhart (briefed), Detroit, MI, for Plaintiff-Appellee Everett Hadix in No. 96-1943.
Marie K. McElderry (argued and briefed), U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for Intervenor.
Before: MARTIN, Chief Judge; NORRIS and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
MOORE, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which MARTIN, C. J., joined. NORRIS, J. (pp. 950-952), delivered a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
OPINION
MOORE, Circuit Judge.
We are called upon in this appeal to perform the delicate task of determining whether Congress unconstitutionally encroached into matters reserved for the Judiciary in enacting the automatic stay provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA" or "Act"), Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-66 (1996), as amended by the

Department of the Judiciary Appropriations Act of 1998, Pub.L. No. 105-119, § 123, 111 Stat. 2440, 2470 (1997). 18 U.S.C. § 3626(e) (as amended in 1997). Under the PLRA, the filing of a motion to terminate a prison 930 conditions consent *930 decree triggers an automatic stay of all prospective relief under the decree on the thirtieth day after the filing of the motion, or the ninetieth day after the filing should the court postpone the effective date of the automatic stay by sixty days for good cause. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(e)(2)-(3) (as amended in 1997). The automatic stay remains effective until the court rules on the termination motion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626 (e)(2).
In these consolidated cases the Michigan Department of Corrections moved to terminate longstanding consent decrees and sought to have prospective relief under the decrees automatically stayed pending resolution of the motions. The district courts invalidated the PLRA automatic stay provision on separation-of-powers and due process grounds. During the pendency of this appeal, Congress enacted Pub.L. No. 105-119, § 123, 111 Stat. 2440, 2470 (1997), which amended the PLRA's automatic stay provision. The prisoners and the Department of Justice argue that under the amended statute Congress implicitly recognizes the inherent power of the courts to suspend the automatic stay in accordance with generally applicable equity standards, an interpretation with which the state officials disagree.
We believe the state officials' construction of the PLRA's automatic stay provision violates the separation-ofpowers doctrine because under their interpretation, the automatic stay amounts to a direct legislative suspension of a judicial order and, alternatively, intrudes impermissibly into the effective functioning of the Judiciary under certain circumstances. In contrast, the reasonable construction espoused by the prisoners and the Department of Justice does not violate separation-of-powers principles. Accordingly, we hold that the PLRA automatic stay provision, as construed to permit the courts to exercise their inherent equitable powers, does not give rise to an unconstitutional incursion by Congress into the powers reserved for the Judiciary. The parties also raise several other issues that we address below, including whether the attorney fees provisions of the PLRA should apply retroactively to pre-enactment conduct.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 1980, Everett Hadix and other prisoners incarcerated at the State Prison of Southern Michigan, Central Complex ("SPSMCC") brought a class action suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against various state officials charged with the operation of SPSM-CC. The inmates asserted that their conditions of confinement violated their rights under the First, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Five years later, the parties entered into a comprehensive consent decree covering most aspects of prison life, including medical and mental health care; fire safety; sanitation; safety and hygiene; overcrowding and protection from harm; volunteers; food service; management; operations; access to courts; and mail. The Hadix consent decree specifically excluded from the decree issues concerning classification[1]; due process; visitation; and access to courts as it relates to the provision of attorneys. See Joint Appendix (J.A.) # 96-1943 at 109-58. Though the state officials admitted no liability on the inmates' claims, the decree explicitly stated that it was "intended by the parties to assure the constitutionality of the conditions under which prisoners are incarcerated at SPSMCC." J.A. # 96-1943 at 109. Under the decree's terms, the state officials could apply for termination of the decree when they were in compliance with all decree provisions. See J.A. # 96-1943 at 145. U.S. District Judge John Feikens approved the decree, ruling that it was both fair and reasonable. He has since issued several orders implementing the Hadix decree, several of which have been the subject of appeals to this court.[2]
931 *931 In 1982, the United States Department of Justice[3] began an investigation of conditions in certain Michigan prisons pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act of 1980 ("CRIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997, et seq. Two years later, after extensive investigation and negotiation with Michigan officials, the Justice Department filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan against the State of Michigan and various Michigan officials alleging that conditions in five Michigan prisons (SPSMCC, State Prison of Southern Michigan Trusty, Charles Egeler Facility, Marquette Branch Prison, and Michigan Reformatory) violated the constitutional rights of the prisoners confined therein. The issues were never adjudicated; simultaneously with the

filing of the complaint, the United States tendered a proposed consent decree and a "State Plan for Compliance." The United States agreed that implementation of the State Plan for Compliance would be adequate to bring the defendants into full compliance with the consent decree. U.S. District Judge Richard A. Enslen approved a revised version of the tendered decree that covered medical and mental health care; fire safety; sanitation; safety and hygiene; crowding and protection from harm; access to courts; and legal mail. See United States v. Michigan, 680 F.Supp. 928, 955 (W.D.Mich.1987); J.A. # 96-1907 at 181-92.
In the interest of uniformity, the medical and mental health care components of the Hadix decree were transferred in 1992 and 1993 from Judge Feikens in the Eastern District to Judge Enslen in the Western District. Judge Enslen has entered several orders implementing the USA decree and his portion of the Hadix decree.
In April 1996, Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-66 (1996), amending 18 U.S.C. § 3626. Enacted in part in response to criticisms that federal courts had overstepped their supervisory authority in prison conditions cases, the PLRA was specifically intended to limit the use of court-enforced consent decrees and to restrict "the ability of Federal judges to affect the capacity and conditions of prisons and jails beyond what is required by the Constitution and Federal law." See H.R.REP. No. 104-21, at 21 (1995). Section 802(a)(1) of the Act directs that prospective relief in prison conditions cases "shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1). Correspondingly, § 802(b)(2) of the Act entitles the defendant "to the immediate termination of any prospective relief if the relief was approved or granted in the absence of a finding by the court that the relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2). Such prospective relief, however, "shall not terminate if the court makes written findings based on the record that prospective relief remains necessary[, narrowly drawn, and the least intrusive means] to correct a current and ongoing violation of the Federal right." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3) (as amended in 1997).
On the basis of their new-found rights under the PLRA, the defendants moved to terminate the Hadix and USA decrees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2). The defendants sought to take advantage of a provision in the PLRA that at the time of their motion instituted an automatic stay of prospective relief thirty days after the filing of a such a motion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(e)(2) (1996), amended by Pub.L. No. 105-119, § 123, 111 Stat. 2440, 2470 932 (1997).[4] The defendants asserted that on the thirtieth day after the *932 filing of their termination motions, unless the court had made the findings required by § 3626(b)(3) during that period, all prospective relief under the decree would be automatically stayed pending the courts' rulings on the motions.
The district courts refused to allow the automatic stay to take effect in these cases, ruling that the automatic stay provision violated the separation-of-powers doctrine and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See Hadix v. Johnson, 933 F.Supp. 1360 (E.D.Mich.1996); Hadix v. Johnson, 933 F.Supp. 1362 (W.D.Mich.1996). Following the rulings, the defendants unsuccessfully moved in this court for emergency stays and mandamus relief to block the district courts from holding evidentiary hearings on the termination motions.
After this case was submitted to this court on appeal, Congress enacted Pub.L. 105-119, § 123, 111 Stat. 2440, 2470 (1997), which amended the PLRA's automatic stay provision. Whereas prior to the amendments the automatic stay provision instituted an automatic stay of all prospective relief on the thirtieth day after the filing of a motion to terminate such relief, the amended provision additionally permits a court to "postpone the effective date of an automatic stay ... for not more than 60 days for good cause." § 123(a)(3)(c), 111 Stat. at 2470, amending 18 U.S.C. § 3626(e). Good cause does not include "general congestion of the court's calendar." Id. Although the amended provision enables a court to extend for good cause the effective date of the automatic stay by sixty days, it still provides that a courtenforced consent decree will be automatically stayed if the court fails to make the findings required by § 3626(b)(3) within the prescribed time period. Congress also added a subsection providing for interlocutory appeal of "[a]ny order staying, suspending, delaying, or barring the operation of the automatic stay," other than an order postponing the stay for up to sixty days pursuant to § 3626(e)(3).[5] § 123(a)(4), 111 Stat. at 2470, amending 18 U.S.C. § 3626(e).
Subsequent to the congressional amendments to the PLRA automatic stay provision, the prisoners suggested that these appeals were now moot. We asked the parties to provide supplemental briefing discussing the effect of

the amendments on these cases, specifically addressing the retroactive application of the amended statute, the authority the amended provision grants to a district court, the prisoners' claim of mootness, and whether the amendments affect the constitutionality of the automatic stay provision.
II. PRELIMINARY ISSUES
The primary issue now before us is whether the automatic stay provision of the PLRA is constitutional. The plaintiffs, however, raise preliminary issues that must be addressed.
A. Jurisdiction
As an initial matter, the plaintiffs claim that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the denial of a stay is not 933 an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1),[6] nor an appealable order *933 under the
collateral order exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.[7] The recent amendments to the PLRA's automatic stay provision provide that "[a]ny order staying, suspending, delaying, or barring the operation of the automatic stay ... shall be treated as an order refusing to dissolve or modify an injunction and shall be appealable pursuant to section 1292 (a)(1) of title 28, United States Code, regardless of how the order is styled or whether the order is termed a preliminary or a final ruling." Pub.L. No. 105-119, § 123(a)(c)(3), 111 Stat. 2440, 2470 (1997). A court must "apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision," Bradley v. Richmond Sch. Bd., 416 U.S. 696, 711, 94 S.Ct. 2006, 40 L.Ed.2d 476 (1974), unless doing so affects "substantive rights, liabilities, or duties [pertaining] to conduct arising before their enactment." Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 278, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994). Application of a new statute giving jurisdiction to the courts "takes away no substantive right," Hallowell v. Commons, 239 U.S. 506, 508, 36 S.Ct. 202, 60 L.Ed. 409 (1916) (quoted in Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 274, 114 S.Ct. 1483), but simply "speak[s] to the power of the court rather than to the rights or obligations of the parties." Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 274, 114 S.Ct. 1483 (quotation omitted); see also Figueroa-Rubio v. INS, 108 F.3d 110, 112 (6th Cir.1997) (concluding that statute regulating courts' jurisdiction affected power of courts rather than substantive rights of parties).
We therefore conclude that the recent amendments to the PLRA explicitly vest this court with the power to review a district court order barring the operation of the automatic stay prior to the termination of the underlying litigation, thereby providing a specific statutory authorization for immediate appellate review. We need not decide whether the collateral order doctrine affords an additional basis for immediate appellate review.
B. Mootness
During the pendency of this appeal, Congress enacted Pub.L. No. 105-119, § 123, 111 Stat. 2440, 2470 (1997), amending § 802(e) of the PLRA. The prisoners assert that these amendments to the PLRA's automatic stay provision render this case moot. See Pls.-Appellees' Mem. in Supp. of Suggestion of Mootness. We disagree.
The case or controversy requirement continues through all stages of the litigation. See Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477, 110 S.Ct. 1249, 108 L.Ed.2d 400 (1990). To sustain our appellate jurisdiction, "it is not enough that a dispute was very much alive when suit was filed[;][t]he parties must continue to have a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit." Id. at 477-78, 110 S.Ct. 1249 (quotation omitted). "[A] controversy does not cease to exist by mere virtue of a change in the applicable law." Public Serv. Co. of Col. v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, 30 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir.1994). As the Supreme Court recognized in Northeastern Fla. Chapter of Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656, 113 S.Ct. 2297, 124 L.Ed.2d 586 (1993), where the new statute is substantially similar to the old statute and operates in "the same fundamental way," the statutory change has not "sufficiently altered [the circumstances] so as to present a substantially different controversy," and the case is not moot. Id. at 662 & n. 3, 113 S.Ct. 2297; see also Rosenstiel v. Rodriguez, 101 F.3d 1544, 1548 (8th Cir.1996), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 1820, 137 L.Ed.2d 1028 (1997). In other words, where the changes in the law arguably do not remove the harm or threatened harm

underlying the dispute, "the case remains alive and suitable for judicial determination." Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, 30 F.3d at 1205.
We conclude that the controversy in this case is not moot for two reasons. First, the parties dispute whether the PLRA's automatic stay provision as amended preserves the courts' traditional equity powers. The state officials contend that the statute displaces the courts' inherent powers in equity, whereas the prisoners, as well as the 934 Justice *934 Department, argue that § 4 of the automatic stay provision implicitly recognizes and preserves the courts' power to stay the automatic stay in accordance with equitable principles.
Second, under the statutory construction advocated by the state officials, the objectionable aspects of the automatic stay provision remain. Under the prior version of § 3626(e)(2), all prospective relief under the challenged consent decrees would be automatically stayed on the thirtieth day after the filing of a motion to terminate the decrees under § 3626(b)(3) pending the courts' rulings on the motion. Before the expiration of the thirty-day automatic-stay safety period, both district judges entered orders finding the PLRA's automatic stay provision constitutionally flawed under separation-of-powers and due process principles.[8]See Hadix v. Johnson, 933 F.Supp. 1360 (E.D.Mich. 1996) (Feikens, J.) (hereinafter "Hadix I"); Hadix v. Johnson, 933 F.Supp. 1362 (W.D.Mich.1996) (Enslen, J.) (hereinafter "Hadix II"). Both judges concluded that the consent decrees and associated orders affording prospective relief were "final judgments" protected from congressional interference under the holding of Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 115 S.Ct. 1447, 131 L.Ed.2d 328 (1995). See Hadix I, 933 F.Supp. at 1361; Hadix II, 933 F.Supp. at 1367. In light of the finality of the decrees and orders, the district judges also found that the automatic stay abrogated vested property rights without affording due process. See Hadix II, 933 F.Supp. at 1369; Hadix I, 933 F.Supp. at 1361-62 (concurring with Hadix II). Moreover, the district judges believed that the automatic stay mandated the outcome of a pending case in an attempt by Congress to alter constitutional rights. See Hadix II, 933 F.Supp. at 1366-67; Hadix I, 933 F.Supp. at 1361-62 (concurring with Hadix II). If the PLRA as amended simply allows the courts to postpone by sixty days for good cause the effective date of the automatic stay without preserving the courts' equitable powers, see 18 U.S.C. § 3626(e)(3)-(4) (as amended in 1997), the amendments do not cure these objections, and the controversy between the parties regarding the constitutionality of such legislation continues in full force. Accordingly, we hold that the case is not moot.[9]
Where a change in law does not extinguish the controversy, the preferred procedure is for the court of appeals to remand the case to the district court for reconsideration of the case under the amended law. See Concerned Citizens of Vicksburg v. Sills, 567 F.2d 646, 650 (5th Cir.1978); Korn v. Franchard Corp., 456 F.2d 1206, 1208 (2d Cir.1972); cf. Faries v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 909 F.2d 170, 173 (6th Cir.1990) 935 (holding that where the administrative law judge or Benefits Review Board erred by applying an incorrect *935 legal standard, remand of the case is normally appropriate for development of additional evidence pertinent to new standard). We normally pursue this course of action so that "`the district court [may have] an opportunity to pass [judgment] on the changed circumstances,'" Concerned Citizens of Vicksburg, 567 F.2d at 650 (quoting Korn, 456 F.2d at 1208), and so that we may be aided in our appellate review by the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this case, however, we see little to be gained from further delaying this litigation so that the district court may reconsider the constitutionality of the automatic stay provision as now amended. The prisoners challenge the validity of the PLRA's automatic stay provision on its face, and as such their challenge raises purely legal issues. Consequently, because this case does not necessitate any findings of fact, the district judges' expertise in evaluating factual matters cannot advance our appellate review of this action. Rather than further delay this case by remanding to the district court, we choose to reach the merits of this case in the interest of judicial economy. Cf. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1173 & n. 3 (6th Cir.1983) (choosing to reach the merits "in the interest of judicial economy" rather than remand where the district court failed to reach the merits because it erroneously held that it lacked jurisdiction, and where the case was submitted on the law and neither side argued that further fact-finding was necessary to decide the issues presented), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1100, 104 S.Ct. 1595, 80 L.Ed.2d 127 (1984); Rosenstiel, 101 F.3d at 1549-57 (reviewing constitutionality of amended campaign finance law without remanding to district court where amendment simply changed the mechanics of the expenditure limitation waiver and appellants assailed the validity of the amended law on primarily the same grounds); Probert v. INS, 954 F.2d 1253, 1255 (6th Cir.1992)

(interpreting statute amended while on appeal). We now turn to the constitutionality of the PLRA's automatic stay provision as amended.
III. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE PLRA AUTOMATIC STAY PROVISION
Section 802 of the PLRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3626, as amended by Pub.L. No. 105-119, § 123, 111 Stat. 2440, 2470 (1997), imposes standards for the entry and termination of prospective relief in civil actions concerning conditions in prisons, designed to ensure that relief in prison reform cases would be narrowly tailored to cure actual violations of federal rights. See H.R.REP. No. 104-21, 24 n.2 (1995). The Act defines "prospective relief" to include all relief, other than compensatory monetary damages, "in any form that may be granted or approved by the court, and includes consent decrees but does not include private settlement agreements." 18 U.S.C. § 3626 (g)(7), (9). For prospective relief entered after the passage of the PLRA, § 802 provides for periodic review to determine whether the prescribed relief remains necessary and narrowly drawn to remedy violations of federal rights. For relief entered before the PLRA's effective date, April 26, 1996, § 802 requires that only prospective relief that comports with present legal standards should continue. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2). Congress stated explicitly that § 802 of the PLRA "shall apply with respect to all prospective relief whether such relief was originally granted or approved before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this title." See 18 U.S.C. § 3626 note (Effective Date of 1996 Amendments). Congress also directed that the 1997 amendments to § 802 of the PLRA "shall take effect upon the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to pending cases." Pub.L. No. 105-119, § 123(b), 111 Stat. 2440, 2471 (1997). Congress included a severability provision that preserves the remainder of the PLRA should any portion be deemed unconstitutional. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626 note (Severability of Provisions).[10]
936 *936 The filing of a motion to terminate a consent decree under the PLRA triggers an automatic stay of all prospective relief under the decree on the thirtieth day after the motion's filing, or upon the ninetieth day after the motion's filing should the court postpone the automatic stay's effective date by sixty days for good cause, pending a final ruling on the motion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(e)(2)-(3) (as amended in 1997). The parties dispute whether the statute, as amended, permits the courts to invoke their equitable authority and suspend the automatic stay.
The prisoners and the Justice Department argue that the PLRA as amended implicitly recognizes the lower courts' discretionary power to stay the automatic stay in accordance with principles of equity. Where courts improperly exercise power they do not possess or fail to take required action, the appropriate recourse for the aggrieved party is to petition the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus, not interlocutory appellate review. See La Buy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249, 257, 77 S.Ct. 309, 1 L.Ed.2d 290 (1957). For example, Congress amended § 3626(e)(1) to provide for mandamus where the district court fails "to issue a prompt ruling" on a motion to terminate or modify a consent degree brought under § 3626(b), 18 U.S.C. § 3626(e)(1) (as amended in 1997), in order "to make clear that mandamus relief is available to compel the court to issue a ruling on a pending motion." H.R. CONF. REP. 105-405, at ___ (1997), reprinted in 143 CONG. REC. H10845 (November 13, 1997). Rather than provide for a writ of mandamus to remedy "[a]ny order staying, suspending, delaying, or barring the operation of the automatic stay," other than an order postponing the automatic stay pursuant to § 3626(e)(3), Congress enacted § 3626(e)(4), which provides for interlocutory appeal of such orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(e)(4) (as amended in 1997). The prisoners and the Justice Department logically argue that Congress would have no need to provide for expedited review of orders suspending the automatic stay if the courts did not have the power to issue such orders. In other words, had Congress intended to bar the courts from issuing orders suspending operation of the automatic stay, Congress would have explicitly stated as much and would have provided the remedy of mandamus rather than for appellate review of such orders.
Disagreeing with this interpretation, the state prison officials contend that the automatic stay provision as amended does not authorize any court to postpone the effective date of the automatic stay by more than sixty days, and that in adding § 4 Congress merely established appellate jurisdiction over district court orders suspending the automatic stay. Noting that prior to the 1997 amendment, the prisoners in this case argued on appeal that the district courts' initial orders suspending the automatic stay were not appealable interlocutory

orders and that we therefore lacked jurisdiction over this appeal, the state officials suggest that Congress enacted § 4 in order to put to rest the prisoners' jurisdictional challenge.
In resolving this conundrum as to the proper interpretation of the PLRA automatic stay provision, we rely on two rules of statutory construction. First, we will not interpret a statute as limiting the equitable jurisdiction of federal courts absent a clear command from Congress to the contrary. See Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 705, 99 S.Ct. 2545, 61 L.Ed.2d 176 (1979); see also Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U.S. 395, 398, 66 S.Ct. 1086, 90 L.Ed. 1332 (1946). Because our review of the amended statute and its accompanying legislative history fails to reveal a clear congressional intent to displace the equitable powers of the federal courts, we must construe the 937 PLRA automatic stay provision as *937 preserving the courts' inherent power to suspend the automatic stay. Second, "where an otherwise acceptable construction of a statute would raise serious constitutional problems, the [courts] will construe the statute to avoid such problems unless such construction is plainly contrary to the intent of Congress." Concrete Pipe and Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 628-29, 113 S.Ct. 2264, 124 L.Ed.2d 539 (1993) (quoting Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568, 575, 108 S.Ct. 1392, 99 L.Ed.2d 645 (1988)); see also Lynch v. Overholser, 369 U.S. 705, 711, 82 S.Ct. 1063, 8 L.Ed.2d 211 (1962) ("[A] statute should be interpreted, if fairly possible, in such a way as to free it from not insubstantial constitutional doubts."). For the reasons explained below, we believe the statutory construction advanced by the state prison officials constitutes an unconstitutional incursion by Congress into the powers reserved for the Judiciary, whereas the alternative construction put forward by the prisoners and the Justice Department avoids such constitutional infirmities. Because "[f]ederal statutes are to be so construed as to avoid serious doubt of their constitutionality," International Ass'n of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 749, 81 S.Ct. 1784, 6 L.Ed.2d 1141 (1961), we agree with the prisoners' and Justice Department's construction of the PLRA's automatic stay provision and hold that the courts retain the power to suspend the automatic stay in accordance with general equitable principles. Given this construction, the amended automatic stay provision is constitutional.
A. Displacement of Courts' Inherent Powers
Certain inherent powers of the courts are said to be "rooted in the notion that a federal court, sitting in equity, possesses all of the common law equity tools of a Chancery Court ... to process litigation to a just and equitable conclusion." ITT Community Dev. Corp. v. Barton, 569 F.2d 1351, 1359 (5th Cir.1978). Included among the courts' traditional inherent powers is the authority to issue injunctive relief, such as the power to stay court orders. This authority derives not only from the power of the Judiciary to manage its affairs, see Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (explaining that the courts' inherent powers are governed "by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases" (quotation omitted)); cf. Clinton v. Jones, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 1636, 1650, 137 L.Ed.2d 945 (1997) (underscoring a district court's broad discretion "to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket"), but also furthers the pursuit of achieving complete justice by enabling the court to suspend those judgments whose enforcement leads to inequitable results. Cf. Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 233-34, 115 S.Ct. 1447, 131 L.Ed.2d 328 (explaining that Rule 60(b) "merely reflects and confirms the courts' own inherent and discretionary power, `firmly established in English practice long before the foundation of our Republic,' to set aside a judgment whose enforcement would work inequity") (quoting HazelAtlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 244, 64 S.Ct. 997, 88 L.Ed. 1250 (1944)); Chambers, 501 U.S. at 44, 111 S.Ct. 2123 (stating that the historic power of equity allows a federal court to vacate its own judgment where induced by fraud). Although "the exercise of the inherent power of lower federal courts can be limited by statute and rule, for [t]hese courts were created by act of Congress," Chambers, 501 U.S. at 47, 111 S.Ct. 2123 (quotation omitted) (alteration in original), "the comprehensiveness of this equitable jurisdiction is not to be denied or limited in the absence of a clear and valid legislative command." Porter, 328 U.S. at 398, 66 S.Ct. 1086; see also Califano, 442 U.S. at 705, 99 S.Ct. 2545 ("Absent the clearest command to the contrary from Congress, federal courts retain their equitable power to issue injunctions in suits over which they have jurisdiction."). We require Congress to make plain its desire to limit the courts' inherent powers because "`[t]he great principles of equity, securing complete justice, should not be yielded to light inferences, or doubtful construction.'" Porter, 328 U.S. at 398, 66 S.Ct. 1086 (quotation omitted).
938

*938 We do not think the language of the PLRA automatic stay provision or the statute's legislative history compels a departure from the courts' inherent power to stay judicial orders in order to achieve equity. As explained previously, the prisoners' and the Justice Department's statutory construction is based on the logical assumption that Congress would not have provided in § 3626(e)(4) for expedited review of orders suspending the automatic stay if the courts did not have the authority to issue such orders. Moreover, the legislative history does not reveal a clear congressional command limiting the courts' inherent powers. Although the Conference Report accompanying the 1997 bill amending the automatic stay provision explains that Congress wished "to make clear that mandamus relief is available to compel the court to issue a ruling on a pending motion [to terminate or modify the consent decree] and to provide the courts additional time (60 days) to rule on motions to terminate before the automatic stay takes effect," the report is silent as to the legislative intent behind § 4. See H.R. CONF. REP. No. 105-405 (1997). Nor does the report indicate whether Congress sought to eliminate all judicial discretion over the operation of the automatic stay.[11] Accordingly, we must resolve the ambiguities surrounding the automatic stay provision in favor of the interpretation which preserves the courts' ability to consider proceedings brought under the PLRA termination provisions in accordance with traditional equitable practices. Cf. Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321, 330, 64 S.Ct. 587, 88 L.Ed. 754 (1944) (resolving the ambiguities of § 205(a) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, 50 U.S.C.App. § 925(a) (1944), "in favor of that interpretation which affords a full opportunity for equity courts to treat enforcement proceedings under this emergency legislation in accordance with their traditional practices"). We therefore accept the statutory construction advanced by the prisoners and the Department of Justice.
B. Constitutional Considerations: Separation-of-Powers Doctrine
We are committed to interpreting the PLRA automatic stay provision not only as preserving the courts' inherent powers absent clear congressional command to the contrary, but also in a manner that renders the statute constitutionally valid. See Communications Workers of Am. v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735, 762, 108 S.Ct. 2641, 101 L.Ed.2d 634 (1988); see also Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Soc'y, 503 U.S. 429, 441, 112 S.Ct. 1407, 118 L.Ed.2d 73 (1992). We thus must confront the fundamental question of whether the state prison officials' construction of the statute raises serious constitutional problems, specifically, under that view whether the statute constitutes an unconstitutional incursion by Congress into powers reserved to the Judiciary. We conclude that the state officials' construction of the PLRA automatic stay provision violates the separation-of-powers doctrine. Because the prisoners' and the Justice Department's construction of the provision avoids the serious constitutional problems posed by the state officials' statutory construction, it is incumbent upon us to interpret the PLRA automatic stay provision as preserving the court's inherent authority to suspend the automatic stay in accordance with general equitable principles.
The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law, reviewable de novo. See United States v. Brown, 25 F.3d 939 307, 308 (6th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1045, 115 *939 S.Ct. 640, 130 L.Ed.2d 546 (1994). Our analysis
begins with a general presumption favoring the constitutionality of an act of Congress. See Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 64, 101 S.Ct. 2646, 69 L.Ed.2d 478 (1981); United States v. Five Gambling Devices, 346 U.S. 441, 449, 74 S.Ct. 190, 98 L.Ed. 179 (1953); Fairbank v. United States, 181 U.S. 283, 21 S.Ct. 648, 45 L.Ed. 862 (1901). Bearing this presumption in mind, we turn to the challenges to the constitutionality of the automatic stay provision of the PLRA as construed by the state prison officials.
1. State Officials' Interpretation 0907 Displacement of Courts' Equitable Powers
Under the state officials' construction of the PLRA automatic stay provision, the federal courts do not retain the authority in equity to suspend the automatic stay beyond sixty days as provided in § 3626(e)(3). The prisoners argue that 18 U.S.C. § 3626(e)(2), as amended, violates the separation-ofpowers doctrine by unconstitutionally prescribing a rule of decision without changing the underlying substantive law. See United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128, 20 L.Ed. 519 (1871).[12] Prior to the enactment of the 1997 amendments, the Department of Justice identified two other aspects of the operation of the automatic stay which affect the balance of power

between the Legislature and the Judiciary 0907 that the PLRA automatic stay directly suspends existing court orders, and places mandatory time restrictions on judicial decisionmaking which preclude the effective functioning of the Judiciary. The amendment of the PLRA automatic stay provision to permit the courts to postpone the effective date of the automatic stay for up to sixty days does not dispel these concerns.
Although we do not believe that the state officials' construction of § 3626(e)(2), as amended, prescribes a rule of decision, we conclude that under the state officials' interpretation the automatic stay provision violates the separation-of-powers doctrine because it amounts to a direct legislative suspension of a judicial order. Alternatively, under certain circumstances, the automatic stay as construed by the state officials impermissibly intrudes into the effective functioning of the Judiciary. We therefore conclude that the automatic stay as interpreted by the state officials results in an unconstitutional incursion by Congress into the powers reserved for the Judiciary, and we decline to adopt that interpretation of the automatic stay provision.
a. Prescribing a Rule of Decision:
The inmates insist that through the PLRA's automatic stay provision, as construed by the state officials, Congress prescribed a rule of decision in a pending judicial case without changing the underlying law in contravention of United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128, 20 L.Ed. 519 (1871). In Klein, the Supreme Court held that legislation dictating that acceptance of a presidential pardon constituted conclusive evidence of a person's disloyalty to the United States and directing the Court to dismiss actions pending on appeal in which property had been recovered based on a pardon was impermissibly "founded solely on the application of a rule of decision, in causes pending, prescribed by Congress." Id. at 146. Although Congress remains free to amend governing law and thereby affect the outcome of pending cases, see Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Soc'y, 503 U.S. 429, 438, 940 112 S.Ct. 1407, 118 L.Ed.2d 73 (1992) (upholding statute against *940 separation-of-powers challenge where new statute "compelled changes in law, not findings or results under old law"), the Legislature may not impose a rule of decision for pending judicial cases without changing the applicable law. Ultimately, the Judiciary must remain free to "say what the law is" in any given case or controversy. See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803).
By contrast, the PLRA automatic stay provision does not mandate a rule of decision. The automatic stay will not take effect if the court within the prescribed time period finds that the relief is no greater than that necessary to correct a current or ongoing violation of a federal right. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(e)(2)-(3) (as amended in 1997). Although Congress has specified that certain timely findings are necessary to override the stay, the legislation does not direct any particular evidentiary findings nor dictate a result in a specific case. Courts are not restrained from giving "the effect to evidence which, in its own judgment, such evidence should have." Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) at 147. Aside from its self-executing feature and its stringent time constraints, the interpretation and application of law to fact and the ultimate resolution of prison conditions cases at all times remains with the Judiciary. See Gavin, 122 F.3d at 1089 ("The PLRA leaves the judging to judges."); cf. Hadix v. Johnson, 133 F.3d 940, 943 (6th Cir.1998) ("[T]he termination provision ... does not dictate the result a court must reach in determining whether relief is warranted. The interpretation and application of law to fact and the ultimate resolution of prison condition cases remain at all times with the judiciary.") The PLRA automatic stay therefore technically withstands a separation-of-powers challenge based on Klein.
b. Direct Legislative Suspension of Court Order:
That the automatic stay provision does not manifestly prescribe a rule of decision in a pending case does not end our separation-of-powers inquiry. We also must closely examine the operation of the automatic stay provision, as construed by the state officials, in terms of the respective roles of Congress and the Judiciary in the suspension of existing court orders. We conclude that under the state officials' statutory construction the automatic stay provision is tantamount to direct legislative suspension of an existing court order, and we decline to embrace the state officials' construction of the statute because of this constitutional infirmity.
As has often been expressed, "the central judgment of the Framers of the Constitution [was] that, within our political scheme, the separation of governmental powers into three coordinate Branches is essential to the

preservation of liberty." Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 380, 109 S.Ct. 647, 102 L.Ed.2d 714 (1989). The Framers intended that, as nearly as possible, each branch of government should confine itself to its assigned powers, and "that the powers properly belonging to one of the departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments," THE FEDERALIST No. 48, at 146 (James Madison) (Roy Fairfield 2d ed., 1981) (emphasis added); see also INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 951, 103 S.Ct. 2764, 77 L.Ed.2d 317 (1983). Thus, "each of the three general departments of government [must remain] entirely free from the control or coercive influence, direct or indirect, of either of the others." Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602, 629, 55 S.Ct. 869, 79 L.Ed. 1611 (1935) (quoted in Mistretta, 488 U.S. at 380, 109 S.Ct. 647) (alteration in Mistretta). Actions of one branch which undertake directly a role reserved exclusively to another branch disrupt this constitutional balance of power.
The constitutional principle drawn from Hayburn's Case, 2 Dall. 409 (1792), as articulated in Plaut, is "that Congress cannot vest review of the decisions of Article III courts in officials of the Executive Branch." Plaut, 514 U.S. at 218, 115 S.Ct. 1447. We make no impermissible leap to suggest that this principle carries weight as well in a legislative suspension of a judicial order. Review of decisions of Article III courts, whether final judgments or orders implementing consent decrees, must be confined within the judicial branch. Because the suspension of a judicial order is a judicial act not to be undertaken directly by the Legislature, the Judiciary must play some role in 941 the suspension of its *941 own orders. Automatic legislative suspension of existing and presumptively valid judicial decrees violates this principle.
The PLRA automatic stay provision, as construed by the state officials, runs afoul of the separation of constitutional powers because it makes the stay self-executing, taking effect without judicial action.[13] Under the state officials' interpretation, courts may not postpone the effective date of the stay beyond sixty days, and the sixty-day extension is limited to situations involving good cause (not including "general congestion of the court's calendar"). See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(e)(3) (as amended in 1997). Should the court fail to enter a final order ruling on the motion to modify or terminate prospective relief before the expiration of the sixty-day postponement, the automatic stay takes effect without judicial action. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(e)(2) (as amended in 1997). Thus, under the state officials' statutory construction, even if the court postpones the effective date of the automatic stay by the full sixty days allowed, on the ninety-first day after filing its motion, the state officials could simply refuse to comply with existing court orders implementing the consent decrees because the state could claim that pursuant to a congressional mandate those orders "automatically" have no force. Thus, if we applied the statute in the manner urged by the state officials, the "practical consequences" of the PLRA automatic stay would result, quite simply, in a temporary legislative veto over court-ordered relief in an ongoing case before the court. Such direct legislative suspension of orders of Article III courts simply cannot be harmonized with our tripartite system of governance.
It is of course true that at any time Congress can alter the outcome of pending cases, or those involving ongoing supervisory court jurisdiction, by changing the substantive law that courts use in rendering decisions. Cf. Plaut, 514 U.S. at 226, 115 S.Ct. 1447 ("Congress can always revise the judgments of Article III courts in one sense: When a new law makes clear that it is retroactive" and thus is applied in pending cases). When that happens, however, the new law must still be applied in the particular case. The litigating parties are not entitled to act simply on Congress's command; they must go back to the court that issued the order to have the new law applied to their situation. Were Congress able to stay judicial orders directly, then any party subjected to a continuing court order might be able to bypass the issuing and reviewing courts entirely. The PLRA automatic stay, as construed by the state prison officials, impermissibly circumvents the judicial process.
The defendants argue that legislative authority to enact an automatic stay of judicial proceedings has long been established, as evidenced by the time-honored automatic stay in the bankruptcy arena. Upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition, § 362(a) of Title 11 requires a stay of civil litigation against a debtor unless the bankruptcy court determines otherwise. In upholding the constitutionality of this bankruptcy automatic stay, the Supreme Court explained that although "[i]t is generally true that a judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction bears a presumption of regularity and is not thereafter subject to collateral attack," Congress, pursuant to its plenary constitutional power over bankruptcy, see U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 4, "may by specific bankruptcy legislation create an exception to that principle and render judicial acts taken with respect to the person or property of a debtor whom the bankruptcy law protects nullities and vulnerable collaterally." Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U.S. 433,

438-39, 60 S.Ct. 343, 84 L.Ed. 370 (1940) (footnotes omitted). Thus, under the exclusive constitutional grant of power to Congress to regulate bankruptcy, "Congress can limit the jurisdiction which courts, State or Federal, can exercise over the person and property of a debtor who duly invokes the bankruptcy law." Id. at 439, 60 S.Ct. 343. In contrast, once Congress establishes jurisdiction of the lower federal courts in an area outside Congress's 942 enumerated Article I plenary powers, "the courts are vested with judicial powers pursuant to Article III." *942 Eash v. Riggins Trucking Inc., 757 F.2d 557, 562 (3d Cir.1985) (en banc). Having conferred jurisdiction upon the lower courts in this area, the Legislature cannot then displace the courts and itself exercise judicial power, save through impeachment. See Gary Lawson & Christopher D. Moore, The Executive Power of Constitutional Interpretation, 81 IOWA L.REV. 1267, 1317 (1996) ("[N]o decision of any court of the United States can, under any circumstances ... agreeable to the constitution, be liable to a revision, or even suspension, by the legislature itself, in whom no judicial power of any kind appears to be vested, but the important one relative to impeachments."). As articulated by Madison, "[t]he entire legislature can perform no judiciary act," and "[w]ere the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for the judge would then be the legislator." THE FEDERALIST No. 47, at 141 (James Madison) (Roy Fairfield 2d ed., 1981) (quoting Montesquieu).
Our analysis convinces us that were we to interpret the PLRA's automatic stay provision as automatically suspending judicial orders without allowing for the exercise of the courts' equitable authority to stay the automatic stay, the PLRA automatic stay provision would be constitutionally deficient and could not stand.[14]
c. Encroachment into the Functioning of the Judiciary:
The state officials argue that the PLRA automatic stay, as they have construed it, amounts to no more than a legislative enactment in keeping with Congress's constitutional authority to control the jurisdiction of the federal courts. The express language of our Constitution confers in Congress the power to constitute inferior federal courts in which may be vested some or all of the judicial power of the United States. See U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 9; U.S. CONST. art. III, § 1. Nevertheless, having granted the courts jurisdiction to entertain a particular case or controversy, Congress cannot then diminish the power of the courts to an extent which renders the courts unable to meet their obligation of providing adequate remedies. See Benjamin, 124 F.3d at 170; see also Theodore Eisenberg, Congressional Authority to Restrict Lower Federal Court Jurisdiction, 83 YALE L.J. 498, 527 (1974) ("Congress ... may enact any jurisdictional statute that does not prevent vindication of a constitutional right."). We must therefore carefully consider whether in enacting the PLRA's automatic stay provision, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(e)(2), the Legislature impermissibly conditioned the exercise of judicial power so as to render it ineffective.
To achieve separate yet balanced power among the branches, certain inherent powers issue by necessity to each of the three branches:
[I]f there is one maxim which necessarily rides over all others, in the practical application of government, it is, that the public functionaries must be left at liberty to exercise the powers which the people have intrusted to them. The interests and dignity of those who created them, require the exertion of the powers indispensable to the attainment of the ends of their creation.
Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 204, 226, 5 L.Ed. 242 (1821). Recognizing this maxim, the Supreme Court has cautioned that the constitutional structure requires "that the independence of the Judiciary be jealously guarded." Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 60, 102 S.Ct. 2858, 73 L.Ed.2d 598 (1982); see also THE FEDERALIST No. 78, at 228 (Alexander Hamilton) (Roy P. Fairfield 2d ed., 1981) ("The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution."). Thus, we will only uphold a statute challenged as an impermissible legislative incursion into the workings of the judicial branch where it cannot "be construed as preventing the judicial branch `from accomplishing its constitutionally 943 assigned *943 functions.'" Mistretta, 488 U.S. at 396, 109 S.Ct. 647 (quoting Nixon v. Administrator of General Servs., 433 U.S. 425, 443, 97 S.Ct. 2777, 53 L.Ed.2d 867 (1977)). A statutory scheme that poses a serious danger of encroachment or threatens the ability of the Judiciary to carry out its constitutional duties, however, so impinges upon the autonomy of the Judiciary as to run afoul of the separation-of-powers doctrine. Cf. Dean

Alfange, Jr., The Supreme Court and the Separation of Powers: A Welcome Return to Normalcy?, 58 GEO. WASH. L.REV. 668, 712 (1990) ("The measure of the constitutionality of a government action challenged as violating the principle of separation of powers ... [is whether] it so hamstring[s] the ability of any of the branches independently to exercise its powers or to perform its functions that it is prevented from effectively carrying out its constitutional responsibilities....").
It is beyond dispute that there are certain inherent powers of the Judiciary that are untouchable by legislative act, see United States v. Hudson & Goodwin, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32, 34, 3 L.Ed. 259 (1812) ("Certain implied powers must necessarily result to our Courts of justice from the nature of their institution."); see also Eash v. Riggins Trucking Inc., 757 F.2d 557, 561 (3d Cir. 1985) (en banc) ("That courts have inherent powers 0907 powers vested in the courts upon their creation, and not derived from any statute 0907 is not disputed." (citations omitted)). Although the exact boundaries of the courts' inherent powers thus far has eluded complete categorization, at a minimum those boundaries encompass "activity so fundamental to the essence of a court as a constitutional tribunal that to divest the court of absolute command within this sphere is really to render practically meaningless the terms `court' and `judicial power.'" Eash, 757 F.2d at 562. Because the denial of these fundamental powers renders courts practically inoperative, courts must be allowed to exercise those inherent powers essential to their constitutionally assigned role notwithstanding contrary legislative direction. Id.
The Judiciary's fulfillment of its Article III responsibilities requires, at its core, meaningful judicial decisionmaking. See United States v. Rojas, 53 F.3d 1212, 1214 (11th Cir.) ("[S]eparation of powers would be implicated when the actions of another Branch threaten an Article III court's independence and impartiality in the execution of its decisionmaking function."), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 976, 116 S.Ct. 478, 133 L.Ed.2d 407 (1995). The preservation of this inherent power, so fundamental to the bestowal of evenhanded justice, requires that all federal courts be permitted to analyze relevant facts and the applicable substantive law untethered by the legislative branch. Otherwise, were the Legislature permitted to tie the deliberative hands of the Judiciary by erecting procedural hurdles that render thorough and thoughtful deliberation an impossibility, the will of the majority could effectively take control of the judicial process by sufficiently elevating the procedural hurdles in select areas of especially unpopular litigation. See J. Richard Doidge, Note, Is Purely Retroactive Legislation Limited by the Separation Powers?: Rethinking United States v. Klein, 79 CORNELL L. REV. 910, 924 (1994) ("The legislature cannot do indirectly that which it cannot do directly."). Moreover, unconstrained deliberation by the Judiciary not only is necessary to preserve the independence of the Judiciary but also to protect due process rights of individual parties who come before the courts. Accordingly, Congress cannot restrict the independent and unconstrained judicial decisionmaking of the courts any more than it can directly stay the judicial order itself.[15]
944 *944 We fear that in many prisoner cases, the application of the PLRA automatic stay, as construed by the state officials, implicates the integrity and fairness of judicial decisionmaking by substantially impeding the courts' capability for thorough and thoughtful consideration. As interpreted by the state officials, the PLRA automatic stay requires nondiscretionary suspension of court-ordered prospective relief thirty days following the filing of a termination motion, or ninety days following the filing of the termination motion should the court postpone the effective date of the automatic stay by sixty days for good cause. This grace period is the only qualification on the otherwise compulsory suspension; beyond this grace period, under the state's view courts retain no discretion to defer the operation of, or dissolve, the automatic stay. In many cases, including those now before us on this appeal, the district courts' statutory task of ascertaining the presence of a current or ongoing violation of a federal right requires delving into complex factual or legal intricacies and a court record spanning many years. See, e.g., Hadix I, 933 F.Supp. at 1361; Hadix II, 933 F.Supp. at 1364. Consequently, thirty or ninety days before onset of the automatic stay may prove an inadequate period of time in which to find a constitutional violation where one has never before been explicitly recognized. By not allowing for judicial discretion in those cases where a court simply cannot exercise meaningful review within the prescribed time period, the PLRA automatic stay, as construed by the state officials, impedes the courts' substantive decisional role and can result in deleterious and distorting effects upon the outcome of the legal determination. Accordingly, in cases where the provision's deadline proves impossible to meet, if we were limited to the state officials' interpretation we would be obligated to declare that the automatic stay provision's time restriction unconstitutionally denigrates the Judiciary's status as a coequal branch in violation of the separation-of-powers doctrine.[16]

2. Prisoners' and Justice Department's Interpretation 0907 Preservation of Courts' Equitable Powers
Disagreeing with the state officials' reading of the PLRA automatic stay provision, the prisoners and the Justice Department argue that by its terms the provision implicitly recognizes the courts' inherent power to invoke the 945 injunctive process in order to do equity. As we explained previously, this construction *945 of the automatic stay provision is reasonable and not contrary to clear legislative intent. In order to assess whether the prisoners' and the Justice Department's construction of the automatic stay provision avoids the serious constitutional problems posed by the state officials' statutory construction, we must first identify the contours of the equitable powers retained by the courts.
Because the lower courts are created by Congress, a lower court's equitable powers are "conditioned by the necessities of the public interest which Congress has sought to protect" in enacting the statute governing the case before the court. Hecht Co., 321 U.S. at 330, 64 S.Ct. 587. We therefore begin our analysis with the policy objectives underlying the PLRA. Concern that the life of consent decrees in prisoner litigation cases often extended beyond the time necessary to correct violations of the prisoners' federal rights, Congress sought to terminate judicial supervision of prisons where the necessity for that supervision no longer exists. See H.R. REP. No. 104-21, at 24 n.2 (1995). To this end, Congress provided for review of all prospective relief and commanded that the federal courts terminate such relief absent proof of an ongoing violation of the prisoners' federal rights. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2). In an effort to encourage speedy resolution of motions brought under the PLRA termination provisions, Congress enacted the automatic stay provisions because it believed that "[b]y providing that the prospective relief that is subject to the motion will be stayed if the motion is not decided promptly, judges will be motivated to decide the motions and avoid having the stay automatically take effect." H.R. REP. No. 104-21, at 26 (1995). At the same time, Congress did not seek to limit the courts' authority to grant or approve relief where prisoners "can prove a violation of [their] federal rights." Id. at 23.
Deference to Congress's intent of restricting prospective relief to only those prisoner cases where such relief is necessary to correct a proven violation of a federal right requires that courts invoke their equitable authority to suspend the automatic stay in very limited circumstances. Were district courts routinely to exercise their inherent power to suspend the automatic stay, the very tool Congress utilized in an effort to encourage expeditious review of motions to terminate prospective relief in prisoner reform cases would be rendered useless. Moreover, "[b]ecause of their very potency," the inherent powers of the courts "must be exercised with restraint and discretion." Chambers, 501 U.S. at 44, 111 S.Ct. 2123. At the same time, the lower courts' authority must remain flexible enough so that they may fulfill the guiding principle of equity 0907 "securing complete justice." Porter, 328 U.S. at 398, 66 S.Ct. 1086 (quotation omitted).
We are satisfied that the traditional standard governing the issuance of a preliminary injunction in equity properly balances these considerations, although we do not rule out the possibility that a lower court may justifiably suspend the operation of an automatic stay under other equitable standards.[17] The determination of whether to grant a preliminary injunction involves balancing the following factors:
(1) the likelihood that the party seeking the preliminary injunction will succeed on the merits of the claim; (2) whether the party seeking the injunction will suffer irreparable harm without the grant of the extraordinary relief; (3) the probability that granting the injunction will cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public interest is advanced by the issuance of the injunction.
Washington v. Reno, 35 F.3d 1093, 1099 (6th Cir.1994); see also International Resources, Inc. v. New York Life 946 Ins. Co., 950 F.2d 294, *946 302 (6th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 973, 112 S.Ct. 2941, 119 L.Ed.2d 565
(1992). Because these factors are not prerequisites but must be balanced, the likelihood of success required to support a suspension of the automatic stay depends on the strength of the other factors considered. See Washington, 35 F.3d at 1099.

While we do not attempt here to identify all scenarios in which the district court may appropriately suspend the automatic stay, we pause to note the fundamental importance of the courts' ability to provide meaningful review. As explained previously, where Congress impedes the Judiciary's capacity for thorough and thoughtful consideration so as to undermine inevitably the integrity and fairness of judicial decisionmaking, the constitutional principle of separation-of-powers is severely compromised. In those complex cases where the district court simply cannot exercise meaningful review before the effective date of the automatic stay, the public interest in protecting the courts' deliberative role militates in favor of suspending the automatic stay. We emphasize that although courts often may find it difficult to provide meaningful review, constitutional concerns about an unwarranted incursion by Congress into the province retained for the Judiciary arise only where thorough and thoughtful judicial decisionmaking is virtually impossible. Where a district court retains the ability, however difficult, to probe relevant factual and legal issues and deliberate upon matters before the court, it is in a position to protect its judicial orders against direct legislative suspension and to fulfill its "obligation to exercise its jurisdiction meaningfully," United States v. Michigan, 18 F.3d 348, 352 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 925, 115 S.Ct. 312, 130 L.Ed.2d 275 (1994).
By preserving the federal courts' ability to suspend the automatic stay where necessary to ensure meaningful review and to protect judicial orders against direct legislative suspension, the prisoners' and Justice Department's construction of the PLRA automatic stay provision avoids the constitutional infirmities which plague the state officials' construction. Our commitment to construing federal statutes not only to preserve the federal courts' inherent powers but also to avoid where fairly possible serious doubt as to their constitutionality necessitates our rejecting the state officials' construction of the automatic stay provision in favor of the prisoners' and Justice Department's construction. Accordingly, we hold that the § 3626(e), as amended, does not interfere with the traditional inherent powers of the courts and therefore as so interpreted does not give rise to an unconstitutional incursion by Congress into the powers reserved for the Judiciary. Because the time period prescribed by the automatic stay provision long ago expired in the cases before us, on remand the district courts should consider whether to exercise their inherent equitable powers to suspend the automatic stay in conformity with this opinion, to allow the automatic stay to take effect, or to terminate the decrees.
IV. RETROACTIVITY OF ATTORNEY FEES PROVISION
We now turn to the award of attorney fees entered in the Hadix litigation by Judge Feikens on May 30, 1996. See J.A. # 96-1851 at 464-69. What would have amounted to a rather commonplace judicial ruling on disputed attorney hours in an ongoing litigation has been complicated by its unfortunate timing. The inmates' entitlement to attorney monitoring fees and procedures for payment was established in the Hadix litigation in 1987. See J.A. # 96-1851 at 165-66. Pursuant to prescribed procedure, in early 1996 the inmates submitted to the state officials petitions for attorney fees covering the period of July through December 1995. The state officials objected to certain hours, and the parties could not resolve the dispute by themselves. The inmates therefore filed a motion for attorney fees with the court on March 12, 1996. J.A. # 96-1851 at 277-78. The motion, entirely for fees incurred in the latter half of 1995, was pending before the district judge on April 26, 1996, when the PLRA took effect.
Section 803(d) of the PLRA amended the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act ("CRIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997, et seq., as it applied to awards of attorney fees. Prior to the passage of the PLRA, courts were authorized 947 under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 to award attorney *947 fees in this type of prison reform litigation based on the community's market rate for the services rendered. See Hadix v. Johnson, 65 F.3d 532, 536 (6th Cir.1995); Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 283, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989). Section 803(d) of the PLRA, however, limits attorney fees authorized in prison litigation to an amount "directly and reasonably incurred in proving an actual violation of the plaintiff's rights" and proportional to or directly and reasonably incurred in enforcing the court-ordered relief. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d).[18] In addition, the rate upon which the award is based may not exceed 150 percent of the hourly rate established under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A.[19] The 1995 established rate of pay in the Hadix litigation was $150 per hour. See J.A. # 96-1851 at 174, 392. Though the parties do not agree on how the PLRA would affect the rate of pay in this case, we assume, for illustrative

purposes only, that the PLRA would cap the maximum hourly rate for attorney fees in this case at $112.50 (150% of $75 maximum hourly rate).[20]See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(3).
Seeking to take advantage of the lesser rate and more stringent standard, the state officials asked the district court to apply the PLRA's attorney fees provisions to the pending motion, arguing that the PLRA applies to all "awards" entered after the enactment date, April 26, 1996, regardless of when the fees were actually earned. Upon consideration, the district court denied application of the PLRA to the fees earned in 1995 and directed payment at the pre-established rate of $150 per hour. J.A. # 96-1851 at 464-69. Before us the state officials renew their arguments and ask us to hold that the PLRA's new attorney fees limitations apply to legal work completed prior to the passage of the PLRA. We decline their invitation.
We recently addressed the retroactivity of the PLRA's attorney fee provisions to legal work performed before its enactment, and held "that allowing the PLRA's limitations on attorney fees to alter the standards and rate for awarding fees for legal work competed prior to passage of the PLRA results in an impermissible retroactive effect by attaching significant new legal burdens to the completed work, and by impairing rights acquired under preexisting law." Glover v. Johnson, 138 F.3d 229, 250 (6th Cir.1998). Accordingly, we hold that the award of attorney fees for legal work performed prior to the enactment of the PLRA is governed by 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and not § 803(d) of the PLRA.
As for the propriety of any given fee award, provided the district court explains its reasoning in a clear and concise manner, an award of attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 "is entitled to substantial deference." Hadix, 65 F.3d at 534-35; see also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). "Accordingly, we review a district court's award of attorney fees, including the fee rate, only for abuse of discretion." Hadix, 65 F.3d at 534. The state officials assert that some of the hours to prepare an appellate brief 948 were excessive, duplicative, and thus unreasonable.[21] The contested brief was prepared for *948 an appeal to this court of a district court order refusing to modify the out-of-cell activity plan and mandating college programming following Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 112 S.Ct. 748, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992). Judge Feikens, who was intimately aware of the work being performed by the attorneys, of the prior history of the case, and of the need to revisit the modification request following Rufo, found the hours at issue to be reasonable for the composition of a complex appellate brief. See J.A. # 96-1851 at 464-69 (Op. and Order Regarding Pls.' Mot. for Att'y Fees). Our primary concern is that the fee awarded was reasonable, and we are satisfied that it was. See Hadix, 65 F.3d at 535; cf. Northcross v. Board of Educ. of Memphis City Schs., 611 F.2d 624, 640-42 (6th Cir.1979) (discussing reasonableness of attorney fees award for large school desegregation case), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 911, 100 S.Ct. 2999, 64 L.Ed.2d 862 (1980). Not having been persuaded that the district court's reasonableness finding was erroneous, we affirm the district court's May 30, 1996 order awarding attorney fees.
V. OTHER ISSUES
A. Termination of Security Classification
As part of the USA decree, the state officials agreed to design and implement a plan to classify prisoners' risks and security levels for the various facilities. Through his July 3, 1996 opinion, Judge Enslen refused to terminate federal court jurisdiction over the security classification system at the Michigan Reformatory, one of the five correctional facilities subject to the USA decree. That decision is now before us.
In April 1992, the parties to the USA decree filed a joint motion to dismiss most components of the decree and simultaneously asked the court to modify the USA decree's termination clause so that termination would occur as to any consent decree provision in isolation when the defendants are in compliance with constitutional requirements. The district court accepted the piecemeal termination proposal, but refused to allow termination solely upon compliance with constitutional requirements; rather, termination would depend upon compliance with the terms of the decree, but if constitutional requirements have been met, termination would not be precluded. J.A. # 96-1907 at 422. The court also refused to rule on the joint motion to dismiss until after it had received

updated compliance information from the independent expert monitoring the decree. Upon receipt of the compliance information, the court granted the joint motion for dismissal as to Michigan Reformatory and Marquette Branch Prison as to most issues excluding access to courts. J.A. # 96-1907 at 432-35. Following this court's decision, the parties entered into negotiations culminating in a Joint Review Process for addressing the remaining issues and a joint motion and stipulation filed with the court pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 60(b)(5), (6), proposing dismissal of all provisions of the USA decree at the Michigan Reformatory and the Marquette Branch Prison, excluding medical and mental health care. J.A. # 96-1907 at 249-364.
In its July 3, 1996 order which is the subject of this appeal, the district court addressed the joint motion for dismissal. The court ruled that it was "satisfied that the provisions with regard to sanitation, safety and hygiene; fire safety; crowding and protection from harm; access to the courts; and legal mail should be deleted from the State Plan and Consent Decree" as applied to the Michigan Reformatory and the Marquette Branch Prison, yet the court retained jurisdiction over the classification issues as to the Michigan Reformatory. J.A. # 96-1907 at 381. The court relied upon expert evaluations showing that while Michigan had maintained an acceptable range of overrides[22] in 1993 and 1994, it had fallen out of compliance in March 1995 and had not returned to 949 compliance as of June 1996. The district court *949 expressed concern that Michigan did not maintain steady compliance and was out of compliance at the time of the court's review of the joint motion.
We have already articulated in a prior opinion in this case that the district court is not subject to the parties' stipulation with respect to termination of a consent decree component, but may exercise independent judgment regarding compliance with the decree. See United States v. Michigan, 18 F.3d 348, 351 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 925, 115 S.Ct. 312, 130 L.Ed.2d 275 (1994). The district court properly adhered to that obligation in determining that the consent decree provision dealing with the implementation of a professionally-based classification plan should remain in effect at the Michigan Reformatory. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in retaining jurisdiction over classification issues at the Michigan Reformatory.
B. Evidentiary Record for Resolving Motion to Terminate
Michigan further contends that under the statute a motion for immediate termination of a consent decree must be considered on the record existing at the time the motion was filed, disallowing the district judge to engage in supplemental fact-finding. The state supports its argument by § 3626(b)(3)'s directive that "[p]rospective relief shall not terminate if the court makes written findings based on the record" (emphasis added) that relief remains necessary and narrowly drawn. That language, the inmates respond, does not mean simply the existing record at the time the motion was filed. Rather, the statute necessarily enables a district judge to examine current conditions at the prisons which become part of the judicial record, since the very task before the judge is to ascertain the existence of "a current or ongoing violation" of a federal right. As the state would have it, the district court would be forbidden from supplementing the past record in a case to determine whether a current constitutional violation exists. The Second Circuit recently adopted the prisoners' interpretation, finding it the "most sensible" construction of § 3626(b) "[g]iven that the pre-existing record will rarely contain information on the `current' state of affairs." Benjamin v. Jacobson, 124 F.3d 162, 179 (2nd Cir.1997); see also Thompson v. Gomez, 993 F.Supp. 749, 755-56 (N.D.Cal.1997) ("If the existing record is not adequate to determine present circumstances, subsection (3) gives the court the power to supplement the record by taking further evidence."); Ruiz v. Scott, 1996 WL 932104, *8 n. 6 (S.D.Tex. Sept. 25, 1996) ("Th[e] `record' is not necessarily limited to the record that existed prior to the filing of a motion to terminate under Section 3626(b). Rather, ... the record may include supplemental information that is presented to the court."). We note that other courts have also allowed the record to be supplemented with information on current conditions when considering a motion under § 3626(b) (2). See, e.g., Jensen v. County of Lake, 958 F.Supp. 397, 406-07 (N.D.Ind. 1997) (declining to terminate consent decree until after a hearing is held to determine whether ongoing constitutional violations exist); Carty v. Farrelly, 957 F.Supp. 727, 733 (D.Vi.1997) (relying on evidence introduced at a hearing following defendants' motion to modify or terminate consent decrees under the PLRA).
We believe this debate is premature at this juncture and should await appellate review of the lower courts' actual rulings on the termination motions. The proper evidentiary methods and materials that a district court may utilize in deciding a § 3626(b)(2) motion is a question more aptly considered when this court has before it a concrete

example of how a district court actually proceeded in ruling upon a motion under § 3626(b)(2). Since we hold the automatic stay provision constitutional in light of the inherent equity powers of the courts to stay the stay if necessary, this debate does not touch upon any issue before this court at this time.
C. Partial Stay of Phases II and III
On September 19, 1996, we issued a partial stay relieving the defendants of their obligation to implement Phases II and III of the Hadix decree pending this appeal. We now lift that partial stay, although we note that the parties 950 may ask Judge Feikens to continue the stay of Phases II and III until the *950 district court issues a ruling on the issues remaining in this litigation.
VI. CONCLUSION
We conclude that the 1997 amendments to the automatic stay provision, as properly construed to avoid constitutional infirmity, do not interfere with the traditional inherent powers of the courts. Since the lower courts retain the power to suspend the automatic stay in accordance with the traditional standards governing the granting of preliminary injunctions in equity, we REVERSE the lower court orders holding the pre-1997 automatic stay provision unconstitutional. We also AFFIRM the May 30, 1996 award of attorney fees entered in the Hadix litigation by Judge Feikens, and we AFFIRM Judge Enslen's decision to retain jurisdiction over the security classification system at the Michigan Reformatory. We REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judge, concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority that the decisions of the district courts, which held the pre-1997 automatic stay provision of the PLRA to be unconstitutional, must be reversed because the provision, as amended, "does not give rise to an unconstitutional incursion by Congress into the powers reserved for the Judiciary." In my view, however, it is not necessary for us to construe the automatic stay provision to permit courts to "suspend the automatic stay in accordance with general equitable principles," in order to save the amended statute. As I read the statute, a district court may postpone the operation of the automatic stay once for a period of sixty days, provided that it finds good cause to do so. Nothing more is authorized by § 3626(e) and, from a constitutional perspective, nothing more is required.
Before discussing the substance of the automatic stay provision, I feel obliged to touch briefly upon the issue of mootness. Because the amendments to the automatic stay provision significantly alter the inquiry into its constitutionality, I believe that the appropriate response is to remand the matter to the district courts so that they can consider the effect of the amendments on the statute. This is the position taken by both the Justice Department and the prisoner plaintiffs and, as the majority opinion recognizes, this is the preferred procedure in cases where a change in the law fails to extinguish the controversy.
In declining to hold that the case before us is moot, the majority explains that "because this case does not necessitate any findings of fact, the district judges' expertise in evaluating factual matters cannot advance our appellate review of this action." This conclusion ignores the obvious consideration that, since the automatic stay provision directly affects the manner in which district courts handle prison conditions cases, the ideal place to begin an inquiry into the ramifications of the provision would be in these very same courts. As the result of the amendments, for instance, district courts can postpone the effective date of the automatic stay by an additional sixty days. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(e)(3). This tripling of the original statute's time period before an automatic stay takes effect represents a significant change, and we ought not to preclude the district courts from their traditional role in helping us to determine in the first instance whether Congress exceeded its authority under the Constitution.
Finally, as the Justice Department points out, while this appeal was pending another panel of this court upheld the constitutionality of § 3626(b), the immediate termination provision of the PLRA. Hadix v. Johnson, 133 F.3d 940 (6th Cir.1998). That development certainly alters the legal landscape facing the district courts on remand and we should permit them the opportunity to reassess their initial decisions.

In sum, I agree with the Justice Department and the prisoner plaintiffs that this appeal is moot in light of the 1997 amendments to the automatic stay provision.
Turning to the merits, I fail to see why we need to read an "equitable exception" into the automatic stay provision in order to avoid a separation-of-powers problem. The majority contends that if district courts are limited to a onetime, sixty-day postponement of the automatic stay, the provision "violates the separation-of-powers doctrine 951 because it amounts to a direct legislative suspension of a judicial order." It does nothing of the *951 kind: the suspension is neither immediate nor permanent; at all times the district court retains the authority to avoid (or, alternatively, to lift) a stay by simply complying with certain substantive provisions of the PLRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3626 (b).[1] The automatic stay neither mandates a rule of decision in contravention of Klein nor reopens a final judgment in contravention of Plaut. Rather, the provision simply encourages the district court to comply with the PLRA in a timely fashion without divesting the court of the authority to decide the merits of the case.
What are the practical consequences of the automatic stay provision? First, the stay is, by definition, a temporary state that is lifted when the district court makes the factual findings required by the PLRA. While the realities of a crowded court docket coupled with the complexity of litigation related to prison conditions will occasionally make it difficult for district courts to comply with the time constraints imposed by § 3626(e), they do not make it impossible. Courts, after all, do control their own dockets and are free to impose deadlines upon parties and to shift schedules in response to evolving priorities. See Harris v. Callwood, 844 F.2d 1254, 1255 (6th Cir.1988) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962)).
Even in the event that the automatic stay provision were triggered by inaction, the consequences are hardly as dire as the majority would have us believe. In the event that prospective relief is stayed pending the factual findings mandated by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b), none of the improvements to prison conditions made by the State over the past decade will be jettisoned nor will prison policies relating to concerns such as health care revert to those in effect before 1985. Rather, the State will be permitted to pause in its implementation of those programs that have not been fully realized.
The automatic stay provision does not represent a way in which the State can evade its obligations. It merely allows the State to request that the status quo be maintained pending a factual finding by the district court that further relief is constitutionally required. Considering the lengthy span of prison litigation,[2] a relatively brief hiatus to review the continued legitimacy of extensive court-ordered relief strikes me as both constitutionally permissible and practically advisable.
Within certain limits, what Congress can create, Congress can take away. The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to establish "inferior Courts" and to determine the jurisdiction of those courts. U.S. Const. art. III, § 1. Even the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is, after all, subject to regulation under the Exceptions Clause. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 2.; Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506, 19 L.Ed. 264 (1868); see Gerald Gunther, Congressional Power to Curtail Federal Court Jurisdiction, 36 Stan. L.Rev. 895, 908 (1984). Once jurisdiction is conferred, of course, Congress must permit the courts a "meaningful" opportunity to decide the case. In my view, the automatic stay provision does not, as the majority would have it, implicate "the integrity and fairness of judicial decisionmaking." Rather, it merely represents a permissible exercise of Congress' undisputed authority to establish regulations governing the manner in which inferior federal courts operate.
Finally, the majority's invocation of the doctrine of separation-of-powers seems especially ironic, since Congress enacted the PLRA in part due to a perception that federal courts flouted the doctrine by assuming control over prisons. The majority now lectures Congress that it need not have concerned itself with that aspect of the 952 doctrine. *952 Perhaps the lesson to be drawn by Congress is that the only side that matters is our side 0907 that while federal courts may encroach upon the prerogatives of the legislative and executive branches (not to mention those of the States), Congress dare not tinker with ours.
For the reasons just outlined, I concur in the decision to reverse the decisions of the district courts below, but dissent with respect to the reasoning. I also concur in the majority's resolution of the award of attorney fees by Judge Feikens and of Judge Enslen's decision to retain jurisdiction over security classification.

[1] By stipulation the classification issue was referred for resolution in the United States v. Michigan parallel consent decree. See Hadix v. Johnson, 943 F.2d 51 (6th Cir.1991).
[2] Some of Judge Feikens's orders have involved implementing a plan to break up SPSM-CC into five autonomous units. Phase I of the break-up has been implemented. On September 19, 1996, this court issued a partial stay that relieved the defendants of their obligation to implement Phases II and III pending this appeal.
[3] The United States is involved in this appeal as a direct party in the USA suit, as amicus in the health care portions of the Hadix suit in the Western District, and as an intervenor in both the Eastern and Western Districts on the issues regarding the constitutionality of the PLRA automatic stay provision.
[4] Before the 1997 amendments, § 3626(e) provided in pertinent part as follows:
(1) Generally. 0907 The court shall promptly rule on any motion to modify or terminate prospective relief in a civil action with respect to prison conditions.
(2) Automatic stay. 0907 Any prospective relief subject to a pending motion shall be automatically stayed during the period 0907
(A)(i) beginning on the 30th day after such motion is filed, in the case of a motion made under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (b); ... and
(B) ending on the date the court enters a final order ruling on the motion.
[5] The amended version of § 3626(e) provides in pertinent part as follows:
(1) Generally 0907 The court shall promptly rule on any motion to modify or terminate prospective relief in a civil action with respect to prison conditions....
(2) Automatic Stay 0907 Any motion to modify or terminate prospective relief made under [§ 3626(b)] shall operate as a stay during the period 0907
(A)(i) beginning on the 30th day after such motion is filed under, in the case of a motion made under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (b); ... and
(B) ending on the date the court enters a final order ruling on the motion.
(3) Postponement of Automatic Stay 0907 The court may postpone the effective date of an automatic stay specified in subsection (e)(2)(A) for not more than 60 days for good cause. No postponement shall be permissible because of general congestion of the court's calendar.
(4) Order Blocking the Automatic Stay 0907 Any order staying, suspending, delaying, or barring the operation of the automatic stay described in paragraph (2) (other than an order to postpone the effective date of the automatic stay under paragraph (3)) shall be treated as an order refusing to dissolve or modify an injunction and shall be appealable pursuant to section 1292(a)(1) of title 28, United States Code, regardless of how the order is styled or whether the order is termed a preliminary or a final ruling.
[6] Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), "the courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from: [i]nterlocutory orders of the district courts ... granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions...."
[7] Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, "[t]he courts of appeals ... shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States...."
[8] Both district courts properly rejected non-constitutional grounds for their decisions. Judge Enslen concluded that the automatic stay provision does not directly conflict with either Rule 60(b) or Rule 62(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Hadix II, 933 F.Supp. at 1365; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2072(b). Judge Feikens declined to suspend the effect of the automatic stay provision pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). See Hadix I, 933 F.Supp. at 1361.

[9] Judge Feikens issued an order on November 1, 1996 that found the immediate termination provisions of the PLRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2), (b)(3), unconstitutional on separation-of-powers grounds and denied the defendants' motion to terminate the consent judgment under § 3626(b)(2) and Rule 60(b). See Hadix v. Johnson, 947 F.Supp. 1100 (E.D.Mich.1996). On November 18, 1996, Judge Enslen entered a similar order for the Hadix and USA decrees pending in his court, but reserved final determination pending this appeal. See Appellants' Reply Br. at 2. Hadix v. Johnson, 965 F.Supp. 996 (W.D.Mich. 1996), appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction, 134 F.3d 371 (Table), 1998 WL 30820 (6th Cir. 1998). Although the inmates had previously suggested that part of this appeal was rendered moot by the district courts' resolution of the underlying motion to terminate the consent decree, this circuit's recent opinion holding the immediate termination provisions constitutional and directing the district court to reconsider the state officials' termination motion forecloses the inmates' mootness argument. See Hadix v. Johnson, 133 F.3d 940 (6th Cir.1998). Moreover, the matter before us is justiciable as an exception to the mootness doctrine as a scenario capable of repetition yet evading review. See Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 219 U.S. 498, 515, 31 S.Ct. 279, 55 L.Ed. 310 (1911) (maintaining jurisdiction over "shortterm orders, capable of repetition, yet evading review" that otherwise may forever defeat redressability).
[10] Thus far, courts interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 3626 since passage of the PLRA, including this court, have focused primarily on the immediate termination standards, § 3626(b)(2)-(b)(3), and not on the automatic stay, § 3626(e) (2). These cases have largely concluded that the immediate termination provisions are constitutional. See Hadix v. Johnson, 133 F.3d 940, 942-43 (6th Cir.1998) (holding § 3626(b)(2)'s termination provision constitutional); Dougan v. Singletary, 129 F.3d 1424 (11th Cir.1997) (same); Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Rouse, 129 F.3d 649 (1st Cir.1997) (holding § 3626 constitutional); Benjamin v. Jacobson, 124 F.3d 162 (2nd Cir.1997) (interpreting language of the PLRA immediate termination provision, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b), to avoid constitutional problems); Gavin v. Branstad, 122 F.3d 1081 (8th Cir.1997) (upholding constitutionality of § 3626(b)(2)-(b)(3)); Plyler v. Moore, 100 F.3d 365 (4th Cir.1996) (same), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 2460, 138 L.Ed.2d 217 (1997); Jensen v. County of Lake, 958 F.Supp. 397 (N.D.Ind.1997) (same); James v. Lash, 965 F.Supp. 1190 (N.D.Ind.1997) (same); but see Taylor v. Arizona, 972 F.Supp. 1239 (D.Ariz. 1997) (finding § 3626(b) unconstitutional). Though the immediate termination and automatic stay provisions are connected and share similar features, we direct our inquiry in the instant appeal solely to review of the automatic stay provision.
[11] Although the Conference Report accompanying the 1997 bill amending the automatic stay provision does not reveal a clear congressional intent to displace the federal courts' inherent equitable authority, the comments of Senator Spencer Abraham support the state officials' construction of the provision. Speaking on the floor of the Senate, Senator Abraham explained the purpose of the 1997 amendments as follows:
The Department of Justice ... has contended that the stay is not really automatic at all.... The amendments ... clarify that the stay is in fact is automatic by expressly modeling it on the bankruptcy automatic stay, and they state explicitly that any order blocking the automatic stay is appealable, thereby ensuring review of the district court's action.
143 CONG. REC. S12269 (November 9, 1997). Although Senator Abraham's statements indicate his view that Congress sought to confine the courts' discretionary power to suspend the automatic stay to the conditions explicitly stipulated in § 3626(e)(3) (as amended in 1997), we hesitate to find a clear congressional intent to curb traditional equity practice on the basis of only one congressional member's statements.
[12] Prior to the enactment of the 1997 amendments, the prisoners argued 18 U.S.C. § 3626(e)(2) (1996) violated the separation-of-powers doctrine not only by prescribing a rule of decision without changing the underlying substantive law, but also by directing the reopening of final judgments of courts. See Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 115 S.Ct. 1447, 131 L.Ed.2d 328 (1995). Critical to this argument is the issue of whether the consent decrees constitute final judgments not subject to legislative alteration for separation-ofpowers purposes. We recently addressed this issue in Hadix v. Johnson, 133 F.3d 940 (6th Cir.1998), in the context of a challenge to the constitutionality of the PLRA's termination provisions, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2)-(3). In Hadix, we agreed with other circuits holding that the consent decrees consist of ongoing prospective relief that is not final for separationof-powers purposes. See Hadix, 133 F.3d at 942-43. Accordingly, the prisoners are foreclosed from challenging the automatic stay provision on the grounds that it unconstitutionally reopens a final judgment.

[13] See WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INT'L DICTIONARY 148 (1986) (defining "automatic" as "having a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that performs a required act at a predetermined point in an operation"); RANDOM HOUSE UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY 140 (2d ed.1993) (defining "automatic" as "having the capability of starting, operating, moving, etc., independently").
[14] We note in passing that Congress did not restrict the PLRA automatic stay to operation solely in the federal courts, as it did with the special masters procedural provision in 18 U.S.C. § 3626(f). Section 3626 applies to civil proceedings initiated in federal or state court arising under federal law with respect to prison conditions. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(2). Because the cases we review were brought in federal court, we do not address possible effects of the legislative mandate upon state court processes.
[15] We do not quarrel with Congress's unquestioned authority, which is routinely exercised, to prescribe procedural requirements that regulate federal court practice. Descending from the earliest days of the federal judiciary, it is by now beyond contention that "Congress has undoubted power to regulate the practice and procedure of federal courts," Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., 312 U.S. 1, 9, 61 S.Ct. 422, 85 L.Ed. 479 (1941), and such rules "bind judges and courts in the proper management of the cases before them." Mistretta, 488 U.S. at 391. See also Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 472, 473, 85 S.Ct. 1136, 14 L.Ed.2d 8 (1965). Apart from time restrictions on the parties, however, temporal strictures upon actual judicial decisionmaking are scarce. See Speedy Trial Act of 1974 § 101, Pub.L. No. 93-619, 88 Stat.2076 (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (setting forth time limits in criminal trials for both pre-trial and trial procedures)). Rarely do such rules and statutes intrude upon the Judiciary's substantive decisional role; where a judicial decision is tied to a temporal stricture, the court usually retains discretion to override the restriction for good cause. See FED. R.Civ.P. 60(b), 65; Speedy Trial Act § 101(h), 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h) (ends of justice); see also United States v. Brainer, 691 F.2d 691, 696 (4th Cir.1982) (dismissing notion that statutes of limitations or Speedy Trial Act sanctions infringe the court's substantive role). It is one thing for Congress to prescribe procedures to be followed in federal court; conferring jurisdiction and then directing that judicial deliberation be exercised in an unduly restrictive manner is quite a different matter.
[16] The inmates also argue that the PLRA's automatic stay provision, as construed by the state officials, deprives them of their entitlement to relief that has vested by a court judgment in violation of their due process rights. Under the "vested-rights" doctrine, Congress lacks the power to abridge constitutionally-protected property interests that have vested through a final judgment of law. McCullough v. Virginia, 172 U.S. 102, 123-24, 19 S.Ct. 134, 43 L.Ed. 382 (1898). The inmates, however, do not have vested rights in the prospective relief afforded under these consent decrees. See Hadix v. Johnson, 133 F.3d 940, 943 n. 3 (6th Cir.1998). While consent decrees in certain respects resemble contracts, they are fundamentally judicial acts that have never been held to be beyond a court's power to modify as equity requires. See Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 378, 112 S.Ct. 748, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992) (recognizing contractual aspects of consent decrees but holding them "subject to the rules generally applicable to other judgments and decrees."). To the extent that the decrees and their implementing orders remain subject to modification and continuous court supervision, they cannot confer protected property interests for due process purposes. See System Fed'n No. 91, Ry. Employees' Dep't v. Wright, 364 U.S. 642, 649-52, 81 S.Ct. 368, 5 L.Ed.2d 349 (1961) (the plaintiffs had no vested right to have a consent decree enforced after Congress altered the decree's enabling statute since "the parties have no power to require of the court continuing enforcement of rights the [enabling] statute no longer gives"). Accordingly, the prospective relief under a consent decree is not a final judgment for purposes of the vested-rights doctrine. See Benjamin v. Jacobson, 124 F.3d 162, 176 (2d Cir.1997); Gavin v. Branstad, 122 F.3d 1081, 1090-92 (8th Cir.1997); Plyler v. Moore, 100 F.3d 365, 374 (4th Cir.1996). Thus the PLRA automatic stay does not dispossess or trammel upon judicially-vested rights.
[17] The Department of Justice suggests that the lower courts may issue an order staying the PLRA's automatic stay where requiring plaintiffs to make a preliminary showing on the merits would be inequitable due to circumstances beyond plaintiffs' control which impair their ability to present adequately their position to the court. Supplemental Br. for the U.S. at 10-11, 15-16. While this position strikes us as reasonable, we believe it premature at this juncture to rule definitively on this matter without the benefit of briefing from all parties in a case that by its factual posture squarely presents the issue to the court.

[18] Section 1997e of Title 42, as amended by the PLRA, provides in relevant part:
(d) Attorney's Fees
(1) In any action brought by a prisoner ... in which attorney's fees are authorized under [42 U.S.C. § 1988], such fees shall not be awarded, except to the extent that 0907
(A) the fee was directly and reasonably incurred in proving an actual violation of the plaintiff's rights protected by a statute pursuant to which a fee may be awarded under [42 U.S.C. § 1988]; and
(B)(i) the amount of the fee is proportionately related to the court ordered relief for the violation; or
(ii) the fee was directly and reasonably incurred in enforcing the relief ordered for the violation.
[19] Section 1997e of Title 42, as amended by the PLRA, provides in relevant part:
(d) Attorney's Fees ...
(3) No award of attorney's fees in an action described in paragraph (1) shall be based on an hourly rate greater than 150 percent of the hourly rate established under [18 U.S.C. § 3006A], for payment of court-appointed counsel.
[20] As we hold the PLRA's attorney fees provisions inapplicable to the fee award underlying this appeal, we have no occasion to resolve what would be the hourly rate in this case under the PLRA.
[21] On appeal the state officials object to 100 hours for Deborah LaBelle and 17.4 hours for Michael Barnhart. See J.A. # 96-1851 at 287-304 for itemization of hours.
[22] Section D.1 of the consent decree requires the state prison officials to design and implement a professionally-based classification plan. J.A. # 96-1907 at 185. By order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dated July 2, 1991, section D.1 requires the state prison officials to maintain the classification system override rate at a general norm of 20 percent or less. See J.A. # 96-1907 at 381. In other words, defendants may inaccurately classify up to 20 percent of the prisoner population should circumstances require them to do so.
[1] These substantive provisions have been upheld in the face of constitutional challenge by several circuits, including, as mentioned earlier, our own. See Hadix v. Johnson, 133 F.3d 940 (6th Cir.1998); Dougan v. Singletary, 129 F.3d 1424 (11th Cir.1997); Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Rouse, 129 F.3d 649 (1st Cir.1997); Benjamin v. Jacobson, 124 F.3d 162 (2d Cir.1997); Gavin v. Branstad, 122 F.3d 1081 (8th Cir.1997); Plyler v. Moore, 100 F.3d 365 (4th Cir.1996).
[2] Many consent decrees dealing with prison litigation, including those before us, have been in effect for more than a decade. See, e.g., Dougan, 129 F.3d at 1425 (since 1983); Suffolk County Jail, 129 F.3d at 653 (since 1979); Benjamin, 124 F.3d at 165 (since 1978-79); Gavin, 122 F.3d at 1084 (since 1984); Plyler, 100 F.3d at 369 (since 1986).
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 367 F.3d 513 (2004)
Everett HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
Perry M. JOHNSON, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 03-1334.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued: February 5, 2004. Decided and Filed: May 6, 2004.
514 *514 A. Peter Govorchin (argued and briefed), Leo H. Friedman (briefed), Office of the Attorney General, Corrections Division, Lansing, MI, for Appellants.
Elizabeth R. Alexander (argued and briefed), National Prison Project, Washington, D.C., Michael J. Barnhart (briefed), Detroit, MI, Patricia A. Streeter, Ann Arbor, MI, for Appellees.
Before KENNEDY, DAUGHTREY, and COLE, Circuit Judges.
KENNEDY, Circuit Judge.
Defendants appeal district court's issuance of an injunction in this long-pending case dealing with conditions within the State Prison of Southern Michigan, Central Complex (SPSM-CC). Defendants argue that the district court erred when it found that the failure to modify the long-existing structures and to take other steps to protect prisoners from injury or death by fire resulted in a constitutional violation. Defendants also argue that the district court improperly exercised its jurisdiction over facilities not subject to a Consent Decree. We reverse and remand 515 *515 on the issue of constitutional violation and affirm on the issue of jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
In 1980, Everett Hadix and other prisoners incarcerated at the SPSM-CC brought a class action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against various state officials charged with operation of SPSM-CC. In the complaint, the inmates alleged that the conditions of their confinement violated their rights under the First, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. On April 4, 1985, the parties entered into a Consent Decree covering most aspects of health care, fire safety, sanitation, safety and hygiene, overcrowding and protection from harm, volunteers, food service, management, operations, access to courts, and mail. Although the state officials admitted no liability on the claims, the Consent Decree explicitly stated that it was intended by the parties to assure the constitutionality of the conditions under which prisoners are incarcerated at SPSM-CC. Under the terms of the Consent Decree, the state officials retained the ability to apply for termination of the decree once they achieved full compliance with all decree provisions. The district court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Consent Decree until compliance was achieved. In 1992, the Eastern District of Michigan transferred the medical and mental health components of the Consent Decree to the Western District of Michigan.
In April 1996, Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA"), Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-66 (1996), amending 18 U.S.C. § 3626. Section 802(a)(1) of the PLRA directs that prospective relief in prison conditions cases "shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1). Section 802(b)(2) of the PLRA entitles the defendant "to the immediate termination of any prospective relief if the relief was approved or granted in the absence of a finding by the court that the relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2). The prospective relief, however, "shall not terminate if the court makes written findings based on the record that prospective relief remains necessary [, narrowly drawn, and the least intrusive means]

to correct a current and ongoing violation of the Federal right." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3). Following the enactment of PLRA, Defendants moved to terminate the Consent Decree pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2)-(3). On November 18, 1996, the district court ruled that the immediate termination provision of the PLRA was unconstitutional. In the same ruling, the court denied Defendants' motion for immediate termination and ruled that the Plaintiffs sustained their burden by proving the existence of constitutional violations as to sections II.A.3.b. Transfer Medical Evaluation; II.A.4.a. Sick Call Access Plan; II.A.5.a. Professional Staff; II.A.7. Chronic Disease Plan; and II.A.11. Problem Oriented Medical Record-Health Related Disabilities of the Consent Decree. Finally, the court also ruled that Plaintiffs failed to sustain their burden proving the existence of current constitutional violations as to the remaining health care provisions of the Consent Decree. Defendants appealed the November 18, 1996 order and this Court, in a January 22, 1998 Opinion, dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
516 *516 On March 18, 1999, the Eastern District transferred sections I.P., I.Q., and I.S. of the Consent Decree (regarding water temperatures, housing temperatures, and ventilation, respectively) pertaining to facility B (Southern Michigan Correctional Facility or JMF) to the Western District. The Eastern District also transferred to the Western District Defendants' proposed alternatives to Facility A (Egeler Correctional Facility[1] or SMN). On December 2-3, 1999, the Western District conducted hearings on the medical health care provision of the Consent Decree and other issues transferred by the Eastern District.
On February 18, 2000, the district court issued its Order and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The district court reaffirmed its findings from November 18, 1996, that (1) Plaintiffs sustained their burdens by proving the existence of constitutional violations with regard to sections II.A.3.b., II.A.4.a., II.A.5.a., II.A.7., and II.A.11 and (2) Plaintiffs failed to sustain their burden of proving the existence of constitutional violations as to the remaining health care provisions of the Consent Decree and terminated its jurisdiction over those provisions. Additionally, the district court found that the temperature, ventilation and fire safety conditions at JMF, Egeler, and Administrative Segregation[2] support a finding of constitutional violations. The February 18, 2000 order was not final, as the district court reserved judgment on termination of other portions of the Consent Decree and the entry of any remedial order.
On July 12, 2000 the Eastern District transferred to the Western District Plaintiffs' claims that conditions in Facility C (State Prison of Southern Michigan 0907 Central Complex or SMI) with regard to water, temperature and ventilation (Sections I.P., I.Q., and I.S., respectively), endanger the health of prisoners. On November 15, 2000, the Eastern District transferred to the Western District Plaintiffs' claims that the conditions in Facility D (Parnall Correctional Facility or SMT) with regard to temperature and ventilation (Sections I.Q and I.S., respectively). On November 8, 2001, Defendants notified the district court that as a result of a reduction in the MDOC's general fund budget, Facility C (or SMI), including the administrative segregation unit, would be vacated. On January 4, 2002, SMI was emptied of all prisoners. There are no current plans to reopen SMI, and any reopening of SMI would be contingent upon future bed space needs and finances.
On April 8, 2002, pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the Western District terminated its jurisdiction over Section I.P. (water temperature) of the Consent Decree as to all Hadix facilities.[3] On May 3, 2002, pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, it also terminated its jurisdiction over Section I.S. (ventilation) of the Consent Decree as 517 to Blocks 1 and 3 of the Egeler Facility, Block 7 (the Reception and Guidance Center), Block 8 of the Parnall *517 Facility, and SMI administrative segregation. On May 6-8, 2002, the district court conducted hearings on the remaining medical health care provisions of the Consent Decree and other issues transferred by the Eastern District. On October 29, 2002, the district court issued its Order and Injunction and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The court determined that the existing system of health care continues to violate sections II.A.3.b, II.A.4.a., II.A.5.a., II.A.7., II.A.11. of the Consent Decree and the Eighth Amendment. The court further found that Defendants' failure to protect prisoners from heat-related illnesses and the risk of injury from smoke and fire for prisoners with disabilities and chronic diseases resulted in current and ongoing violations of the Consent Decree and the U.S. Constitution.
On the basis of those findings, the district court concluded that termination of the remaining portions of the Consent Decree was inappropriate, that remedies are appropriate, and that further briefing and hearing were necessary to determine the scope of remedies. Accordingly, the district court ordered the parties to further brief

the question of whether there is any alternative to compartmentalization,[4] consistent with Section VIII of the Consent Decree, as a remedy for the fire safety problems and risks. After the briefing, the district court issued its Injunction on February 25, 2003, in which it ordered compartmentalization of the facilities as the fire safety remedy. The injunction applied to Facilities A (Egeler) and D (Parnall). The court further ordered Defendants to submit by December 31, 2003, a synopsis of their intended facilities and process modifications, detailed architectural site plans and construction schedule for approval by the court.
ANALYSIS

Defendants on this appeal argue that the district court abused its discretion and erred (1) by exercising its jurisdiction over facilities not subject to the Consent Decree[5] and (2) in its conclusion that the MDOC's failure to protect prisoners from injury or death by fire constituted a constitutional violation. We address these contentions in turn.
I. Subject matter jurisdiction

Defendants argue that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Blocks 1 and 2 of the Egeler Correctional Facility, Blocks 9 and 10 of the Parnall Correctional Facility, and Building C. Plaintiffs argue, and we agree, that the injunction clearly states that it applies only to Blocks 1, 2, and 3 of Egeler, Block 7 of the Reception Complex and Block 8 of Parnall. See Injunction, Feb. 25, 2003 at 2. Accordingly, the only question is whether the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over Blocks 1 and 2 of Egeler.

The Consent Decree stated the following:

This was an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other applicable statutes seeking

518

declaratory and equitable *518 relief with respect to the conditions of confinement at the Central

Complex of the State Prison of Southern Michigan, including the Reception and Guidance Center

(hereinafter referred to as SPSM-CC).

Consent Decree. At the time of the entry of the Consent Decree, April 1985, SPSM-CC consisted of Blocks 3-6, 8, 11, 12, and Administrative Segregation. Blocks 1 and 2, on the other hand, were part of the North Complex. Nevertheless, as stated above, at that time, the Hadix facilities were defined as "all areas within walls of the State Prison of Southern Michigan at the time this cause commenced and all areas which will supply support services under the provisions of the Consent Judgment." Order Accepting Consent Judgment, May 13, 1985. The "within walls of the State Prison of Southern Michigan" meant the Central Complex. Accordingly, the question is whether Blocks 1 and 2 are "areas which will supply support services." The district court concluded that "those facilities have been long considered by this Court and Judge Feikens[6] as Hadix facilities given the delivery of support services. While, of course, the delivery of support services may change over time, there is no need on the present record to declare those facilities as non-Hadix facilities." Hadix v. Johnson, No. 4:92-CV-110, slip op. at 4 (W.D.Mich. Apr. 18, 2002) (ruling on the motions). Defendants have presented us with no arguments on this appeal as to why it was an abuse of discretion to conclude that Blocks 1 and 2 are "areas which will supply support services."[7] Accordingly, we find that the district court judge did not abuse its discretion in exercising jurisdiction over all of the facilities in question.

II. Constitutional violation

A. District Court Proceedings

On February 18, 2000, the district court issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in which it stated:
Egeler cells cannot be remotely unlocked. Moreover, in an emergency prisoners would be required to exit down five stories through narrow galleries with low railings. In a fire, water flowing

over the galleries from the affected sprinklers would make some areas more slippery, and in some

areas smoke from the fire might also increase the hazard. This combination of circumstances

would pose an extremely great fire hazard ... The hazards of a fire evacuation would be even

greater for a prisoner with medical disabilities, a category that includes much of the population ...

Fire safety hazards are exacerbated for those persons with significant medical disabilities, if they

are inappropriately housed on an upper tier. Defendants did not contest Plaintiffs' contentions that

fire safety in relation to prisoners with medical and mental health problems is deficient.

519

Defendants' *519 failures to implement an appropriate break-up plan, or otherwise address the

dangers at the Egeler facility, have resulted in current and ongoing constitutional violations. The

current record also supports a conclusion that there is an ongoing constitutional violation

regarding Administrative Segregation.

Hadix v. Johnson, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21283, at *376-77 (W.D.Mich. Oct. 29, 2002) (citing its previous Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law). Since this order was not final, it was not appealed. The court also set a May 2002 hearing regarding fire safety to provide Defendants an opportunity to prove they have taken actions that have remedied constitutional violations previously determined and to discuss plans to remedy these violations in Egeler and Administrative Segregation. Defendants submitted a Report of their Remedial Plans for Fire Safety, Temperature, Ventilation and Facility A on June 8, 2001.

Section VIII of the original Consent Decree called for a management study. This study concluded that SPSM was unmanageable and should be broken into smaller facilities for purposes of management. The parties negotiated two stipulations, each of which was approved by the Court. The Stipulation Regarding Implementation of Consent Decree Provisions VIII, E, F, and G, April 7, 1989, established basic procedures. The Stipulated Agreement Regarding Plan Element One and the Implementation of Paragraphs VIII, E, F, and G of the Consent Judgment, June 8, 1990, called for the unitization and compartmentalization of each of the SPSM cell blocks into four parts. The Agreement also stated that:

The parties agree that unitization and decentralization are critical to the acceptance of Plan Element One. Unitization has been recommended by the Defendants in their binding proposals to include "dividing each cellblock into four smaller living units which will operate as a management unit." Decentralization has been recommended by Defendants in their binding proposals to include "food service and passive recreational programming ... decentralized to each of the unitized housing units." Where Defendants condition implementation of these proposals with expressions such as "if possible" or "where possible" this condition relates to architectural feasibility.

June 8, 1990 Stipulated Agreement. Our reading of the record indicates that Defendants consented to compartmentalization as a remedy not for the fire safety concerns, but for the concerns over violent attacks that were taking place in the prison complex. The concerns about personal safety of the prisoners stemming from the potential of outbreak of violence have been remedied and are not subject of the current appeal. Accordingly, the district court erred when it proceeded on the assumption that Defendants had agreed on an earlier occasion to compartmentalization of the facilities to remedy fire safety violations.

The question of architectural feasibility thus became crucial to the proper resolution of this long-standing conflict. Defendants retained the architectural and engineering firms of Rosser Fabrap and Silver Ziskind to assess the physical and functional conditions of the Hadix facilities and design the necessary corrective actions in accordance with the Stipulated Order to unitize and compartmentalize the facilities. Robert Fabrap found, inter alia, that (1) all of the cell blocks at Egeler violate the "means of egress" requirements of the code of the Building 520 Officials and Code Administrators, International ("BOCA *520 Code");[8] (2) the stairs that would be used for evacuating the cell blocks in Egeler are inadequate in size, enclosure, location, and discharge; and (3) the fivestory mezzanine design in the Egeler cell blocks violates the atrium requirements of the BOCA Code. These findings were accepted by Defendants' mechanical engineering expert, David Sproul.

Additionally, Defendants retained Mr. Wayne Carson as their fire safety expert. Mr. Carson visited the Hadix facilities on a number of occasions, both before and after issuing his report. During those visits, Mr. Carson walked through the facilities and interviewed the staff. Mr. Carson opined that MDOC was conducting fire drills

quarterly on each shift. The examination of the drill reports showed that evacuation times in Block 3 and Block 8 approached twenty minutes. The Life Safety Code ("LSC")[9] does not specify the maximum amount of time to complete an evacuation. It does, however, require that where a large atrium area (e.g. cell block) is being used to dilute smoke as Defendants argue,[10] the evacuation time must be considered in designing a smoke management system. Depending on the cell block, between 22 and 27 locks must be opened at Egeler. By contrast, the LSC permits a maximum of 10 locks. Further delaying the evacuation is the operating procedure, which mandates that a staff member must travel to the arsenal to get the key to activate smoke evacuation vents. Nevertheless, Mr. Carson opined at the 2002 hearing that MDOC's evacuation procedures and fire drills are adequate to meet the requirements of the LSC. His opinion rested in large part on the ability of the open cell blocks to provide a large volume for the dilution of heat and smoke. Undermining that conclusion was Mr. Carson's inability to tell the court how quickly smoke would actually disperse to fill the whole cellblock.[11] Mr. 521 Carson *521 also did not know in what directions the smoke would travel from a fire. On the other hand, Mr. DiMascio opined that the most likely path that smoke would travel would be upward, spreading out as it rose and then traveling across the ceilings. Mr. DiMascio's theory was confirmed by the actual path of the smoke from a fire in Block 8 that Mr. Kovaleski witnessed on an earlier occasion. However, the district court acknowledged that fire and smoke from a fire do not travel in the same direction or have the same characteristics on every occasion. Mr. Carson attempted to bolster his smoke dilution theory by testifying that his research has only disclosed one multi-tiered open cell block fire in Ohio in the 1930s, which resulted in death or injury to prisoners when the wooden roof collapsed. Plaintiffs countered that aspect of his testimony with Curtiss Pulitzer's testimony that a number of fires had taken place in multi-tier cell blocks.[12] Despite Mr. Pulitzer's statement regarding the loss of life due to fires in multi-tiered correctional facilities 20-25 years ago, the court noted that the most recent correctional facility to have a fire resulting in loss of life was not multi-tiered.
With respect to a likelihood of a fire, Mr. Carson opined that (1) the combustible materials in the cell blocks are limited,[13] (2) there are no combustibles stored in the basement of the cell blocks; (3) there are metal fans in the corners of the units and sprinklers over the metal fans; (4) the structure is noncombustible[14] and there is nothing in the basement that is combustible; (5) there are no combustible materials in the attic space; (6) the laundry levels at the bulkheads referred to as the ends of the cell blocks at the Egeler Facility are protected with sprinklers; and (7) all buildings are protected by automatic sprinklers in each cell. On cross-examination, Mr. Carson conceded that the dry transformers and circuit breaker panels in Block 7 and 8 could catch fire and that smoke from the fire could enter the cell block. Mr. DiMascio confirmed that the dry transformers and circuit breaker panels in Blocks 1-3, 7, 8 are "live" and pose a serious hazard if they were to catch on fire. Mr. DiMascio testified that "sprinkler systems fail too often." However, he was unable to provide the court with the failure rate, if any, of the sprinkler system in the subject facilities.
Plaintiffs produced evidence, credited by the district court, that there are no automatic sprinklers in the basements of Blocks 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 (except at either end over the fans) and that there are no sprinklers in the pipe chases behind the cells in Blocks 7 and 8. As a result, if smoke gets into the pipe chases in Blocks 7 and 8, it would travel vertically through the tiers, get to the return air vents at the top of the building and be exhausted. 522 The *522 smoke detectors in the air handling units would shut down the unit in the event of large volumes of smoke. At that point, the smoke would not be recirculated in the building; nor would it be exhausted. Mr. Carson discounted the dangers presented by the lack of sprinklers in the pipe chases of Blocks 7 and 8 because there is no fuel in the pipe chases. He concluded that Blocks 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 are fully sprinkled within the intent of the LSC.[15] He also opined that the Blocks provide an equivalent level of protection intended by the Code.[16]
A major point of contention during the trial was whether or not Blocks 1-3 and 7-8 are single-story or multi-storied for the purposes of the LSC. Those Blocks are each five stories tall and the length of a football field. Mr. Carson opined that the Blocks are single-story for purposes of the LSC. Mr. DiMascio, and the district court, disagreed. The district court further found that even if the claim that these Blocks are one-story buildings is accepted, Defendants would then be violating a separate code provision 0907 the requirement that ceiling height not exceed twenty-three feet.[17]

Another point of contention was the applicability of BOCA to these facilities. BOCA requires more safety precautions than does the LSC. Mr. Carson, who is involved with BOCA and is a member of BOCA, stated that BOCA is not applicable to the subject facilities because BOCA only applies to new construction and remodeling, and not to existing structures. The district court noted that Blocks 1-5 were constructed in 1926. Blocks 7-8 were constructed in 1928. Blocks 11-12 were constructed in 1944. Administrative Segregation was constructed in 1930. The court concluded that as a renovated facility, Egeler was subject to BOCA.
Mr. Carson also acknowledged that he did not take into consideration the number of prisoners with medical problems. However, he indicated that a problem of occupants with medical problems exists in all facilities, including the private sector and that the LSC takes this problem into consideration. The court disagreed because it found that Hadix facilities house a very substantial numbers of inmates who, "because of age, physical impairment, medical or mental condition, or medication are more at risk from smoke than a general population and evacuate more slowly." Hadix, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21283, at *411-12 (W.D.Mich. Oct. 29, 2002).

B. District Court Conclusions

After considering all evidence the district court found the following specific fire safety deficiencies with respect to various areas of concern. With regard to building evacuation the court found that:

If inmates cannot quickly evacuate a housing block in the event of the a serious fire, they would

likely die. The current population is at risk in a fire emergency ... According to Defendants' records,

a substantial number of cell locking mechanisms do not work properly at any given time ... In order

to exit a block, an inmate must travel half the length of his tier to the nearest stairs, which are at

523

either end of each *523 block; travel down as many as five flights of open stairs;[18] and cross the

open area on base to the exit. The distance an inmate must travel in 1-3 Blocks and 7-8 Blocks to

exit the block exceeds the maximum travel distance of 150 feet permitted by the Life Safety Code.

Blocks 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 cannot be classified as one-story buildings under the Life Safety Code

because they are not fully sprinkled. "Fully sprinkled" is an absolute without exceptions for

unsprinkled areas. The BOCA Code would not permit a five-tiered cell blocks such as those at

Egeler and Parnall. The primary concern associated with Blocks 1-3, 7 and 8 is that they are five-

tiered open celled structures. In addition to applying to new or renovated structures, the BOCA

code requires that unsafe structures be taken down or made safe. Blocks 1-3, Administrative

Segregation, and Blocks 7-8 are unsafe and should be corrected. Application of the BOCA Code

to Blocks 1-3, 7 and 8 is essential if the buildings are to be made safe. The ceiling height in Blocks

1-3, 7 and 8 is 51 feet. The BOCA Code permits a ceiling height that does not exceed 23 feet

long, only so long as one of the exits does not require inmates to traverse stairs from higher than

the 23 feet. The BOCA ceiling height requirement serves to reduce the number of people at risk.

The intent of the ceiling height requirement is to assure compartmentalization, reducing the

population at risk from a fire in a particular unit and assuring that prisoners can move horizontally

to the next unit in the event of fire, rather than being required to negotiate distances in excess of

what is permitted by the code.

Hadix, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21283, at *400-03 (W.D.Mich. Oct. 29, 2002).

With respect to smoke removal, the district court found that:

Notwithstanding MDOC regulations, there is a sufficient fuel load within a cell to burn for 15 minutes. Some cells have footlockers full of books and other papers. Smoke caused by a fire in a cell would be most likely to rise from the cell on fire and, as it rose from gallery to gallery, it would gather air and expand, affecting more cells. When the smoke reached the top of the block, it would move horizontally through the block and then downward into the block. The air space in a housing block above the occupied cells will act as a reservoir for smoke but it would be of limited use before it began affecting inmates trying to use upper galleries to exit. Smoke will also form eddies in areas that inmates on other levels are trying to use as exits. Mr. DiMascio made

calculations based on Life Safety Code, indicating that each block in Egeler would need to be able

to evacuate 150,000 cubic feet per minute ("CFM") of smoke from a block. The ventilation fans are

rated to evacuate 20,000 CFM ... Accordingly, under conditions in a fire as anticipated under the

Code, the cell block could fill with smoke at the rate of ten feet per minute. In light of the fact that

the ceiling height in Blocks 1-3, 7 and 8 is 51 feet, these calculations imply that smoke from the

bottom tier could reach the top tier in approximately five minutes. However, the chances of such a

fire are reduced by the presence of sprinklers. The ventilation system in 1-3, 7 and 8 Blocks is no

524

more than an add-on. It is not a smoke controlled system as described in the codes. *524 There

are "live" dry transformers and electric breaker panels in the basements of 1-3, 7 and 8 Blocks.

These can catch fire and the smoke generated can travel into the housing area. There are no

sprinklers in the basements. Mr. Carson agreed with these statements as to 7 and 8 Blocks. Fire

drill reports from Block 3 of Egeler show evacuation times ranging from eight minutes to eighteen

minutes. The reports for Block 8 evacuation times range from three minutes to twenty minutes.

However, the codes do not specify maximum evacuation times. It takes four minutes just to unlock

all of the cells in Blocks 7 and 8, not counting the time from the base level through an exit door.

Id. at *403-06.

In addition to these general findings, the district court identified physical problems unique to each facility in question. With respect to Egeler, the court noted that:

A maximum of ten locks can be released to meet the Life Safety Code. Two of the Egeler blocks have 22 locks that must be manually opened to evacuate the building. One block has 27 locks that must be manually opened, because there are five top-lock cells. The smoke-purging system in each block of Egeler is the roof exhaust fans. To activate those fans, staff must go to the Arsenal to retrieve the key to the lock on the exhaust fans. In the event of a fire, staff would be expected to unlock cells and the exit doors, travel back and forth from the Arsenal to get the key to unlock the switch to the smoke purging system, and assist handicapped inmates. A Block 2 cell (which was subject to double-bunked [sic] at the time of hearing) has a distance of 18.5 inches between the bunk bed and the side-by-side lockers opposite the bed, 22 inches from the sink to the bunk bed and 9.5 inches from the sink to the desk, not including the space for the chair. Defendants did not made any changes to the ventilation system in 2 Block after it was double-bunked, nor have Defendants made any changes in the ventilation since the Court made its findings of unconstitutionality, with the exception of increasing the population by double-celling for a time. This double-bunking placed Block 2 prisoners at risk in a fire emergency.

Id. at *406-07. With respect to Blocks 7 and 8, the court noted that:

The quartermaster area of 7 Block contains substantial flammable materials. Smoke could get into the housing unit up the stairs or through the passageway used by inmates to get into the cell block. [Plaintiff] Kovaleski estimated that inmates have substantial weights of flammable materials in their cells ... Mr. Kovaleski described a fire that was set by an inmate on the first gallery of 8 Block. The inmate put a few papers and a sheet in a trash can, ignited this material and placed his mattress over the fire. Mr. Kovaleski was on the third gallery at the time. There was so much smoke produced by this fire that he could not see the cell opposite his on the other side of the common area. The smoke came up the front of the tiers and into his cells ... There are no sprinklers in the 7 and 8 Block pipe chases. If an inmate in 7 or 8 block were to ignite his possessions, the smoke from the fire could travel into the pipe chase, which does not have sprinklers, and travel up in the chases and enter the cells at higher levels. If transformers in the 7 and 8 Block basements caught fire, the smoke from the fire could travel into the housing units.

525 Id. at 407-09. With respect to Administrative Segregation, the court concluded *525 that "[i]f a fire started in a basement it could ignite the insulation at each floor" and that "Defendants inappropriately rely on this ventilation system to exhaust smoke in Administrative Segregation." Id. With respect to RGC, the court noted that "[i]nmates in RGS may never participate in a fire drill, because of the short period of time they are in the facility [10 days to 4 weeks], placing them at increased risk." Id. It further concluded that "in the Egeler facility, Blocks 7 and 8,

Administrative Segregation and RGC, the risk of injury from smoke and fire for prisoners with disabilities and chronic diseases continues to violate Constitutional requirements ..." Id. at 412-13.
C. Current Appeal
In the context of prison conditions, the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause forbids conditions that involve the "wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain," or are "grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime ..." Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981). To succeed in an Eighth Amendment challenge, Plaintiff must establish that (1) a single, identifiable necessity of civilized human existence is being denied (objective prong) and (2) the defendant prison official acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind. See, e.g., Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991); Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 867 (6th Cir.2000).
With respect to the objective prong,"[p]risoners have the right not to be subjected to the unreasonable threat of injury or death by fire...." Hoptowit v. Spellman, 753 F.2d 779, 783-84 (9th Cir.1985). The contemporary standards of civilized decency that currently prevail in society determine whether conditions of confinement are cruel and unusual. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. at 346, 101 S.Ct. 2392. It is those contemporary standards, and not courts' own "notions of enlighted policy" that are controlling. Tillery v. Owens, 907 F.2d 418, 426 (3rd Cir.1990). To satisfy this prong, "extreme deprivations are required ...," Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992), and only deprivations denying "the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities" are grave enough to create a violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347, 101 S.Ct. 2392. Harsh and uncomfortable prison conditions do not automatically create such a violation. Dixon v. Godinez, 114 F.3d 640, 642 (7th Cir.1997) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994)). However, a "remedy for unsafe conditions need not await a tragic event." Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33-34, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993). See also Hill v. Marshall, 962 F.2d 1209, 1211, 1215 (6th Cir.1992) (holding that failure to provide prophylactic medication to prevent the possible future development of active tuberculosis is "actual injury," even though prisoner did not develop active tuberculosis).
With respect to the subjective prong, there is no violation of the Eighth Amendment unless the defendant is "aware of the facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists" and he draws "that inference." Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970. Even if the defendant draws such an inference, he is not liable if he took reasonable steps to avert the harm. Id. at 844, 114 S.Ct. 1970. Negligent exposure to a risk is not sufficient to create an Eighth Amendment violation. Id. at 835-36, 114 S.Ct. 1970. Rather, deliberate indifference can best be compared to criminal law's "subjective recklessness." Id. at 839-40, 114 S.Ct. 1970. In 526 Farmer, the Court, concerned with the subjective component, *526 explained that an "inmate seeking an injunction on the ground that there is a contemporary violation of a nature likely to continue must adequately plead such a violation; to survive summary judgment, he must come forward with evidence from which it can be inferred that the defendant-officials were at the time suit was filed, and are at the time of summary judgment, knowingly and unreasonably disregarding an objectively intolerable risk of harm, and that they will continue to do so ..." Farmer, 511 U.S. at 845-46, 114 S.Ct. 1970. In this case, we are concerned with future conduct to correct prison conditions. If those conditions are found to be objectively unconstitutional, then that finding would also satisfy the subjective prong because the same information that would lead to the court's conclusion was available to the prison officials.
The district court concluded that Plaintiffs established both the objective and the subjective prongs. The review in this case is made difficult because the district court's finding of a constitutional violation with respect to fire safety was first made in 2000, together with a number of issues which have since been resolved. However, since no injunction was issued at the time, no appeal was available. The present injunction was issued after a further evidentiary hearing held in 2002, where expert testimony was offered by each party as to compliance with fire safety codes and current conditions with respect to fire safety. In making its findings supporting the injunction, the district court incorporated its principal findings of its 2000 opinion finding fire safety conditions in the affected buildings unconstitutional.

Defendants have not attacked any of those factual findings as clearly erroneous. Indeed, the only fact that they appear to be challenging is the district court's finding that a large percentage of the prisoners in the general prison population have health problems that would affect their ability to deal with smoke from possible fires. However, Defendants fail to provide any record to support their position while Plaintiffs direct us to various exhibits and disclosures.
Defendants do argue that their expert, Mr. Carson, is better qualified than plaintiff's expert, Mr. DiMascio. Mr. Carson testified that the LSC properly applies to these existing buildings and not the BOCA Code, and that the buildings substantially comply with the LSC even though the distance that must be traveled to stairs exceeds the distance permitted under the Code and even though there is an insufficient exhaust system. This deficiency, Mr. Carson stated, was compensated for by the large space of the building which would dissipate smoke from a limited fire in a prisoner's cell. Mr. Carson, however, gave no calculations as to what time that would take or how much smoke could be handled. On the other hand, Plaintiffs' expert calculated that the space was insufficient to dissipate the amount of smoke that could result from a fire in a cell, considering the amount of papers a prisoner could accumulate in his cell. Plaintiffs' expert also called attention to areas of the buildings which were not fully sprinkled. However, sprinklers were installed in certain areas, both after Plaintiffs' expert's inspection and since the hearing. Furthermore, some of the hazards (e.g. unused transformers) have been or are in the process of being removed.[19] If we were satisfied that the district court applied a proper standard in its analysis, we would defer to its judgment about the credibility of the conflicting witnesses.
527 *527 We reserve our judgment on the battle of the experts, however, because the district court does not, in either its 2000 or 2002 order, state the standard it is applying to find that the conditions relating to fire prevention and fire safety are inadequate. It does not state in what particular ways Defendants' deficiencies were unconstitutional in 2002, merely reciting that it had found those conditions unconstitutional in 2000 and that they had not been remedied. It is unclear whether the court simply (and erroneously) concluded that the violation of the LSC or the BOCA is equivalent to a constitutional violation. Having reviewed the evidence before us, we conclude that the court abused its discretion when it found that the current prison conditions at the facilities in question are so unsafe as to violate the Constitution and when it issued an injunction requiring compartmentalization.
The Fifth Circuit encountered a similar problem with fire safety concerns in various institutions operated by the Texas Department of Corrections ("TDC"). Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir.1982). In Ruiz, the district court found that (1) the TDC prisons were woefully deficient in the number of fire exits, (2) the few available exits in the housing areas were too small and inadequately constructed to serve effectively during an actual fire, and (3) a similar problem in work areas created a potential for serious injury in the face of a disaster. Concluding that these conditions violated the Eighth Amendment, the district court ordered TDC to comply with the current edition of the Life Safety Code of the National Fire Protection Association. Id. at 1152-53. On the other hand, the record contained "no evidence either of a single fatality or a serious injury at TDC caused by fire or smoke inhalation in the recent past. Although there is danger from inflammable materials used inside the buildings, the buildings themselves are built of materials that do not burn easily." Id. at 1153. The Fifth Circuit acknowledged that TDC had a duty to provide adequate fire safety for its inmates. Nevertheless, it found that:
The deficiencies in fire safety found at TDC, however, do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, either alone or in combination with the other conditions in its prisons. Indeed, the fire safety problems have little connection with the other conditions found to violate the eighth amendment. Moreover, although the standards set by private organizations' safety codes may be instructive in certain cases, they simply do not establish the constitutional minima; rather they establish goals recommended by the organization in question.
Id. (citations omitted) (emphasis added). In finding that private safety codes, such as the LSC, do not establish the constitutional minima, the Fifth Circuit relied on the following footnote in a Supreme Court's opinion:
Respondents and the District Court erred in assuming that opinions of experts as to desirable prison conditions suffice to establish contemporary standards of decency. As we noted in [an earlier case], such opinions may be helpful and relevant with respect to some questions, but they simply do not establish the constitutional minima; rather, they establish goals recommended by

the organization in question. Indeed, generalized opinions of experts cannot weigh as heavily in determining contemporary standards of decency as the public attitude toward a given sanction. We could agree that double celling is not desirable, especially in view of the size of these cells. But there is no evidence in this case that double celling is viewed generally as violating decency.
528 *528 Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 348 n. 13, 101 S.Ct. 2392 (citations omitted). The Supreme Court more recently reiterated its commitment to "contemporary standards of decency" approach to claims of alleged Eighth Amendment violations:
[D]etermining whether McKinney's conditions of confinement violate the Eighth Amendment requires more than a scientific and statistical inquiry into the seriousness of the potential harm and the likelihood that such injury to health will actually be caused by exposure to ETS. It also requires a court to assess whether society considers the risk that the prisoner complains of to be so grave that it violates contemporary standards of decency to expose anyone unwillingly to such a risk. In other words, the prisoner must show that the risk of which he complains is not one that today's society chooses to tolerate.
Helling, 509 U.S. at 36, 113 S.Ct. 2475. A review of cases dealing with fire safety in the constitutional context illustrates a continuum of various violations of fire safety, generally, and fire safety codes, specifically. Some of these amounted to a constitutional violation while others did not.[20]See generally Women Prisoners of the Dist. of Columbia Dep't of Corr., 877 F.Supp. 634, 669 (D.D.C.1994) (finding that the following living conditions, working in concert, presented a risk of fire so serious that it violated contemporary standards of decency where (1) the dormitories were overcrowded and carried a heavy combustible load; (2) the walls could not contain a fire within any room; (3) only one fire exit consistently remained unlocked; (4) there was no fire alarm system; (5) there was no sprinkler system; and (6) fire drills were not regularly conducted); Carty v. Farrelly, 957 F.Supp. 727, 737 (D.Vi.1997) (finding a constitutional violation where (1) the cell locking devices, manual alarm systems, smoke dampers, and heat detectors were inoperable, thereby creating a security risk during a fire emergency, and (2) the building itself could not adequately protect the occupants during a fire because of an inadequate fire alarm system); Toussaint v. McCarthy, 597 F.Supp. 1388, 1410 (N.D.Cal.1984) (finding an Eighth Amendment violation where (1) lockup units at both prisons were replete with fire hazards; (2) evacuation procedures were nonexistent or, at best, untested; and (3) the record showed that multiple fire-related fatalities occurred); Capps v. Atiyeh, 559 F.Supp. 894, 915 (D.Or.1983) (finding an Eighth Amendment violation despite the absence of evidence of a death or serious injury cause by fire or smoke inhalation at the facility because (1) the prison was a very old structure unlike solid concrete complexes approved by Ruiz; (2) the inmates, many of whom are older, lived in crowded dormitories; (3) the facility needed either smoke detectors or a fire alarm system, and an emergency exit on the north end of the building; (4) the south emergency exit was locked and only one guard could unlock it; and (5) the ladder did not reach the ground); Leeds v. Watson, 630 F.2d 674, 675-76 (9th Cir.1980) (remanding for further hearing on the adequacy of the plan to remedy constitutional violations where (1) "there is room for the belief that the second floor of the facility could still be a death trap in the event of fire" because the only exit for inmates may be blocked by fire and the alternative means of regress would take too 529 much time; and (2) "[t]here is still some possibility, moreover, that persons will be housed *529 in `grave emergencies' in a locked cell area that has no fire exit."); Santana v. Collazo, 714 F.2d 1172, 1182-83 (1st Cir.1983) (remanding because the district court failed to adequately address "the evidence presented to it that conditions at Mayaquez are not as safe from the danger of fire as the constitution requires that they be" where (1) the polyurethane mattresses were used throughout the institution and that polyurethane is highly inflammable, burns quickly at high temperatures and emits extremely toxic gasses; (2) two juveniles actually died several years ago in a fire that they set to their mattresses; (3) fire extinguishers may not have been properly changed; and (4) there was a need for an evacuation plan in the event of fire); Masonoff v. DuBois, 899 F.Supp. 782, 798-99 (D.Mass.1995) (finding that there is a triable issue concerning the plaintiffs' fire hazard claim where (1) it was undisputed that the prison lacked automatic locks on the cell doors and a functioning sprinkler system and (2) that the state building code applicable to the prison required a sprinkler system and encouraged the use of automatic door locks, but (3) where the prison may have mitigated any danger to withstand constitutional scrutiny when it implemented rigorous fire safety procedures, including evacuation drills, fire drills and inspections of fire safety equipment); French v. Owens, 777 F.2d 1250, 1257 (7th Cir.1986) (observing that "[t]he eighth amendment

does not constitutionalize the Indiana Fire Code. Nor does it require complete compliance with the numerous OSHA regulations" and remanding to the district court to order only those remedies that are necessary to bring conditions above constitutional minima); Miles v. Bell, 621 F.Supp. 51, 64-5 (D.Conn.1985) (no constitutional violation even though the laundry room door in prison was not a one-hour fire resistant door, as required by the LSC).
In this case, the district court failed to identify the point at which certain fire safety deficiencies ceased being mere deficiencies and, instead, became constitutional violations. As noted above, this Court was informed at oral argument that Defendants have taken steps to remedy some of the problems noted by the district court, such as removing the dry transformers from the basement and installing additional sprinklers. It is unclear to us whether those remedies are sufficient to cure the constitutional violations at the Hadix facilities.
We understand that the judicial supervision over prison conditions is a daunting task. We cannot, however, accept the approach taken by the district court in this case, namely, providing a laundry list of all the things that were wrong in the Hadix facilities, declaring a constitutional violation, and ordering a highly expensive, and potentially ineffective,[21] solution. This approach renders it impossible for this Court to review on appeal the legal conclusions of the lower court. We owe deference to the district court's decision to issue an injunction to remedy the constitutional violations. However, we must review de novo its legal conclusion that there were constitutional violations. Absence of a clear constitutional analysis in the present case by the lower court renders this task impossible. Accordingly, we remand this case for a more detailed analysis of how the current conditions in the Hadix facilities continue to be deprivations denying "the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities" 530 rather than potentially minor deviations *530 that may satisfy the equivalency provisions of the LSC. Also, we remand for a more detailed analysis of why the steps taken by the prison officials, which the lower court may disagree with, constitute "deliberate indifference," rather than a mere difference of opinion.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over all facilities in question. However, we remand for a more detailed constitutional analysis on the question of fire safety violations.
[1] There are 993 cells in the three blocks that make up Egeler (Block 1 has 334, Block 2 has 308, and Block 3 has 351). There are currently no prisoners housed in Block 1. Block 2 houses parole violators and Block 3 house parole violators and 10-12 general population inmates.
[2] There are between 200 and 220 inmates in Administrative Segregation.
[3] The Hadix facilities were originally defined as "all areas within walls of the State Prison of Southern Michigan at the time this cause commenced and all areas which will supply support services under the provisions of the Consent Judgment." Order Accepting Consent Judgment, May 13, 1985. The "within walls of the State Prison of Southern Michigan" meant the Central Complex.
[4] "Compartmentalization" means subdividing the building into smaller units to limit the area that is affected by a fire or smoke, including the number of people that might be in that area. This allows people to evacuate horizontally, as well as down the stairs. It also allows them to evacuate quicker by shortening the traveled distance to a place of safety. The last dollar cost estimate for compartmentalization of Egeler was $25 million in the early 1990s.
[5] Defendants also argue that the district court abused its discretion by relying upon certain exhibits in violation of the Federal Rules of Evidence. We disagree and find that any conceivable error in connection with those exhibits is harmless.
[6] Judge Feikens of the Eastern District of Michigan was involved with portions of this case prior to their transfer to the Western District of Michigan.

[7] We also note that in order for a district court to have jurisdiction over Blocks 1 and 2, there must be a finding of on-going constitutional violations taking place there. Therefore, Defendants' concerns would have had more substance prior to the enactment of PLRA in 1996, when the jurisdiction was based solely on the Consent Decree. Since the PLRA requires a continuing constitutional violation for the retention of jurisdiction, even were we to find that the district court abused its discretion in exercising jurisdiction over those facilities by misconstruing the Consent Decree, Plaintiffs could immediately file a new lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of prison conditions in Blocks 1 and 2. We would like to avoid that result in the interest of judicial efficiency.
[8] The BOCA Code is issued by the International Code Council and is adopted by various jurisdictions. As of the date of this opinion, the Code has been adopted by 44 states, including Michigan. It provides safety requirements for newly-constructed or remodeled buildings, but not for existing structures.
[9] The Life Safety Code is promulgated by the National Fire Protection Association and is adopted by various jurisdictions, including Michigan. The purpose of the Life Safety Code is to establish minimum requirements that will provide a reasonable degree of safety from fire in existing buildings and structures.
[10] Mr. Carson presented the following example during his testimony:
If I bring a phone booth into this courtroom and walk in and close the door and set the phone book on fire, I'm not going to be able to stay in the phone booth very long because of the heat and smoke buildup in the booth. But if I light the same phone book in the middle of the courtroom, we could stay in here and watch it burn because we have a large volume to absorb the heat and smoke. The cell blocks, because they are so large, some of them longer than a football field provide a huge volume to absorb heat and smoke and is also limited fuel source in the cell block and the fuel is what drives the fire, that's what produces the heat and smoke is the things that burn, and there is limited fuel in the cells and in the block to burn, so we have a limited size fire and this huge volume, it's a tremendous safety factor.
Hadix, 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 21283, at *382-83 (W.D.Mich. Oct. 29, 2002).
[11] The LSC does provide examples of doing calculations for smoke removal rates based on assumed fuel loads. The type and amount of fuel load drives both how fast a fire will develop and how long the fire will last. The LSC uses an example of a severe fuel loading of 6 pounds per square foot. Mr. Carson testified that the approximate weight of the cell furnishings is 1.7 pounds per square foot. Mr. DiMascio, Plaintiffs' expert, did not contradict that testimony through his own calculations. Mr. DiMascio did indicate that Mr. Carson may have underestimated the fuel load by only taking into consideration cell furnishings, typically-issued clothing, and bedding. The importance of other combustible property, such as personal and legal materials, was provided by Plaintiff Ronald Kovaleski, who estimated the weight of his property at about 500 pounds and the property of a typical prisoner at about 250 pounds. Mr. Kovaleski's experience therefore illustrates the failure of MDOC to enforce its policy limiting the amount of personal property an inmate may possess within their cell.
[12] Mr. Pulitzer is a planner and a licensed architect with over twenty years experience in the planning of correctional facilities.
[13] Mr. Carson indicated that (1) the bed, desk and chair are metal except for the chair's plastic molded back; (2) the furnishings are metal; and (3) the mattress is cotton, treated with boric acid 0907 it is combustible but has been treated to reduce its flammability.
[14] Mr. Carson indicated that all Blocks were "heavy concrete and masonry construction."
[15] Mr. Carson was on the committee that drafted Section 15-3.1.3 of the LSC. The purpose and intent of that Section was to address fire safety in existing large multi-tiered open cell blocks.
[16] The LSC has an equivalency provision to allow the authority enforcing the Code to make judgments concerning its application.
[17] The ceiling height in the cellblocks varies between 42 feet in Egeler and 51 feet in 7 and 8 Block.

[18] The blocks in question have five tiers. It therefore appears to this court that there are only four flights of stairs that an inmate must travel unless the exit is below the first floor.
[19] The parties stipulated that these changes have taken place.
[20] The citations that follow represent this continuum. The cases are listed in the order of the seriousness of the constitutional violations alleged, and/or proven, therein, from the more serious (and, hence, unconstitutional) conditions to the less serious ones.
[21] This Court has no evidence before it to explain the use of compartmentalization as a fire safety remedy. Nor was one provided to us by the counsel during the oral argument despite being asked by the bench.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 398 F.3d 863 (2005)

Everett HADIX; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

Perry M. JOHNSON; Barry Mintzes; Charles Anderson; William F. Grant; Dale Foltz; Daniel

Trudell; Duane Sholes; John Jabe; James Pogats; Roy Rider; Charles Ustess; Don P.

Leduc; Robert Brown, Jr.; Graham Allen; Elton I. Scott; Pam Withrow; Frank Elo, Warden;

864

Marjorie Van Ochten; and John Prelesnik, Defendants-Appellees. *864

No. 03-1068.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued: June 15, 2004. Decided and Filed: February 25, 2005.
ARGUED: Elizabeth R. Alexander, National Prison Project, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Leo H. Friedman, Office of the Attorney General, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Elizabeth R. Alexander, National Prison Project, Washington, D.C., Patricia A. Streeter, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Michael J. Barnhart, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellants. Leo H. Friedman, A. Peter Govorchin, Office of the Attorney General, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellees.
Before: KRUPANSKY,[*] RYAN, and COLE, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

RYAN, Circuit Judge.
The plaintiffs appeal the district court's calculation of attorney fees under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (codified in scattered sections of the U.S.Code). We must decide whether attorney fees under the PLRA should be computed according to the hourly rate authorized by the Judicial Conference for the payment of court-appointed counsel or on the rate that historically has actually been 865 paid to appointed counsel in PLRA cases. For the *865 reasons that follow, we shall REVERSE and REMAND.

I.

The facts are not in dispute. In 1980, inmates at a Michigan prison filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging various constitutional violations. The parties entered into a consent decree, which was approved by and made an order of the federal district court. Surprising as it may be, to this day, 24 years after the suit was filed, the plaintiffs' attorneys are still monitoring the defendants' compliance with the decree and, by order of the district court, are still being paid attorney fees. The propriety of this state of affairs is not before us.
In 1996, Congress enacted the PLRA, which, among other things, places a cap on attorney fees in prisoner civil rights litigation. Under the PLRA, attorney fees in such cases may not be "greater than 150 percent of the hourly rate established under section 3006A of Title 18 for payment of court-appointed counsel." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d) (3). Section 3006A, also known as the Criminal Justice Act (CJA), establishes the maximum allowable fees for court-appointed counsel representing indigent defendants in federal criminal cases and authorizes the Judicial Conference of the United States to increase these fees by taking into account such factors as inflation and prevailing hourly rates. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(d)(1) (West Supp.2004).
In September 2000, the Judicial Conference's Committee on Defender Services proposed to increase the hourly rate for court-appointed counsel from $75 to $113 for fiscal year 2002. The Judicial Conference approved the committee's recommendation and submitted a budget request to Congress based on the new rate. However, due

to budget constraints, the hourly rate of $113 was never implemented. Based on available funds, the hourly rate actually paid to appointed counsel was $75 for work performed up to May 1, 2002, and $90, thereafter.
The plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney fees and costs incurred from January 1 to June 30, 2002. The plaintiffs' attorneys calculated their fees at a rate of $169.50 per hour, or 150 percent of $113, which was the rate authorized by the Judicial Conference and requested of Congress in the Conference's 2002 budget proposal. The defendants opposed the motion, arguing that the rate should be based not on the amount authorized by the Judicial Conference, but on the lower amount actually being paid to court-appointed counsel at the time. Specifically, the defendants claimed that the maximum allowable fee for work performed prior to May 1, 2002, was $112.50, or 150 percent of $75, and for work performed after May 1, 2002, the maximum allowable fee was $135, or 150 percent of $90.
The district court ruled in favor of the defendants, calculating the plaintiffs' attorney fees at a rate of $112.50 per hour for work performed prior to May 1, 2002, and $135 per hour for work performed thereafter. The plaintiffs appealed.
II.
We review a district court's interpretation of a statute de novo. Riley v. Kurtz, 361 F.3d 906, 910-11 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 169, 160 L.Ed.2d 156 (2004).
III.
The plaintiffs argue that attorney fees under the PLRA should be calculated using the hourly rate authorized by the Judicial Conference for court-appointed counsel under § 3006A rather than on the amount actually 866 appropriated by Congress. The plaintiffs argue that the plain *866 language of § 3006A gives the Judicial Conference sole authority to set the hourly rate without any ratification by Congress. Thus, according to the plaintiffs, the amount actually budgeted by Congress to pay court-appointed counsel is irrelevant to a determination of the hourly rate authorized by the Judicial Conference under § 3006A. The plaintiffs also argue that their interpretation of the PLRA is consistent with Congress's intent. By tying the PLRA rates to the reasonable market rate as determined by the Judicial Conference, say the plaintiffs, the fee provisions of the PLRA serve the dual purpose of discouraging frivolous litigation while ensuring that meritorious claims are litigated. Accordingly, the plaintiffs claim that they should be compensated at an hourly rate of $169.50, or 150 percent of the maximum hourly rate authorized under § 3006A.
The defendants maintain that attorney fees under the PLRA should be calculated using the hourly rate as it has been "implemented," that is, the rate supported by congressional appropriations to the federal courts and actually paid to court-appointed counsel. The defendants concede that the Judicial Conference has the authority to establish the hourly rate of compensation for court-appointed counsel under § 3006A, but they claim that the federal courts do not consider such rates to be approved until Congress provides adequate funding for those rates. The defendants claim that the plain language of the PLRA supports their position. Specifically, they point to § 1997e(d), which states that attorney fees under the PLRA shall not be "greater than 150 percent of the hourly rate established under section 3006A of Title 18 for payment of court-appointed counsel." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d) (3) (emphasis added). According to the defendants, the phrase "established ... for payment" should be interpreted to mean the rate actually paid to court-appointed counsel, rather than the rate authorized by the Judicial Conference. Finally, the defendants claim that it would be unfair to force them to pay attorney fees for PLRA litigation at a higher rate than is actually paid to court-appointed counsel under the CJA.
This case presents a question of statutory interpretation, the first canon of which is that we begin with the language of the statute itself. Walker v. Bain, 257 F.3d 660, 666 (6th Cir.2001). If we can discern an unambiguous and plain meaning from the language of the statute, we must enforce it according to its terms. Id. at 667.
The PLRA places the following cap on attorney fees:

No award of attorney's fees in [prisoner civil rights litigation] shall be based on an hourly rate greater than 150 percent of the hourly rate established under section 3006A of Title 18 for payment of court-appointed counsel.

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(3). Section 3006A provides for court-appointed counsel in certain cases and authorizes the Judicial Conference to establish rates of compensation for such counsel:

Hourly rate. 0907 Any attorney appointed pursuant to this section or a bar association or legal aid

agency or community defender organization which has provided the appointed attorney shall, at

the conclusion of the representation or any segment thereof, be compensated at a rate not

exceeding $60 per hour for time expended in court or before a United States magistrate judge and

$40 per hour for time reasonably expended out of court, unless the Judicial Conference

determines that a higher rate of not in excess of $75 per hour is justified for a circuit or for

particular districts within a circuit, for time expended in court or before a United States magistrate

867

judge and for time expended out of court. The Judicial Conference shall develop *867 guidelines

for determining the maximum hourly rates for each circuit in accordance with the preceding

sentence, with variations by district, where appropriate, taking into account such factors as the

minimum range of the prevailing hourly rates for qualified attorneys in the district in which the

representation is provided and the recommendations of the judicial councils of the circuits. Not

less than 3 years after the effective date of the Criminal Justice Act Revision of 1986, the Judicial

Conference is authorized to raise the maximum hourly rates specified in this paragraph up to the

aggregate of the overall average percentages of the adjustments in the rates of pay under the

General Schedule made pursuant to section 5305 of title 5 on or after such effective date. After

the rates are raised under the preceding sentence, such maximum hourly rates may be raised at

intervals of not less than 1 year each, up to the aggregate of the overall average percentages of

such adjustments made since the last raise was made under this paragraph.

18 U.S.C. § 3006A(d)(1) (West Supp.2004).

We find no ambiguity in these provisions and hold that attorney fees under the PLRA should be based on the hourly rate for court-appointed counsel that is authorized by the Judicial Conference, rather than on the rate that is actually paid to such counsel. The language of § 1997e(d) states that the hourly rate for attorney fees in prisoner civil rights litigation shall not be "greater than 150 percent of the hourly rate established under section 3006A of Title 18 for payment of court-appointed counsel." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(3). The defendants urge the court to interpret the phrase "hourly rate established ... for payment" to mean an hourly rate that is funded by Congress and that is actually paid to court-appointed counsel. However, the defendants' interpretation of § 1997e (d) is at odds with the plain meaning of both § 1997e(d) and the statute it cross-references, § 3006A.

Section 3006A authorizes the Judicial Conference to establish reasonable rates of compensation for courtappointed counsel limited only by prevailing hourly rates, the recommendations of the judicial councils of the circuits, and adjustments tied to the General Schedule. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(d)(1) (West Supp.2004). The statute contains no reference to congressional appropriations or to rates of compensation that are actually paid to courtappointed counsel. While congressional appropriations may place a practical limitation on the amount actually paid to court-appointed counsel, there is no language in § 3006A that expressly limits the Judicial Conference's discretion to set rates based on budgetary constraints. If Congress had wanted attorney fees under the PLRA to be based on the amount of money budgeted for payment of court-appointed counsel, it could easily have used such language rather than cross-referencing § 3006A.

Moreover, in the absence of express statutory language, there is no inherent reason why attorney fees under the PLRA should be limited by the amount budgeted to pay court-appointed counsel under the CJA. Attorney fee awards in prisoner civil rights litigation are paid from the pockets of unsuccessful defendants whether they be private individuals or government entities; such fees are not paid from funds set aside by Congress to compensate court-appointed counsel under the CJA. There is no logical reason to limit fee awards in such cases to the amount of money set aside to fund the CJA.

Even if the language of § 1997e(d) and § 3006A could be considered ambiguous, there is nothing in the record to 868 indicate that Congress intended to base the rate for PLRA attorney fees on the actual *868 amount budgeted for
court-appointed counsel. In their discussion of the legislative record, the defendants correctly state that Congress was concerned about the high cost of prisoner civil rights litigation. However, the record does not reveal whether anyone proposed to control such costs by basing PLRA attorney fees on congressional appropriations for implementing the CJA. As stated above, the language of the statute indicates that Congress intended the PLRA rate to be determined by the Judicial Conference.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the maximum allowable attorney fees under the PLRA should be based on the amount authorized by the Judicial Conference, not the amount actually paid to court-appointed counsel under the CJA. Accordingly, the maximum allowable hourly rate for attorney fees under the PLRA is $169.50, or 150% of $113. The judgment of the district court is REVERSED and the case REMANDED so that the district court may award attorney fees to the plaintiffs based on an hourly rate no greater than $169.50.
[*] The Honorable Robert B. Krupansky concurred in this opinion prior to his death on November 8, 2004.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 Hadix v. Johnson, 64 Fed.Appx. 531 (2003)
64 Fed.Appx. 531 This case was not selected for publication in the
Federal Reporter. Not for Publication in West’s Federal Reporter See
Fed. Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 generally governing citation of judicial decisions issued on or
after Jan. 1, 2007. See also Sixth Circuit Rule 28. (Find CTA6 Rule 28)
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Everett HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
Perry M. JOHNSON, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 02-2419. | May 29, 2003.
Before: KENNEDY and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges.
Opinion
ORDER
The state defendants appeal the October 29, 2002, Order and Injunction in this prisoner civil rights action involving the Michigan prisons. On April 2, 2003, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate and remand and granted a stay of the October 29 Order and Injunction to the extent that, effective May 1, 2002, the defendants were enjoined from placing or maintaining at-risk prisoners in an environment where the heat index is greater than 90 degrees. The district judge has now certified, pursuant to First Nat’l Bank of Salem, Ohio v. Hirsch, 535 F.2d 343

(6th Cir.1976), that if the case were remanded, he would modify the injunctive relief set forth in the October 29 Order and Injunction. The plaintiffs now move to remand to the district court.
The defendants oppose the motion to remand, arguing that their appeal challenges not only failure of the district court to comply with the Prison Litigation Reform Act (the “PLRA”) prior to granting injunctive relief, but the court’s finding of a constitutional violation with respect to heat-related illness and its assertion of jurisdiction over facilities not subject to the consent decree. However, no final judgment has been entered in this action, and the October 29 Order and Injunction is appealable only to the extent that it grants injunctive relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Because the district court has certified that it will modify the injunctive relief, the defendants’ objections to the remand are not well-taken.
Therefore, the motion to remand is GRANTED, and this appeal is remanded to the district court to vacate the injunctive relief set forth in the October 29 Order and Injunction and conduct further proceedings in accordance with the PLRA. The April 2 stay granted by this court will remain in effect until the district court modifies its October 29 Order and Injunction to vacate the provision enjoining the defendants from placing or maintaining the at-risk prisoners in an environment where the heat index is greater than 90 degrees.
Parallel Citations
2003 WL 21259171 (C.A.6 (Mich.))
	  

1

 
 Hadix v. Johnson, 46 F.3d 1131 (1995)
46 F.3d 1131 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION. (The Court’s decision is referenced in a “Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions” appearing in the Federal Reporter. Use FI CTA6 Rule 28 and FI CTA6 IOP 206 for rules regarding the citation of unpublished opinions.) United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Everett HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v. Perry JOHNSON, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 94-1158. | Jan. 23, 1995.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan; No. 92-00110, Euslen, J. W.D.Mich. AFFIRMED.
Before: NELSON, NORRIS, and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges. Opinion PER CURIAM.
*1 This is an appeal from an award of attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). The issue we must decide is whether the district court erred in concluding that the plaintiffs were “prevailing” parties within the meaning of that adjective as used in the statute. We do not believe that the district court’s conclusion was erroneous, and we shall therefore affirm the award.
I In 1980 Everett Hadix and others brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to challenge the constitutionality of certain conditions of confinement at the Central Complex of the State Prison of Southern Michigan. The case, which was certified as a class action, was partially settled by a consent decree entered in 1985. Section VI of the consent decree, captioned “Access to Courts,” contained provisions dealing mainly with the prison’s law libraries. Section VI did not exhaust this issue: “With respect to access to the courts,” the consent decree provided in paragraph 6 of the Introduction, “[t]he parties ... will submit the following questions for resolution by the Court after hearing on the merits:
1) Whether and to what extent Defendants are constitutionally required to provide attorneys to assist prisoners with legal matters. 2) If attorneys must be provided, whether and to what extent these attorneys must be independent.”
The hearing on the merits was held before Judge John Feikens. On the basis of the record compiled at the hearing, Judge Feikens concluded that the defendants were required to provide attorneys for prisoners and were required to provide other forms of legal assistance as well. See Hadix v. Johnson, 694 F.Supp. 259, 291-98 (E.D.Mich.1988). Judge Feikens’ order was appealed to this court, where the appeal was consolidated with one from an order entered by Judge
1

Hadix v. Johnson, 46 F.3d 1131 (1995)
Richard Enslen in another prisoner class action, Knop v. Johnson, 685 F.Supp. 636 (W.D.Mich.1988). (The order in Knop dealt with conditions in four Michigan prisons, including the State Prison of Southern Michigan; insofar as the access to courts issue was concerned, prisoners in the Central Complex at the latter institution were excluded from the Knop class.) We affirmed findings by both courts that some Michigan prisoners had been denied their constitutional right of access to the courts, but we vacated both remedial orders, in whole or in part, as overly intrusive. Knop v. Johnson, 977 F.2d 996 (6th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1415 (1993). With regard to the question whether the State of Michigan was constitutionally required to provide attorneys for prisoners, we said, in effect, “No, but the state is constitutionally required to do more than it has been doing to assure adequate access to the courts.” Both cases were sent to Judge Enslen’s court for further proceedings.
Following the remand the defendants were directed to submit a plan for compliance with the decision of this court. They have submitted a proposed remedial plan, and the plan is being opposed by the plaintiffs.
*2 In October of 1993 the plaintiffs moved the district court for entry of an order requiring the defendants to pay attorney fees and costs associated with the litigation over the access to courts issue. The defendants opposed the motion, primarily on the ground that the plaintiffs were not prevailing parties with respect to that issue. The district court concluded that the plaintiffs had prevailed to an extent sufficient to justify awarding them their reasonable fees and costs, and the plaintiffs’ motion was granted. The present appeal followed. The only issue before us relates to the award of fees and costs on the access to courts issue reserved for litigation in the Hadix consent decree; we are not here concerned with the Knop case. Neither are we concerned with the reasonableness of the fees, there being no dispute on that issue.
II
The defendants argue that the Hadix decree reserved for litigation only one issue that bears on the present appeal: whether the defendants are constitutionally required to provide attorneys to assist prisoners with legal matters. This court having answered that question in the negative, the defendants contend, the plaintiffs cannot be said to have obtained any degree of relief on the only relevant issue that had been submitted for decision.
The problem with this argument, as we see it, is that it fails adequately to take into account both the context in which the question regarding assistance by attorneys was being asked and the qualifications expressed by this court in giving a negative answer to the question. Under the consent decree, the question was not to be submitted in a vacuum; it was to be submitted only “after a hearing on the merits.” It was to be submitted, moreover, in the context of a broad “access to courts” issue. This court did not purport to answer the question without regard to what the hearing record showed that the State of Michigan was doing to assure adequate access to the courts. And what the state was doing, we said in affirming the district court’s findings, was not constitutionally sufficient insofar as some categories of prisoners were concerned:
“On the record before us, and finding no clear error in the facts as determined by the district courts (Enslen and Feikens, JJ.) in their thorough and well-crafted opinions, we are satisfied that there are at least some Michigan prisoners who have been denied the type of access to the courts required under current Supreme Court doctrine.
“[T]he conclusion that Michigan need not provide attorneys to prepare prisoner lawsuits does not end our inquiry. Standing alone, law libraries that are adequate for prisoners who know how to use them and who have reasonable physical access to their collections are not adequate for prisoners who cannot read and write English, or who lack the intelligence necessary to prepare coherent pleadings, or who, because of protracted confinement in administrative or punitive segregation or protective custody, may not be able to identify the books they need.... The records contain evidence of a number of specific instances where unassisted inmates suffered individualized harm because of inability to use library resources properly.
*3 “We do not disagree with the conclusion, reached by both of the district courts, that something more was required in the way of paralegal assistance. It is fundamental that a prisoner who claims to be confined unconstitutionally must be allowed to state his case to a court. Some such prisoners, given law books and simplified pleading forms of the sort furnished by the courts, can handle the task adequately themselves. Others, for reasons fully explained in the opinions of both district courts, cannot. For prisoners of the latter sort, as a practical matter, there can be no meaningful access to the judicial system unless some literate person is available to reduce their stories to intelligible written pleadings.
2

Hadix v. Johnson, 46 F.3d 1131 (1995)
To the extent that inmate writ-writers, or jailhouse lawyers, are not adequately filling the needs of prisoners who claim they are being held unconstitutionally, the state must furnish, at a minimum, the functional equivalent of jailhouse lawyers who are up to the job. This means paralegals....” Knop, 977 F.2d at 999, 1005-06.
In holding that the state must, at a minimum, furnish paralegal assistance not required by the consent decree, this court was clearly holding in favor of the plaintiffs and to their benefit on a significant issue. This means that the plaintiffs have “crossed the threshold to a fee award of some kind.” Texas State Teachers Ass’n v. Garland Indep. School Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 792 (1989). Cf. Krichinsky v. Knox Cty. Sch., 963 F.2d 847, 849-50 (6th Cir.1992) (“A prevailing party is one who succeeds on any significant issue which achieves some of the benefits plaintiffs sought in bringing suit”). The Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed this liberal standard, stating that “[a] plaintiff ‘prevails’ when actual relief on the merits of his claim materially alters the legal relationship between the parties by modifying the defendant’s behavior in a way that directly benefits the plaintiff.” Farrar v. Hobby, 113 S.Ct. 566, 573 (1992).
We find nothing to the contrary in Higgs v. Bland, 888 F.2d 443 (6th Cir.1989), a case on which the defendants place considerable emphasis. The plaintiffs in Higgs did not prevail on any substantive issue and did not win any alteration of their legal relationship with defendants; the plaintiffs were thus not entitled to attorney fees under § 1988. Id. at 451.1 In the case at bar, by contrast, the plaintiffs did prevail on the substantive issue of whether there had been a denial of court access that could not be cured by library facilities alone-and the plaintiffs’ legal relationship with the defendants was altered as a result.
For the reasons stated herein and in Judge Enslen’s opinion of January 7, 1994, the award is AFFIRMED.

Parallel Citations

1995 WL 25416 (C.A.6 (Mich.))

Footnotes

1

We vacated a portion of the district court order in Higgs that denied attorney fees under a consent decree provision adopting a

standard different from that employed under § 1988. The district court-in a passage quoted at pp. 9-10 of the defendants’ brief

under an apparent misapprehension as to which court was speaking-declared that the only issue on which the plaintiffs could be

said to have prevailed was such a small element of the litigation that an award of attorney fees under the consent decree would be

improper and unjust. This court rejected the district court’s reasoning as inconsistent with the standard set forth in the consent

decree itself. Id.

3

 
 Hadix v. Johnson, 66 F.3d 325 (1995)
66 F.3d 325 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION. (The Court’s decision is referenced in a “Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions” appearing in the Federal Reporter. Use FI CTA6 Rule 28 and FI CTA6 IOP 206 for rules regarding the citation of unpublished opinions.) United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Everett HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
Perry JOHNSON, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 93-1551, 93-1555, 93-1559, 93-1560, 93-1642, 93-1643. | Sept. 20, 1995.
On Appeal from the United States District Court, for the Western District of Michigan, No. 92-00110; Richard A. Enslen, Chief Judge.
W.D.Mich.
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART.
Before: NELSON, NORRIS, and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges.
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
*1 In yet another facet of this long-pending prison conditions case-a case in which a comprehensive consent decree was entered a decade ago-the defendant officials here appeal six orders of the district court.1 Among the issues we are called upon to decide are these: (1) whether principles of laches and equitable estoppel should have barred the plaintiffs from seeking enforcement of certain provisions of the consent decree after extended acquiescence in the defendants’ non-compliance with those provisions; (2) whether the district court abused its discretion in refusing to modify the termination provision of the decree; (3) whether the district court exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering monitoring of health facilities outside the particular prison complex covered by the decree; (4) whether the court abused its discretion in refusing to delete a requirement that the defendants prepare and implement a written mental health plan; and (5) whether certain remedial measures dealing with the provision of mental health services and care for chronically ill inmates were improper in the absence of proof of constitutional violations. For the reasons that follow, we shall affirm the orders in part and vacate them in part.
I.
In 1980 a class of Michigan prisoners incarcerated at the State Prison of Southern Michigan-Central Complex (“SPSM-CC”) filed a lawsuit against Michigan officials pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Hadix v. Johnson, Civ. No. 80-73501 (E.D.Mich.). The prisoners asserted that the conditions under which they were confined at SPSM-CC violated the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the State of Michigan. On May 13, 1985, the district court approved a consent decree designed “to assure the constitutionality of the conditions under which prisoners are incarcerated.” Section II of the decree deals with health care, the area with which the orders now before us are concerned.
The decree required the defendants to prepare remedial plans covering implementation of certain of the decree’s specific mandates. The remedial plans were to be appended to the judgment, thereby becoming part of it, unless the plaintiffs objected. Three of these plans, the Chronic Disease Plan (Decree § II.A.7), the Staffing Plan (Decree § II.A.5), and the Mental Health Plan (Decree § II.B.3.c; unfiled), are pertinent here.
1

Hadix v. Johnson, 66 F.3d 325 (1995)
Early in 1984, some four years after the Hadix plaintiffs filed suit, the United States filed a complaint against the State of Michigan under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997. United States v. Michigan, G84-63 CA (W.D.Mich. filed Jan. 18, 1984) (“USA ”).2 The USA complaint alleged that the conditions under which prisoners were confined in three prisons, including the SPSM, were unconstitutional. On July 16, 1984, a year before entry of the consent decree in Hadix, the USA litigation was settled by a consent decree. Although the overlap between the Hadix and USA decrees is not complete, the decrees are similar in many respects. The Hadix class of prisoners was denied permission to intervene in USA, but it was granted amicus curiae status. 680 F.Supp. 928, 935-43 (W.D.Mich.1987).3
*2 Because of the overlap with the USA consent decree, and to ensure economical use of judicial resources, the medical and mental health segments of the Hadix case were transferred to the Western District of Michigan. At the time of transfer there was found to have been a tacit understanding that health care issues would be resolved by the Hadix plaintiffs through their amicus role in USA.
II.
A.
Laches and estoppel are equitable defenses the applicability of which must be decided upon the facts of each particular case. Menendez v. Holt, 128 U.S. 514 (1888). Laches conceptualizes the inequity that would result if a stale claim were permitted to be enforced. Gardner v. Panama Rr. Co., 342 U.S. 29, 30 (1951); Wells v. United States Steel, 950 F.2d 1244, 1250 (6th Cir.1991). A party may not, by silence, create an impression of acquiescence that leads others to make substantial commitments. Independent Bankers Ass’n of America v. Heimann, 627 F.2d 486, 488 (D.C.Cir.1980). The plaintiff must be shown to have been guilty of unreasonable delay prejudicial to the defendant. Gardner, 342 U.S. at 31; Wells, 950 F.2d at 1250. The application of laches is left to the sound discretion of the judge; it does not depend solely on the time that has elapsed between the alleged wrong and the pursuit of a claim. Wells, 950 F.2d at 1250; Goodman v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 606 F.2d 800, 807 (8th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 913 (1980). Equitable estoppel additionally “requires an element of deceit in inducing the other party to rely on the initial position.” Wells, 950 F.2d at 1250.
In the case at bar it appears that for several years the plaintiffs sought to enforce their rights under Hadix through their amicus role in USA. In that role, they helped shape court orders touching directly on matters covered by the Hadix decree. Following our decision in USA v. Michigan, 940 F.2d at 166, which sharply curtailed the “litigating amicus ” role of the Knop plaintiffs, defendants unilaterally changed the level of participation previously allowed the Hadix plaintiffs in USA. It was this, apparently, that prompted the plaintiffs to become more active in Hadix.
The defendants have not shown that the plaintiffs’ conduct led them to make substantial expenditures in complying with the USA decree that they would not have had to make anyway. There has been no element of deceit or misrepresentation here, as far as we can tell. Against this background, and substantially for the reasons given by Judge Enslen in the orders addressing the issue, we conclude that the plaintiffs were not barred by laches or equitable estoppel and the district court committed no abuse of discretion in rejecting this defense.
B.
Appeal 93-1551
The termination provision in the Hadix decree states that:
“After Defendants have complied with all of the provisions of this Consent Decree, Defendants may apply to terminate the jurisdiction of the Court.” (Decree § XI.)
2

Hadix v. Johnson, 66 F.3d 325 (1995)
*3 The defendants sought modification of the decree, to allow partial termination:
“Termination of the Court’s jurisdiction may be sought by either party as to any provision of the Decree when Defendants are in compliance with the constitutional requirements which were the goal of this decree.”
The district court denied the requested modification.
A consent decree has both contractual and judicial aspects. USA v. Michigan, 940 F.2d at 150; United States v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 420 U.S. 223, 238 (1975). This “strange hybrid,” Brown v. Neeb, 644 F.2d 551, 557 (6th Cir.1981), “ ‘plac[es] the power and prestige of the court behind the compromise struck by the parties.’ ” Vanguards of Cleveland v. City of Cleveland, 23 F.3d 1013, 1017 (6th Cir.1994) (quoting Williams v. Vukovich, 720 F.2d 909, 920 (6th Cir.1983). When construing a consent decree, as when construing other contracts, a court may rely on the usual aids to construction, including “the circumstances surrounding the formation of the consent order, any technical meaning words used may have had to the parties, and any other documents expressly incorporated in the decree.” ITT Continental Baking, 420 U.S. at 238. Nonetheless, the words contained within the four corners of the document itself should normally determine the scope of a consent decree. Firefighters Local Union No. 1784 v. Stotts, 467 U.S. 561, 574 (1984). The decree “should be construed to preserve the position for which the parties bargained.” Vogel v. City of Cincinnati, 959 F.2d 594, 598 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 86 (1992).
We review a district court’s decision on a proposed modification to a consent decree for abuse of discretion. Vanguards of Cleveland, 23 F.3d at 1017; Heath v. DeCourcy, 888 F.2d 1105, 1110 (6th Cir.1989) (“Heath I ”). The court’s findings of fact will be upheld unless clearly erroneous. Id.
A district court has considerable leeway insofar as the modification of consent decrees in institutional litigation is concerned:
“To modify such consent decrees, the court need only identify a defect or deficiency in its original decree which impedes achieving its goal, either because experience has proven it less effective, disadvantageous, or because circumstances and conditions have changed which warrant fine-tuning the decree. A modification will be upheld if it furthers the original purpose of the decree in a more efficient way, without upsetting the basic agreement between the parties.” Heath I, 888 F.2d at 1110; see also USA v. Michigan, 940 F.2d at 155.
This relaxed standard is justified by the impact of such decrees “on the public’s right to the sound and efficient operation of its institutions.” Heath I, 888 F.2d at 1109. The policy of Heath I is consonant with the Supreme Court’s recognition that federal courts must give considerable deference to the judgment of trained prison administrators as to the proper means of running their prisons. See O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 353 (1987).
*4 The defendants argue here that Freeman v. Pitt, 112 S.Ct. 1430 (1992), requires that piecemeal termination be allowed. We disagree; piecemeal termination might well make sense in the present case, but Freeman does not mandate it. In Freeman, the Supreme Court held that a court had discretion to order an incremental withdrawal of its supervision of a litigated desegregation decree, as long as the withdrawal was “consistent with the purposes and objectives of its equitable power.” 112 S.Ct. at 1446. To say that a court has discretion to allow piecemeal termination of a decree imposed without the consent of the defendants is a far cry from saying that incremental termination of the Hadix consent decree is mandatory. The decision in Freeman, moreover, turned on the appropriate definition of a “unitary school district” rather than specific provisions governing termination. The existence of explicit, bargained-for provisions requiring full compliance significantly affects the equities of the instant case.
The defendants insist that the full compliance provision exists because the parties to the decree had a common misunderstanding of law, believing that piecemeal termination was unconstitutional. The misunderstanding, they argue, is implicit in the termination language. A clarification of the law supports modification of a consent decree if the party seeking the modification proves that the parties negotiated the provision based on a misunderstanding of the law. Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cty. Jail, 112 S.Ct. 748, 763 (1992). Here the plaintiffs counter that the fact that the consent decree spells out the standard for termination supports the argument that the parties bargained over the conditions justifying termination, and thus did not rely on an erroneous view of the law.
We conclude that the defendants have not carried their burden of proof under Rufo or Heath I. See also Heath v. DeCourcy, 992 F.2d 630 (6th Cir.1993) (“Heath II ”) (district court lacked authority to terminate supervision under consent decree, contrary to the decree’s explicit termination language, where court-appointed monitor has not certified compliance). In this
3

Hadix v. Johnson, 66 F.3d 325 (1995)
case the district court took Rufo into consideration and followed proper procedure in ruling on the modification motion. See Heath II, 992 F.2d at 635.
The defendants argue that the termination provisions should be modified because the split supervision between the Eastern and Western Districts of Michigan makes it more difficult to demonstrate full compliance with the decree. A “significant change in circumstances” that causes a consent decree to become “onerous” may warrant revision of a consent decree. Rufo, 112 S.Ct. at 760-63; Heath I, 888 F.2d at 1110.
We are not unsympathetic to the position in which the defendants find themselves. We agree that the split in supervision does require modification of the decree, but only to the limited extent of allowing either district court to withdraw its supervision when the defendants are in full compliance with all provisions of the decree before that court.
*5 The language the defendants seek to substitute would work a much broader change in the bargained-for language of the decree-and a modification must not “upset[ ] the core intent, purpose, and scope of the basic agreement between the parties.” United States v. Michigan, 940 F.2d at 155; Heath I, 888 F.2d at 1108-09. According to the defendants, their proposed modification would allow the courts to focus on ensuring that prison conditions pass constitutional muster, instead of concentrating on the “minute detail” of the decree itself. This ignores the contractual nature of the decree. Although the overall goal of the consent decree is to ensure that conditions at SPSM-CC are constitutional, the parties bargained for and agreed upon a number of specific provisions-some in “minute detail”-when they formulated the decree.
The defendants insist that the district court must find a constitutional violation before it can act. As we recently noted in USA v. Michigan, however, “the Supreme Court has rejected the notion that a court may enforce a consent decree only to the point of ordering relief to which the parties would have been entitled after a trial on the merits.” United States v. Michigan, Nos. 94-2391/95-1258, 1995 WL 469430, at *14 (citing Local No. 93, Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters v. City of Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501, 522-23 (1986)). With a consent decree, the important consideration is whether the district court is acting according to the scope and intention of what was bargained for. See Lorain N.A.A.C.P. v. Lorain Bd. of Educ., 979 F.2d 1141, 1152 (6th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 2998 (1993). One of the virtues of a consent decree is that it enables defendants to construct a remedy without admitting liability and without lengthy and costly litigation to determine what conditions are, or are not, constitutional. Cf. id. at 1152. The defendants may not use the consent decree as a shield against litigation which might result in specific findings of unconstitutionality and then use the lack of specific findings of unconstitutionality as a shield against the imposition of remedies consistent with the bargained-for terms of the consent decree.
Moreover, the Supreme Court has explicitly stated that where specific provisions of the decree require a higher standard, courts should not “rewrite a consent decree so that it conforms to a constitutional floor.” Rufo, 112 S.Ct. at 764. As we stated in USA v. Michigan:
“[D]efendants cannot insist on the constitutional minimum after deciding to enter into the consent decree and waive the right to establish what remedial measures were constitutionally necessary through litigation. Having entered into a consent decree which obligates them to provide inmates suffering from serious mental illness with adequate care ... defendants cannot now insist that the district court find that conditions at the institutions covered by the consent decree have fallen below the relevant constitutional standards before it orders them to comply with the requirements of the consent decree.” USA v. Michigan, Nos. 94-2391/95-1258, 1995 WL 469430, at *14.
*6 The district court, in contrast, did not go beyond the scope of the original decree when it rejected the proposed new language. Consequently, although we think that the split in jurisdiction requires some modification of the consent decree, we do not think that the district court abused its discretion when it refused to modify the termination language of the decree on the defendants’ terms.
C.
Appeal 93-1555
Perhaps the most contentious aspect of the case before us is defendants’ assertion that the district court improperly extended its jurisdiction under the consent decree by refusing to bar independent monitoring of Hadix prisoners at institutions outside
4

Hadix v. Johnson, 66 F.3d 325 (1995)
the SPSM-CC. On the one hand, defendants may not evade the bargained-for requirements of the decree simply by shutting down programs in the Hadix facility, or transferring prisoners out of the Hadix facility to avoid the need for treatment and monitoring. On the other hand, it is a fact of prison life that prisoners are often transferred from one facility to another; the decree is limited in scope, and should not be permitted to extrude itself amoeba-like throughout the Michigan prison system. Moreover, while the defendants may not reduce the quality of care agreed upon under the decree, neither should they feel constrained not to establish new programs and facilities for fear that any Hadix inmate accepted into the new program inevitably brings with him the full gamut of monitoring and decree-related compliance programs.
At the time the decree was entered, the defendants furnished three levels of care for mentally ill patients. First, they provided acute care for seriously mentally ill patients at Riverside Psychiatric Center (outside the confines of SPSM) and at an infirmary within the SPSM. Second, intermediate-level protected environment care was provided in a 40-bed unit within the SPSM and in a 96-bed unit at Riverside. Third, outpatient care was provided at SPSM and elsewhere within the Department of Corrections. A remedial Staffing Plan, appended to the decree as required under § II.A.5.f, identified a Protective Environment Unit to be maintained within the SPSM “to serve patients who do not require hospital care, but who are unable to maintain themselves effectively in the general prison population.” (Decree Appendix J.)
The provision in the decree for a comprehensive system of mental health care also anticipated that inmates would continue to receive some mental health services outside the confines of the SPSM-CC:
“Within 270 days after the entry of the Judgment in this matter, the Department shall submit a professionally designed plan to assure that prisoners with serious mental illnesses have adequate access to Riverside Psychiatric Center or to other similar facilities fully licensed or operated by the Michigan Department of Mental Health.” Hadix Decree § II.B.3.c (emphasis added).
The decree thus envisoned that if Riverside became unavailable, Hadix inmates would receive equivalent treatment at unspecified facilities outside the SPSM. The Decree also required provision of a psychiatric unit at a “new hospital” (now Duane Waters Hospital) outside the physical boundaries of the SPSM. (Decree at § II.B.2, § II.B.4.1.)
*7 In later years the acute care unit was transferred from the SPSM infirmary to the Duane Waters Hospital. The Protective Environment Unit at SPSM was closed in 1988. As a result of that closure, mentally ill Hadix prisoners in need of intermediate-level care are now treated both at Riverside and at a comparable facility at Huron Valley Men’s Facility. Defendants have also added several other mental health facilities, such as a Comprehensive Care Unit, Crisis Stabilization Unit, and Residential Treatment Program, none of them at the Central Complex of the SPSM.
Because of the closure of some mental health facilities, and expansion of others, the Independent Monitors in 1992 asked the district court for clarification of the extent to which the plaintiffs could monitor care received by prisoners at facilities not mentioned in the original decree. The defendants then moved to preclude all monitoring of mental health services outside the SPSM-Central Complex. The district court denied this motion, holding that “monitoring is authorized to determine compliance with Section II.B.3.c. at locations beyond those facilities initially named in the Decree for the sole purpose to determine whether Hadix prisoners, transferred to facilities beyond the Consent Decree with medical orders to receive Decree-mandated services, receive those particular services.”
Defendants now urge us to bar all monitoring outside the SPSM-CC, maintaining that the March 1993 order improperly extends the jurisdiction of the district court because “Corrections Officials did not agree that the decree applies in any way to non-consent decree facilities.” We decline to go so far, because the plain language of the decree negates any implication that only the SPSM-CC is a “decree facility.” The decree explicitly mentions access by Hadix prisoners to Riverside, the “new hospital” (Duane Waters Hospital), and “other similar facilities fully licensed or operated by the Michigan Department of Mental Health.” (Decree § II.B.3; emphasis supplied.) At the time the consent decree was issued, it was thus recognized that some mental health services would be provided outside SPSM, and that the location(s) at which the services would be provided might change. This distinguishes the case at bar from USA, where we held that a decree-mandated classification plan could not be extended to institutions not named in the consent decree. USA v. Michigan, 940 F.2d at 159. It also distinguishes it from Navarro-Ayala v. Hernandez-Colon, where the First Circuit refused to authorize monitoring of inmates at a facility not covered by a consent decree. 951 F.2d 1325, 1346 (1st Cir.1991). In Navarro-Ayala, inmates were permanently transferred to another facility to alleviate overcrowding. Monitoring was not allowed at the transferee facility, because the defendants never agreed to such monitoring. That is not the case here.
Under the district court’s order, monitoring is strictly limited to prisoners incarcerated at SPSM-CC who leave the facility to receive mental health services mandated by the original decree:
5

Hadix v. Johnson, 66 F.3d 325 (1995)
*8 “[T]he Court does not find that such monitoring, supervision and control is generally permitted. Rather, the Court rules against the Defendants’ proposal for a general prohibition on such monitoring, supervision, and control, without specific consideration of the prohibition’s relationship to other plans, orders, and agreements already entered in this case.”
This language implies that the order at issue here, unlike the order overturned in Navarro-Ayala, does not contemplate following and monitoring permanent transferees.
We also note that requiring the defendants to permit monitoring of Hadix prisoners at facilities outside the SPSM is significantly less intrusive than requiring the state to increase monetary funding (forbidden in Lorain NAACP, 979 F.2d at 1152) or establishing recordkeeping procedures at facilities outside the scope of a consent decree (forbidden in USA v. Michigan, 940 F.2d at 159). The district court indicated that such monitoring did not necessarily entail giving the plaintiffs physical access to the institutions in question, if the necessary information can be gleaned from appropriate reports. (Opinion of March 5, 1993.)
Finally, we note that the Independent Monitors’ request for clarification was prompted by their findings that mentally ill prisoners within the Hadix class, particularly those requiring intermediate/protective environment care, were not receiving adequate access to psychiatric facilities. Intermediate/protective environment care is clearly mandated by the decree. In particular, unavailability of beds at Riverside-a facility named in the Decree-meant that Hadix prisoners were instead routinely sent to the Huron Valley Intermediate Care Program. Because adequate access to in-patient mental health services was part of the original Hadix Decree, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to bar monitoring of decree-mandated mental health services care which Hadix prisoners receive in treatment programs conducted outside the SPSM-CC.
Nonetheless, the defendants’ concerns about the efficient administration of the prison system are legitimate, and we owe their judgment considerable deference. O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. at 353. The defendants correctly note that the prison population is transient and that transfers based on security and safety concerns are made with some frequency. Despite the limitations established by the district court, there is an information-gathering aspect of the March 5 order that could be read to allow virtually unfettered monitoring on a temporary basis, albeit to accumulate evidence from which the court can determine where permanent monitoring should be allowed in future. It should be made explicit that monitoring outside the SPSM-CC does not apply to transfers based on security or safety concerns or for other administrative reasons, but applies only to Hadix prisoners who are sent outside the confines of the SPSM-CC temporarily for the purpose of receiving mental health care, with the anticipation that they will return to the SPSM-CC once treatment is complete. Where the plaintiffs seek to monitor treatment provided outside the SPSM-CC at a facility to which the decree does not specifically refer, we think it should be clear that plaintiffs bear the burden of showing, (1) that Hadix inmates are receiving treatment equivalent to treatment referenced in the original decree and its attached plans; (2) that Hadix prisoners receive such decree-mandated treatment at the outside facility on a regular basis; and, (3) where physical access is sought, that plaintiffs are unable to determine compliance through less obtrusive means, such as reports and other prison documents. We shall therefore vacate the order and direct that it be reformulated in a manner not inconsistent with this opinion.
Appeal 93-1643
*9 The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to delete the requirement that the defendants submit a remedial Mental Health Plan in writing. The purpose of such a plan is to assure that prisoners with serious mental illnesses have adequate access to psychiatric facilities, especially the Riverside Psychiatric Center, and a full range of in-patient, out-patient, and follow-up care. (Decree § II.B.3.) The defendants acknowledge that they never submitted a formal plan, but they contend that they have already implemented a plan and reducing it to writing is unnecessary. The district court disagreed, and we cannot say the court was wrong.
The district court made extensive findings of fact demonstrating that the defendants have not met their obligations regarding the Mental Health Plan. These findings, based on the evidence submitted, are not clearly erroneous. While the court agreed that the defendants have made improvements in mental health services, it found these improvements had not yet met the level of full compliance and were deficient with regard to follow-up care. Circumstances had not changed sufficiently, the court concluded, to warrant modification of the decree by deleting the requirement to submit a Mental Health Plan. See Heath I, 888 F.2d at 1110; Vanguards, 23 F.3d at 1018. We are not persuaded that the court abused its discretion in reaching this
6

Hadix v. Johnson, 66 F.3d 325 (1995)
conclusion.
More problematic is the district court’s requirement that the defendants adopt some of the USA mental health provisions. The court “estopped” the defendants:
“from diminishing, for Hadix prisoners, the services and programs provided pursuant to the Stipulation of May 29, 1991 and the Orders of June 29, 1992 and September 8, 1992, in United States v. Michigan4 ... inasmuch as Hadix prisoners are already beneficiaries of those Orders.” (Order of April 12, 1993.)
In structuring this remedy, the court found that the relevant substantive language of the Hadix and USA decrees was “practically identical,” and that differences in eligibility were of “limited significance for these motions.” Both decrees require the defendants to provide services consistent with contemporary professional standards of care, and both focus on treatment for serious mental illness. See Hadix Decree § II.B.1.a.3 (“The right to treatment is ... limited to that which can be provided upon a reasonable cost and time basis and the essential test is one of medical necessity and not simply that which may be considered merely desirable”). The remedy was adopted “to avoid repetitive and potentially contradictory legal processes.”
It is true that the medical and mental health provisions of the Hadix case were transferred to the Western District of Michigan precisely because of the overlap with the USA consent decree, and to ensure economical use of judicial resources.5 For the most part, the district court has not imposed upon the defendants any obligation that they do not already have. Also, the court specifically recognized that the jurisdiction and scope of Hadix and USA differ, and stated that it “is not prepared to simply adopt or incorporate USA plans and orders as necessary or sufficient to satisfy Hadix.” (Order of April 12, 1993.)
*10 Nevertheless, despite the court’s jurisdiction over the defendants in both decrees, the Hadix inmates do not have standing to litigate the terms of the USA decree-and given the history of this case, it appears improbable that they would hesitate to avail themselves of such an opportunity if it were given them. The “estoppel” remedy has the effect of elevating the plaintiff class to the status of “litigating amicus ” regarding the implementation of the USA decree in Hadix facilities-a status we barred in United States v. Michigan. 940 F.2d at 166. This provision remedy must therefore be deleted.
Appeal 1642
All prisoners arriving at the SPSM-CC receive an initial screening at the Reception and Guidance Center (“R & GC”). Section II.B.5 of the decree requires that this screening include professionally designed psychological evaluation and testing. Inmates “whose offense, test results, or behavioral history indicate a need for further screening” must have a personal interview with a licensed professional; “[t]he recommendations resulting from the screening shall be implemented in a program plan developed for each inmate at SPSM.” (Hadix Decree § II.B.5.)
In its opinion of April 2, 1993, the district court limited the broad language of the latter provision by stating that a “program plan” need be “implemented” only for patients diagnosed with serious mental illnesses. This limitation is in keeping with the general requirement that the right to treatment does not extend to any treatment deemed desirable, but is limited to what is medically necessary. (Hadix Decree § II.B.1.a.3.) For seriously ill inmates, however, the court found it insufficient simply to diagnose a serious condition and formulate a program plan: “implementation” means that the “program plan” must actually be carried out. (Opinion of April 2, 1993.) This finding is consonant with the generally accepted meaning of “implementation.” The court also determined, in specific findings of fact, that the defendants did not implement the professional recommendations for each inmate at the SPSM-CC, and thus were not in compliance with the decree.
Despite these findings, the district court declined to enforce this aspect of the decree. Recognizing that the provision of some mental health services took place outside the physical boundaries of the SPSM (see supra, Appeal 93-1555), Judge Enslen stated that
“the Court will defer specific enforcement of this obligation until defendants submit (and the Court approves and appends to the Decree), the mental health plan required by section II.B.3.c. of the Decree. The Court expects that Defendants will be accorded the discretion, in fashioning that plan, to locate their mental health programs where they see fit, provided that they continue to demonstrate full implementation of treatment program plans for Hadix prisoners.” (Opinion of April 2, 1993.)
7

Hadix v. Johnson, 66 F.3d 325 (1995)
In effect, the district court is requiring defendants to incorporate into the Mental Health Plan, procedures for implementing treatment programs for patients initially diagnosed with serious mental illnesses. To this extent the April 2 order is clearly within the scope of the decree.
*11 The district court also found that it lacked sufficient information to determine whether or not the defendants were complying with the implementation of treatment plans under the consent decree. For this reason, it ordered the Decree Compliance Coordinators to add to their quarterly reports the following information regarding prisoners diagnosed with serious mental illnesses: (1) the R & GC’s prognosis for curing or alleviating the mental illness; (2) recommended treatment; (3) how the recommended treatment is being implemented; and (4) the subsequent clinical status of prisoners initially diagnosed with serious mental illnesses. The source and format of this information is left to the defendants’ discretion. As with the order of March 5, 1993 on monitoring (Appeal 93-1555), the defendants must include information regarding inmates who are transferred to facilities outside the confines of the SPSM-CC to receive decree-mandated services.
The defendants argue that the order improperly extends the jurisdiction of the district court. But as we noted previously, the decree clearly envisions that some Hadix inmates will receive decree-mandated services outside the confines of the SPSM. The instant order is appropriately limited to decree-mandated services, and does not “extend generally to such facilities or apply generally to other prisoners housed at such facilities.” (Order of April 2, 1993.) As with the monitoring order, however, we think that there needs to be more explicit assurance that the order covers only Hadix inmates who receive decree-mandated treatment outside the SPSM-CC with the expectation that they will be returned to the main Hadix facility once treatment is complete. With this restriction, the order does not improperly enlarge the district court’s jurisdiction beyond the scope of the original decree.
Appeal 1560
As noted above, the decree required defendants to provide “access to the in-patient care facility ... for systematic outpatient care, follow-up care, as well as continuity of care for inmates with serious mental illness.... Staffing provisions shall meet contemporary professional mental health standards to provide necessary outpatient and psychological care for seriously mentally ill inmates.” (Decree, § II.B.3.c.) In February of 1986 the defendants submitted a Hospital Staffing Plan, which the district court approved and appended to the decree. (Decree App. I.) The Staffing Plan required maintenance of a Protective Environment Unit at SPSM “to serve patients who do not require hospital care, but who are unable to maintain themselves effectively in the general prison population.” At the time the decree was entered, such a facility existed within SPSM.
The plaintiffs asked the district court to find that the Staffing Plan had not been complied with. The court found that defendants were non-compliant with respect to the Protective Environment Unit, because “[t]his unit has been relocated outside of SPSM and the authorized positions redeployed, but the plan has not been updated.” The court ordered the defendants to remedy their non-compliance either by (1) reinstituting the 40-bed Protective Environment Unit; (2) submitting a plan “to modify the Staffing Plan including the Protective Environment,” or (3) submitting a plan that “provides for an appropriate substitute for the 40-bed Protective Environment.” The remedy is a flexible one, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing it.
D.
Appeal 1599
*12 As required under § II.A.7 of the consent decree, the defendants submitted a Chronic Disease Plan in September of 1985. The plan was subsequently attached to the consent judgment. The district court found that the defendants were not in compliance with this plan, because they failed to (1) submit annual reports concerning the goals and changing needs of the plan and (2) provide periodic medication reviews for prisoners with certain medical conditions. The court ordered the defendants to submit the required compliance reports and also ordered them “to modify compliance with treatment orders when non-compliance could, in the opinion of medical staff, result in serious harm to the prison population and staff.” The district court noted that the threat of contagion from “new forms of certain epidemic diseases,” specifically tuberculosis,
8

Hadix v. Johnson, 66 F.3d 325 (1995)
justified “strict medication compliance” in some instances.
There are problems with the way the court phrased its order. The court states that because the Chronic Disease Plan already requires medication review, it does not consider the order to be a modification of the decree. Nevertheless, the order itself specifically instructs defendants “to modify compliance.” To justify modification of a consent decree, plaintiffs must establish (1) that a significant change in circumstances warrants review and modification of the consent decree, and (2) that the modification is suitably tailored to remedy the problem resulting from the changed circumstances. Rufo, 112 S.Ct. at 760. The opinion contains a heading “Plaintiffs have not met their burden under Rufo. ”6 The analysis in this section suggests, to the contrary, that the court believes that the Rufo test has in fact been satisfied.
This order requires clarification, at a minimum, especially in light of the fact that the defendants planned to change their medical distribution system anyway.7 It is difficult to resolve the tension between the court’s decision not to order specific operational changes, with its mandate to “monitor compliance with treatment orders when non-compliance could, in the opinion of medical staff, result in serious harm to the prison population and staff.” This simply amounts to an order to “do something different.” The order does not, as the defendants assert, explicitly order corrections officials to observe inmates’ ingestion of medication directly.8 Indeed, the opinion states that “[t]he decision about how to accomplish this is left to the discretion of the Defendants.” The court did, however, find the present system, in which the prisoners themselves filed reports regarding their compliance with treatment orders, inadequate. If a self-observation system is inadequate, it is difficult to see what alternative to staff observation defendants have “discretion” to impose. If the court merely meant that “once a prisoner is diagnosed with a contagious disease serious enough to cause risk to others, some higher level of monitoring is necessary,” it should have said so.
*13 We do not dispute reports expressing concern over the danger that resurgent diseases such as tuberculosis pose to the prison population in general. Nonetheless, there appears to be an absence of facts on the record regarding the incidence of serious contagious disease, like tuberculosis or AIDS, at the Hadix facility itself. The district court made no findings of fact in this regard; it simply “note[d] the emergence of new forms of epidemic diseases ... requir[ing] strict medication compliance[.]” Without specific information, it is difficult to determine how obtrusive a given remedy may be. Because the order of March 26, 1993 is based on inadequate findings of fact, we think it better to let the defendants complete those modifications they have already found necessary, and then assess the adequacy of the changes in light of heightened concern over new and resurgent contagious diseases, and the incidence of such diseases with the state prison system of Michigan. Accordingly, we vacate the March 26, 1993 order and remand the matter to the district court to await defendants’ proposed changes and for further findings of fact.
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the orders in part, VACATE them in part, and REMAND the case to the district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Parallel Citations

1995 WL 559372 (C.A.6 (Mich.))

Footnotes

1

These orders, identified by their respective appellate court docket numbers, covered the following matters: 93-1551, denial of the

defendants’ motion to modify the termination provision of the decree; 93-1555, denial of the defendants’ motion to bar monitoring

of facilities in which mental health services required by the decree are provided outside the Central Complex of the State Prison of

Southern Michigan; 93-1643, denial of the defendants’ motion to delete the decree’s requirement for preparation and

implementation of a mental health plan and requiring the defendants to adopt a remedy until such mental health plan is prepared;

93-1642, order that the defendants submit reports on the development and implementation of treatment plans for new prisoners

diagnosed with serious mental illnesses; 93-1560, order that the defendants show that a replacement exists for mental health

services lost when a Protective Environment Unit was closed at the Central Complex; and 93-1599, order that the defendants

update their chronic care plan to ensure that medical staff are adequately informed about prisoners who have contagious diseases

and who fail to comply with medical treatment.

2

For the early history of this case, see United States v. Michigan, 940 F.2d 143, 147 (6th Cir.1991). The most recent decision of this

court in the USA case also addresses mental health and jurisdictional issues. United States v. Michigan, Nos. 94-2391/95-1258,

1995 WL 469430 (6th Cir. Aug. 7, 1995).

3

The Hadix class of prisoners differs from the class of prisoners who filed a § 1983 complaint in Knop v. Johnson, G84-651-CA5

9

Hadix v. Johnson, 66 F.3d 325 (1995)

(W.D.Mich., filed 1984). The Knop class included prisoners incarcerated at the two prisons other than SPSM included in the USA complaint. The Knop plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed in exchange for “litigating amicus curiae ” status in the USA case, where, with the permission of the district court, they replaced the National Prison Project-American Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Michigan, which also had “litigating amicus ” status in USA. See United States v. Michigan, 940 F.2d 143, 147 (6th Cir.1991); Knop v. Johnson, 700 F.Supp. 1457 (W.D.Mich.1988). Our decision in USA v. Michigan, 940 F.2d at 164-67, curtailed the “litigating amicus ” status of the Knop prisoners but did not directly concern the Hadix class.

4

The stipulation of May 19, 1992, largely addresses the development of the Huron Valley mental health facility, an agreement of

compliance with previous orders, plans, and agreements, and conditions at Riverside Psychiatric facility. The Orders of June 29,

1992 and September 8, 1992 modify and approve the May stipulation.

5

Indeed, defendants themselves moved to appoint the USA Independent Monitor to the same role in Hadix because of the substantial

congruence between the two decrees, with the result that “[e]ven assuming that the standards of compliance may differ between

Hadix and USA in specific instances, nevertheless the proofs regarding the existent circumstances are going to be the same.”

(Motion of Sept. 2, 1988.)

6

The court did reject, as medically inappropriate, plaintiffs’ proposed remedy of a specific system of review and automatic renewal

of medication orders.

7

Among other things, defendants changed from an annual review of medications to a quarterly review.

8

Defendants’ argument that the order elevates the observation of an inmate’s ingestion of medication to a constitutional requirement

is without merit.

10

 
 Haddix v. Johnson, 134 F.3d 371 (1998)
134 F.3d 371 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION. (The Court’s decision is referenced in a “Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions” appearing in the Federal Reporter. Use FI CTA6 Rule 28 and FI CTA6 IOP 206 for rules regarding the citation of unpublished opinions.) United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Everett HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
Perry M. JOHNSON, et al., Defendants-Appellants, and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor.
No. 96-2548. | Jan. 22, 1998.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
Before GUY, NELSON, and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges.
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
*1 This is an appeal from an order entered by the district court on November 18, 1996, in response to the defendants’ motion for immediate termination of a “prison conditions” consent decree. The district court having reserved final determination of the motion until the constitutionality of the controlling statute could be decided by the court of appeals, we are confronted at the outset with the question whether the order is immediately appealable. Concluding that it is not, we shall dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
I
In an opinion accompanying its order, the district court acknowledged that “reasonable minds can and have differed” as to the constitutionality of the “immediate termination of prospective relief” provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), which provisions are codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 3626(b)(2) and (3). Although the district court believed that these provisions invade the province of the judiciary in violation of the separation-of-powers doctrine, it recognized that the court of appeals, before which the issue had been raised in a different context, might take the opposite view.1 Given its uncertainty as to how the separation-of-powers issue would ultimately be decided, the district court elected to defer final determination of the defendants’ motion.
Borrowing a characterization offered by the United States, which has filed an appellate brief as intervenor. we observe that the district court did take some “initial steps” along the road to resolving the termination motion.2 In one such step the court identified some 20 sections of the consent decree that were deemed by the court to be “appropriate for termination.” Should the Sixth Circuit decide (as it now has) that the PLRA applies to the consent decree, the district court indicated that these 20 provisions “will be terminated.”
With respect to two other provisions of the decree, although the district court said it was not satisfied that the defendants were in compliance therewith, the court found no constitutional violation. These provisions would be terminated too, the court indicated, if the PLRA should be upheld as constitutional.
As to the remaining five provisions considered by the district court, the court found that they addressed current constitutional violations. In only two instances, however, did the court decide that the relief which had been ordered “remains necessary to correct a current or ongoing violation of the Federal right. extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the
1

Haddix v. Johnson, 134 F.3d 371 (1998)
Federal Right, and ... is narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means to correct the violation,” thus meeting the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3) as in effect when the order was issued. (Congress subsequently replaced the phrase “current or ongoing violation” with “current and ongoing violation,” Pub.L. 105-119, § 123(a)(2), and the district court will need to apply the latter formulation in rendering a final decision on the motion to terminate.) Insofar as prospective relief might still be necessary in the remaining instances, the district court expressed no opinion as to whether the relief had been tailored as required by § 3626(b)(3).
*2 In the last sentence of its November 18 order, the district court stated that “this Court will reserve final determination of defendants’ motion until such time as the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued its ruling [on the separation-of-powers issue.]” The defendants, promptly appealed. The plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing (1) that there was no final decision appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, (2) that there was no collateral order appealable under the doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949), and (3) that the order did not fall within any of the categories of interlocutory orders (e.g, orders “refusing to dissolve or modifying injunctions”) made appealable by 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The United States likewise moved to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
By order filed on June 13, 1997, a “motions panel” of this court denied the motions for dismissal. Stating that “[t]he November 18 order may be construed as refusing to dissolve an injunction,” the motions panel “conclude[d] that the state’s appeal should not be dismissed at this time.” The panel’s order recited, however, that the denial of the motions to dismiss was “without prejudice to the consideration of appellate jurisdiction by the panel assigned to hear the appeal on the merits.”
Having further considered the jurisdictional question in the context of our decision on the separation-of-powers question, and having had the benefit of oral argument, the present panel concludes that the district court’s November 18 order should not be construed as appealable at this juncture. Briefly stated, our reasoning is as follows.
II
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, as noted above, the courts of appeals have jurisdiction of appeals from “final decisions” of the district courts. An order stating, as the November 18 order does state, that the district court will not render a final decision until after the occurrence of a future event, is not itself a final decision. Cf. Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 467 (1978); Cohen, 337 U.S. at 546. The lack of finality is heightened, in this instance, by the fact that the district court chose not to make even tentative findings as to whether several elements of the prospective relief in question are tailored in a manner that might salvage them from termination under the Congressional mandate. The November 18 order is clearly not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Neither does the order “appear[ ] to fall in that small class which finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated.” Cohen, 337 U.S. at 546. The November 18 order does not come within this “collateral order” exception to the finality rule because, for one thing, the order “does not finally dispose of any claimed right.” See Donovan v. United Steelworkers of America, 731 F.2d 345, 347 (6th Cir.1984). In this respect the order differs significantly from those at issue in United States v. Michigan, 940 F.2d 143 (6th Cir.1991). The latter orders. unlike this one, “[were] indisputably modifications of the consent decree....” Id. at 150.
*3 As to the appealability of the November 18 order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1)-the statute that confers appellate jurisdiction over (among other things) interlocutory orders “continuing ... or refusing to dissolve ... injunctions”-it is true that the order did not dissolve the injunctive relief previously granted in or pursuant to the consent decree. The practical effect of the November 18 order can thus fairly be said to have been one of “continuing ... or refusing to dissolve ... injunctions.” In terms, however, the order did not specifically direct continuation of the injunctive relief granted previously-and the order did not purport finally to refuse dissolution.
For such an order to be immediately appealable under § 1292(a)(1), Supreme Court precedent teaches, a demonstration of the order’s “practical effect” is not, by itself, sufficient. Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 84 (1981).
“Because § 1292(a)(1) was intended to carve out only a limited exception to the final-judgment rule. [the Supreme Court has] construed the statute narrowly to ensure that appeal as of right under § 1292(a)(1) will be available only in circumstances where an appeal will further the statutory purpose of ‘permit[ting] litigants to effectually challenge interlocutory orders of serious, perhaps irreparable. consequence.’ [Citation omitted.] Unless a litigant can show that an
2

Haddix v. Johnson, 134 F.3d 371 (1998)
interlocutory order of the district court might have a ‘serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence,’ and that the order can be ‘effectually challenged’ only by immediate appeal, the general congressional policy against piecemeal review will preclude interlocutory appeal.” Id.
The defendants have not, in our view, made the requisite showing of a “serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence” flowing from the preliminary steps taken by the district court on November 18 and justifying a departure from the general congressional policy against piecemeal review. We recognize-and we are confident that the district court recognizes-the importance of immediate termination of any prospective relief that does not meet the stringent criteria of the PLRA. It is up to the district court to address the application of these criteria in the first instance, however, and we have no reason to doubt that the district court will turn to that task with dispatch now that the separation-of-powers issue has been resolved in the defendants’ favor.
The present appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Parallel Citations

1998 WL 30820 (C.A.6 (Mich.))

Footnotes

1

In an opinion filed on January 13, 1998, and recommended for full-text publication, we have now held that the provisions in

question do not violate the separation-of-powers doctrine. Hadix v. Johnson, ---F.3d ---- (6th Cir.1998).

2

The metaphor comes from Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1948), where the Supreme Court said that 28

U.S.C. § 1291, which vests the courts of appeals with jurisdiction of appeals from final decisions of the district courts, does not

permit appeals from decisions-even “fully consummated decisions”-that “are but steps towards final judgment....”

3

 
 Hadix v. Johnson, 198 F.3d 245 (1999)
198 F.3d 245 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION. (The Court’s decision is referenced in a “Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions” appearing in the Federal Reporter. Use FI CTA6 Rule 28 and FI CTA6 IOP 206 for rules regarding the citation of unpublished opinions.) United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Everett HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
Perry M. JOHNSON, et al., Defendants-Appellants. Gary KNOP, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
Perry M. JOHNSON, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 97-1610, 97-1611. | Nov. 10, 1999.
Before KENNEDY, GUY, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.
Opinion
ORDER
*1 The defendants appeal the district court’s opinion entered upon the plaintiffs’ motions for attorneys’ fees for the time period between January 1, 1996 and December 31, 1996. After the appellate briefing had been completed, these cases were placed into abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Martin v. Hadix, 119 S.Ct. 1998 (1999). Now these appeals are before the court on a stipulation filed by the defendants-appellants and plaintiffs-appellees. That stipulation states, in whole:
Defendants-Appellants, and Plaintiff-Appellees stipulate to the dismissal of Defendants-Appellants Argument II, in the above captioned appeals, such stipulation conditioned upon a decision by the Sixth Circuit favorable to Defendant with respect to Argument I, of the above captioned appeals consistent with the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Martin v. Hadix, No. 98-262, decided June 21, 1999.
Subsequent to the filing of the stipulation, plaintiffs’ counsel wrote to this court requesting “that the Court enter an order modifying the decision of the district court to mandate an hourly rate of $112.50 per hour, consistent with the decision in Martin v.. Hadix, for the period April 27, 1996- December 31, 1996.”
In Martin v. Hadix, the Supreme Court addressed the cap on attorney’s fees created by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA). Section 803(d)(3) of the PLRA amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(3) to limit the hourly rate permitted in any action brought by a prisoner in which attorney’s fees are authorized under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Pursuant to that amendment, “[n]o award of attorney’s fees ... shall be based on an hourly rate greater than 150 percent of the hourly rate established under section 3006A of Title 18, for payment of court-appointed counsel.” In the instant case, that hourly rate would be $112.50. This section was effective upon the date of enactment, April 26, 1996. The Court held in Martin that “[w]ith respect to postjudgment monitoring performed after the effective date the PLRA fees cap applies to such work.” Martin v. Hadix, 119 S.Ct. at 2008.
In view of Martin v. Hadix, the appropriate hourly rate for attorney work for the period from April 27 to December 31, 1996 is $112.50. The defendants-appellants have withdrawn all other aspects of these appeals.
Therefore, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order.
1

Hadix v. Johnson, 198 F.3d 245 (1999) Parallel Citations 1999 WL 1045084 (C.A.6 (Mich.))
2

 
 Hadix v. Johnson, 91 F.3d 143 (1996)
91 F.3d 143 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION. (The Court’s decision is referenced in a “Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions” appearing in the Federal Reporter. Use FI CTA6 Rule 28 and FI CTA6 IOP 206 for rules regarding the citation of unpublished opinions.) United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Everett HADIX; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v. Perry M. JOHNSON; et al., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 94-2008, 96-1422. | July 02, 1996.
W.D.Mich., No. 92-00110; Richard A. Enslen, Chief Judge. W.D.Mich.
REMANDED.
Before: GUY, RYAN, and SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judges. Opinion
ORDER *1 The defendants appeal the July 25, 1994 and February 9, 1996 orders in this action challenging the conditions at the State Prison of Southern Michigan-Central Complex. The defendants now move for immediate termination of the orders pursuant to the recent amendments to 18 U.S.C. § 3626 set forth in section 802 of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The plaintiffs oppose the motion for immediate termination, but request that the appeal be remanded to the district court to consider a similar motion filed in that court by the defendants.
The amended statute provides that
[i]n any civil action with respect to prison conditions, a defendant or intervenor shall be entitled to the immediate termination of any prospective relief if the relief was approved or granted in the absence of a finding by the court that the relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.
18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2). It is undisputed that the July 25, 1994 and February 9, 1996 orders do not contain the findings required by this section of the Act. However, whether the statute requires the immediate termination of the orders is more properly addressed in the first instance by the district court.
It therefore is ORDERED that the motion for immediate termination be denied. The appeal is remanded to the district court for reconsideration in light of the recent amendments to 18 U.S.C. § 3626.
Parallel Citations 1996 WL 370152 (C.A.6 (Mich.))
1

 
 Handschu v. Special Servs. Div.
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York April 21, 2003, Decided ; April 23, 2003, Filed 71 Civ. 2203 (CSH)

Reporter: 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6790 BARBARA HANDSCHU, RALPH DIGIA, ALEX McKEIVER, SHABA OM, CURTIS M. POWELL, ABBIE HOFFMAN, MARK A. SEGAL, MICHAEL ZUMOFF, KENNETH THOMAS, ROBERT RUSCH, ANETTE T. RUBENSTEIN, MICHEY SHERIDAN, JOE SUCHER, STEVEN FISCHLER, HOWARD BLATT and ELLIE BENZONE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, -against- SPECIAL SERVICES DIVISION, a/k/a BUREAU OF SPECIAL SERVICES, WILLIAM H.T. SMITH, ARTHUR GRUBERT, MICHAEL WILLIS, WILLIAM KNAPP, PATRICK MURPHY, POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, JOHN V. LINDSAY and various unknown employees of the Police Department acting as under-cover operators and informers, Defendants.
Subsequent History: Motion granted by Handschu v. Special Servs. Div., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13811 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 6, 2003)
Prior History: Handschu v. Special Servs. Div., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4432 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 20, 2003)
Disposition: [*1] Application for leave to respond to motion to amend order and judgment granted.
Counsel: For Barbara Handschu, Ralph Digia, Alex McKeiver, Shaba OM, Curtis M Powell, Abbie Hoffman, Mark A Sagal, Michael Zumoff, Kenneth Thomas, Robert Rusch, Annette T Rubenstein, Mickey Sheridan, Joe Sucher, Steven Fischler, Howard Blatt, Ellie Benzoni, PLAINTIFFS: Franklin Siegel, Siegel, Deale, Stavis, Cole, and Ratner, Martin R Stolar, Martin Stolar, Jethro M Eisenstein, Profeta & Eisenstein, Paul Chevigny, New York, NY USA.
For Police Department of the City of New York, DEFENDANT: Gail Donoghue, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY USA.
Judges: CHARLES S. HAIGHT, JR., SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Opinion by: CHARLES S. HAIGHT, JR.

HAIGHT, Senior United States District Judge:
This memorandum addresses two pending motions in the case.
1. The Motion of Plaintiff Class for Reconsideration of or to Amend the Court's Order and Judgment Entered on April 8, 2003
The Court grants the Corporation Counsel's application for leave to file and serve responsive papers on or before May 16, 2003. Class counsel, [*2] if so advised, may file and serve reply papers on or before May 23, 2003.
The Court will hear oral argument at 2:00 p.m. on May 28, 2003, in Room 17C, 500 Pearl Street.
2. Class Counsel's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs
Class counsel have noticed a motion for recovery of attorney's fees and costs for legal services rendered during the period September 25, 2002 through April 4, 2003. They regard the plaintiff class as the "prevailing party" in the litigation conducted during that period, as that phrase is used in 42 U.S.C. § 1988. That phase of the litigation was generated by the NYPD's desire to amend the Handschu Guidelines in the aftermath of 9/11.
While the Corporation Counsel asks leave to file and serve responsive papers on or before May 30, 2003, it now appears that this motion for attorney's fees is premature, and need not be responded to at this time. That is because of the pendency of the first motion, which serves to reopen consideration of the form the Court's judgment should take. In that motion, class counsel ask the Court to amend the judgment so as to provide that the FBI Guidelines, now incorporated in substance into the NYPD [*3] Patrol Guide, also be made a part of the amended consent decree, "so that it will be clear to the NYPD that these are rules, and that violations of them may be punished as contempt of court." Eisenstein Declaration dated April 16, 2003 at P 16. If the Court grants that relief, the NYPD may appeal the judgment; if the Court denies it, plaintiff class may appeal.

Opinion MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

I do no more than recite these obvious procedural realities, without intimating any view on the merits of the motion.

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6790, *3

Page 2 of 2

But the case must run its resumed course before it can be by New York Association for Retarded Children v. Carey, 711

determined whether the plaintiff class is a "prevailing party," F.2d 1136, 1147-48 (2d Cir. 1983).

and if so, to what extent, since it is well established that

attorney's fees and costs are recoverable under § 1988 only to It is SO ORDERED.

the extent that a party has succeeded on one or more claims.

Failed claims require a discounting of the fees.

[*4] Dated: New York, New York

Accordingly Corporation Counsel need not respond to this motion at this time. Class counsel may renew it when this phase of the litigation is completed, after appeals, if any. The application must be supported in the manner required

April 21, 2003 CHARLES S. HAIGHT, JR. SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Hadix v. Caruso
United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division October 18, 2006, Decided ; October 18, 2006, Filed Case No. 4:92-CV-110

Reporter: 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75765

EVERETT HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PATRICIA L.

CARUSO, et al., Defendants.

James C. Reilly # 203296, movant, Pro se, Jackson, MI.

Subsequent History: Motion granted by, Injunction granted at Hadix v. Caruso, 461 F. Supp. 2d 574, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82399 (W.D. Mich., Nov. 13, 2006)
Prior History: Hadix v. Caruso, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72967 (W.D. Mich., Oct. 6, 2006)
Counsel: [*1] For Everett Hadix, Richard Mapes, Patrick C. Sommerville, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr., Brent E. Koster, Lee D. McDonald, Darryl Sturges, Robert Flemster, William Lovett, James Covington, Frank Thomas, James Haddix, James Alexander, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Perry Alan Davis, Mark Lemothe, Cylester Nunnally, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Ted Sullivan, Mark A. Coleman, Danny Walker, plaintiffs: Elizabeth Alexander, National Prison Project of the ACLUF, Washington, DC; Michael Barnhart, Patricia A. Streeter, Ann Arbor, MI.
For Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr., Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, Patricia L. Caruso, defendants: A. Peter Govorchin, Leo H. Friedman, MI Dept Attorney General, Lansing, MI.
For USA, defendant: A. Peter Govorchin, MI Dept Attorney General, Lansing, MI.
Ronald Kovaleski # 213896, movant, Pro se, Jackson, MI.
Richard Thompson # 311040, movant, Pro se, Marquette, MI.
Ronald L. Jordan # 125764, movant, Pro se, Marquette, MI.
Larry D. Blue, movant, [*2] Pro se, Grand Rapids, MI.
For Special Master, unknown: F. Warren Benton, Court Monitor, Larchmont, NY.
Diane Hartmus, unknown, Pro se, Peekskill, NY.
Robert L. Cohen, MD, Medical Monitor, unknown, Pro se, New York, NY.
Melvin Smith # 167153, movant, Pro se, Jackson, MI.

James Charles Cannon # 237039, movant, Pro se, Jackson, MI.
Wellington L. Drake # 229939, movant, Pro se, Jackson, MI.
Mark H. Roberts # 197305, named as Charles M.H. Roberts, movant, Pro se, Jackson, MI.
William T. Mears # 180220, movant, Pro se, Jackson, MI.
Albert Eugene McKinley # 177679, movant, Pro se, Jackson, MI.
Avis A. Fee # 265115, movant, Pro se, Jackson, MI.
Judges: Richard Alan Enslen, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Opinion by: Richard Alan Enslen
Opinion
ORDER
On October 12, 2006, during a public hearing, the Court received a written motion from Larry D. Blue, a non-attorney who identified himself as a representative of prisoners and their family members affected by the medical and correctional care within Hadix facilities. The motion seeks injunctive relief, including the convening of [*3] a grand jury, relating to the August 6, 2006 prisoner death discussed during the hearing. The interests asserted by Mr. Blue, a non-attorney and non-class member, are already represented in this action by class members and their counsel such that he lacks standing to assert those rights. SeeFed. R. Civ. P. 24(a); Grubbs v. Norris, 859 F.2d 922, 1988 WL 107163, *1 (6th Cir. 1988); Tenn. Ass'n of Health Maint. Orgs., Inc. v. Grier, 262 F.3d 559, 566 (6th Cir. 2001); Ziegler v. State of Mich., 90 Fed. Appx. 808, 810 (6th Cir. Jan. 23, 2004) (citing Fymbo v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 213 F.3d 1320, 1321 (10th Cir. 2000)). Despite this ruling, the Court does welcome the public comment of groups and individuals with interests in correctional treatment, which comment should be directed to legal counsel.

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75765, *3

Page 2 of 2

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Larry D. Blue's Motion for Injunctive Relief (Dkt. No. 2161) is October 18, 2006

DENIED.

/s/ Richard Alan Enslen

DATED in Kalamazoo, MI:

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Hadix v. Caruso
United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division June 5, 2007, Decided ; June 5, 2007, Filed Case No. 4:92-CV-110

Reporter: 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40727

EVERETT HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PATRICIA

CARUSO, et al., Defendants.

Claude T. Hoffman # 246624, movant, Pro se, St. Louis, MI.

Subsequent History: Motion granted by, in part, Motion Robert Alspaugh # 267497, Jr., movant, Pro se, Jackson, MI.

denied by, in part Hadix v. Caruso, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

42216 (W.D. Mich., June 11, 2007)

Scott A. Falkiewicz # 244693, movant, Pro se, Jackson, MI.

Prior History: Hadix v. Caruso, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS For Special Master, unknown: F. Warren Benton, LEAD

33040 (W.D. Mich., May 4, 2007)

ATTORNEY, Court Monitor, Larchmont, NY.

Counsel: [*1] For Everett Hadix, Richard Mapes, Patrick C. Sommerville, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr., Brent E. Koster, Lee D. McDonald, Darryl Sturges, Robert Flemster, William Lovett, James Covington, Frank Thomas, James Haddix, James Alexander, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Perry Alan Davis # 121739, Mark Lemothe, Cylester Nunnally, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Ted Sullivan, Mark A. Coleman, Danny Walker, plaintiffs: Elizabeth Alexander, LEAD ATTORNEY, National Prison Project of the ACLUF, Washington, DC; Michael Barnhart, Patricia A. Streeter, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Ann Arbor, MI.
For Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr., Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, Patricia L. Caruso, defendants: A. Peter Govorchin, Leo H. Friedman, LEAD ATTORNEYS, MI Dept Attorney General (Corrections), Corrections Division, Lansing, MI.

Diane Hartmus, unknown, Pro se, Peekskill, NY.
Robert L. Cohen, MD, Medical Monitor, unknown, Pro se, New York, NY.
Melvin Smith # 167153, movant, Pro se, Jackson, MI.
James C. Reilly # 203296, movant, Pro se, Jackson, MI.
James Charles Cannon # 237039, movant, Pro se, Jackson, MI.
Wellington L. Drake # 229939, movant, Pro se, Jackson, MI.
Mark H. Roberts # 197305, named as Charles M.H. Roberts, movant, Pro se, Jackson, MI.
William T. Mears # 180220, movant, Pro se, Jackson, MI.
Albert Eugene McKinley # 177679, movant, Pro se, Jackson, MI.

For USA, defendant: A. Peter Govorchin, LEAD ATTORNEY, MI Dept Attorney General (Corrections), Corrections Division, Lansing, MI.
Ronald Kovaleski # 213896, movant, Pro se, Jackson, MI.
Richard [*2] Thompson # 568688 (formerly MDOC # 311040), movant, Pro se, Marquette, MI.

Avis [*3] A. Fee # 265115, movant, Pro se, Jackson, MI. Judges: Richard Alan Enslen, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. Opinion by: Richard Alan Enslen
Opinion

Ronald L. Jordan # 125764, movant, Pro se, Marquette, MI. Larry D. Blue, movant, Pro se, Grand Rapids, MI. Michael Marr # 186617, movant, Pro se, Ionia, MI. Michael Eric Masters # 192980, movant, Pro se, Ionia, MI.

This matter is before the Court to address in expedited fashion the subject of whether Defendants' heat-related injury plan should receive Court approval. The parties have provided expedited briefing on the subject. The expedition of the process has been necessary because the plan is to be implemented by July 15, 2007 and any delay

2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40727, *3

Page 2 of 4

in its implementation is likely to prevent any effective remedy provide a sufficient remedy to comply with the Court's

during the warmest of the 2007 heat alert days. While the requirements and would prevent avoidable heat-related injury.

Court would like to entertain oral argument on this matter, the (See Defs.' Resp. 2-5; 2nd Supplement 1-3.) Defendants also

Court's present scheduling and the pressing nature of the foresee that the use of the Cool Dome could serve other

remedy do not permit such.

department needs during the non-summer seasons by

providing additional space for needed storage and/or staff In order to understand the scope and nature of the remedy usage. (Defs.' Resp. at 5-7.) needed, one must revisit the Court's Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law of April 3, 2007 (hereafter "Findings"). Plaintiffs have objected to the plan. Plaintiffs express concern

This Court found based on one-sided medical testimony that the operation of the Cool Dome would expose prisoners

presented during the January 2007 hearing that the present to undue risk of physical violence from other prisoners, would

summer conditions at the Hadix facilities pose an fail to provide adequate sanitation (because prisoners would

unacceptable risk of heat-related injury to those Hadix have to leave the Cool Dome to use restroom facilities),

prisoners classified at high risk for heat-related would disrupt the delivery of medications and medical care to

injury. [*4] (See Findings PP 8-9, 11-12, 16, 18-20, 31, 34, affected prisoners, would jeopardize [*6] prisoner access to

42-43.) The Eighth Amendment to the United States their personal property including court papers, and would

Constitution requires that prisoners be housed in humane provide inadequate facilities which do not accommodate the

conditions of confinement which do not expose them to life- needs of handicapped prisoners. Plaintiffs also express

threatening conditions. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, concern that the Cool Dome remedy, as implemented, may be

104, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251 (1976); Farmer v. waived by prisoners, such that it may not be utilized by a

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 128 L. Ed. 2d sufficient number of them to render it effective. The Court,

811 (1994); Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33-34, 113 S. has reviewed these arguments with a shared concern for the

Ct. 2475, 125 L. Ed. 2d 22 (1993). While the Eighth plight of the affected prisoners. Plaintiffs have also filed

Amendment only prohibits deliberate indifference to known evidence (the Affidavit of Clarence Moore) which supports

unconstitutional conditions, once prison officials are put on the notion that prison officials may have retaliated against

notice of those conditions in the context of an ongoing prisoners in Blocks 4-7 for exercising their rights under the

litigation, their failure to correct the conditions will warrant Eighth and First Amendments to the Constitution. 1

injunctive relief to prevent further exposure to life-threatening conditions. See Hadix v. Johnson, 367 F.3d 513, 526 (6th Cir. [*7] Notwithstanding, the terms of the Prison Litigation

2004).

Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1), require that prospective

relief be limited and that intrusions upon public institutions

In light of such legal requirements, this Court found that a not adversely impact their operations:

Permanent Injunction should enter requiring Defendants to

house prisoners at high risk for heat-related injury within

Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to

facilities with a reliable heat-index below 90. Defendants

prison conditions shall extend no further than

have complied with the Permanent Injunction by forwarding a

necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right

plan for Court approval which provides for: (1) the use

of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall

of [*5] temporary air conditioning units (trailer-based units)

not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the

for Blocks 4, 5, and 6 on heat alert days; and (2) the use of a

court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn,

"Cool Dome" air-conditioned facility on the grounds of the

extends no further than necessary to correct the

Egeler Reception and Guidance Center ("RGC") to house

violation of the Federal right, and is the least

RGC and 7 Block at-risk prisoners during heat alert days.

intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of

Defendants believe that this plan, though not without some

the

discomfort and inconvenience for some of the affected

prisoners, would

1 Defendants, post-briefing, filed a "Status Report," which attempted to contradict Mr. Moore's characterization of their conduct as retaliatory. While Defendants do not deny that some regular services are being denied Hadix prisoners, they represent that the denials are not retaliatory in nature (i.e., postal services were denied due to temporary malfunction of a postage machine and other services were temporarily suspended due to the projected closing date of prison facilities). Defendants do not dispute, however, the concept, firmly established in Sixth Circuit law, that they are not free to retaliate for the exercise of First Amendment rights. See Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 394 (6th Cir. 1999) (en banc). Plaintiffs have also moved to strike the Status Report since it is made without evidentiary support. While Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike will be denied given the limited authority of the Court to strike pleadings under Rule 12(f), see Stabilisierungsfonds Fur Wein v. Kaiser Stuhl Wine Distributors Pty. Ltd., 207 U.S. App. D.C. 375, 647 F.2d 200, 201 (D.C. Cir. 1981), it is significant that Defendants' representations are not supported by affidavit, declaration or deposition.

2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40727, *7

Page 3 of 4

Federal right. The court shall give substantial weight Monitor shall also verify the lists for those to be housed in the

to any adverse impact on public safety or the Cool Dome and may add additional prisoners at risk of heat-

operation of a criminal justice system caused by the related injury to the list based upon his review of patient

relief.18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1). Furthermore, the records and independent clinical judgment.

traditional stance in equity of the courts is to provide public officials with sufficient discretion in implementing effective remedies and to pay special attention to the public consequences of injunction relief. See Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S.

(4) Defendants shall plan and take active steps to ensure that Cool Dome housing does not interfere with prisoner access to medical care and prescriptions and shall share such plans on a timely basis with both Plaintiffs and this Court.

305, 311-12, 102 S. Ct. 1798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1982); [*8] Knop v. Johnson, 977 F.2d 996, 1008 (6th Cir. 1992).

(5) Defendants shall plan and take active steps to ensure that Cool Dome housing does not pose any unnecessary security risk to prisoners and shall share such [*10] plans on a timely

Given the lateness of the season and the flexibility which basis with both Plaintiffs and this Court.

must be afforded to public administers in administering constitutional remedies, the Court's only choice at this point of time is to approve Defendants' chosen heat-related remedies for this season with conditions to make the implementation of the remedy consistent with constitutional

(6) Defendants shall cease and desist from punitive measures (including the non-provision of regular services afforded other inmates) which retaliate against class members for exercising their constitutional rights.

standards. To do otherwise would be to loose the 2007

summer season without an effective remedy.

(7) Defendants shall file with the Court not later than June 15,

2007 an implementation schedule for the heat-related

As such, Defendants' remedy will be approved subject to the remedies described herein together with affidavits of

following conditions:

responsible officials attesting to the feasability of the

implementation by July 15, 2007, the effectiveness of

(1) Defendants shall take steps to ensure that all Cool Dome Defendants' plans to meet the Court's required conditions, and prisoners with disabilities shall be provided with the steps which have been taken to eliminate any retaliation accommodations for their disabilities consistent with Title II against prisoners.

of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq. Defendants' plans to do so shall be shared with Plaintiffs and the Court on a timely basis.

(8) Defendants shall survey the percentage of prisoners who do not utilize the Cool Dome remedy and shall report to the Court by September 30, 2007 both the percentage of prisoners

(2) Defendants shall provide at no cost to the Cool Dome prisoners locks to secure property at RGC (and also Block 7, if necessary) and messengers to retrieve property when there is an urgent reason for doing so (i.e., access to medication, [*9] access to court papers in order to meet a filing date, etc.)

not utilizing the remedy and the reasons given for not utilizing the remedy by the prisoners who waive it. Prior to accepting a waiver, Defendants shall provide the prospective Cool Dome prisoner with a copy of this Opinion and the Order implementing it, and shall advise each prisoner that the Court has ordered [*11] the remedy to be implemented consistent with constitutional standards. Plaintiffs may, but are not

(3) Defendants shall ensure that American Public Health required to, file a motion not later than October 15, 2007

Association standards for sanitation (toilets and washbasins) seeking a different remedy for the 2008 summer season.

are met as to Cool Dome prisoners, namely at least one toilet and one sink per every eight prisoners within the Cool Dome Accordingly, an Order shall enter approving Defendants' heatshall be provided. At least, one third of those toilet/sink related injury plan subject to the conditions set forth herein.

combinations shall be provided inside the Cool Dome and the remainder shall be provided immediately outside the facility. DATED in Kalamazoo, MI:

These facilities shall be maintained in a sanitary condition

during occupancy. 2 The

June 5, 2007

2 See American Public Health Association Task Force on Correctional Health, Standards for Health Services in Correctional Institutions 151-52 (3d Ed. 2003) (setting forth the one to eight ratio as the proper standard for sinks/toilets in a dormitory setting). The above health standards reflect a recognition of the need for basic sanitation within living quarters. This is also very necessary for the Hadix population given that many of the inmates have health conditions which contribute to frequent urination (enlarged prostate, diabetes, etc.).

2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40727, *11

Page 4 of 4

/s/ Richard Alan Enslen

the Hadix facilities will predictably result in more

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

deprivations of care than would occur at the Ryan facility (given Defendants' channeling of resources to the Ryan

ORDER

facility).

[*12] This matter is before the Court to consider the approval of Defendants' dialysis transfer plan, as supplemented. The request for approval is now made with the consent of all parties, though Plaintiffs and the Office of the Independent Medical Monitor have requested that transfer approval be premised upon some conditions of which Defendants disapprove. The Court has also received prisoner correspondence requesting that the dialysis transfer plan be approved. Oral argument or other hearing is unnecessary in light of the basic agreement as to the transfer.

In making this approval, the Court does so subject to the endorsement of the transfer conditions deemed necessary in the Report of the Office of the Independent [*14] Medical Monitor and by Plaintiffs, including, but not limited to, the compliance by Defendants with the remedial framework established in the Hadix suit, the limitations on the use of physical restraints, and the continued use of monthly meetings to address deprivations in care. The exercise of jurisdiction over the Ryan facility and medical monitoring shall be limited to the care and treatment of patients of the dialysis unit and shall cease as soon as compliance with Eighth Amendment

Upon review of these matters, including the prisoner correspondence, the Court will approve the transfer of the dialysis unit and dialysis unit patients, even though the approval of an overall transfer plan regarding prisoners at the Southern Michigan Correctional Facility (also known as the Josephine McCallum Facility or "JMF") is still pending. The Court finds that the purposes of the Preliminary Injunction

standards is demonstrated by Defendants. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 55-58, 111 S. Ct. 2123, 115 L. Ed. 2d 27 (1991) (describing inherent authority of federal courts to ensure that decrees are not frustrated); see also Hadix v. Johnson, 367 F.3d 513, 518 n.7 (6th Cir. 2004) (stating that judicial efficiency requires continuance of jurisdiction notwithstanding transfers).

and equity jurisdiction, which prevented transfer without Court approval, in this case warrant approval of the transfer because the transfer is not likely to endanger prisoners beyond the very significant dangers and failures [*13] of care present at the Hadix facilities. In saying so, the Court is not endorsing either the level of care at the Hadix facilities or the expected

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' dialysis transfer plan, as supplemented, is APPROVED subject to Defendants' compliance with the conditions of transfer sought by the Office of the Independent Medical Monitor and by Plaintiffs.

level of care at the Ryan Correctional Facility. The record specifies rather clearly that there are serious deprivations of medical care affecting dialysis patients, including, but not limited to, a failure by Defendants to provide timely chronic care, a failure to provide timely medication renewal of chronic medications, and a failure by Defendants to provide timely access to specialty care, among other problems. These

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the exercise of jurisdiction [*15] over the Ryan Correctional Facility and the medical monitoring of the same shall be limited to the care and treatment of patients of the dialysis unit and shall cease as soon as compliance with Eighth Amendment standards is demonstrated by Defendants.

problems, as recognized by the parties, are likely to continue DATED in Kalamazoo, MI:

upon transfer. Notwithstanding, the logic of equity currently favors such transfer because Defendants themselves have June 5, 2007

began to focus their efforts at dialysis care at the Ryan facility

such that retaining the prisoners at

/s/ Richard Alan Enslen

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 United States District Court Western District of Michigan (Southern Division (4)) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:92-cv-00110-RJJ

Hadix, et al v. Caruso, et al Assigned to: Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker Demand: $0 Case in other court: Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, 05-02358
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, 06-02591 Sixth Circuit Court ofAppeals, 06-02628 Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, 07-01344 Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, 07-01503 Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, 07-01608 Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, 07-01609 Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, 07-02319 Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, 07-02560 the Sixth Circuit, 09-01424 the Sixth Circuit, 09-02255 related case, 1:84-cv-63 E.D. of MI, 80-cv-73581 93-01551 93-01555 93-01556 93-01557 93-01558 93-01559 93-01560 93-01642 93-01643 93-02282 93-02349 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

Date Filed: 08/04/1992 Date Terminated: 09/29/2015 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

plaintiff Everett Hadix

represented by Deborah A. LaBelle Deborah LaBelle Law Offices 221 N Main St., Ste. 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (734) 996-5620 Email: deblabelle@aol.com TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Alexander Law Offices of Elizabeth Alexander 1416 Holly St. NW Washington, DC 20012 (202) 291-6352

Email: ealexander@lawofficesofelizabethalexander.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanne E. Mirer Pitt, Dowty, McGehee, Mirer & Palmer, P.C. 306 S Washington, Ste. 600 Royal Oak, MI 48067 (248) 398-9800 TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett Cox, Hodgman & Giarmarco, PC 101 W Big Beaver Rd., 10th Fl., Columbia Center Troy, MI 48084-5280 (248) 528-2200 Email: lbennett@chglaw.com TERMINATED: 06/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Barnhart 221 North Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48103 (734) 213-3703 Fax: (734) 213-3704 Email: michaelbarnhart@comcast.net TERMINATED: 11/07/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter P.O. Box 871578 Canton, MI 48187 (734) 222-0088 Email: pas@patstreeter.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra L. Girard Post Office Box 1069 Jackson, MI 49204 517-795-1944 Email: sandy@plsminc.org TERMINATED: 09/16/2009

plaintiff Richard Mapes

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin ACLU Fund of Michigan (Detroit) 2966 Woodward Ave. Detroit, MI 48201-3035 (313) 578-6824 Fax: (313) 578-6811 Email: dkorobkin@aclumich.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neal Bush One Kennedy Square, Ste. 1816 Detroit, MI 48226 (313) 962- 1177 TERMINATED: 01/18/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanne E. Mirer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Barnhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

plaintiff Patrick C. Sommerville

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra L. Girard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neal Bush (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/18/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanne E. Mirer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Barnhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

plaintiff Roosevelt Hudson, Jr.

Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra L. Girard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neal Bush (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/18/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanne E. Mirer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Barnhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY

plaintiff Brent E. Koster

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra L. Girard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neal Bush (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/18/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanne E. Mirer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Barnhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2007

plaintiff Lee D. McDonald

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra L. Girard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neal Bush (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/18/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanne E. Mirer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Barnhart (See above for address)

plaintiff Darryl Sturges

TERMINATED: 11/07/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra L. Girard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neal Bush (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/18/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanne E. Mirer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Barnhart

plaintiff Robert Flemster

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra L. Girard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neal Bush (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/18/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanne E. Mirer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

plaintiff William Lovett

Michael Barnhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra L. Girard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neal Bush (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/18/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanne E. Mirer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

plaintiff James Covington

Michael Barnhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra L. Girard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neal Bush (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/18/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanne E. Mirer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY

plaintiff Frank Thomas

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Barnhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra L. Girard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neal Bush (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/18/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanne E. Mirer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1993

plaintiff James Haddix

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Barnhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra L. Girard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neal Bush (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/18/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanne E. Mirer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address)

plaintiff James Alexander

TERMINATED: 11/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Barnhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra L. Girard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neal Bush (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/18/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanne E. Mirer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Barnhart

plaintiff Al Buttons

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra L. Girard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neal Bush (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/18/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanne E. Mirer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

plaintiff James Chipman

Michael Barnhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra L. Girard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neal Bush (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/18/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanne E. Mirer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

plaintiff Perry Alan Davis #121739

Michael Barnhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra L. Girard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neal Bush (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/18/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanne E. Mirer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY

plaintiff
Michael Anthony Gray TERMINATED: 06/01/1994

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Barnhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra L. Girard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neal Bush (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/18/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/1994 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/1994 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanne E. Mirer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/1994 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address)

plaintiff Mark Lemothe

TERMINATED: 06/01/1994 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Barnhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/1994 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/1994 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neal Bush (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/1994 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanne E. Mirer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Barnhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY

plaintiff Cylester Nunnally

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra L. Girard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neal Bush (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/18/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanne E. Mirer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Barnhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2007

plaintiff Ted Rhode

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra L. Girard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neal Bush (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/18/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanne E. Mirer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Barnhart (See above for address)

plaintiff Orvel Simmons

TERMINATED: 11/07/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra L. Girard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neal Bush (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/18/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanne E. Mirer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Barnhart

plaintiff Ted Sullivan

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra L. Girard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neal Bush (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/18/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanne E. Mirer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

plaintiff Mark A. Coleman

Michael Barnhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra L. Girard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neal Bush (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/18/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanne E. Mirer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

plaintiff Danny Walker

Michael Barnhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra L. Girard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neal Bush (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/18/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A. LaBelle (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanne E. Mirer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry W. Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/1994 LEAD ATTORNEY

plaintiff Richard Girard
plaintiff Mark Edward Gilman
plaintiff

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Barnhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra L. Girard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Deandre Benson
plaintiff Mark Litwalk
plaintiff Steven Hines TERMINATED: 05/31/2013
plaintiff Arnold Elijah

represented by Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

plaintiff Charles Culp #176085
V. defendant Perry M. Johnson TERMINATED: 10/19/2005

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Patricia A. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by A. Peter Govorchin MI Dept Attorney General (Corrections) Corrections Division P.O. Box 30217 Lansing, MI 48909 (517) 335-7021 Fax: (517) 335-7157 Email: govorchinp@michigan.gov TERMINATED: 10/19/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald S. McGehee MI Dept Attorney General (Alcohol-Lansing) Alcohol & Gambling Enforcement Division P.O. Box 30736 Lansing, MI 48909 (517) 241-0210 Email: mcgeheed1@michigan.gov TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
E. Michael Stafford Michigan Department of Attorney General Labor Division P.O. Box 30217 Lansing, MI 48909 (517) 373-2560 TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janet A. Van Cleve MI Dept Attorney General (Appellate) Appellate Division P.O. Box 30217 Lansing, MI 48909

(517) 373-4875 Email: habeasdivision@michigan.gov TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jann Ryan Baugh Michigan Department of Attorney General Labor Division P.O. Box 30217 Lansing, MI 48909 (517) 373-2560 TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kim G. Harris MI Dept Attorney General (Alcohol-Lansing) Alcohol & Gambling Enforcement Division P.O. Box 30736 Lansing, MI 48909 (517) 322-1367 Email: harriskg@michigan.gov TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leo H. Friedman MI Dept Attorney General (Corrections) Corrections Division P.O. Box 30217 Lansing, MI 48909 (517) 335-7021 Email: friedmanL@michigan.gov TERMINATED: 10/19/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael A. Nickerson MI Dept Attorney General (Public Service) Public Service Division 6545 Mercantile Way, Ste. 15 Lansing, MI 48911 (517) 241-6680 Email: NickersonM@michigan.gov TERMINATED: 08/18/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard M. C. Adams Michigan Department of Attorney General Labor Division P.O. Box 30217 Lansing, MI 48909 (517) 373-2560

defendant
Barry Mintzes TERMINATED: 06/11/2007

TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan Przekop-Shaw Michigan Department of Attorney General Labor Division P.O. Box 30217 Lansing, MI 48909 (517) 373-2560 Email: przekopshaws@michigan.gov TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susanne Durk McAra Michigan Department of Attorney General Health Professionals Division 120 N Washington Sq. P.O. Box 30217 Lansing, MI 48909-7717 (517) 373-7584 TERMINATED: 08/28/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Theodore E. Hughes Michigan Department of Attorney General Labor Division P.O. Box 30217 Lansing, MI 48909 (517) 373-2560 TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas C. Nelson Michigan Department of Attorney General Appellate Division P.O. Box 30212 Lansing, MI 48909 (517) 373-1124 TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by A. Peter Govorchin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald S. McGehee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
E. Michael Stafford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janet A. Van Cleve (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jann Ryan Baugh (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kim G. Harris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leo H. Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael A. Nickerson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/18/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard M. C. Adams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan Przekop-Shaw (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susanne Durk McAra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY

defendant
Charles Anderson TERMINATED: 06/11/2007

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Theodore E. Hughes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas C. Nelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by A. Peter Govorchin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald S. McGehee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
E. Michael Stafford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janet A. Van Cleve (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jann Ryan Baugh (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kim G. Harris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leo H. Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

defendant
William F. Grant TERMINATED: 06/11/2007

Michael A. Nickerson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/18/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard M. C. Adams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan Przekop-Shaw (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susanne Durk McAra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Theodore E. Hughes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas C. Nelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by A. Peter Govorchin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald S. McGehee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
E. Michael Stafford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Janet A. Van Cleve (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jann Ryan Baugh (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kim G. Harris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leo H. Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael A. Nickerson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/18/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard M. C. Adams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan Przekop-Shaw (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susanne Durk McAra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Theodore E. Hughes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas C. Nelson

defendant
Dale Foltz TERMINATED: 06/11/2007

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by A. Peter Govorchin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald S. McGehee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
E. Michael Stafford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janet A. Van Cleve (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jann Ryan Baugh (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kim G. Harris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leo H. Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael A. Nickerson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/18/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard M. C. Adams (See above for address)

defendant
Daniel Trudell TERMINATED: 06/11/2007

TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan Przekop-Shaw (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susanne Durk McAra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Theodore E. Hughes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas C. Nelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by A. Peter Govorchin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald S. McGehee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
E. Michael Stafford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janet A. Van Cleve (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jann Ryan Baugh (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993

defendant
Duane Sholes TERMINATED: 06/11/2007

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kim G. Harris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leo H. Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael A. Nickerson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/18/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard M. C. Adams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan Przekop-Shaw (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susanne Durk McAra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Theodore E. Hughes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas C. Nelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by A. Peter Govorchin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald S. McGehee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
E. Michael Stafford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janet A. Van Cleve (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jann Ryan Baugh (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kim G. Harris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leo H. Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael A. Nickerson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/18/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard M. C. Adams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan Przekop-Shaw (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

defendant
John Jabe TERMINATED: 06/11/2007

Susanne Durk McAra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Theodore E. Hughes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas C. Nelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by A. Peter Govorchin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald S. McGehee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
E. Michael Stafford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janet A. Van Cleve (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jann Ryan Baugh (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kim G. Harris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

defendant
James Pogats TERMINATED: 06/11/2007

Leo H. Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael A. Nickerson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/18/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard M. C. Adams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan Przekop-Shaw (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susanne Durk McAra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Theodore E. Hughes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas C. Nelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by A. Peter Govorchin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald S. McGehee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
E. Michael Stafford

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janet A. Van Cleve (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jann Ryan Baugh (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kim G. Harris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leo H. Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael A. Nickerson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/18/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard M. C. Adams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan Przekop-Shaw (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susanne Durk McAra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Theodore E. Hughes (See above for address)

defendant
Roy Rider TERMINATED: 06/11/2007

TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas C. Nelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by A. Peter Govorchin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald S. McGehee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
E. Michael Stafford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janet A. Van Cleve (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jann Ryan Baugh (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kim G. Harris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leo H. Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael A. Nickerson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/18/1999

defendant
Charles Ustess TERMINATED: 06/11/2007

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard M. C. Adams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan Przekop-Shaw (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susanne Durk McAra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Theodore E. Hughes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas C. Nelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by A. Peter Govorchin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald S. McGehee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
E. Michael Stafford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janet A. Van Cleve (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jann Ryan Baugh (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kim G. Harris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leo H. Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael A. Nickerson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/18/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard M. C. Adams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan Przekop-Shaw (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susanne Durk McAra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Theodore E. Hughes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas C. Nelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

defendant
Don P. Leduc TERMINATED: 06/11/2007

represented by A. Peter Govorchin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald S. McGehee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
E. Michael Stafford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janet A. Van Cleve (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jann Ryan Baugh (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kim G. Harris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leo H. Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael A. Nickerson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/18/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard M. C. Adams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan Przekop-Shaw

defendant
Robert Brown, Jr. TERMINATED: 06/11/2007

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susanne Durk McAra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Theodore E. Hughes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas C. Nelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by A. Peter Govorchin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald S. McGehee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
E. Michael Stafford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janet A. Van Cleve (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jann Ryan Baugh (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kim G. Harris (See above for address)

defendant
Graham Allen TERMINATED: 06/11/2007

TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leo H. Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael A. Nickerson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/18/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard M. C. Adams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan Przekop-Shaw (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susanne Durk McAra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Theodore E. Hughes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas C. Nelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by A. Peter Govorchin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald S. McGehee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
E. Michael Stafford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janet A. Van Cleve (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jann Ryan Baugh (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kim G. Harris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leo H. Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael A. Nickerson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/18/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard M. C. Adams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan Przekop-Shaw (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susanne Durk McAra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY

defendant
Elton I. Scott TERMINATED: 06/11/2007

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Theodore E. Hughes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas C. Nelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by A. Peter Govorchin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald S. McGehee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
E. Michael Stafford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janet A. Van Cleve (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jann Ryan Baugh (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kim G. Harris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leo H. Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

defendant
Pamela Withrow TERMINATED: 06/11/2007

Michael A. Nickerson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/18/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard M. C. Adams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan Przekop-Shaw (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susanne Durk McAra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Theodore E. Hughes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas C. Nelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by A. Peter Govorchin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald S. McGehee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
E. Michael Stafford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Janet A. Van Cleve (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jann Ryan Baugh (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kim G. Harris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leo H. Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael A. Nickerson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/18/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard M. C. Adams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan Przekop-Shaw (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susanne Durk McAra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Theodore E. Hughes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas C. Nelson

defendant
Frank Elo TERMINATED: 06/11/2007

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by A. Peter Govorchin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald S. McGehee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
E. Michael Stafford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janet A. Van Cleve (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jann Ryan Baugh (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kim G. Harris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leo H. Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael A. Nickerson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/18/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard M. C. Adams (See above for address)

defendant
Marjorie Van Ochten TERMINATED: 06/11/2007

TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan Przekop-Shaw (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susanne Durk McAra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Theodore E. Hughes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas C. Nelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by A. Peter Govorchin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald S. McGehee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
E. Michael Stafford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janet A. Van Cleve (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jann Ryan Baugh (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993

defendant
John Prelesnik TERMINATED: 06/11/2007

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kim G. Harris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leo H. Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael A. Nickerson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/18/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard M. C. Adams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan Przekop-Shaw (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susanne Durk McAra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Theodore E. Hughes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas C. Nelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by A. Peter Govorchin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald S. McGehee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
E. Michael Stafford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janet A. Van Cleve (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jann Ryan Baugh (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kim G. Harris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leo H. Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael A. Nickerson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/18/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard M. C. Adams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan Przekop-Shaw (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

defendant USA TERMINATED: 02/01/2002
defendant Patricia L. Caruso

Susanne Durk McAra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Theodore E. Hughes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas C. Nelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Margaret M. Chiara U.S. Attorney (Grand Rapids) The Law Bldg. 330 Ionia Ave., NW P.O. Box 208 Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0208 (616) 456-2404 Email: kristina.zelasko@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 01/10/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by A. Peter Govorchin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leo H. Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James T. Farrell MI Dept Attorney General (Corrections) Corrections Division P.O. Box 30217 Lansing, MI 48909 (517) 373-6434 Fax: (517) 373-2454 Email: farrellj@michigan.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

defendant John Ocwieja
defendant Nick Ludwick
intervenor USA TERMINATED: 02/01/2002

represented by A. Peter Govorchin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James T. Farrell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leo H. Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2007
represented by A. Peter Govorchin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James T. Farrell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leo H. Friedman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Laurie J. Weinstein U.S. Department of Justice Special Litigation Division P.O. Box 66400 Washington, DC 20035-6400 (202) 514-6408 TERMINATED: 02/01/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret M. Chiara (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/10/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael H. Dettmer Dettmer Law Office PLC 420 E Front St. Traverse City, MI 49686 (231) 946-0044 Email: mike@envlaw.com TERMINATED: 10/25/2001

V.
movant
USA TERMINATED: 05/04/1994

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Phillip J. Green U.S. Attorney (Grand Rapids) The Law Bldg. 330 Ionia Ave., NW P.O. Box 208 Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0208 (616) 456-2404 Email: kristina.zelasko@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 05/06/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margo Schlanger U.S. Department of Justice Special Litigation Division P.O. Box 66400 Washington, DC 20035-6400 (202) 514-6250 TERMINATED: 01/10/2005
Timothy R. Payne U.S. Department of Justice Special Litigation Division P.O. Box 66400 Washington, DC 20035-6400 (202) 514-6250 TERMINATED: 01/10/2005
represented by Laurie J. Weinstein (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/01/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret M. Chiara (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/10/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael H. Dettmer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/01/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Phillip J. Green (See above for address)

movant Ronald Kovaleski #213896 TERMINATED: 02/08/2002
movant Richard Thompson #568688 (formerly MDOC #311040) TERMINATED: 07/21/2004
movant Ronald Jordan #125764 TERMINATED: 07/21/2004
movant Larry D. Blue TERMINATED: 10/18/2006
movant Michael Marr #186617 TERMINATED: 12/11/2006

TERMINATED: 05/06/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ronald Kovaleski #213896 THIS PARTY IS TERMED Parnall Correctional Facility 1790 E Parnall Jackson, MI 49201-9037 (517) 780-6004 PRO SE
Michael Barnhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard Thompson #568688 (formerly MDOC #311040) THIS PARTY IS TERMED Marquette Branch Prison 1960 US 41 South P.O. Box 779 Marquette, MI 49855 (906) 226-6531 PRO SE
represented by Ronald Jordan #125764 THIS PARTY IS TERMED Alger (MSP) Alger Correctional Facility N6141 Industrial Park Dr. Munising, MI 49862-9277 PRO SE
represented by Larry D. Blue THIS PARTY IS TERMED P.O. Box 2932 Grand Rapids, MI 49501 PRO SE
represented by Michael Marr #186617 THIS PARTY IS TERMED Parnall (MSP) Parnall Correctional Facility 1780 E Parnall Jackson, MI 49201

movant Michael Eric Masters #192980 TERMINATED: 12/11/2006
movant Claude T. Hoffman #246624 TERMINATED: 12/15/2006
movant Robert Alspaugh #267497, Jr. TERMINATED: 01/08/2007
movant Scott A. Falkiewicz #244693 TERMINATED: 02/02/2007
movant James R. Perna #122062 TERMINATED: 11/06/2007
movant Andre K. Davis #198028 TERMINATED: 01/17/2008

PRO SE
represented by Michael Eric Masters #192980 THIS PARTY IS TERMED Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility 1728 Bluewater Hwy. Ionia, MI 48846 PRO SE
represented by Claude T. Hoffman #246624 THIS PARTY IS TERMED Mid-Michigan Corr. Facility 8201 N. Croswell Rd. St. Louis, MI 48880 PRO SE
represented by Robert Alspaugh #267497, Jr. THIS PARTY IS TERMED Ionia (MSP) Ionia Correctional Facility 1576 W Bluewater Hwy. Ionia, MI 48846 PRO SE
represented by Scott A. Falkiewicz #244693 THIS PARTY IS TERMED Parnall (MSP) Parnall Correctional Facility 1780 E Parnall Jackson, MI 49201 PRO SE
represented by James R. Perna #122062 THIS PARTY IS TERMED Crane (MSP) Florence Crane Correctional Facility 38 Fourth St. Coldwater, MI 49036 PRO SE
represented by Andre K. Davis #198028 THIS PARTY IS TERMED Brooks (MSP) Earnest C. Brooks Correctional Facility 2500 S Sheridan Dr.

V. unknown Diane Hartmus TERMINATED: 06/30/2006
V. court monitor Special Master
court monitor J. Franklin James TERMINATED: 06/30/2006
court monitor Robert L. Cohen, MD Medical Monitor
amicus USA TERMINATED: 02/01/2002

Muskegon Heights, MI 49444 PRO SE
represented by Diane Hartmus THIS PARTY IS TERMED Asst. to Special Master 679 Catherine Street Peekskill, NY 10566 PRO SE
represented by F. Warren Benton Court Monitor 149 Beach Ave. Larchmont, NY 10538 Email: nbenton@nbenton.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by J. Franklin James East Carolina University Department of Psychiatric Medicine School of Medicine Greeneville, NC 27858-4354 TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert L. Cohen , MD Independent Medical Monitor 314 W. 14th St. New York, NY 10014 (212) 620-0144 Email: cl.hadixmonitor@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Laurie J. Weinstein (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/01/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret M. Chiara

V. movant Melvin Smith #167153 TERMINATED: 11/18/1994
movant James C. Reilly #203296 TERMINATED: 08/16/1999
movant James Charles Cannon #237039 TERMINATED: 08/16/1999
movant Wellington L. Drake #229939 TERMINATED: 08/16/1999

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/10/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Phillip J. Green (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/14/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael H. Dettmer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/14/2002 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy R. Payne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/10/2005
represented by Melvin Smith #167153 THIS PARTY IS TERMED State Prison Of Southern Michigan 4008 Cooper St. Jackson, MI 49201 (517) 780-6600 PRO SE
represented by James C. Reilly #203296 THIS PARTY IS TERMED Parnall Correctional Facility 1790 E Parnall Jackson, MI 49201-9037 (517) 780-6004 PRO SE
represented by James Charles Cannon #237039 THIS PARTY IS TERMED Parnall Correctional Facility 1790 E Parnall Jackson, MI 49201-9037 (517) 780-6004 PRO SE
represented by Wellington L. Drake #229939 THIS PARTY IS TERMED

movant Mark H. Roberts #197305 named as Charles M.H. Roberts TERMINATED: 02/03/2000
movant William T. Mears #180220 TERMINATED: 02/03/2000
movant Albert Eugene McKinley #177679 TERMINATED: 02/03/2000
movant Avis A. Fee #265115 TERMINATED: 02/03/2000

Parnall Correctional Facility 1790 E Parnall Jackson, MI 49201-9037 (517) 780-6004 PRO SE
represented by Mark H. Roberts #197305 THIS PARTY IS TERMED Parnall Correctional Facility 1790 E Parnall Jackson, MI 49201-9037 (517) 780-6004 PRO SE
represented by William T. Mears #180220 THIS PARTY IS TERMED Parnall Correctional Facility 1790 E Parnall Jackson, MI 49201-9037 (517) 780-6004 PRO SE
represented by Albert Eugene McKinley #177679 THIS PARTY IS TERMED Parnall Correctional Facility 1790 E Parnall Jackson, MI 49201-9037 (517) 780-6004 PRO SE
represented by Avis A. Fee #265115 THIS PARTY IS TERMED Parnall Correctional Facility 1790 E Parnall Jackson, MI 49201-9037 (517) 780-6004 PRO SE

Date Filed 08/04/1992
08/04/1992

# Docket Text
1 LETTER to court from the Eastern District enclosing a copy of their docket and portions of the Hadix record. The document numbers circled in red are enclosed, the items circled in green are not available because some of the record remains at the court of appeals (rlw) (Entered: 08/12/1992)
2 ORDER Rejecting Pleading (1 pgs) by Magistrate Judge (time-stamp date

08/04/1992 08/04/1992
08/20/1992 08/20/1992 09/01/1992 09/02/1992 09/03/1992 09/28/1992 09/30/1992 10/16/1992 10/29/1992 10/29/1992 11/03/1992

6/29/92) Doyle A. Rowland Notice of Appearance by Elizabeth Alexander on behalf of pltf because the file had not been received from the Eastern District (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 08/12/1992)
3 OPINION (3 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 08/12/1992)
4 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion both dated 7/27/92 before receipt of this file ; compliance hearing is scheduled for 1/28/93, and 1/29/93 addressing compliance w/paragraph II.B.5 of the Decree and w/provisions of Section II of the Decree; on 1/27/92 parties and Independent Experts shall attend a prehearing conference (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 08/12/1992)
5 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Elizabeth Alexander on behalf of plaintiffs w/Certificate of Service (rlw) (Entered: 08/20/1992)
6 LETTER from court to parties advising of the transfer from the E.D. of MI (rlw) (Entered: 08/20/1992)
7 REPORTS (STATUS REPORT) by defendants on 1) Medical and Mental Health Compliance Reports; 2) Medical and Mental Health Plans (rlw) (Entered: 09/02/1992)
8 TRI-ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara J. Hladki, Consent Decree Coordinator on compliance with the medical and mental health issues in Section II of the Decree (rlw) (Entered: 09/02/1992)
9 COMPLIANCE REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by defendants (Barbara J. Hladki, Consent Decree Coordinator) tri-annual compliance report on the medical and mental health issues (Section II) in Hadix v Johnson (rlw) (Entered: 09/03/1992)
10 TRI-ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by defendants (Barbara J. Hladki, Consent Decree Coordinator) on medical ad mental issues originally submitted 8/30/92 (rlw) (Entered: 09/29/1992)
11 SEPTEMBER 1992 REPORT (STATUS REPORT) of the Independent Monitors on Medical and Mental Health Care by F. Warren Benton, Ph.D. and J. Franklin James, M.D. (rlw) (Entered: 09/30/1992)
12 REVISED COMPLIANCE REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara J. Hladki, Consent Decree Coordinator on medical and mental health issues (w/revised attachment) (rlw) (Entered: 11/10/1992)
13 TRI-ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara J. Hladki, Consent Decree Coordinator (rlw) (Entered: 11/10/1992)
14 EPIDEMIC CONTAGIOUS PLAN JULY 1992 REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara J. Hladki, Consent Decree Coordinator (rlw) (Entered: 11/10/1992)
15 ORDER (1 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen that in seeking a

11/04/1992 11/04/1992 11/04/1992 11/04/1992 11/04/1992 12/01/1992
12/02/1992 12/02/1992 12/02/1992 12/02/1992 12/02/1992
12/02/1992
12/02/1992

modification of the Decree or subsidiary plan in this case, the moving party initially bears the burden of proving to the Court that "significant change in facts or law warrants revision of the decree" (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 11/10/1992)
16 LETTER to court from plaintiff w/attached reports of Dr. Cassandra F. Newkirk, M.D. and Dr. Armond H. Start, M.D., M.P.H. experts for pltf w/attached certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 11/10/1992)
17 LETTER to court from defendants w/attached Expert Witnes Report of Richard Wilbur, M.D. on Medical Health Care (rlw) (Entered: 11/10/1992)
18 LETTER to court from defendants w/attached Expert Witness Report and Curriculum Vitae of Stephen Hucker, M.B., B.S.,F.R.C.Psych, F.R.C.P.(C) (rlw) (Entered: 11/10/1992)
19 LETTER to court from defendants w/attached Expert Witness Report and Curriculum Vitaw of Joel A. Dvoskin, Ph.D. (rlw) (Entered: 11/10/1992)
20 LETTER to court from defendants w/attached Expert Witness Report and Curriculum Vitae of John C. Rushbrook, Ph.D. (rlw) (Entered: 11/10/1992)
21 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen that parties shall submit briefs by 5 p.m. on 12/15/92 re systematic outpatient care, follow-up care as well as continuity of care for inmates w/serious mental illness; parties response to each others briefs due 12/29/92 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 12/01/1992)
22 MOTION by plaintiffs (all) (for order) for Enforcement of Health Staffing Requirements and for Further Relief ; w/brief. (bd) (Entered: 12/03/1992)
23 MOTION by plaintiffs (all) (for order) for Enforcement of Continuity of Care Requirements in the Medical Rehabilitation Unit and for Handicapped Prisoners ; w/brief in support. (bd) (Entered: 12/03/1992)
24 MOTION by plaintiffs (all) (for order) to Adopt USA v. MICHIGAN Mental Health Orders/ w/brief. (bd) (Entered: 12/03/1992)
25 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiffs (all) for Pleadings #22, #23 and #24 via Federal Express on 12/1/92. (bd) (Entered: 12/04/1992)
26 MOTION by plaintiffs (all) (to enforce) the 4 Minute Response Requirement of the Training Plan Required by Section II.A.8.b of the Consent Decree ; w/brief; w/Exhibit 1; w/Proof of Service. (bd) (Entered: 12/04/1992)
27 MOTION by plaintiffs (all) (to enforce) the Continuity of Care Requirements of the Chronic Disease Plan Relating to Mental Health ; w/brief; w/Exhibits 1, 2 & 3; w/Proof of Service. (bd) (Entered: 12/04/1992)
28 MOTION by plaintiffs (all) (to enforce) Section II.B.5 of the Consent Decree ; w/brief; w/Proof of Service. (bd) (Entered: 12/04/1992)

12/02/1992 12/02/1992 12/02/1992 12/02/1992 12/02/1992 12/02/1992
12/02/1992 12/02/1992 12/02/1992
12/02/1992
12/07/1992 12/09/1992

29 MOTION by plaintiffs (all) (to enforce) the Requirements of Section II.B.3.c of the Consent Decree ; w/brief; w/Exhibits 1, 2 & 3; w/Proof of Service. (bd) (Entered: 12/04/1992)
30 MOTION by plaintiffs (all) (to enforce) Consent Decree and Modification of State Plan by Providing Adequate Tuberculosis Control ; w/brief; w/Attachment. (bd) (Entered: 12/04/1992)
31 MOTION by plaintiffs (all) (to enforce) Consent Decree by Providing Adequate Continuity of Health Care ; w/brief; w/Attachment 1. (bd) (Entered: 12/04/1992)
32 MOTION by plaintiffs (all) (to enforce) Medical Screening Provisions of the Consent Decree ; w/brief. (bd) (Entered: 12/04/1992)
33 MOTION by plaintiffs (all) (to enforce) Consent Decree by Providing Adequate Dental Services ; w/brief (bd) Modified on 02/05/2003 (Entered: 12/04/1992)
34 MOTION by defendants (all) to exceed page limitation for the filing of Motion (and brief) to Modify the Hadix Decree Provision 11.B(3)(c) by Deleting Defendants' Obligation to File a Plan to Assure Adequate Access to the Riverside Psychiatric Center ; w/brief; w/Attachments 1-5. (bd) (Entered: 12/04/1992)
35 MOTION by defendants (for order) to Preclude Monitoring, Supervision and Control in Facilities no Subject to the Hadix Decree ; w/brief; w/stamped Proof of Service; w/Exhibits 1, 2 & 3. (bd) (Entered: 12/04/1992)
36 MOTION by defendants (all) (for order) to Modify Termination Language of the Hadix consent Decree ; w/brief. (bd) (Entered: 12/04/1992)
37 MOTION by defendants (all) to exceed page limitation for the filing of Defendants' Motion for the Court to Relinquish Control and Supervision of the Medical Health Provisions of the Hadix Consent Decree w/brief ; w/PROPOSED Motion and brief; w/Attachments A, B, C & D. (bd) (Entered: 12/04/1992)
38 MOTION by defendants (all) to exceed page limitation for the filing of Defendants' Motion for the Court to Relinquish Control and Supervision of the Mental Health Provisions of the Hadix Consent Decree w/brief; w/brief ; w/PROPOSED Motion and brief; w/Attachments 1-6. (bd) (Entered: 12/04/1992)
39 ORDER rejecting pleading (1 pgs) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland Proof of Service by pltf for failing to include a caption, case number and judge name (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 12/07/1992)
40 ORDER (1 pgs) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting defts' motion to exceed page limitation for the filing of Motion (and brief) to Modify the Hadix Decree Provision 11.B(3)(c) by Deleting Defendants' Obligation to File a to Assure Adequate Access to the Riverside Psychiatric Center [34-1] (cc: all counsel on 12/10/92) (rlw) (Entered:

12/09/1992 12/09/1992
12/09/1992 12/09/1992
12/09/1992 12/11/1992 12/11/1992 12/15/1992
12/15/1992 12/15/1992 12/15/1992

12/10/1992)
41 MOTION by defendants to modify (amend) the Hadix Decree Provision II.B(3)(c) by deleting defts' obligation to file a plan to assure adequate access to the Riverside Psychiatric Center w/brief w/Exhibits 1-5 (rlw) (Entered: 12/10/1992)
42 ORDER (1 pgs) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting defts' motion to exceed page limitation for the filing of Defendants' Motion for the Court to Relinquish Control and Supervision of the Mental Health Provisions of the Hadix Consent Decree w/brief; w/brief [38-1] (cc: all counsel on 12/10/92) (rlw) (Entered: 12/10/1992)
43 MOTION by defendant for the Court to Relinquish Control and Supervision of the Mental Health Provisions of the Hadix Consent Decree w/brief w/Exhibits 1-6 (rlw) (Entered: 12/10/1992)
44 ORDER (1 pgs) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting defts' motion to exceed page limitation for the filing of Defendants' Motion for the Court to Relinquish Control and Supervision of the Medical Health Provisions of the Hadix Consent Decree w/brief [37-1] (cc: all counsel on 12/10/92) (rlw) (Entered: 12/10/1992)
45 MOTION by defendant for the Court to Relinquish Control and Supervision of the Medical Health Provisions of the Hadix Consent Decree w/brief w/Exhibits A-D (rlw) (Entered: 12/10/1992)
46 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Atty. E. Michael Stafford (P20874) on behalf of all defendants; w/stamped proof of service. (bd) (Entered: 12/11/1992)
47 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants (all) for First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiffs. (bd) (Entered: 12/11/1992)
48 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff for Motion to Enforce Consent Decree by Providing Adequate Continuity of Health Care, Motion to Enforce Consent Decree by Providing Adequate Dental Services, Motion for Enforcement of medical Screening Provisions of the Consent Decree, Motion for Enforcement of Consent Decree and Modification of State Plan by Providing Adequate Tuberculosis Control (rlw) (Entered: 12/15/1992)
49 MEDICAL AUDITS (STATUS REPORT) by defendants (Barbara J. Hladki, Consent Decree Coordinator) these audits encompass the portions of the State Prison of Southern Michigan and the Charles Egeler Facility (rlw) (Entered: 12/15/1992)
50 ORDER (3 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen listing the motions that will be considered at the January 1993 hearing (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 12/15/1992)
51 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to Court Order of 12/1/92 [21-1] re "systematic out-patient care, follow-up care, as well as continuity of care for inmates with serious mental illness" of the Consent Decree w/attachment 1 and proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/15/1992)

12/15/1992 12/16/1992 12/16/1992 12/16/1992 12/16/1992 12/16/1992 12/16/1992 12/16/1992 12/16/1992 12/16/1992 12/16/1992 12/16/1992

52 RESPONSE by defendants (Statement Adopting Their Motion to Preclude Monitoring, Supervision and Control in Facilities not Subject to the Hadix Decree) to the 12/1/92 Order [21-1] w/stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/15/1992)
53 OPPOSITION by plaintiffs to motion (for order) to Modify Termination Language of the Hadix consent Decree [36-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
54 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to motion (for order) to Preclude Monitoring, Supervision and Control in Facilities no Subject to the Hadix Decree [351] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
55 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to motion to modify (amend) the Hadix Decree Provision II.B(3)(c) by deleting defts' obligation file a plan to assure adequate access to the Riverside Psychiatric Center [41-1] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
56 OPPOSITION by plaintiffs to motion for the Court to Relinquish Control and Supervision of the Mental Health Provisions of the Hadix Consent Decree [43-1] w/Exhibit A (rlw) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
57 OPPOSITION by plaintiffs to motion for the Court to Relinquish Control and Supervision of the Medical Health Provisions of the Hadix Consent Decree [45-1] (rlw) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
58 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiffs for pldg. Nos. 56-57 (rlw) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
59 MOTION by defendants to exceed page limitation for Response to pltfs' Motion to Enforce Consent Decree by Providing Adequate Continuity of Care w/brief w/PROPOSED Response and brief (rlw) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
60 MOTION by defendants to exceed page limitation for Response to pltfs' Motion for Enforcement of Consent Decree and Modification of State Plan by Providing Adequate Tuberculosis Control w/brief w/PROPOSED Response w/stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
61 MOTION by defendants to exceed page limitation for Response to pltfs' Motion for Enforcement of Continuity of Care Requirements in the Medical Rehabilitation Unit and for Handicapped Prisoners w/brief w/PROPOSED Response, Proof of Service (rlw) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
62 MOTION by defendants to exceed page limitation for Response to pltfs' Motion for Enforcement of Medical Screening Provisions of the Consent Decree w/brief w/PROPOSED Response and proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
63 MOTION by defendants to exceed page limitation for Response to pltfs' Motion to Enforce the 4 Minute Response Requirement of the Training Plan Required by Section II.A.8.b of the Consent Decree w/brief w/PROPOSED Response and proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/18/1992)

12/16/1992 12/16/1992 12/16/1992 12/16/1992 12/16/1992 12/16/1992 12/16/1992 12/22/1992 12/22/1992
12/22/1992 12/22/1992 12/22/1992

64 MOTION by defendants to exceed page limitation for Response to pltfs' Motion to Enforce the Consent Decree by Providing Adequate Dental Services w/brief w/PROPOSED Response and proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
65 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants for pldg. Nos. 59-64 (rlw) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
66 MOTION by defendants to exceed page limitation for Response to pltfs' Motion to Enforce the Continuity of Care Requirements of the Chronic Disease Plan Relating to Mental Health w/brief w/PROPOSED Response, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
67 MOTION by defendants to exceed page limitation for Response to pltfs' Motion to Adopt USA v Michigan Mental Health Orders w/brief w/PROPOSED Response, Proof of Service (rlw) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
68 MOTION by defendants to exceed page limitation for Response to pltfs' Motion to Enforce Section II.B(5) of the Consent Decree w/brief w/PROPOSED Response, Proof of Service (rlw) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
69 MOTION by defendants to exceed page limitation for Response to pltfs' Motion for Enforcement of Health Staffing Requirements and for Further Relief w/brief w/PROPOSED Response, Proof of Service (rlw) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
70 MOTION by defendants to exceed page limitation for Response to pltfs' Motion to Enforce the Requirements of Section II.B.3.c. of the Consent Decree w/brief w/PROPOSED Response, Proof of Service (rlw) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
71 ORDER (1 page) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting Defendants' motion to exceed page limitation for Response to pltfs' Motion to Enforce the Requirements of Section II.B.3.c. of the Consent Decree [70-1] (cc: all counsel) (bd) (Entered: 12/23/1992)
72 ORDER (1 page) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting Defendants' motion to exceed page limitation for Response to pltfs' Motion to Enforce the Continuity of Care of the Chronic Disease Plan Relating to Mental Health [66-1] (cc: all counsel) (bd) (Entered: 12/23/1992)
73 OPPOSITION by defendants (all) to Plaintiffs' motion (to enforce) the Continuity of Care Requirements of the Chronic Disease Plan Relating to Mental Health [27-1]; w/attachment 1 (Afdt. of John C. Rushbrook Ph.D. (bd) (Entered: 12/23/1992)
74 ORDER (1 page) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting Defendants' motion to exceed page limitation for Response to pltfs' Motion to Adopt USA v Michigan Mental Health Orders [67-1] (cc: all counsel) (bd) (Entered: 12/23/1992)
75 OPPOSITION by defendants (all) to motion (for order) to Adopt USA v. MICHIGAN Mental Health Orders [24-1]; w/attachments 1-4. (bd) (Entered: 12/23/1992)

12/22/1992
12/22/1992 12/22/1992
12/22/1992 12/22/1992 12/23/1992 12/23/1992 12/23/1992 12/23/1992 12/28/1992
12/28/1992 12/29/1992 12/30/1992 12/31/1992

76 ORDER (1 page) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting Defendants' motion to exceed page limitation for Response to pltfs' Motion to Enforce Section II.B(5) of the Consent Decree [68-1] (cc: all counsel) (bd) (Entered: 12/23/1992)
77 OPPOSITION by defendants (all) to Plaintiffs' motion (to enforce) Section II.B.5 of the Consent Decree [28-1]; w/attachment 1. (bd) (Entered: 12/23/1992)
78 ORDER (1 page) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting Defendants' motion to exceed page limitation for Response to pltfs' Motion for Enforcement of Health Staffing Requirements and for Further Relief [69-1] (cc: all counsel) (bd) (Entered: 12/23/1992)
79 OPPOSITION by defendants (all) to plaintiffs' motion (for order) for Enforcement of Health Staffing Requirements and for Further Relief [221]; w/attachments 1 & 2. (bd) (Entered: 12/23/1992)
80 OPPOSITION by defendants (all) to Plaintiffs' motion (to enforce) the Requirements of Section II.B.3.c of the Consent Decree [29-1] w/attachments 1-4. (bd) (Entered: 12/23/1992)
81 REPLY by plaintiff to defts' response to pltfs' motion (to enforce) Consent Decree and Modification of State Plan by Providing Adequate Tuberculosis Control [30-1] (rlw) (Entered: 12/29/1992)
82 REPLY by plaintiffs to defts' response to pltfs' motion (to enforce) Consent Decree by Providing Adequate Continuity of Health Care [31-1] (rlw) (Entered: 12/29/1992)
83 REPLY by plaintiffs to defts' response to pltfs' motion (to enforce) Consent Decree by Providing Adequate Dental Services [33-1] (rlw) (Entered: 12/29/1992)
84 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiffs for pldg. Nos. 81-83 (rlw) (Entered: 12/29/1992)
85 MOTION by plaintiffs to extend time until 1/8/93 to file reply brief w/memorandum w/PROPOSED reply brief in support of pltfs' motion for enforcement of health staffing requirements and for further relief w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/29/1992)
87 TRI-ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara J. Hladki, Consent Decree Coordinator on Medical and Mental Health (rlw) (Entered: 12/29/1992)
86 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiffs for Second Set of Interrogatories and Second Request for Production to defts (rlw) (Entered: 12/29/1992)
88 TRI-ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara J. Hladki, Consent Decree Coordinator coverying medical and mental health issues (rlw) (Entered: 12/31/1992)
89 ORDER (1 pgs) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltfs' motion to extend time until 1/8/93 to file reply brief [85-1] (cc: all

01/04/1993 01/04/1993 01/04/1993 01/04/1993 01/04/1993 01/07/1993
01/07/1993 01/07/1993 01/07/1993
01/07/1993 01/08/1993 01/08/1993 01/08/1993 01/08/1993

counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 01/04/1993)
90 PETITION by plaintiffs for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum that C. Pepper Moore and Mark Coleman appear as witnesses at the compliance hearings set for 1/28, 1/29, 1993. (rlw) (Entered: 01/04/1993)
WRIT issued as to Mark A. Coleman and C. Pepper Moore to appear as witnesses for compliance hearings set for 1/28, 1/29, 1993 (rlw) (Entered: 01/04/1993)
91 PETITION by plaintiffs for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum for Alfredo Robinson to appear as a witness at the compliance hearings on 1/28, 1/29, 1993 (rlw) (Entered: 01/04/1993)
WRIT issued as to Alfredo Robinson at Egeler Facility to appear as a witness at the compliance hearings set for 1/28, 1/29, 1993 (rlw) (Entered: 01/04/1993)
92 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiffs for pldg. Nos. 90-91 (rlw) (Entered: 01/04/1993)
93 LETTER to court from defendants advising that certain Assist. Atty. Gen. have transferred from the Corrections Division and no longer are involved in this matter; attys areJanet VanCleve, Jann Ryan Baugh, Thomas C. Nelson, Dnald S. McGehee, Richard M.C. Adams, Theodore E. Hughes (rlw) (Entered: 01/14/1993)
94 ORDER (1 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen granting petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad prosequendum as to Alfredo Robinson [91-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 01/14/1993)
WRIT issued to Henry Grayson, Warden for Alfredo Robinson to appear as a witness on 1/28, 1/29 1993 (rlw) (Entered: 01/14/1993)
95 ORDER (1 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen granting petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum to John Jabe, Warden that C. Pepper Moore appear as a witness on 1/28, 1/29 1993 [90-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 01/14/1993)
WRIT issued to John Jabe, Warden for C. Pepper Moore to appear as a witness on 1/28, 1/29 1993 (rlw) (Entered: 01/14/1993)
96 REPLY by plaintiffs to defts' response to pltfs' motion (to enforce) the Continuity of Care Requirements of the Chronic Disease Plan Relating to Mental Health [27-1] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/14/1993)
97 REPLY by plaintiffs to defts' response to pltfs' motion (for order) to Adopt USA v. MICHIGAN Mental Health Orders/ w/brief. [24-1] w/Exhibit 1, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/14/1993)
98 REPLY by plaintiffs to defts' response to pltfs' motion (to enforce) Section II.B.5 of the Consent Decree [28-1] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/14/1993)
99 REPLY by plaintiffs to defts' response to pltfs' motion (to enforce) the

01/12/1993 01/14/1993 01/21/1993 01/22/1993 01/27/1993 02/01/1993 02/03/1993 02/17/1993 02/18/1993
02/18/1993 02/18/1993
02/18/1993

Requirements of Section II.B.3.c of the Consent Decree [29-1] w/attachment 1, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/14/1993)
100 JANUARY 1993 REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITORS (STATUS REPORT) on Medical and Mental Health Care by F. Warren Benton, Ph.D. and J. Franklin James, M.D. (rlw) (Entered: 01/14/1993)
101 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiffs for Answers to defts' First Set of Interrogatories to pltfs (rlw) (Entered: 01/14/1993)
102 STIPULATION AND ORDER (1 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen extending to 2/2/93 the time for defts to respond to pltfs' Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 01/25/1993)
103 ORDER (3 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen , ; compliance hearing is rescheduled to 1:30 p.m. beginning 3/4/93 and continuing to 3/5, 3/11, 3/12 1993 by 2/19/93 parties shall file lists of witnesses (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 01/25/1993)
104 LETTER to court from defendants w/attched curriculum vitae of Richard S. Wilbur, M.D.,J.D. (rlw) (Entered: 01/27/1993)
105 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants for Answers to pltfs' Second Set of Interrogatories and Second Request for Production of Documents (rlw) (Entered: 02/01/1993)
106 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants for Response to pltfs' First Set of Interrogatories and Second Request for Production of Documents (rlw) (Entered: 02/03/1993)
107 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants for Response to pltfs' First Set of Interrogatories and Second Request for Production of Documents (Section C) (rlw) (Entered: 02/17/1993)
112 ORDER For Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen to bring Alfredo Robinson (#136864) before this court on 03/04/93 at 1:30 p.m. and 03/05,93, 03/11/93 and 03/12/93 at 9:00 a.m. (cc: all counsel w/writ, US Marshal in GR, Kalamazoo, prisoners, wardens) (tlb) (Entered: 02/23/1993)
WRIT issued as to Alfredo Robinson to bring him before Judge Richard A. Enslen on 03/04/93 at 1:30 p.m. and 03/05/93, 03/11/93 and 03/12/93 at 9:00 a.m. (tlb) (Entered: 02/23/1993)
113 ORDER for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen to bring Pepper Moore before the court on 03/04/93 at 1:30 p.m. and 03/05/93, 03/11/93 and 03/12/93 at 9:00 a.m. (cc: all counsel, GR and Kalamazoo Marshals, prisoner and warden) (tlb) (Entered: 02/23/1993)
WRIT issued to bring Pepper Moore before Judge Enslen on 03/04/93 at 1:30 p.m. and 03/05/93, 03/11/93 and 03/12/93 at 9:00 a.m. (tlb) (Entered: 02/23/1993)

02/18/1993
02/18/1993 02/19/1993 02/22/1993 02/22/1993 02/22/1993
02/22/1993 02/22/1993 02/22/1993 02/22/1993 02/25/1993 03/01/1993 03/02/1993

114 ORDER for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen to bring Mark Coleman before this court on 03/04/93 at 1:30 p.m. and 03/05/93, 03/11/93 and 03/12/93 at 9:00 a.m. (cc: all counsel, GR and Kalamazoo US Marshals, warden and prisoner) (tlb) (Entered: 02/23/1993)
WRIT issued to bring Mark Coleman before Judge Enslen on 03/04/93 at 1:30 p.m., 03/05/93, 03/11/93 and 03/12/93 at 9:00 a.m. (tlb) (Entered: 02/23/1993)
108 WITNESS LIST submitted by defendants w/stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/22/1993)
109 WITNESS LIST submitted by plaintiffs w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/22/1993)
110 AMENDED WITNESS LIST submitted by plaintiffs (corrected page 1 which inadvertantly did not list the first hearing date of 3/5/93) (rlw) (Entered: 02/22/1993)
111 PETITION by plaintiffs for Writs of Habeas Corpous Ad Prosequendum for Proceedings on 3/4, 3/5, 3/18, 3/19 1993 that C. Pepper Moore, Mark Coleman imprisoned at the State Prison of Southern Michigan and Alfredo Robinson imprisoned at the Egeler Facility who are representatives for the pltf class (rlw) (Entered: 02/22/1993)
WRIT of Habeas Corpous Ad Prosequendum issued as to Mark A. Coleman and C. Pepper Moore at the State prison of Southern Michigan to appear 3/4, 3/5 1993 by 1 p.m. (rlw) Modified on 02/22/1993 (Entered: 02/22/1993)
WRIT of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum issued as to Alfredo Robinson at the Egeler Facility to appear 3/4, 3/5 1993 by 1 p.m. (rlw) Modified on 02/22/1993 (Entered: 02/22/1993)
WRIT of Habeas Corpous Ad Prosequendum issued as to Mark A. Coleman and C. Pepper Moore at the State Prison of Southern Michigan to appear on 3/18, 3/19 1993 by 8:30 a.m. (rlw) Modified on 02/22/1993 (Entered: 02/22/1993)
WRIT of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum issued as to Alfredo Robinson at the Egeler Facility to appear 3/18, 3/19 1993 at 8:30 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 02/22/1993)
115 REVISED OUTLINE (STATUS REPORT) by defendants (Barbara J. Hladki, Consent Decree Coordinator) for the Functional and Operationsl Program including the Management Plan (to be substituted for the one previously submitted on 2/16/93 (rlw) (Entered: 02/25/1993)
116 NOTICE by plaintiffs of taking deposition of Dept. of Corrections' employee or employees who maintain certain records on 3/1/93 at 11 a.m. in Jackson, MI w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
117 PETITION by plaintiffs for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum as to Robert Booker, David Lee Speagle, Anthony Delgado, Robert Partee to

03/02/1993 03/02/1993 03/02/1993 03/02/1993 03/02/1993 03/02/1993 03/02/1993 03/02/1993 03/02/1993 03/02/1993 03/02/1993

appear as witnesses at the compliance hearings set for 3/4, 3/5, l993 (rlw) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
118 AMENDED ORDER (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen granting petition [117-1] for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum for C. Pepper Moore to appear on 3/4 at 1:30 p.m. and 3/5, 18 and 19, l993 at 9 a.m. for compliance hearings (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
WRIT issued to John Jabe, Warden at State Prison of Southern Michigan for C. Pepper Moore to appear as a witness at the compliance hearings set for 3/4 at 1:30 p.m. and 3/5, 18 and 19, 1993 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
119 AMENDED ORDER (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen for Writ of habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum for Alfredo Robinson to appear as a witness at the compliance hearings set for 3/4 at 1:30 p.m. and 3/5, 18 and 19, 1993 at 9 a.m. (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
WRIT issued to Henry Grayson, Warden at Egeler Facility for Alfredo Robinson to appear as a witness at the compliance hearings set for 3/4 at 1:30 p.m. and 3/5, 18 and 19, 1993 at 9 a.m. (rlw) Modified on 05/19/1993 (Entered: 03/03/1993)
120 AMENDED ORDER (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum for Mark Coleman to appear as a witness at the compliance hearings set for 3/4 at 1:30 p.m. and 3/5, 18 and 19, 1993 at 9 a.m. (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
WRIT issued to Warden, State Prison of Southern Michigan as to Mark A. Coleman to appear as a witness at the compliance hearings set for 34 at 1:30 p.m. and 3/5, 18 and 19, 1993 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
121 ORDER (Writ) (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum that David Lee Speagle appear as a witness at the compliance hearings set for 3/5/93 at 9 a.m. (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
WRIT issued to John Jabe, Warden at State Prison of Southern Michigan for David Lee Speagle to appear as a witness at the compliance hearing set for 3/5/93 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
122 ORDER (Writ) (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum for Anthony Delgado to appear as a witness at the compliance hearing set for 3/5/93 at 9 a.m. (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
WRIT issued to John Jabe, Warden at State Prison of Southern Michigan for Anthony Delgado to appear as a witness at the compliance hearing set for 3/5/93 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
123 ORDER (Writ) (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum for Robert Partee to appear as a witness at the compliance hearing set for 3/5/93 at 9 a.m. (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/03/1993)

03/02/1993 03/04/1993 03/04/1993 03/04/1993
03/04/1993 03/05/1993 03/05/1993 03/05/1993 03/05/1993 03/05/1993 03/05/1993

WRIT issued to John Jabe, Warden at State Prison of Southern Michigan for Robert Partee to appear as a witness at the compliance hearing set for 3/5/93 at 9 a.m. (rlw) Modified on 05/21/1993 (Entered: 03/03/1993)
124 AMENDED NOTICE by plaintiffs of taking deposition of employee or employees of Dept of Correction on 3/2/93 at 12 p.m. for documents specified in the notice w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/05/1993)
125 MAIL RETURNED - Writ for Alfredo Robinson and addressed to Alfredo Robinson marked "must have prisoner's number" (rlw) (Entered: 03/05/1993)
PROCEEDING before Judge Richard A. Enslen ; compliance hearing held at 2:30 p.m. on 3/4/93 ; Court heard arguments on the following motions: defts' Motion to Modify Termination Language of the Hadix Decree; defts' Motion to Preclude Monitoring, Supervision and Control in facilities not subject to the Hadix Decree; pltfs' Motion for Enforcement of Health Staffing Requirements and for further relief; pltfs' Motion to Enforce Consent Decree by Providing Adequate Continuity of Health Care; pltfs' Motion to Enforce Consent Decree by Providing Adequate Dental Services; pltfs' Motion for Enforcement of Consent Decree and Modification of State Plan by Providing Adequate Tuberculosis Control; pltfs' Motion to Enforce the 4-Minute Response Requirement of the Training Plan Required by Section II.A.8.b. of the Consent Decree - all motions taken under advisement (rlw) Modified on 03/08/1993 (Entered: 03/08/1993)
PROCEEDING before Judge Richard A. Enslen; status conf. in chambers on "Access to Courts" issue - defts will submit a plan to the Court by 6/1/93; pltfs must respond by 7/1/93 (rlw) (Entered: 03/08/1993)
126 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiffs for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum (for Alfredo Robinson) and Amended Order for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum (for Alfredo Robinson) (rlw) (Entered: 03/05/1993)
127 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiffs for Writs of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum and Amended Order for Writ of Habeas Corpous Ad Testificandum for Mark Coleman, C. Pepper Moore, Anthony Delgado, Robert Partee, David Lee Speagle (rlw) (Entered: 03/05/1993)
128 OPINION (9 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/08/1993)
129 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion denying defts' motion (for order) to Preclude Monitoring, Supervision and Control in Facilities no Subject to the Hadix Decree [35-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/08/1993)
130 OPINION (9 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/08/1993)
131 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/Opinion denying defts' motion (for order) to Modify Termination Language of the Hadix consent Decree [36-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/08/1993)

03/05/1993
03/09/1993 03/09/1993 03/12/1993 03/12/1993 03/16/1993 03/16/1993
03/17/1993 03/17/1993 03/18/1993

PROCEEDING before Judge Richard A. Enslen; compliance hearing; Court heard arguments and testimony on a number of motions including: pltfs' Motion for Enforcement of health Staffing Requirements and for Further Relief; pltfs' Motion to Enforce Consent Decree by Providing Adequate Continuity of Health Care; pltfs' Motion to Enforce Consent Decree by Providiong Adequate Dental Services; pltfs' Motion for Enforcement of Consent Decree and Modification of State Plan by Providing Adequate Tuberculosis Control; and pltfs' Motion to Enforce 4Minute Response Requirement of the Training Plan required by Section II.A.8.b of the Consent Decree - Motions taken under advisement; witnesses for pltf - Armond Start, David Speagle, R. Nagil Partee, Anthony Delgado, Mr. Coleman; for deft Dr. Craig Hutchinson, Dr. Richard Wilbur (rlw) Modified on 03/08/1993 (Entered: 03/08/1993)
132 OPINION (3 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/09/1993)
133 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion granting in part and denying in part pltfs' motion (to enforce) the 4 Minute Response Requirement of the Training Plan Required by Section II.A.8.b of the Consent Decree [26-1]; defts ordered to revise or update their plan by 6/15/93 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/09/1993)
134 OPINION (12 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/16/1993)
135 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion granting in part and denying in part pltfs' motion (to enforce) Consent Decree by Providing Adequate Dental Services [33-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/16/1993)
136 OPINION (15 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/16/1993)
137 ORDER (3 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion granting in part and denying in part pltfs' motion (for order) for Enforcement of Health Staffing Requirements and for Further Relief [221] defts are directed to remedy their failure to maintain a 40-bed Protective Environment at SPSM by 1/1/94; defts shall submit pursuant to Section XI of the Decree, a substitute list of positions, consistent with current authorizations by 6/1/93; defts shall also file monthly reports on the status of medical and mental health positions that have been vacant for more than 120 days (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/16/1993)
138 OPINION (12 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/18/1993)
139 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion granting in part and denying in part pltf's motion (to enforce) Consent Decree and Modification of Plan by Providing Adequate Tuberculosis Control [30-1]; defts must submit by 6/1/93 a revised Epidemic Contagions Plan (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/18/1993)
COMPLIANCE HEARING (PROCEEDING) before Judge Richard A. Enslen; the Court heard Argument and testimony on a number of motions

03/22/1993 03/22/1993 03/26/1993 03/26/1993
04/02/1993 04/02/1993 04/05/1993 04/05/1993 04/05/1993 04/05/1993

including pltf's motion to adopt USA v MI mental Health order; pltf's motion to enforce the requirements of II.B.3.c. of the Consent Decree defts' motion to modify the Hadix Decree provision II.B.3.c. by deleting defts' obligation to file a plan to assure adequate access to the Riverside Psychiatric Center; pltf's motion to enforce the continuity of care requirements of the chronic disease plan relating to mental health; pltfs' motion to enforce section II.B.5 of the Consent Decree; pltfs' witness Cassancha Newkirk; defts' witnesses Stephen Hucker, Joel Dvoskin, Craig Hutchinson, Dr. Rushbrook, Mary Sue Ziegler; called by the Court Lynn Green; (Exhibit Lists attached) (rlw) (Entered: 03/24/1993)
140 LETTER to court from plaintiffs' counsel P. Streeter requesting that only she receive mailings instead of her and Neal Bush (rlw) (Entered: 03/22/1993)
140 ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION: pursuant to letter from attorney Patricia A. Streeter on behalf of pltfs advising that she is lead counsel and should receive all mailings in the place of Neal Bush (rlw) (Entered: 03/23/1993)
141 OPINION (12 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/29/1993)
142 ORDER (3 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion granting in part and denying in part pltfs' motion (to enforce) Consent Decree by Providing Adequate Continuity of Health Care [31-1], granting in part and denying in part pltfs' motion (to enforce) the Continuity of Care Requirements of the Chronic Disease Plan Relating to Mental Health [27-1]; subsequent compliance reports describe the status of complilance w/completlion of initial records at the Reception and Guidance Center; defts develop and submit by end of 1993 and subsequent years, annual reports concerning "effectiveness in carrying out the program goals and the changing needs of the chronic disease index"; that defts modify their Chronic Disease Plan to monitor compliance w/treatment orders when non-compliance could result in serious harm to the prisoners and staff by 6/1/93 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/29/1993)
143 OPINION (10 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 04/02/1993)
144 ORDER (3 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion granting ptlfs' motion (to enforce) Section II.B.5 of the Consent Decree [28-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 04/02/1993)
145 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendants from Dist. Court decision - Opinion and Order re defts' motion to modify termination language of the Hadix Consent Decree [131-1] (rlw) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
FILING FEE PAID on 4/5/93 in the amount of $105.00 (Receipt #200475) (rlw) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
146 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendants from Dist. Court decision denying defts' motion to preclude monitoring, supervision and control in facilities not subject to the Decree [129-1] (rlw) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
FILING FEE PAID on 4/5/93 in the amount of $105.00 (Receipt

04/05/1993 04/05/1993 04/05/1993 04/05/1993 04/05/1993 04/05/1993 04/05/1993
04/05/1993 04/05/1993 04/05/1993 04/12/1993 04/12/1993
04/15/1993

#200474) (rlw) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
147 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant from Dist. Court decision granting in part and denying in part pltfs' motion to enforce the 4 minute response requirement of the training plan required by Section II.A.8.b of the Consent Decree [133-1] (rlw) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
FILING FEE PAID on 4/5/93 in the amount of $105.00 Receipt #200473) (rlw) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
148 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendants from Dist. Court decision granting in part and denying in part pltfs' motion to enforce Consent Decree by providing adequate dental services [135-1] (rlw) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
FILING FEE PAID on 4/5/93 in the amount of $105.00 (Receipt #200472) (rlw) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
149 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendants from Dist. Court decision denying in part and granting in part pltfs' motion for enforcement of Consent Decree and modifoication of state plan by providing adequate tuberculosis control [139-1] (rlw) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
FILING FEE PAID on 4/5/93 in the amount of $105.00 (Receipt #200471) (rlw) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
150 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendants from Dist. Court decision granting in part and denying in part pltfs' motion to enforce the continuity of care requirements of the Chronic Disease Plan relating to mental health and pltfs' motion to enforce Consent Decree by providing adequate continuity of health care [142-1] (rlw) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
FILING FEE PAID on 4/5/93 in the amount of $105.00 (Receipt # 200470) (rlw) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
151 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendants from Dist. Court decision granting in part and denying in part pltfs' motion for enforcement of health staffing requirements and for further relief [137-1] (rlw) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
FILING FEE PAID on 4/5/93 in the amount of $105.00 (Receipt #200469) (rlw) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
152 OPINION (62 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
153 ORDER (3 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion granting pltfs' motion (for order) to Adopt USA v. MICHIGAN Mental Health Orders/ w/brief. [24-1], granting in part and denying in part pltfs' motion (to enforce) the Requirements of Section II.B.3.c of the Consent Decree [29-1], denying defts' motion to modify (amend) the Hadix Decree Provision II.B(3)(c) by deleting defts' obligation to file plan to assure adequate access to the Riverside Psychiatric Center [41-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
MAILED information copies to CCA,,,,,,for appeals,docket entries 145,146,147,148,149,150, and 151; all counsel notified (ghl) (Entered:

04/21/1993
04/26/1993 04/27/1993 04/27/1993 04/27/1993
04/28/1993 04/28/1993 04/28/1993 04/28/1993 04/28/1993 04/28/1993 04/28/1993 04/28/1993

04/15/1993)
154 ORDER OF TRANSFER (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen that Section VI of the Consent Decree entitled "Access to Court's" is transferred to Judge Enslen from Knop v Johnson for further proceedings (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 04/27/1993)
155 APPLICATION by plaintiff for costs and attorney fees in the amount of $71,144.98 w/brief in support, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/27/1993)
156 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 3/18/93 before Judge Enslen and reported by Michele A. Lantis, CSR and Notary Public (rlw) (Entered: 04/27/1993)
157 OPINION (3 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 04/27/1993)
158 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion denying defts' motion for the Court to Relinquish Control and Supervision of the Medical Health Provisions of the Hadix Consent Decree [45-1], denying defts' motion for the Court to Relinquish Control and Supervision of the Mental Health Provisions of the Hadix Consent Decree [43-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 04/27/1993)
159 TRANSMISSION FORM showing notice of appeal filed by CCA on 4/22/93 and assigned CCA number 93-1551 (ghl) (Entered: 04/28/1993)
160 TRANSMISSION FORM showing notice of appeal filed by CCA on 4/23/93 and assigned CCA number 93-1555 (ghl) (Entered: 04/28/1993)
161 TRANSMISSION FORM showing notice of appeal filed by CCA on 4/23/93 and assigned CCA number 93-1556 (ghl) (Entered: 04/28/1993)
162 TRANSMISSION FORM showing notice of appeal filed by CCA on 4/23/93 and assigned CCA number 93-1557 (ghl) (Entered: 04/28/1993)
163 TRANSMISSION FORM showing notice of appeal filed by CCA on 4/23/93 and assigned CCA number 93-1558 (ghl) (Entered: 04/28/1993)
164 TRANSMISSION FORM showing notice of appeal filed by CCA on 4/23/93 and assigned CCA number 93-1559 (ghl) (Entered: 04/28/1993)
165 TRANSMISSION FORM showing notice of appeal filed by CCA on 4/23/93 and assigned CCA number 93-1560 (ghl) (Entered: 04/28/1993)
166 ORDER (3 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen denying defts' motion to exceed page limitation for Response to pltfs' Motion to Enforce the Consent Decree by Providing Adequate Dental Services [64-1], denying defts' motion to exceed page limitation for Response to pltfs' Motion to Enforce the 4 Minute Response Requirement of the Training Plan Required by Section II.A.8.b of the Consent Decree [63-1], denying defts' motion to exceed page limitation for Response to pltfs' Motion for Enforcement of Medical Screening Provisions of the Consent Decree [621], denying defts' motion to exceed page limitation for Response to pltfs'

04/29/1993 04/29/1993 04/29/1993
04/29/1993 05/04/1993 05/05/1993
05/07/1993 05/10/1993 05/10/1993 05/10/1993 05/10/1993

Motion for Enforcement of Continuity of Care Requirements in the Medical Rehabilitation Unit and for Handicapped Prisoners [61-1], denying defts' motion to exceed page limitation for Response to pltfs' Motion for Enforcement of Consent Decree and Modification of State Plan by Providing Adequate Tuberculosis Control [60-1], denying defts' motion to exceed page limitation for Response to pltfs' Motion to Enforce Consent Decree by Providing Adequate Continuity of Care [59-1], denying pltfs' motion (for order) for Enforcement of Continuity of Care Requirements in the Medical Rehabilitation Unit and Handicapped Prisoners [23-1], denying pltfs' motion (to enforce) Medical Screening Provisions of the Consent Decree [32-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) Modified on 04/30/1993 (Entered: 04/30/1993)
167 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendants from Dist. Court decision regarding pltfs' motion to enforce section II.B.5 of the Hadix Consent Decree [1441] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/30/1993)
FILING FEE PAID on 4/29/93 by defts in the amount of $105.00 (Receipt # 200537) for appeal 167 (rlw) (Entered: 04/30/1993)
168 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendants from Dist. Court decision regarding pltfs' motion to adopt USA v Michigan, 1:84-cv-63 mental health orders; pltfs' motion to enforce the requirements of section II.B.3.c of the consent decree; and defts' motion to modify the Hadix Decree provision II.B.3.c by deleting defts' obligation to file a plan to assure adequate access to the Riverside Psychiatric Center [153-1] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/30/1993)
FILING FEE PAID on 4/29/93 by defts in the amount of $105.00 (Receipt #200538) for appeal 168 (rlw) (Entered: 04/30/1993)
MAILED information copies to CCA, for appeals No. 167 and No. 168; judge and all counsel notified (ghl) (Entered: 05/04/1993)
169 TRI-ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by defendants (Barbara J. Hladki, Consent Decree Coordinator) on Medical and Mental Health issues (rlw) Modified on 05/13/1993 (Entered: 05/06/1993)
170 LETTER to court from plaintiffs'counsel Deborah LaBelle advising of a change in address (rlw) Modified on 05/13/1993 (Entered: 05/10/1993)
172 TRANSCRIPT ORDER Form from appellant's atty ordering transcript from March 4 & 5,1993 Compliance Hearings (ghl) (Entered: 05/14/1993)
173 TRANSCRIPT ORDER Form from appellant's atty ordering transcript from March 4 & 5,1993 Compliance Hearings (ghl) (Entered: 05/14/1993)
174 TRANSCRIPT ORDER Form from appellant's atty ordering transcript from March 4 & 5,1993 Compliance Hearings (ghl) (Entered: 05/14/1993)
175 TRANSCRIPT ORDER Form from appellant's atty ordering transcript

05/10/1993 05/10/1993 05/10/1993 05/13/1993
05/17/1993 05/18/1993 05/18/1993 05/24/1993 05/24/1993 05/24/1993 05/25/1993 06/02/1993
06/04/1993
06/04/1993

from March 4 & 5,1993 Compliance Hearings (ghl) (Entered: 05/14/1993)
176 TRANSCRIPT ORDER Form from appellant's atty ordering transcript from March 4 & 5,1993 Compliance Hearings (ghl) (Entered: 05/14/1993)
177 TRANSCRIPT ORDER Form from appellant's atty ordering transcript from March 4 & 5,1993 Compliance Hearings (ghl) (Entered: 05/14/1993)
178 TRANSCRIPT ORDER Form from appellant's atty ordering transcript from March 4 & 5 Compliance Hearings (ghl) (Entered: 05/14/1993)
171 STIPULATION AND ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland: extending to 5/19/93 for defts to respond to Application for costs and attorney fees and brief and declarations in support (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 05/13/1993)
179 OPPOSITION by defendants to pltfs' application for attorney fees and costs [155-1] w/Exhibits A-I (rlw) (Entered: 05/17/1993)
180 TRANSMISSION FORM showing notice of appeal filed by CCA on 5/10/93 and assigned CCA number 93-1642 (ghl) (Entered: 05/18/1993)
181 TRANSMISSION FORM showing notice of appeal filed by CCA on 5/10/93 and assigned CCA number 93-1643 (ghl) (Entered: 05/18/1993)
182 TRANSCRIPT ORDER Form from appellant's atty ordering transcript from Compliance Hearing 3/18/93 re; CCA 93-1642 (ghl) (Entered: 05/25/1993)
183 TRANSCRIPT ORDER Form from appellant's atty ordering transcript from Compliance Hearing 3/18/93 re: CCA 93-1643 (ghl) (Entered: 05/25/1993)
184 NOTICE by plaintiffs of change of address for Larry W. Bennett (rlw) (Entered: 05/26/1993)
185 MOTION by plaintiffs to extend time for filing of pltfs' reply brief to defts' response to pltfs' fee application until 6/4/93 w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 05/26/1993)
186 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltfs' motion to extend time for filing of pltfs' reply brief to defts' response to pltfs' fee application until 6/4/93 [185-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 06/03/1993)
187 MOTION by plaintiffs for leave to file oversized reply brief in support of petition for attorney fees and costs w/brief in support w/PROPOSED reply brief in support of pltfs' petition for attorney fees and costs w/Exhibits 1-5, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/04/1993)
188 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen that defts shall submit a legal access plan consistent w/Sixth Circuit decision in this case 977 F.2d

06/14/1993 06/14/1993 06/14/1993 06/14/1993 06/14/1993 06/15/1993
06/15/1993
06/15/1993 06/15/1993 06/17/1993 06/22/1993

996 no later than 6/15/93; pltfs' response due no later than 7/15/93 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 06/07/1993)
189 TRANSCRIPT of compliance hearings; arguments on motions -- II.B(5), Section II concerning plans; expert witnesses Start, Hutchinson, Wilbur, and prisoner testimony held 3/4/93 and 3/5/93 (partial) before Judge Enslen and reported by Jarratt W. Martin (rlw) (Entered: 06/15/1993)
190 RESPONSE by defendants as required by the 4/12/93, 5/30/91 and 9/9/92 orders [153-1] - submission of the program, staffing, operation and space use statement - Huron Valley Psychiatric Hospital w/stamped proof of service (rlw) Modified on 06/15/1993 (Entered: 06/15/1993)
191 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltfs' motion for leave to file oversized reply brief in support of petition for attorney fees and costs [187-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 06/15/1993)
192 REPLY by plaintiffs in support of their application for attorney fees and costs [155-1] w/Exhibits 1-5, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/15/1993)
193 LETTER to court from defendants w/attached copy of the evaluations of the Pilot Residential Treatment Program and Outpatient Mental Health Team Services prepared under the direction of Dr. Roger Smith and Dr. Lee Rome of the Dept of Mental Health (rlw) (Entered: 06/15/1993)
194 MOTION by defendants to modify (amend) the USA orders and to seek approval of the replacement of the intermediate care program and the protective environment program under the court's jurisdiction with the residential treatment program in their place w/brief in support, Exhibits 14, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/16/1993)
195 MOTION by defendants to modify (amend) the USA plans addressing identification, referral, evaluation and treatment of prisoners with serious mental disorders who are housed in segregation units and outpatient mental health services w/brief in support, Exhibits 1-2, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/16/1993)
196 MOTION by defendants to extend the deadline for submission of revised/updated or alternate training plan to 6/22/93 w/brief in support, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/16/1993)
197 LETTER to court from defendants w/attached copy of defts' Legal Access Plan submitted consistent with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision (rlw) (Entered: 06/16/1993)
198 ORDER (1 pgs) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting defts' motion to extend the deadline for submission of revised/updated or alternate training plan to 6/22/93 [196-1]; no further extensions will be granted (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 06/18/1993)
199 RESPONSE by defendants w/alternate emergency training plan required by the 3/9/93 Order [133-1] w/attachment, stamped proof of service (seal) (Entered: 06/22/1993)

06/25/1993 06/28/1993 06/28/1993 06/30/1993 07/02/1993
07/06/1993 07/06/1993 07/06/1993
07/12/1993 07/16/1993

200 MOTION by defendants to file instanter defts' submission pursuant to the 3/26/93 order to monitor compliance with medication orders when noncompliance would, in the opinion of medical staff, result in serious harm to the prison population and staff w/brief in support, attachment, affidavit in support, PROPOSED submission, stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/25/1993)
201 RESPONSE by defendants to pltfs' reply brief in support of pltfs' petition for attorney fees and costs [192-1] w/Exhibits A-C, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/28/1993)
202 MOTION by plaintiffs to permit mental health tour by pltfs w/brief in support, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/28/1993)
203 OPPOSITION by defendants to pltfs' motion to permit mental health tour by pltfs [202-1] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/30/1993)
204 MOTION by plaintiffs to extend deadline to file response to defts' motions 1) Motion to Seek Approval of the Replacement of the Intermediate Care Program and the Protective Environment Program under the Court's Jurisdiction with the Residential Treatment Program in their Place 2) Motion to Modify the USA Plans Addressing Identification, Referral, Evaluation and Treatment of Prisoners with Serious Mental Disorders who are Housed in Segregation Units and Outpatient Mental Health Services 3) 6/1/93 Program, Staffing, Operatioin and Space Use Statement for the new mental health facility w/brief in support w/certificate of servie (rlw) (Entered: 07/02/1993)
205 MOTION by pltf to strike defts' Supplemental Memorandum in Response to pltfs' Reply Brief in Support of Pltfs' Petition for Attorney Fees and Costs w/brief in support; w/prf. of svc. (tlb) Modified on 08/06/1993 (Entered: 07/08/1993)
206 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen granting motion to permit mental health tour by pltfs [202-1] (cc: all counsel) (tlb) (Entered: 07/08/1993)
207 ORDER (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen granting motion to extend deadline to file response to defts' 1) Motion to Seek Approval of the Replacement of the Intermediate Care Program and the Protective Environment Program under the Court's Jurisdiction with the Residential Treatment Program in their Place 2) Motion to Modify the Plans Addressing Identification, Referral, Evaluation and Treatment of Prisoners with Serious Mental Disorders who Housed in Segregation Units and Outpatient Mental Health Services 3) 6/1/93 Program, Staffing, Operatioin and Space Use Statement for the new mental health facility [204-1] (cc: all counsel) (tlb) (Entered: 07/08/1993)
208 MOTION by plaintiffs to extend time until 7/30/93 to file their response to defts' Legal Access Plan w/brief in support, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 07/12/1993)
209 RESPONSE by defendant in opposition to pltfs' motion to strike [205-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 07/16/1993)

07/20/1993 07/20/1993 07/21/1993 07/30/1993
07/30/1993 07/30/1993
07/30/1993 07/30/1993 08/03/1993
08/03/1993 08/30/1993 08/30/1993

210 QUARTERLY REPORTS (STATUS REPORT) by defendants (Barbara J. Hladki, Consent Decree Coordinator) for Section II.B.5 as required by the 4/2/93 Order (rlw) (Entered: 07/20/1993)
211 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting Knop and Hadix pltfs' motion to extend time until 7/30/93 to file their response to defts' Legal Access Plan [208-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 07/20/1993)
212 MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by defendants (Barbara Hladki, Consent Decree Coordinator) on the status of medical and mental health positions that have been vacant for more than 120 days (rlw) (Entered: 07/22/1993)
213 MOTION by plaintiffs to exceed page limitation for joint response in opposition to defts' remedial plan to comply with decision of the US Court of Appeals in Hadix v Johnson and remedial lplan to comply with decision of the US Court of Appeals in Knop v Johnson w/brief in support w/PROPOSED joint response, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 07/30/1993)
214 MOTION by plaintiffs to require submission of the Huron Valley Psychiatric Hospital Program Statement w/brief in support (rlw) (Entered: 07/30/1993)
215 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defts' motion to modify (amend) the USA orders and to seek approval of the replacement of the intermediate care program and the protective environment program under the court's jurisdiction with the residential treatment program in their place [194-1] w/attachment (rlw) (Entered: 07/30/1993)
216 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defts' motion to modify (amend) the USA plans addressing identification, referral, evaluation and treatment of prisoners with serious mental disorders who housed in segregation units and outpatient mental health services [195-1] (rlw) (Entered: 07/30/1993)
217 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiffs for pldg. Nos. 214-216 (rlw) (Entered: 07/30/1993)
218 ORDER (2 pgs) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltfs' motion to exceed page limitation for joint response in opposition to defts' remedial plan to comply with decision of the US Court of Appeals in Hadix v Johnson and remedial plan to comply with decision of the US Court of Appeals in Knop v Johnson [213-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 08/03/1993)
219 OPPOSITION by plaintiffs to defts' remedial plan to comply with decision of the US Court of Appeals in this case (rlw) (Entered: 08/04/1993)
220 OPINION (17 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 09/01/1993)
221 ORDER (3 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion denying motion to strike defts' Supplemental Memorandum in Response

09/03/1993 09/24/1993 09/27/1993 09/28/1993 09/29/1993 09/29/1993
10/04/1993 10/05/1993
10/05/1993 10/07/1993 10/07/1993

to pltfs' Reply Brief in Support of Pltfs' Petition for Attorney Fees and Costs [205-1] granting in part and denying in part pltfs' application for costs and attorney fees [155-1]; pltfs' application for costs from defts is granted; that the billing rates for Elizabeth Alexander and David Fathi are denied; billing rates for Elizabeth Alexander is set at $250/hr. and for David Fathi is set at $135/hr.; future submissions of costs and fees shall be done semi-annually; time and costs submitted by Alexander and Fathi covering from mid-June 1992 until mid-April 1993 is payable as if timely submitted (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 09/01/1993)
222 TRI-ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara J. Hladki (Consent Decree Coordinator) for medical and mental health issues (rlw) (Entered: 09/03/1993)
223 LETTER to court from Barbara J. Hladki, Consent Decree Coordinator regarding Monthly Report on the status of positions which have been vacant for 120 days (rlw) (Entered: 09/27/1993)
224 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by defendants adding attorney(s) Susanne Durk McAra w/stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/27/1993)
225 MOTION by plaintiffs for order regarding attorney fees w/brief in support w/attachment, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/28/1993)
226 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendants (all) from Dist. Court decision, Opinion and Order by Hon. Richard A. Enslen dated 8/30/93 [220-1]; w/stamped Proof of Service. (bd) (Entered: 09/30/1993)
APPEAL FEE PAID by Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown Jr., Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pam Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik in amount of $ 105.00 ( Receipt # 200790) (ghl) (Entered: 10/04/1993)
MAILED information copies to CCA of Notice of Appeal by All Defendants, (No. 226); judge and all counsel notified (ghl) (Entered: 10/04/1993)
227 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen granting defts' motion to file instanter defts' submission pursuant to the 3/26/93 order to monitor compliance with medication orders when noncompliance would, in the opinion of medical staff, result in serious harm to the prison population and staff [200-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 10/05/1993)
228 ORDER (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen regarding attorneys' fees; pltf's application for costs and fees on behalf of the ACLU Foundation is granted for the sum of $59,754.48 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 10/05/1993)
229 QUARTERLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Consent Decree Coordinator on the prisoners referred by the R&GC outpatient mental health team (rlw) (Entered: 10/07/1993)
230 ORDER from CCA dismissing the appeal [149-1] ( CCA 93-1558)

10/08/1993 10/08/1993 10/12/1993 10/12/1993 10/12/1993 10/14/1993 10/14/1993 10/15/1993 10/15/1993 10/28/1993 10/29/1993
11/01/1993

dismissing the appeal [148-1] (CCA 93-1557) dismissing the appeal [1471] (CCA 93-1556). The remaining 6 appeals (931551/1555/1559/1560/1642/1643) shall remain consolidated for briefing and submission (ghl) (Entered: 10/07/1993)
231 MOTION by plaintiffs for attorney fees and costs related to monitoring Section II of the Consent Judgment w/brief in support, Exhibits 1-6, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/08/1993)
232 PETITION by plaintiffs for attorney fees and costs for time and expense required in the preparation, presentation, post-trial briefing, appeal and post-trial work on the access to courts issue w/Exhibits 1-5, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/08/1993)
233 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendants from Dist. Court decision entered 10/5/93 regarding attorney fees [228-1] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/13/1993)
FILING FEE PAID on 10/12/93 in the amount of $105.00 (Receipt # 200809) (rlw) (Entered: 10/13/1993)
234 TRANSMISSION FORM showing notice of appeal filed by CCA on 10/07/93 and assigned CCA number 93-2282 (ghl) (Entered: 10/14/1993)
235 MOTION by defendants for approval of supersedeas bond staying judgment on appeal w/brief in support, stamped proof of service w/PROPOSED Supersedeas Bond on Appeal (rlw) (Entered: 10/15/1993)
237 PETITION by plaintiffs for attorneys fees and costs for Larry W. Bennett in the amount of $81,713.00 (atty fees) and $6,878.15 (costs) relating to the issue of Access to Courts w/brief in support, attachments, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/18/1993)
MAILED information copies to CCA;judge and all counsel notified (ghl) (Entered: 10/15/1993)
236 ERRATA SHEET (SUPPLEMENT) by plaintiffs to memorandum in support of pltfs' petition for attorney fees [232-1] w/attached corrected copy of Petition for Attorney Fees w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/15/1993)
238 STIPULATION AND ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting an extension of time until 11/1/93 for defts to file objections to pltfs' Petition for costs and Attorney Fees (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 10/28/1993)
241 MANDATE from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that the motion to dismiss in Case Nos. 93-1556 (147)/1557(148)/1558(149) is granted. The motion to dismiss is denied in Case Nos. 931551/1555/1559/1560/1642/1643. Those appeals shall remain consolidated for briefing and submission. (ghl) (Entered: 11/08/1993)
239 MOTION by defendants to dismiss pltfs' petition for fees and costs for Larry W. Bennett , or alternatively to transfer Larry W. Bennett's Petition for fees and costs to to the Eastern District of Michigan before Judge

11/01/1993
11/01/1993 11/17/1993 12/01/1993
12/02/1993 12/13/1993
12/15/1993 12/16/1993
12/16/1993 12/20/1993 12/22/1993 12/22/1993 12/27/1993

Feikens w/brief in support, Exhibits 1-6 (rlw) (Entered: 11/02/1993)
240 OBJECTIONS by defendants to pltfs' petition for fees and costs for time and expense required in the preparation, presentation, post-trial briefing, appeal and post-trial work on the access to courts issue [232-1] (rlw) Modified on 12/16/1993 (Entered: 11/02/1993)
242 TRANSMISSION FORM showing notice of appeal filed by CCA on 10/26/93 and assigned CCA number 93-2349 (ghl) (Entered: 11/08/1993)
243 REPLY by plaintiffs to defts' objections to pltfs' application for atty fees and costs [240-1] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 11/17/1993)
244 STIPULATION AND ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland: that Larry Bennett shall have until 12/1/93 to file a response to defts' motion to dismiss pltfs' petition for fees and costs for Larry W. Bennett [239-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 12/01/1993)
245 OBJECTIONS by defendants to Larry W. Bennett's petition for attorney fees and costs [237-1] w/brief in support (rlw) (Entered: 12/02/1993)
246 STIPULATION AND ORDER (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen: withdrawing defts' motion to dismiss pltfs' petition for fees costs for Larry W. Bennett [239-1] and motion to transfer Larry W. Bennett's Petition for fees and costs to to the Eastern District of Michigan before Judge Feikens [239-2] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 12/14/1993)
247 MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara J. Hladki, Consent Decree Coordinator regarding a substitute list of medical and mental health positions (rlw) (Entered: 12/15/1993)
248 ANNUAL AUDIT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager Consent Decree Unit of health care for the Jackson Regional Clinical Complex which includes State Prison for Southern Michigan and the Charles Egeler Correctional Facility (rlw) (Entered: 12/16/1993)
249 QUARTERLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) regarding prisoners referred by the R&GC out-patient mental health team (rlw) (Entered: 12/16/1993)
250 REPLY by plaintiffs to defts' objections to pltfs' Applications for attorneys fees and costs incurred by Attorney Larry Bennett [245-1] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/20/1993)
251 ANNUAL CHRONIC DISEASE REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by defendants pursuant to the 3/26/93 order w/stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/29/1993)
252 REVISED STAFFING PLAN (NOTICE) by defendants as required by the 3/16/93 order w/stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/29/1993)
253 TRI-ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager Consent Decree Unit - report is for the medical and mental health issues. Compliance report on the Dental Stipulation included (rlw) Modified on 12/29/1993 (Entered: 12/29/1993)

01/07/1994 01/07/1994
01/07/1994 01/07/1994 02/02/1994 02/07/1994 02/07/1994 02/07/1994
02/08/1994 02/09/1994

254 OPINION (4 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 01/10/1994)
255 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion granting pltfs' motion for attorney fees and costs related to monitoring Section II of the Consent Judgment [231-1]; that costs submitted by E. Alexander for the period through 6/30/93 shall be payable by defts; that hours spent by E. Alexander shall be billable at $250/hr for time spent relative to the atty fees issue and for other time spent related to monitoring Section II of the Consent Decree; the billing rate applicable to time spent by P. Streeter shall be $150/hr (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 01/10/1994)
256 OPINION (7 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 01/10/1994)
257 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion granting pltfs' petition for atty fees and costs w/respect to attys P. Streeter and M. Barnhart [232-1] granting pltfs' petition for attys fees and costs w/respect to atty L. Bennett [237-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 01/10/1994)
258 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen directing defts to file a brief on the issues concerning its objections to providing pltfs' experts access to records or personnel during their planned inspection of the facilities on or before 2/8/94 at 5 p.m.; pltfs' response due on or before 2/11/94 at 5 p.m.; tour to be rescheduled after Court's resolution of the access issue (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 02/02/1994)
259 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant from District Court decision entered on: 1/7/94 regarding attorney fees and costs with respect to attorneys Patricia Streeter, Michael Barnhart and Larry W. Bennett w/stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/08/1994)
RECEIPT # 201003 in the amount of $105.00 submitted by defts for appeal fee (rlw) (Entered: 02/08/1994)
261 REQUEST by F. Warren Benton, Special Master that the Court also consider for hearing at the previously scheduled time of 3/3/94 the issues raised in the attached letter that the District Court has no further jurisdiction relative to the Hadix mental health issues, pending the appeal of the six orders and that by 2/18/94 defts submit a response concerning these issues and the pltfs submit any pleadings relating to the Legal Access Plan; by 2/25/94 pltfs submit their response to the issues raised in the attached letter and the defts shall submit any response pleadings relating to pltf's submission concerning the Legal Access Plan (rlw) (Entered: 02/09/1994)
260 MOTION by defendants for protective order to preclude access to inmate's medical records and medical/mental health personnel w/brief in support, Exhibits A-C, stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/08/1994)
MAILED information copies to CCA consisting of Notice of Appeal, docket sheet and order/judgment # 257 ,opinion #256; judge and all

02/09/1994
02/11/1994 02/14/1994 02/15/1994 02/15/1994 02/16/1994 02/17/1994 02/17/1994
02/18/1994 02/18/1994

counsel notified (ghl) (Entered: 02/09/1994)
262 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen setting for hearing the issue of Legal Access Plan submitted by defts in June 1993 and the jurisdictional issues raised by defts in their letter to independent Expert F. Benton [261-1] at 9:00 a.m. on 3/3/94; pltfs brief relating to their objections to the Legal Access Plan due on or before 2/18/94; defts responsive brief due no later than 2/25/94; defts brief related to the jurisdictional issues raised their letter to Dr. Benton due on or before 2/18/94; pltfs responsive brief due no later than 2/25/94 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 02/10/1994)
263 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen directing defts to file a responsive brief to pltfs' motion to require submission of the Huron Valley Psychiatric Hospital Program Statement [214-1] by 2/25/94; this motion will be discussed at the hearing set for 3/3/94 at 9 a.m. (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 02/11/1994)
264 MOTION by plaintiffs to exceed page limitation to file response to a discovery motion w/brief in support w/PROPOSED Brief in opposition to motion for protective order to preclude access to inmates' medical records and medical/mental health personnel w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/15/1994)
265 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltfs' motion to exceed page limitation to file response to a discovery motion [264-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 02/15/1994)
266 OPPOSITION by plaintiffs to defts' motion for protective order to preclude access to inmate's medical records and medical/mental health personnel [260-1] w/attachments 1-6 (rlw) (Entered: 02/15/1994)
267 REPLY by defendants to pltfs' response to defts' motion for protective order to preclude access to inmate's medical records and medical/mental health personnel [260-1] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/16/1994)
268 OPINION (11 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 02/17/1994)
269 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion denying defts' motion for protective order to preclude access to inmate's medical records and medical/mental health personnel [260-1]; pltfs and their experts shall be provided access to inmate medical and mental health records and medical/mental health personnel during the tour proposed for 2/24, 2/25, 1994; a hearing on Rule 26(c) sanctions against defts shall be held during the 3/3/94 hearing (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 02/17/1994)
270 MOTION by plaintiffs for rejection of the defts' remedial plan for providing access to the Courts and request a compliance review process for the certain access to Courts provisions w/brief in support w/attachment, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/18/1994)
271 BRIEF in Support (MEMORANDUM) by defendants in support of jurisdictional objections to continued district Court activity on issues

02/24/1994 02/24/1994 02/24/1994 02/24/1994 02/25/1994 02/25/1994 02/28/1994
02/28/1994
03/01/1994 03/03/1994 03/03/1994 03/03/1994

presently pending before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals as directed by this court in the order of 2/9/94 [262-1] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/18/1994)
272 OPPOSITION by plaintiffs to defts' memorandum in support of jurisdictional objections to continued District Court activity on issues presently pending before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals [271-1] w/Attachment 1, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/25/1994)
273 PETITION by plaintiffs for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum as to C. Pepper Moore and Mark Coleman currently imprisoned at the State Prison of Southern Michigan in Jackson, MI to appear at a hearing on 3/3/94 (rlw) (Entered: 02/25/1994)
274 PETITION by plaintiffs for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum as to Alfredo Robinson currently imprisoned at the Egeler Facility in Jackson, MI to appear at a hearing on 3/3/94 (rlw) (Entered: 02/25/1994)
275 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiffs for pldg. Nos. 273-274 (rlw) (Entered: 02/25/1994)
WRIT of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum issued to Warden, State Prison of Southern Michigan for C. Pepper Moore and Mark Coleman to appear for hearing on 3/3/94 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 02/28/1994)
WRIT of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum issued to Warden, Egeler Facililty for Alfredo Robinson to appear on 3/3/94 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 02/28/1994)
276 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in support of their Joint motion for rejection of the defts' remedial plan for providing access to the Courts and request a compliance review process for the certain access to Courts provisions [270-1] (corrected copy of pldg. No. 270) (rlw) (Entered: 03/01/1994)
277 MOTION by defendants to file instanter w/brief in support w/PROPOSED brief in support of defts' legal access plan and in opposition to pltfs' joint motion to reject the legal access plan and Hadix defts' response to pltfs' motion to require submission of the Huron Valley Psychiatric Hospital Statement regarding program, staffing, operation and space use w/stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/01/1994)
278 TRANSMISSION FORM showing notice of appeal [259-1] filed by CCA on 2/22/94 and assigned CCA # 94-1158 (ghl) (Entered: 03/01/1994)
279 ORDER (3 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen granting defts' motion to file instanter [277-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/04/1994)
280 RESPONSE by defendants to pltfs' motion to require submission of the Huron Valley Psychiatric Hospital Program Statement [214-1] w/Exhibits 1-2, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/04/1994)
281 OPPOSITION by defendants to pltfs' joint motion to require submission of the Huron Valley Psychiatric Hospital Program Statement [214-1] w/brief in support of defts' legal access plan w/Exhibits 1-5, proof of

03/03/1994 03/03/1994
03/04/1994 03/04/1994 03/04/1994 03/04/1994 03/04/1994
03/04/1994 03/10/1994
03/11/1994

service (rlw) (Entered: 03/04/1994)
282 AFFIDAVITS of William Bailey, Marjorie Van Ochten which were inadvertently omitted from the defts' brief in support of the defts' legal access plan and in opposition to the pltfs' joint motion to reject the legal access plan [281-1] (rlw) (Entered: 03/04/1994)
PROCEEDING before Judge Richard A. Enslen; hearing on legal access in both Hadix and Knop [261-1]; remainder of hearing which related solely to Hadix concerned objections to the courts jurisdiction, pltfs request for attorneys fees incurred in opposing defts motion for a protective order and a motion for submission by defts of their Huron Valley Psychiatric Hospital Statement; the motion for the Huron Valley Psychiatric Hospital Statement was withdrawn; J Martin, Reporter (Exhibit List attached) (rlw) Modified on 03/07/1994 (Entered: 03/07/1994)
283 REQUEST by the Court for Interrogatories to defts (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/04/1994)
284 OPINION (5 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/07/1994)
285 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion that pltfs' request for attorneys fees included in their brief in opposition to defts' motion for a protective order is granted; defts shall pay $7,100.00 to pltfs (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/07/1994)
286 OPINION (7 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/07/1994)
287 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion denying defts' jurisdictional objections to continued district court activity on issues presently pending before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals [271-1]; this Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the six orders presently pending appeal before the Sixth Circuit; that with respect to mental health services and programs for Hadix prisoners, this court retains full jurisdiction to ensure compliance w/the Consent Decree and any orders not the subject of a pending appeal (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/07/1994)
288 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen denying as moot pltfs' motion to require submission of the Huron Valley Psychiatric Hospital Program Statement [214-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/07/1994)
289 MOTION by plaintiffs for temporary restraining order regarding the transfer of chronically medically ill and physically disabled prisoners from the Parke-Davis Unit at SPSM-CC , and for preliminary injunction regarding the transfer of chronically medically ill and physically disabled prisoners from the Parke-Davis unit at SPSM-CC w/brief in support, Exhibits 1-8, Attorney Certification pursuant to Rule 65 of the FRCP, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/11/1994)
290 OPINION (6 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/11/1994)

03/11/1994
03/11/1994 03/15/1994 03/17/1994 03/21/1994 03/22/1994 03/25/1994 03/28/1994 03/29/1994
03/29/1994 03/29/1994

291 ORDER (3 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion denying pltfs' motion for temporary restraining order regarding the transfer of chronically medically ill and physically disabled prisoners from the Parke-Davis Unit at SPSM-CC [289-1]; defts directed to prepare a report on the care provided to be filed no later than 3/22/94 at 5 p.m.; pltfs response due no later than 3/29/94 at 5 p.m.; pltfs shall file a brief in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction no later than 3/29/94 at 5 p.m.; defts response to pltfs' motion for a preliminary injunction due no later than 4/5/94 at 5 p.m. (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/11/1994)
292 TRANSCRIPT ORDER Form from appellant's atty stating no Hearings (ghl) (Entered: 03/14/1994)
293 MOTION by plaintiffs to preclude consolidation of hearing now scheduled for 4/27, 3/29 w/hearing in USA v Michigan, 1:84-cv-63 w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/15/1994)
294 MOTION by plaintiffs for order requiring defts to allow telephonic communications w/pltfs' counsel w/brief in support, Attachments 1-2, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/17/1994)
295 MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by defendants, Barbara Hladki, Manager Consent Decree Unit w/a substitute list of medical and mental health positions (rlw) (Entered: 03/22/1994)
296 REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by defendants on care provided to inmates transferred from the Parke-Davis Building as required by the 3/11/94 order w/stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/22/1994)
297 OPPOSITION by defendants to pltfs' motion for order requiring defts to allow telephonic communications w/pltfs' counsel [294-1] w/stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/28/1994)
298 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants for Objections to Interrogatories and Production of Documents Requests, Answers to Interrogatories w/responses to Request for Production of Documents (rlw) (Entered: 03/29/1994)
299 DECLARATIONS (SUPPLEMENT) by plaintiffs regarding the transfer of prisoners from the Parke Davis Unit in support of their motion for preliminary injunction regarding the transfer of chronically medically ill and physically disabled prisoners from the Parke-Davis unit at SPSM-CC [289-2] (Exhibits 1-4), proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/29/1994)
300 RESPONSE by defendants to pltfs' motion to preclude consolidation of hearing now scheduled for 4/27, 3/29 w/hearing in USA v Michigan, 1:84-cv-63 [293-1] w/stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/29/1994)
301 MOTION by plaintiffs to exceed page limitation to file brief in support of a preliminary injunction regarding the treatment of medically handicapped prisoners w/PROPOSED brief in support of pltfs' motion for a preliminary injunction regarding transfer of medically handicapped prisoners w/attachments 1-13, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/29/1994)

03/29/1994 03/30/1994 03/30/1994 03/31/1994 03/31/1994
04/04/1994
04/06/1994 04/06/1994 04/06/1994 04/07/1994

302 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen denying pltfs' motion for order requiring defts to allow telephonic w/pltfs' counsel [294-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/29/1994)
303 ORDER (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen granting pltfs' motion to exceed page limitation to file brief in support of a preliminary injunction regarding the treatment of medically handicapped prisoners [301-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/30/1994)
304 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in support of their motion for preliminary injunction regarding the transfer of chronically medically ill and physically disabled prisoners from the Parke-Davis unit at SPSM-CC [289-2] w/attachments 1-13 (rlw) (Entered: 03/30/1994)
305 OPINION (6 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/31/1994)
306 ORDER (4 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion granting Hadix defts' motion to preclude consolidation of hearing now scheduled for 4/27, 3/29 w/hearing in USA v Michigan, 1:84-cv-63 [2931], setting motion for preliminary injunction regarding the transfer of chronically medically ill and physically disabled prisoners from the Parke-Davis unit at SPSM-CC [289-2] at 9:00 a.m. on 4/29/94 ; hearing is set for 9:00 a.m. on 4/27/94 covering the issues recommended by the Independent Expert; briefing schedule deadlines apply as follows: Deadlilne 1 is 5 p.m. on 4/8/94; Deadline 2 is 5 p.m. on 4/18/94; Deadline 3 is 5 p.m. on 4/20/94 (see this order for specifics) (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/31/1994)
307 LETTER to court from defendants withdrawing from the Court's consideration the submission on the Huron Valley Center; their motion to modify the USA plans concerning prisoners with serious mental disorder 195 ; and their motion to modify the USA order by substitution the Resident Treatment Plan 194 - attachments include recently filed revisions to these pleadings as filed in the USA v Michigan case (rlw) Modified on 04/06/1994 (Entered: 04/06/1994)
308 MOTION by defendants to file instanter (for leave to file) brief in opposition to pltf's motion for preliminary injunction w/brief in support, affidavit of Susan Przekop-Shaw, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/06/1994)
309 MOTION by defendants to exceed page limitation to file brief in opposition to pltf's motion for preliminary injuction w/brief in support w/PROPOSED brief in opposition to pltf's motion for preliminary injunction w/stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/06/1994)
310 MOTION by plaintiffs to extend time until 4/8/94 to file motions and expert reports in connection w/hearing set for 4/27/94 w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/07/1994)
311 MOTION by defendants to extend time until 4/15/94 to answer Court Interrogatories to defts w/brief in support, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/07/1994)

04/08/1994 04/08/1994 04/08/1994 04/08/1994 04/08/1994 04/08/1994 04/08/1994
04/08/1994 04/08/1994 04/08/1994 04/08/1994 04/08/1994 04/08/1994 04/11/1994
04/11/1994

312 MOTION by plaintiffs to preclude the defts from diminishing required mental health care in the absence of a motion and hearing w/brief in support (rlw) (Entered: 04/08/1994)
313 MOTION by plaintiffs to enforce Consent Decree by providing adequate dental service w/brief in support, attachments 1-2 (rlw) (Entered: 04/08/1994)
314 MOTION by plaintiffs for order for further relief regarding access to health care w/brief in support, attachments 1a-1s (rlw) (Entered: 04/08/1994)
315 MOTION by plaintiffs to require provision of proper housing and infection prevention for prisoners requiring peritoneal dialysis w/brief in support (rlw) (Entered: 04/08/1994)
316 MOTION by plaintiffs for enforcement of medical screening provisions of the Consent Decree w/brief in support (rlw) Modified on 04/22/1994 (Entered: 04/08/1994)
317 MEDICAL EXPERT REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by plaintiffs (rlw) (Entered: 04/08/1994)
318 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in support of their motion (to enforce) Consent Decree and Modification of State Plan by Providing Adequate Tuberculosis Control [30-1], and order [139-1] w/attachments 1-7 (rlw) (Entered: 04/08/1994)
319 MOTION by plaintiffs to reject defts' medication monitoring plan w/brief in support (rlw) (Entered: 04/08/1994)
320 MOTION by plaintiffs to compel compliance with compliance reporting requirements of Section XI of the Consent Decree w/brief in support (rlw) (Entered: 04/08/1994)
321 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff for pldg. Nos. 319-320 (rlw) (Entered: 04/08/1994)
322 MOTION by plaintiffs to reject defts' R&GC screening report format , to enforce this Court's order of 4/2/94 w/brief in support. Exhibits 1-3, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/11/1994)
323 MOTION by plaintiffs to reject defts staffing plan and reject in part, defts' alternate plan for emergency training w/brief in support, Exhibits 1-5 (rlw) (Entered: 04/11/1994)
324 LETTER to court from defendants w/attached Expert Witness Report of Dr. Stephen J. Hucker (rlw) (Entered: 04/11/1994)
325 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting defts' motion to exceed page limitation to file brief in opposition to pltf's motion for preliminary injuction [309-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 04/11/1994)
326 OPPOSITION by defendants to pltfs' motion for preliminary injunction

04/11/1994
04/11/1994 04/11/1994 04/12/1994 04/13/1994 04/13/1994
04/13/1994 04/15/1994 04/15/1994 04/15/1994 04/15/1994

regarding the transfer of chronically medically ill and physically disabled prisoners from the Parke-Davis unit at SPSM-CC [289-2] w/Exhibits AB, 1-8 (rlw) (Entered: 04/11/1994)
327 MOTION by plaintiffs for leave to file motion for enforcement of Consent Decree and Modificatioin of State Plan by providing adequate Tuberculosis Control which was inadvertently not filed on 4/7/94 when its supporting brief was filed w/brief in support w/PROPOSED Motion for enforcement of Consent Decree and modification of State Plan by providing adequate Tuberculosis control (rlw) Modified on 04/22/1994 (Entered: 04/11/1994)
328 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting defts' motion to extend time until 4/15/94 to answer Court Interrogatories to defts [311-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 04/12/1994)
329 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltf's motion to extend time until 4/8/94 to file motions and expert reports in connection w/hearing set for 4/27/94 [310-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 04/12/1994)
330 ORDER Rejecting Pleading (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland - pltf's Certificate of Service for failing to provide a caption setting forth case number, name of the Court, title of the action pursuant to FRCP Rule 10 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 04/12/1994)
331 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting defts' motion to file instanter (for leave to file) brief in opposition to pltf's motion for preliminary injunction [308-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 04/13/1994)
332 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltfs' motion for leave to file motion for enforcement of Consent Decree and Modificatioin of State Plan by providing adequate Tuberculosis Control which was inadvertently not filed on 4/7/94 when its supporting brief was filed [327-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 04/14/1994)
333 MOTION by plaintiffs for enforcement of Consent Decree and (to amend) modification of State Plan by providing adequate Tuberculosis control brief in support filed earlier 318 (rlw) (Entered: 04/14/1994)
334 RESPONSE by defendants to Court Interrogatories 283 w/exhibits 1-8, stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/18/1994)
335 MOTION by movant USA for leave to file for amicus curiae status outside of motion schedule w/brief in support, certificate of service, PROPOSED motion of the US for amicus curiae status (rlw) (Entered: 04/19/1994)
336 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen granting movant USA's motion for leave to file for amicus curiae status outside of motion schedule [335-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 04/19/1994)
337 MOTION by movant USA for amicus curiae status for all issues over which this Court has jurisdiction w/brief in support, certificate of service

04/18/1994 04/18/1994 04/18/1994 04/18/1994 04/18/1994 04/18/1994 04/19/1994 04/19/1994 04/19/1994 04/19/1994 04/19/1994 04/20/1994
04/20/1994

(rlw) (Entered: 04/19/1994)
338 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE on behalf of defendants adding attorney(s) Kim G. Harris (rlw) (Entered: 04/19/1994)
339 OPPOSITION by defendants to pltfs' motion to preclude the defts from diminishing required mental health care in the absence of a motion and hearing [312-1] w/stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/19/1994)
340 OPPOSITION by defendants to pltf's motion to reject defts' R&GC screening report format [322-1] w/attachment, stamped proof of serviec (rlw) (Entered: 04/19/1994)
341 OPPOSITION by defendants to pltfs' motion for enforcement of Consent Decree and modification of State Plan by providing adequate Tuberculosis control [333-1] w/Exhibits A-B (rlw) (Entered: 04/19/1994)
342 OPPOSITION by defendants to pltfs' medical expert report of Dr. Armand Start [317-1] w/stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/19/1994)
343 REPORT OF EXPERT RICHARD S. WILBUR, MD, JD (STATUS REPORT) by defendants submitted to rebut the report of Dr. Armand Start 317 (rlw) (Entered: 04/19/1994)
344 PETITION by plaintiffs for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum for C. Pepper Moore and Mark Coleman appear as witnesses at the hearings set for 4/27, 28 and 29, 1994 (rlw) (Entered: 04/19/1994)
345 PETITION by plaintiffs for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum for Alfredo Robinson to appear as a witness at the hearings set for 4/27, 28, 29, 1994 (rlw) (Entered: 04/19/1994)
346 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff for pldg. Nos. 344-345 (rlw) (Entered: 04/19/1994)
WRIT issued to Warden, State Prison of Southern Michigan as to C. Pepper Moore and Mark Coleman to appear on 4/27, 28, 29, 1994 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 04/20/1994)
WRIT issued to Warden, Egeler Facility for Alfredo Robinson to appear on 4/27, 28, 29 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 04/20/1994)
347 ORDER (3 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen setting for hearings pltfs' motion for enforcement of Consent Decree [333-1], pltfs' motion to reject defts' R&GC screening report format [322-1], pltfs' motion for preliminary injunction regarding the transfer of chronically medically ill and physically disabled prisoners from the Parke-Davis unit at SPSM-CC [289-2], and pltfs' motion to preclude the defts from diminishing required mental health care in the absence of a motion and hearing [312-1] are set at 9:00 a.m. on 4/27/94 and 4/29/94 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 04/20/1994)
348 EXHIBIT LIST (proposed) submitted by plaintiff (rlw) (Entered: 04/20/1994)

04/20/1994 04/20/1994 04/20/1994
04/20/1994 04/20/1994 04/20/1994 04/22/1994 04/22/1994 04/22/1994 04/22/1994 04/22/1994
04/22/1994 04/22/1994 04/22/1994

349 WITNESS LIST (proposed) submitted by plaintiff (rlw) (Entered: 04/20/1994)
350 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiffs for pldg. Nos. 348-349 (rlw) (Entered: 04/20/1994)
351 ERRATA by defendants - for purposes of the medical and mental health hearings set for 4/27, 29, defts are submitting answers to interrogatories and request for production regarding the Parke Davis Unit at the State Prison of Southern Michigan (rlw) (Entered: 04/20/1994)
352 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiffs for pldg. Nos. 312-317 (rlw) (Entered: 04/21/1994)
353 WITNESS LIST and EXHIBITS submitted by defendants for hearings on 4/27, 29, 1994 w/stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/21/1994)
354 EXPERT WITNESS REPORT by Stephen J. Hucker, M.D. (STATUS REPORT) on behalf of defendants (rlw) Modified on 04/21/1994 (Entered: 04/21/1994)
355 REPORT (STATUS REPORT) for April 1994 of the Independent Monitors on Medical and Mental Health Care by F. Warren Benton, Ph.D. and J. Franklin James, M.D. (rlw) (Entered: 04/22/1994)
356 OPPOSITION by defendants to USA's motion for amicus curiae status for all issues over which this Court has jurisdiction [337-1] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/22/1994)
357 PETITION by plaintiffs for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum to allow testimony in person and by telephone w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/22/1994)
WRIT issued to Marquette Branch Prison Warden for Mr. Skinner to be available for a telephone conference for the hearing set for 4/27/94 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 04/25/1994)
WRIT issued to Chippewa Regional Facility Warden for prisoners Thomas Brown and Mark McLouth to be available for a telephone conference for the hearing set for 4/27/94 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 04/25/1994)
WRIT issued to Brooks Regional Facility Warden for prisoners George Edgette and Terry Krieger to be available for a telephone conference at the hearing set for 4/27/94 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 04/25/1994)
WRIT issued to Gus Harrison Regional Facility Warden for prisoner Kenneth Courtney to be available for a telephone conference at the hearing set for 4/27/94 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 04/25/1994)
WRIT issued to Carson City Regional Facility Warden for prisoners Charles Hoffman and Calvin Harrison to be available for a telephone conference at the hearing set for 4/27/94 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 04/25/1994)

04/22/1994 04/22/1994 04/22/1994 04/28/1994 04/29/1994 04/29/1994 04/29/1994
05/02/1994 05/04/1994 05/04/1994

WRIT issued to Cotton Regional Facility Warden for prisoner George Garcia to be available for a telephone conference at the hearing set for 4/27/94 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 04/25/1994)
WRIT issued to Standish Maximum Facility Warden for prisoner James Jones to be available for a telephone conference at the hearings set for 4/27/94 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 04/25/1994)
WRIT issued to Brooks Regional Facility Warden for prisoner Leonard Kaufman to be available for a telephone conference at the hearing set for 4/27/94 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 04/25/1994)
358 MOTION by plaintiffs to extend time until 5/11/94 to file a response to defts' Answer to Interrogatories from the Court regarding legal access w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/29/1994)
359 RESPONSE by defendants to the April, 1994 Report of the Independent Monitors w/stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 05/02/1994)
360 SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBIT LIST submitted by defendants for hearing on 4/29/94 w/stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 05/02/1994)
PROCEEDING before Judge Richard A. Enslen granting for one year on all issues USA's motion for amicus curiae status for all issues over which this Court has jurisdiction [337-1]; re Hadix pltfs' motion to reject defts' R&GC screening report format [322-1] - parties agreed to modifications of format as recommended by the Independent Experts; re pltfs' motion for temporary restraining order regarding the transfer of chronically medically ill and physically disabled prisoners from the Parke-Davis Unit at SPSM-CC [289-1] and for preliminary injunction regarding the transfer of medically ill and physically disabled prisoners from the Parke-Davis unit at SPSM-CC [289-2]- parties agreed to have Dr. Hutchinson conduct an investigatioin of the inmates needs and file a report by 5/20/94; pltfs may assist in the study and file their own report by 5/20/94; pltfs agree to file a brief on how to assure future compliance with Consent Decree; pltfs' witnesses were Barbara Hladki, Marjorie Van Ochten, Lawrence Kaufman, Marvin Skinner, James Jones, George Edgett, Charles Hoffman, Terry Kreger, Mark McLeath, Armand Start, and for defts were Dr. Hutchinson, Amy Meyer, June Garcvk, Lynn Henschell, Susan Hagar; J. Martin, Reporter (Exhibit List attached) (rlw) Modified on 05/05/1994 (Entered: 05/05/1994)
361 ORDER (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen granting defts' motion for approval of supersedeas bond staying judgment on appeal [235-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 05/03/1994)
362 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltfs' motion to extend time until 5/11/94 to file a response to defts' Answer to Interrogatories from the Court regarding legal access [358-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 05/04/1994)
363 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen denying as moot pltfs' motion to reject defts' R&GC screening report format [322-1] and to enforce this Court's order of 4/2/94 [322-2] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 05/05/1994)

05/04/1994
05/11/1994 05/23/1994 05/23/1994 05/23/1994 05/23/1994 05/23/1994
05/27/1994 05/27/1994 06/01/1994 06/01/1994

364 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion from the bench on 4/29/94 granting in parat and denying in part USA's motion for amicus curiae status for all issues over which this Court has jurisdiction [337-1] an amicus brief by USA; amicus curiae status is for a period of one year until 4/29/95 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 05/05/1994)
365 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defts' responses to the Court's Interrogatories 334 w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 05/12/1994)
366 REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by defendants of Dr. Craig Hutchinson relative to the transfer of the prisoners from the Parke-Davis Unit in Jackson w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 05/24/1994)
367 QUARTERLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by defendants (Barbara Hladki, Manager Consent Decree Unit) on the prisoners identified in the Reception and Guidance Center as presenting symptoms of serious mental illness or injury (rlw) (Entered: 05/24/1994)
368 TRI-ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by defendants (Barbara Hladki, Manager Consent Decree Unit) for the medical and mental health issues; also enclosed w/this report is the update on the dental stipulation (rlw) (Entered: 05/24/1994)
369 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen directing the attorneys to file response on or before 6/17/94 to the request of the Independent Expert and Monitor, F. Warren Benton, PhD. to increase his hourly fee to $95 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 05/24/1994)
370 ORDER (3 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen setting for hearings motion for enforcement of medical screening provisions of the Consent Decree [316-1], motion to require provision of proper housing and infection prevention for prisoners requiring peritoneal dialysis [315-1], motion for order for further relief regarding access to health care [314-1], motion to enforce Consent Decree by providing adequate dental service [313-1] at 9:00 a.m. on 6/9/94 and 6/10/94; deft's responses to pltfs' objections and motions due 6/3/94; replies by pltfs due 6/7/94 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 05/24/1994)
371 TRANSCRIPT of hearing concerning United States amicus status in Hadix; transfer of certain handicapped prisoners; and findings of the court, orders, scheduling held 4/29/94 before Judge Richard A. Enslen; transcribed by Jarratt W. Martin (rlw) (Entered: 05/31/1994)
372 FINAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by defendants from the Michigan Department of Public Health on the outbreak of Legionnaires' Disease at the Jackson Prison Complex (rlw) (Entered: 05/31/1994)
373 STIPULATION AND ORDER (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen that Danny Walker be substituted for Michael Gray as one of the named plaintiffs representing the Hadix class; terminating party Michael Anthony Gray (cc: all (rlw) (Entered: 06/02/1994)
374 PETITION by plaintiffs for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum for Alfredo Robinson at the Egeler Facility in Jackson, MI to appear as a

06/01/1994 06/01/1994 06/01/1994 06/02/1994 06/02/1994 06/06/1994 06/06/1994 06/06/1994
06/06/1994
06/07/1994 06/07/1994 06/07/1994

witness at the hearing set for 6/9, 6/10, 1994 (rlw) (Entered: 06/02/1994)
375 PETITION by plaintiffs for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum for C. Pepper Moore and Mark coleman to appear as witnesses at the hearings set for 6/9, 6/10, 1994 (rlw) (Entered: 06/02/1994)
376 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiffs for pldg. Nos. 374-375 (rlw) (Entered: 06/02/1994)
377 MOTION by plaintiffs to extend time to file submission regarding remedies for violations of section II of the Consent Decree w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/02/1994)
378 LETTER to court from defendants regarding housekeeping matters concerning the Independent Expert (rlw) (Entered: 06/06/1994)
379 LETTER to court from plaintiffs withdrawing their motion to compel compliance with Section XI of the Consent Decree (rlw) Modified on 06/06/1994 (Entered: 06/06/1994)
WRIT issued to the Warden at Egeler Facility for prisoner Alfredo Robinson to appear as a witness at the hearings set for 6/9, 6/10, 1994 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 06/07/1994)
WRIT issued to the Warden at State Prison of Southern Michigan for prisoners C. Pepper Moore and Mark Coleman to appear as witnesses at the hearings set for 6/9, 6/10, 1994 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 06/07/1994)
380 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltfs' motion to extend time to file submission regarding remedies for violations of section II of the Consent Decree [377-1]; pltfs shall have until and including 6/17/94 to file such response (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 06/07/1994)
381 MOTION by defendants for leave to file briefs in opposition to various medical motions w/brief in support, proof of service w/PROPOSED opposition to pltfs' motion to reject defts' medication monitoring plan; opposition to pltfs' motion to reject defts' staffing plan and reject in part, defts' alternate plan for emergency training; opposition to pltfs' motion to enforce consent decree by providing adequate dental services; opposition to pltfs' motion for order for further relief regarding access to health care; opposition to pltfs' motion to require provisions of proper housing infection prevention for prisoners requiring peritoneal dialysis; opposition to pltfs' motion for enforcement of medical screening provisions of the consent decree (rlw) (Entered: 06/07/1994)
382 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting defts' motion for leave to file briefs in opposition to various medical motions [381-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 06/08/1994)
383 OPPOSITION by defendants to pltfs' motion for enforcement of medical screening provisions of the Consent Decree [316-1] w/proof of servie, Exhibits 1-2 (rlw) (Entered: 06/08/1994)
384 OPPOSITION by defendants to pltfs' motion to require provision of

06/07/1994 06/07/1994 06/07/1994 06/07/1994 06/09/1994 06/09/1994
06/17/1994 06/20/1994 06/20/1994 06/22/1994 06/23/1994

proper housing and infection prevention for prisoners requiring peritoneal dialysis [315-1] w/proof of service, Exhibit 1 (rlw) (Entered: 06/08/1994)
385 OPPOSITION by defendants to pltfs' motion for order for further relief regarding access to health care [314-1] w/proof of service, Exhibits 1-2 (rlw) (Entered: 06/08/1994)
386 OPPOSITION by defendants to pltfs' motion to enforce Consent Decree by providing adequate dental service [313-1] w/proof of service, Exhibits 1-4 (rlw) (Entered: 06/08/1994)
387 OPPOSITION by defendants to pltfs' motion to reject defts staffing plan and reject in part, defts' alternate plan for emergency training [323-1] w/proof of service, Exhibits 1-3 (rlw) (Entered: 06/08/1994)
388 OPPOSITION by defendants to pltfs' motion to reject defts' medication monitoring plan [319-1] w/proof of service, Exhibits 1-2 (rlw) (Entered: 06/08/1994)
389 WITNESS and EXHIBIT LIST submitted by plaintiffs for the hearings set for June 9 and 10, 1994 w/attached proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/09/1994)
HEARINGS before Judge Richard A. Enslen on motion for enforcement of medical screening provisions of the Consent Decree [316-1], motion to require provision of proper housing and infection prevention for prisoners requiring peritoneal dialysis [315-1], motion for order for further relief regarding access to health care [314-1], motion to enforce Consent Decree by providing adequate dental service [313-1]; witnesses called by pltf Dr. Armand Start; called by defts Dr. Richard Wilbur, Dr. Craig Hutchinson; J. Martin, Reporter (Exhibit List attached) (rlw) Modified on 06/14/1994 (Entered: 06/10/1994)
390 MOTION by plaintiffs to exceed page limitation w/brief in support w/PROPOSED Recommendations regarding relief for violation of standards of care for handicapped prisoners w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/17/1994)
391 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltfs' motion to exceed page limitation [390-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 06/21/1994)
392 RECOMMENDATIONS (RESPONSE) by plaintiffs regarding relief for violation of standards of care for handicapped prisoners w/Exhibits 1-3 (rlw) (Entered: 06/21/1994)
393 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen that the compensation of Dr. F. Warren Benton, Independent Monitor, is increased to $95.00 per hour for his activities related to the medical and mental health issues (cc: all counsel) (rlw) Modified on 06/27/1994 (Entered: 06/22/1994)
394 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen that defts may file a response to pltfs' brief concerning the treatment of and care for handicapped prisoners subject to the Consent Decree on or before 7/1/94 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 06/27/1994)

06/23/1994 06/24/1994 06/24/1994 06/28/1994 07/01/1994 07/01/1994 07/01/1994 07/12/1994
07/25/1994 07/25/1994 07/25/1994
07/25/1994 07/25/1994

395 LETTER from court to defts' attorney S. Przekop-Shaw requesting submission of names and prisoner numbers of any prisoners transferred from SPSM to Riverside since 1/1/93, either for acute care at Riverside or for CCU care at Riverside (rlw) (Entered: 06/27/1994)
396 RECOMMENDATIONS (RESPONSE) by plaintiffs regarding relief for violation of standards of care for handicapped prisoners (corrected copy) w/Exhibits 1-3 (rlw) (Entered: 06/28/1994)
397 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiffs for pldg. No. 396 (rlw) (Entered: 06/28/1994)
398 SUPPLEMENT by plaintiffs to their recommendations re relief as to Parke-Davis Unit Transfers w/corrected page 21 and the key to prisoners discussed [396-1], [392-1] (rlw) (Entered: 06/29/1994)
399 RESPONSE by defts to pltfs' Recommendations Regarding Relief for Violation of Standards of Care for Handicapped Prisoners w/exhs. 1-2; stamped prf. of svc. (tlb) (Entered: 07/01/1994)
400 MOTION by defts to strike pages 13 through 18 of pltfs' recommendations regarding relief for violation of standards of care for handicapped prisoners and subsection G, page 21 w/brief in support (tlb) (Entered: 07/01/1994)
401 RESPONSE by amicus USA to pltfs' recommendations regarding relief for violation of standards of care for handicap prisoners; w/prf. of svc. (tlb) (Entered: 07/01/1994)
402 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defts' motion to strike pages 15 through 18 of pltfs' recommendations regarding relief for violation of standards of care for handicapped prisoners and subsection G page 21 of pltfs' corrected copy of recommendations regarding relief for violations of standards of care for handicapped prisoners and requesting sanctions under Rule 21 [400-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 07/12/1994)
403 RESPONSE by defendants to Court's Interrogatory 283 w/17 page attachment, stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 07/26/1994)
404 OPINION (6 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 07/26/1994)
405 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion granting in part and denying in part pltfs' motion for order for further relief regarding access to health care [314-1]; defts directed to submit by 8/26/94 their nursing practice guidelines, applicable to the review of medical access kites, to the pltf and amicus for comment, and comments are due by 10/1/94 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 07/26/1994)
406 OPINION (6 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 07/26/1994)
407 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion granting pltfs' motion to enforce Consent Decree by providing adequate dental service [313-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 07/26/1994)

07/25/1994 07/25/1994 07/25/1994 07/25/1994
07/25/1994 07/25/1994 07/25/1994 07/25/1994
07/25/1994 07/25/1994
08/12/1994 08/15/1994 08/24/1994

408 OPINION (6 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 07/26/1994)
409 ORDER (3 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion granting pltfs' motion to reject defts staffing plan and reject in part, defts' alternate plan for emergency training [323-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 07/26/1994)
410 OPINION (4 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 07/26/1994)
411 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion granting in part and denying in part pltfs' motion for enforcement of medical screening provisions of the Consent Decree [316-1]; defts directed to file a report, preferably from Dr. Hutchinson by 10/1/94 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 07/26/1994)
412 OPINION (3 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 07/26/1994)
413 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion granting pltfs' motion to require provision of proper housing and infection prevention for prisoners requiring peritoneal dialysis [315-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 07/26/1994)
414 OPINION (10 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 07/26/1994)
415 ORDER (3 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion granting in part and denying in part pltfs' motion for enforcement of Consent Decree [333-1], and (to amend) modification of State Plan by providing adequate Tuberculosis control [333-2]; the revised Epidemic Contagions Plan submitted by defts is rejected; defts to report to the Court and the parties by 1/15/95 concerning the status of their efforts concerning the development of a tuberculosis reporting system and training programs (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 07/26/1994)
416 OPINION (3 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 07/26/1994)
417 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion granting in part and denying in part pltfs' motion to reject defts' medication monitoring plan [319-1]; that the portion of this Court's Order of 3/26/94 requiring defts to submit a modification of their Chronic Disease Plan is vacated (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 07/26/1994)
418 MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager Consent Decree Unit on the status of the dental waiting lists (rlw) (Entered: 08/15/1994)
419 REVISED STAFFING PLAN (RESPONSE) by defendants as required by the 7/25/94 Order 409 w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 08/16/1994)
420 REPLY by plaintiffs regarding defts' responses to the Court's Interrogatory No. 8, dated 7/22/94, relating to access to the Courts [403-1]

08/24/1994 08/24/1994
08/24/1994 09/01/1994 09/01/1994 09/06/1994 09/06/1994 09/09/1994 09/13/1994
09/14/1994 09/14/1994

w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 08/24/1994)
421 NOTICE OF APPEAL to Circuit Court by defendants, re: three decisions entered on 7/25/94 pldg. Nos. 408-409, 416-417, 404-405 (rlw) (Entered: 08/25/1994)
RECEIPT #201378 in the amount of $105.00 submitted by defts Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles - Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown Jr., Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pam Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik for appeal fee (rlw) (Entered: 08/25/1994)
422 NOTICE by defendants of modification of the Epidemic Contagion Plan w/attachment, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 08/25/1994)
MAILED information copies to CCA consisting of Notice of Appeal, docket sheet and opinions and orders # 404/405, 408/409 and 416/417 (cc: District Judge and all counsel) (ADR Administrator,mjs) (Entered: 09/01/1994)
423 LETTER requesting designation of record on appeal mailed to defendantre: appeal [421-1] ; designation ddl set for 9/15/94 for defendants-appellants (cc: all counsel) (ADR Administrator,mjs) (Entered: 09/01/1994)
424 MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager Consent Decree Unit of substitute list of medical and mental health positions (rlw) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
425 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen dismissing w/o prejudice pltfs' motion to preclude the defts from diminishing required mental health care in the absence of a motion and hearing [312-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
426 MOTION by defendants for leave to file instanter statement of intent regarding utilization of negative pressure rooms w/brief in support w/PROPOSED statement of intent regarding utilization of negative pressure rooms w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/09/1994)
432 DESIGNATION for Record on Appeal by Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles - Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown Jr., Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pam Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (ghl) (Entered: 09/15/1994)
427 NOTICE by plaintiff of taking deposition of Craig Hutchinson, M.D. on 9/16/94 at 1 p.m. in Lansing, MI w/Request for Production of Documents, Certificate of Service (rlw) (Entered: 09/14/1994)
428 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting defts' motion for leave to file instanter statement of intent regarding utilization of negative pressure rooms [426-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 09/14/1994)

09/14/1994 09/15/1994 09/15/1994
09/19/1994 09/26/1994 09/26/1994
09/26/1994 09/26/1994 09/28/1994
09/29/1994 09/29/1994 09/29/1994 09/29/1994 09/29/1994

429 STATEMENT (NOTICE) by defendants of intent regarding utilization of negative pressure rooms (rlw) (Entered: 09/14/1994)
430 MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Consent Decree Unit Manager on the status of the dental waiting lists for the month of August, 1994 (rlw) (Entered: 09/15/1994)
431 MOTION by plaintiffs to require compliance w/Order to supplement revised Epidemic Contagions Plan with a statement regarding use of negative pressure rooms (enforce) w/brief in support, attachment, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/15/1994)
433 TRANSMISSION FORM showing notice of appeal [421-1] filed by CCA on 9/12/94 and assigned CCA # 94-2008 (ghl) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
434 TRI-ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager Consent Decree Unit for the medical and mental health issues from May through August 1994 (rlw) (Entered: 09/27/1994)
435 ORDER rejecting pleading (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland of intervening paraties Motion for Temporary Restraining Order because a motion to intervene is required first (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 09/27/1994)
436 NOTICE by defendants of taking deposition of James Wilbur on 10/4/94 at 9 a.m.; Barbara Levine on 10/4/94 at 11 a.m. in Lansing, Mi w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/27/1994)
452 TRANSCRIPT ORDER Form from defendant appellant's atty ordering transcript from 6/9/94 (ghl) (Entered: 10/07/1994)
437 ORDER rejecting pleading (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland from Melvin Smith, Class Member because leave of the court is required and the original documents with original signatures were omitted for his Motion for Waiver of Security Costs, Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Proof of Service (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 09/29/1994)
438 PETITION by plaintiffs for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum to allow testimony in person of Leonard Kaufman on 10/7/94 (rlw) (Entered: 09/29/1994)
439 PETITION by plaintiffs for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum for Alfredo Robinson to appear as a witness on 10/7/94 (rlw) (Entered: 09/29/1994)
440 PETITION by plaintiffs for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum for C. Pepper Moore and Mark Coleman to appear as witnesses on 10/7/94 (rlw) (Entered: 09/29/1994)
441 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiffs for pldg. Nos. 438-440 (rlw) (Entered: 09/29/1994)
442 JOIONT NOTICE by plaintiffs of taking deposition duces tecum of any and all person(s) defts will call to testify on 10/20/94 in support of their

09/29/1994 09/29/1994 09/29/1994 09/29/1994 09/29/1994 10/03/1994 10/03/1994 10/03/1994
10/05/1994
10/06/1994
10/07/1994 10/07/1994

proposed plan to provide access to the courts and any author(s) of the access plan, if different, commencing at 2 p.m. on 10/12/94 and continuing on 10/17/94 in Lansing, MI (rlw) (Entered: 09/29/1994)
443 JOINT NOTICE by plaintiffs of taking deposition duces tecum of persons who prepared or contributed to the defts' proposed training curriculum on 10/12/94 at 9 a.m. in Lansing, MI (rlw) (Entered: 09/29/1994)
444 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiffs for pldg. Nos. 442-443 (rlw) (Entered: 09/29/1994)
WRIT of habeas corpus ad prosequendum issued as to Mark A. Coleman and C. Pepper Moore to appear as witnesses on 10/7/94 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 10/03/1994)
WRIT of habeas corpus ad prosequendum issued as to Leonard Kaufman to appear as a witness on 10/7/94 at 9 a.m. (rlw) Modified on 10/03/1994 (Entered: 10/03/1994)
WRIT of habeas corpus ad prosequendum issued as to Alfredo Robinson to appear as a witness on 10/7/94 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 10/03/1994)
445 MOTION by plaintiffs to extend deadline to file comments to defts' submission regarding nursing practice guidelines w/memorandum in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/03/1994)
446 PLAN (NOTICE) by defendants for follow-up and outpatient care as required by the 7/25/94 order w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/03/1994)
447 MOTION to intervene by Melvin Smith, Class Member, Law Library Clerks w/brief in support, proof of service w/PROPOSED copies of Notice of Hearing, Motion for Waiver of Security Costs, Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Proof of Service (rlw) (Entered: 10/03/1994)
448 MOTION by defendants to file instanter (leave to file) w/brief in support, PROPOSED Report describing status of problems identified by Dr. Start and other Experts at June 9, l994 hearing, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/05/1994)
449 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltfs' motion to extend deadline to file comments to defts' submission regarding nursing practice guidelines [445-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 10/06/1994)
450 OPINION (4 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 10/07/1994)
451 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion granting defts' motion to strike pages 13 to 18 of pltfs' recommendations and page 21, subsection G, of pltfs' corrected copy of recommendations regarding handicapped prisoners and a request for sanctions under Rule 11 [400-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 10/07/1994)

10/07/1994
10/11/1994 10/11/1994 10/11/1994 10/11/1994 10/11/1994 10/11/1994 10/12/1994 10/12/1994 10/14/1994 10/14/1994 10/17/1994 10/17/1994

PROCEEDING before Judge Richard A. Enslen relating to procedures concerning handicapped; witnesses called by pltf - Dr. Armond Start, Elizabeth Ferguson, Leonard Lawrence Kaufman; witnesses called by defts - Dr. Craig Hutchinson; J. Martin, Reporter (Exhibit List attached) (rlw) (Entered: 10/07/1994)
453 PETITION by plaintiffs for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum for Mark Coleman and C. Pepper Moore to appear as witnesses on 10/20/94 (rlw) (Entered: 10/12/1994)
454 PETITION by plaintiffs for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum that Alfredo Robinson appear as a witness on 10/20/94 (rlw) (Entered: 10/12/1994)
455 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiffs for pldg. Nos. 453-454 (rlw) (Entered: 10/12/1994)
456 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland directing parties to file a response to motion to intervene by Melvin Smith, Class Member, Law Library Clerks [447-1] on or before 11/1/94 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 10/12/1994)
457 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting defts' motion to file instanter (leave to file) [448-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 10/12/1994)
458 REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by defendants describing status of problems identified by Dr. Start and other experts at June 9, 1994 hearing w/stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/12/1994)
459 QUARTERLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager, Consent Decree Unit on prisoners identified in the Reception and Guidance Center as presenting symptoms of serious mental illness or injury. (rlw) (Entered: 10/12/1994)
WRIT of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum issued to the Warden at Egeler Facility for Alfredo Robinson to appear as a witness on 10/20/94 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 10/19/1994)
460 MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager, Consent Decree Unit for the status of positions which have been vacated for 120 days (rlw) (Entered: 10/17/1994)
461 MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager, Consent Decree Unit on the status of the dental waiting lists and the report on the patients waiting for more than 30 days who required urgent care for the month of September (rlw) (Entered: 10/17/1994)
462 DESIGNATION for Record on Appeal, by Plaintiffs (ghl) (Entered: 10/18/1994)
WRIT of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum issued as to Warden, State Prison of Southern Michigan for Mark A. Coleman and C. Pepper Moore to appear as witnesses on 10/20/94 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 10/19/1994)

10/18/1994 10/20/1994 10/25/1994 10/25/1994
10/25/1994 10/27/1994 10/27/1994 10/31/1994 11/02/1994 11/04/1994
11/07/1994 11/07/1994 11/08/1994

463 COMMENTS (RESPONSE) by plaintiffs on nursing practice guidelines w/attachment, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/19/1994)
PROCEEDING before Judge Richard A. Enslen - hearing on legal access issue on remand from Sixth Circuit; witnesses called by pltf - Wilbur, Levine; witnesses called by defts - Linda J. Mort; J. Martin, Reporter (Exhibit List attached) (rlw) (Entered: 10/25/1994)
464 OPINION (11 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 10/25/1994)
465 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion granting in part pltfs' motion for preliminary injunction regarding the transfer of chronically medically ill and physically disabled prisoners from the Parke-Davis unit at SPSM-CC [289-2] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 10/25/1994)
466 RESPONSE by defendants to pltfs' motion to require compliance w/Order to supplement revised Epidemic Contagions Plan with a statement regarding use of negative pressure rooms (enforce) [431-1] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/25/1994)
467 NOTICE of Completion of Record for purposes of appeal. Upon request and/or notification,the certified record will be forwarded promptly to CCA (ghl) (Entered: 10/27/1994)
468 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' counsel to motion to intervene by Melvin Smith, Class Member, Law Library Clerks [447-1] w/memorandum in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/28/1994)
469 MOTION by defts to extend time to file response to motion to intervene w/brief in support; w/stamped prf. of svc. (tlb) (Entered: 11/01/1994)
470 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting defts' motion to extend time to file response to motion to intervene [469-1] on or before 11/8/94 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 11/03/1994)
471 TRANSMISSION FORM showing record of appeal [421-1], appeal [2591], appeal [233-1], appeal [226-1], appeal [168-1], appeal [167-1], appeal [151-1], appeal [150-1], appeal [146-1], appeal [145-1] filed by CCA on 11/2/94 and assigned CCA # 93-1551;93-1555;93-1559;93-1560;93-1642; 93-1643;93-2282;93-2 349;94-1158 (ghl) (Entered: 11/07/1994)
472 SUBMISSION (SUPPLEMENT) by defendants of additional proof and final argument w/Exhibits 1-12 (rlw) (Entered: 11/09/1994)
473 OPPOSITION by defendants to motion to intervene by Melvin Smith, Class Member, Law Library Clerks [447-1] and request for temporary restraining order w/attachment, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 11/09/1994)
474 REPLY by movant Melvin Smith to pltfs' response to motion to intervene by Melvin Smith, Class Member, Law Library Clerks [447-1] w/proof of service, Exhibits 1-5 (rlw) (Entered: 11/09/1994)

11/16/1994 11/18/1994 11/21/1994 11/22/1994 11/28/1994
11/28/1994 11/29/1994
12/05/1994 12/05/1994 12/12/1994 12/12/1994 12/17/1994 12/22/1994
12/22/1994

475 MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager Consent Decree Unit of positions which have been vacant for 120 days or more (rlw) (Entered: 11/16/1994)
476 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland denying motion to intervene by Melvin Smith, Class Member, Law Library Clerks [447-1] Melvin Smith (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 11/18/1994)
477 TRANSCRIPT of testimony of Dr. Start, Dr. Wilbur, Dr. Hutchinson and also includes certain oral argument held 6/9/94 before Judge Richard A. Enslen; transcribed by Jarratt W. Martin (rlw) (Entered: 11/22/1994)
478 MOTION by plaintiffs to exceed page limitation w/PROPOSED Response to defts' Submission of Additional Proof and Final Argument w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 11/23/1994)
479 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltf's motion to exceed page limitation [478-1] to file response to defts' submission of additional proof and final argument (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
480 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defts' submission of additional proof and final argument w/attachment A and 13-15 (rlw) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
481 AMENDED MOTION by plaintiffs to exceed page limitation to file response w/PROPOSED amended response to defts' submission of additional proof and final argument w/amended certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 11/30/1994)
482 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltfs' amended motion to exceed page limitation to file response [481-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 12/06/1994)
483 AMENDED RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defts' submission of additional proof and final argument (rlw) (Entered: 12/06/1994)
484 MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager Consent Decree Unit on the status of positions which have been vacated for 120 days (rlw) (Entered: 12/13/1994)
485 MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager Consent Decree Unit on the status of the dental waiting lists (rlw) (Entered: 12/13/1994)
487 REPORT (NOTICE) by defendants regarding status of recommendations of inmates transferred from the Parke-Davis Unit from Craig Hutchinson, M.D. w/stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/28/1994)
486 QUARTERLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager Consent Decree Unit for the Reception and Guidance Center as presenting symptoms of serious mental illness or injury (rlw) (Entered: 12/28/1994)
490 OPINION (22 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 12/28/1994)

12/22/1994
12/27/1994 12/27/1994 01/05/1995 01/09/1995 01/10/1995 01/20/1995 01/24/1995 01/26/1995 01/27/1995 02/17/1995 02/17/1995 02/21/1995

491 ORDER (8 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion granting pltfs' motion for rejection of the defts' remedial plan for providing access to the Courts and request a compliance review process for the certain access to Courts provisions [270-1] and granting the Knop pltfs' motion to reject defts' remedial plan for access to courts [1165 in 4:92-cv-110] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 12/28/1994)
488 PLAN (NOTICE) by defendants regarding care and accommodation of medically handicapped prisoners w/stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/28/1994)
489 ANNUAL CHRONIC DISEASE REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by defendants pursuant to the 3/26/94 order w/stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/28/1994)
492 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen denying as moot pltfs' motion to require compliance w/Order to supplement revised Epidemic Contagions Plan with a statement regarding use of negative pressure rooms (enforce) [431-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 01/06/1995)
493 REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by defendants regarding status of the development of the Tuberculosis Reporting System and the educational training programs w/stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/10/1995)
494 MOTION by plaintiffs to reject defts' proposed Annual Chronic Disease Report w/brief in support w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/11/1995)
495 RESPONSE by defendants to pltfs' motion to reject defts' proposed Annual Chronic Disease Report [494-1] w/brief in support, stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/23/1995)
496 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to the Court's order 492 of 12/22/94, consent to the appointment of Dr. F. Warren Benton to monitor the legal access remedial plan (rlw) Modified on 01/24/1995 (Entered: 01/24/1995)
INFORMATION copy from CCA affirming District Court decision re: CCA # 94-1158; appeal [421-1] (ghl) (Entered: 01/26/1995)
497 TRI-ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, manager Consent Decree Unit for the medical and mental health issues for the period ending in 12/94; also included is the update report on the Dental Stipulation (rlw) (Entered: 01/30/1995)
498 TRANSCRIPT of testimony on subject of handicapped prisoners from Dr. Start, Dr. Hutchinson, Dr. Ferguson, Inmate Kaufman held 10/7/94 before Judge Richard A. Enslen; transcribed by Jarratt W. Martin (rlw) (Entered: 02/21/1995)
499 MANDATE from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals re: CCA #: 94-1158; affirming the decision of the District Court appeal [259-1] re: order/judgment # 255 & 257 (ghl) (Entered: 02/21/1995)
500 PETITION by plaintiffs for for attorneys fees and costs related to attorneys fees proceedings w/brief in support, declaration of Larry W.

02/22/1995 02/23/1995 03/14/1995 03/14/1995 03/20/1995 03/24/1995 03/30/1995
03/31/1995 04/12/1995 04/12/1995 04/17/1995 04/17/1995

Bennett, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/22/1995)
501 PETITION by plaintiffs for attorney fees and costs related to access to the courts by attorneys Michael Barnhart and Patricia Streeter w/brief in support, attachment, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/22/1995)
502 SUBMISSION (SUPPLEMENT) by defendants of Section K Plan regarding health-related disabilities identification, treatment and accommodation pursuant to order [465-1] w/stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/27/1995)
503 STATUS REPORT regarding the status of the dental waiting lists and other information - patients waiting for more than 30 days who required urgent care for the month of Feb., 1995 by Barbara Hladki, Manager of the Consent Decree Unit. (bd) (Entered: 03/14/1995)
504 STATUS REPORT regarding monthly report on the status of positions which have been vacant for 120 days or more as of February, 1995 re: current status of hiring for these vacant positions by Barbara Hladki, Manager of the Consent Decree Unit. (bd) (Entered: 03/14/1995)
505 MOTION by defendants to extend time 90 days to comply with Court Order of 12/22/94 w/brief in support, Exhibit 1, stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/23/1995)
506 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defts' motion to extend time 90 days to comply with Court Order of 12/22/94 [505-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/27/1995)
507 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland rejecting pleading submitted by George Carroll - Motion for Waiver of Security Costs and Petition for Declaratory Judgment because this filer is not a party to this action, therefore, leave of the court is required (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/30/1995)
508 QUARTERLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager Consent Decree Unit - report on prisoners identified in the Reception and Guidance Center as presenting symptoms of serious mental illness (rlw) (Entered: 03/31/1995)
509 MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) on staff vacancies w/attachment (rlw) (Entered: 04/13/1995)
510 MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) on the status of the dental waiting lists w/attachments (rlw) (Entered: 04/13/1995)
511 MOTION by Petitioner George Carroll for leave to file petition for declaratory judgment w/brief in support, affidavit of Simon Brown-El, George Carroll, PROPOSED Petition for Declaratory Judgment (rlw) (Entered: 04/18/1995)
512 MOTION to waive security costs w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/18/1995)

04/26/1995 04/26/1995
04/26/1995 04/26/1995
04/27/1995 04/28/1995 05/03/1995 05/03/1995 05/23/1995
05/31/1995 06/02/1995

513 OPINION (4 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 04/27/1995)
514 ORDER (3 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion granting defts' motion to extend time 90 days to comply with Court Order of 12/22/94 [505-1]; that the 90 day deadline for trial implementation of the revised plan at the Michigan Reformatory specified in the 12/22/94 order, Para. 11, is extended to 180 days from 12/22/94; that is 6/19/95. Any other deadlines dependent on the deadline specified in Para. 11 are similarly extended (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 04/27/1995)
515 OPINION (4 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 04/27/1995)
516 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion granting pltfs' petition [501-1] and petition [500-1]; defts shall pay reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by pltfs relative to work performed on the legal access issue since 6/30/93 by attys M. Barnhart and P. Streeter; that defts pay to pltfs the statutory post-judgment interest due on the 1/7/94 award of attorneys' fees and costs which remained unpaid; that defts pay $3,465.91 to pltfs relative to work performed by atty L. Bennett on the issue of attorneys' fees and costs incurred on the legal access issue (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 04/27/1995)
517 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to Petition by George Carroll for leave to file petition for declaratory judgment [511-1] w/certificate of service, attachment (rlw) (Entered: 04/27/1995)
518 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defts' motion to extend time 90 days to comply with Court Order of 12/22/94 [505-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 05/01/1995)
519 OPINION (5 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 05/05/1995)
520 ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion denying George Carroll's motion for leave to file petition for declaratory judgment [511-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 05/05/1995)
521 OBJECTIONS by plaintiffs to a plan identifying the recommendations of Dr. Hutchinson and Ms. Ferguson regarding care and accomodation of medically handicapped prisoners [488-1] and the plan regarding healthrelated disabilities identifification, treatment and accommodation [502-1] w/attachments 1-2, certificate of service (rlw) Modified on 05/24/1995 (Entered: 05/24/1995)
522 REVISED INTERIM PLAN (NOTICE) by defendants for Legal Assistance as mandated by the Order on 12/22/94 491 w/stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/02/1995)
523 COMPLIALNCE REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) on the Medical and Mental Health and on the Access to Courts section of the Hadix Consent Decree (rlw) (Entered: 06/05/1995)

06/07/1995 06/09/1995 06/14/1995 06/15/1995 06/15/1995 06/15/1995 06/22/1995 07/06/1995 07/06/1995
07/07/1995
07/10/1995 07/10/1995 07/11/1995 07/11/1995

524 CORRECTED REVISED INTERIM PLAN FOR LEGAL ASSISTANCE (NOTICE) by defendants (original filing 5/30/95) w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/09/1995)
525 CORRECTED REVISED LEGAL ACCESS PLAN (NOTICE) by defendants (rlw) (Entered: 06/09/1995)
526 MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) on the status of the dental waiting lists for the month of May, 1995 (rlw) (Entered: 06/15/1995)
527 MOTION by defendants to enjoin public disclosure and dissemination of legal access competency test w/brief in support, attachment (rlw) (Entered: 06/15/1995)
528 RESPONSE by defendants to pltf's objections [521-1] to defts' plans submitted pursuant to the Court's Order of 10/25/94 w/brief in support, stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/15/1995)
529 MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) on Staff Vacancies as of 5/95 (rlw) (Entered: 06/15/1995)
530 REPLY by plaintiffs in support of their objections [521-1] to defts' plans submitted pursuant to the Court's Order of 10/25/94 w/Exhibits 1-2, stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/22/1995)
531 MOTION by pltfs for access to the Standish Max Fac w/brief in support; w/exhs. A-F; w/prf. of svc. (tlb) (Entered: 07/06/1995)
532 QUARTERLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) on Prisoners Identified in the Reception and Guidance Center (R&GC) as Presenting Symptioms of Serious Mental Illness or Injury, as required by the Court's 4/12/93 Order by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) (bd) (Entered: 07/07/1995)
533 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen that the competency test submitted by defts shall be treated as confidential ATTACHED is the SEALED competency test (2 pgs) (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 07/12/1995)
534 MOTION by plaintiffs for expedited consideration of pltfs' motion for access to the Standish Maximum Facility w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 07/12/1995)
535 OPPOSITION by defendants to pltfs' motion for access to the Standish Max Fac [531-1] w/stamped proof of service, attachments (rlw) (Entered: 07/12/1995)
536 OPINION (4 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 07/12/1995)
537 ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion granting pltfs' motion for access to the Standish Max Fac [5311]; defts shall provide complete access to the Standish Maximum Facility

07/11/1995 07/11/1995
07/12/1995
07/12/1995 07/13/1995 07/13/1995 07/13/1995 07/17/1995 07/19/1995 07/26/1995 07/27/1995 08/11/1995 08/15/1995

for pltfs' expert, Dr. Cassandra Newkirk; that on or before 9/11/95 the parties shall brief the issue of the tour by Dr. Newkirk of the Standish Maximum Facility w/the briefs not exceeding 10 pages (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 07/12/1995)
538 OPINION (4 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 07/12/1995)
539 ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion that the parties are to meet w/the Independent Experts w/respect to the issues relating to the Chronic Disease Report, epidemic contagions plans and procedures relating to and treatment of medicallyhandicapped prisoners; that the Independent Expert shall file a report concerning the status of the disputes relating to the Chronic Disease Report, epidemic contagions and treatment of medically-handicapped prisoners and findings, conclusions and recommendations concerning any remaining issues (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 07/12/1995)
540 NOTICE OF APPEAL to Circuit Court by defendants from the opinion 536 and order [537-1] which granted pltfs' motion for access to a nonconsent decree facility, Standish Correctional Facility entered on 7/11/95 w/stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 07/13/1995)
RECEIPT #202024 in the amount of $110.00 ($5.00 will be returned) submitted by defts for appeal fee (rlw) (Entered: 07/13/1995)
MAILED information copies to CCA consisting of Notice of Appeal 540 , docket sheet and opinion 536 , order 537 (cc: District Judge and all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 07/13/1995)
541 MONTHLY REPORT on staff vacancies (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) (rlw) (Entered: 07/18/1995)
542 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiffs for Interrogatories regarding HealthRelated Disabilities and Request for Production of Documents regarding Health-Related Disabilities (rlw) (Entered: 07/18/1995)
543 ORDER from CCA; re: CCA # 93-1555, 95-1763 that the Courts 7/11/95 order is temporarily stayed until 8/4/95 (rlw) (Entered: 07/20/1995)
544 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for the month of June (rlw) (Entered: 07/20/1995)
545 TRANSMISSION FORM showing notice of appeal [540-1] filed by CCA on 7/13/95 and assigned CCA #95-1763 (rlw) (Entered: 07/26/1995)
546 LETTER from M. Polkowski, Financial Administrator to State of Michigan re refund - overpayment of appeal fee in the amount of $5.00 (rlw) (Entered: 08/01/1995)
547 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) (rlw) (Entered: 08/14/1995)
548 MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) on Staff Vacancies by

08/23/1995 09/05/1995 09/05/1995 09/05/1995 09/11/1995 09/11/1995 09/11/1995 09/12/1995 09/13/1995 09/13/1995 09/13/1995 09/19/1995

Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) w/attachment (rlw) (Entered: 08/17/1995)
549 MOTION by plaintiffs to compel defts' responses to pltfs' interrogatories and requests for production of documents regarding health-related disabilities w/brief in support i, Exhibits 1-4, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 08/23/1995)
550 MOTION by defendants for protective order staying discovery on issues regarding health-related disabilities w/brief in support, stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/07/1995)
551 RESPONSE by defendants to pltfs' motion to compel defts' responses to pltfs' interrogatories and requests for production of documents regarding health-related disabilities [549-1] w/brief in support, stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/07/1995)
552 ORDER from CCA; re: CCA # 93-1555, 95-1763 that the motion for a stay pending appeal is denied w/o prejudice to the defts' right to reapply for a stay following briefing before the district court (rlw) (Entered: 09/07/1995)
553 MOTION by defendants to exceed page limitation to file brief w/brief in support, PROPOSED brief concerning whether the granting of access to the Standish Correctional Facility is beyond the authroity of this court, stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/11/1995)
554 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in support of pltfs' right to access to the Standish Maximum Security Facility per order [537-1] opinion [536-1] w/Exhibits 1-8, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/11/1995)
555 NOTICE of hearing: before Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland on pltfs' motion to compel defts' responses to pltfs' interrogatories and requests for production of documents regarding health-related disabilities [549-1] is set for 2:30 p.m. on 10/4/95 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 09/11/1995)
556 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defts' Tri-Annual compliance Report [523-1] and request for information w/attachment, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/12/1995)
557 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting defts' motion to exceed page limitation to file brief [553-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 09/13/1995)
558 BRIEF by defendants concerning whether the granting of access to the Standish Correctional Facility is beyond the authority of this Court pursuant to order [537-1], opinion order [536-1] w/Exhibit A, stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/13/1995)
559 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defts' motion for protective order staying discovery on issues regarding health-related disabilities [550-1] w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/13/1995)
560 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for August, 1995 (rlw) (Entered: 09/19/1995)

09/19/1995 09/25/1995 09/25/1995 09/26/1995 10/03/1995
10/04/1995
10/06/1995 10/06/1995 10/12/1995 10/12/1995 10/12/1995
10/13/1995

561 MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) on Staff Vacancies by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) (rlw) (Entered: 09/19/1995)
562 ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen vacating in part [2201] opinion and [221-1] order (cc: all counsel) (tlb) (Entered: 09/26/1995)
563 ORDER from CCA; re: CCA #93-1551, 55, 59, 60, 1642, 43 affirming orders in part, vacate in part, and remainding case (tlb) (Entered: 09/28/1995)
564 LETTER to court from Melvin Smith requesting a copy of the Court's Order re: 09/29/95 Motion to Intervene; sent Mr. Smith a copy of Pldg. #476, 11/18/94 Order Denying Petitioner Smith's Motion to Intervene. (bd) (Entered: 09/28/1995)
565 ORDER (3 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen that the Dept of Correction file a brief no later than 10/16/95 in support of its request that the Clerk of the Court electronically track inmate lawsuits that are prepared with assistance from the Legal Access Pilot Project filed over the next six months; that pltfs may file a responsive brief no later than 10/25/95 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 10/10/1995)
PROCEEDING before Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland; denying motion for protective order staying discovery on issues regarding healthrelated disabilities [550-1], granting pltfs' motion to compel defts' responses to pltfs' interrogatories and requests for production of documents regarding health-related disabilities [549-1]; opinion and order to follow; C. Rather, Recorder/Tape #779 (rlw) (Entered: 10/10/1995)
566 QUARTERLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) on prisoners identified in the Reception and Guidance Center as presenting symptoms of serious mental illness (rlw) (Entered: 10/10/1995)
567 COMPLIANCE REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manger (Consent Decree Unit) on the Medical and Mental Health issues and on the Access to Courts (rlw) (Entered: 10/10/1995)
568 NOTICE by defendants of modification of the Epidemic Contagion Plan w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/13/1995)
569 OPINION (3 pgs) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 10/13/1995)
570 ORDER (2 pgs) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland in accordance w/opinion granting pltfs' motion to compel defts' responses to pltfs' interrogatories and requests for production of documents regarding health-related disabilities [549-1] denying defts' motion for protective order staying discovery on issues regarding health-related disabilities [550-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 10/13/1995)
571 JUDGMENT (ORDER) from CCA; re: CCA # 93-2282; 93-2349 remanding the matter back to District Court [Appeal [233-1] [226-1] and that the award of attorney fees is vacated (rlw) (Entered: 10/17/1995)

10/13/1995 10/13/1995 10/13/1995 10/16/1995 10/16/1995 10/16/1995
10/16/1995 10/20/1995 10/23/1995 10/23/1995
10/24/1995 10/26/1995 10/26/1995

572 ORDER from CCA (published edition); re: CCA # 93-2282; 93-2349 that vacated the award of attorney fees and remanded the case to the district court for entry of an award not inconsistent with this opinion (rlw) (Entered: 10/17/1995)
573 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for the month of September, 1995 (rlw) (Entered: 10/17/1995)
574 MONTHLY REPORT ON STAFF VACANCIES (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for the month of September, 1995 (rlw) (Entered: 10/17/1995)
575 MEMORANDUM by defendants pursuant to the order [565-1] addressing electronic tracking w/attachments, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/17/1995)
576 ORDER from CCA; re: CCA # 93-1551/55/59/60/1642/43 affirming the orders in part, and remanded to the district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion (rlw) (Entered: 10/24/1995)
577 MANDATE from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals re: CCA #: 931551/55/59/60/1642/43; affirming the orders in part, vacating them in part and remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion appeal [168-1], appeal [167-1], appeal [1511], appeal [150-1], appeal [146-1], appeal [145-1] re: order/judgment # 576 as to defendants (rlw) (Entered: 10/24/1995)
578 OBJECTIONS by defendants to Magistrate Rowland's order [570-1], opinion [569-1] dated 10/12/95 w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/24/1995)
579 MOTION by defendants to extend time to file answers to interrogatories and for production of documents regarding health-related disabilities w/brief in support, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/24/1995)
580 AMENDED OBJECTIONS by defendants to Magistrate Rowland's order [570-1], opinion order [569-1] dated 10/12/95 w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/24/1995)
581 ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen regarding whether the granting of access to pltfs to the Standish Correctional Facility is beyond the authority of this Court; each party shall file a supplemental brief on or before 11/20/95; each party shall file a supplemental response on or before 12/4/95 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 10/24/1995)
582 RESPONSE by plaintiff to defts' amended objections to the magistrate Judge's order dated 10/12/95 [569-1] w/attachments 1-2, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/26/1995)
583 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defts' motion to extend time to file answers to interrogatories and for production of documents regarding health-related disabilities [579-1] w/brief in support (rlw) (Entered: 10/26/1995)
584 MOTION by plaintiffs for sanctions against defts for their failure to

10/26/1995 11/06/1995 11/06/1995 11/08/1995 11/08/1995 11/08/1995
11/09/1995 11/09/1995 11/14/1995 11/15/1995 11/17/1995 11/20/1995 11/20/1995

comply with the Magistrate Judge's order dated 10/12/95 w/brief in support, Attachment 1 (rlw) (Entered: 10/26/1995)
585 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiffs for pldg. Nos. 583-584 (rlw) (Entered: 10/26/1995)
586 STATUS REPORT by defendants of legal writer's pilot program, as ordered on 12/22/94 w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 11/07/1995)
587 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants for response to pltfs' request for answers to interrogatories and request for production of documents regarding health-related disabilities (rlw) (Entered: 11/07/1995)
588 STATUS REPORT by F. Warren Benton, Ph.D., Independent Monitor concerning the Chronic Disease Report (seal) (Entered: 11/09/1995)
589 OPINION (6 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (seal) (Entered: 11/09/1995)
590 ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion that defts' objections to Magistrate Judge's Order [578-1] and amended objections [580-1] are overruled; that the Magistrate Judge's order and opinion 569 570 are affirmed; denying defts' motion to extend time to file answers to interrogatories and for production of documents regarding health-related disabilities [579-1] (cc: all counsel) (seal) (Entered: 11/09/1995)
591 RESPONSE by defts to pltfs' motion for sanctions against defts for their failure to comply with the Magistrate Judge's order dated 10/12/95 [5841] (tlb) (Entered: 11/17/1995)
592 SECOND AMENDED OBJECTIONS by dts to Magistrate's order [5701] dated 10/12/95; w/stamped prf. of svc. (tlb) (Entered: 11/17/1995)
593 REPLY by pltfs to defts' response to pltfs' motion for sanctions against defts for their failure to comply with the Magistrate Judge's order dated 10/12/95 [584-1]; w/exh. 1 and prf. of svc. (tlb) (Entered: 11/17/1995)
594 STATUS REPORT for the month of October by Barbara Hladki, Mgr for Consent Decree Unit, re dental waiting lists as required by the July, 1994 Court's order (tlb) (Entered: 11/17/1995)
595 MONTHLY REPORT on staff Vacancies (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) (rlw) (Entered: 11/20/1995)
596 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs (second supplemental) regarding access to the Standish Maximum Security Facility as ordered [581-1] w/certificate of service, Exhibit A (rlw) (Entered: 11/21/1995)
597 MEMORANDUM by defendants (supplemental) regarding pltfs' counsel and experts access to Standish Maximum Facility order [581-1] w/certificate of service, affidavit of Dan Bolden w/attachments (rlw) (Entered: 11/21/1995)

11/20/1995 11/20/1995
12/01/1995 12/04/1995 12/06/1995 12/08/1995 12/13/1995 12/13/1995
12/18/1995 12/18/1995 12/21/1995 12/22/1995 12/28/1995
12/28/1995 01/03/1996

598 OPINION (2 pgs) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 11/21/1995)
599 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland in accordance w/opinion denying pltfs' motion for sanctions against defts for their failure to comply with the Magistrate Judge's order dated 10/12/95 [5841] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 11/21/1995)
600 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defts' compliance report on the health and access to the courts provisions of the Consent Decree [567-1] w/attachment, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/04/1995)
601 REPLY by defendants regarding pltfs' counsel and experts access to Standish Maximum Facility [581-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/04/1995)
602 SUPPLEMENT by plaintiffs to response regarding access to the Standish Maximum Security Facility [596-1] w/Exhibit A, Certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/06/1995)
603 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by defendants adding attorney Leo H. Friedman w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/11/1995)
604 OPINION (4 pages) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (bd) (Entered: 12/13/1995)
605 ORDER (2 pages) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/Opinion (#604) In-court hearing re: issue of compliance w/medical provisions set forth in Section II.A of the consent decree to be held on 07/29/96 and 07/30/96 (cc: all counsel) (bd) (Entered: 12/13/1995)
606 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for November, 1995 (rlw) (Entered: 12/20/1995)
607 MONTHLY REPORT on Staff Vacancies which have been vacant for 120 days or more as of 11/95 by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) (rlw) (Entered: 12/20/1995)
608 MOTION by defendants for reconsideration and to alter the 12/13/95 opinion and order w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/22/1995)
609 QUARTERLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for the Reception and Guidance Center (rlw) (Entered: 12/22/1995)
610 COMPLIANCE REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) on the Medical and Mental Health issues in Hadix v Johnson (also attached is the compliance report on the Access to Courts section) (rlw) (Entered: 01/02/1996)
611 CDI REPORT (STATUS REPORT) (Chronic disease) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) (rlw) (Entered: 01/02/1996)
612 LETTER to court from F. Warren Benton, Ph.D., Independent Monitor

01/08/1996 01/10/1996 01/12/1996 01/12/1996 01/16/1996 01/16/1996 01/16/1996 01/17/1996 01/18/1996 01/19/1996 01/19/1996
01/26/1996

concerning the Chronic Disease Report (rlw) (Entered: 01/03/1996)
613 MOTION by defendants to permit Montcalm Community College to replace Jackson community College as the provider of paralegal training on an interim basis w/brief in support, exhibits 1-3, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/09/1996)
614 MOTION by plaintiffs to extend time until 1/12/96 to respond to defts' Motion to Reconsider the 12/13/95 opinion and order w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/10/1996)
615 MOTION by plaintiffs to extend time for one week (until 1/19/96) to respond to defts' motion to reconsider the 12/13/95 opinion and order w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/12/1996)
616 MOTION by plaintiffs to extend time until 2/5/96 to respond to defts' motion to permit Montcalm Community College to Replace Jackson Community College as the Provider of Paralegal Training on an Interim Basis w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/12/1996)
617 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltfs' motion to extend time until 1/12/96 to respond to defts' Motion to Reconsider the 12/13/95 opinion and order [614-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 01/16/1996)
618 MONTHLY REPORT ON STAFF VACANCIES (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (consent Decreet Unit) for medical and mental health positions (rlw) (Entered: 01/16/1996)
619 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for the month of December, 1995 (rlw) (Entered: 01/16/1996)
620 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltfs' motion to extend time for one week (until 1/19/96) to respond to defts' motion to reconsider the 12/13/95 opinion and order [615-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 01/18/1996)
621 MOTION by amicus USA to extend time until 1/31/96 to respond to defts' motion to reconsider and alter the 12/13/95 opinion and order w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/19/1996)
622 MOTION by plaintiffs to extend time until 1/31/96 to respond to defts' motion to reconsider the 12/13/95 opinion and order of 12/20/95 w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/19/1996)
623 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting Amicus USA's motion to extend time until 1/31/96 to respond to defts' motion to reconsider and alter the 12/13/95 opinion and order [621-1] [608-1] response is due on or before 1/31/96 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 01/22/1996)
624 MOTION by defendants to supplement record on appeal 421 w/brief in support, additional pledings for filing with the Western District Court, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/30/1996)

01/29/1996 01/30/1996
01/31/1996 01/31/1996 01/31/1996 01/31/1996 02/01/1996 02/02/1996 02/02/1996 02/05/1996 02/05/1996

625 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltfs' motion to extend time until 1/31/96 to respond to defts' motion to reconsider the 12/13/95 opinion and order of 12/20/95 [622-1]; pltfs have until and including 1/31/96 to file response (cc: all counsel) (rlw) Modified on 01/30/1996 (Entered: 01/30/1996)
626 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltfs' motion to extend time until 2/5/96 to respond to defts' motion to permit Montcalm Community College to Replace Jackson Community College as the Provider of Paralegal Training on an Interim Basis [616-1] pltfs' response to defts' motion to permit Montcalm Community College to replace Jackson community College as the provider of paralegal training on an interim basis [613-1] shall be filed by and including 2/5/96 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 01/31/1996)
627 AMENDED ORDER (3 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen that this Court's order 605 and opinion 604 of 12/13/95 is amended as listed in the order; that the issue of compliance w/the medical provisions, set forth in Section II.A of the consent decree will be held on 9/5/96, 9/6/96 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 02/01/1996)
628 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defts' motion for reconsideration and to alter the 12/13/95 opinion and order [608-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/01/1996)
629 MOTION by amicus USA for continuation of amicus status w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/01/1996)
630 RESPONSE by amicus USA to defts' motion for reconsideration and to alter the 12/13/95 opinion and order [608-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/01/1996)
631 MOTION by plaintiffs to supplement the record by docketing the April 1994 Report of the Independent Experts as it relates to defts' appeal of the order and opinion of 7/25/95 and for expedited consideration w/brief in support, PROPOSED report, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/01/1996)
632 PLAN (NOTICE) by defendants regarding care and accomodation of medically handicapped prisoners dated 1/96 (Plan is attached) w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/05/1996)
633 PLAN (NOTICE) by defendants on health-related disabilities identification, treatment and accomodation revised 1/96 w/attached Plan, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/05/1996)
634 OPPOSITION by defendants to pltfs' motion to supplement the record by docketing the April 1994 Report of the Independent Experts as it relates to defts' appeal of the order and opinion of 7/25/95 [631-1] and for expedited consideration [631-2] w/certificate of mailing (rlw) (Entered: 02/06/1996)
635 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defts' motion to permit Montcalm Community College to replace Jackson community College as the provider of paralegal training on an interim basis [613-1] w/Exhibit 1,

02/05/1996 02/07/1996 02/07/1996 02/07/1996
02/08/1996 02/09/1996 02/12/1996
02/12/1996
02/12/1996 02/14/1996 02/14/1996 02/14/1996 02/16/1996

certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/06/1996)
636 EVALUATION (NOTICE) by defendants of the Revised Interim Plan for Legal Assistance w/attached Plan, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/06/1996)
637 OPPOSITION by defendants to USA's motion for continuation of amicus status [629-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/08/1996)
638 REPLY by defendants to the responses by pltfs and USA to defts' motion for reconsideration and to alter the 12/13/95 opinion and order [608-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/08/1996)
639 REPLY by plaintiffs to defts' response to pltfs' motion to supplement the record by docketing the April 1994 Report of the Independent Experts as it relates to defts' appeal of the order and opinion of 7/25/95 [631-1] w/certificate of servie (rlw) (Entered: 02/08/1996)
640 MOTION by defendants to extend time by 30 days to file a response to pltfs' petition for fees and costs w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/08/1996)
641 OPPOSITION by plaintiffs (all) to motion to extend time by 30 days to file a response to pltfs' petition for fees and costs [640-1]; w/Cert. of Service. (bd) (Entered: 02/09/1996)
642 ORDER (3 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting pltfs' motion to supplement the record by docketing the April 1994 Report of the Independent Experts as it relates to defts' appeal of the order and opinion of 7/25/95 [631-1], granting pltfs' motion expedited consideration [631-2] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 02/12/1996)
643 APRIL 1994 REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by the Independent Experts F. Warren Benton, Ph.D. and J. Franklin James M.D. on Mental Health Care Services (originally filed in case No. 1:84-cv63) (rlw) (Entered: 02/12/1996)
644 REVISED EPIDEMIC CONTAGIONS PLAN (NOTICE) by defendants w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/13/1996)
645 FEBRUARY 1996 PRELIMINARY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by the Independent Monitors F. Warren Benton, Ph.D. and J. Franklin James, M.D. on Medical Care (rlw) (Entered: 02/15/1996)
646 MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) on Staff Vacancies of medical and mental health positions (rlw) (Entered: 02/15/1996)
647 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) (rlw) (Entered: 02/15/1996)
648 ORDER (2 pgs) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland denying defts' motion to extend time by 30 days to file a response to pltfs' petition for fees and costs [640-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 02/16/1996)

02/20/1996 02/22/1996 02/29/1996 02/29/1996 02/29/1996 03/04/1996 03/12/1996 03/12/1996 03/13/1996 03/13/1996 03/13/1996
03/15/1996 03/15/1996 03/15/1996

649 MENTAL HEALTH PLAN (NOTICE) by defendants dated 2/16/96 w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/21/1996)
650 REPLY by defendants to pltfs' response to defts' motion to permit Montcalm Community College to replace Jackson community College as the provider of paralegal training on an interim basis [613-1] w/stamped proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/22/1996)
651 ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting defts' motion to supplement record on appeal 421 [624-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/01/1996)
652 ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen dismissing as moot defts' motion to enjoin public disclosure and dissemination of legal access competency test [527-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/01/1996)
653 ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen dismissing as moot George Carroll's motion to waive security costs [512-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/01/1996)
654 ADDENDUM (SUPPLEMENT) by defendants to Evaluation of the Revised Interim Plan for Legal Assistance [636-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/06/1996)
655 NOTICE OF APPEAL to Circuit Court by defendants from order [642-1] entered on 2/12/96 w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/12/1996)
656 RECEIPT #202508 in the amount of $105.00 submitted by defts for appeal fee (rlw) (Entered: 03/12/1996)
657 MOTION by plaintiffs to extend time until 3/19/96 to file motion for attorney fees and costs w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/14/1996)
658 ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen dismissing as moot defts' motion to reject defts' proposed Annual Chronic Disease Report [494-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/14/1996)
659 ORDER (3 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen that the independent experts file a brief commenting on the issues and concerns raised by this Court's imminent reformulation of its order of 9/9/95 no later than 30 days from this date; parties shall file a brief addressing the issues raised in the briefs of the independent experts and raising any other concerns each might have no later than 60 days from date of this order (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/14/1996)
660 MOTION by pltfs to extend time until 3/18/96 to file response to defts' Revised Interim Plan for Legal Assistance w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/15/1996)
661 QUARTERLY REPORT for the Reception and Guidance Center (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) (rlw) (Entered: 03/15/1996)
662 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) for February, 1996 by Barbara

03/15/1996 03/18/1996 03/18/1996 03/18/1996 03/19/1996 03/19/1996 03/20/1996 03/21/1996 03/22/1996 03/22/1996 03/22/1996 03/22/1996

Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) (rlw) (Entered: 03/15/1996)
663 MONTHLY REPORT on Staff Vacancies (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) as of February, 1996 (rlw) (Entered: 03/15/1996)
664 MOTION by plaintiffs to exceed page limitation to file Joint Response of the Hadix and Knop pltfs in Opposition to defts' Evaluation of Revised Interim Plan for Legal Assistance w/brief in support, certificate of service, PROPOSED response (rlw) (Entered: 03/18/1996)
MAILED information copies to CCA consisting of Notice of Appeal 655 , docket sheet and order 642 (cc: District Judge and all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/18/1996)
665 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltfs' motion to extend time until 3/19/96 to file motion for attorney fees and costs [657-1]; pltfs shall file their motion for attorney fees and costs on or before 3/19/96 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/18/1996)
666 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltfs' motion to extend time until 3/18/96 to file response to defts' Revised Interim Plan for Legal Assistance [660-1]; pltfs shall file their response on or before 3/18/96 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/20/1996)
667 MOTION by defts (for order) to enjoin public disclosure and dissemination of documents related to draft proposals on managed health services to prisoners w/brief in support, stamped proof of service (rlw) Modified on 03/25/1996 (Entered: 03/20/1996)
668 SECOND MOTION by plaintiffs to extend time to file motion for attorney fees and costs w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/21/1996)
669 PROTECTIVE ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting defts' motion (for order) to enjoin public disclosure and dissemination of documents related to draft proposals on managed health services to prisoners [667-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/25/1996)
670 MOTION by plaintiffs for attorney fees , and for costs w/brief in support, Exhibits 1-6, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/25/1996)
671 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltfs' second motion to extend time to file motion for attorney fees and costs [668-1]; pltfs motion for atty fees and cost due 3/22/96 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) Modified on 03/25/1996 (Entered: 03/25/1996)
672 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltfs' motion to exceed page limitation to file Joint Response of the Hadix and Knop pltfs in Opposition to defts' Evaluation of Revised Interim Plan for Legal Assistance [664-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/25/1996)
673 RESPONSE by pltfs in opposition to defts' Evaluation of Revised Interim Plan for Legal Assistance [636-1] w/Exhibits A-D (Exhibit D SEALED) (rlw) Modified on 05/23/1996 (Entered: 03/25/1996)

03/26/1996
04/05/1996 04/11/1996 04/12/1996 04/15/1996 04/16/1996 04/16/1996
04/16/1996 04/16/1996 04/18/1996 04/19/1996 04/22/1996 04/22/1996 04/22/1996

674 ORDER (4 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen ; the parties and the independent expert are to meet no later than 4/22/96 re a revised plan for legal assistance; defts to submit a revised plan for legal assistance no later than 5/17/96; pltfs response due by 5/27/96; defts have until 6/7/96 to reply to pltfs' response; hearing is set for 6/21/96 regarding the final version of the legal assistance plan; parties and the independent expert will meet on 6/20/96 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/26/1996)
675 COPY OF LETTER directed to Patricia Streeter to court from Lisa C. Ward, Asst. Atty. Gen., in response to Patricia Streeter's motion for atty fees and costs dated 4/4/96 (mfb) (Entered: 04/09/1996)
676 REPORT OF INSPECTION (STATUS REPORT) by Independent Experts J. Frank James, M.D. and F. Warren Benton, Ph.D. of Huron Valley Residential Treatment Program (rlw) (Entered: 04/17/1996)
677 MOTION by pltfs for certification upon remand w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/17/1996)
678 TRANSMISSION FORM showing notice of appeal [655-1] filed by CCA on 4/8/96 and assigned CCA # 96-1422 (rlw) (Entered: 04/17/1996)
679 OPINION (6 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 04/17/1996)
680 ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion granting in part and denying in part defts' motion for reconsideration and to alter the 12/13/95 opinion and order [608-1], granting USA's motion for continuation of amicus status [629-1]; that this Court's Opinion 604 and order 605 are amended to reflect that USA amicus may participate in the medical provisions compliance hearing set for 9/5, 9/6, 1996 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 04/17/1996)
681 MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) on staff vacancies (rlw) (Entered: 04/17/1996)
682 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) (rlw) (Entered: 04/17/1996)
683 APRIL 1996 REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by F. Warren Benton, Ph.D. and J. Franklin James, M.D. on Reformulation of the 1993 Order (rlw) (Entered: 04/18/1996)
684 RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' Mental Health Plan dated 2/16/96 [649-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/19/1996)
685 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defts' proposed revised Epidemic Contagions Plans [644-1] w/attachments 1-2, cert. svc (rlw) (Entered: 04/22/1996)
686 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff to defts' plans submitted pursuant to Court's order of 10/25/94 and 1/96 [633-1], [632-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/23/1996)
687 TRANSCRIPT ORDER Form from appellant's atty indicating that there were no hearings (rlw) (Entered: 04/23/1996)

04/24/1996 05/01/1996
05/03/1996 05/06/1996 05/09/1996 05/10/1996 05/10/1996 05/10/1996 05/14/1996 05/14/1996 05/14/1996 05/17/1996 05/17/1996

688 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Interrogatories to pltfs and Request for Production of Documents Relating to Access to Courts (rlw) (Entered: 04/26/1996)
689 CERTIFICATION (ORDER) (1 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen that if the Order of 7/11/95 regarding a tour by pltfs' mental health expert on 7/14/95 of the Standish Maximum Security Facility is remanded to this Court, it will be vacated pursuant to the request of the parties (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 05/02/1996)
690 LETTER to Judge Enslen and Judge Feikens from F. Warren Benton, Ph.D. regarding the substitution of Montcalm Community College for Jackson Community College (rlw) (Entered: 05/06/1996)
691 COMPLIANCE REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) on the Medical and Mental Health issues and Access to Courts (rlw) (Entered: 05/07/1996)
692 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Notice of Taking De Bene Esse Deposition of Dr. Osa Coffey (rlw) (Entered: 05/10/1996)
693 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for the month of April 1996 (rlw) (Entered: 05/13/1996)
694 MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) on Staff Vacancies as of April 1996 (rlw) (Entered: 05/13/1996)
695 MOTION by defts to extend time until 6/12/96 (30 days) to file response to the Independent Expert's Report on monitoring in non-consent decree facilities w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 05/13/1996)
696 RESPONSE by defts to the Independent Experts' Report of Huron Valley Residential Treatment Program [676-1] w/Exhibit 1, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 05/14/1996)
697 RESPONSE by defts to the February 1996 preliminary report of the Independent Monitors on medical care and submission of the Expert Witness Report of Dr. Craig Hutchinson [645-1] w/Exhibits 1-2, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 05/14/1996)
698 COMBINED REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by the Expert Consultants Ronald Shansky, M.D. and Armond Start, M.D. for pltf and deft in the matter of Hadix v Johnson (Visit to Hadix Facilities in Jackson, MI, April 3-6, 1996) w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 05/14/1996)
699 MOTION by defts to extend time deadlines established for the final acess to the Court Plan and request for adjournment of the 6/20 and 21, 1996 court proceedings w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 05/17/1996)
700 ORDER (1 pgs) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting defts' motion to extend time until 6/12/96 (30 days) to file response to the Independent Expert's Report on monitoring in non-consent decree facilities [695-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 05/17/1996)

05/20/1996 05/20/1996 05/20/1996
05/23/1996 05/23/1996 05/24/1996
05/29/1996 05/30/1996 05/31/1996 05/31/1996 06/03/1996 06/04/1996

701 OPPOSITION by pltfs to defts' motion to extend time deadlines established for the final acess to the Court Plan [699-1], motion for adjournment of the 6/20 and 21, 1996 court proceedings [699-2] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 05/20/1996)
702 OPINION (4 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 05/20/1996)
703 ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion granting defts' motion to permit Montcalm Community College to replace Jackson community College as the provider of paralegal training on an interim basis [613-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 05/20/1996)
704 ERRATA (SUPPLEMENT) by pltfs to the 3/15/96 joint response [673-1] of the Hadix and Knop pltfs in opposition to defts' evaluation of revised interim plan for legal assistance w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 05/23/1996)
705 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltfs for Answers to defts interrogatories and requests for production of documents relating to access to courts (rlw) (Entered: 05/23/1996)
706 ORDER (2 pgs) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland denying defendant's motion to extend time deadlines established for the final acess to the Court Plan [699-1], denying defendant's motion for adjournment of the 6/20 and 21, 1996 court proceedings [699-2] (cc: all counsel) (bd) (Entered: 05/28/1996)
707 MOTION by pltfs to extend time until 5/31/96 (2 days) to file response to defts' compliance report w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 05/29/1996)
708 TRANSCRIPT of Legal Access to Courts Issue; testimony of witnesses Wilber, Levine, Mort held 10/20/94 before Judge Richard A. Enslen; transcribed by Jarratt W. Martin (rlw) (Entered: 05/31/1996)
709 RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' Health Care Compliance Report [691-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 05/31/1996)
710 ORDER (1 pgs) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltfs' motion to extend time until 5/31/96 (2 days) to file response to defts' compliance report [707-1]; defts' trim for reply is extended to 6/14/96 (cc: counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 06/03/1996)
711 MOTION by defts for leave to file Final Plan for the Legal Writer Program w/brief in support, Exhibits 1-2, certificate of service w/PROPOSED Final Plan for the Legal Writer Program Dated May 30, 1996 (rlw) (Entered: 06/03/1996)
712 OBJECTIONS by defts to the 5/24/96 order of the Magistrate denying defts' motion for enlargement of time deadlines established for the Final Access to the Court Plan [706-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/05/1996)

06/07/1996
06/10/1996
06/10/1996 06/10/1996 06/11/1996 06/11/1996 06/11/1996 06/11/1996 06/11/1996 06/11/1996 06/12/1996 06/12/1996 06/17/1996 06/17/1996

713 AMENDED ORDER (3 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen ; that this Court's Order of 3/26/96 674 is amended in that the hearing regarding the final version of the legal assistance plan is rescheduled to 6/20/96 ; parties may submit post-hearing briefs no later than 7/8/96; responses no later than 7/15/96 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) Modified on 06/27/1996 (Entered: 06/07/1996)
714 PETITION by pltfs for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum as to C. Pepper Moore, Alfredo Robinson, T. Jon Spytma to appear at the hearing regarding access to the courts which is set for 6/20/96 w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/11/1996)
716 ORDER from CCA; re: CCA #95-1763 granting the parties joint motion for remand (rlw) (Entered: 06/12/1996)
PROCEEDING before Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen; hearing on the legal access plan held on 6/20/96 ; J. Martin, Reporter (rlw) (Entered: 06/21/1996)
715 MOTION by defts for "immediate termination" of the Consent Decree, pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act Amending 18:3626 w/brief in support (rlw) (Entered: 06/11/1996)
WRIT of Habeas Corpous Ad Prosequendum issued Warden State Prison of Southern Michigan for C. Pepper Moore to appear as a witness on 6/20/96 at 8:30 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 06/11/1996)
WRIT of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum issued to Warden Carol Howes at Lakeland Correctional Facility for T. Jon Spytma to appear as a witness on 6/20/96 at 8:30 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 06/11/1996)
WRIT of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum issued to Warden at Egeler Facility for Alfredo Robinson to appear as a witness on 6/20/96 at 8:30 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 06/11/1996)
717 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for the month of May 1996 (rlw) (Entered: 06/12/1996)
718 STAFF VACANCIES (STATUS REPORT) monthly report by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) (rlw) (Entered: 06/12/1996)
719 RESPONSE by pltfs to the April 1996 report of the Independent Monitors on Reformulation of the March 1993 Order [683-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/12/1996)
720 RESPONSE by defts to the April 1996 Report of the Independent Experts on Reformulation of the March 1993 Order [683-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/12/1996)
721 REPLY by defts to pltfs' response [709-1] to defts' Health Care Compliance Report w/attachment, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/17/1996)
722 PETITION by pltfs for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum as to Bren

06/17/1996 06/17/1996 06/18/1996 06/18/1996 06/19/1996 06/19/1996 06/21/1996
06/24/1996
06/27/1996
06/27/1996 06/27/1996

E. Koster to appear as a witness on 6/20/96 w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/18/1996)
723 OPPOSITION by pltfs to defts' proposed Final Plan for Legal Writers [636-1] w/attachment A, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/18/1996)
724 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Interrogatories to pltfs and Requests for Production of documents Relating to Medical Health Care (rlw) (Entered: 06/18/1996)
725 ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen that this Court's Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum as to T. Jon Spytma entered 6/11/96 is quashed (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 06/18/1996)
WRIT of habeas corpus ad prosequendum issued to Warden, State Prison of Southern Michigan for Brent E. Koster to appear as a witness on 6/20/96 at 8:30 a.m. (seal) (Entered: 06/18/1996)
726 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting defts' motion for leave to file Final Plan for the Legal Writer Program [711-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 06/19/1996)
727 FINAL PLAN FOR THE LEGAL WRITER PROGRAM dated May 30, 1996 (NOTICE) by defts (rlw) (Entered: 06/19/1996)
728 ORDER (3 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen re defts' motion for "immediate termination" of the Consent Decree, pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act Amending 18:3626 [715-1] parties shall submit by 7/1/96 a brief on the issue of whether the stay provided for in the PLRA should be into effect; briefs regarding retroactive application of PLRA due no later than 7/19/96; responses due no later than 7/29/96 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 06/21/1996)
729 ORDER (3 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen that the the USA may submit a brief no later than 7/1/96 regarding the constitutionality of the stay provision of the PLRA and may otherwise appear concerning this issue; Clerk to serve US Atty Gen Janet Reno and US Atty Michael Dettmer (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 06/24/1996)
730 AMENDED ORDER (3 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen that this Court's order of 6/7/96 713 , 674 is amended to reflect that the parties shall file their post-hearing briefs regarding the final plan for legal assistance no later than 7/29/96; responses due no later than 8/5/96 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 06/27/1996)
731 MOTION by defts to suspend the deadlines established for the medical compliance proceedings w/brief in support, exhibits 1-2, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/27/1996)
732 MONTHLY REPORTS (STATUS REPORT) received in the Judges office over a period of time but were not filed until now: 7/18/94 Quarterly Report on prisoners identified in the R&GC as presenting symptoms of serious mental illness or injury; 11/10/94 Monthly Report on dental; 2/14/95 Monthly Report on dental; 2/14/95 Monthly Report on staff vacancies; 1/17/95 Monthly Report on dental; 1/9/95 Monthly

07/01/1996 07/01/1996 07/01/1996 07/01/1996 07/02/1996
07/03/1996 07/03/1996
07/03/1996 07/08/1996
07/08/1996 07/08/1996 07/08/1996 07/08/1996

Report on staff vacancies; 5/12/95 Monthly Report on dental; 5/12/95 Monthly Report on staff vacancies (rlw) (Entered: 06/27/1996)
733 MOTION by pltfs to file brief in excess of 25 pages w/brief in support (mrs) (Entered: 07/01/1996)
734 ORDER (1 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting pltfs' motion to file brief in excess of 25 pages [733-1] (cc: all counsel) (mrs) (Entered: 07/01/1996)
735 BRIEF in response by pltf regarding defts' motion for "immediate termination" of the Consent Decree, pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act Amending 18:3626 [715-1] (mrs) (Entered: 07/01/1996)
736 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltf for memorandum of law, motion to file brief in exces of 25 pages and brief in support (mrs) (Entered: 07/01/1996)
737 (SUPPLENTAL) BRIEF by defts regarding defts' motion for "immediate termination" of the Consent Decree, pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act Amending 18:3626 [715-1] w/prf of svc (mrs) (Entered: 07/02/1996)
738 OPINION (16 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (mrs) (Entered: 07/03/1996)
739 ORDER ( 2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen that the automatic stay provided for in the Prison Litigation Reform Act is unconsitutional and will therefore not take effect pending this court's decision on defts' motion to terminate the Consent Decree (cc: all counsel) (mrs) (Entered: 07/03/1996)
740 NOTICE (REPORT) on prisoners identified in the Reception and Guidance Center as presenting symptoms of serious mental illness from the Michigan Depart of Corrections (mrs) (Entered: 07/03/1996)
741 SUPPLEMENTAL brief in support by deft re defts' motion for "immediate termination" of the Consent Decree, pursuant to the Prison Litigation Act Amending 18:3626 [715-1] w/prf of svc (mrs) (Entered: 07/09/1996)
742 RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' motion to suspend the deadlines established for the medical compliance proceedings [731-1] w/prf of svc (mrs) (Entered: 07/09/1996)
743 MOTION by pltfs to reject defts' plans submitted pursuant to the Court's Order of October 25, 1994 w/brief in support (mrs) (Entered: 07/09/1996)
744 MOTION by pltfs for implementation of procedures jointly identified by the parties' medical experts w/brief in support (mrs) (Entered: 07/09/1996)
745 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltfs for motion and brief in support to reject defts' plans submitted pursuant to the Court's Order of october 25, 1994; and motion and brief in support for implementation of procedures jointly

07/08/1996 07/10/1996 07/10/1996 07/11/1996 07/11/1996
07/12/1996 07/19/1996 07/19/1996 07/22/1996
07/22/1996
07/22/1996 07/22/1996 07/23/1996 07/23/1996

identified by the parties' medical experts (mrs) (Entered: 07/09/1996)
746 ORDER from CCA; re: CCA #94-2008/96-1422 remanding the matter back to District Court [Appeal [655-1] [421-1]; denying motion for immediate termination (tlb) (Entered: 07/10/1996)
747 NOTICE (MONTHLY REPORT) on medical and mental health staff vacancies (mrs) (Entered: 07/10/1996)
748 NOTICE (REPORT) dental waiting list submitted by Michigan Department of Corrections (mrs) (Entered: 07/10/1996)
749 NOTICE OF APPEAL to Circuit Court by deft re: order, [738-1] entered on 07/03/96 (tlb) (Entered: 07/12/1996)
750 RECEIPT # 202753 in the amount of $105.00 submitted by Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown Jr., Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pam Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik for appeal filing fee (tlb) (Entered: 07/12/1996)
MAILED information copies to CCA consisting of Notice of Appeal [749-1], docket sheet and ord [739-] (cc: District Judge and all counsel) (tlb) (Entered: 07/12/1996)
751 RESPONSE by pltfs to the Court's Order of 6/20/96 [728-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 07/19/1996)
752 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltfs for Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to defts Relating to Medical Health Care (rlw) (Entered: 07/19/1996)
753 MOTION by defts for leave to file instanter w/brief in support, proof of service, PROPOSED brief in support of the Constitutionality of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, pursuant to the 6/20/96 order (rlw) (Entered: 07/23/1996)
754 MOTION by defts to exceed page limitation w/proof of service, PROPOSED brief in support of the Constitutionality of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, pursuant to the 6/20/96 Order (rlw) (Entered: 07/23/1996)
755 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltfs for Request for Attorney Fees and Costs (rlw) (Entered: 07/23/1996)
756 SUPPLEMENT by pltfs to their motion for attorney fees and costs [6701] w/brief in support, attachments A-B, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 07/23/1996)
757 RESPONSE by defts to pltfs' motion to reject defts' plans submitted pursuant to the Court's Order of October 25, 1994 regarding health-related disabilities [743-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 07/23/1996)
758 OPPOSITION by defts to pltfs' motion for implementation of procedures

07/24/1996 07/24/1996 07/24/1996 07/25/1996 07/25/1996 07/25/1996 07/26/1996
07/26/1996 07/26/1996 07/29/1996 07/29/1996 07/30/1996

jointly identified by the parties' medical experts [744-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 07/23/1996)
759 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting defts' motion for leave to file instanter [753-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 07/25/1996)
760 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting defts' motion to exceed page limitation [754-1] to file their brief on the Constitutionality of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 07/25/1996)
761 MEMORANDUM by defts on the Constitutionality of the Prison Litigation Reform Act pursuant to the Court's order [728-1] w/Appendix A-C (rlw) (Entered: 07/25/1996)
762 SEALED TRANSCRIPT (separate record) of Legal Access to Courts Issue held 6/20/96 before Judge Richard A. Enslen; transcribed by Jarratt W. Martin (rlw) (Entered: 07/26/1996)
763 TRANSCRIPT of proceeding on Legal Access to Courts Issue; testimony of witnesses Zang, Levine held 6/20/96 before Judge Richard A. Enslen; transcribed by Jarratt w. Martin (rlw) (Entered: 07/26/1996)
764 MOTION by defts to extend time in which to file a responsive pleding as required under the Court's Order of 6/20/96 w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 07/26/1996)
765 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting defts' motion to extend time in which to file a responsive pleding as required under the Court's Order of 6/20/96 [764-1]; responsive briefs of pltfs, defts and the US shall be simultaneously filed on 8/5/96 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 07/26/1996)
766 JULY 1996 REPORT of the Independent Monitors on Medical Care (STATUS REPORT) by F. Warren Benton, Ph.D. and J. Franklin James, M.D. (rlw) (Entered: 07/26/1996)
767 TRANSMISSION FORM showing notice of appeal [749-1] filed by CCA on 7/19/96 and assigned CCA 96-1908 (rlw) (Entered: 07/29/1996)
768 MANDATE from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals re: CCA #: 94-2008; 961422; remanding the matter back to District Court [Appeal [655-1] remanding the matter back to District Court [Appeal [421-1] (rlw) (Entered: 07/30/1996)
769 MOTION by defts to extend time until 8/1/96 to file brief on the final plan for legal assistance pursuant to the 6/27/96 Amended Order w/responsive briefs then due 8/9/96 w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 07/30/1996)
770 ORDER (2 pgs) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting defts' motion to extend time until 8/1/96 to file brief on the final plan for legal assistance pursuant to the 6/27/96 Amended Order w/responsive briefs then due 8/9/96 [769-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 07/30/1996)

08/01/1996 08/01/1996 08/02/1996
08/02/1996 08/02/1996 08/05/1996
08/05/1996 08/06/1996 08/07/1996 08/07/1996 08/08/1996 08/08/1996 08/08/1996

771 BRIEF by defts on access to the Courts as required by the order of 6/27/96 [730-1] w/attachment A, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 08/01/1996)
772 MOTION by pltfs to exceed page limitation w/brief in support, PROPOSED Joint Post-Hearing Brief Regarding the Inadequacies of defts' Remedial Plan for Providing Meaningful access to the Courts, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 08/02/1996)
773 ORDER (2 pgs) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltfs' motion to exceed page limitation [772-1] to file Joint Post-Hearing Brief Regarding the Inadequacies of defts' Remedial Plan for Providing Meaningful Access to the Courts (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 08/02/1996)
774 BRIEF (post-hearing) by joint pltfs regarding the Inadequacies of defts' Remedial Plan for Providing Meaningful Access to the Courts pursuant to the amended order [713-2] w/Exhibits A-D (rlw) (Entered: 08/02/1996)
775 LETTER to court from pltfs advising that they are withdrawing their Motion for Attorney Fees dated 3/21/96 and their Supplemental Request of 7/19/96 (rlw) (Entered: 08/02/1996)
776 MOTION by pltfs to exceed page limitation to file a brief w/brief in support, PROPOSED reply to defts' brief in support of the constitutionality of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, pursuant to the 6/20/96 Order, certificate of service (rlw) Modified on 08/07/1996 (Entered: 08/05/1996)
777 TRANSCRIPT ORDER Form from appellant's atty indicating ho hearings held making transcript unnecessary (rlw) (Entered: 08/05/1996)
778 MOTION by defts for leave to file instanter w/PROPOSED Reply to pltfs' Brief in Response to defts' Motion for Termination w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 08/06/1996)
779 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltf's motion to exceed page limitation to file a brief [776-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 08/07/1996)
780 REPLY by pltfs to defts' brief in support of the constitutionality of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, pursuant to the 6/20/96 Order [728-1] w/Exhibits A-F (rlw) (Entered: 08/07/1996)
781 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting defts' motion for leave to file instanter w/PROPOSED Reply to pltfs' Brief in Response to defts' Motion for Termination [778-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 08/08/1996)
782 REPLY by defts to pltfs' brief in response to defts' Motion for Termination [715-1] w/Exhibits A-B (rlw) (Entered: 08/08/1996)
783 ORDER (3 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen denying defts' motion to suspend the deadlines established for the medical compliance proceedings [731-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 08/09/1996)

08/09/1996
08/14/1996 08/14/1996 08/14/1996 08/14/1996 08/15/1996 08/21/1996 08/30/1996
08/30/1996 08/30/1996 08/30/1996 09/04/1996 09/05/1996 09/05/1996

784 REPLY by defts to pltfs' Joint Post-Hearing Brief Regarding the Inadequacies of defts' Remedial Plan for Providing Meaningful Access to the Courts [782-1] w/attachment B, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 08/12/1996)
785 WITNESS LIST submitted by pltfs for the hearing set for 9/5 and 9/6 1996 and Exhibit List w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 08/15/1996)
786 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Response to pltfs' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (rlw) (Entered: 08/15/1996)
787 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (consent Decree Unit) for the month of July 1996 (rlw) (Entered: 08/15/1996)
788 STAFF VACANCIES Monthly Report (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) as of July 1996 (rlw) (Entered: 08/15/1996)
789 WITNESS LIST and EXHIBIT LIST submitted by defts w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 08/15/1996)
790 AMENDED WITNESS LIST submitted by defts w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 08/21/1996)
791 PETITION by pltf for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum for C. Pepper Moore, Brent E. Koster and Alfredo Robinson to appear for hearings set for 9/5, 9/6 1996 w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/03/1996)
792 MOTION by pltfs to extend time to file motion for attorney fees and costs for the time period 1/1/96 through 6/20/96 w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/03/1996)
WRIT issued to Warden, State Prison of Southern Michigan for Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum for C. Pepper Moore and Brent E. Koster to appear at hearings set for 9/5, 9/6 1996 (rlw) (Entered: 09/03/1996)
WRIT issued to Warden, Charles Egeler Facility for Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum for Alfredo Robinson to appear at hearings set for 9/5, 9/6 1996 (rlw) (Entered: 09/03/1996)
793 RESPONSE by defts to the July 1996 Final Report of the Independent Monitors on Medical Care [766-1] w/Exhibits 1-2, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/05/1996)
794 MOTION by USA to intervene on the question of the constitutionality of certain challenged provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/05/1996)
PROCEEDING before Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen; evidentiary hearing on pltfs' motion in limine to exclude exhibits 17 & 25, testimony and affidavit of Dr. Griffin is granted; pltfs' motion for permission to submit post hearing documents is granted as to both parties; witnesses called by pltfs - Elizabeth Ferguson, Dr. Armand Start; witnesses called

09/06/1996 09/06/1996
09/09/1996
09/10/1996 09/10/1996 09/11/1996 09/13/1996 09/16/1996 09/17/1996 09/20/1996 09/23/1996

by defts - Dr. Ronald Shansky; J. Martin, Reporter (rlw) (Entered: 09/10/1996)
795 ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting USA's motion to intervene on the question of the constitutionality of certain challenged provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act [794-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 09/06/1996)
PROCEEDING before Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen; evidentiary hearing regarding medical care; witnesses called by pltfs - Dr. Armand Start, C. Pepper Moore; witnesses called by defts - Dr. Bonita Davis, Dr. Craig Hutchinson, Dr. Frank James ; J. Martin, Reporter (rlw) (Entered: 09/10/1996)
799 ORDER from CCA; re: CCA # 96-1908 on defts' motion for emergency stay pending appeal of this court's order of 7/3/96 and the hearings on the delivery of medical care at the failities scheduled for 9/5, 9/6 1996 and any further fact findings, discovery, tours or evidentiary proceedings; that defts' motion is denied to the extent that it seeks to stay the 9/5, 9/6 1996 hearings; an order addressing the remainder of the relief requested will be forthcoming (rlw) (Entered: 09/11/1996)
796 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltfs' motion to extend time to file motion for attorney fees and costs for the time period 1/1/96 through 6/20/96 [792-1]; motion due on or before 9/13/96 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 09/10/1996)
797 EXHIBIT 28B, Curriculum Vitae of James Franklin James, M.D. submitted by defts per Judge Enslen at the 9/6/96 hearing (rlw) (Entered: 09/11/1996)
798 EXHIBIT R, SMI Kite Log which relates to the cross examination of Dr. Hutchinson submitted by pltfs pursuant to hearing held 9/6/96 before Judge Enslen (rlw) (Entered: 09/11/1996)
800 MOTION by pltfs to exceed page limitation to file brief in support of motion for attorney fees w/brief in support, PROPOSED Motion for Attorney Fees (rlw) (Entered: 09/13/1996)
801 MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) on Staff Vacancies by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for positions which have been vacant for 120 days or more as of 8/96 (rlw) (Entered: 09/17/1996)
802 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for the month of August 1996 (rlw) (Entered: 09/17/1996)
803 ORDER from CCA; re: CCA #96-1908 that defts' motion for a stay and for relief in mandamus is denied; the appeal will be considered on an expedited basis (rlw) (Entered: 09/20/1996)
804 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltfs' motion to exceed page limitation to file brief in support of motion for attorney fees [800-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 09/23/1996)

09/23/1996 09/24/1996 09/25/1996 09/26/1996 09/26/1996 09/27/1996 09/30/1996 10/01/1996 10/01/1996
10/02/1996

805 MOTION by pltfs for attorney fees for time expended related to monitoring health issues pursuant to Section II of the Hadix Consent Judgment w/brief in support, exhibits A-N (rlw) (Entered: 09/23/1996)
806 STIPULATION requesting that defts' response to pltfs' motion for attorney fees for time expended related to monitoring health issues pursuant to Section II of the Hadix Consent Judgment [805-1] shall be due on or before 10/11/96; pltfs' reply in support of their motion for attorney fees shall be due on or before 10/25/96 (rlw) (Entered: 09/25/1996)
807 MOTION by pltfs for temporary restraining order enjoining defts from interfering w/pltfs' rights to access to the courts , and for preliminary injunction enjoining defts from interfering w/pltfs' rights to access to the courts w/brief in support, Exhibits A-C, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/25/1996)
808 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting stipulation [806-1] that defts' response to pltfs' motion for attorney fees for time expended related to monitoring health issues pursuant to Section II of the Hadix Consent Judgment [805-1] shall be do on or before 10/11/96; that pltfs' reply shall be due on or before 10/25/96 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 09/26/1996)
809 NOTICE of hearing: setting pltfs' motion for temporary restraining order enjoining defts from interfering w/pltfs' rights to access to the courts [807-1] and preliminary injunction enjoining defts from interfering w/pltfs' rights to access to the courts [807-2] at 2:00 p.m. on 9/30/96 in Grand Rapids, MI (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 09/26/1996)
810 OPPOSITION by defts to pltfs' emergency motion for temporary restraining order enjoining defts from interfering w/pltfs' rights to access to the courts [807-1] and for preliminary injunction enjoining defts from interfering w/pltfs' rights to access to the courts [807-2] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/01/1996)
PROCEEDING before Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen; granting pltfs' preliminary injunction for 60 days in a limited manner; Court also approved w/modifications, the defts' final plan for legal access; witness called by pltfs - Sandra Girard; D. Calsbeek, Reporter (rlw) Modified on 10/03/1996 (Entered: 10/02/1996)
811 OPINION (16 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 10/02/1996)
812 ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion granting pltfs' motion for temporary restraining order enjoining defts from interfering w/pltfs' rights to access to the courts [807-1], and for preliminary injunction enjoining defts from interfering w/pltfs' rights to access to the courts [807-2]; defts' Final Plans for the Legal Writer Program 727 is adopted w/the modifications set forth in the opinion (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 10/02/1996)
813 TRANSCRIPT of hearing on motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction held 9/30/96 before Judge Richard A. Enslen;

10/07/1996 10/08/1996 10/10/1996 10/16/1996 10/17/1996 10/25/1996 10/29/1996 10/29/1996 11/06/1996 11/18/1996 11/18/1996
11/18/1996 11/20/1996

transcribed by Diane C. Calsbeek, Reporter (rlw) (Entered: 10/07/1996)
814 QUARTERLY REPORTS (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for the Reception and Guidance Center (rlw) (Entered: 10/09/1996)
815 COMPLIANCE REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) on the Medical and Mental Health issues for the period of June, July and August, 1996 (rlw) (Entered: 10/09/1996)
816 OPPOSITION by defts to pltfs' motion for attorney fees for time expended related to monitoring health issues pursuant to Section II of the Hadix Consent Judgment [805-1] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/11/1996)
817 MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) on Staff Vacancies as of 9/96 (rlw) (Entered: 10/17/1996)
818 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for the month of September 1996 (rlw) (Entered: 10/17/1996)
819 REPLY by pltfs (all) to defendants' response to pltfs motion for attorney fees for time expended related to monitoring health issues pursuant to Section II of the Hadix Consent Judgment [805-1]; w/attachments; w/Cert of Serv (bd) (Entered: 10/28/1996)
820 NOTICE OF APPEAL to Circuit Court by defts re: opinion 811 and order [812-1] entered on 10/1/96 w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
821 RECEIPT # 202926 in the amount of $105.00 submitted by defts for appeal fee (rlw) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
MAILED information copies to CCA consisting of Notice of Appeal [820-1], docket sheet, opinion 811 and order 812 (cc: District Judge and all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
822 OPINION (38 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
823 ORDER (3 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen iin accordance w/opinion that defts' motion for immediate termination 715 of the Consent Decree is reduced to the issues of whether a consent decree is a final judgment; this court will reserve final determination of the defts' motion until such time as the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued its ruling on the issue (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
824 TRANSMISSION FORM showing notice of appeal [820-1] filed by CCA on 11/13/96 and assigned CCA 96-2387 (rlw) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
825 REQUEST by pltfs for extension of preliminary injunction issued 10/1/96 w/brief in support, attachment, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 11/21/1996)

11/20/1996 11/20/1996 11/25/1996
11/27/1996 12/03/1996 12/05/1996 12/05/1996 12/06/1996
12/06/1996
12/10/1996 12/10/1996
12/10/1996 12/12/1996
12/12/1996

826 MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) on staff vacancies for the month of October, 1996 by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) (rlw) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
827 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) for October 1996 by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) (rlw) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
828 MEMORANDUM by pltfs in support of their motion for attorney fees for time expended related to monitoring health issues pursuant to Section II of the Hadix Consent Judgment [805-1] w/attachments, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
829 TRANSCRIPT ORDER Form from appellant's atty indicating that the transcript is already on file (rlw) (Entered: 12/05/1996)
830 LETTER to court from defts w/attached schedules for implementation of the Legal Writer Programs (rlw) (Entered: 12/05/1996)
831 NOTICE OF APPEAL to Circuit Court by defts re: opinion 822 order 823 entered on 11/18/96 w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/06/1996)
832 RECEIPT #202991 in the amount of $105.00 submitted by defts for appeal fee (rlw) (Entered: 12/06/1996)
833 TRANSCRIPT of for testimony of Elizabeth Ferguson; direct examination of Dr. Start; testimony of Dr. Shansky held 9/5/96 before Judge Richard A. Enslen; transcribed by Jarratt W. Martin (rlw) (Entered: 12/09/1996)
834 TRANSCRIPT of testimony of cross examination of Dr. Start; testimonies of Dr. Davis, Dr. Hutchinson, Dr. James, and Mr. Moore held 9/6/96 before Judge Richard A. Enslen; transcribed by Jarratt W. Martin (rlw) (Entered: 12/09/1996)
MAILED information copies to CCA consisting of Notice of Appeal [831-1], docket sheet and opinion 822 and order 823 (cc: District Judge and all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 12/10/1996)
835 SUPPLEMENT by defts in opposition to pltfs' motion for attorney fees for time expended related to monitoring health issues pursuant to Section II of the Hadix Consent Judgment [805-1] w/attachment, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/11/1996)
836 STIPULATION to withdraw pltfs' request [825-1] for an extension of preliminary injunction issued 10/1/96 (rlw) (Entered: 12/11/1996)
837 ORDER (1 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen extending preliminary injunction for a period of sixty day or until 2/1/97 subject to the conditions of the injunction issued 10/1/96 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 12/13/1996)
838 QUARTERLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) on prisoners identified in the Reception and Guidance Center as presenting symptoms of serious mental illness (rlw) (Entered: 12/13/1996)

12/16/1996 12/16/1996 12/20/1996 12/27/1996 12/27/1996 12/30/1996 01/06/1997 01/06/1997 01/10/1997 01/10/1997 01/13/1997 01/13/1997 01/15/1997 01/22/1997 01/27/1997 01/31/1997

839 MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) on Staff Vacancies (rlw) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
840 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for the month of November, 1996 (rlw) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
841 LETTER from court to Appellant State of Michigan to designate the record on appeal (rlw) (Entered: 12/20/1996)
842 DESIGNATION for Record on Appeal by defts re: appeal [831-1] #962548 (tlb) Modified on 12/30/1996 (Entered: 12/30/1996)
843 TRANSMISSION FORM showing notice of appeal [831-1] filed by CCA on 12/23/96 and assigned CCA 96-2548 (tlb) (Entered: 12/30/1996)
844 NOTICE by defts of compliance report on Medical and Mental Health issues; also, on Access to the Courts section of Consent Decree (tlb) (Entered: 01/02/1997)
845 TRANSCRIPT ORDER Form from appellant's atty ordering transcript from 9/5/96; 9/6/96 (rlw) (Entered: 01/07/1997)
846 NOTICE of withdrawal of appearance by Lisa C. Ward on behalf of defts w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/07/1997)
847 NOTICE by Court to Court of Appeals advising that the record is bing retained by the District Court pursuant to Rule 11, F.R.A.P re appeal 962548 831 (rlw) (Entered: 01/10/1997)
848 NOTICE by Court to Court of Appeals advising that the record is being retained by the District Court pursuant to Rule 11, F.R.A.P. re appeal 962387 820 (rlw) (Entered: 01/10/1997)
849 STAFF VACANCIES MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) (rlw) (Entered: 01/15/1997)
851 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for the month of December 1996 (rlw) (Entered: 01/21/1997)
850 MAIL RETURNED [847-1] addressed to pltfs' attorney Jeanne Miner marked "forwarding order expired" (rlw) (Entered: 01/15/1997)
852 DESIGNATION for Record on Appeal by defts re: CCA #96-2387 appeal [820-1] (rlw) (Entered: 01/22/1997)
853 STATUS REPORT on the chronic disease index submitted by Barbara Hladki, Michigan Department of Corrections (mrs) (Entered: 01/29/1997)
854 INFORMATION copy from CCA # 96-2387 of a ruling on a Motion to File Instanter Appellant's Consolidated Proof Brief (tlb) (Entered: 02/03/1997)

02/13/1997 02/13/1997 02/19/1997 02/24/1997 02/24/1997 02/25/1997 02/25/1997
03/13/1997 03/13/1997 03/17/1997 03/18/1997
03/31/1997 04/04/1997 04/09/1997 04/09/1997

855 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for the month of January, 1997 (rlw) (Entered: 02/14/1997)
856 STAFF VACANCIES MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) (rlw) (Entered: 02/14/1997)
857 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltfs for Request for Attorney Fees and Costs for the period 7/1/96 through 12/31/96 (rlw) (Entered: 02/20/1997)
858 STIPULATION by defts and Hadix pltfs to withdraw pltfs' joint request for extension of prelilminary injunction issued 10/1/96 [825-1] (rlw) (Entered: 02/25/1997)
859 ORDER from CCA; re: CCA #96-2548 granting defts/appellants motion to file instanter defts/appellants' proof brief (rlw) (Entered: 02/25/1997)
860 MOTION by defts to supplement record on appeal re legal access w/brief in support, Exhibits 1-8 (rlw) (Entered: 02/26/1997)
861 ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen extending Preliminary Injunction issued 10/1/96 an additional 60 days or until 4/1/97 subject to the conditions of the injunction (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 02/26/1997)
862 MONTHLY REPORT on Staff Vacancies (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) (rlw) (Entered: 03/14/1997)
863 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for the month of February, 1997 (rlw) (Entered: 03/14/1997)
864 STIPULATION regarding attorney fees and costs for the period July 1, 1996 to December 31, 1996 (rlw) (Entered: 03/18/1997)
865 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland that pursuant to the stipulation of the parties [864-1] pltfs' may have until 4/4/97 to file a motion for the disputed portion of attorney fees and costs for the time period of 7/1/96 through 12/31/96 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/18/1997)
866 ORDER (3 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting deft's motion to supplement record on appeal re legal access filed 2/25/97 [860-1] (cc: all counsel) (mrs) (Entered: 03/31/1997)
867 MOTION by pltfs to extend time to file motion for attorney fees w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/04/1997)
868 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltfs' motion to extend time to file motion for attorney fees [867-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 04/09/1997)
869 MOTION by pltfs to exceed page limitation to file a motion and brief

04/11/1997 04/14/1997 04/14/1997 04/14/1997 04/14/1997 04/16/1997 04/21/1997 04/22/1997 04/23/1997
04/28/1997 05/09/1997 05/09/1997 05/14/1997 05/15/1997

w/PROPOSED Motion for Attorney Fees, brief in support, Exhibits A-L, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/09/1997)
870 QUARTERLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for the Reception and Guidance Center for symptoms of serious mental illness (rlw) (Entered: 04/14/1997)
871 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltfs' motion to exceed page limitation to file a motion and brief [869-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 04/14/1997)
872 MOTION by pltfs for attorney fees for the period July 1, 1996 to December 31, 1996 w/brief in support (rlw) Modified on 04/22/1997 (Entered: 04/14/1997)
873 EXHIBITS A-L in support of pltfs' motion for attorney fees 872 (rlw) (Entered: 04/14/1997)
874 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for the month of March 1997 (rlw) (Entered: 04/15/1997)
875 STAFF VACANCIES MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for positions vacant for 120 days (rlw) (Entered: 04/18/1997)
876 STIPULATION that defts shall have until 5/9/97 to file a response to pltfs' motion for attorney fees for the period July 1, 1996 to December 31, 1996 [872-1] (rlw) (Entered: 04/22/1997)
877 STATUS REPORT by defts on the implementation of the schedule for the legal writer program w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/23/1997)
878 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland upon the stipulation of the parties 876 defts may have until 5/8/97 to file a response to pltfs' motion for the disputed portion of attorney fees and costs for the time period of 7/1/96 through 12/31/96 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 04/23/1997)
879 ORDER from CCA; re: CCA # 96-2387 granting defts motion to file instanter consolidated joint appendix (rlw) (Entered: 04/29/1997)
880 OPPOSITION by defts to pltfs' motion for attorney fees for the period July 1, 1996 to December 31, 1996 [872-1] w/attachment, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 05/09/1997)
881 CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Michael J. Barnhart on behalf of pltfs (rlw) (Entered: 05/12/1997)
882 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by defts adding attorney Michael A. Nickerson w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 05/15/1997)
883 MONTHLY REPORT ON STAFF VACANCIES (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) (rlw) (Entered: 05/15/1997)

05/15/1997 05/15/1997
05/23/1997 05/23/1997
05/27/1997 05/30/1997 05/30/1997 05/30/1997 06/02/1997 06/09/1997 06/09/1997 06/11/1997 06/11/1997 06/11/1997

884 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for the month of april 1997 (rlw) (Entered: 05/15/1997)
885 REPLY by pltfs to defts' response to pltfs' motion for attorney fees for time expended related to monitoring health issues pursuant to Section II of the Hadix Consent Judgment [805-1] w/attachment 1, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 05/15/1997)
886 OPINION (16 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (mrs) (Entered: 05/23/1997)
887 ORDER (3 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting motion for attorney fees for time expended related to monitoring health issues pursuant to Section II of the Hadix Consent Judgment [805-1], and granting motion for attorney fees for the period July 1, 1996 to December 31, 1996 [872-1] (cc: all counsel) (mrs) (Entered: 05/23/1997)
888 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltfs for Joint Interrogatories to defts Regarding Status of Legal Writer Programs (rlw) (Entered: 05/28/1997)
889 NOTICE OF APPEAL to Circuit Court by defts re: opinion 886 order [887-1] entered on 5/23/97 w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/02/1997)
890 RECEIPT #203303 in the amount of $105.00 submitted by defts for appeal fee (rlw) (Entered: 06/02/1997)
891 MOTION by defts for approval of defts' bond staying judgment on appeal w/brief in support, proof of mailing (rlw) (Entered: 06/02/1997)
MAILED information copies to CCA consisting of Notice of Appeal [889-1], docket sheet and opinion 886 and order 887 (cc: District Judge and all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 06/02/1997)
892 RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' motion for approval of defts' bond staying judgment on appeal [891-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/09/1997)
893 TRANSMISSION FORM showing notice of appeal [889-1] filed by CCA on 6/6/97 and assigned CCA 97-1610 (rlw) (Entered: 06/10/1997)
894 STATUS REPORT (in letter form) by all defts re: vacant positions of the past 120 days or more w/attachment (bd) (Entered: 06/12/1997)
895 STATUS REPORT (in letter form) for the month of May, 1997 on the status of the dental treatment and the status of the dental positions as required by the July, 1994 Order by defts (bd) (Entered: 06/12/1997)
896 ORDER Granting Defendants' Motion for Approval of Defendants' Bond Staying Judgment on Appeal (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen re: [891-1]; a surety for the total sum of atty fees, costs and interest, bond is set in the amount of 10% of the total sum of attys fees and costs awarded in this Court's 05/23/97 Opinion and Order; further that upon Defendants depositing with the Court such 10% bond, this Court's Judgment of 05/23 97 which is currently on appeal will be stayed. (cc: all counsel) (bd)

06/18/1997 06/23/1997 06/23/1997 06/23/1997 06/26/1997 06/30/1997 07/01/1997 07/01/1997 07/01/1997 07/03/1997
07/07/1997 07/07/1997 07/07/1997 07/08/1997
07/18/1997

(Entered: 06/12/1997)
897 COMPLIANCE REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbar Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) on the Medical and Mental Health issues (rlw) (Entered: 06/18/1997)
898 TRANSCRIPT ORDER Form from appellant's atty indicating no hearings held (rlw) (Entered: 06/24/1997)
899 STIPULATION to third extension of preliminary injunction issued 10/1/96 to 6/1/97 (rlw) (Entered: 06/24/1997)
900 STIPULATION to fourth extension of prelilminary injunction issued 10/1/96 to 8/1/97 (rlw) (Entered: 06/24/1997)
901 MOTION by defts to extend time by 30 days to file answers to pltfs' joint interrogatories to defts regarding status of legal writer programs w/affidavit of Barbara Hladki (rlw) (Entered: 06/27/1997)
906 RECEIPT #302484 in the amount of $ 31,213.58 submitted by defts for bond staying judgment on appeal (rlw) (Entered: 07/03/1997)
902 MOTION by pltfs for a fifth extension of preliminary injunction issued 10/1/96 to 10/1/97 (to extend time) (rlw) (Entered: 07/01/1997)
903 OPPOSITION by pltfs to defts' motion to extend time by 30 days to file answers to pltfs' joint interrogatories to defts regarding status of legal writer programs [901-1] (rlw) (Entered: 07/01/1997)
904 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltfs for pldg. Nos. 902-903 (rlw) (Entered: 07/01/1997)
905 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland denying defts' motion to extend time by 30 days to file answers to pltfs' joint interrogatories to defts regarding status of legal writer programs [901-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 07/03/1997)
907 ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting the parties stipulation [899-1] for a third extension of preliminary injunction issued 10/1/96 to 6/1/97 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 07/09/1997)
908 ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting the parties stipulation [900-1] for a fourth extension of preliminary injunction issued 10/1/96 to 8/1/97 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 07/09/1997)
909 ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting pltfs' motion for a fifth extension of preliminary injunction issued 10/1/96 to 10/1/97 (to extend time) [902-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 07/09/1997)
910 QUARTERLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for the Reception and Guidance Center on prisoners presenting symptoms of serious mental illness (rlw) (Entered: 07/09/1997)
911 MOTION by pltfs to supplement the rcord - order regarding jurisdiction

07/18/1997 07/18/1997 07/29/1997
08/04/1997 08/05/1997 08/05/1997 08/08/1997 08/08/1997 08/11/1997
08/14/1997 08/14/1997 08/27/1997 09/15/1997 09/16/1997

over the Egeler Facility entered in the Eastern District Case w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 07/18/1997)
912 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for June 1997 (rlw) (Entered: 07/21/1997)
913 MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) on Staff Vacancies by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) (rlw) (Entered: 07/21/1997)
914 ORDER (3 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting pltf's motion to supplement the record on appeal - order regarding jurisdiction over the Egeler Facility entered in the District Case [911-1] filed 7/18/97 (cc: all counsel) (mrs) (Entered: 07/29/1997)
915 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltfs for request for attorney fees and costs for the period 1/1/97 thrugh 7/31/97 by Federal Express to defts' representative Leo Friedman (mrs) (Entered: 08/04/1997)
916 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltfs for interrogatories to defts regarding accomodations for the medically handicapped at SPSM, facility B by US mail to Michael Nickerson (mrs) (Entered: 08/05/1997)
917 MAIL RETURNED [914-1] addressed to Deborah LaBelle and Jeanne Mirer (mrs) (Entered: 08/05/1997)
918 OBJECTIONS by defts to pltfs' interrogatories to defts regarding accomodations for the medically handicapped at SPSM, Facility B w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 08/11/1997)
919 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for response to pltfs' joint interrogatories to defts regarding status of legal writer programs (rlw) (Entered: 08/11/1997)
920 ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen that pursuant to the order granting defts' motion for approval of defts' bond staying judgment on appeals, funds in the amount of $31,213.58 shall be disbursed from the US Treasury and placed into an interest bearing account until further order (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 08/11/1997)
921 MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) on staff vacancies for 120 days or more as of July 1997 (rlw) (Entered: 08/14/1997)
922 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for July 1997 (rlw) (Entered: 08/14/1997)
923 ORDER from CCA; re: CCA # 97-1610 that defts/appellants' motion to file instanter defts/appellants' consolidated proof brief is granted w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
924 STIPULATION extending time until 9/23/97 to file motion regarding unresolved attorney fees and costs (rlw) (Entered: 09/15/1997)
925 ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting stipulation of

09/17/1997 09/17/1997 09/23/1997 09/30/1997 09/30/1997
09/30/1997
10/03/1997 10/06/1997 10/09/1997 10/15/1997 10/15/1997 10/28/1997 11/17/1997 12/05/1997

the parties [924-1]; pltfs shall have until 9/23/97 to file a motion related to unresolved attorney fees and costs for the period from 1/1/97 to 6/30/97 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 09/16/1997)
926 MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) on staff vacancies (rlw) (Entered: 09/18/1997)
927 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for the month of August 1997 (rlw) (Entered: 09/18/1997)
928 MOTION by pltfs for attorney fees w/brief in support, Exhibits A-C, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/24/1997)
929 STIPULATION to sixth extension of preliminary injunction issued 10/1/96 to 12/1/97 (rlw) (Entered: 09/30/1997)
930 TRI-ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) of medical and mental health issues and the access to courts provision (rlw) (Entered: 10/01/1997)
931 QUARTERLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for the Reception and Guidance Center presenting symptoms of serious mental illness (rlw) (Entered: 10/01/1997)
932 ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting stipulation for a sixth extension of prelilminary injunction issued 10/1/96 to 12/1/97 [929-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 10/03/1997)
933 OPPOSITION by defts to pltfs' motion for attorney fees [928-1] w/attachment 1, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/07/1997)
934 REPLY by pltfs to defts' response to pltfs' motion for attorney fees [9281] w/attachment 1, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/09/1997)
935 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for the month of September 1997 (rlw) (Entered: 10/16/1997)
936 MONTHLY RPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (consent Decree Unit) on staff vacancies as of September 1997 (rlw) (Entered: 10/16/1997)
937 FRAP 11 CERTIFICATE of Record tansmitted to CCA re: CCA # 962548/2387, appeal [831-1], appeal [820-1] (rlw) (Entered: 10/28/1997)
938 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by pltfs in support of their motion for attorney fees [928-1] w/attachments, certificate of servie (rlw) (Entered: 11/17/1997)
939 STIPULATION to seventh extension of preliminary injunction issued 10/1/96 to 2/1/98 (rlw) Modified on 12/05/1997 (Entered: 12/05/1997)

12/08/1997 12/08/1997 12/11/1997 12/11/1997 12/16/1997
12/22/1997 12/23/1997 12/23/1997
12/24/1997 12/24/1997 12/30/1997 01/05/1998 01/09/1998
01/09/1998 01/15/1998

940 NOTICE by amicus/intervenor USA of recent enactment w/attachment, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/09/1997)
941 ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting the parties stipulation [939-1] for seventh extension of preliminary injunction issued 10/1/96 to 2/1/98 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 12/09/1997)
942 MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager Consent Decree Unit, on status of dental positions as required by the July, 1994 Court Order. (bd) (Entered: 12/12/1997)
943 MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager Consent Decree Unit, on the status of positions which have been vacant for 120 days. (bd) (Entered: 12/12/1997)
944 ORDER (3 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting pltfs' motion for attorney fees [928-1] and that defts shall make immediate payment of undisputed atty fees and that disputed atty fees are awarded as requested but payment is stayed pending apeal (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 12/16/1997)
945 RESPONSE (joint) by pltfs to defts' legal writer compliance report [8771] w/attachments, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/23/1997)
946 CHRONIC DISEASE REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) (rlw) (Entered: 12/23/1997)
947 QUARTERLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for the Reception and Guidance Center as presenting symptoms of serious mental illness (rlw) (Entered: 12/23/1997)
948 NOTICE OF APPEAL to Circuit Court by defts re: order [944-1] entered on 12/16/97 w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/30/1997)
949 RECEIPT #203765 in the amount of $105.00 submitted by all defts for appeal fee (rlw) (Entered: 12/30/1997)
MAILED information copies to CCA consisting of Notice of Appeal [948-1], docket sheet and order 944 (cc: District Judge and all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 12/30/1997)
950 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltfs for Joint Second Interrogatories to defts regarding Status of Legal Writer Programs (rlw) (Entered: 01/06/1998)
951 MOTION by pltfs to compel answers to interrogatories regarding accommodations for the medically handicapped at SPSM, Facility B w/brief in support, attachments 1-2, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/12/1998)
952 MOTION (joint) by pltfs to compel answers to interrogatories regarding status of legal writer programs w/brief in support, attachments A-B1-B5, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/12/1998)
953 STIPULATION to eighth extension of preliminary injunction issued

01/16/1998 01/16/1998 01/16/1998 01/16/1998 01/20/1998 01/20/1998 01/22/1998 01/22/1998 01/26/1998
01/26/1998
01/26/1998 01/27/1998

10/1/96 to 4/1/98 (rlw) (Entered: 01/16/1998)
954 MOTION by defts to extend time until 2/2/98 to file response to pltfs' motion to compel answers to interrogatories regarding accommodations for the medically handicapped at SPSM, Facility B w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/16/1998)
955 MOTION by defts to extend time until 2/2/98 to file response to pltfs' joint motion to compel answers to interrogatories regarding status of legal writer programs w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/16/1998)
956 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for the month of December 1997 (rlw) (Entered: 01/16/1998)
957 STAFF VACANCIES MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) as of December 1997 (rlw) (Entered: 01/16/1998)
958 MAIL RETURNED [944-1] addressed to pltfs' attorney Jeanne E. Mirer with the P.O. remark "addressee unknown" (rlw) (Entered: 01/21/1998)
959 TRANSMISSION FORM showing notice of appeal [948-1] filed by CCA on 1/15/98 and assigned CCA 98-1036 (rlw) (Entered: 01/21/1998)
960 COMPLIANCE REPORTS (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) tri-annual compliance reports on the health care issues (medical and mental health) and the access to courts issues (rlw) (Entered: 01/23/1998)
961 ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting the parties stipulation [953-1] for an eighth extension of preliminary injunction issued 10/1/96 to 4/1/98 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 01/23/1998)
962 RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' motion to extend time until 2/2/98 to file response to pltfs' joint motion to compel answers to interrogatories regarding status of legal writer programs [955-1] to extend time until 2/2/98 to file response to pltfs' motion to compel answers to interrogatories regarding accommodations for the medically handicapped at SPSM, Facility B [954-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/26/1998)
963 ORDER (2 pgs) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting defts' motion to extend time until 2/2/98 to file response to pltfs' motion to compel answers to interrogatories regarding accommodations for the medically handicapped at SPSM, Facility B [954-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 01/26/1998)
964 ORDER (2 pgs) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting defts' motion to extend time until 2/2/98 to file response to pltfs' joint motion to compel answers to interrogatories regarding status of legal writer programs [955-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 01/26/1998)
965 ORDER from CCA; re: CCA #96-2548 dismissing for want of jurisdiction defts' appeal [831-1] (rlw) (Entered: 01/27/1998)

01/29/1998 01/29/1998 01/29/1998 01/29/1998 02/03/1998
02/03/1998
02/04/1998
02/04/1998 02/06/1998
02/06/1998 02/12/1998 02/12/1998 02/17/1998 02/19/1998

966 MAIL RETURNED [961-1] addressed to one of pltfs' attorneys Deborah a. LaBelle (remailed to new address) (rlw) (Entered: 01/30/1998)
967 MAIL RETURNED [961-1] addressed to one of pltfs' attorneys Jeanne E. Mirer (remailed 1/30/98 to new address) (rlw) (Entered: 01/30/1998)
968 MOTION by pltfs for immediate payment of uncontested attorney fees w/brief in support, Attachments A-E, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/30/1998)
969 ERRATA (MEMORANDUM) by pltfs to brief in support of motion for immediate payment of uncontested attorney fees (revised page 3) [968-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/30/1998)
970 OPPOSITION by defts to pltfs' joint motion to compel answers to interrogatories regarding status of legal writer programs [952-1] w/affidavit of Barbara Hladki, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/04/1998)
971 OPPOSITION by defts to pltfs' motion to compel answers to interrogatories regarding accommodations for the medically handicapped at SPSM, Facility B [951-1] w/affidavit of Barbara Hladki, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/04/1998)
972 ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting pltfs' motion for immediate payment of uncontested attorney fees [968-1]; the fees shall be paid by defts immediately - National Prison Project $17,299.50, Patricia Streeter $22,979.25, Michael Barnhart $19,552.50 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 02/04/1998)
973 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Response to pltfs' Joint Second Interrogatories to defts regarding status of Legal Writer Programs (rlw) (Entered: 02/05/1998)
974 REPLY by pltfs to defts' response to pltfs' motion to compel answers to interrogatories regarding accommodations for the medically handicapped at SPSM, Facility B [951-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/06/1998)
975 REPLY (joint) by pltfs to defts' response to pltfs' motion to compel answers to interrogatories regarding status of legal writer programs [9521] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/06/1998)
976 MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) on staff vacancies vacant for 120 days or more as of 1/98 (rlw) (Entered: 02/13/1998)
977 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for January 1998 (rlw) (Entered: 02/13/1998)
978 WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL (NOTICE) by attorney Mark Schneider on behalf of the Knop pltfs in 1:84-cv 651 (rlw) (Entered: 02/18/1998)
979 MANDATE from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals re: CCA #: 96-2548; re: order #831 (rlw) (Entered: 02/19/1998)

02/19/1998 02/19/1998
02/20/1998 02/25/1998 03/03/1998 03/03/1998 03/03/1998 03/04/1998 03/05/1998
03/05/1998
03/06/1998 03/06/1998
03/11/1998 03/20/1998

980 MAIL RETURNED [963-1] addressed to Jeanne E. Mirer on behalf of pltfs and marked "return to sender, no forwarding order on file" (rlw) (Entered: 02/19/1998)
981 ORDER (3 pgs) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltfs' joint motion to compel answers to interrogatories regarding status of legal writer programs [952-1] defts shall produce the requested documents on or before 3/5/98 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 02/19/1998)
982 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by pltfs of foregoing pltfs' supplemental request for production of documents (mrs) (Entered: 02/20/1998)
983 JOINT MOTION by pltfs for order of payment of uncontested attorneys' fees w/brief in support and cert of svc (mrs) (Entered: 02/25/1998)
984 MOTION by pltfs for order compelling discovery and for expedited briefing w/brief in support, Attachments 1-2, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/04/1998)
985 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Response and Objections to pltfs' Notice of Inspection and Request for Production of Documents (rlw) (Entered: 03/04/1998)
986 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Response to pltfs' Request for Production of Documents (rlw) (Entered: 03/04/1998)
988 RESPONSE by defts to pltfs' motion for order compelling discovery and for expedited briefing [984-1] w/proof of service, attachments A-B (rlw) (Entered: 03/05/1998)
987 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltfs' motion for order compelling discovery and for expedited briefing [984-1]; defts shall respond to the Motion for Discovery by 4 p.m. on 3/5/98 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/05/1998)
990 OPPOSITION and response by defts to pltfs' motion to compel answers to interrogatories regarding accommodations for the medically handicapped at SPSM, Facility B [951-1] w/attachment A, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/09/1998)
989 ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting pltfs' motion for order compelling discovery [984-1]; pltfs' request for attorney fees is denied (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/06/1998)
991 STIPULATION for entry of protective order concerning confidentiality of information submitted in response to Nos. 6 & & of pltfs' joint interrogatories to defts regarding status of legal writer programs (rlw) (Entered: 03/09/1998)
992 REPLY (letter form) by pltfs to defts' response to pltfs' motion to compel answers to interrogatories regarding accommodations for the medically handicapped at SPSM, Facility B [951-1] (rlw) (Entered: 03/11/1998)
993 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for response and objections to pltfs' request for production of documents (rlw) (Entered: 03/20/1998)

03/20/1998 03/20/1998 03/23/1998 03/25/1998 03/30/1998 04/01/1998 04/03/1998
04/10/1998 04/17/1998
04/17/1998 04/20/1998 04/20/1998 04/20/1998 04/22/1998 04/24/1998

994 STIPULATION to ninth extension of prelilminary injunction issued 10/1/96 to 6/1/98 (rlw) (Entered: 03/20/1998)

995 ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting stipulation for ninth extension of preliminary injunction issued 10/1/96 to 6/1/98 [994-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/20/1998)

996 NOTICE by pltfs of inspection w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/24/1998)

997 ORDER from CCA; re: CCA #98-1036 granting defts/appellees request to file instanter the proof brief (rlw) (Entered: 03/25/1998)

998 ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting pltfs' motion for order of payment of uncontested attorneys' fees [983-1]; see order for fees approved for payment (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/30/1998)

999 MOTION by pltfs for order compelling discovery w/brief in support, attachments, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/02/1998)

1000

QUARTERLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) on prisoners identified in the Reception and Guidance Center as presenting symptoms of serious mental illness (rlw) (Entered: 04/06/1998)

1001 MOTION by pltfs for payment of balance of uncontested attorneys' fees in the amount of $7,982.50 w/brief in support, Attachment A, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/13/1998)

1002

MOTION by pltfs for contempt of the 2/18/98 order compelling production of certain discovery related to defts' Legal Writer Programs w/brief in supportm Exhibits A-C, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/20/1998)

1003 RESPONSE by defts in opposition to pltfs' motion for order compelling discovery [999-1] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/21/1998)

1004 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for March 1998 (rlw) (Entered: 04/21/1998)

1005 STAFF VACANCIES MONTHLY REPORT FOR MARCH 1998 (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) (rlw) (Entered: 04/21/1998)

1006 MOTION by defts to extend time to file response to pltfs' joint motion for payment of balance of uncontested attorneys' fees w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/21/1998)

1007 OPPOSITION by pltfs to defts' motion to extend time to file response to pltfs' joint motion for payment of balance of uncontested attorneys' fees [1006-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/23/1998)

1008 STIPULATION for entry of protective order concerning confidentiality of information submitted in response to No. IV.2. of plaintiff's 1/26/98 notice of inspection and production of documents w/proof of service (rlw)

04/24/1998 04/27/1998 04/27/1998 04/27/1998 04/29/1998 04/29/1998 05/04/1998 05/05/1998
05/08/1998
05/11/1998

(Entered: 04/24/1998)

1009 REPLY by pltfs to defts' response to pltfs' motion for order compelling discovery [999-1] w/attachment, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/24/1998)

1010

ORDER (1 pgs by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting defts' motion to extend time to file response to pltfs' joint motion for payment of balance of uncontested attorneys' fees [1006-1]; defts shall have until and including 4/30/98 to file their response (cc: all counsel) (rlw) Modified on 04/28/1998 (Entered: 04/28/1998)

1011

ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting pltfs' motion to compel answers to interrogatories regarding accommodations for the medically handicapped at SPSM, Facility B [951-1]; pltfs' request for attorney fees is denied (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 04/28/1998)

1012

ORDER (2 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen that w/in 14 days the parties may file a legal memorandum supporting the entry of the proposed order for sealing discovery relating to the Legal Writer Program (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 04/28/1998)

1013

OPPOSITION by defts to pltfs' joint motion for contempt of the 2/18/98 order compelling production of certain discovery related to defts' Legal Writer Programs [1002-1] w/Exhibit 1, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/30/1998)

1014 RESPONSE by defts to pltfs' joint motion for payment of balance of uncontested attorneys' fees in the amount of $7,982.50 [1001-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/30/1998)

1015

REPLY by pltfs to defts' response to pltfs' motion for contempt of the 2/18/98 order compelling production of certain discovery related to defts' Legal Writer Programs [1002-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 05/04/1998)

1016

ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting pltfs' joint motion for payment of balance of uncontested attorneys' fees in the amount of $7,982.50 [1001-1]; fees are approved and shall be paid immediately upon the resolution in pltfs' favor of defts' petition for rehearing by the 6th Circuit as follows: Nat'l Prison Project $7,991.50; Patricia Streeter $8,006.25; Michael Barnhart $3,742.50 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 05/06/1998)

1017

MOTION by defts to terminate all aspects of the Hadix Consent Decree (Section VI, 1-14) and associated orders and plans relating to access to courts in Hadix: to dissolve the October 1, 1996 preliminary injunction enjoining defts from terminating funding of PLSM; and to terminate all further remedial relief in both Knop and Hadix on the issue of access to courts w/brief in support, Exhibit 1, proof of service (rlw) Modified on 06/08/1998 (Entered: 05/11/1998)

1018 NOTICE by pltfs of inspection w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 05/11/1998)

05/11/1998 05/12/1998 05/13/1998 05/15/1998 05/15/1998 05/15/1998 05/18/1998
05/19/1998 05/19/1998 05/21/1998 05/26/1998
05/26/1998

1020 RESPONSE by deftsi in support of stipulation for Protective Order [10081] w/affidavit of Marjorie Van Ochten, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 05/13/1998)

1019 REPLY by pltfs in support of their joint motion for order of payment of uncontested attorneys' fees [1001-1] w/attachments, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 05/12/1998)

1021 AMENDED REPLY by pltfs in support of their joint motion for order of payment of uncontested attorneys' fees [1019-1] w/attachments, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 05/13/1998)

1022 NOTICE by pltfs of taking deposition of Dinah Y. Moore, Administrator of the Special Programs Unit on 5/21/98 at 10 a.m. in defts' offices w/certificate of servie (rlw) (Entered: 05/18/1998)

1023 STAFF VACANCIES MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) as of April 1998 (rlw) (Entered: 05/19/1998)

1024 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for April 1998 (rlw) (Entered: 05/19/1998)

1025

MOTION by pltfs to extend time 30 days to respond to defts' motion to terminate all aspects of the Hadix Consent Decree (Section VI, 1-14) and Associated Orders and Plans Relating to Access to Courts in Hadix; to Dissolve the 10/1/96 Preliminary Injunction Enjoining Defts from Terminating Funding of PLSM; and to Terminate all Further Remedial Relief in Both Knop and Hadix on the Issue of Access to Court[s] w/brief in support, Exhibits A-C, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 05/19/1998)

1026 ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting pltfs' motion for order compelling discovery [999-1]; defts shall pay pltfs costs of bring this motion (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 05/20/1998)

1027

ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen denying pltf's joint motion for contempt of the 2/18/98 order compelling production of certain discovery related to defts' Legal Writer Programs [1002-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 05/20/1998)

1028

PROTECTIVE ORDER by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen: (2 pgs) that information provided by defts in response to Nos. IV.2. of pltfs 1/26/98 Notice of Inspection and Production of Docuoments shall be treated as confidential (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 05/21/1998)

1029

SLIP OPINION from CCA re: CCA # 96-1851/1907/1908/1943; appeal [749-1] 198 reversing the lower court orders holding the pre 1997 automatic stay provision unconstitutional; affirming the 5/30/96 award of attorney fees entered in the Hadix litigation by Judge Feikens and affirm Judge Enslen's decision to retain jurisdiction over the security classification system at the Michigan Reformatory; remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion (rlw) (Entered: 05/27/1998)

1030 MOTION by pltfs for order adopting the stipulation to a tenth extension

05/26/1998 05/29/1998 06/01/1998
06/03/1998
06/09/1998 06/10/1998 06/10/1998 06/12/1998 06/12/1998 06/15/1998

of the preliminary injunction issued 10/1/96 to 6/30/98 w/brief in support, attachment - stipulation, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 05/27/1998)

1031

COMPLIANCE REPORTS - Tri-Annual (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for health care issues (medical and mental health) and access to courts (rlw) (Entered: 05/27/1998)

1032

ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting pltfs' motion for order adopting the stipulation to a tenth extension of the preliminary injunction issued 10/1/96 to 6/30/98 [1030-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 05/29/1998)

1033

ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltfs' joint motion to extend time 30 days to respond to defts' motion to terminate all aspects of the Hadix Consent Decree (Section VI, 1-14) and Associated Orders and Plans Relating to Access to Courts in Hadix; to Dissolve the 10/1/96 Preliminary Injunction Enjoining Defts from Terminating Funding of PLSM; and to Terminate all Further Remedial Relief in Both Knop and Hadix on the Issue of Access to Court[s] [10251]; pltfs have until and including 6/26/98 to file their response to defts' motion (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 06/04/1998)

1034

MEMORANDUM by defts in support of their motion to terminate all aspects of the Hadix Consent Decree (Section VI, 1-14) and associated orders and plans relating to access to courts in Hadix: to dissolve the October 1, 1996 preliminary injunction enjoining defts from terminating funding of PLSM; and to terminate all further remedial relief in both Knop and Hadix on the issue of access to courts [1017-1] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/08/1998)

1035

MOTION by pltfs for preliminary injunction to Rule 65 of FRCP that preserves the operation and funding of the offices of the Prison Legal Services of Michigan, Inc. and, if necessary for temporary restraining order , and for shortening defts' time for response to 6/17/98 w/brief in support, Exhibits A-C, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/09/1998)

1036 JOINT MOTION by pltfs (1:84-cv-651) for sanctions for certain legal contentions w/brief in support, Attachments 1-4, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/10/1998)

1037 RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS by defts to pltfs' notice of inspection [1018-1] w/Exhibit A, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/11/1998)

1038 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for the month of May, 1998 (rlw) (Entered: 06/12/1998)

1039 MONTHLY REPORT ON STAFF VACANCIES (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for positions vacant for 120 days or more as of May 1998 (rlw) (Entered: 06/12/1998)

1040 NOTICE by deft of taking deposition de bene esse of Sandra L. Girard on 6/23/98 at 9:30 a.m. in Lansing, MI w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/15/1998)

06/15/1998 06/15/1998
06/15/1998 06/15/1998 06/15/1998 06/18/1998
06/18/1998
06/19/1998 06/19/1998 06/19/1998 06/19/1998
06/22/1998

1041

MANDATE from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals re: CCA #: 96-1908; affirming the decision of the District Court appeal [749-1] re: order #1029; remanded for further proceedings consistent with opinion issued 5/26/98 (rlw) (Entered: 06/16/1998)

1042

MOTION by pltfs to adopt stipulation to an eleventh extension of the preliminary injunction issued 10/1/96 to 8/1/98 allowing pltfs to withdraw their request for shortening defts' time to respond to pltfs' pending motion for a preliminary injunction , and for a telephone status conference w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/16/1998)

1043 STIPULATION to eleventh extension of prelilminary injunction issued 10/1/96 to 8/1/98 (rlw) (Entered: 06/16/1998)

1044 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltfs for pldg. Nos. 1042-1043 (rlw) (Entered: 06/16/1998)

1045 LETTER to court from Special Master F. Warren Benton, Ph.D. regarding legal access w/attachment (rlw) (Entered: 06/16/1998)

1046

ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting pltfs' motion to adopt stipulation to an eleventh extension of the preliminary injunction issued 10/1/96 to 8/1/98 allowing pltfs to withdraw their request for shortening defts' time to respond to pltfs' pending motion for a preliminary injunction [1042-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 06/19/1998)

1051

MOTION by defts to extend time until 7/15/98 to file response to pltfs' joint motion for a preliminary injunction and, if necessary, a temporary restraining order, and for shortening defts' time for response w/brief in support, Exhibits A-B, certificate of service (rlw) Modified on 06/23/1998 (Entered: 06/23/1998)

1047

MOTION by pltfs to compel defts to submit to the requested inspection , to expedite consideration by requesting that defts be ordered to file a response to this motion by 6/26/98 w/brief in support, ATtachments 1-4, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/19/1998)

1048 ORDER from CCA; re: CCA # 96-1908 that the mandate [1041-1] is recalled (rlw) (Entered: 06/19/1998)

1049

ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting pltfs' motion to expedite consideration by requesting that defts be ordered to file a response to this motion by 6/26/98 [1047-2]; response is due on or before 6/26/98 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 06/19/1998)

1050

ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen; the Court grants permission of F. Warren Benton to hire Diane Hartmus to assist him in determining compliance with respect to the referenced motions; setting pltfs' motion for preliminary injunction to Rule 65 of FRCP that preserves the operation and funding of the offices of the Prison Legal Services of Michigan, Inc. [1035-1] at 9:00 a.m. on 7/22/98 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 06/19/1998)

1052 RESPONSE by pltfs to letter from Dr. F. Warren Benton, Independent

06/24/1998 06/25/1998 06/26/1998
06/26/1998 06/26/1998 06/29/1998
06/29/1998
06/29/1998 07/01/1998
07/02/1998

Monitor re the legal access plan [1045-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/23/1998)

1053 MOTION by defts (all) to extend time (of 10 days) to file response to pltfs' joint motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 (bd) (Entered: 06/24/1998)

1054

OPPOSITION by pltfs (all) to defts' motion to extend time until 7/15/98 to file response to pltfs' joint motion for a preliminary injunction and, if necessary, a temporary restraining and for shortening defts' time for response [1051-1]; w/Cert of Service (bd) (Entered: 06/25/1998)

1055

(joint) OPPOSITION by pltfs (all) to defts' motion to terminate all aspects of the Hadix Consent Decree (Section VI, 1-14) and associated orders and plans relating to access to courts in Hadix: to dissolve the October 1, 1996 preliminary injunction enjoining defts from terminating funding of PLSM; and to terminate all further remedial relief in both Knop and on the issue of access to courts [1017-1]; w/Appendix A; w/Proof of Service (bd) (Entered: 06/26/1998)

1056 RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' motion to extend time (of 10 days) to file response to pltfs' joint motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 [1053-1]; w/Cert of Service (bd) (Entered: 06/26/1998)

1057 OPPOSITION by defts to pltfs' motion to compel defts to submit to the requested inspection [1047-1] w/Exhibits 1-2, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/29/1998)

1058

ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting defts' motion to extend time until 7/15/98 to file response to pltfs' joint motion for a preliminary injunction and, if necessary, a temporary restraining order, and for shortening defts' time for response [1051-1]; pltfs' reply brief shall be due in the Kalamazoo Clerk's Office on or before 4 p.m. on 7/20/98 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 06/29/1998)

1059

SUPPLEMENT by pltfs w/the pages of signed declarations of Barbara Levine (Exhibit B), omitted from their motion for preliminary injunction to Rule 65 of FRCP that preserves the operation and funding of the offices of the Prison Legal Services of Michigan, Inc. [1035-1] and for temporary restraining order [1035-2] and for shortening defts' time for response to 6/17/98 [1035-3] (rlw) (Entered: 06/29/1998)

1060

ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting pltfs' motion to compel defts to submit to the requested inspection [1047-1] - deft shall comply w/the 5/7/98 notice of inspection (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 06/30/1998)

1061

ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting defts' motion to extend time (of 10 days) to file response to pltfs' joint motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 [1053-1]; deft shall have until and including 7/6/98 to file a response; defts shall serve their respective responses on the pltfs by express mail no later than 7/7/98 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 07/01/1998)

1062 OPPOSITION by defts to plts' joint motion for sanctions for certain legal

07/06/1998 07/08/1998
07/13/1998 07/14/1998 07/14/1998
07/15/1998 07/15/1998 07/15/1998 07/16/1998 07/16/1998 07/17/1998 07/17/1998 07/17/1998

contentions [1036-1] w/Exhibits 1-2, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 07/02/1998)

1063 LETTER to court from Independent Expert, F. Warren Benton requesting that the address of the newly appointed Monitor, Diane Hartmus be added to the court's docket (rlw) (Entered: 07/06/1998)

1064

QUARTERLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for April 1 through June 30, 1998 which lists all lprisoners identified in the Reception and Guidance Center as presenting symptoms of serious mental illness (rlw) (Entered: 07/08/1998)

1065 NOTICE by pltfs of taking deposition duces tecum of Steve Ramey on 7/17/98 at 10 a.m. in Lansing, MI w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 07/13/1998)

1066 REPLY by pltfs to defts' response to pltfs' motion for sanctions for certain legal contentions [1036-1] w/affidavit, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 07/14/1998)

1067

OPPOSITION by defts to pltfs' motion for preliminary injunction to Rule 65 of FRCP that preserves the operation and funding of the offices of the Prison Legal Services of Michigan, Inc. [1035-1] for temporary restraining order [1035-2] for shortening defts' time for response to 6/17/98 [1035-3] w/Exhibits 1-2, A-M, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 07/15/1998)

1068 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for June 1998 (rlw) (Entered: 07/15/1998)

1069 STAFF VACANCIES MONTLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for positions vacant for 120 days or more as of June 1998 (rlw) (Entered: 07/15/1998)

1070

PETITION by pltfs for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum as to Alfredo Robinson and Keith Schramm, housed in the Egeler Facility and Ronald Kovaleski, housed at the Parnall Facility to appear at the hearing set for 7/22/98 w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 07/15/1998)

WRIT issued Warden, Egeler Facility for Alfredo Robinson and Keith Schramm to appear at a hearing on 7/22/98 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 07/16/1998)

WRIT issued to Warden, Parnall Facility for Ronald Kovaleski to appear at a hearing set for 7/22/98 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 07/16/1998)

1071 PETITION by pltfs for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum as to Harold Frieson and David Lytal to appear at a hearing set for 7/22/98 w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 07/17/1998)

WRIT issued to Warden, Charles Egeler Correctional Facility for David Lytal to appear on 7/22/98 at 8:30 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 07/17/1998)

WRIT issued to Warden Charles Egeler Correctional Facility for Harold

07/21/1998 07/22/1998
07/22/1998 07/22/1998 07/22/1998
07/23/1998
07/23/1998 07/23/1998 07/27/1998 07/27/1998 07/28/1998 07/29/1998 07/29/1998
07/30/1998

Frieson to appear on 07/22/98 at 8:30 a.m. (bd) (Entered: 07/20/1998)

1075 MOTION by defts to quash subpoena duces tecum dated 07/17/98 w/proof of service in support (bd) Modified on 07/22/1998 (Entered: 07/22/1998)

1072

REPLY Brief by pltfs in support of motion for preliminary injunction to Rule 65 of FRCP that preserves the operation and funding of the offices of the Prison Legal Services of Michigan, Inc. [1035-1], motion for temporary restraining order [1035-2], motion for shortening defts' time for response to 6/17/98 [1035-3]; w/attachment; w/Cert of Serv (bd) (Entered: 07/22/1998)

1073 WITNESS LIST submitted by pltf (bd) (Entered: 07/22/1998)

1074 EXHIBIT LIST submitted by pltfs (bd) (Entered: 07/22/1998)

PROCEEDING before Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen; hearing held as to motion for preliminary injunction to Rule 65 of FRCP that preserves the operation and funding of the offices of the Prison Legal Services of Michigan, Inc. [1035-1] [1035-2]; witnesses called by pltf - Harold Frieson, Keith Schram, Sandra Girard, Stephen Raney; writs continued as ordered; J. Reinardy, Recorder (rlw) (Entered: 07/23/1998)

PROCEEDING before Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen; hearing continued on motion for preliminary injunction; witnesses called by pltf - Barbara R. Levine; witnesses called by defts - Dinah Moore, Stephen Ramey, Douglas Whitley, Barbara Hladki; J. Reinardy, Recorder (rlw) (Entered: 07/24/1998)

WRIT issued to Warden, Parnall Facility as to Ronald Kovaleski to appear at a hearing on 7/23/98 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 07/24/1998)

WRIT issued to Warden, Egeler Facility as to Alfredo Robinson to appear at a hearing on 7/23/98 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 07/24/1998)

1076 CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Patricia A. Streeter on behalf of pltfs (rlw) (Entered: 07/28/1998)

1077 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Subpoena on Steven Ramey (rlw) (Entered: 07/28/1998)

1078 MOTION by pltfs to exceed page limitation to file brief w/PROPOSED post-hearing summation in support of motion for a preliminary injunction, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 07/28/1998)

1079 REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Diane Hartmus, Special Monitor on the Legal Writer Program as of July 1998 (rlw) (Entered: 07/29/1998)

1080

SUMMATION (RESPONSE) by defts to hearing on pltfs' motion for preliminary injunction to Rule 65 of FRCP that preserves the operation and funding of the offices of the Prison Legal Services of Michigan, Inc. [1035-1] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 07/29/1998)

1081 ORDER ( 4 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen denying pltfs motion

08/05/1998 08/11/1998 08/13/1998 08/14/1998 08/14/1998 08/17/1998 08/26/1998 08/28/1998
08/28/1998
09/01/1998 09/08/1998 09/14/1998

for preliminary injunction to Rule 65 of FRCP that preserves the operation and funding of the offices of the Prison Legal Services of Michigan, Inc. [1035-1], [1035-2], [1035-3] (cc: all counsel) (bd) (Entered: 07/30/1998)

1082 TRANSCRIPT of preliminary injunction proceed held 7/22/98; 7/23/98 before Judge Richard A. Enslen; transcribed by James L. Reinardy (rlw) (Entered: 08/06/1998)

1083 ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen denying as moot defts' motion to quash subpoena duces tecum dated 07/17/98 [1075-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 08/11/1998)

1084 LETTER to court from pltfs advising that the parties have resolved the matters raised in defts' motion to quash subpoena, dated 7/21/98 supboenas withdrawn (rlw) (Entered: 08/13/1998)

1085 MONTHLY REPORT ON STAFF VACANCIES (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (consent Decree Unit) (rlw) (Entered: 08/14/1998)

1086 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT ) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit for the month of July 1998 on the status of dental treatment and the status of dental positions (rlw) (Entered: 08/14/1998)

1087 AMENDED MANDATE from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals re: CCA #: 96-1908; amended to include no costs 1041 (rlw) (Entered: 08/19/1998)

1088 ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting pltfs' motion to exceed page limitation to file brief [1078-1] (cc: all counsel) (mrs) (Entered: 08/26/1998)

1089

SUMMATION (RESPONSE) by pltfs to defts' motion to terminate all aspects of the Hadix Consent Decree (Section VI, 1-14) and associated orders and plans relating to access to courts in Hadix: to dissolve the October 1, 1996 preliminary injunction enjoining defts from terminating funding of PLSM; and to terminate all further remedial relief in both Knop and Hadix on the issue of access to courts [1017-1] w/Exhibits 1-2, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 08/28/1998)

1090

SUMMATION (RESPONSE) by defts to Hadix/Knop hearing on defts' motion to terminate all aspects of the Hadix Consent Decree (Section VI, 1-14) and associated orders and plans relating to access to courts in Hadix: to dissolve the October 1, 1996 preliminary injunction enjoining defts from terminating funding of PLSM; and to terminate all further remedial relief in both Knop and on the issue of access to courts [1017-1] w/Exhibits 1-5, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 08/28/1998)

1091 MOTION by pltfs to strike defts' summation w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/01/1998)

1092 MAIL RETURNED [1088-1] addressed to Attorney Jeanne E. Mirer with "Forwarding Order Expired" on envelope (mrs) (Entered: 09/09/1998)

1093 MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) on staff vacancies by

09/14/1998 09/15/1998 09/17/1998
09/17/1998 09/23/1998 09/23/1998 09/29/1998 10/05/1998 10/05/1998
10/06/1998 10/07/1998 10/08/1998
10/08/1998

Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for positions vacant for 120 days or more as of August 1998 (rlw) (Entered: 09/17/1998)

1094 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for August 1998 (rlw) (Entered: 09/17/1998)

1095 MOTION by pltfs to extend time until 9/29/98 to file motion regarding attorneys' fees w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/17/1998)

1096

COMPLIANCE REPORTS (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) on Health Care and Access to Courts (triannual) for the period from May through August 1998 (rlw) (Entered: 09/17/1998)

1097 OPPOSITION by defts to pltfs' motion to strike defts' summation [10911] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/17/1998)

1098 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting motion to extend time until 9/29/98 to file regarding attorneys' fees [1095-1] (cc: all counsel) (seal) (Entered: 09/24/1998)

1099 ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting in part and denying in part motion to strike defts' summation [1091-1] defts' attachment 5 is stricken (cc: all counsel) (seal) (Entered: 09/24/1998)

1100 MOTION by pltfs to set hourly rate for attorney fees w/brief in support, Exhibits A-I, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/29/1998)

1101 MOTION by pltfs to extend time until 10/16/98 to respond to defts' summation w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/05/1998)

1102

QUARTERLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for July through September 1998 for prisoners at the Reception and Guidance Center as presenting symptoms of serious mental illness (seal) (Entered: 10/06/1998)

1103 ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting pltfs' motion to extend time until 10/16/98 to respond to defts' summation [1101-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 10/06/1998)

1104 CORRECTED MOTION by pltfs to set hourly rate for attorneys fees w/brief in support, attachments A-I, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/07/1998)

1105

MOTION by pltfs for temporary restraining order , for a preliminary injunction , for shortening time for response by defts to this motion , for waiver of bond and to exceed page limitation w/brief in support, Exhibits 1-6, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/08/1998)

1106

ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen setting hearing pltfs' motion for temporary restraining order [1105-1] and for a preliminary injunction [1105-2] at 8:30 a.m. on 10/29/98, granting pltfs' motion for shortening time for response by defts to this motion [1105-3] setting for

10/13/1998 10/13/1998 10/13/1998 10/16/1998 10/20/1998 10/21/1998 10/26/1998 10/28/1998 10/29/1998 10/29/1998 10/29/1998 10/29/1998

hearing pltfs' motion for waiver of bond [1105-4] for 8:30 a.m. on 10/29/98 and granting pltfs' motion to exceed page limitation [1105-5] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 10/09/1998)

1107 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for September 1998 (rlw) (Entered: 10/13/1998)

1108 MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) on staff vacancies of medical and mental health positions (rlw) (Entered: 10/13/1998)

1109 OPPOSITION by defts to pltfs' amended motion to set hourly rate for attorneys fees [1104-1] and to pltfs' original motion to set hourly rate for attorney fees [1100-1] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/14/1998)

1110

COMMENTS (REPLY) by pltfs regarding the July 1998 report of the Special Monitor on the Legal Writer Program [1079-1] w/Exhibits 1-A 1-C, Certificate of Service (rlw) Modified on 10/19/1998 (Entered: 10/19/1998)

1111 REPLY by pltfs to defts' response to pltfs' motion to set hourly rate for attorneys fees [1104-1] w/attachment, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/20/1998)

1112 CORRECTED COMMENTS (REPLY) by pltfs regarding the July 1998 Report of the Special Monitor on the Legal Writer Program [1110-1] w/Exhibits 1A-1C, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/22/1998)

1113 MOTION by defts to exceed page limitation to file brief w/PROPOSED brief in opposition to pltfs' motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/27/1998)

1114

REPLY BRIEF by pltfs in support of pltfs' motion for temporary restraining order [1105-1], motion for a preliminary injunction [1105-2], motion for waiver of bond [1105-4] w/attachment 1, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/28/1998)

1115 ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting deft's motion to exceed page limitation to file brief [1113-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 10/29/1998)

PROCEEDING before Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen; granting in part and denying in part pltfs' motion for a preliminary injunction [1105-2], waiver of bond unnecessary [1105-4]; further briefing to follow; J. Reinardy, Recorder (rlw) (Entered: 10/30/1998)

1116 OPPOSITION by defts to pltfs' motion for temporary restraining order [1105-1] and for a preliminary injunction [1105-2], and for waiver of bond [1105-4] w/Exhibits 1-2 (rlw) (Entered: 10/30/1998)

1117

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (3 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting in part and denying in part pltf's motion for preliminary injunction; defts are enjoined from distributing or posting the 9/24/98 Notice to Prisoners subject to the Consent Decree; pltfs shall file a brief w/in 15 days of this order on whether this preliminary injunction should

11/06/1998 11/10/1998 11/12/1998 11/12/1998
11/12/1998 11/12/1998 11/16/1998 11/16/1998 11/16/1998 11/20/1998 11/20/1998 11/23/1998

continue as a permanent injunction (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 10/30/1998)

1118 ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting pltfs' corrected motion to set hourly rate for attorneys fees [1104-1]; see order for specifics (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 11/06/1998)

TRANSCRIPT of preliminary injunction proceeding held 10/29/98 before Judge Richard A. Enslen; transcribed by James L. Reinardy (see 1:84-cv651 pleading No. 1442) (rlw) (Entered: 11/10/1998)

1119 OPINION (15 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 11/12/1998)

1120

ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion denying defts' motion to terminate all aspects of the Hadix Consent Decree (Section VI, 1-14) and associated orders and plans relating to access to courts in Hadix: to dissolve the October 1, 1996 preliminary injunction enjoining defts from terminating funding of PLSM; and to terminate all further remedial relief in both Knop and Hadix on the issue of access to courts [1017-1], denying pltf's motion for sanctions for certain legal contentions [1036-1]; and reaffirms its decision of 7/30/98 denying relief as to pltfs' motion for preliminary injunction as to court-ordered funding (cc: all counsel) (rlw) Modified on 11/12/1998 (Entered: 11/12/1998)

1121 MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) on staff vacancies by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for positions vacant for 120 days or more as of 10/98 (rlw) (Entered: 11/13/1998)

1122 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) for October 1998 by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) (rlw) (Entered: 11/13/1998)

1123 STIPULATION to posting corrected notice regarding MDOC funding of Prison legal Services of Michigan, Inc. w/attached corrected notice (rlw) (Entered: 11/17/1998)

1124 MOTION by pltf for entry of order regarding corrected notice and request to extend time to brief the permanency of the 10/29/98 injunction for two weeks, until 11/30/98 w/brief in support (rlw) (Entered: 11/17/1998)

1125 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltfs for pldg. Nos. 1123-1124 (rlw) (Entered: 11/17/1998)

1126

ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen that pursuant to the parties stipulation [1123-1] defts shall post the corrected Notice Regarding MDOC Funding of Prison Legal Services of Michigan, Inc. for a minimum of 45 days (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 11/20/1998)

1127

ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting pltfs' motion request to extend time to brief the permanency of the 10/29/98 injunction for two weeks, until 11/30/98 [1124-2] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 11/20/1998)

1128 MAIL RETURNED [1119-1 and 1120-1] addressed to Jeanne E. Mirer

11/30/1998 12/01/1998
12/11/1998 12/11/1998 12/14/1998 12/15/1998 12/16/1998 12/16/1998 12/23/1998
12/24/1998 12/24/1998 12/29/1998 12/29/1998

with "Forwarding Order Expired" stamped on envelope (mrs) (Entered: 11/25/1998)

1129 MOTION by pltfs for order prohibiting re-posting of incorrect notice regarding MDOC funding of Prison legal Services of Michigan, Inc. w/stipulation in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/01/1998)

1130

ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen based on the stipulation of the parties (attached to motion) pltfs' motion for order prohibiting reposting of incorrect notice regarding MDOC funding of Prison legal Services of Michigan, Inc. [1129-1] is granted (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 12/02/1998)

1131 NOTICE OF APPEAL to Circuit Court by defts from opinion 1119 and order 1120 entered on 11/12/98 w/proof of service, attachments (seal) (Entered: 12/15/1998)

1132 RECEIPT #103600 in the amount of $105.00 submitted by defts for appeal fee (seal) (Entered: 12/15/1998)

1133 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltfs for Joint Interrogatories to defts regarding status of Legal Writer Programs (seal) (Entered: 12/15/1998)

MAILED information copies to CCA consisting of Notice of Appeal [1131-1], docket sheet opinion 1119 and order 1120 (cc: District Judge and all counsel) (seal) (Entered: 12/15/1998)

1134 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for November 1998 on the status of the dental treatment and the status of dental positions (rlw) (Entered: 12/16/1998)

1135 MONTLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit on staff vacancies as of November 1998 (rlw) (Entered: 12/16/1998)

1136

QUARTERLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager of the Consent Decree Unit, for October through December, 1998 listing prisoners identified in the Reception and Guidance Center as presenting symptoms of serious mental illness - pursuant to the 04/12/93 Court Order (bd) (Entered: 12/23/1998)

1137 TRANSMISSION FORM showing notice of appeal [1131-1] filed by CCA on 12/21/98 and assigned CCA 98-2391 (tlb) (Entered: 12/29/1998)

1138 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltfs for interrogatories and requests for production of documents regarding Mental Health Care (tlb) (Entered: 12/29/1998)

1139 CHRONIC DISEASE REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) (mrs) (Entered: 12/29/1998)

1140 ANNUALL AUDIT (STATUS REPORT) of medical, dental and mental health care submitted by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) (mrs) (Entered: 12/29/1998)

01/06/1999 01/13/1999 01/13/1999 01/13/1999 01/20/1999 01/27/1999 02/17/1999 02/17/1999 02/17/1999 02/22/1999 02/23/1999 02/24/1999
02/26/1999

1141 TRANSCRIPT ORDER Form from appellant's atty ordering transcript from 7/22/98 and 7/23/98, (rlw) (Entered: 01/07/1999)

1142 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Response and Objections to pltfs' Joint Interrogatories to defts Regarding Status of Legal Writer Program (rlw) (Entered: 01/14/1999)

1143 STAFF VACANCIES MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for positions vacant for 120 days or more as of 12/98 (rlw) (Entered: 01/14/1999)

1144 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for December 1998 (rlw) (Entered: 01/14/1999)

1145 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Response and Objections to pltfs' Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Regarding Mental Health Care (rlw) (Entered: 01/20/1999)

1146

COMPLIANCE REPORTS - Health Care and Access to Courts (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for the period September through December 1998 (rlw) (Entered: 01/28/1999)

1147 MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) on staff vacancies for positions vacant for 120 days (rlw) (Entered: 02/17/1999)

1148 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for the month of January 1999 (rlw) (Entered: 02/17/1999)

1149 MOTION (Joint in 1:84-cv-651) by pltfs to compel discovery regarding status of legal writer programs w/brief in support, Exhibit A, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/17/1999)

1150

MOTION by defts to extend time until 3/17/99 to file response to pltfs' joint motion for order compelling discovery regarding status of Legal Writer programs w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/23/1999)

1151

RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' motion to extend time until 3/17/99 to file response to pltfs' joint motion for order compelling discovery regarding status of Legal Writer programs w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/23/1999)

1152

ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting defts' motion to extend time to file response to pltfs' joint motion for order compelling discovery regarding status of Legal Writer programs [1150-1] defts shall file their response on or before 3/15/99 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 02/24/1999)

1153 MOTION by pltfs to compel discovery regarding mental health care w/brief in support w/Exhibits A-C, certificate of service (seal) (Entered: 02/26/1999)

03/04/1999 03/08/1999 03/15/1999 03/15/1999 03/15/1999 03/15/1999 03/15/1999 03/16/1999
03/18/1999
03/19/1999 03/22/1999 03/29/1999 03/29/1999 03/29/1999

1154 MEMORANDUM (Errata) by pltfs in support of their motion to compel discovery regarding mental health care [1153-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/05/1999)

1155 MOTION by defts to extend time until 3/22/99 to file response to pltfs' motion for order compelling discovery regarding status of mental health care w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/09/1999)

1156 MOTION by pltfs to extend time until 4/9/99 to file motion for attorneys fees and expenses w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/15/1999)

1157 STIPULATION extending time to file motion regarding unresolved attorney fees and costs until 4/9/99 (rlw) (Entered: 03/15/1999)

1158 STAFF VACANCIES MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for positions vacant for 120 days or more as of 2/99 (rlw) (Entered: 03/15/1999)

1159 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for 2/99 (rlw) (Entered: 03/15/1999)

1160 OPPOSITION by defts in response to pltfs' joint motion to compel discovery regarding status of legal writer programs [1149-1] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/16/1999)

1161

ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltfs' motion to extend time until 4/9/99 to file motion for attorneys fees and expenses for the period 7/1/98 to 12/31/98 [1156-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/16/1999)

1162

ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen denying w/o prejudice pltfs' motion to reject defts' plans submitted pursuant to the Court's Order of October 25, 1994 [743-1], denying w/o prejudice pltfs' motion for implementation of procedures jointly identified by the parties' medical experts [744-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/18/1999)

1163 REPLY by pltfs to defts' response to pltfs' joint motion to compel discovery regarding status of legal writer programs [1149-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/19/1999)

1164 OPPOSITION by defts to pltfs' motion to compel discovery regarding mental health care [1153-1] w/attachments 1-4, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/26/1999)

1165 ORDER (2 pgs) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltfs' joint motion to compel discovery regarding status of legal writer programs [1149-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/29/1999)

1166 OPINION AND ORDER (12 pgs) from the E.D. of MI by Judge John Feikens of partial termination (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/30/1999)

1167 ORDER OF TRANSFER (3 pgs) by Judge John Feikens of the E.D. of MI the mental health provisions and medical health provisions of the Hadix consent decree (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/30/1999)

03/31/1999 04/02/1999 04/06/1999 04/06/1999
04/06/1999
04/07/1999 04/09/1999 04/09/1999 04/12/1999 04/13/1999 04/15/1999 04/15/1999 04/20/1999

1168 REPLY by pltfs to defts' response in opposition to pltfs' motion to compel discovery regarding mental health care [1153-1] w/attachment, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/31/1999)

1169 ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting pltfs' motion to compel discovery regarding mental health care [1153-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 04/02/1999)

1170 OBJECTIONS by defts to order [1165-1] granting pltfs' joint motion for order compelling discovery regarding status of Legal Writer Programs w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/06/1999)

1171

SLIP OPINION from CCA re: CCA # 96-2387; appeal [820-1] that the district court's grant of final injunctive relief must be reversed and the case remanded for a determination of "actual injury"; affirming the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction to pltfs (rlw) (Entered: 04/07/1999)

1172

JUDGMENT (MANDATE) from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals re: CCA #: 96-2387; reversing and remanding the Decision of the District Court's grant of final injunctive relief; affirming district court's grant of preliminary injunction to the pltfs in order to maintain the status quo until a hearing on the merits can be concluded - Appeal [820-1] (rlw) (Entered: 04/07/1999)

1173

QUARTERLY REPORT R&GC (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for January through March 1999 listing all prisoners identified in the R&GC as presenting symptoms of serious mental illness (rlw) (Entered: 04/07/1999)

1174 SECOND STIPULATION extending time until 4/15/99 to file motion regarding unresolved attorney fees and costs for the period 7/1/98 to 12/31/98 (rlw) (Entered: 04/09/1999)

1175 MOTION by pltfs to extend time (second) until 4/15/99 to file motion for attorneys fees and expenses w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/12/1999)

1176

ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting stipulation [1174-1] for a second extension until 4/15/99 of time to file motion regarding unresolved attorney fees and costs (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 04/13/1999)

1177 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for response to pltfs' interrogatories and requests for production of documents regarding mental health care dated 12/98 (rlw) (Entered: 04/13/1999)

1178 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Request for Admissions and Request for Production of Documents (rlw) (Entered: 04/15/1999)

1179 MOTION by pltfs for attorney fees for the period 7/1/98 through 12/31/99 and for costs w/brief in support, Exhibits A-I, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/15/1999)

1180 STAFF VACANCIES MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by

04/20/1999 04/21/1999 04/22/1999 04/23/1999
04/26/1999
04/26/1999 04/27/1999 04/28/1999 04/28/1999
04/29/1999 05/10/1999 05/11/1999 05/12/1999

Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for positions that have been vacant for 120 days or more as of 3/99 (rlw) Modified on 04/20/1999 (Entered: 04/20/1999)

1181 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for the month of 3/99 (rlw) (Entered: 04/20/1999)

1182 MOTION by defts to extend time until 5/10/99 to file response to pltfs' motion for attorney fees and costs w/proof of service (rlw) Modified on 04/21/1999 (Entered: 04/21/1999)

1183 MOTION by pltfs to extend time until 4/28/99 to file response to defts' objections to order granting discovery regarding legal writer programs w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/22/1999)

1184

ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltfs' motion to extend time until 4/28/99 to file response to defts' objections to order granting discovery regarding legal writer programs [1183-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 04/23/1999)

1185

SCHEDULING ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen ; hearing is set for 9:00 a.m. on 12/2/99 and 12/3/99 ; pltfs' summation is due on or before 12/10/99; defts' summation on or before 12/17/99; pltfs' reply on or before 12/28/99 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 04/27/1999)

1186 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltfs for Joint Request to Produce (rlw) (Entered: 04/27/1999)

1187 RESPONSE by defts to pltfs' motion for extension of time to file response to defts' objections to order granting discovery regarding legal writer programs [1183-1] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/27/1999)

1188 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen as to time of hearing only (see previous order for specifics) (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 04/28/1999)

1189

RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' objection [1187-1] to order granting pltfs' joint motion for order compelling discovery regarding status of legal writing program w/attachments 1-4, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/28/1999)

1190 ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen that defts' objection to the order of 3/29/99 is denied 1170 ; discovery shall continue as previously ordered (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 04/29/1999)

1191 OPPOSITION by defts to pltfs' motion for attorney fees for the period 7/1/98 through 12/31/99 [1179-1] and for costs [1179-2] w/Exhibits 1-2, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 05/11/1999)

1192 COMPLIANCE REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) on the Access to Courts for the period January to April 1999 (rlw) (Entered: 05/12/1999)

1193 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland dismissing as moot defts' motion to extend time until 5/10/99 to file response to pltfs'

05/14/1999 05/14/1999 05/14/1999 05/18/1999 05/25/1999
05/28/1999 06/01/1999 06/07/1999 06/14/1999 06/14/1999 06/15/1999 06/21/1999 06/23/1999

motion for attorney fees and costs [1182-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 05/12/1999)

1194 COMPLIANCE REPORTS - HEALTH CARE (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for the period January through April 1999 (rlw) (Entered: 05/14/1999)

1195 STAFF VACANCIES MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for positions vacant for 120 days or more as of April 1999 (rlw) (Entered: 05/14/1999)

1196 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for April 1999 (rlw) (Entered: 05/14/1999)

1197 REPLY by pltfs to defts' response to pltfs' motion for attorney fees for the period 7/1/98 through 12/31/99 [1179-1] and for costs [1179-2] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 05/18/1999)

1198

ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting pltfs' motion for attorney fees for the period 7/1/98 through 12/31/99 [1179-1] and for costs [1179-2] to the extent that pltfs are awarded attorney fees and expenses in the amounts requested which shall be paid immediately w/exceptions of the portions of fees in excess of the $112.50/per hr limitation and the fees relating to legal access (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 05/25/1999)

1199 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Response to pltfs' Joint Request to Produce Regarding Medical and Mental Health Care and Legal Access (rlw) (Entered: 06/01/1999)

1200 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Response to pltfs' Joint Interrogatories Regarding Status of Legal Writer Programs (rlw) (Entered: 06/02/1999)

1201 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltfs for Second Interrogatories and requests for production of documents regarding mental health care (rlw) (Entered: 06/07/1999)

1202 MONTHLY REPORTS ON STAFF VACANCIES (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for positions vacant for 120 days or more as of May 1999 (rlw) (Entered: 06/14/1999)

1203 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for May 1999 (rlw) (Entered: 06/14/1999)

1204 JUNE 1999 REPORT of the Independent Monitors (STATUS REPORT) F. Warren Benton, Ph.D. and J. Franklin James, M.D. (rlw) (Entered: 06/16/1999)

1205

ORDER from CCA; re: CCA # 98-2391 that pltfs' motion is granted; the portion of the 11/12/98 opinion and order of the district court denying the defts' motion to terminate is vacated; this appeal is remanded to the district court for further proceedings (rlw) (Entered: 06/22/1999)

1206 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts' (all) for: Defts' Interrogatories and Request for Production of documents, and Defts' Expert Witness List - via

06/24/1999 06/24/1999 06/25/1999 06/28/1999 06/29/1999 07/01/1999 07/01/1999 07/08/1999
07/08/1999
07/09/1999 07/09/1999 07/13/1999 07/13/1999

first-class mail on 06/22/99 (bd) (Entered: 06/23/1999)

1207 EXPERT WITNESS LIST submitted by pltfs w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/24/1999)

1208 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltfs for Request for Production of Documents (rlw) (Entered: 06/24/1999)

1209 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltf for Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (rlw) (Entered: 06/25/1999)

1211 MOTION by defts for protective order limiting the scope of discovery w/brief in support, Exhibits A-D, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/30/1999)

1210 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Objections to pltfs' Notice of Inspection and Request for Production of Documents (rlw) (Entered: 06/30/1999)

1212 MOTION by pltfs for expedited consideration of defts' motion for protective order and motion for attorneys' fees w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 07/01/1999)

1213

STIPULATION by parties until 7/16/99 for defts to file and serve response to pltfs' second interrogatories and request for production of documents regarding Mental Health Care; w/proposed order granting and prf of svc (mrs) (Entered: 07/02/1999)

1214

ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting stipulation [1213-1] to enlarge time until 7/16/99 for defts to file response to pltfs' Second Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Regarding mental health Care (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 7/8/99] (rlw) (Entered: 07/08/1999)

1215

ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland dismissing pltfs' motion for expedited consideration of defts' motion for protective order and motion for attorneys' fees [1212-1] pltfs' response to defts' motion for protective order limiting the scope of discovery [1211-1] is due on or before 7/16/99 (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 7/8/99] (rlw) (Entered: 07/08/1999)

1216 MOTION by pltfs to extend time until 8/9/99 to file supplemental discovery response w/brief in support, Attachments 1-6, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 07/09/1999)

1217 ORDER from CCA; re: CCA # 99-1413/1457 issued as to ED portion of this case granting in part the motion for a stay pending appeal; motion to strike is denied (rlw) (Entered: 07/13/1999)

1218 RENEWED MOTION by pltfs to expedite consideration of defts' motion for protective order and motion for attorneys' fees w/brief in support, attachments, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 07/13/1999)

1219 OPPOSITION by defts to pltfs' renewed motion to expedite consideration of defts' motion for protective order and motion for fees [1218-1]

07/14/1999 07/14/1999 07/14/1999 07/15/1999
07/19/1999 07/19/1999 07/19/1999 07/19/1999 07/19/1999 07/19/1999 07/21/1999 07/21/1999 07/26/1999 07/28/1999

w/Exhibit 1, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 07/15/1999)

1220 MANDATE from Circuit Court of Appeals CCA # 98-2391 for CCA order 1205 (rlw) (Entered: 07/15/1999)

1221 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) for June 1999 by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) (rlw) (Entered: 07/15/1999)

1222 STAFF VACANCIES MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) as of June 1999 by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) (rlw) (Entered: 07/15/1999)

1223

ORDER (2 pgs) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting in part and denying in part pltfs' renewed motion to expedite consideration of defts' motion for protective order (granted) and motion for attorneys' fees (denied) [1218-1], denying defts' motion for protective order limiting the scope of discovery [1211-1] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 7/15/99] (rlw) (Entered: 07/15/1999)

1224 OBJECTIONS by defts to Magistrate's order [1223-1] denying defts' motion for protective order w/Exhibits 1-2, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 07/20/1999)

1225 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Response and Objections to plts' Request for Production of Documents Regarding Mental Health Care (rlw) (Entered: 07/20/1999)

1226 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Response and Objections to pltfs' Request for Production of Documents (rlw) (Entered: 07/20/1999)

1227 SUPPLEMENT - corrected page from the decision [1171-1] page 11 at line 10 (rlw) (Entered: 07/20/1999)

1228 CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Diane Hartmus to 679 Catherine Street, Peekskill, NY 10566 (rlw) (Entered: 07/20/1999)

1229 MANDATE from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals re: CCA #: 98-2391; remanding the matter back to District Court Appeal [1131-1] for further proceedings (rlw) (Entered: 07/21/1999)

1230 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Response and Objections to pltfs' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (rlw) (Entered: 07/21/1999)

1231 RESPONSE by defts to pltf's motion to extend time until 8/9/99 to file supplemental discovery response [1216-1]; w/exhs. 1-4; w/exhs. 1-4; prf. of svc. (tlb) (Entered: 07/22/1999)

1232 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltfs for response to defts' interrogatories and request for production of documents sent by US Mail to M. Nickerson (mrs) (Entered: 07/27/1999)

1233 MANDATE from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals re: CCA # 96-2387; (tlb) (Entered: 07/29/1999)

07/29/1999 07/29/1999 07/29/1999
07/30/1999 08/02/1999
08/02/1999 08/02/1999 08/03/1999 08/03/1999 08/06/1999 08/10/1999 08/10/1999 08/10/1999 08/16/1999

1234 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltfs for interrogatories and request for production of documents sent by US Mail to M. Nickerson (mrs) (Entered: 07/29/1999)

1235 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltfs' motion to extend time until 8/9/99 to file supplemental discovery response [1216-1] (cc: all [EOD Date 7/29/99] (mrs) (Entered: 07/29/1999)

1236

ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen that defts shall report to the Court w/in 72 hrs any instance in which temp w/in any prisoneroccupied space exceeds 90 degress Fahrenheit; requirements shall be in effect until 09/30/99 (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 7/30/99] (tlb) (Entered: 07/30/1999)

1237 RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' objections to magistrate's July 14, 1999 Order denying defts' motion for protective order [1224-1] w/cert of svc (mrs) (Entered: 07/30/1999)

1238

REPLY by pltfs to defts' response to pltfs' motion to extend time until 3/22/99 to file response to pltfs' motion for order compelling discovery regarding status of mental health care [1155-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 08/03/1999)

1239 OBJECTIONS by defts to the June 1999 report of the independent monitors [1204-1] w/exhibits 1-6, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 08/03/1999)

1240 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltfs for Notice of Inspection (rlw) (Entered: 08/03/1999)

1241 ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen denying defts' objections to the 7/14/99 order of the Magistrate Judge [1224-1] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 8/4/99] (rlw) (Entered: 08/04/1999)

1242 MOTION Jamie C. Reilly, J.C. Cannon nd Wellington L. Drake to intervene as interested parties/plaintiffs w/brief in support, proof of service, Addendum-A-B (rlw) (Entered: 08/05/1999)

1243 MOTION by defts for reconsideration of the 7/29/99 order w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 08/06/1999)

1244 STAFF VACANCIES MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for positions vacant for 120 days or more as of July 1999 (rlw) (Entered: 08/10/1999)

1245 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for July 1999 (rlw) (Entered: 08/10/1999)

1246 MOTION by defts to compel answers to interrogatories and production of documents w/brief in support, Exhibits 1-2, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 08/10/1999)

1247 ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen denying motion to intervene as interested parties/plaintiffs [1242-1] by prisoners Jamie C. Reilly, J.C. Cannon and Wellington L. Drake (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date

08/16/1999 08/16/1999 08/18/1999 08/18/1999
08/23/1999 08/23/1999 08/23/1999 08/25/1999 08/26/1999
08/27/1999 08/27/1999 08/27/1999 08/27/1999

8/16/99] (rlw) (Entered: 08/16/1999)

1248

OPPOSITION by defts to motion to intervene as interested parties/plaintiffs [1242-1] by prisoners Jamie C. Reilly, J.C. Cannon and Wellington L. Drake w/proof of service, exhibits 1-2 (rlw) (Entered: 08/17/1999)

1249 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Response and Objections to pltf' Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents regarding Out of Cell Activities (rlw) (Entered: 08/17/1999)

1250 NOTICE by pltfs of filing Expert Reports pursuant to the 4/27/99 Amended Scheduling Order (rlw) (Entered: 08/18/1999)

1251

ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION: terminating attorney Michael A. Nickerson for defts Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik and substituting attorney leo H. Friedman (rlw) Modified on 08/19/1999 (Entered: 08/19/1999)

1252 AFFIDAVIT of Sandra Ashton Earls as Exhibit 2 in defts' response in opposition to prisoners' motion to intervene as interested parties/pltf [1248-1] (rlw) (Entered: 08/24/1999)

1253 NOTICE by pltfs of filing pltfs' amended expert report (of corrections architect Curtiss Pulitzer) w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 08/24/1999)

1254 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltfs for Joint Supplemental Responses to defts' Interrogatories (rlw) (Entered: 08/24/1999)

1255 NOTICE by defts of filing defts' expert reports w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 08/25/1999)

1256

ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland dismissing as moot defts' motion to extend time until 3/22/99 to file response to pltfs' motion for order compelling discovery regarding status of mental health care [1155-1] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 8/26/99] (rlw) (Entered: 08/26/1999)

1257 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Objections to pltfs' Notice of Inspection and Request for Production of Documents (rlw) (Entered: 08/27/1999)

1258 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Response and Objections to pltfs' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents Regarding Medical Care (rlw) (Entered: 08/27/1999)

1259 RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' motion to compel answers to interrogatories and production of documents [1246-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 08/27/1999)

1260 MOTION by defts for protective order lilmiting the scope of discovery to

08/30/1999 08/31/1999 08/31/1999 08/31/1999
09/01/1999 09/02/1999 09/03/1999 09/03/1999 09/03/1999 09/07/1999 09/08/1999
09/09/1999 09/09/1999 09/10/1999

be had by pltfs w/brief in support, Exhibits A-C, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 08/27/1999)

1261 MOTION by pltfs to compel discovery w/brief in support, Attachments 17, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 08/30/1999)

1262 MOTION by pltfs to extend time until 9/30/99 to file motion for attorneys fees and expenses w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 08/31/1999)

1263 STIPULATION extending time until 9/30/99 to file motion regarding unresolved attorney fees and costs (rlw) (Entered: 08/31/1999)

1264

ORDER (1 pgs) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland that defts are directed to reply to pltfs' response to defts' motion to compel answers to interrogatories and production of documents on or before 9/7/99 (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 8/31/99] (rlw) (Entered: 08/31/1999)

1265 MOTION by pltfs for expedited consideration of defts' motion for protective order w/brief in support, attachments, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/02/1999)

1266 ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen denying defts' motion for reconsideration of the 7/29/99 order [1243-1] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 9/2/99] (rlw) (Entered: 09/02/1999)

1267 MOTION by defts for protective order limiting the scope of discovery to be had by pltfs w/brief in support, Attachment A, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/03/1999)

1268 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Objections to pltfs' Notice of Inspection and Request for Production of Documents (rlw) (Entered: 09/03/1999)

1269 PROOF OF SERVICE by deftx for Second Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (rlw) (Entered: 09/03/1999)

1270 MOTION by pltfs to compel discovery , and for expedited consideration w/brief in support, attachments 1-2 (rlw) (Entered: 09/07/1999)

1272

MOTION by defts to exceed page limitation to file brief w/brief in support, PROPOSED Supplemental Motion to Terminate the Consent Decree w/proof of service (rlw) Modified on 09/09/1999 (Entered: 09/09/1999)

1271 MOTION by pltfs for expedited consideration of defts' motion for protective order w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) Modified on 09/09/1999 (Entered: 09/09/1999)

1273 OPPOSITION by defts to pltfs' motion to compel discovery [1261-1] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/09/1999)

1274 CORRECTED COPY OF MEMORANDUM by pltf in support of motion for expedited consideration of defts' motion for protective order w/cert of svc (mrs) (Entered: 09/10/1999)

09/10/1999 09/13/1999 09/13/1999 09/13/1999 09/13/1999 09/13/1999 09/13/1999 09/14/1999 09/14/1999 09/16/1999 09/17/1999
09/20/1999 09/20/1999 09/20/1999

1275 REPLY by deft to response to motion to compel answers to interrogatories and production of documents [1246-1] w/prf of svc (mrs) (Entered: 09/10/1999)

1276

ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting motion to extend time until 9/30/99 to file for attorneys fees and expenses [12621]pltfs have until 9/30/99 (cc: all [EOD Date 9/13/99] (mrs) (Entered: 09/13/1999)

1277 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting defts' motion to exceed page limitation to file brief [1272-1] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 9/13/99] (mrs) (Entered: 09/13/1999)

1278 SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION by defts to terminate the consent decree w/brief in support (mrs) (Entered: 09/13/1999)

1279 STATUS REPORT on staffing vacancies submitted by MDOC for the month of August 1999 (mrs) (Entered: 09/14/1999)

1280 STATUS REPORT on the status of the dental treatment and dental prositon submitted by MDOC for the month of August 1999 (mrs) (Entered: 09/14/1999)

1282 OPPOSITION by deft to motion for expedited consideration of defts' motion for protective order [1271-1]; w/prf. of svc. (tlb) (Entered: 09/14/1999)

1281 REPLY by pltf to defts' response to pltfs' motion to compel discovery [1261-1] w/cert of svc (mrs) (Entered: 09/14/1999)

1283 COMPLIANCE REPORT on the Access to Courts section of the Hadix Consent Decree submitted by MDOC (mrs) (Entered: 09/14/1999)

1284 SUPPLEMENT by movants Jamie C. Reilly, J.C. Cannon and Wellington L. Drake to their motion to intervene as interested parties/plaintiffs [12421] w/attachments (rlw) (Entered: 11/02/1999)

1285

ORDER (3 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting defts' motion to compel answers to interrogatories and production of documents [12461], granting pltfs' motion for expedited consideration of defts' motion for protective order [1265-1], denying defts' motion for protective order limiting the scope of discovery to be had by pltfs [1260-1], granting pltfs' motion to compel discovery [1261-1], granting motion for expedited consideration of defts' motion for protective order [1271-1], denying motion for protective order limiting the scope of discovery to be had by pltfs [1267-1]; (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 9/17/99] (rlw) (Entered: 09/17/1999)

1286 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by defts adding attorney A. Peter Govorchin w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/20/1999)

1287 RESPONSE by defts in opposition to pltfs' motion to compel discovery [1270-1] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/20/1999)

1288 REPLY by pltfs in support of their motion for expedited consideration of

09/20/1999 09/20/1999 09/20/1999 09/21/1999 09/23/1999 09/24/1999 09/24/1999 09/24/1999 09/27/1999 09/28/1999 09/30/1999 09/30/1999 10/06/1999 10/12/1999 10/12/1999

defts' motion for protective order [1265-1] (rlw) (Entered: 09/20/1999)
1289 NOTICE by pltfs of constitutional challenge to Federal Statutes re defts' brief in support of supplemental motion to terminate the consent decree (rlw) (Entered: 09/20/1999)
1290 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltfs for pldg. Nos. 1288-1289 (rlw) (Entered: 09/20/1999)
1291 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltfs for Response to defts' Second Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (rlw) (Entered: 09/20/1999)
1292 COMPLIANCE REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) on Medical and Mental Health issues from May through August, 1999 (rlw) (Entered: 09/21/1999)
1293 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltfs for Supplemental Response to defts' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (rlw) (Entered: 09/23/1999)
1294 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltfs for Interrogatories and Request for documents to defts regarding health issues (rlw) (Entered: 09/24/1999)
1295 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltfs for Second Supplemental Response to defts' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (rlw) (Entered: 09/24/1999)
1296 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Third Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (rlw) (Entered: 09/24/1999)
1297 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltfs for Request for Production of Documents to defts Regarding Mental Health Issues (rlw) (Entered: 09/28/1999)
1298 REPLY by pltfs to defts' response to pltfs' motion to compel discovery [1270-1] and for expedited consideration [1270-2] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/28/1999)
1299 MOTION by pltfs for attorney fees for the period 1/1/99 through 6/30/99 and for costs for the period 1/1/99 through 6/30/99 w/brief in support, Exhibits 1-3, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/30/1999)
1300 ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting pltfs' motion to compel discovery [1270-1] and for expedited consideration [1270-2] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 9/30/99] (rlw) (Entered: 09/30/1999)
1301 MOTION by pltfs to exceed page limitation w/brief in support w/PROPOSED Brief in Opposition to Supplemental Motion to Terminate the Consent Decree, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/06/1999)
1302 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by pltfs of notices of inspection and request for production of documents (mrs) (Entered: 10/13/1999)
1303 MOTION by defts for protective order w/brief in support, proposed order granting and prf of svc (mrs) (Entered: 10/13/1999)

10/12/1999 10/13/1999 10/13/1999 10/14/1999 10/19/1999 10/19/1999 10/22/1999 10/29/1999 11/01/1999 11/02/1999 11/02/1999 11/03/1999 11/05/1999 11/09/1999 11/09/1999

1304 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for objections to pltfs' notice of inspection and request for production of documents (mrs) (Entered: 10/13/1999)

1305 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltfs' motion to exceed page limitation [1301-1] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 10/13/99] (mrs) (Entered: 10/13/1999)

1306 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION by pltfs to supplemental motion to terminate the consent decree [1278-1] (mrs) (Entered: 10/13/1999)

1307 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for response to pltfs' request for production of documents regarding Mental Health Issues served upon pltfs' counsels by US mail (mrs) (Entered: 10/14/1999)

1308 STAFF VACANCIES MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for September 1999 (rlw) (Entered: 10/19/1999)

1309 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for September 1999 (rlw) (Entered: 10/19/1999)

1310 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltfs for Response to defts' Third Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (rlw) (Entered: 10/22/1999)

1311 OCTOBER 1999 REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITORS (STATUS REPORT) F. Warren Benton, Ph.D. and J. Franklin James, M.D. (rlw) Modified on 11/02/1999 (Entered: 10/29/1999)

1312 RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' motion for protective order [1303-1] w/Exhibits A-D w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 11/01/1999)

1313 MOTION (supplemental) by pltfs for attorney fees for the period 1/1/99 through 6/30/99 , for costs w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 11/02/1999)

1314 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Response and Objections to pltfs' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents Regarding health Issues (rlw) (Entered: 11/02/1999)

1315 PROPOSED WITNESS LIST and EXHIBIT LIST submitted by defts w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 11/04/1999)

1316 WITNESS LIST and EXHIBIT LIST submitted by pltfs w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 11/05/1999)

1317 ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen denying defts' motion for protective order [1303-1] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 11/9/99] (rlw) (Entered: 11/09/1999)

1318

ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting pltfs' motion for attorney fees for the period 1/1/99 through 6/30/99 [1299-1] and for costs for the period 1/1/99 through 6/30/99 [1299-2] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 11/9/99] (rlw) (Entered: 11/09/1999)

11/10/1999 11/15/1999
11/15/1999
11/15/1999 11/16/1999 11/16/1999 11/17/1999
11/19/1999 11/22/1999 11/22/1999 11/22/1999 11/22/1999 11/23/1999

1319 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Proposed Exhibits 3-44 (rlw) (Entered: 11/12/1999)

1320

ORDER from CCA; re: CCA # 97-1610 (appeal #889) affirming in part and reversing in part defts' appeal of the district court's opinion re pltfs' motions for attorneys' fees for the time period between 1/1/96 and 12/31/96; this matter is remanded for further proceedings (rlw) Modified on 11/17/1999 (Entered: 11/17/1999)

1321

ORDER from CCA; re: CCA # 98-1036 (appeal #948) that the district court's order of 12/16/97 is reversed insofar as it is based upon an hourly rate in excess of the maximum rate established and this case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings (rlw) Modified on 11/17/1999 (Entered: 11/17/1999)

1322 SUPPLEMENT by CCA re mandate [1172-1] w/attached page 11 w/ correction as to footnote 3 (rlw) Modified on 11/17/1999 (Entered: 11/17/1999)

1323 STAFF VACANCIES (STATUS REPORT) monthly report by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) reflecting no vacancies for October 1999 (rlw) (Entered: 11/17/1999)

1324 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for the month of October 1999 (rlw) (Entered: 11/17/1999)

1325

AMENDED ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting pltfs' motion for attorney fees for the period 1/1/99 through 6/30/99 [1299-1], and for costs for the period 1/1/99 through 6/30/99 [1299-2]; defts are ordered to immediately pay the outstanding fees (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 11/17/99] (rlw) (Entered: 11/17/1999)

1327 MOTION (first) by defts in limine w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 11/22/1999)

1326

PETITION by pltfs for Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum as to C. Pepper Moore, Danny Walker, Alfredo Robinson, Ronald Kovaleski to appear at a hearing on health issues set for 12/2 and 12/3, 1999 w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 11/22/1999)

WRIT issued of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum to Warden at the Parnall Facility as to Ronald Kovaleski to appear as a witness at a hearing on 12/2 and 12/3, 1999 (rlw) (Entered: 11/23/1999)

WRIT issued to Warden at the Charles Egeler Facility as to Alfredo Robinson to appear as a witness at a hearing on 12/2 and 12/3, 1999 (rlw) (Entered: 11/23/1999)

WRIT issued to Warden at the Southern Michigan Prison as to C. Pepper Moore and Danny Walker to appear as witnesses at a hearing on 12/2 and 12/3, 1999 (rlw) (Entered: 11/23/1999)

1328 MOTION by pltfs to strike witness and exhibits and for expedited consideration w/brief in support, attachments, certificate of service (rlw)

11/24/1999 11/26/1999 12/01/1999 12/01/1999 12/01/1999 12/01/1999 12/02/1999 12/02/1999 12/02/1999 12/02/1999
12/03/1999 12/03/1999
12/06/1999 12/06/1999

(Entered: 11/23/1999)
1329 SECOND MOTION by defts in limine w/brief in support; w/prf. of svc. (tlb) (Entered: 11/24/1999)
1330 MOTION (third) by defts in limine concerning the expert testimonoy of Ms. Ferguson w/brief in support, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 11/26/1999)
1331 RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' first motion in limine [1327-1] (rlw) (Entered: 12/01/1999)
1332 RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' third motion in limine concerning the expert testimonoy of Ms. Ferguson [1330-1] (rlw) (Entered: 12/01/1999)
1333 RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' second motion in limine [1329-1] (rlw) (Entered: 12/01/1999)
1334 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltfs for pldg. Nos. 1331-1333 (rlw) (Entered: 12/01/1999)
1335 WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LIST (redacted) submitted by pltfs for the hearings on 12/2/99 and 12/3/99 w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/02/1999)
1336 NOTICE by pltfs of filing updated expert reports (rlw) (Entered: 12/02/1999)
1337 STIPULATION of the parties requesting that the mental health issues be adjourned from the hearing being held on 12/2/99 and 12/3/99 (rlw) (Entered: 12/02/1999)
PROCEEDING before Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen; medical hearing held at 9:00 a.m. on 12/2/99 ; witnesses called by pltfs - Curtis Pulitzer, Elizabeth Ferguson, Jerry Walden; defts' first motion in limine granted in part; defts' second motion in limine is granted in part; defts' third motion in limine is denied; pltfs' motion in limine is granted in part; court also rules on legal issues; Kathleen Thomas, Reporter (rlw) (Entered: 12/03/1999)
1338 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltfs for supplemental response to defts interrogatories and request for production of documents (rlw) (Entered: 12/03/1999)
PROCEEDING before Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen; witnesses called by deft Gayle Lafferty, Craig Hutchinson, Gregory Allen nailer, Barbara Hladki, Ronald Shamski; by pltf - Danny Walker; medical compliance hearing continued; times for summations amended as stated; Kathleen Thomas, Reporter (rlw) (Entered: 12/06/1999)
1339 MANDATE from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals re: CCA #: 97-1610; dismissing the appeal [889-1] (rlw) (Entered: 12/07/1999)
1340 MANDATE from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals re: CCA #: 97-1611; dismissing the appeal [948-1] (rlw) (Entered: 12/07/1999)

12/07/1999
12/14/1999
12/17/1999 12/17/1999 12/29/1999 01/03/2000 01/10/2000 01/11/2000 01/12/2000 01/12/2000 01/13/2000 01/14/2000 01/14/2000 01/18/2000

1341

ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/Court's determination at the hearing held 12/3/99; pltfs' summation shall be filed on or before 1/10/00; defts' on or before 1/18/00; pltfs' reply shall be filed on or before 1/28/00 (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 12/7/99] (rlw) (Entered: 12/07/1999)

1342

ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/CCA Orders of 11/10/99; that order [887-1] and order [944-1] are vacated to the extent that all attorney fees previously ordered in excess of the hourly rate of $112.50 per hour for legal work performed after 4/26/96 (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 12/14/99] (rlw) (Entered: 12/14/1999)

1343 STAFF VACANCIES MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for November 1999 (rlw) (Entered: 12/17/1999)

1344 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for November 1999 (rlw) (Entered: 12/17/1999)

1345 TRANSCRIPT of evidentiary held 12/2/99 & 12/3/99 before Judge Richard A. Enslen; transcribed by Kathleen S. Reporter (rlw) (Entered: 12/29/1999)

1346 CHRONIC DISEASE REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) (rlw) (Entered: 01/03/2000)

1347 MOTION by pltfs for leave to file oversized brief w/brief in support, PROPOSED summation and response to a legal question that the Court asked the parties to brief in the 12/99 hearing (rlw) (Entered: 01/11/2000)

1348 COMPLIANCE REPORTS tri-annual (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) on medical and mental health issues for September through December 1999 (rlw) (Entered: 01/11/2000)

1349 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltfs' motion for leave to file oversized brief [1347-1] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 1/12/00] (rlw) (Entered: 01/12/2000)

1350 HEARING SUMMATION (MEMORANDUM) by pltfs in response to order [1341-1] (rlw) (Entered: 01/12/2000)

1351 CORRECTED COPY (SUPPLEMENT) by pltfs to memorandum [13501] - hearing summation w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/13/2000)

1352 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for the month of December 1999 (rlw) (Entered: 01/14/2000)

1353 STAFF VACANCIES REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for the month of December 1999 (rlw) (Entered: 01/14/2000)

1354 ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting in part and denying in part defts' (first) motion in limine [1327-1], denying defts

01/18/2000 01/19/2000
01/21/2000 01/21/2000 01/21/2000 01/27/2000 01/28/2000 01/31/2000 01/31/2000
02/01/2000 02/01/2000 02/01/2000 02/02/2000

(second) motion in limine [1329-1], denying motion defts (third) in limine concerning the expert testimonoy of Ms. Ferguson [1330-1], denying pltfs' motion to strike witness and exhibits [1328-1] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 1/19/00] (rlw) (Entered: 01/19/2000)

1355 MOTION by defts to exceed page limitation to file Findings of Fact w/brief in support w/PROPOSED Defendants' Summation and Findings of Fact w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/20/2000)

1356

RESPONSE by defts to the Court's inquiry as to impact of the stay entered 7/6/99 in Hadix v Johnson in the Sixth Circuit US Court of Appeals No. 99-1413-1547 [1341-1] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/20/2000)

1357 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting defts' motion to exceed page limitation to file Findings of Fact [1355-1] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 1/21/00] (rlw) (Entered: 01/21/2000)

1358 SUMMATION (MEMORANDUM) by defts as required pursuant to order [1341-1] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/21/2000)

1359 FINDINGS OF FACT by defts in support of defts' summation 1358 w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/21/2000)

1360 MOTION by pltfs to extend time by one day to file reply w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/27/2000)

1361 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltfs' motion to extend time by one day to file reply [1360-1] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 1/28/00] (rlw) (Entered: 01/28/2000)

1362 MOTION by pltfs to exceed page limitation to file reply brief w/certificate of service, PROPOSED reply to defts' summation and proposed findings of fact (rlw) (Entered: 01/31/2000)

1363

MOTION to intervene by Charles M.H. Roberts, William T. Mears, Albert Eugene McKinley, Avis A. Fee w/brief in support w/attached PROPOSED Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Motion to Add Recently Discovered Information to Complaint, Certificate of Service, attachments (rlw) (Entered: 02/01/2000)

1364 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland granting pltfs' motion to exceed page limitation to file reply brief [1362-1] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 2/1/00] (rlw) (Entered: 02/01/2000)

1365 REPLY by pltfs to defts' summation [1358-1] w/attachment 1 (rlw) (Entered: 02/01/2000)

1366 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT by pltfs (rlw) (Entered: 02/01/2000)

1367

ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland rejecting a letter w/attachments from a Charles M.H. Roberts because he is not a party to the action (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 2/2/00] (rlw) (Entered: 02/02/2000)

02/03/2000
02/04/2000 02/09/2000 02/15/2000 02/18/2000 02/18/2000
02/18/2000 02/18/2000 02/22/2000 02/22/2000 02/23/2000 02/29/2000 03/02/2000 03/02/2000

1368

ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland denying motion to intervene by Charles M.H. Roberts, William T. Mears, Albert Eugene McKinley, Avis A. Fee [1363-1] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 2/3/00] (rlw) (Entered: 02/03/2000)

1369 RESPONSE by defts to pltfs' reply to defts' summation [1358-1] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/10/2000)

1370 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (rlw) (Entered: 02/10/2000)

1371 OBJECTIONS/COMMENTS by defts to the Court Monitor's 2/7/00 scheduling proposal w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/16/2000)

1372 FINDINGS OF FACT and CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (58 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 02/18/2000)

1373

ORDER (2 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting defts' motion to terminate the consent decree [1278-1] to the extent outlined in the order ; Status Conf is set for 9:00 a.m. on 9/8/00 to hear as to whether the Dept. of Corrections has adopted, voluntarily, measures to correct observed ongoing constitutional violations such that the entry of a remedial order is unnecessary (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 2/18/00] (rlw) (Entered: 02/18/2000)

1374 MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) on staff vacancies which have been vacant for 120 days or more as of January 2000 (rlw) (Entered: 02/18/2000)

1375 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for the month of January 2000 (rlw) (Entered: 02/18/2000)

1376 NOTICE by pltfs that they do not object to the proposed recommendation for remand procedure filed by the special monitor for legal access issues w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/23/2000)

1378 REMAND PROPOSAL (NOTICE) by special monitor Diane Hartmus (rlw) (Entered: 02/25/2000)

1377 MOTION by pltfs for order requiring notice to the plaintiff class w/brief in support, Attachments 1-3, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/23/2000)

1379 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltfs for Request for Production of Documents and Interrogatories to defts regarding mental health issues (rlw) (Entered: 02/29/2000)

1380 RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' objections/comments to the Court Monitors' February 7, 2000 Scheduling Proposal [1371-1] w/proof of service (rlw) Modified on 03/02/2000 (Entered: 03/02/2000)

1381 OPPOSITION by defts to pltfs' motion for order requiring notice to the plaintiff class [1377-1] w/Exhibits 1-2, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/07/2000)

03/10/2000
03/10/2000 03/10/2000 03/13/2000 03/13/2000 03/13/2000 03/14/2000 03/15/2000 03/20/2000
03/21/2000 03/23/2000 03/23/2000 03/29/2000 03/31/2000

1382

MOTION by pltfs to exceed page limitation to file a brief w/PROPOSED motion and brief in support of pltfs' motion for orders related to communications from pltfs' counsel to members of the class (rlw) Modified on 03/10/2000 (Entered: 03/10/2000)

1383 REPLY by pltfs to defts' response to pltfs' motion for order requiring notice to the plaintiff class [1377-1] (rlw) (Entered: 03/10/2000)

1384 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltf for pldg. Nos. 1382-1383 (rlw) (Entered: 03/10/2000)

1385 ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting pltfs' motion to exceed page limitation to file a brief [1382-1] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 3/13/00] (rlw) (Entered: 03/13/2000)

1386 MOTION by pltfs for orders related to communications from pltfs' counsel to members of the class w/brief in support, Attachments 1-2 (rlw) Modified on 03/14/2000 (Entered: 03/13/2000)

1387 MEMORANDUM (corrected copy) by pltfs in support of their motion for orders related to communications from pltfs' counsel to members of the class [1386-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/14/2000)

1388 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by pltfs for Response to defts' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (rlw) (Entered: 03/14/2000)

1389

STIPULATION allowing for an enlargement of time until 4/4/00 for defts to file a response to pltfs' motion for orders related to communications from pltfs' counsel to members of the class w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/15/2000)

1390

ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting the parties stipulation [1389-1]; deft have until 4/4/00 to file their response to pltfs' motion for orders related to communications from pltfs' counsel to members of the class (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 3/20/00] (rlw) (Entered: 03/20/2000)

1391 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Objections to pltfs' Request for Production of Documents and Interrogatories Regarding Mental health Issues (rlw) (Entered: 03/22/2000)

1392 STAFF VACANCIES (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for the month of February 2000 (rlw) (Entered: 03/23/2000)

1393 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for the month of February 2000 (rlw) (Entered: 03/23/2000)

1394 MOTION by defts to compel answers to interrogatories and production of documents w/brief in support, Exhibits 1-2, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/30/2000)

1395 NOTICE of hearing: before Magistrate Judge Hugh W. Brenneman Jr. on

03/31/2000 04/11/2000 04/12/2000 04/13/2000 04/14/2000 04/18/2000 05/04/2000 05/04/2000
05/09/2000 05/09/2000 05/12/2000 05/17/2000

defts' motion to compel answers to interrogatories and production of documents [1394-1]; is set for 2:00 p.m. on 5/4/00 in Grand Rapids, MI (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/31/2000)

1396 RESPONSE by defts to pltfs' motion for orders related to communications from pltfs' counsel to members of the class [1386-1] w/exhibits 1-3, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/03/2000)

1397 DENTAL REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for March 2000 (rlw) (Entered: 04/11/2000)

1398 REPLY by pltfs to defts' response to pltfs' motion for orders related to communications from pltfs' counsel to members of the class [1386-1] w/attachment 1-2, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/12/2000)

1399 STAFF VACANCIES MONTHLY REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) as of March 2000 (rlw) (Entered: 04/13/2000)

1400

REPLY MEMORANDUM (corrected version) by pltfs to [1398-1] which is in support of pltfs' motion for orders related to communications from pltfs' counsel to members of the class w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/17/2000)

1401 OPPOSITION by pltfs to defts' motion to compel answers to interrogatories and production of documents [1394-1] w/attachments, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/18/2000)

1402

NOTICE of hearing: before Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley on pltfs' motion for orders related to communications from pltfs' counsel to members of the class [1386-1] is set for 11:00 a.m. on 6/20/00 in Kalamazoo, MI (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 05/04/2000)

PROCEEDING before Magistrate Judge Hugh W. Brenneman Jr.; re deft's motion to compel answers to interrog and production of docs [13941]; motion granted in part and denied in part; defense counsel to prepare order; ct recorder: F. Hunter; Tapes B99 & B100 (ddk) (Entered: 05/08/2000)

1403 COMPLIANCE REPORTS - TRI-ANNUAL (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) for the period from January through April 2000 (rlw) (Entered: 05/09/2000)

1404

ORDER (2 pgs) by Magistrate Judge Hugh W. Brenneman Jr. granting in part and denying in part defts' motion to compel answers to interrogatories and production of documents [1394-1] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 5/11/00] (rlw) (Entered: 05/11/2000)

1405 MOTION (consent) by pltfs for resecheduling oral argument on pltfs' motion for orders related to communications from pltfs' counsel to members of the class w/brief in support (rlw) (Entered: 05/15/2000)

1406 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Hugh W. Brenneman Jr. on motion for orders related to communications from pltfs' counsel to members of the class [1386-1]; granting motion for resecheduling oral argument on

05/19/2000 05/22/2000
06/12/2000 06/30/2000 07/03/2000 08/23/2000
08/30/2000 09/18/2000 09/19/2000 09/25/2000 09/29/2000 09/29/2000

pltfs' motion for orders related to communications from pltfs' counsel to members of the class [1405-1]; motions set for 2:00 p.m. on 6/30 (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 5/18/00] (mrs) (Entered: 05/18/2000)

1407 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltfs for responses to defts' interrogatories and request for discovery (mrs) (Entered: 05/19/2000)

1408

AMENDED ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Hugh W. Brenneman Jr. granting pltfs' consent motion for resecheduling oral argument on pltfs' motion for orders related to communications from pltfs' counsel to members of the class [1405-1] setting pltfs' motion for orders related to communications from pltfs' counsel to members of the class [1386-1] at 2:00 p.m. on 6/30/00 before Mag. Brenneman (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 5/24/00] (rlw) (Entered: 05/24/2000)

1409 CHANGE OF ADDRESS by pltfs' attorney Patricia a. Streeter w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/13/2000)

PROCEEDING before Magistrate Judge Hugh W. Brenneman Jr. re pltf's motion for orders related to communications from pltfs' counsel to members of the class [1386-1]; opinion to issue; G. Frayer, court recorder; tape B142 (krv) (Entered: 07/10/2000)

1410 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltf for supplemental discovery responses regarding pltfs' legal access claims (rlw) (Entered: 07/05/2000)

1411

ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen that notice is given to the parties that at the scheduled Status Conf. the Court will inquire and conduct discussions concerning the outstanding legal writer remand issues and mental health compliance issues in addition to medical compliance issues (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 8/23/00] (rlw) (Entered: 08/23/2000)

1412 ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen; Status Conf is adjouorned until 9:00 a.m. on 9/29/00 (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 8/30/00] (rlw) (Entered: 08/30/2000)

1414

ORDER (4 pgs) by Magistrate Judge Hugh W. Brenneman Jr. denying motion for orders related to communications from pltfs' counsel to members of the class [1386-1] (cc: all counsel on 9/19/00) [EOD 9/19/00] (mj) (Entered: 09/19/2000)

1413

COMPLIANCE REPORTS (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) tri-annual on medical and mental health for the period from May through August 2000 (rlw) (Entered: 09/19/2000)

1418 HADIX MEDICAL EXPERT'S REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by defts on 9/20/00 w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/03/2000)

1415 MOTION by pltfs to exceed page limitation to file brief w/certificate of service, PROPOSED objections to order of Magistrate Judge entered 9/15/00 (rlw) (Entered: 09/29/2000)

PROCEEDING before Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen; Status Conf held at 9:00 a.m. on 9/29/00; Kathleen Thomas, Reporter (rlw) (Entered:

10/02/2000 10/02/2000 10/04/2000 10/04/2000
10/06/2000 10/10/2000 10/16/2000
10/16/2000
10/24/2000 10/24/2000
11/02/2000 11/02/2000

09/29/2000)

1416 ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen granting pltfs' motion to exceed page limitation to file brief [1415-1] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 10/2/00] (rlw) (Entered: 10/02/2000)

1417 OBJECTIONS by pltfs to order of Magistrate Judge [1414-1] (rlw) (Entered: 10/02/2000)

1419

ORDER (4 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen denying as moot pltfs' motion for order requiring notice to the plaintiff class [1377-1] denying as moot defts' objections to the Court Monitor's Scheduling Proposal [13711] (cc: all counsel) Date 10/4/00] (rlw) (Entered: 10/04/2000)

1420

ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen that the parties shall continue efforts to self-remedy the constitutional violations regarding medical care, heating and ventilation; parties' experts shall file a joint report on this subject on 3/15/01 (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 10/4/00] (rlw) (Entered: 10/04/2000)

1421 RESPONSE by defts to pltfs' objections to order of magistrate judge [1417-1] w/Exhibits 1-3, proof of service (rlw) Modified on 10/06/2000 (Entered: 10/06/2000)

1422 EXPERTS' REPORT TO THE PARTIES (STATUS REPORT) submitted by Barbara Hladki, (Manager) Consent Decree Unit (rlw) (Entered: 10/10/2000)

1423

ORDER (3 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen denying pltfs' objections [1417-1] to Magistrate Judge's Order of 9/15/00 denying pltfs' motions for orders related to communications from pltfs' counsel to members of the class (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 10/16/00] (rlw) (Entered: 10/16/2000)

1424

ORDER (3 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen concerning mental health provisions of the Decree (see order for specifics); pltfs initial legal memorandum due w/in 21 days of this order; defts response w/in 21 days thereafter; pltfs reply w/in 14 days thereafter (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 10/16/00] (rlw) (Entered: 10/16/2000)

1425 FILING (NOTICE) by defts pursuant to the Court's 10/16/00 order regarding mental health w/attachment, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/24/2000)

1426

ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody rejecting prisoner C. Pepper Moore's Objections to pltf Counsels Lack of Notice to the 9/29/00 "Settlement Agrement" and the Courts 10/3/00 Order Regarding legal Access because this filer is not a party to the action and there was no motion to intervene included (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 10/24/00] (rlw) (Entered: 10/24/2000)

1427 CHANGE OF ADDRESS by pltfs' counsel Michael Barnhart w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 11/02/2000)

1428 MOTION by pltfs to extend time one week to file legal memorandum

11/07/2000
11/13/2000 11/14/2000 12/04/2000 12/12/2000 12/18/2000 01/08/2001 01/08/2001
01/23/2001 03/15/2001 03/16/2001 03/20/2001 04/02/2001 04/19/2001

regarding mental health w/brief in support, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 11/02/2000)

1429

ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody granting pltfs' motion to extend time one week to file legal memorandum regarding mental health [1428-1] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 11/7/00] (rlw) (Entered: 11/07/2000)

1430 MEMORANDUM by pltfs as directed in order [1424-1] regarding mental health w/attachments, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 11/14/2000)

1431 EXPERT'S REPORT to the parties (STATUS REPORT) by Barbara Hladki, Manager (Consent Decree Unit) on Medical Issues (rlw) (Entered: 11/15/2000)

1432 MEMORANDUM by defts regarding the Court's order of 10/16/00 [1424-1] regarding Mental Health w/Exhibits 1-2, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/04/2000)

1433 CHANGE OF ADDRESS by pltfs' attorney Elizabeth Alexander w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/13/2000)

1434 RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' memorandum regarding the court's October 16, 2000 order [1424-1] w/Exhibits A-D, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/18/2000)

1435 OPINION (5 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 1/8/01] (rlw) (Entered: 01/08/2001)

1436

ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion that defts' request to terminate mental health provisions of the Consent Decree is granted and that Section II-B of the Consent Decree is terminated in all respects (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 1/8/01] (rlw) (Entered: 01/08/2001)

1437 RESPONSE by defts pursuant to the Court's 1/8/01 order [1436-1] w/updated summary of CQI Monitoring and Data Validation, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/24/2001)

1439 EXPERT (STATUS) REPORT regarding medical care submitted by Ronald Shansky, MD w/prf of svc (mrs) Modified on 04/03/2001 (Entered: 03/16/2001)

1438 STATUS REPORT by pltfs of pltfs' experts regarding health care issues w/cert of svc (mrs) (Entered: 03/16/2001)

1440 ORDER (1 pg) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen; Status Conf is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on 4/27/01 (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 3/20/01] (rlw) (Entered: 03/20/2001)

1441 RESPONSE by defts to pltfs' experts' 3/15/01 report to the parties submitted by Ronald Shansky, M.D. [1439-1] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/02/2001)

1442 NOTICE by pltfs of filing response to pltfs' Experts Jerry Walden and

04/27/2001 05/02/2001 05/18/2001 06/08/2001 06/12/2001 06/14/2001 06/14/2001
06/14/2001 06/15/2001 06/20/2001 06/20/2001 06/22/2001

Elizabeth J. Ferguson to Submission from Ronald Shansky, M.D. w/attachments 1-4, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/19/2001)

PROCEEDING before Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen; Status Conf held at 9:00 a.m. on 4/27/01; order to follow; not reported (rlw) (Entered: 05/01/2001)

1443

ORDER (4 pgs) by Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen; Discovery Conf is set for 1:30 p.m. on 6/20/01 before Mag. Carmody; see order for specific response deadlines (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 5/3/01] (rlw) (Entered: 05/03/2001)

1444 POSITION STATEMENT (NOTICE) by defts as to Remediation and Compliance with Outstanding Medical Health Care Issues of the consent Decree w/Exhibits 1-17, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 05/22/2001)

1445 REPORT by defts on their remedial plans for fire safety, temperature, ventilation, and Facility A, proof of service, Exhibit 1-2 (rlw) (Entered: 06/11/2001)

1446

RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' positoion statement as to remediation and compliance with outstanding medical health care issues of the Consent Decree [1444-1] w/attachments, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/12/2001)

1447

ORDER OF TRANSFER - certified copy - (2 pages) by Hon. John Feikens of the EDMI dated July 12, 2000 transferring as to Facility C, Section I-P, I-Q, and I-S of the consent Decree [EOD Date 6/14/01] (rlw) Modified on 06/19/2001 (Entered: 06/14/2001)

1448

ORDER OF TRANSFER - certified copy - (2 pages) by Hon. John Feikens of the EDMI dated Nov. 15, 2000 transferring as to Facility Section I-Q and I-S of Consent Decree and the fire safety issues which are the as those concerning Facility A (see #1447) [EOD Date 6/14/01] (rlw) Modified on 06/19/2001 (Entered: 06/14/2001)

1449 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody setting time limits for oral arguments at the 6/20/01 discovery conference (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 6/15/01] (rlw) (Entered: 06/15/2001)

1450

REPLY Statement as to Remediation and Compliance with Outstanding Medical Health Issues of the Consent Decree - by defts re pltf's response to defts' position stmt [1446-1]; w/attachments 1 & 2; Proof of Service (bd) (Entered: 06/19/2001)

1451 NOTICE by pltfs' representative of filing attached supplement to the expert report of Elizabeth Ferguson w/cert of svc (mrs) (Entered: 06/20/2001)

PROCEEDING before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody; Status Conf held 1:30-4:30 p.m. on 6/20/01; Oral argument regarding medical leave (discovery issues) held; Order to follow; Recorder, C. Rather, Tape #1091, 1092 # (mrs) (Entered: 06/22/2001)

1452 ORDER Regarding Discovery (8 pgs) by Magistrate Judge Ellen S.

07/10/2001 07/11/2001 07/17/2001 07/19/2001 07/24/2001 07/26/2001 07/27/2001 08/03/2001 08/07/2001

Carmody: SEE TEXT OF ORDER FOR DEADLINES AND DETAILS; Case mgmt ddl: submissions by defts and pltfs re; quality assurance protocol due within 14 days (by 7/6/01) ; all discovery madated by this Order shall be shared in a timely manner; no discovery requests may be filed after 10/15/01 w/defts' response complete by 11/01/01; Status Conf set for 11/15/01 at 2:00 p.m. before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody in Kalamazoo, MI ; iexpert reports and witness lists due by 12/01/01; misc. motions due by 12/07/01 (see text) ; remediation hearing 01/24-25/02 at 9:00 a.m. before Hon. Richard Alan Enslen ; pltfs post-trial brief due by 12/14/01; defts response due by 02/28/01; pltfs reply due by 3/14/01.( cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 6/22/01] (bd) (Entered: 06/22/2001)

1453

MOTION by defts objecting to the Court Monitor's interpretation of the 6/23/01 order regarding discovery and requesting a supplemental order w/brief in support, proof of service, Exhibits 1-3 (rlw) (Entered: 07/12/2001)

1454 SUBMISSION OF PROTOCOLS AND SCHEDULES (RESPONSE) by defts to the court's 6/23/01 order regarding discovery [1452-5] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 07/13/2001)

1455 (NOTICE) Plaintiffs' Submission of Quality Assurance Protocol to Determine Timely Sick Call Access for Persons with Difficulty Using the Kite System by pltfs; w/Cert of Service (bd) (Entered: 07/17/2001)

1456 OBJECTIONS by deft to pltfs' proposed quality assurance protocol to determine timely sick call access for persons with difficulty using the kite system [1455-1] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 07/20/2001)

1457

RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' motion objecting to the Court Monitor's interpretation of the 6/23/01 order regarding discovery and requesting a supplemental order [1453-1] w/attachments 1-3, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 07/24/2001)

1458 OBJECTIONS by pltfs to defts'protocols and schedules pursuant to the Court's 6/23/01 order regarding discovery [1454-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 07/26/2001)

1459 MOTION by defts to strike pltfs' objections to defts' protocols and schedules pursuant to the Court's 6/23/01 Order regarding discovery w/brief in support and prf of svc (mrs) (Entered: 07/30/2001)

1460 RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' motion to strike pltfs' objections to defts' protocols and schedules pursuant to the Court's 6/23/01 Order regarding discovery [1459-1] w/cert of svc (mrs) (Entered: 08/03/2001)

1461

NOTICE of hearing: before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody on defts' motion to strike pltfs' objections to defts' protocols and schedules pursuant to the Court's 6/23/01 Order regarding discovery [1459-1]; defts' motion objecting to the Court Monitor's interpretation of the 6/23/01 order regarding discovery and requesting a supplemental order [1453-1]; objections by defts to pltfs' proposed quality assurance protocol to determine timely sick call access for persons with difficulty using the kite system [1456-1]; objections by pltfs to defts' protocols and schedules pursuant to the Court's 6/23/01 order regarding discovery [1458-1]; are set

08/15/2001 08/16/2001 08/16/2001 08/17/2001 08/21/2001 08/21/2001
08/23/2001 08/31/2001

for 9:00 a.m. on 8/27/01 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 08/07/2001)

1462 MOTION by pltfs to extend time through 9/26/01 to conduct the temperature and fire safety inspections w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 08/16/2001)

1463 MOTION (unopposed) by pltfs to reschedule (reset) oral argument set for 8/27/01 w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 08/16/2001)

1464

ORDER OF REFERENCE (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen to Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody pltf's motion to extend time through 9/26/01 to conduct the temperature and fire safety inspections [1462-1]; counsel shall send courtesy copies of all responses and/or replies to the referred motion to Mag. Judge Carmody (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 8/16/01] (rlw) (Entered: 08/16/2001)

1465

ORDER OF REFERENCE (1 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen referring to Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody pltfs' unopposed motion to reschedule (reset) oral argument set for 8/27/01 [1463-1]; parties shall send courtesy copies of all responses and/or replies to the referred motion to Magistrate Carmody (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 8/17/01] (rlw) Modified on 08/17/2001 (Entered: 08/17/2001)

1466

ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody granting pltfs' motion to extend time through 9/26/01 to conduct the temperature and fire safety inspections [1462-1]; pltfs have through 9/26/01 for their experts to inspect the Hadix facilities (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 8/21/01] (rlw) (Entered: 08/21/2001)

1467

ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody granting pltfs' unopposed motion to reschedule (reset) oral argument set for 8/27/01 [1463-1]; defts' motion objecting to the Court Monitor's interpretation of the 6/23/01 order regarding discovery and requesting a supplemental order [1453-1]; objections by defts to pltfs' proposed quality assurance protocol to determine timely sick call access for persons with difficulty using the kite system [1456-1]; objections by pltfs to defts' protocols and schedules pursuant to the Court's 6/23/01 order regarding discovery [1458-1]; defts' motion to strike pltfs' objections to defts' protocols and schedules pursuant to the Court's 6/23/01 Order regarding discovery [1459-1] will be rescheduled for 9:00 a.m. on 8/31/01 before Mag. Carmody (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 8/21/01] (rlw) (Entered: 08/21/2001)

1468

NOTICE by pltfs of concurrence of defts to pltfs' motion for extension of time for pltfs' experts' inspection regarding temperature/humidity/ventilation and fire safety (rlw) (Entered: 08/23/2001)

1471

ORDER (2 pgs) by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody denying defts' motion to strike pltfs' objections to defts' protocols and schedules pursuant to the Court's 6/23/01 Order regarding discovery [1459-1]; granting in part and denying in part defts' motion objecting to the Court Monitor's interpretation of the 6/23/01 order regarding discovery and requesting a supplemental order [1453-1], Evidentiary hearing on additional proofs is

08/31/2001 09/04/2001 09/04/2001 09/04/2001 09/05/2001 09/14/2001 09/17/2001 09/24/2001 09/26/2001 09/26/2001 09/27/2001 10/01/2001

set for 9:00 a.m. beginning 1/24/02 and continuing to 1/25/02, 1/28/01; pltfs' objections to defts' protocols (1458) and defts' objections to pltfs' protocol 91456) are held in abeyance pending telephone conference of this court at a date and time to be separately noticed (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 9/5/01] (rlw) (Entered: 09/05/2001)

PROCEEDING before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody ; Motion Hearing Dkt. #1453 - Granted in Part, Denied In Part. Dkt. #1456 - Held In Abeyance. Dkt. #1458 - Held In Abeyance. Dkt. #1459 - Denied. Order to follow ; Carleen Rather, Tape #1098 (cr) (Entered: 09/17/2001)

1469 REPORT on the Legal Writer Program (STATUS REPORT) by Special Monitor Diane Hartmus for August (rlw) (Entered: 09/05/2001)

1470 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for First Supplemental Response to pltfs' Interrogatories and Request for Documents Regarding Health Care (rlw) (Entered: 09/05/2001)

1472 NOTICE of hearing before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody; Teleconf regarding outstanding motions is set for 1:00 p.m. on 9/12/01 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 09/06/2001)

1473 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Response to pltfs' Second Interrogatories and Request for Documents regarding Health Care (rlw) (Entered: 09/06/2001)

1474

ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody denying as moot pltfs' objections to defts' Protocols [1458-1] and defts' objections to pltfs' Protocol [1456-1] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 9/14/01] (rlw) (Entered: 09/14/2001)

1475 MOTION by pltfs for attorney and consultant fees and request for expedited briefing schedule w/brief in support, Exhibits A-E, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/18/2001)

1476 LETTER to court from Special Master F. Warren Benton summarizing the parties' agreements concerning the discovery protocols required in the 6/23/01 order (rlw) (Entered: 09/24/2001)

1477 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Second Supplemental Response to pltfs' Interrogatories and Request for Documents Regarding Health Care (rlw) (Entered: 09/26/2001)

1478

ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody setting pltfs' motion for attorney and consultant fees [1475-1] at 1:30 a.m. on 10/17/01, denying pltfs' motion request for expedited briefing schedule [1475-2] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 9/26/01] (rlw) (Entered: 09/26/2001)

1479

MOTION by pltfs for sanctions , additional document production , for scheduling conference (hearing) and expedited consideration w/brief in support, attachments 1-5, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/27/2001)

1480 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody setting for hearing pltfs' motion for sanctions [1479-1], additional document production

10/04/2001 10/04/2001
10/04/2001 10/09/2001 10/12/2001 10/15/2001 10/17/2001
10/22/2001
10/24/2001 10/24/2001 10/24/2001 10/24/2001

[1479-2], scheduling conference (hearing) [1479-3]; and denying pltfs' motion expedited consideration [1479-4] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 10/1/01] (rlw) (Entered: 10/01/2001)

1481 SUPPLEMENTAL memorandum in support by pltfs re motion for attorney and consultant fees [1475-1] w/cert of svc (mrs) (Entered: 10/04/2001)

1482

ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody Re: Info. from Independnet Monitor re: parties' unresolved disputes concerning discovery: hearing on issues shall be held on 10/17/01 at 1:30 ; ddl for filing briefs detailing parties' unresolved disputes concerning discovery is 10/12/01 (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 10/4/01] (bd) (Entered: 10/04/2001)

1483 OPPOSITION by defts to pltfs' motion for attorney and consultant fees [1475-1] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/05/2001)

1484 OPPOSITION by defts to pltfs' motion for sanctions [1479-1],for additional document production [1479-2], for scheduling conference (hearing) [1479-3] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/12/2001)

1485 RESPONSE by defts regarding discovery pursuant to the Court's October 4, 2001 Order [1482-3] w/proof of service, Exhibit 1 (rlw) (Entered: 10/15/2001)

1486 RESPONSE by pltfs to the Order of October 4, 2001 [1482-3] w/attachments 1-9, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/15/2001)

(Minute Sheet) PROCEEDING before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody w/Attys. E. Alexander, L. Friedman, A. P. Govorchin present: taking under advisement on motion for sanctions [1479-1], taking under advisement on motion additional document production [1479-2], taking under advisement on motion for attorney and consultant fees [1475-1]; Order to follow. Recorder, C. Rather-Tape #1104 (bd) (Entered: 10/18/2001)

1487

MOTION (expedited) by defts to stay all proceedings relating to medical health care, to adjourn the hearing pertaining to the remaining medical health care provisions of the consent decree only, and for the court to appoint an independent medical health care monitor w/brief in support, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/24/2001)

1488 NOTICE by pltfs advising that they do not concur in defts' motion to stay all proceedings w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/24/2001)

1489 STIPULATION requesting that prisoner Richy Lynn Wheeldon, No. 168691 be transferred to the C Unit of the Egeler Facility (rlw) (Entered: 10/25/2001)

1490 STIPULATION requesting that prisoner Alfredo Robinson, No. 136864 be transferred to the Ryan Facility in Detroit (rlw) (Entered: 10/25/2001)

1491 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts, pltfs for pldg. Nos. 1489, 1490 (rlw) (Entered: 10/25/2001)

10/24/2001 10/25/2001 10/25/2001 10/25/2001 10/25/2001 10/31/2001
11/02/2001 11/05/2001 11/06/2001 11/07/2001 11/13/2001

1494 RESPONSE by defts to pltfs' 10/24/01 notice [1487-3] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/25/2001)

1492

ORDER (4 pgs) by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody denying without prejudice as moot pltfs' motion for sanctions [1479-1] for additional document production [1479-2] and for scheduling conference (hearing) [1479-3] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 10/25/01] (rlw) (Entered: 10/25/2001)

1493

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody that defts' objections be rejected and that pltfs' motion for attorney and consultant fees [1475-1] be granted; objections to this report and recommendation must be filed w/in 10 days of the date of service (4 pgs) (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 10/25/2001)

1495

ORDER (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen granting parties stipulation [1489-1] that prisoner Richy Lynn Wheeldon, No. 168691 may be transferred to the C Unit of the Egeler Facility (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 10/25/01] (rlw) (Entered: 10/25/2001)

1496

ORDER (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen granting parties stipulation [1490-1] that prisoner Alfredo Robinson, No. 136864 may be transferred to the Ryan Facility (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 10/25/01] (rlw) (Entered: 10/25/2001)

1497

NOTICE of hearing: before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody on defts' motion to stay all proceedings relating to medical health care [1487-1] to adjourn the hearing pertaining to the remaining medical health care provisions of the consent decree only, [1487-2] for the court to appoint an independent medical health care monitor [1487-3] are set for 2:00 p.m. on 11/15/01 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 10/31/2001)

1498

RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' motion to stay all proceedings relating to medical health care, [1487-1], to adjourn the hearing pertaining to the remaining medical health care provisions of the consent decree only, [1487-2], the court to appoint an independent medical health care monitor [1487-3] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 11/02/2001)

1500

MOTION (Expedited) by defts to relieve compliance with Section VI-10 of the Consent Decree and the Court's May 5, 1988 Opinion and Order in Knop v Johnson w/brief in support, Exhibits 1-4, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 11/07/2001)

1499

MOTION by pltfs for order to show cause , for order enjoining defts' changes to the legal mail policy and for an order expediting the briefing w/brief in support, attachments 1-6, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 11/06/2001)

1501 TRANSCRIPT of motion hearing held 10/17/01 before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody; transcribed by Patricia R. Pritchard, (rlw) (Entered: 11/08/2001)

1502 MEMORANDUM (NOTICE of hearing): that the hearing presently scheduled before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody will be heard in Grand Rapids, MI; the hearing will also consider pltfs' motion for order to

11/13/2001 11/15/2001 11/16/2001 11/19/2001 11/19/2001 11/20/2001 11/20/2001
11/23/2001 11/28/2001

show cause [1499-1], for order enjoining defts' changes to the legal mail policy [1499-2], for an order expediting the briefing [1499-3]; and defts' motion to relieve compliance with Section VI-10 of the Consent Decree and the Court's May 5, 1988 Opinion and Order in Knop v Johnson [1500-1] for 2:00 p.m. on 11/15/01 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 11/13/2001)

1503

NOTICE by defts to the Court of changes to the operation of the State Prison of Southern Michigan - Central Complex, the Southern Michigan Correctional Facility and the Michigan Reformatory w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 11/14/2001)

1504 MOTION by movant Ronald Kovaleski to intervene and/or investigate defts actions w/brief in support, Exhibits A-I, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 11/16/2001)

1505 MOTION by pltf to reopen discovery , to expedite discovery , and for expedited consideration w/brief in support, attachments 1-5, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 11/16/2001)

1506 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Response to pltfs' Third Interrogatories and Request for Documents Regarding Health Care (rlw) (Entered: 11/20/2001)

1508

MOTION by defts to exceed page limitation to file response in opposition w/PROPOSED Response in Opposition to pltfs' Motion for Order to Show Cause and for Order Enjoining defts' Changes to the Legal Mail Policy (rlw) (Entered: 11/21/2001)

1507 RESPONSE by defts to pltfs' motion to reopen discovery [1505-1] and to expedite discovery [1505-2] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 11/20/2001)

1510

NOTICE of hearing: before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody on motion to reopen discovery [1505-1]; motion to expedite discovery [15052]; motion for expedited consideration [1505-3]; motion to intervene and/or investigate defts actions [1504-1]; motion for order to show cause [1499-1]; motion for order enjoining defts' changes to the legal mail policy [1499-2]; motion for an order expediting the briefing [1499-3]; motion to relieve compliance with Section VI-10 of the Consent Decree and the Court's May 5, 1988 Opinion and Order in Knop v Johnson [1500-1]; are set for 1:00 p.m. on 12/4/01 in Grand Rapids, MI (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 11/23/2001)

1509

RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' expedited motion to relieve compliance with Section VI-10 of the Consent Decree and the Court's May 5, 1988 Opinion and Order in Knop v Johnson [1500-1] w/attachments 1-5, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 11/23/2001)

1515

SUPPLEMENTAL FILING by defts of Vitae of Robert B. Griefinger, M.D. in support of their motion to stay all proceedings relating to medical health care, [1487-1] to adjourn the hearing pertaining to the remaining medical health care provisions of the consent decree only, [1487-2], for the court to appoint an independent medical health care monitor [1487-3] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/03/2001)

11/30/2001 11/30/2001 12/03/2001 12/03/2001 12/04/2001
12/05/2001 12/06/2001 12/11/2001 12/12/2001 12/13/2001 12/13/2001

1511

ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody granting defts' motion to exceed page limitation to file response in opposition [1508-1] (cc: all counsel on 11/30/01) [EOD 12/3/01] (mj) Modified on 12/03/2001 (Entered: 12/03/2001)

1512

ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody that Movant Kovaleski's motion to intervene and/or investigate defts' actions 1504 will be decided on the written submissions of the parties (cc: all counsel on 11/30/01) [EOD 2/3/01] (mj) (Entered: 12/03/2001)

1513

OPPOSITION by defts to pltfs' motion for order to show cause [1499-1], motion for order enjoining defts' changes to the legal mail policy [14992], motion for an order expediting the briefing [1499-3] w/Exhibits 1-11 (rlw) (Entered: 12/03/2001)

1514

REPLY by pltfs to defts' response to pltfs' motion for order to show cause [1499-1], motion for order enjoining defts' changes to the legal mail policy [1499-2], motion for an order expediting the briefing [1499-3] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/03/2001)

1516

ORDER (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen adopting REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody that defts' objections be rejected and that pltfs' motion for attorney and consultant fees [1475-1] be granted; [1493-1] granting defts' motion for attorney and consultant fees [1475-1] dismissing expedited briefing schedule [1475-2]; see order for specifics on atty fees and costs counsel) [EOD Date 12/4/01] (rlw) (Entered: 12/04/2001)

1517 NOTICE of hearing: Evidentiary hearing is rescheduled to 9:00 a.m. on 3/11/02, 3/12/02 and 3/13/02 before Judge Enslen (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 12/05/2001)

1518 OPPOSITION by defts to prisoner Ronald Kovaleski's motion to intervene and/or investigate defts actions [1504-1] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/06/2001)

1519 EXPERT RESPORS (STATUS REPORT) by defts including Ronald Shansky, M.D., David C. Sproul, P.E., Wayne G. Carson, P.E. w/proof of service (rlw) Modified on 12/12/2001 (Entered: 12/11/2001)

1520 SUPPLEMENTAL WITNESS LIST submitted by defts w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/13/2001)

1521 WITNESS LIST submitted by pltfs w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/13/2001)

1523

ORDER (5 pgs) by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody granting in part and denying in part pltfs' motion to reopen discovery [1505-1], granting in part and denying in part pltfs' motion to expedite discovery [1505-2], granting pltfs' motion for expedited consideration [1505-3], denying defts' motion to stay proceedings relating to medical health care, [1487-1], granting defts' motion to adjourn the hearing pertaining to the remaining medical health care provisions of the consent decree only, [1487-2], denying defts' motion for the court to appoint an independent medical health care monitor [1487-3]; a hearing is rescheduled for 3/11/02,

12/14/2001 12/18/2001 12/18/2001 12/18/2001 12/18/2001 12/18/2001 12/18/2001 01/02/2002
01/03/2002 01/03/2002 01/03/2002 01/04/2002 01/07/2002
01/07/2002

3/12/02, 3 3/11/02 on the development of a record about the JulySeptember health care assessment as well as consideration of remedies for any deficiencies (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 12/17/01] (rlw) (Entered: 12/17/2001)

1522 PROPOSED WITNESS LIST submitted by defts w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/14/2001)

1524 EXPERT REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by defts of Jerry S. Walden, M.D. (rlw) (Entered: 12/18/2001)

1525 EXPERT REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by defts of Elizabeth J. Ferguson (rlw) (Entered: 12/18/2001)

1526 EXPERT REPORT (STATUS REPORT by defts and vita of Mark Creekmore (rlw) (Entered: 12/18/2001)

1527 EXPERT REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by defts of Curtiss Pulitzer (rlw) (Entered: 12/18/2001)

1528 EXPERT REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by defts and vita of Michael Dimascio (rlw) (Entered: 12/18/2001)

1529 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for pldg. Nos. 1524-1528 (rlw) (Entered: 12/18/2001)

1530

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody that defts be ordered to propose a substitute for their current wholesale disregard for the Hadix Consent Decree and the Knop Order which is narrowly tailored to address the MDOC's "new" security concerns while preserving inmates' presumptive right to the confidentiality of genuine legal mail (11 pgs) (cc: all counsel) (rlw) Modified on 01/03/2002 (Entered: 01/03/2002)

1531 REPORT (STATUS REPORT) describing the proposed modifications to health care delivery and the continuous quality improvement process in Hadix facilities by Ronald Shansky, M.D. (rlw) (Entered: 01/03/2002)

1532 EXPERT REPORT (STATUS REPORT) of Ronald Shansky, M.D. (rlw) (Entered: 01/03/2002)

1533 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for pldg. Nos. 1531-1532 (rlw) (Entered: 01/03/2002)

1534 MOTION by defts to strike pltfs' expert reports , or in the alternative in limine , or in the alternative to clarify the record w/brief in support, Exhibit 1, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/04/2002)

1535

MOTION by pltfs for further order regarding the health-related disabilities identification, treatment and Accommodation Plan w/brief in support, Attachments 1-28, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/07/2002)

1538 TRANSCRIPT of motion hearing held 12/4/01 before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody; transcribed by Patricia R. Pritchard, (rlw) Modified on

01/08/2002 01/09/2002 01/14/2002 01/14/2002 01/14/2002 01/15/2002 01/17/2002 01/17/2002 01/17/2002 01/17/2002 01/18/2002 01/24/2002 01/25/2002

01/11/2002 (Entered: 01/11/2002)

1536 SUPPLEMENTAL Notice to the Court by defts of changes of the operation of the State Prison of Souothern Michigan - Central Compex w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/08/2002)

1537

ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Joseph G. Scoville rejecting named plaintiff Ronald Kovaleski's Response in Opposition to defts' Response because Mr. Kovaleski is represented by counsel (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 1/10/02] (rlw) (Entered: 01/10/2002)

1539

EXPEDITED MOTION by defts to terminate the court's consent Decree jurisdiction over the State Prison of Southern Michigan Central Compel (SMI) Facility w/brief in support, proof of service, Exhibit 1 (rlw) (Entered: 01/14/2002)

1540 EXPEDITED MOTION by defts to dismiss the court's attempt to exercise jurisdiction over facilities not subject to the Consent Decree w/brief in support, Exhibit 1, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/14/2002)

1542 OBJECTIONS by defts to Report and Recommendation [1530-1] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/15/2002)

1541 OBJECTIONS by pltfs to Report and Recommendation [1530-1] w/attachments 1-11, certificate of service (rlw) Modified on 01/15/2002 (Entered: 01/15/2002)

1543

RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' expedited motion to strike pltfs' expert reports [1534-1] or in the alternative, motion in limine [1534-2] or in the alternative, motion to clarify the record [1534-3] w/Attachment 1, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/17/2002)

1544 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE by defts to supplemental notice [1536-1] of changes to the operation of the Michigan Reformatory w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/17/2002)

1545 PROOF OF SERVICE by deft for Response to Interrogatory Questions 124 of pltfs' Third Interrogatories and Request for Documents Regarding Health Care (rlw) (Entered: 01/17/2002)

1546 RENEWED MOTION by defts for the Court to Appoint an Independent Medical Health Care Monitor w/brief in support, proof of service (rlw) Modified on 07/02/2003 (Entered: 01/17/2002)

1547 STATUS REPORT of Plaintiffs' Experts Regarding Remedy w/Cert. of Service (bd) (Entered: 01/18/2002)

1548

MOTION by defts to dismiss pursuant to the Court's 10/3/00 Order regarding legal access , or in the alternative for expedited hearing pursuant to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals' 4/1/99 opinion w/brief in support, Exhibits 1-2, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/24/2002)

1549 MOTION by pltfs to strike portions of reports of defts' experts Wayne Carson and David Sproul and to bar testimony corresponding to such portions of the reports w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw)

01/25/2002 01/25/2002 01/25/2002 01/28/2002 01/28/2002 01/28/2002 01/28/2002 01/29/2002 01/29/2002 01/29/2002 01/30/2002 01/30/2002 01/30/2002

(Entered: 01/28/2002)

1550

RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' expedited motion to terminate the court's consent Decree jurisdiction over the State Prison of Southern Michigan Central Compel (SMI) Facility [1539-1], certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/28/2002)

1551 RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' renewed motion for the Court to Appoint an Independent Medical Health Care Monitor [1546-1] w/Attachment 1, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/28/2002)

1552

RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' expedited motion to dismiss the court's attempt to exercise jurisdiction over facilities not subject to the Consent Decree [1540-1] w/Attachment 1, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/28/2002)

1553 MOTION (expedited considerations requested) by pltfs for temporary restraining order w/brief in support, Attachments 1-4, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/28/2002)

1554

MOTION (Corrected Copy) by pltfs in limine to strike portions of reports of defts' experts Wayne Carson and David Sproul and to bar testimony corresponding to such portions of the reports w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/29/2002)

1555

RESPONSE (Corrected Copy) by pltfs to defts' expedited motion to terminate the court's consent Decree jurisdiction over the State Prison of Southern Michigan Central Compel (SMI) Facility [1539-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/29/2002)

1556 RESPONSE (Corrected Copy) by pltfs to defts' renewed motion for the Court to Appoint an Independent Medical Health Care Monitor [1546-1] w/Attchment 1, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/29/2002)

1557 OPPOSITION by defts to pltfs' motion for temporary restraining order [1553-1] and defts' request for sanctions w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/29/2002)

1558 MOTION by pltfs for limited expedited discovery regarding health-care aspects of Egeler double-bunking and for health -care kites from JMF w/brief in support, Attachments 1-5 (rlw) (Entered: 01/29/2002)

1561 RESPONSE by defts to pltfs' motion for further order regarding the health-related disabilities identification, treatment and Accommodation Plan [1535-1] w/proof of service, attachments (rlw) (Entered: 01/31/2002)

1559 RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [1542-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/30/2002)

1560 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen denying pltfs' motion for temporary restraining order [1553-1] (cc: all [EOD Date 1/30/02] (rlw) (Entered: 01/30/2002)

1562 NOTICE by defts of taking depositions of Michael DiMascio on 2/14/02

01/31/2002 02/04/2002 02/05/2002 02/05/2002 02/06/2002 02/06/2002 02/06/2002
02/07/2002 02/08/2002 02/08/2002 02/11/2002 02/14/2002

at 1:30 p.m. by telephone and of Elizabeth Ferguson on 2/22/02 at 1:30 p.m. by telephone w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/31/2002)

1563 NOTICE by defts of taking deposition of Curtiss Pulitzer on 3/1/02 at 9:30 a.m. by telephone (rlw) (Entered: 02/01/2002)

1564 NOTICE by deft of taking deposition of Mark Creekmore on 3/1/02 at 1:30 p.m. by telephone w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/05/2002)

1565 REPLY by pltfs regarding their motion for a temporary restraining order [1553-1] w/attachment 1, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/05/2002)

1566

RESPONSE by defts in opposition to pltfs' motion for limited expedited discovery regarding health-care aspects of Egeler double-bunking and for health -care kites from JMF [1558-1] w/proof of service, exhibit 1 (rlw) (Entered: 02/05/2002)

1567

REPLY by pltfs to defts' response to pltfs' motion for further order regarding the health-related disabilities identification, treatment and Accommodation Plan [1535-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/06/2002)

1568

OPPOSITION by defts to pltfs' motion in limine to strike portions of reports of defts' experts Wayne Carson and David Sproul and to bar testimony corresponding to such portions of the reports [1554-1] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/06/2002)

1569

ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody that a telephone nearing will be held on defts' motion for the Court to Appoint an Independent Medical Health Care Monitor [1546-1], and on pltfs' motion for limited expedited discovery regarding health-care aspects of Egeler double-bunking and for health -care kites from JMF [1558-1]; hearing set for 8:30 a.m. on 2/14/02 in Grand Rapids (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 2/7/02] (mrs) (Entered: 02/07/2002)

1570 AMENDED NOTICE by defts of taking deposition of Michael DiMascio on 2/14/02 w/prf of svc (mrs) (Entered: 02/07/2002)

1571 ORDER ( 2 pgs) by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody denying Ronald Kovaleski' motion to intervene and/or investigate defts actions [1504-1] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 2/8/02] (mrs) (Entered: 02/08/2002)

1572 RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' motion to dismiss pursuant to the Court's 10/3/00 Order regarding legal access [1548-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/11/2002)

1573

SUPPLEMENT by defts in opposition to pltfs' motion for limited expedited discovery regarding health-care aspects of Egeler doublebunking and for health -care kites from JMF [1558-1] w/attachment, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/11/2002)

PROCEEDING before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody ; Pltf's Motion For Limited Expedited Discovery (Dkt. #1558): Granted-In-Part and Denied-In-Part. Pltf's Motion For Health Care Monitor (Dkt. #1546):

02/14/2002
02/14/2002
02/21/2002 02/21/2002 02/25/2002 02/25/2002 02/25/2002 02/25/2002 02/25/2002 02/26/2002 02/26/2002

Held in Abeyance pending March Hearing. Order to follow. Recorded by: Carleen Rather, Tapes #11 and and #12. (cr) (Entered: 02/14/2002)

1574

ORDER (3 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen adopting REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION as supplemented herein by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody that defts be ordered to propose a substitute for their current wholesale disregard for the Hadix Consent Decree and the Knop Order which is narrowly tailored to address the MDOC's "new" security concerns while preserving inmates' presumptive right to the confidentiality of legal mail [1530-1], granting pltfs' objection [1541-1], denying defts' objection [1542-1] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 2/14/02] (rlw) (Entered: 02/14/2002)

1575

ORDER (2 pgs) by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody holding in abeyance until after the hearings set for 3/11/02, 3/12/02, 3/13/02 defts' renewed motion for the Court to Appoint an Independent Medical Health Care Monitor [1546-1] granting in part and denying in part pltfs' motion for limited expedited discovery regarding aspects of Egeler doublebunking and for health -care kites from JMF [1558-1] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 2/19/02] (rlw) (Entered: 02/19/2002)

1576

MOTION by defts in limine , and to strike the expert report and purported testimony of Mark Creekmore, and portions of the expert reports and purported testimony of Jerry Walden, M.D., Elizabeth Ferguson, Curtiss Pulitzer w/brief in support, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/21/2002)

1577 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for supplemental response to pltfs' interrogatories (rlw) (Entered: 02/21/2002)

1578

MOTION by defts to terminate Section I-P of the Consent Decree pertaining to the State Prison of Southern Michigan - Central Complex (SMI) w/brief in support, proof of service, copy of Affidavit of Gary Easton (rlw) (Entered: 02/25/2002)

1579 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Response to pltfs' Request Regarding Changes to 2 Block at SMN (rlw) (Entered: 02/25/2002)

1580 MOTION by pltfs in limine requesting relief related to the evidentiary hearing beginning 3/11/02 w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/25/2002)

1584 PROPOSED EXHIBIT LIST submitted by defts w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/27/2002)

1585

MOTION by defts in limine , and/or to strike the purported testimony of pltf prisoners Rick Wheeldon, C. Pepper Moore, and Ronald Kovaleski w/brief in support, attachments, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/27/2002)

1581

MOTION by pltfs in limine to have defts precluded from objection to opinions of pltfs' experts based on discovery supplied to pltfs after 12/10/01 w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/26/2002)

1586 MOTION by defts in limine regarding pltfs' proposed Exhibits w/brief in

02/27/2002
02/27/2002
02/28/2002 03/01/2002 03/01/2002 03/01/2002 03/01/2002 03/01/2002 03/01/2002 03/04/2002 03/04/2002 03/04/2002

support, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/27/2002)

1582

PETITION by pltfs for writs of habeas corpus ad testificandum as to Miguel Ruiz, Kenneth Courtney, James Edwards who are imprisoned in the Southern Michigan prison (JMF) to appear as witnesses on March 1213, 2002 w/certificate of service (rlw) Modified on 02/27/2002 (Entered: 02/27/2002)

1583

PETITION by pltfs for writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum and ad testificandum as to prisoners C. Pepper Moore who is imprisoned at Southern Michigan Prison (JMF), Rick Wheeldon who is imprisoned at Charles Egeler Facility, Ronald Kovaleski who is imprsoned at Parnall Facility (SMT) to appear as witnesses on March 11-13, 2002 w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/27/2002)

1587 EXHIBIT LIST submitted by pltfs for the March 2002 Hearing; w/prf. of svc. (tlb) (Entered: 02/28/2002)

WRIT of habeas corpus ad prosequendum and ad testificandum issued to Warden, Southern Michigan Prison (JMF) as to prisoner C.Pepper Moore to appear as a witness on March 11-13, 2002 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 03/01/2002)

WRIT of habeas corpus ad prosequendum and ad testificandum issued to Warden, The Charles Egeler Facility (SMN) for prisoner Rick Wheeldon to appear as a witness on March 11-13, 2002 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 03/01/2002)

WRIT of habeas corpus ad prosequendum and ad testificandum issued to Warden, The Parnall Facility (SMT) for prisoner Ronald Kovaleski to appear as a witness on March 11-13, 2002 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 03/01/2002)

WRIT of habeas corpus ad testificandum issued to Warden, Southern Michigan Prison (JMF) for prisoner Miguel Ruiz to appear as a witness on March 11-13, 2002 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 03/01/2002)

WRIT of habeas corpus ad testificandum issued to Warden, Southern Michigan Prison (JMF) for prisoner Kenneth Courtney to appear as a witness on March 11-13, 2002 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 03/01/2002)

WRIT of habeas corpus ad testificandum issued to Warden, Southern Michigan Prison (JMF) for James Edwards to appear as a witness on March 11-13, 2002 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 03/01/2002)

1588 MAIL RETURNED Order of 2/14/02 regarding modification to mail policies [1574-1]; addressed to Michael Barnhart, Esq., stamped on envelope "Forwarding Order Expired" (mrs) (Entered: 03/04/2002)

1589 RESPONSE by defts per Order [1574-1] filed 2/14/02; Defendants' filing pursuant to the District Court's February 14, 2002 Order w/prf of svc (mrs) (Entered: 03/04/2002)

1590 UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST by defts w/prf of svc (mrs) (Entered: 03/05/2002)

03/05/2002 03/06/2002 03/06/2002
03/06/2002
03/06/2002 03/07/2002 03/07/2002 03/14/2002 03/14/2002 03/14/2002 03/14/2002 03/14/2002 03/14/2002

1591 STIPULATION of parties for dismissal and termination of prospective relief regarding pltfs' access to Court claims w/prf of svc (mrs) (Entered: 03/05/2002)

1592 UPDATED PROPOSED EXHIBIT LIST by pltfs for hearing on Health Issues w/cert of svc (mrs) (Entered: 03/07/2002)

1593

ORDER (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen that the hearing scheduled to commence on 3/11/02 is adjourned; that all writs for prisoner attendance are Quashed; and that the hearing will be rescheduled by subsequent notice of this Court (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 3/7/02] (mrs) (Entered: 03/07/2002)

1594

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance with the parties' stipulation of 3/1/02 [1591-1] that all prospective relief as to pltfs' access to court claims are terminated; that pltfs' access to court claims are dismissed; that the purposes of this Order, the pltfs' mail cliams are not included within the scope of pltfs' access to court claims; and that defts' motion to dismiss 1/23/02 (dkt # 1548) is deemed resolved in accordance with the Stipulation (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 3/7/02] (mrs) Modified on 03/07/2002 (Entered: 03/07/2002)

1595 OPPOSITION by defts to pltfs' motion in limine to have defts precluded from objection to opinions of pltfs' experts on discovery supplied to pltfs after 12/10/01 [1581-1] w/prf of svc (mrs) (Entered: 03/07/2002)

1596 NOTICE of hearing: by Judge Richard Alan Enslen; Evidentiary hearing rescheduled to May 6, 7, and 8, 2002 at 9:00 a.m. (cc: all counsel) (mrs) (Entered: 03/07/2002)

1597 OPPOSITION by defts to pltfs' motion in limine requesting relief related to the evidentiary hearing beginning 3/11/02 [1580-1] w/proof of serivice, attachment (rlw) (Entered: 03/11/2002)

1598 OBJECTIONS by pltfs to defts' response [1589-1] pursuant to the District Court's 2/14/02 order w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/14/2002)

1599 RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' motion in limine regarding pltfs' proposed Exhibits [1586-1] (rlw) (Entered: 03/14/2002)

1600 REPLY by pltfs to defts' response to pltfs' motion in limine requesting relief related to the evidentiary hearing beginning 3/11/02 [1580-1] (rlw) (Entered: 03/14/2002)

1601 REPLY by pltfs to defts' response to pltfs' motion in limine to have defts precluded from objection to opinions of pltfs' experts based on discovery supplied to pltfs after 12/10/01 [1581-1] (rlw) (Entered: 03/14/2002)

1602 RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' motion in limine [1585-1], motion to strike the purported testimony of pltf prisoners Rick Wheeldon, C. Pepper Moore, and Ronald Kovaleski [1585-2] (rlw) (Entered: 03/14/2002)

1603 RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' motion in limine [1576-1], to strike the expert report and purported testimony of Mark Creekmore, and portions of the expert reports and purported testimony of Jerry Walden, M.D.,

03/14/2002 03/25/2002 03/28/2002 04/02/2002 04/08/2002
04/08/2002 04/09/2002
04/11/2002
04/18/2002 04/18/2002

Elizabeth Ferguson, Pulitzer [1576-2] (rlw) (Entered: 03/14/2002)

1604 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltfs for pldg. Nos. 1599-1603 (rlw) (Entered: 03/14/2002)

1605 RESPONSE by deft to pltfs' objections to defts' filing pursuant to the District Court's 2/14/02 order [1598-1] w/proof of service, attachment (rlw) (Entered: 03/25/2002)

1606 EXPERT REPORT (STATUS REPORT) by pltfs of Curtiss Pulitzer dated 12/01 and revised 3/21/02 w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/28/2002)

1607 STIPULATION to the termination of jurisdiction over Section I-P (water temperature) of the Consent Decree entered on 5/13/85 (rlw) (Entered: 04/02/2002)

1608

ORDER (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen granting stipulation [1607-1]; that the Court terminates its jurisdiction over Section I-P (water temperature) of the Consent Decree accepted by the Court on 5/13/85 as to all Hadix facilities (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 4/8/02] (rlw) (Entered: 04/08/2002)

1609

ORDER (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen denying as moot defts' motion to terminate Section I-P of the Consent Decree pertaining to the State Prison of Southern Michigan - Central Complex (SMI) [1578-1] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 4/8/02] (rlw) (Entered: 04/08/2002)

1610

NOTICE of hearing: before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody setting pltfs' motion for order to show cause [1499-1] for order enjoining defts' changes to the legal mail policy [1499-2]; for an order expediting the briefing [1499-3]; for 10:00 a.m. on 4/24/02 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 04/10/2002)

1611

ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody re pltfs' motion for order to show cause [1499-1] for order enjoining defts' changes to the legal mail policy [1499-2], for an order expediting the briefing [1499-3] set for hearing on 4/24/02 is adjourned w/o date (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 4/12/02] (rlw) (Entered: 04/12/2002)

1612 OPINION (14 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 4/18/02] (rlw) (Entered: 04/18/2002)

1613

ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion denying pltfs' motion for further order regarding the health-related disabilities identification, treatment and Accommodation Plan [1535-1], denying defts' motion to dismiss the court's attempt to exercise jurisdiction over facilities not subject to the Consent Decree [1540-1], denying defts' motion to terminate the court's consent Decree jurisdiction over the State Prison of Southern Michigan Central Compel (SMI) Facility [1539-1], granting in part and denying in part pltfs' motion in limine requesting relief related to the evidentiary hearing beginning 3/11/02 [1580-1], granting in part and denying in part pltfs' motion in limine to have defts precluded from objection to opinions of pltfs' experts based on discovery supplied to pltfs after 12/10/01 [1581-1], denying

04/26/2002 04/26/2002 04/26/2002 04/30/2002 04/30/2002 04/30/2002 04/30/2002 04/30/2002 04/30/2002 05/02/2002 05/02/2002

pltfs' motion to strike portions of reports of defts' experts Wayne Carson and David Sproul and to bar testimony corresponding to such portions of the reports [1549-1], denying pltfs' corrected motion in limine to strike portions of reports of defts' experts Wayne Carson and David Sproul and to bar testimony corresponding to such portions of the reports [1554-1], denying defts' motion in limine [1576-1], to strike the expert report and purported testimony of Mark Creekmore, and portions of the expert reports and purported testimony of Jerry Walden, M.D., Elizabeth Ferguson, Curtiss Pulitzer [1576-2], denying defts' motion in limine as to pltfs' prisoner witnesses [1585-1] to strike the purported testimony of pltf prisoners Rick Wheeldon, C. Pepper Moore, and Ronald Kovaleski [1585-2], denying defts' motion in limine regarding pltfs' proposed Exhibits [1586-1], denying defts' motion to strike pltfs' expert reports [1534-1], in limine [1534-2], to clarify the record [1534-3] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 4/18/02] (rlw) (Entered: 04/18/2002)
1614 CHANGE OF ADDRESS by pltfs' attorney Patricia Streeter (rlw) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
1615 PETITION by pltfs for writs of habeas corpus ad testificandum as to Miguel Ruiz and Kenneth Courtney to appear as witnesses on 5/6-8, 2002 (rlw) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
1616 PETITION by pltfs for writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum and ad testificandum as to C. Pepper Moore, Rick Wheeldon, Ronald Kovaleski to appear as witnesses on 5/6-8, 2002 (rlw) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
WRIT issued to Warden, Southern Michigan Prison (JMF) for C. Pepper Moore to appear as a witnesses on May 6-8, 2002 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 04/30/2002)
WRIT issued to Warden, Charles Egeler Facility (SMN) as to Rick Wheeldon to appear as a witness on May 6-8, 2002 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 04/30/2002)
WRIT issued to Warden, The Parnall Facility (SMT) as to Ronald Kovaleski to appear as a witness on May 6-8, 2002 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 04/30/2002)
WRIT issued to Warden, Southen Michigan Prison (JMF) as to Miguel Ruiz to appear as a witness on May 6-8, 2002 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 04/30/2002)
WRIT issued to Warden, Southern Michigan Prison (JMF) as to Kenneth Courtney to appear as a witness on May 6-8, 2002 at 9 a.m. (rlw) (Entered: 04/30/2002)
1617 STIPULATION of the parties regarding implementation of MDOC's revised Legal Mail Policy w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 05/01/2002)
1618 STIPULATION regarding ventilation w/proof of service, proposed order (rlw) (Entered: 05/02/2002)
1619 ORDER (1 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen approving the parties stipulation regarding implementation of MDOC's revised Legal Mail

05/03/2002 05/03/2002 05/06/2002
05/06/2002 05/06/2002
05/07/2002 05/07/2002 05/07/2002 05/07/2002 05/07/2002 05/07/2002
05/08/2002

Policy [1617-1] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 5/2/02] (rlw) (Entered: 05/02/2002)

1620 PROPOSED EXHIBIT LIST submitted by pltfs for hearing on health issues set for May 6-8, 2002 w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 05/03/2002)

1623 SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBIT LIST by defts [1590-1] for health issues hearing on 5/3/02 w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 05/07/2002)

1621

ORDER (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen granting stipulation of the parties [1618-1] that this court terminates its jurisdiction over Section I-S (ventilation) of the Consent Judgment as to blocks 1 and 3 of the Egeler Facility, blocks & and 8 of the Parnall Facility and SMI administrative segregation (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 5/6/02] (rlw) (Entered: 05/06/2002)

1622 PROPOSED EXHIBIT LIST submitted by pltfs for hearing on health issues dated 5/6/02 w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 05/06/2002)

PROCEEDING before Judge Richard A. Enslen; hearing held at 9:00 a.m. on 5/6/02; witnesses Dr. Ronald Shansky, Dr. George Pramsteller, Jan Epp called by defts; motion to sequester - granted; request to strike granted; motion to strike - granted; Kathleen Thomas, Reporter (rlw) (Entered: 05/07/2002)

1624 DECLARATION by Curtiss J. Pulitzer, pltfs' expert in prison planning and design (rlw) (Entered: 05/08/2002)

1625 DECLARATION by Elizabeth J. Ferguson, pltfs' expert in disabilities and aging programs, systems and services (rlw) (Entered: 05/08/2002)

1626 DECLARATION by Jerry Walden, pltfs' medical expert (rlw) (Entered: 05/08/2002)

1627 DECLARATION by Mark Creekmore, pltfs' expert in evaluation of programs and services (rlw) (Entered: 05/08/2002)

1628 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltfs for pldg. Nos. 1624-1627 (rlw) (Entered: 05/08/2002)

PROCEEDING before Judge Richard A. Enslen; evidentiary hearing continued; witnesses David Sproul, Wayne Carson called by defts; Curtis Pulitzer, Michael DiMario, Jerry Walden called by pltfs; Kathleen Thomas, Reporter (rlw) (Entered: 05/08/2002)

PROCEEDING before Judge Richard A. Enslen; evidentiary hearing continued; witnesses Jerry Waldin, Kenneth Courtney, Miguel Ruiz, Elizabeth Ferguson, P. Mark Creekmore, Ronald Kovaleski called by pltfs; parties stipulate and court orders that briefing shall run from date of transcript preparation; stipulation regarding Kenneth Courtney is approved; stipulation regarding Miguel Ruiz is approved; prisoners codes to be submitted under seal and health records under seal; Kathleen Thomas, Reporter (rlw) Modified on 06/10/2002 (Entered: 05/10/2002)

05/17/2002 06/03/2002 06/05/2002 06/07/2002 06/07/2002 06/07/2002 06/11/2002 06/18/2002 07/03/2002 07/10/2002 07/30/2002 08/01/2002
08/05/2002 08/05/2002 08/05/2002

1629 FILING (NOTICE) by defts of information requested by the court at the May 5-8, 2002 hearing w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 05/17/2002)

1630 MOTION (unopposed) by pltfs to extend time until 6/11/02 to respond to defts' 5/16/02 filing w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/03/2002)

1631 ORDER (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen granting pltfs' motion to extend time until 6/11/02 to respond to defts' 5/16/02 filing [1630-1] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 6/5/02] (rlw) (Entered: 06/05/2002)

1632 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of hearing held 5/6/02 before Judge Richard Alan Enslen; transcribed by Kathleen S. Thomas (rlw) (Entered: 06/11/2002)

1633 TRANSCRIPT (Volume II) of hearing held 5/7/02 before Judge Richard Alan Enslen; transcribed by Kathleen S. Thomas (rlw) (Entered: 06/11/2002)

1634 TRANSCRIPT (Volume III) of hearing held 5/8/02 before Judge Richard Alan Enslen; transcribed by Kathleen S. Thomas (rlw) (Entered: 06/11/2002)

1635 COMMENTS (NOTICE) by pltfs on defts' May 16, 2002 filing of information requested by the Court at the May 6-8, 2002 hearing w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/11/2002)

1636 REPLY by defts to pltfs' comments on defts' 5/16/02 filing of information requested by the court at the May 6-8, 2002 hearing [1635-1] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/18/2002)

1637 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT and CONCLUSIONS OF LAW by defts ( 83 pgs) w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 07/05/2002)

1638 NOTICE by defts to the Clerk w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 07/10/2002)

1639 UNOPPOSED MOTION and memorandum by pltfs to extend time until 8/2/02 to submit their proposed Findings and Conclusions of Law w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 07/31/2002)

1640

ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody granting pltf's motion to extend time until 8/2/02 to submit their proposed Findings and Conclusions of Law [1639-1] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 8/2/02] (rlw) (Entered: 08/02/2002)

1641 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT by pltfs (235 pgs) w/Appendix 1 (rlw) Modified on 08/12/2002 (Entered: 08/06/2002)

1642 PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW by pltfs (20 pgs) (rlw) Modified on 08/12/2002 (Entered: 08/06/2002)

1643 OBJECTIONS by pltfs to defts' proposed findings of fact [1637-1] (rlw) (Entered: 08/06/2002)

08/05/2002 08/07/2002 08/12/2002
08/22/2002 08/28/2002 08/29/2002 09/03/2002 09/04/2002 09/06/2002 09/09/2002 09/10/2002 10/17/2002 10/21/2002

1644

ORDER (2 pgs) by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody denying defts' motion for the Court to Appoint an Independent Medical Health Care Monitor [1546-1] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 8/7/02] (rlw) (Entered: 08/07/2002)

1645 NOTICE by pltfs with attached page 119 and corrected page 120 of pltfs' Proposed Findings of Fact w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 08/07/2002)

1646

SUPPLEMENT by pltfs attaching page 2 which was inadvertently omitted from pltfs' objections to defts' proposed Findings [1643-1]; pages 62, 165, 169, 171, 177, 182 & 190 which were omitted from pltfs' proposed findings of fact [1641-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 08/12/2002)

1647 REPLY by defts to pltfs' proposed Conclusions of Law [1642-1], Findings of Fact [1641-1], objections [1643-1], supplement [1646-1] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 08/23/2002)

1648 MOTION by pltfs for leave to file corrected exhibit w/corrected Exhibit 80 (rlw) (Entered: 08/28/2002)

1649 ORDER (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen granting pltfs' motion for leave to file corrected exhibit [1648-1] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 8/30/02] (rlw) (Entered: 08/30/2002)

1650 STIPULATION regarding ventilation w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/03/2002)

1651 ORDER (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen granting stipulation [1650-1] of partial termination of Section I-S of the Consent Decree (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 9/4/02] (rlw) (Entered: 09/04/2002)

1652

ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody rejecting Request for Information from Darrell Waller because he is not listed as a party to the action and there was no original signature (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 9/10/02] (rlw) (Entered: 09/10/2002)

1653 STIPULATION of the parties and termination of prospective relief regarding pltfs' legal mail claims w/proof of service and proposed order (rlw) (Entered: 09/10/2002)

1654 ORDER (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen granting the parties stipulation [1653-1] that pltfs' legal mail claims are dismissed (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 9/10/02] (rlw) (Entered: 09/10/2002)

1655 MOTION by pltf to exceed page limitation on over-sized brief accompanying plaintiff's Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs w/brief in support (tlb) (Entered: 10/17/2002)

1656

ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody granting pltfs' motion to exceed page limitation on over-sized brief accompanying plaintiff's Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs [1655-1] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 10/23/02] (rlw) (Entered: 10/23/2002)

10/21/2002 10/29/2002 10/29/2002
11/08/2002 11/15/2002 11/15/2002 11/18/2002 11/18/2002 11/19/2002 11/20/2002 11/27/2002
11/27/2002 11/27/2002 11/27/2002 12/02/2002

1657 MOTION by pltfs for attorney fees and for costs w/brief in support, Attachments 1-12 (rlw) (Entered: 10/23/2002)

1658 FINDINGS OF FACT and CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (266 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (tlb) (Entered: 10/30/2002)

1659

ORDER and INJUNCTION (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen that requests for termination of provisions of consent decree made in context on May 2002 hrg are denied; requests for remedies made in context of May 2002 hrg are granted in part and denied in part, subject to further hrg (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 10/30/02] (tlb) (Entered: 10/30/2002)

1660 MOTION by defts for leave to file over-length brief w/PROPOSED Brief in Opposition to pltfs' Motion for Award of Attorney Fees and Costs (rlw) (Entered: 11/13/2002)

1661 NOTICE OF APPEAL to Circuit Court of Appeals by ALL DEFENDANTS [1659-1] entered on 10/29/02; w/attachment (bd) (Entered: 11/18/2002)

1662 RECEIPT # 105992 in the amount of $ 105.00 submitted by deft for filing fee/notice of appeal (bd) (Entered: 11/18/2002)

1663 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody granting motion for leave to file over-length brief [1660-1] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 11/19/02] (tlb) (Entered: 11/19/2002)

1664 OPPOSITION by defts to motion for attorney fees [1657-1], motion for costs [1657-2] w/exhs. A-C; prf. of svc. (tlb) (Entered: 11/19/2002)

1665 REPLY by pltfs to defts' response to pltfs' motion for attorney fees [16571], motion for costs [1657-2]; w/prf. of svc. (tlb) (Entered: 11/19/2002)

1666 NOTICE by pltfs of filing the decision in Ollie Carruthers, et al. v Ken Jenne, et al. as referred to in pltfs' Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs (11/18/02) (rlw) (Entered: 11/22/2002)

MAILED information copies to CCA consisting of Notice of Appeal [1661-1], docket sheet pages 1-41; 171-205 and Order and Injunction (1659) (cc: District Judge and all counsel except Order and Injunction previously sent on 10/29/02) (rlw) Modified on 11/27/2002 (Entered: 11/27/2002)

1667 NOTICE that pltfs propose Robert L. Cohen, M.D. for the position of Associate Monitor for health care w/attached vitae, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 11/27/2002)

1668 MOTION by pltfs for leave to file responses to defts' filings w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 11/27/2002)

1669 MOTION by defts to strike pltfs' Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Award of Attorney Fees and Costs w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/03/2002)

1671 SUBMISSION (NOTICE) by defts of names and credentials of nominees

12/03/2002 12/05/2002
12/05/2002 12/05/2002
12/05/2002
12/13/2002
12/14/2002 12/16/2002 12/16/2002 12/17/2002 12/17/2002 12/18/2002 12/24/2002

for consideration for appointment as a new associate monitor for health care w/Exhibits 1-3, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/05/2002)

1670 RESPONSE by defts to pltfs' motion for leave to file responses to defts' filings [1668-1] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/03/2002)

1672

ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen denying defts' motion to strike pltfs' Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Award of Attorney Fees and Costs [1669-1] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 12/5/02] (rlw) (Entered: 12/05/2002)

1673 OPINION (5 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 12/5/02] (rlw) (Entered: 12/05/2002)

1674

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY FEES (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/opinion granting in part and denying in part pltfs' motion for attorney fees [1657-1], granting pltfs' motion for costs [16572] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 12/5/02] (rlw) (Entered: 12/05/2002)

1675

ORDER (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen granting pltfs' motion for leave to file responses to defts' filings [1668-1]; pltfs are granted leave to file responsive briefs to defts' submission on alternatives to compartmentalization and defts' plan to comply with the heat index injunction not later than 1/30/03; defts are also granted leave to file reply briefs not later than 3/3/03 (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 12/5/02] (rlw) Modified on 02/05/2003 (Entered: 12/05/2002)

1677

BRIEF by defts concerning how the associate monitor for health care could effectively participate in the quality assurance process pursuant to the courts findings of fact [1658-1] w/Exhibit 1, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/17/2002)

1683 RECEIPT # 208451 in the amount of $ 105.00 submitted by pltf for appeal to 6th Circuit (bd) (Entered: 12/26/2002)

1676 BRIEF by pltfs regarding the duties of the Associate Monitor for Medical Care w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/16/2002)

1679 TRANSMISSION FORM showing notice of appeal [1661-1] filed by CCA on 12/10/02 and assigned CCA 02-2419 (rlw) (Entered: 12/18/2002)

1678 COMMENTS (NOTICE) by pltfs on defts' nominees for associate monitor for health care w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/17/2002)

1680 COMMENTS (NOTICE) by defts regarding the nominees for consideration for appointment of associate monitor for health care w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 12/18/2002)

1681 TRANSCRIPT ORDER Form from appellant's atty ordering transcript from hearings held 5/6, 5/7, 5/8/02 (rlw) (Entered: 12/19/2002)

1682 NOTICE OF APPEAL to Circuit Court of Appeals by pltf Danny Walker, pltf Mark A. Coleman, pltf Ted Sullivan, pltf Orvel Simmons, pltf Ted Rhode, pltf Cylester Nunnally, pltf Mark Lemothe, pltf Perry Alan Davis,

12/30/2002 12/30/2002 12/30/2002
12/31/2002 01/06/2003 01/17/2003 01/21/2003 01/30/2003
01/31/2003 02/11/2003
02/18/2003 02/18/2003 02/25/2003

pltf James Chipman, pltf Al Buttons, pltf James Alexander, pltf James Haddix, pltf Frank Thomas re order [1674-1] entered on 12/05/02 (bd) (Entered: 12/26/2002)

1684 BRIEF by pltf regarding findings of fact [1658-1] w/exhs. A-E; prf. of svc. (tlb) (Entered: 12/31/2002)

1686 BRIEF/PLAN by defts to comply with the Court's Injunction pertaining to heat-related illness [1658-1] w/proof of service, Attachment 1 (rlw) (Entered: 01/02/2003)

1687

BRIEF by defts regarding alternatives to compartmentalization to remedy alleged fire safety problems and risks pursuant to the Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law [1658-1] w/Exhibit 1, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/02/2003)

1685 RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' brief concerning how the Associate Monitor for Health Care could effectively participate in the quality assurance process [1677-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/02/2003)

MAILED information copies to CCA consisting of Notice of Appeal by pltfs [1682-1], docket sheet and Order 1674 (cc: District Judge and all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 01/06/2003)

1688 TRANSMISSION FORM showing notice of appeal [1682-1] filed by CCA on 1/15/03 and assigned CCA 03-1068 (rlw) (Entered: 01/22/2003)

1689 MOTION by pltfs to reject (exclude) the defts' brief/plan to comply with the Court's injunction pertaining to heat-related illness w/brief in support, Attachment 1, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/22/2003)

1690

RESPONSE by pltfs to deft's brief regarding Alternatives to Compartmentalization to Remedy Alleged Fire Safety Problems and Risks [1658-1] w/attachment, Exhibits 1-4, certificate of service (rlw) Modified on 02/05/2003 (Entered: 01/31/2003)

1691 RESPONSE by defts to pltfs' motion to reject (exclude) the defts' brief/plan to comply with the Court's injunction pertaining to heat-related illness [1689-1] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/03/2003)

1692

ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen setting forth the orders to govern the conduct of interviews of the two leading candidates for associate monitor for health care (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 2/11/03] (rlw) (Entered: 02/11/2003)

1693 LETTER to court from F. Warren Benton, Ph.D. recommending two candidate names for consideration for appointment as Associate Monitor for health care (rlw) (Entered: 02/19/2003)

1694 REPLY by defts to pltfs' response to defts' brief regarding alternatives to Compartmentalization to remedy alleged fire safety problems and risks [1690-1] w/attachment, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 02/19/2003)

1695 ORDER (3 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen granting pltfs' motion to reject (exclude) the defts' brief/plan to comply with Court's injunction

02/25/2003
03/04/2003 03/04/2003 03/12/2003 03/24/2003 03/31/2003 04/07/2003
04/09/2003 04/11/2003 04/18/2003 04/21/2003 04/23/2003

pertaining to heat-related illness [1689-1]; defts shall submit a revised plan in compliance w/this order w/in 45 days (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 2/25/03] (rlw) (Entered: 02/25/2003)

1696

INJUNCTION (ORDER) (3 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen that compartmentalization of the facilities is adopted as the fire safety remedy; that defts shall submit by 12/31/03 a synopsis of their intended facilities and process modifications,detailed architectural site plans and a construction sechedule for approval by this court (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 2/25/03] (rlw) (Entered: 02/25/2003)

1697 NOTICE OF APPEAL to Circuit Court of Appeals by defts re order [1696-1] entered on 2/25/03 w/proof of service, attachment (rlw) (Entered: 03/07/2003)

1698 RECEIPT #106105 in the amount of $105.00 submitted by defts for appeal fee (rlw) (Entered: 03/07/2003)

MAILED information copies to CCA consisting of Notice of Appeal [1697-1], docket sheet and order 1696 (cc: District Judge and all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 03/12/2003)

1699 TRANSMISSION FORM showing notice of appeal [1697-1] filed by CCA on 3/20/03 and assigned CCA 03-1334 (rlw) (Entered: 03/24/2003)

1700 TRANSCRIPT ORDER Form from appellant's atty indicating that transcripts are already on file in the Clerk's Office (rlw) (Entered: 03/31/2003)

1701

ORDER from CCA; re: CCA # 02-2419 that the motion to vacate and remand is denied; the motion for a stay pending appeal is granted insofar as the portion of the October 29 order enjoining the defts from placing or maintaining the at-risk prisoners in an environment where the heat index is greater than 90 degrees, effective 5/1/03 is stayed (rlw) (Entered: 04/09/2003)

1702 MOTION by pltfs for additional finds, certification and expedited response w/brief in support, attachments, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/10/2003)

1703 REVISED HEAT-RELATED ILLNESS PLAN (NOTICE) by defts w/proof of service, Exhibits 1-4 (rlw) (Entered: 04/14/2003)

1704 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION by defts to pltfs' motion for additional finds, certification and expedited response [1702-1] w/prf of svc (mrs) (Entered: 04/18/2003)

1705

ORDER (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen that leave of the Court is granted to F. Warren Benton pursuant to Para. 10 of his 1/12/89 Order of Appointment to appoint Dr. Robert L. Cohen as medical monitor (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 4/22/03] (rlw) (Entered: 04/22/2003)

1706 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen granting pltfs' motion for additional finds, certification and expedited response [1702-1] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 4/23/03] (seal) (Entered: 04/23/2003)

05/07/2003 05/07/2003 05/22/2003 05/27/2003 06/02/2003 06/06/2003
06/16/2003 06/17/2003 06/19/2003
06/20/2003

1707

MOTION (renewed) by defts to terminate the court's Consent Decree jurisdiction over the State Prison of Southern Michigan Central Complex (SMI) Facility w/brief in support, Exhibit 1, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 05/07/2003)

1708

LETTER to court from attorney Leo Friedman on behalf of defts advising of a change of address and requesting the removal of Kim Harris, Susan Przekop-Show and E. Michael Stafford as attorneys for defts because they are no longer in the corrections division (rlw) (Entered: 05/07/2003)

1709

RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' renewed motion to terminate the court's Consent Decree jurisdiction over the State Prison of Southern Michigan Central Complex (SMI) Facility [1707-1] w/Exhibit 1, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 05/22/2003)

1710

REPLY by defts to pltfs' response to defts' renewed motion to terminate the court's Consent Decree jurisdiction over the State Prison of Southern Michigan Central Complex (SMI) Facility [1707-1] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 05/27/2003)

1711

ORDER from CCA; re: CCA #02-2419 remanding the matter back to District Court [Appeal [1661-1] to vacate the injunctive relief set forth in the 10/29/02 order and injunction and conduct further proceedings in accordance w/the PLRA (rlw) (Entered: 06/03/2003)

1712

ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen that the portion of the Court's Order and Injunction of 10/29/02 enforcing paragraph 1442 of the Court's Findings of Facts is VACATED; that the parties shall each submit a legal memorandum on the adequacy of the Revised Heat-Related Plan within 14 days of this Order; and that the parties shall each submit a responsive memorandum within 28 days of this Order (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 6/6/03] (mrs) (Entered: 06/06/2003)

1713

MOTION by pltfs for immediate order adopting defts' proposed heat plan as interim relief pending further Order of the Court; requiring collection of heat index data; and shortening the time for response w/brief in support and cert of svc (mrs) (Entered: 06/17/2003)

1714

ORDER (3 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen granting deft's motion to terminate the court's Consent Decree jurisdiction over the State Prison of Southern Michigan Central Complex (SMI) Facility [1707-1] (but not as to other "Hadix" facilities). (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 6/17/03] (bd) (Entered: 06/17/2003)

1715

ORDER (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen granting in part motion for immediate order adopting defts' proposed heat plan as interim relief pending further Order of the Court; collection of heat index data; and shortening the time for response [1713-1]; defts shall file response brief by 6/27/03 responding to pltfs' request for the installation of additional temperature monitors (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 6/19/03] (mrs) Modified on 06/30/2003 (Entered: 06/19/2003)

1716 BRIEF by defts regarding the adequacy of defts' 4/11/03 Revised HeatRelated Illness Plan [1703-1] w/proof of service, attachments (rlw) (Entered: 06/24/2003)

06/23/2003 06/26/2003 06/26/2003
06/26/2003 07/02/2003
07/07/2003 07/07/2003 07/07/2003 07/09/2003
07/16/2003 07/31/2003 08/21/2003 08/21/2003 08/27/2003

1717 MOTION by pltfs to exceed page limitation w/PROPOSED brief in opposition to the defts' Revised Heat-Related Illness Plan w/attachments 1-17, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 06/24/2003)

1718 RESPONSE by defts in opposition per Court's Order [1715-1] to pltfs's motion for Order requiring collection of heat index data w/prf of svc (mrs) Modified on 07/02/2003 (Entered: 06/30/2003)

1719

ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody granting pltfs' motion to exceed page limitation [1717-1] to file brief in opposition to defts' revised heat-related illness plan (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 7/1/03] (mrs) (Entered: 07/01/2003)

1720 BRIEF by pltfs in opposition to the defts revised heat related illness plan [1703-1] w/cert of svc (mrs) (Entered: 07/01/2003)

1721

ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen granting in part and denying in part pltfs' motion for immediate order requiring collection of heat index data [1713-2]; Status Conf scheduled for 2:30 p.m. on 7/24/03 regarding the Revised Heat Related Illness Plan (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 7/3/03] (mrs) Modified on 07/16/2003 (Entered: 07/03/2003)

1722 RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' brief on the adequacy of defts' April 11, 2003 revised heat-related illness plan [1718-1] (rlw) (Entered: 07/07/2003)

1723 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by pltfs for pldg. No. 1722 (rlw) (Entered: 07/07/2003)

1724 REPLY by defts to pltfs' brief in opposition to defts' revised Heat-Related Illness Plan [1718-1] w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 07/08/2003)

1725

ORDER (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen; Status Conf scheduled for 7/24/03 has been adjourned without date and parties to contact Independent Monitor Benton to discuss scheduling; upon receipt of scheduling information the Court will promptly notice the status conference (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 7/9/03] (mrs) (Entered: 07/09/2003)

1726 NOTICE of hearing: Status Conf set for 7/24/03 rescheduled to 9:00 a.m. on 8/21/03 (cc: all counsel) (mrs) (Entered: 07/16/2003)

1727 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Response to pltfs' Interrogatories and Requests for Documents Regarding defts' Current Plan to Address HeatRelated Injuries (rlw) (Entered: 08/01/2003)

PROCEEDING before Judge Richard A. Enslen; Status Conf held 9:00 a.m. on 8/21/03; not recorded; (rlw) (Entered: 08/21/2003)

1728 NOTICE by the Court of Status Conference Minutes of 8/21/03 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 08/21/2003)

1729 NOTICE by defts that Susanne Durk McAra is no longer employed by the Department of Attorney General (rlw) (Entered: 08/28/2003)

09/19/2003 09/23/2003 10/16/2003 10/28/2003 10/28/2003 11/03/2003 11/17/2003 11/18/2003
12/22/2003 12/24/2003
01/02/2004 01/05/2004 01/06/2004

1730 NOTICE by defts of Health Care Submission pursuant to the 8/21/03 status conference w/Exhibits 1-10, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/19/2003)

1731 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Supplemental Response to pltfs' Interrogatories and Requests for Documents Regarding defts' Current Plan to Address Heat-Related Injuries (rlw) (Entered: 09/23/2003)

1732

PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Second Supplemental Response to pltfs' Interrogatories and Requests for Documents Regarding defts' Current Plan to Address Heat-Related Injuries (rlw) (Entered: 10/16/2003)

1733 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Third Supplemental Response to pltfs' Interrogatories and Requests for Documents Regarding defts' Current Plan to Address Heat-Related Injuries (rlw) (Entered: 10/28/2003)

1734 NOTICE by defts of Revised Health Care Submission Pursuant to the 8/21/03 Status Conference and 10/2/03 Meeting w/Exhibits 1-12, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/28/2003)

1735 ORDER from CCA; re: CCA # 03-1334 denying without prejudice defts' motion for a stay pending appeal (rlw) (Entered: 11/03/2003)

1736 RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' revised Health Care Submission pursuant to the August 21, 2003 Status Conference and October 2, 2003 Metting [1734-1] w/Exhibits 1-2, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 11/17/2003)

1737

ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody rejecting pltf's response to defts' revised health care submission pursuant to the August 21, 2003 Status Conference and October 2, 2003 meeting because there were no signatures (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 11/19/03] (rlw) (Entered: 11/19/2003)

1738

PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Fourth Supplemental Response to pltfs' Interrogatories and Requests for Documents Regarding defts' Current Plan to Address Heat-Releated Injuries (rlw) (Entered: 12/22/2003)

1739

FILING (NOTICE) by defts pursuant to the Court's February 25, 2003 injunction and request for stay and brief in support w/proof of service, attachment - State Prison of Souothern Michigan Fire Safety and Egress Report for Egeler Cell Blocks 1, 2, 3, and 7 and Parnall Cell Block 8 (rlw) (Entered: 12/24/2003)

1740 MOTION by pltfs to extend time for one week (until 1/13/04) to respond to defts' proposed fire safety plan w/brief in support, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/02/2004)

1741

ORDER (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen granting motion to extend time for one week (until 1/13/04) to respond to defts' proposed fire safety plan [1740-1] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 1/5/04] (mrs) (Entered: 01/05/2004)

1742 RESPONSE by pltf [0-0] to Defendants' Request for Stay; w/Certificate

01/07/2004 01/09/2004 01/09/2004 01/13/2004 01/13/2004 01/20/2004 01/23/2004 01/30/2004 02/04/2004
03/08/2004 03/10/2004 03/17/2004 03/24/2004

of Service (bd) (Entered: 01/06/2004)

1743

ORDER (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen that defts shall file a reply to request for stay addressing pltfs' response not later than 1/20/04; pltfs shall file a sur-reply not later than 1/27/04 (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 1/7/04] (rlw) (Entered: 01/07/2004)

1744 CORRECTED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by pltfs for Response to defts' Request for Stay (rlw) (Entered: 01/09/2004)

1745 MOTION by defts to extend time 3 days to 1/23/04 to file reply to pltfs' response w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/12/2004)

1746

ORDER (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen granting defts' unopposed motion to extend time 3 days to 1/23/04 to file reply to pltfs' response [1745-1]; pltfs are granted an extension until 1/30/04 to file their sur-reply brief. (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 1/13/04] (bd) (Entered: 01/13/2004)

1747 RESPONSE by pltfs [0-0] to Defendants' filing pursuant to the Court's Feb. 25, 2003 Injunction; w/Attachment 1 (Declaration of Patricia A. Streeter); w/Certificate of Service (bd) (Entered: 01/14/2004)

1748 REPLY by defts to pltfs' response to defts' filing pursuant to the Court's February 25, 2003 injunction [1747-1] w/proof of service, Exhibits 1-2 (rlw) (Entered: 01/20/2004)

1749 REPLY BRIEF by defts in support of their filing pursuant to the Court's 2/25/03 injunction and request for stay [1739-1] w/Exhibits 1-2, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/26/2004)

1750 SUR-REPLY by pltfs to defts' reply brief in support of their filing pursuant to the Court's 2/25/03 injunction and request for a stay [1749-1] w/attachment, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 01/30/2004)

1751

ORDER (3 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen; that defts' request for stay (contained in 1739 is denied that a hearing is set for 2:30 p.m. on 4/8/04; defts' fire safety plan [1739, attachment 1] and [1748, attachment 2] is preliminarily approved pending further hearing (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 2/4/04] (rlw) (Entered: 02/04/2004)

1752 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by pltfs for Second Interrogatories and Request for Documents (rlw) (Entered: 03/08/2004)

1753

ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody rejecting Curwood L. Price's motion for intervention for failure to file a proof of service on named parties (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 3/11/04] (rlw) (Entered: 03/11/2004)

1754 LETTER to court from prisoner Curwood L. Price regarding Order Rejecting Pleading 1753 - copy of the order remailed to Mr. Curwood (rlw) (Entered: 03/22/2004)

1755 PETITION by pltfs for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum as to prisoner Ronald Kovaleski to appear at a hearing on 4/8/04 at 2:30 p.m. w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/24/2004)

03/25/2004 03/29/2004
03/29/2004 03/29/2004 04/01/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004
06/04/2004 06/21/2004 06/21/2004
07/09/2004
07/13/2004 07/21/2004 08/04/2004

1756 MOTION by pltfs to compel discovery and to expedite response w/brief in support, Attachments 1-3, certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 03/25/2004)

1757

ORDER (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen that the hearing of 4/8/04 is adjourned pending further decision of the Court of Appeals; denying as unnecessary pltfs' petition for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum [1755-1] denying without prejudice pltfs' motion to compel discovery [1756-1], and to expedite response [1756-2] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 3/29/04] (rlw) (Entered: 03/29/2004)

1758 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Response to pltfs' Interrogatories and REquests for Documents (rlw) (Entered: 03/29/2004)

1759 ORDER from CCA; re: CCA # 03-1334 that the appellant's renewed motion for stay is granted (rlw) (Entered: 03/29/2004)

1760 NOTICE by pltfs to withdraw their motion to compel discovery and to expedite response w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 04/01/2004)

1761 SLIP OPINION from CCA re: CCA # 03-1334; appeal [1697-1] affirming the district court as to the issue of jurisdiction; reversed and remanded as to the issue of constitutional violation (rlw) (Entered: 05/10/2004)

1762

JUDGMENT by Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (1 pg) that judgment of the district court as to the issue of constitutional violation is reversed and remanded; the judgment of the district court as to the issue of jurisdiction is affirmed [1697-1] (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 5/10/04] (rlw) (Entered: 05/10/2004)

1764 MANDATE from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals re: CCA #: 03-1334; re: order 1696 that is reversed and remanded (rlw) (Entered: 06/07/2004)

1765 NOTICE of hearing; Status Conf is set for 8/4/04 at 2:30 p.m. (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 06/21/2004)

1766

ORDER (1 pg) by Judge Richard A. Enslen rejecting Motion for Relief from 2/14/04 Order because the filers Richard Thompson and Ronald Jordan are not parties to this action (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 6/21/04] (rlw) (Entered: 06/21/2004)

1767

MOTION by movants Richard Thompson, Ronald L. Jordan to intervene w/brief in support, proof of service w/PROPOSED motion for relief from 2/14/02 order, attachment, memorandum brief in support, proof of service, exhibits 1-2 (rlw) (Entered: 07/09/2004)

1768 REPORT by Associate Monitor, Robert L. Cohen MD regarding medical care services at the Hadix facilities (rlw) (Entered: 07/15/2004)

1769 ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen denying motion to intervene [1767-1] by Ronald L. Jordan, Richard Thompson (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 7/21/04] (rlw) (Entered: 07/21/2004)

PROCEEDING before Judge Richard A. Enslen; Status Conf held at 2:30 p.m. on 8/4/04; orders made as to procedure; written order to follow;

08/04/2004 08/05/2004
09/03/2004 09/10/2004 09/13/2004 09/28/2004
09/28/2004 09/30/2004 10/01/2004

Kathleen Thomas, Reporter (rlw) (Entered: 08/05/2004)

1770

STIPULATION AND ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen for entry of a protective order as to the Michigan State Police Report dated 9/9/03 and identified as MSP Incident Report 017-0005376 (DB) (cc: all counsel) (rlw) (Entered: 08/05/2004)

1771

ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance w/the Court's rulings on 8/4/04; parties shall file briefs by 9/10/04 on the issue of the process which should be used to resolve the fire safety remand; responsive briefs due by 9/28/04; the parties fire safety experts shall confer during the briefing period; parties are entitled to discovery on the issue of the constitutionality of defts' system of medical care for the period of May through August 2004 and the period February through May 2005; defts shall file a response addressing every recommendation made in the 7/04 report of Dr. Robert Cohen by 11/1/04; pltfs shall file a written memorandum of law on remedies to correct the observed constitutional violations regarding medical care w/in 30 days of this order; defts shall respond to pltfs' remedies memorandum w/in 45 days of its filing; Dr. Robert Cohen shall file another report in 6/05 before the 7/14/05 status conference set for 2:30 p.m.; a status conference is set for 1/13/05 at 2:30 p.m. and Dr. Robert Cohen shall prepare a report in advance of that conference; an evidentiary hearing is tentatively scheduled for open dates in August or September 2005 (cc: all counsel) [EOD Date 8/5/04] (rlw) (Entered: 08/05/2004)

1772 MOTION by pltf for immediate relief (for order) w/brief in support; w/Certificate of Service (bd) (Entered: 09/03/2004)

1773 BRIEF by defts regarding order [1771-1] on the process that should be used to resolve the fire safety remand from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals w/proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/10/2004)

1774 BRIEF by pltfs regarding order [1771-1] on fire safety remand process w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/13/2004)

1775

ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen concerning the fire safety remand of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals; defts' detailed schedule for the fire safety improvements due no later than 10/15/04; pltfs' discovery requests due no later than 11/1/04; parties shall schedule site visits of this experts between 12/1/04 and 2/28/05; report specifying the work completed due 3/1/05 by defts'; evidentiary hearing set for 4/7/05 at 9 a.m. and on 4/8/05 at 9 a.m.; status conference set for 3/17/05 at 3:30 p.m. (cc: all counsel) counsel) [EOD Date 9/28/04] (rlw) Modified on 10/15/2004 (rlw, ). (Entered: 09/28/2004)

1776 RESPONSE by defts to pltfs' brief regarding fire safety remand process [1774-1] w/attached proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/29/2004)

1777 MOTION by defts for reconsideration of the Court's Scheduling Order filed at 1:07 p.m. on September 28, 2004 w/brief in support, Exhibits AC, proof of service (rlw) (Entered: 09/30/2004)

1778 PROOF OF SERVICE by defts for Response to pltfs' Interrogatories and Requests for Documents regarding defts' current plan to address heat-

10/06/2004 10/07/2004 10/07/2004 10/08/2004 10/12/2004 10/12/2004 10/14/2004
10/15/2004
10/15/2004

related injuries (rlw) (Entered: 10/01/2004)

1779 RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' motion for reconsideration of the Court's Scheduling Order filed at 1:07 p.m. on September 28, 2004 [1777-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) (Entered: 10/06/2004)

1780

DOCUMENT WITHDRAWN - RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' motion for reconsideration of the Court's Scheduling Order filed at 1:07 p.m. on September 28, 2004 [1777-1] w/certificate of service (rlw) Modified on 10/12/2004 to reflect document withdrawn pursuant to Order, #1783 dated 10/12/04(bd, ). (Entered: 10/07/2004)

1781 MOTION (letter form) by pltfs to withdraw pltf's response to motion for reconsideration filed as 1780 (rlw) (Entered: 10/07/2004)

1782

ORDER (2 pgs) by Judge Richard A. Enslen denying motion for reconsideration of the Court's Scheduling Order filed 1:07 p.m. on September 28, 2004 [1777-1] (cc: all [EOD Date 10/8/04] (bd) (Entered: 10/08/2004)

1783

ORDER granting 1781 Plaintiffs' letter motion to withdraw Plaintiffs' Response 1780 ; withdrawing 1780 Plaintiffs' Response; signed by Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 10/12/2004)

Copy of Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief 1783 sent via U.S. Mail to E. Alexander, M. Barnhart, F. W. Benton, N. Bush, M. Chiara, R. Cohen, L. Friedman, A. P. Govorchin, D. Hartmus, J. F. James, D. LaBelle, J. Mirer, T. Payne and M. Schlanger (bd, ) (Entered: 10/12/2004)

1784

STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER that defts may have until 10/25/04 to respond to pltfs' motion for immediate relief by plaintiffs James Alexander, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Mark A. Coleman, James Covington, Perry Alan Davis, Robert Flemster, James Haddix, Everett Hadix, Roosevelt Hudson Jr., Brent E. Koster, Mark Lemothe, William Lovett, Richard Mapes, Lee D. McDonald, Cylester Nunnally, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Patrick C. Sommerville, Darryl Sturges, Ted Sullivan, Frank Thomas, Danny Walker, defendants Graham Allen, Charles Anderson, Robert Brown Jr., Frank Elo, Dale Foltz, William F. Grant, John Jabe, Perry M. Johnson, Don P. Leduc, Barry Mintzes, James Pogats, John Prelesnik, Roy Rider, Elton I. Scott, Duane Sholes, Daniel Trudell, Charles Ustess, Marjorie Van Ochten, Pamela Withrow (Attachments:, # 1 Proposed Order) (rlw, ) (Entered: 10/14/2004)

1785

NOTICE of filing defts' schedule for fire safety improvements by defendants Graham Allen, Charles Anderson, Robert Brown Jr., Frank Elo, Dale Foltz, William F. Grant, John Jabe, Perry M. Johnson, Don P. Leduc, Barry Mintzes, John Prelesnik, Roy Rider, Elton I. Scott, Duane Sholes, Daniel Trudell, Charles Ustess, Marjorie Van Ochten, Pamela Withrow (Attachments:, # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C) (rlw, ) (Entered: 10/15/2004)

1786 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Graham Allen, Charles Anderson, Robert Brown Jr., Frank Elo, Dale Foltz, William F. Grant, John Jabe, Perry M. Johnson, Don P. Leduc, Barry Mintzes, James Pogats, John

10/19/2004 10/19/2004 10/19/2004 10/22/2004 10/22/2004 10/25/2004
10/25/2004

Prelesnik, Roy Rider, Elton I. Scott, Duane Sholes, Daniel Trudell, Charles Ustess, Marjorie Van Ochten, Pamela Withrow re 1785 (rlw, ) (Entered: 10/15/2004)

1787

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Graham Allen, Charles Anderson, Robert Brown Jr., Frank Elo, Dale Foltz, William F. Grant, John Jabe, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, James Pogats, John Prelesnik, Roy Rider, Elton I. Scott, Duane Sholes, Daniel Trudell, Charles Ustess, Marjorie Van Ochten, Pamela Withrow for Amended Response to pltfs' Interrogatories and Requests for Documents Regarding defts' Current Plan to Address Heat-Related Injuries (rlw, ) (Entered: 10/19/2004)

1788

ORDER granting STIPULATION 1784 ; Defendants shall have until October 25, 2004 to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Immediate Relief; signed by Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 10/19/2004)

Copy of Order on Stipulation and Proposed Order (separate documents) 1788 sent via U.S. Mail to Elizabeth Alexander, Michael Barnhart, F. Warren Benton, Neal Bush, Margaret M. Chiara, Robert L. Cohen, Leo H. Friedman, A. Peter Govorchin, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle, Jeanne E. Mirer, Timothy R. Payne, Margo Schlanger (rlw, ) (Entered: 10/19/2004)

1789

RETURNED MAIL: Copy of Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief 1783 that was sent via U.S. Mail to Margo Schlanger returned to the Court marked moved, not forwardable; no action taken - unable to contact by phone (re document(s) 1783 ) (rlw, ) (Entered: 10/22/2004)

1790

RETURNED MAIL: Copy of Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief 1783 that was sent via U.S. Mail to Timothy R. Payne returned to the Court marked moved, no forwardable; no action taken - unable to contact by phone (re document(s) 1783 ) (rlw, ) (Entered: 10/22/2004)

1791

STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER re 1777 for a final extension until 10/28/04 for defts' response to pltfs' motion for immediate relief regarding medical issues by plaintiffs James Alexander, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Mark A. Coleman, James Covington, Perry Alan Davis, Robert Flemster, James Haddix, Everett Hadix, Roosevelt Hudson Jr., Brent E. Koster, Mark Lemothe, William Lovett, Richard Mapes, Lee D. McDonald, Cylester Nunnally, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Patrick C. Sommerville, Darryl Sturges, Ted Sullivan, Frank Thomas, Danny Walker, defendants Graham Allen, Charles Anderson, Robert Brown Jr., Frank Elo, Dale Foltz, William F. Grant, John Jabe, Perry M. Johnson, Don P. Leduc, Barry Mintzes, James Pogats, John Prelesnik, Roy Rider, Elton I. Scott, Duane Sholes, Daniel Trudell, Charles Ustess, Marjorie Van Ochten, Pamela Withrow, movant William T. Mears #180220 (Attachments:, # 1 Proposed Order) (rlw, ) (Entered: 10/26/2004)

1792

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Graham Allen, Charles Anderson, Robert Brown Jr., Frank Elo, Dale Foltz, William F. Grant, John Jabe, Perry M. Johnson, Don P. Leduc, Barry Mintzes, James Pogats, John Prelesnik, Roy Rider, Elton I. Scott, Duane Sholes, Daniel Trudell, Charles Ustess, Marjorie Van Ochten, Pamela Withrow re 1791 (rlw, ) (Entered: 10/26/2004)

10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/29/2004 11/01/2004

1793

RESPONSE TO 1768 Dr. Robert L. Cohen's First Report on Medical Care Services at the Hadix facilities dated 7/8/04 filed by defendants Graham Allen, Charles Anderson, Robert Brown Jr., Frank Elo, Dale Foltz, William F. Grant, John Jabe, Perry M. Johnson, Don P. Leduc, Barry Mintzes, James Pogats, John Prelesnik, Roy Rider, Elton I. Scott, Duane Sholes, Daniel Trudell, Charles Ustess, Marjorie Van Ochten, Pamela Withrow (Attachments:, # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D) (rlw, ) (Entered: 10/28/2004)

1794

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Graham Allen, Charles Anderson, Robert Brown Jr., Frank Elo, Dale Foltz, William F. Grant, John Jabe, Perry M. Johnson, Don P. Leduc, Barry Mintzes, James Pogats, John Prelesnik, Roy Rider, Elton I. Scott, Duane Sholes, Daniel Trudell, Charles Ustess, Marjorie Van Ochten, Pamela Withrow re 1793 (rlw, ) (Entered: 10/28/2004)

1795

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Graham Allen, Charles Anderson, Robert Brown Jr., Frank Elo, Dale Foltz, William F. Grant, John Jabe, Perry M. Johnson, Don P. Leduc, Barry Mintzes, James Pogats, John Prelesnik, Roy Rider, Elton I. Scott, Duane Sholes, Daniel Trudell, Charles Ustess, Marjorie Van Ochten, Pamela Withrow re 1793 (rlw, ) (Entered: 10/28/2004)

1797

RESPONSE to motion re 1772 Plaintiffs' Motion for Immediate Relief filed by Graham Allen, Charles Anderson, Robert Brown Jr., Frank Elo, Dale Foltz, William F. Grant, John Jabe, Perry M. Johnson, Don P. Leduc, Barry Mintzes, James Pogats, John Prelesnik, Roy Rider, Elton I. Scott, Duane Sholes, Daniel Trudell, Charles Ustess, Marjorie Van Ochten, Pamela Withrow (ghl, ) (Entered: 11/01/2004)

1798

BRIEF by defendants Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown Jr., Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA re 1797 (Attachments:, # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C) (ghl, ) (Entered: 11/01/2004)

1799

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown Jr., Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA re 1797 , 1798 , 1354 (ghl, ) (Entered: 11/01/2004)

1796

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Graham Allen, Charles Anderson, Robert Brown Jr., Frank Elo, Dale Foltz, William F. Grant, John Jabe, Perry M. Johnson, Don P. Leduc, Barry Mintzes, James Pogats, John Prelesnik, Roy Rider, Elton I. Scott, Duane Sholes, Daniel Trudell, Charles Ustess, Marjorie Van Ochten, Pamela Withrow (Amended) for response to Dr. Cohen's First Report on Medical Care Services at the Hadix Facilities dated July 8, 2004 (rlw, ) (Entered: 10/29/2004)

1800 RETURNED MAIL: Copy of Order on Stipulation and Proposed Order (separate documents) 1788 that was sent via U.S. Mail to Neal Bush returned to the Court marked attempted, not known; none taken at this

11/02/2004 11/02/2004 11/02/2004 11/09/2004 11/09/2004 11/10/2004
11/10/2004
11/15/2004

time (re document(s) 1788 ) (rlw, ) (Entered: 11/01/2004)

1801

ORDER granting STIPULATION 1791 , Defendants shall have until October 28, 2004 to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Immediate Relief; signed by Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 11/02/2004)

1802

RETURNED MAIL: Copy of Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief 1783 that was sent via U.S. Mail to Neal Bush returned to the Court marked forwarding order expired; no action taken (re document(s) 1783 ) (rlw, ) (Entered: 11/02/2004)

Copy of Order on Stipulation and Proposed Order (separate documents) 1801 sent via U.S. Mail to Elizabeth Alexander, Michael Barnhart, F. Warren Benton, Margaret M. Chiara, Robert L. Cohen, Leo H. Friedman, A. Peter Govorchin, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle, Jeanne E. Miner, Timothy R. Payne, Margo Schlanger (rlw, ) (Entered: 11/02/2004)

1803

RETURNED MAIL: Copy of Order on Stipulation and Proposed Order (separate documents) 1788 that was sent via U.S. Mail to Margo Schlanger returned to the Court marked moved, no forwardable; party represented is terminated (re document(s) 1788 ) (rlw, ) (Entered: 11/09/2004)

1804

RETURNED MAIL: Copy of Order on Stipulation and Proposed Order (separate documents) 1788 that was sent via U.S. Mail to Timothy r. Payne returned to the Court marked moved, not forwardable; party represented is terminated (re document(s) 1788 ) (rlw, ) (Entered: 11/09/2004)

1805

MOTION for leave to file excess pages to file reply by plaintiffs Al Buttons, James Chipman, Mark A. Coleman, James Covington, Perry Alan Davis, Robert Flemster, James Haddix, Everett Hadix, Roosevelt Hudson Jr., Brent E. Koster, Mark Lemothe, William Lovett, Richard Mapes, Lee D. McDonald, Cylester Nunnally, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Patrick C. Sommerville, Darryl Sturges, Ted Sullivan, Frank Thomas, Danny Walker ; (Attachments:, # 1 Proposed Document Reply Brief in support of pltfs' Motion for Immediate Relief, # 2 Proposed Document Attachment 1, # 3 Proposed Document Attachment 18) (rlw, ) (Entered: 11/12/2004)

1806

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by plaintiffs James Alexander, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Mark A. Coleman, James Covington, Perry Alan Davis, Robert Flemster, Michael Anthony Gray, James Haddix, Everett Hadix, Roosevelt Hudson Jr., Brent E. Koster, Mark Lemothe, William Lovett, Richard Mapes, Lee D. McDonald, Cylester Nunnally, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Patrick C. Sommerville, Darryl Sturges, Ted Sullivan, Frank Thomas, Danny Walker re 1805 for motion for leave to file overlength reply brief in support of pltfs' motion for immediate relief (rlw, ) (Entered: 11/12/2004)

1807 ORDER granting 1805 plaintiffs' motion for leave to file excess pages, Clerk shall accept for filing the proposed Reply Brief; signed by Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered:

11/15/2004 11/15/2004
11/26/2004 11/29/2004
11/29/2004 12/09/2004 12/13/2004 12/13/2004 12/23/2004

11/15/2004)

Copy of Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages 1807 sent via U.S. Mail to J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle, Jeanne E. Mirer, Timothy R. Payne, Margo Schlanger, Elizabeth Alexander, Michael Barnhart, F. Warren Benton, Neal Bush, Margaret M. Chiara, Robert L. Cohen, Leo H. Friedman, A. Peter Govorchin, and Diane Hartmus (acr, ) (Entered: 11/15/2004)

1808

REPLY to response to motion re 1772 motion for immediate relief filed by James Alexander, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Mark A. Coleman, James Covington, Perry Alan Davis, Robert Flemster, James Haddix, Everett Hadix, Roosevelt Hudson Jr., Brent E. Koster, Mark Lemothe, William Lovett, Richard Mapes, Lee D. McDonald, Cylester Nunnally, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Patrick C. Sommerville, Darryl Sturges, Ted Sullivan, Frank Thomas, Danny Walker (Attachments:, # 1 Attachment 1, # 2 Attachment 18) (acr, ) (Entered: 11/15/2004)

1809

RETURNED MAIL: Copy of Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages 1807 that was sent via U.S. Mail to Neal Bush returned to the Court marked marked "Forwarding Order Expired"; no action taken (re document(s) 1807 ) (acr, ) (Entered: 11/26/2004)

1810

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 1772 plaintiffs' motion for immediate relief, plaintiffs' requests for discovery/medical reports, including a report within 30 days regarding steps Defendants have taken to come into compliance with the Court's Oct. 29, 2002 Order, a staffing report and a specialty referral report are granted, but plaintiffs' requests for immediate injunctive relief are denied; signed by Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 11/29/2004)

Copy of Order on Motion for Order, 1810 sent via U.S. Mail to Michael Barnhart, Elizabeth Alexander, F. Warren Benton, Neal Bush, Margaret M. Chiara, Robert L. Cohen, Leo H. Friedman, A. Peter Govorchin, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle, Jeanne E. Mirer, Timothy R. Payne, Margo Schlanger (rlw, ) (Entered: 11/29/2004)

1811

RETURNED MAIL: Copy of Order on Motion for Order, 1810 that was sent via U.S. Mail to Neal Bush returned to the Court marked marked "Not deliverable as addressed - unable to forward"; no action taken (re document(s) 1810 ) (acr, ) (Entered: 12/10/2004)

1812

RETURNED MAIL: Copy of Order on Stipulation and Proposed Order (separate documents) 1801 that was sent via U.S. Mail to Margo Schlanger returned to the Court marked Moved, not forwardable; no action taken (re document(s) 1801 ) (rlw, ) (Entered: 12/13/2004)

1813

RETURNED MAIL: Copy of Order on Stipulation and Proposed Order (separate documents) 1801 that was sent via U.S. Mail to Timothy R. Payne returned to the Court marked moved, not forwardable; no action taken (re document(s) 1801 ) (rlw, ) (Entered: 12/14/2004)

1814 RETURNED MAIL: Copy of Order on Motion for Order, 1810 that was sent via U.S. Mail to Timothy R. Payne returned to the Court marked "Moved, not forwardable"; no action taken (re document(s) 1810 ) (bd, )

12/23/2004 12/23/2004
12/23/2004 12/30/2004 12/30/2004 01/05/2005 01/05/2005 01/10/2005

(Entered: 12/27/2004)

1815

RETURNED MAIL: Copy of Order on Motion for Order, 1810 that was sent via U.S. Mail to Margo Schlanger returned to the Court marked "Moved, not forwardable"; no action taken (re document(s) 1810 ) (bd, ) (Entered: 12/27/2004)

1816

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Graham Allen, Charles Anderson, Robert Brown Jr., Frank Elo, Dale Foltz, William F. Grant, John Jabe, Perry M. Johnson, Don P. Leduc, Barry Mintzes, James Pogats, John Prelesnik, Roy Rider, Elton I. Scott, Duane Sholes, Daniel Trudell, Charles Ustess, Marjorie Van Ochten, Pamela Withrow for Defendants' Response (Transfer Medical Assessments for October 2004) to Interrogatory #17 of Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Requests for Documents Regarding Defendants' Current Plan to Address Heat-Related Injuries via first-class mail on 12/16/04 (bd, ) Modified typo on 12/27/2004 (bd, ). (Entered: 12/27/2004)

1817

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Graham Allen, Charles Anderson, Robert Brown Jr., Frank Elo, Dale Foltz, William F. Grant, John Jabe, Perry M. Johnson, Don P. Leduc, James Pogats, John Prelesnik, Roy Rider, Elton I. Scott, Duane Sholes, Daniel Trudell, Charles Ustess, Marjorie Van Ochten, Pamela Withrow for Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Requests for Documents Regarding Fire Safety via overnight mail on 12/1/04 (bd, ) (Entered: 12/29/2004)

1818

NOTICE of compliance with this court's November 29, 2004 order by defendants Graham Allen, Charles Anderson, Robert Brown Jr., Frank Elo, Dale Foltz, William F. Grant, John Jabe, Perry M. Johnson, Don P. Leduc, Barry Mintzes, James Pogats, John Prelesnik, Roy Rider, Elton I. Scott, Duane Sholes, Daniel Trudell, Charles Ustess, Marjorie Van Ochten, Pamela Withrow (Attachments:, # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3) (rlw, ) (Entered: 12/30/2004)

1819

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Graham Allen, Charles Anderson, Robert Brown Jr., Frank Elo, Dale Foltz, William F. Grant, John Jabe, Perry M. Johnson, Don P. Leduc, Barry Mintzes, James Pogats, John Prelesnik, Roy Rider, Elton I. Scott, Duane Sholes, Daniel Trudell, Charles Ustess, Marjorie Van Ochten, Pamela Withrow re 1818 (rlw, ) (Entered: 12/30/2004)

1820 NOTICE of evidentiary hearing set for 4/14/2005 and 4/15/2005 at 09:00 AM at 174 Federal Building, Kalamazoo, MI before Judge Richard Alan Enslen; (Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) (Entered: 01/05/2005)

Copy of Notice of Hearing 1820 sent via U.S. Mail to Elizabeth Alexander, Michael Barnhart, F. Warren Benton, Neal Bush, Margaret Chiara, Robert Cohen, MD, Leo Friedman, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah LaBelle and Jeanne Mirer (bd, ) (Entered: 01/05/2005)

1821

RETURNED MAIL: Copy of Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages 1807 that was sent via U.S. Mail to Timothy R. Payne returned to the Court marked Moved, not forwardable; no action taken - party termed (rlw, ) (Entered: 01/10/2005)

01/13/2005
01/13/2005
01/13/2005
01/13/2005 01/13/2005 01/13/2005 01/13/2005 01/18/2005 01/18/2005 01/18/2005

1822

MOTION to compel discovery by plaintiffs James Covington, Frank Thomas, James Haddix, James Alexander, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Perry Alan Davis, Michael Anthony Gray, Mark Lemothe, Cylester Nunnally, Everett Hadix, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Ted Sullivan, Mark A. Coleman, Richard Mapes, Patrick C. Sommerville, Danny Walker, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr, Brent E. Koster, Lee D. McDonald, Darryl Sturges, Robert Flemster, William Lovett; (rlw, ) (Entered: 01/13/2005)

1823

MEMORANDUM in support of 1822 motion to compel discovery filed byJames Covington, Frank Thomas, James Haddix, James Alexander, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Perry Alan Davis, Mark Lemothe, Cylester Nunnally, Everett Hadix, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Ted Sullivan, Mark A. Coleman, Richard Mapes, Patrick C. Sommerville, Danny Walker, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr, Brent E. Koster, Lee D. McDonald, Darryl Sturges, Robert Flemster, William Lovett (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6) (rlw, ) (Entered: 01/13/2005)

1824

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by plaintiffs James Covington, Frank Thomas, James Haddix, James Alexander, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Perry Alan Davis, Mark Lemothe, Cylester Nunnally, Everett Hadix, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Ted Sullivan, Mark A. Coleman, Richard Mapes, Patrick C. Sommerville, Danny Walker, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr, Brent E. Koster, Lee D. McDonald, Darryl Sturges, Robert Flemster, William Lovett re 1822 , 1823 (rlw, ) (Entered: 01/13/2005)

1825 CLERK'S LETTER to attorney Michael Barnhart regarding e-filing requirement and paper filing 1823 , 1822 (rlw, ) (Entered: 01/13/2005)

Copy of Clerk's Paper Filing Letter 1825 sent via U.S. Mail to Jeanne E. Mirer, Deborah A. LaBelle, J. Franklin James, Diane Hartmus, Robert L. Cohen, Neal Bush, F. Warren Benton, Michael Barnhart, Elizabeth Alexander (rlw, ) (Entered: 01/13/2005)

1826 MINUTES of status conference held before Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Court Reporter Kathleen Thomas) (Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) (Entered: 01/13/2005)

1827

SECOND STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by unknown Robert L. Cohen, MD (unsigned) regarding Medical Services at the Hadix Facilities (rlw, ) Modified on 1/20/2005 to reference the signature page is filed as 1830 (rlw, ). (Entered: 01/14/2005)

1828 ORDER regarding remedies to the specific health care issues noted during the 1/13/05 status conference ; signed by Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) (Entered: 01/18/2005)

Copy of Order 1828 sent via U.S. Mail to Elizabeth Alexander, Michael Barnhart, F. Warren Benton, Neal Bush, Robert L. Cohen, MD, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle, Jeanne E. Mirer (rlw, ) Modified on 1/18/2005 to add another recipient (rlw, ). (Entered: 01/18/2005)

1829 RETURNED MAIL: Copy of Notice of Hearing 1820 that was sent via U.S. Mail to Neal Bush returned to the Court marked Forwarding Order

01/20/2005 01/25/2005 01/28/2005 01/28/2005 01/28/2005
01/28/2005 01/31/2005 02/01/2005 02/03/2005
02/07/2005 02/07/2005

Expired; no action - even the phone has been disconnected (rlw, ) (Entered: 01/18/2005)

1830 SUPPLEMENT re 1827 Second Status Report - signature page by unknown Robert L. Cohen, MD (rlw, ) (Entered: 01/20/2005)

1831

RETURNED MAIL: Copy of Clerk's Paper Filing Letter 1825 that was sent via U.S. Mail to Neal Bush returned to the Court marked "Forwarding Order Expired"; no further action taken (acr, ) (Entered: 01/25/2005)

1832

NOTICE OF MOTION HEARING regarding document number 1822 and discovery conference: motion hearing and discovery conference set for 2/11/2005 at 09:00 AM at 654 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) (Entered: 01/28/2005)

1833

RETURNED MAIL: Copy of Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages 1807 that was sent via U.S. Mail to Margo Schlanger returned to the Court marked Moved, not forwardable; no action taken (rlw, ) (Entered: 01/28/2005)

1834

RESPONSE to motion re 1822 with Memorandum in Support filed by Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/28/2005)

Copy of Notice of Motion Hearing, 1832 sent via U.S. Mail to Elizabeth Alexander, F. Warren Benton, Robert L. Cohen, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle, Jeanne E. Mirer (rlw, ) (Entered: 01/28/2005)

1835 RETURNED MAIL: Copy of Order 1828 that was sent via U.S. Mail to Neal Bush returned to the Court marked Forwarding order expired; no action taken (rlw, ) (Entered: 01/31/2005)

1836 REPLY to response to motion re 1822 to Compel Discovery filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Slip Op. CA6 93-1995) (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 02/01/2005)

1837

AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION HEARING regarding document number 1822 and discovery conference: motion hearing set for 2/10/2005 at 01:00 PM by phone before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody; discovery conference to be held by phone following the 2/10/2005 hearing before Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) (Entered: 02/03/2005)

Copy of Notice of Motion Hearing, 1837 sent via U.S. Mail to Elizabeth Alexander (faxed also to EA), Diane Hartmus, F. Warren Benton, Robert L. Cohen, M.D., Jeanne E. Mirer, Deborah A. LaBelle, J. Franklin James (rlw, ) (Entered: 02/07/2005)

1838 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held January 13, 2005 before

02/10/2005 02/10/2005 02/17/2005
02/17/2005 02/17/2005 02/17/2005 02/18/2005 02/18/2005 02/23/2005 02/23/2005 02/28/2005

Honorable Richard Alan Enslen (Court Reporter: K. Thomas, (269) 3853050) (Entered: 02/07/2005)

1839 MINUTES of status conference held before Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Court Reporter: unreported) (Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) (Entered: 02/10/2005)

1840

MINUTES of motion hearing re 1822 and Discovery Conference (Both by phone); held by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Tape #C-G05 #39 and #40) (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cr) (Entered: 02/11/2005)

1841

ORDER that the Clerk is directed to process and otherwise facilitate Dr. F. Warren Benton's E-filing Registration Form; such ECF registration shall be limited to the terms of Dr. Benton's order of appointment, limited to court filings in the instant case and any related cases which may arise, and limited to the duration of the appointment; Dr. Benton's use of his login name and password shall serve as his signature on all electronic documents; signed by Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 02/17/2005)

Copy of Order 1841 sent via U.S. Mail to F. Warren Benton, Robert L. Cohen, MC, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle and Jeanne E. Mirer (bd, ) (Entered: 02/17/2005)

1842

ORDER granting 1822 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery, with two issues reserved; Defendant shall provide the requested documents within two weeks; signed by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) (Entered: 02/17/2005)

1843

ORDER REJECTING PLEADING ; signed by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Report to Dr. Robert L. Cohen Court Appointed Monitor in re Carlo Vartinelli) (rlw, ) (Entered: 02/18/2005)

Copy of Order on Motion to Compel 1842 sent via U.S. Mail to F. Warren Benton, Robert L. Cohen, MD, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle, Jeanne E. Mirer (rlw, ) (Entered: 02/18/2005)

Copy of Order Rejecting Pleading 1843 sent via U.S. Mail to F. Warren Benton, Robert L. Cohen, MD, Diane Hartmus, Jeanne E. Mirer, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle (rlw, ) (Entered: 02/18/2005)

1844 TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held February 10, 2005 before Hon. Ellen S. Carmody, US Mag. Judge (Transcriptionist: Pritchard, Pat) (Entered: 02/23/2005)

1845 CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Elizabeth Alexander counsel for plaintiff Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 02/23/2005)

1846

MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Defendants' Expedited Motion to Dismiss the Court's Attempt to Exercise Jurisdiction over Facilities not Subjec to the Consent Decree and/or Issues and Facilities Previously Terminated by the Federal Court; with Certificate of Service by defendants Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles

02/28/2005 02/28/2005 02/28/2005 03/02/2005
03/02/2005
03/02/2005 03/02/2005 03/03/2005

Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik; (Friedman, Leo) Modified text on 3/1/2005 to include Certificate of Service (bd, ). (Entered: 02/28/2005)

1847

BRIEF in support of 1846 Defendants' Expedited Motion (Docket #1846) filed by Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Friedman, Leo) (Entered: 02/28/2005)

1848 SLIP OPINION of USCA re appeal 1682 reversing and remanding so that the district court may award attorney fees to the plaintiffs based on an hourly rate no greater than $169.50 (rlw, ) (Entered: 03/01/2005)

1849 JUDGMENT of USCA re appeal 1682 that the judgment of the district court is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of this court (rlw, ) (Entered: 03/01/2005)

1850

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for Defs' Supp. Responses to Pls' Interrogatories and Requests for Documents Regarding Fire Safety (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/02/2005)

1851

EXHIBIT re 1846 Motion to Dismiss by defendants Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit 9) (acr, ) (Entered: 03/02/2005)

1852 NOTICE of Intent to File a Response to Defendants' Motion on Standard Schedule by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/02/2005)

1853

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik re 1846 , 1847 Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support (acr, ) (Entered: 03/02/2005)

1854

ORDER that the pretrial conference is ADJOURNED until March 25, 2005 at 2:30 p.m.; at said conference, the Court will consider argument regarding Defendants' Expedited Motion to Dismiss the Court's Attempt to Exercise Jurisdiction Over Facilities not Subject to the Consent Decree, though the Motion will not be decided until after the completion of briefing; signed by Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Judge Richard Alan

03/03/2005 03/07/2005
03/14/2005 03/23/2005 03/25/2005
03/25/2005
03/25/2005 03/28/2005 03/28/2005 03/30/2005

Enslen, blb) (Entered: 03/03/2005)

Copy of Order 1854 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle and Jeanne E. Mirer (bd, ) (Entered: 03/03/2005)

1855

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Requests for Documents of February 4, 2005 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/07/2005)

1856

RESPONSE to motion re 1846 Plaintiffs' Brief in Response to Defendants' Expedited Motion to Dismiss the Court's Attempt to Exercise Jurisdiction Over Facilities not Subject to the Consent Decree and/or Issues and Facilities Previously Terminated by the Federal Court filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment) (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/14/2005)

1857 MANDATE of USCA re appeal 1682 (rlw, ) (Entered: 03/24/2005)

1858

PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS LIST with Certificate of Service by plaintiffs James Covington, Frank Thomas, James Haddix, James Alexander, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Perry Alan Davis, Michael Anthony Gray, Mark Lemothe, Cylester Nunnally, Everett Hadix, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Ted Sullivan, Mark A. Coleman, Richard Mapes, Patrick C. Sommerville, Danny Walker, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr, Brent E. Koster, Lee D. McDonald, Darryl Sturges, Robert Flemster, William Lovett (Streeter, Patricia) Modified to include certificate on 3/25/2005 (acr, ). (Entered: 03/25/2005)

1859

Defendants' Witness List for April 14-15, 2005 Fire Safety Hearing WITNESS LIST by defendants Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/25/2005)

1860 MINUTES of pretrial conference and motion hearing re 1846 held before Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Court Reporter Kathleen Thomas) (Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) (Entered: 03/25/2005)

1861

ORDER that evidentiary hearing scheduled for April 14 & 15, 2005 is ADJOURNED until May 5 & 6, 2005 at 9:00 a.m.; defendants' motion to dismiss 1846 is taken under advisement; signed by Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 03/28/2005)

Copy of Order, 1861 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle, and Jeanne E. Mirer (acr, ) (Entered: 03/28/2005)

1862 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Perry M. Johnson, Barry

03/31/2005 03/31/2005 03/31/2005 04/20/2005 04/20/2005 04/26/2005
04/26/2005
04/26/2005 04/26/2005

Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for Notice of Taking Deposition of Dr. Jerry Walden (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/30/2005)

1863 OPINION; signed by Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 03/31/2005)

1864

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 1846 defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Court will not exercise jurisdiction over the JMF Facility and Blocks 9 and 10 of Parnell; other relief sought by defendants is denied; signed by Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 03/31/2005)

Copy of Opinion 1863 , Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction, 1864 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle, and Jeanne E. Mirer (acr, ) (Entered: 04/01/2005)

1865 ORDER regarding briefing schedule for issue of reversal and remand by Sixth Circuit re: award of attorney fees; signed by Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 04/20/2005)

Copy of Order 1865 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle and Jeanne E. Mirer (bd, ) (Entered: 04/20/2005)

1866

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED WITNESS LIST with Certificate of Service by plaintiffs James Covington, Frank Thomas, James Haddix, James Alexander, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Perry Alan Davis, Michael Anthony Gray, Mark Lemothe, Cylester Nunnally, Everett Hadix, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Ted Sullivan, Mark A. Coleman, Richard Mapes, Patrick C. Sommerville, Danny Walker, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr, Brent E. Koster, Lee D. McDonald, Darryl Sturges, Robert Flemster, William Lovett (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text to include Certificate of Service on 4/27/2005 (bd, ). (Entered: 04/26/2005)

1867

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for Defendants' Notice of Taking Depositions (Meeker, Embry, Denman, Kovaleski, Davidson and Hughes) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/26/2005)

1868 MOTION for writ Ad Prosequendum by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Writ-Kovaleski# 2 Proposed Order Writ-Moore) (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 04/26/2005)

1869 MOTION for writ Ad Testificandum by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Writ-Davidson# 2 Proposed Order Writ-Hughes) (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 04/26/2005)

04/28/2005 04/28/2005 04/28/2005 04/28/2005 05/02/2005
05/03/2005 05/03/2005
05/04/2005 05/04/2005

1870

WRIT of habeas corpus ad testificandum as to Donald Davidson, Jr., No. 178731; signed by Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) Modified on 4/29/2005 to edit title (rlw, ). (Entered: 04/28/2005)

1871

WRIT of habeas corpus ad testificandum as to Robert L. Hughes, No. 185558 ; signed by Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) Modified on 4/29/2005 to edit title (rlw, ). (Entered: 04/28/2005)

1872

WRIT of habeas corpus ad testificandum as to Ronald Kovaleski, No. 213896 ; signed by Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) Modified on 4/29/2005 to edit title (rlw, ). (Entered: 04/28/2005)

1873

WRIT of habeas corpus ad testificandum as to Clarence Moore, No. 100885 ; signed by Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) Modified on 4/29/2005 to edit title (rlw, ). (Entered: 04/28/2005)

1874

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for Defedants' Notice of Taking Depositions (by telephone) of Wayne Carson and Robert Hughes (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/02/2005)

1875

STIPULATION regarding testimony of Wayne Carson by defendants Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/03/2005)

1876

STIPULATION to Terminate Jurisdiction over Certain Areas Regarding Fire Safety Issues by defendants Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/03/2005)

1877

STIPULATION Regarding Attorney Fees by defendants Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/04/2005)

1878

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING STIPULATION 1875 regarding testimony of Wayne Carson, APPROVING AND ADOPTING STIPULATION 1876 to terminate jurisdiction over certain areas regarding fire safety issues; signed by Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered:

05/04/2005 05/04/2005 05/05/2005 05/06/2005 05/10/2005
05/17/2005
05/17/2005 05/25/2005 05/25/2005 06/29/2005 06/29/2005 07/05/2005

05/04/2005)

Copy of Order on Stipulation 1878 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle and Jeanne E. Mirer (bd, ) (Entered: 05/04/2005)

1879 EXHIBIT LIST FOR HEARING MAY 5 and 6, 2005 by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 05/04/2005)

1880 MINUTES of evidentiary hearing regarding fire safety held before Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Court Reporter Kathleen Thomas) (Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) (Entered: 05/05/2005)

1881

MINUTES of continued evidentiary hearing regarding fire safety; briefing schedule to run from the filing of the hearing transcripts; held before Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Court Reporter Kathleen Thomas) (Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) (Entered: 05/06/2005)

1882

NOTICE of Filing Hearing Exhibits by defendants Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/10/2005)

1883

ORDER approving STIPULATION 1877 , awarding additional attorney fees for the period Jan. 1, 2002 through Dec. 31, 2004: $55,321.98 to Patricia A. Streeter; $63,472.20 to Michael Barnhart; and $85,891.14 to Elizabeth Alexander; signed by Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 05/17/2005)

Copy of Order on Stipulation, 1883 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle, and Jeanne E. Mirer (acr, ) (Entered: 05/17/2005)

1884 TRANSCRIPT of Evidentiary Hearing Regarding Fire Safety held May 5, 2005 before the Honorable Richard Alan Enslen (Court Reporter: K. Thomas, (269) 385-3050) (Entered: 05/25/2005)

1885 TRANSCRIPT of Evidentiary Hearing Regarding Fire Safety - Volume II held May 6, 2005 before the Honorable Richard Alan Enslen (Court Reporter: K. Thomas, (269) 385-3050) (Entered: 05/25/2005)

1886

ORDER that the Status Conference of July 14, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. is ADJOURNED and rescheduled to July 21, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. ; signed by Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) (Entered: 06/29/2005)

Copy of Order Setting Status Conference 1886 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle, Jeanne E. Mirer (bd, ) (Entered: 06/29/2005)

1887 NOTICE rescheduling hearing previously set for 7/21/2005; status conference set for 7/28/2005 at 02:30 PM at 174 Federal Building,

07/05/2005 07/05/2005 07/05/2005
07/13/2005 07/19/2005
07/25/2005 08/01/2005 08/04/2005

Kalamazoo, MI before Judge Richard Alan Enslen; (Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) (Entered: 07/05/2005)

1888

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT by defendants Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/05/2005)

Copy of Notice Rescheduling Hearing 1887 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle and Jeanne E. Mirer (bd, ) (Entered: 07/05/2005)

1889

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT with Appendix A and Appendix B by plaintiffs James Covington, Frank Thomas, James Haddix, James Alexander, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Perry Alan Davis, Michael Anthony Gray, Mark Lemothe, Cylester Nunnally, Everett Hadix, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Ted Sullivan, Mark A. Coleman, Richard Mapes, Patrick C. Sommerville, Danny Walker, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr, Brent E. Koster, Lee D. McDonald, Darryl Sturges, Robert Flemster, William Lovett (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 7/8/2005 (bd, ). (Entered: 07/05/2005)

1890 CHANGE OF ADDRESS with Certificate of Service by Michael Barnhart counsel for plaintiff Everett Hadix (Barnhart, Michael) Modified text on 7/14/2005 (bd, ). (Entered: 07/13/2005)

1891

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT by plaintiffs James Covington, Frank Thomas, James Haddix, James Alexander, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Perry Alan Davis, Michael Anthony Gray, Mark Lemothe, Cylester Nunnally, Everett Hadix, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Ted Sullivan, Mark A. Coleman, Richard Mapes, Patrick C. Sommerville, Danny Walker, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr, Brent E. Koster, Lee D. McDonald, Darryl Sturges, Robert Flemster, William Lovett (Attachments: # 1) (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/19/2005)

1892

BRIEF by defendants Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik named as Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Proposed FIndings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 1891 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/25/2005)

1893

STIPULATION for Termination of Injunctive Relief Regarding Fire Safety Issues in the MSI Laundry by defendants Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/01/2005)

1894 ORDER approving STIPULATION 1893 and all prospective relief with regard to fire safety involving the MSI laundry facility is TERMINATED;

08/04/2005 08/29/2005
08/31/2005
09/12/2005 09/14/2005 09/14/2005
09/14/2005 09/14/2005 09/15/2005

signed by Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) (Entered: 08/04/2005)

Copy of Order on Stipulation[ 1894] sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A.LaBelle, Jeanne E. Mirer (bd, ) (Entered: 08/04/2005)

1895

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Frank Elo, John Prelesnik for Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Requests for Documents Regarding Risk of Heat-Related Injury (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/29/2005)

1896

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik for Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs' July 26, 2005 Interrogatories and Requests for Documents Regarding Health Care (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/31/2005)

1897 THIRD STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by unknown Robert L. Cohen, MD Associate Monitor (rlw, ) (Entered: 09/13/2005)

1898 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 09/14/2005)

1899

VACATED - INJUNCTION CONCERNING FIRE SAFETY - the Defendants are ENJOINED to ADOPT and APPLY the fire safety remedy contained in paragraphs 432 to 447 of the Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; Defendants shall, within 90 days of this Order, provide an updated construction/remedial schedule for the Court's approval; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) Modified on 8/21/2006 (this document vacated pursuant to Order, docket #2094) (bd, ). (Entered: 09/14/2005)

1900

MOTION for preliminary injunction by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support of Motion# 2 Attachment Plan for C Unit# 3 Attachment Letter# 4 Attachment Status Conference Transcript) (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/14/2005)

Copy of Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law 1898 , Preliminary Injunction, 1899 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L.Cohen, MD, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A.LaBelle and Jeanne E.Mirer (bd, ) (Entered: 09/14/2005)

1901

ORDER re 1900 : Defendants shall respond to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction within 14 days and should include in their responsive briefing evidentiary materials, including declarations of persons responsible for the challenged medical care. Plaintiffs may reply to Defendants' responsive briefing, not later than October 14, 2005. This matter is scheduled for hearing on October 19, 2005 at 2:30 p.m.; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas)

09/15/2005 09/20/2005
09/20/2005
09/21/2005 09/21/2005 09/23/2005 09/26/2005
09/28/2005 09/29/2005

Modified text on 9/16/2005 (bd, ). (Entered: 09/15/2005)

Copy of Order 1901 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle, Jeanne E.Mirer (bd, ) (Entered: 09/15/2005)

1902

MOTION for reconsideration re 1898 , 1899 the Court's September 14, 2005 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Injunction Concerning Fire Safety by defendants Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik; (Friedman, Leo) (Entered: 09/20/2005)

1903

BRIEF in support of 1902 Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's September 14, 2005 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Injunction Concerning Fire Safety filed by Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Friedman, Leo) (Entered: 09/20/2005)

1904

ORDER granting leave to plaintiffs to respond to defendants motion for reconsideration of the Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 09/21/2005)

Copy of Order[ 1904] sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Debroah A. LaBelle and Jeanne E. Mirer (bd, ) (Entered: 09/21/2005)

1905 BRIEF in support of 1900 Motion for Preliminary Injunction CORRECTED filed by Everett Hadix (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 09/23/2005)

1906

NOTICE OF APPEAL re 1899 by defendants Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Friedman, Leo) (Entered: 09/26/2005)

RECEIPT: USCA appeal fee in the amount of $255.00, receipt number 210196; copy of receipt mailed to Leo H. Friedman (acr, ) (Entered: 09/28/2005)

1907

RESPONSE in opposition re 1900 named as Defendants' Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction filed by Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/29/2005)

09/29/2005
09/30/2005
09/30/2005
10/04/2005 10/11/2005 10/13/2005 10/13/2005 10/14/2005 10/19/2005

1908

BRIEF by defendants Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA re 1907 named as Brief in Support of Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Hadix Third Report, Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit Hadix Pramstaller Aff, Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit Hadix Russell Aff, Exhibit 3) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/29/2005)

1909

ORIGINAL PAPER AFFIDAVIT of George J. Pramstaller, D.O. in reference to the affidavit submitted electronically and assigned document number 1908 ; submitted for filing by defendants Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (rlw, ) (Entered: 10/03/2005)

1910

ORIGINAL PAPER AFFIDAVIT of Richard D. Russell in reference to the affidavit submitted electronically and assigned document number 1908 ; submitted for filing by defendants Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (rlw, ) (Entered: 10/03/2005)

1911

RESPONSE in opposition re 1902 Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's September 14, 2005 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Injunction Concerning Fire Safety filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment NFPA 101 Life Safety Code) (Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified text on 10/12/2005 (acr, ). (Entered: 10/04/2005)

CASE NUMBER 05-2358 assigned by Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to appeal 1906 (kad, ) (Entered: 10/17/2005)

1912

ORDER denying 1902 defendants' motion for reconsideration re 1898 , 1899 ; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) Modified on 10/17/2005 to edit text (rlw, ). (Entered: 10/13/2005)

Copy of Order on Motion for Reconsideration 1912 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert Cohen, MD, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah LaBelle and Jeanne Mirer (bd, ) (Entered: 10/13/2005)

1913

REPLY to response to motion re 1900 filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Declaration of Jerry S. Walden, M.D.# 2 Attachment Declaration of Mark Creekmore# 3 Attachment CDC re Sentinel Health Event Surveillance# 4 Attachment OP-03.04.106 re Mortality Review) (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 10/14/2005)

1914 ORIGINAL PAPER DECLARATION of Mark Creekmore, Ph.D. in reference to the declaration submitted electronically and assigned

10/19/2005 10/19/2005
10/19/2005 10/20/2005 10/25/2005 10/25/2005
10/25/2005 10/25/2005 10/28/2005 10/31/2005

document number 1913 reply to response to motion (attachment #2) ; submitted for filing by plaintiff Everett Hadix (acr, ) (Entered: 10/19/2005)

1915 OPINION; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 10/19/2005)

1916

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION granting 1900 Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction; Defendants are enjoined to submit a formal written plan for remedying the constitutional deprivations in medical care explained at the hearing of Oct. 19, 2005 and in Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction within 30 days; case caption is AMENDED to reflect the succession and appointment of Patricia L. Caruso as the Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 10/19/2005)

1917

MINUTES of motion hearing re 1900 held before Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Court Reporter Kathleen Thomas) (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) Modified to correct filing date on 10/20/2005 (acr, ). (Entered: 10/20/2005)

Copy of Opinion 1915 , Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, 1916 sent via U.S. Mail to Jeanne E. Mirer, Deborah A. LaBelle, J. Frankllin James, Diane Hartmus, Robert L. Cohen (rlw, ) (Entered: 10/20/2005)

1918 MOTION to amend/correct 1916 or Alter Order by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support of Motion) (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/25/2005)

1919

APPEAL TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik re appeal 1906 (rlw, ) (Entered: 10/25/2005)

1920 CLERK'S LETTER to attorney A. Peter Govorchin regarding e-filing requirement and paper filing 1919 (rlw, ) (Entered: 10/25/2005)

1921 ORDER REJECTING PLEADING ; signed by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Attachments: # 1 Rejected Proposed Document - Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury) (bd, ) (Entered: 10/28/2005)

Copy of Order Rejecting Pleading 1921 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle and Jeanne E. Mirer; and to Patricia A. Streeter with attachment (bd, ) (Entered: 10/28/2005)

1922

MOTION for reconsideration re 1916 named as Defendants' Motion for Relief from Judgment or, in the alternative, Motion for Reconsideration Regarding the Court's October 19, 2005 Preliminary Injunction by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James

10/31/2005
11/04/2005 11/04/2005
11/04/2005 11/07/2005 11/21/2005
11/22/2005 11/22/2005

Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik; (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/31/2005)

1923

BRIEF in support of 1922 Defendants' Motion for Relief from Judgment or, in the Alternative, Motion for Reconsideration Regarding the Court's October 19, 2005 Preliminary Injunction filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Hutchinson Affidavit) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/31/2005)

1924 ORDER granting Plaintiffs leave to respond to 1922 within 14 days of this Order; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 11/04/2005)

1925

ORIGINAL PAPER AFFIDAVIT of Craig Hutchinson, MD, FACP in reference to the affidavit submitted electronically and assigned document number 1923 brief in support of motion for relief from judgment ; submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Attachments:, # 1 Attachment 1, # 2 Attachment 2, # 3 Attachment 3, # 4 Attachment 4, # 5 Attachment 5) (rlw, ) (Entered: 11/04/2005)

Copy of Order 1924 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle, Jeanne E.Mirer (bd, ) (Entered: 11/04/2005)

1926 TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held October 19, 2005 before the Honorable Richard Alan Enslen (Court Reporter: K. Thomas, (269) 3853050) (Entered: 11/07/2005)

1927

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Plan Pursuant to the Court's Preliminary Injunction of October 19, 2005 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/21/2005)

1928

NOTICE of hearing to approve Defendants' Plan (Dkt. #1927) Scheduling Conference set for 1/11/2006 at 02:30 PM at 174 Federal Building, Kalamazoo, MI before Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen; (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) Modified text on 11/23/2005 (bd, ). (Entered: 11/22/2005)

Copy of Notice of Hearing 1928 sent via U.S. Mail to R. L. Cohen, D. Hartmus, J. F.James, D. A. LaBelle, J. E. Mirer (bd, ) (Entered: 11/22/2005)

11/23/2005 11/23/2005 11/23/2005 11/28/2005 11/29/2005 11/30/2005 12/02/2005
12/02/2005
12/06/2005
12/06/2005

1929 ORDER granting 1918 plaintiffs' motion to amend/correct preliminary injunction; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 11/23/2005)

1930 AMENDED PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 11/23/2005)

Copy of Preliminary Injunction 1930 , Order on Motion to Amend/Correct 1929 sent via U.S. Mail to R. L. Cohen, MD, D.Hartmus, J. F.James, D. A. LaBelle, J. E. Mirer (bd, ) (Entered: 11/23/2005)

1931

RESPONSE to motion re 1922 Relief from Judgment Or, In the Alternative, Motion for Reconsideration Regarding the Court's October 19, 2005 Preliminary Injunction filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jerry S. Walden, M.D.# 2 Exhibits A-D to Att. 1) (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 11/28/2005)

1932

MOTION for extension of time to Plaintiffs' Motion to adjust pre-hearing schedule by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support of Motion# 2 Attachment 1) (Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified text on 12/1/2005 (bd, ). (Entered: 11/29/2005)

1933 LETTER from Dr. Robert L. Cohen regarding formal written plan responsive to the issues raised in Third Report (acr, ) (Entered: 11/30/2005)

1934

RESPONSE to motion re 1932 to Adjust Pre-Hearing Schedule with Certificate of Service filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/02/2005)

1935

BRIEF in support re 1934 , 1932 Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Adjust Pre-Hearing Schedule with Certificate of Service filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) Modified text on 12/5/2005 (bd, ). (Entered: 12/02/2005)

1936

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for Defendants' Partial Responses to Plaintiffs' October 14, 2005 Interrogatories and Requests for Documents Regarding Health Care (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/06/2005)

1937 MOTION for extension of time to named as Defendants' Request for Enlargement of Time to Comply with the Court's September 14, 2005

12/06/2005 12/07/2005 12/07/2005 12/07/2005 12/07/2005 12/14/2005
12/14/2005

Injunction Regarding Updated Construction/Remedial Schedule by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik; (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/06/2005)

1938

BRIEF in support of 1937 Defendants' Request for Enlargement of Time to Comply with the Court's September 14, 2005 Injunction Regarding Updated Construction/Remedial Schedule filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/06/2005)

1939

AMENDED MOTION for extension of time to Comply with the Court's September 14, 2005 Injunction Regarding Updated Construction/Remedial Schedule by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik; (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/07/2005)

1940

BRIEF in support of 1939 Amended Request for Enlargement of Time of Comply with the Court's September 14, 2005 Injunction Regarding Updated Construction/Remedial Schedule filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/07/2005)

1941

ORDER granting 1937 defendants' motion for extension of time, granting 1939 defendants' amended motion for extension of time; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 12/07/2005)

Copy of Order on Motion for Extension of Time 1941 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert Cohen, MD, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah LaBelle, Jeanne Mirer (bd, ) (Entered: 12/07/2005)

1942

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for attachment 37f (mailed on December 12, 2005) and Defendants' Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs' October 14, 2005 Interrogatories and Request for Documents Regarding Health Care (with attachment 46) mailed December 14, 2005 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/14/2005)

1943 RESPONSE to 1927 Defendants' plan pursuant to the court's Preliminary Injunction of October 19, 2005; with Certificate of Service; filed by

12/16/2005 12/16/2005 12/21/2005
12/27/2005 12/27/2005 12/27/2005

plaintiffs James Covington, James Haddix, James Alexander, Al Buttons, Michael Anthony Gray, Mark Lemothe, Cylester Nunnally, Everett Hadix, Ted Rhode, Mark A. Coleman, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr, Robert Flemster, William Lovett (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jerry Walden, M.D.# 2 HCR Exerpts) (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 12/15/2005 (bd, ). (Entered: 12/14/2005)

1944 ORDER denying 1922 defendants' motion for reconsideration re 1915 , 1916 ; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 12/16/2005)

Copy of Order on Motion for Reconsideration 1944 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle and Jeanne E. Mirer (acr, ) (Entered: 12/16/2005)

1945

NOTICE re 1932 Plaintiffs' Interim Expert Reports; with Certificate of Service; by plaintiffs James Covington, Frank Thomas, James Haddix, James Alexander, Al Buttons, Michael Anthony Gray, Cylester Nunnally, Everett Hadix, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Ted Sullivan, Patrick C. Sommerville, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr, Darryl Sturges, Robert Flemster, William Lovett (Attachments: # 1 Jerry S. Walden, MD Report# 2 Elizabeth Ferguson Report# 3 List of Attachments to Ferguson Report# 4 Ferguson Rpt Att.1# 5 Ferguson Rpt Att. 2# 6 Ferguson Rpt, Att. 3# 7 Ferguson Rpt Att 4# 8 Ferguson Rpt Att. 5# 9 Ferguson Rpt Att 6# 10 Ferguson Rpt Att 7# 11 Ferguson Rpt Att 8# 12 Ferguson Rpt Att 9# 13 Ferguson Rpt Att 10# 14 Ferguson Rpt Att 11# 15 Ferguson Rpt Att 12# 16 Ferguson Rpt Att 13# 17 Ferguson Rpt Att 14# 18 Ferguson Rpt Att 15# 19 Ferguson Rpt Att 16# 20 Ferguson Rpt Att 17# 21 Ferguson Rpt Att 18# 22 Ferguson Rpt Att 19# 23 Ferguson Rpt Att 20# 24 Report of Mark Creekmore, PhD# 25 Creekmore Apx. 1# 26 Creekmore Apx. 2# 27 Creekmore Apx. 3# 28 Creekmore Apx.4# 29 Creekmore Apx. 5# 30 Creekmore Apx 6# 31 Creekmore Apx. 7# 32 Creekmore Apx. 8) (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 12/23/2005 (bd, ). (Entered: 12/21/2005)

1946

DISREGARD - ORDER granting 1932 motion for extension of time to the extent the discovery response deadline set for December 8, 2005 be moved to December 20, 2005 and other scheduling (including the deadlines for listing witnesses, for filing of supplemental export reports and for filing supplemental responses to discovery requests) be reserved for decision at the scheduling conference of January 11, 2006 ; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) Modified on 12/28/2005 (no document attached; replaced by docket 1948) (bd, ). (Entered: 12/27/2005)

1947

NOTICE re 1932 , 1945 Plaintiffs' Interim Expert Report; with Certificate of Service; by plaintiffs James Covington, James Haddix, Michael Anthony Gray, Mark Lemothe, Cylester Nunnally, Everett Hadix, Mark A. Coleman, Richard Mapes, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr, Robert Flemster, William Lovett (Attachments: # 1 Report by Curtiss Pulitzer# 2 Report Attachment 1) (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 12/28/2005 (bd, ). (Entered: 12/27/2005)

1948 ORDER granting 1932 motion for extension of time to the extent the discovery response deadline set for December 8, 2005 be moved to

12/27/2005 01/11/2006 01/11/2006 01/11/2006 01/11/2006 01/12/2006 01/13/2006 01/23/2006
01/24/2006 01/24/2006

December 20, 2005 and other scheduling (including the deadlines for listing witnesses, for filing of supplemental export reports and for filing supplemental responses to discovery requests) be reserved for decision at the scheduling conference of January 11, 2006 ; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) Modified text on 12/28/2005 (replaces docket #1946) (bd, ). (Entered: 12/27/2005)

Copy of Order 1948 sent via U.S. Mail to R. Cohen, MD, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah LaBelle and Jeanne Mirer (bd, ) (Entered: 12/27/2005)

1949 MINUTES of plan hearing/scheduling conference held before Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Court Reporter: Kathleen Thomas) (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) (Entered: 01/11/2006)

1950

ORIGINAL PAPER AFFIDAVIT of Jerry Walden, M.D. in reference to the affidavit submitted electronically and assigned document number 1931 ; submitted for filing by plaintiff Everett Hadix (bd, ) (Entered: 01/12/2006)

1951

ORIGINAL PAPER AFFIDAVIT of Jerry Walden, M.D. in reference to the affidavit submitted electronically and assigned document number 1943 (attached thereto) ; submitted for filing by plaintiff Everett Hadix (bd, ) (Entered: 01/12/2006)

1953 AMENDED MINUTES of plan hearing/scheduling conference held before Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Court Reporter: Kathleen Thomas) (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) (Entered: 01/17/2006)

1952

ORDER APPROVING 1927 Defendants' Plan Pursuant to the Court's Preliminary Injunction of October 19, 2005 together with revisions and modifications; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 01/12/2006)

Copy of Order 1952 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle, Jeanne E. Mirer (bd, ) (Entered: 01/13/2006)

1954

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Health Care Plan Submitted Pursuant to the Court's Preliminary Injunction of October 19, 2005, as Amended by the January 12, 2006 Court Order (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/23/2006)

1955 NOTICE of status conference set for 7/12/2006 at 02:30 PM at 174 Federal Building, Kalamazoo, MI before Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen; (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) (Entered: 01/24/2006)

Copy of Notice of Hearing 1955 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle and Jeanne E. Mirer (bd, ) (Entered: 01/24/2006)

01/25/2006
01/25/2006
01/26/2006 01/30/2006 01/31/2006
02/01/2006 02/01/2006 02/01/2006

1956

MOTION for extension of time to named as Defendants' Request for a 14-Day Enlargement of Time to File Defendants' Alternative Plan to Meet the Concerns of the Court As Set Forth in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Dated September 14, 2005 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik; (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/25/2006)

1957

BRIEF in support of 1956 Defendants' Request for a 14-day Enlargement of Time to File Defendants' Alternative Plan to Meet the Concerns of the Court as set Forth in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Dated September 14, 2005 filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Attachments: # 1 Attachment FTC&H Fire Safety Plan# 2 Attachment DrawingsFTC&H# 3 Attachment Cost Estimate# 4 Attachment Schedule) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/25/2006)

1958 STIPULATION Partial Stipulation for Hearing Schedule by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 01/26/2006)

1959 RESPONSE in opposition re 1956 filed by Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 01/30/2006)

1960

ORDER denying as unnecessary 1956 defendants' motion for extension of time; Defendants shall file their alternative plan with the Court not later than Feb. 10, 2006; Defendants shall provide both plans to SDT not later than Feb. 10, 2006, and SDT shall file a consensus opinion, or individual opinions if consensus does not occur, not later than Feb. 17, 2006; hearing will be held Feb. 21, 2006 at 2:30 p.m.; both parties may file additional briefing not later than Feb. 19, 2006; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 01/31/2006)

Copy of Order on Motion for Extension of Time 1960 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle, Jeanne E. Mirer (bd, ) (Entered: 02/01/2006)

1961

NOTICE of status conference regarding disputed dates, set for 2/27/2006 at 10:00 AM at 401 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) (Entered: 02/01/2006)

1962

MOTION to amend/correct 1960 Defendants' Motion on Behalf of the SDT to Modify the Court's January 31, 2006 Order by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik; (Friedman, Leo) (Entered: 02/01/2006)

02/02/2006 02/02/2006 02/02/2006 02/03/2006
02/03/2006 02/06/2006
02/07/2006 02/07/2006
02/08/2006

1963

RESPONSE to motion re 1962 By Defendants On Behalf of the SDT to Modify the Court's January 31, 2006 Order; with Certificate of Service; filed by Everett Hadix (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 2/3/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 02/02/2006)

1964 TRANSCRIPT of the Hearing held January 11, 2006 before the Honorable Richard Alan Enslen (Court Reporter: K. Thomas, (269) 3853050) (Entered: 02/02/2006)

Copy of Notice (Other), Notice (Other) 1961 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle, Jeanne E. Mirer (bd, ) Modified text on 2/8/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 02/02/2006)

1965

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 1962 defendants' motion on behalf of SDT; vacating provisions of Jan. 31, 2006 Order requiring conferral and filing of opinion by SDT members in advance of Feb. 21, 2006 hearing; Court will hear summary testimony/argument relating to any and all fire safety alternatives which defendants may propose; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) Modified text on 2/6/2006 (acr, ). (Entered: 02/03/2006)

Copy of Order on Motion to Amend/Correct 1965 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle, Jeanne E. Mirer (bd, ) (Entered: 02/03/2006)

1966

ORDER approving and adopting the agreed items in STIPULATION 1958 as the Order of this Court; parties shall contact the assigned Magistrate Judge (Judge Carmody) to obtain resolution of the disputed items; item 15 (3 day hearing) is scheduled for Oct. 11-13, 2006, commencing at 9:00 a.m. on October 11; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 02/06/2006)

Copy of Order on Stipulation 1966 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle and Jeanne E. Mirer (bd, ) (Entered: 02/07/2006)

1967

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA Defendants' Alternative Fire Safety Plan to Resolve Fire Safety Risk in Cell Blocks 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Alternative Plan.020106# 2 Attachment 1 Schedule.020106# 3 Attachment 2 - Cost Estimate.020106# 4 Attachment 3 - Drawing 1.020106# 5 Attachment 4 - Drawing 2.020106# 6 Attachment 5 - Drawing 3.020106) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/07/2006)

1968

AMENDED STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown,

02/13/2006
02/15/2006 02/15/2006 02/15/2006 02/15/2006 02/15/2006 02/17/2006

Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA Defendants' Amended Alternative Fire Safety Plan to Resolve Fire Safety Risk in Cell Blocks 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/08/2006)

1969

SEALED STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' February 10, 2006 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care Work Load, Specialty Care Patient, Pending Consultations and Non-Occurring Scheduled Clinical Appointments (Listed by Patient Identifier) with 2-part spreadsheet attachment (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Specialty Clinic Report - part 1# 2 Attachment Specialty Clinic Report - part 2) (Govorchin, A.) sealed attachment added on 2/15/2006 (acr, ). Modified text and document removed per order 1970 on 2/15/2006 (cmi, ). (Entered: 02/13/2006)

1970 ORDER TO SEAL: Clerk to seal Report 1969 ; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 02/15/2006)

1971

ORDER directing Clerk to send Ray R. Garza certified copies of Dr. Cohen's First and Second Reports 1768 , 1827 & 1830 ; Plaintiffs' counsel shall send to Ray R. Garza a list of accurate patient identifiers within 14 days; Defendants shall supply whatever assistance is necessary to effectuate the preparation of the list of patient identifiers; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Attachments:, # 1 Letter) (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 02/15/2006)

Copy of Order 1970 , and Order, 1971 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle, and Jeanne E. Mirer (acr, ) (Entered: 02/15/2006)

1972

RESPONSE TO 1971 named as Defendants' counsels' letter to Judge Enslen in response to Order [dkt 1971] regarding Ray Garza filed by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Friedman, Leo) (Entered: 02/15/2006)

Copy (certified) of Status Report 1768 , Supplement 1830 , Status Report 1827 and certified Order 1971 sent via U.S. Mail to Ray R. Garza (bd, ) Modified text on 2/16/06 to correct name of recipient documents mailed to (Ray R. Garza only) (bd, ). (Entered: 02/16/2006)

1973

BRIEF by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Supplemental Brief in Support of the Court's Adopting the Defendants' Alternative Plan as the Court-Ordered Fire Safety

02/19/2006
02/21/2006 02/21/2006
02/23/2006 02/24/2006 02/27/2006 02/27/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006

Remedy (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Carson Affidavit) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/17/2006)

1974

SUPPLEMENT re 1973 , 1967 , 1968 entitled, "Plaintiffs' Brief in Opposition to Adoption of Defendants' Proposed Alternative Fire Safety Remedy" by plaintiffs James Covington, Frank Thomas, James Haddix, James Alexander, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Perry Alan Davis, Michael Anthony Gray, Mark Lemothe, Cylester Nunnally, Everett Hadix, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Ted Sullivan, Mark A. Coleman, Richard Mapes, Patrick C. Sommerville, Danny Walker, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr, Brent E. Koster, Lee D. McDonald, Darryl Sturges, Robert Flemster, William Lovett (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1 # 2 Attachment 2 - Pg. 1562 of the Life Safety Code# 3 Attachment 3 - Declaration of Michael DiMascio# 4 Attachment 4 - Declaration of Curtiss J. Pulitzer# 5 Attachment 5 - Pls.' 2002.Hrg.Exh.133-Defs.' Discovery Responses) (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 2/22/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 02/19/2006)

1975 MINUTES of fire safety hearing held before Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Court Reporter: Kathleen Thomas) (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) (Entered: 02/21/2006)

1976

ORIGINAL PAPER AFFIDAVIT of Wayne G. Carson, P.E. in reference to the affidavit submitted electronically and assigned document number 1973 supplemental brief (attachment 1) ; submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA (acr, ) (Entered: 02/22/2006)

1977

ORDER that defendants shall within 28 days file a complete and clarified alternative plan; plaintiffs may file additional briefing as to the altered or clarified plan within 7 days of defendants' filing; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 02/23/2006)

Copy of Order 1977 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle, Jeanne E. Mirer (bd, ) (Entered: 02/24/2006)

1978 MINUTES of status conference held before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Proceedings Digitally Recorded) (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, mdr) (Entered: 02/27/2006)

1979 ORDER regarding disputed scheduling items from stipulation 1958 and order 1966 ; signed by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) (Entered: 02/27/2006)

Copy of Order 1979 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle, Jeanne E. Mirer (bd, ) (Entered: 02/28/2006)

1980 LETTER from Ray R. Garza, Acting Director, Complaint & Allegation

03/01/2006
03/02/2006
03/02/2006 03/03/2006 03/07/2006 03/10/2006 03/10/2006 03/13/2006
03/15/2006

Div. Bureau of Health Professions (bd, ) (Entered: 02/28/2006)

1981

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for Defendants' Compliance Report (with Health Care Plan) submitted under seal to the Court (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/01/2006)

1982

SEALED STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik named as "Defendants' March 1, 2006 Compliance With the Court-Approved Health Care Plan" (bd, ) (Entered: 03/02/2006)

1983 NOTICE re 1971 ; with Certificate of Service; by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 3/6/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 03/02/2006)

1984

MOTION for reconsideration re 1979 for Partial Reconsideration; with Certificate of Service; and with Brief in Support; by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Defendants' Discovery to Plaintiffs) (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 3/7/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 03/03/2006)

1985 TRANSCRIPT of Hearing Regarding Fire Safety held February 21, 2006 before the Honorable Richard Alan Enslen (Court Reporter: K. Thomas, (269) 385-3050) (Entered: 03/07/2006)

1986 LETTER from Elizabeth Alexander in response to the Court's letter of February 22, 2006 (rlw, ) (Entered: 03/10/2006)

1987 LETTER from Ray R. Garza in response to the Court's order of February 15, 2006 (rlw, ) (Entered: 03/10/2006)

1988

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for Defendants' March 10, 2006 Specialty Care Monthly Workload Report (Submitted to the Court under seal per Order dated 2/15/06) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/13/2006)

1989

SEALED STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik entitled "Defendants' March 10, 2006 Specialty Care Monthly Workload Report" (bd, ) (Entered: 03/15/2006)

03/16/2006
03/16/2006 03/17/2006 03/23/2006
03/27/2006 03/27/2006 03/29/2006 03/30/2006 03/31/2006

1990

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Follow-Up Staffing Analysis for Duane Waters Hospital Transitional Beds - March 2006 (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Staffing Analysis March 2006# 2 Attachment B DWH First Shift March 2006# 3 Attachment C - DWH Second Shift March 2006# 4 Attachment D - DWH Third Shift March 2006# 5 Attachment E - MSP Coverage for Additional Beds) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/16/2006)

1991

NOTICE OF MOTION HEARING regarding document number 1984 : motion hearing is set for 3/31/2006 at 02:00 PM at 401 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) (Entered: 03/16/2006)

Copy of Notice of Motion Hearing[ 1991] sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle and Jeanne E. Mirer (bd, ) (Entered: 03/17/2006)

1992

NOTICE of Defendants' Filing Their Detailed Alternative Plan Regarding Fire Safety Remedy by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Alternative Plan - Part 1# 2 Attachment Alternative Plan Part 2) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/23/2006)

1993 NOTICE cancelling hearing regarding motion number 1984 (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) (Entered: 03/27/2006)

Copy of Notice Cancelling Motion Hearing 1993 sent via U.S. Mail to Jeanne E. Mirer, Deborah A. LaBelle, J. Franklin James, Daine Hartmus, Robert L. Cohen (rlw, ) (Entered: 03/27/2006)

1994 MOTION to strike Affidavits Attached to Defendants' March Alternative Fire Plan by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support of Motion) (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/29/2006)

1995 LETTER from Mark A. Coleman, T. Jon Spytma, Mujahid Latif regarding Order of 2/15/06 (Attachments:, # 1 Attachment) (rlw, ) (Entered: 03/31/2006)

1996

RESPONSE to motion re 1994 named as Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Affidavits Attached to Defendants' March [23, 2006] Alternative Fire Safety Plan filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/31/2006)

03/31/2006
04/04/2006
04/04/2006 04/04/2006 04/07/2006 04/07/2006 04/07/2006 04/07/2006
04/11/2006 04/11/2006

1997

BRIEF by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA re 1996 in Support of Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Affidavits Attached to Defendants' March [23, 2006] Alternative Fire Safety Plan (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/31/2006)

1998

RESPONSE to motion re 1992 Brief in Opposition to Defendants' March Alternative Plan for Fire Safety filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1: Work Orders Tracking Report# 2 Attachment 2: Lock Repair Requests# 3 Attachment 3: Ferguson Declaration# 4 Attachment 4: Dimascio Declaration# 5 Attachment 5: Pulitzer Declaration# 6 Attachment 6: Faussett Deposition# 7 Attachment 7: Defendants' Response to Interrogatories) (Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified text on 4/6/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 04/04/2006)

1999

REPLY BRIEF in support of 1994 Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Affidavits Attached to Defendants' March Alternative Plan for Fire Safety filed by Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified text on 4/6/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 04/04/2006)

2000 SUPPLEMENT re 1995 by plaintiff Mark A. Coleman (Attachments:, # 1 Letter, page 1) (bd, ) (Entered: 04/05/2006)

2001

ORIGINAL PAPER DECLARATION of Elizabeth Ferguson in reference to the declaration submitted electronically and assigned document number 1998 Response in Opposition (attachment 3) ; submitted for filing by plaintiff Everett Hadix (acr, ) (Entered: 04/07/2006)

2002

ORIGINAL PAPER DECLARATION of Michael Dimascio in reference to the declaration submitted electronically and assigned document number 1998 Response in Opposition (attachment 4) ; submitted for filing by plaintiff Everett Hadix (acr, ) (Entered: 04/07/2006)

2003

ORIGINAL PAPER DECLARATION of Curtiss J. Pulitzer in reference to the declaration submitted electronically and assigned document number 1998 Response in Opposition (attachment 5) ; submitted for filing by plaintiff Everett Hadix (acr, ) (Entered: 04/07/2006)

2004

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for Defendants' Request for Admissions (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/07/2006)

2005

ORDER that Defendants shall file a reply brief concerning their alternative plan within 10 days of this Order; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 04/11/2006)

2006 NOTICE Letter to Court Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for

04/11/2006 04/12/2006 04/12/2006 04/14/2006
04/25/2006
04/28/2006
05/01/2006

Reconsideration by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 04/11/2006)

Copy of Order 2005 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L Cohen, MD, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle and Jeanne E. Mirer (bd, ) (Entered: 04/11/2006)

2007 ORDER denying 1984 Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Reconsideration re 1979 ; signed by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) (Entered: 04/12/2006)

Copy of Order on Motion for Reconsideration 2007 sent via U.S. Mail to Jeanne E. Mirer, Deborah A. LaBelle, J. Franklin James, Diane Hartmus, Robert L. Cohen,MD (ghl, ) (Entered: 04/12/2006)

2008

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs' March 15, 2006 Interrogatories and Requests for Documents Regarding Health Care by UPS overnight for Monday delivery (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/14/2006)

2009

NOTICE re 1899 Satisfaction of Judgment by the MDOC Meeting the Requirements of the Court's September 14, 2005 Injunction Regarding Flammable Liquids in the MSI Factory at Parnall Correctional Facility by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Jan 18 2006 ltr & Att A# 2 Attachment A-1 - Jan 18 2006 ltr & Atts. A-E# 3 Attachment B - Jan 20 2006 ltr# 4 Attachment C - Aff of Wayne Carson) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/25/2006)

2010

RESPONSE TO 2005 named as Defendants' Reply in Support of Defendants' Alternative FIre Safety Plan Filed March 23, 2006 filed by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A-1 - Lock box photographs# 2 Attachment A-2 - Lock box photographs# 3 Attachment B - Cell door repair report# 4 Attachment C - RGC Cell block door test report) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/28/2006)

2011

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for Defendants' May 1, 2006 Compliance with the Court-Approved Health Care Plan (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/01/2006)

05/03/2006 05/03/2006
05/04/2006 05/05/2006
05/08/2006 05/08/2006 05/09/2006 05/10/2006 05/15/2006 05/15/2006

2012 SEALED document Defendants' May 1, 2006 Complaince with the CourtApproved Health Care Plan (acr, ) Modified text on 9/20/2006 (acr, ). (Entered: 05/03/2006)

2013

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for Defendants' Revised May 1, 2006 Compliance Report (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/03/2006)

2014 SEALED document Defendants' Revised May 1, 2006 Compliance with the Court-Approved Health Care Plan (bd, ) Modified text on 9/20/2006 (acr, ). (Entered: 05/04/2006)

2015

ORIGINAL PAPER AFFIDAVIT of Wayne G. Carson, P.E. in reference to the affidavit submitted electronically and assigned document number 2009 as Attachment C ; submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (rlw, ) (Entered: 05/05/2006)

2016

MOTION for leave to file Response, styled "Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Response;" with Certificate of Service; by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 5/10/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 05/08/2006)

2017 BRIEF in support of 2016 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Response; with Certificate of Service; filed by Everett Hadix (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 5/10/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 05/08/2006)

2018

ORDER granting 2016 plaintiffs' motion for leave to file; granting leave until May 19, 2006 to file any opposition or response to Defendants' April 25, 2006 Notice; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) Modified text on 5/11/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 05/09/2006)

Copy of Order on Motion for Leave to File 2018 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle and Jeanne E. Mirer (bd, ) (Entered: 05/10/2006)

2019 OPINION; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 05/15/2006)

2020

ORDER denying 1994 plaintiffs' motion to strike; Court certifies to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that if appeal of fire safety Injunction (Appeal No. 05-2358) is remanded, the Court intends to grant Rule (60)(b)(5) relief, modify its Injunction and approve Defendants' Detailed Alternative Plan; Clerk shall immediately communicate this to the Clerk for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) Modified on 5/16/2006 to edit text (rlw, ). (Entered: 05/15/2006)

05/15/2006 05/18/2006 05/18/2006 05/19/2006 05/19/2006 05/23/2006
05/26/2006
05/30/2006 05/30/2006 05/30/2006 05/30/2006
05/31/2006

Copy of Order on Motion to Strike 2020 , Opinion 2019 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle, Jeanne E. Mirer (bd, ) (Entered: 05/15/2006)

2021 MOTION for extension of time to May 26, 2006; with Certificate of Service; by plaintiff Michael Anthony Gray; (Barnhart, Michael) Modified text on 5/22/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 05/18/2006)

2022 BRIEF in support of 2021 Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time; with Certificate of Service; filed by Al Buttons (Barnhart, Michael) Modified text on 5/22/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 05/18/2006)

2023

ORDER granting 2021 plaintiffs' motion for extension of time, plaintiffs' are granted leave until May 26, 2006 to respond to defendants' April 25, 2006 notice; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 05/19/2006)

Copy of Order on Motion for Extension of Time 2023 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle and Jeanne E. Mirer (bd, ) (Entered: 05/19/2006)

2024

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Status Report/Fire Safety/May 2006 Monthly Cell Block Lock Release Test Report (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Cell Block Release Report.051906) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/23/2006)

2025

RESPONSE to Defendants' Notice of Satisfaction of Judgment by the MDOC Meeting the Requirements of the Court's September 14, 2005 Injunction Regarding Flammable Liquds in the MSI Factory at Parnall Correctional Facility re 20092023 ; with Certificate of Service; by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Barnhart, Michael) Modified text on 5/30/2006 (bd, ). Modified text on on 6/1/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 05/26/2006)

2026 MOTION for leave to file excess pages by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 05/30/2006)

2027 MEMORANDUM in support of 2026 Motion to File Extended Brief filed by Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 05/30/2006)

2028 PROPOSED MOTION for reconsideration re 2020 , 2019 by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified text on 6/1/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 05/30/2006)

2029

PROPOSED BRIEF in support of 2028 Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Determination to Alter Fire Safety Injunction filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1 # 2 Attachment 2 # 3 Attachment 3) (Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified text on 6/1/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 05/30/2006)

2030 ORDER granting 2026 plaintiffs' motion for leave to file excess pages,

05/31/2006 05/31/2006 06/01/2006 06/02/2006 06/05/2006
06/05/2006
06/08/2006
06/09/2006

ACCEPTING for filing 2029 proposed brief; GRANTING LEAVE to defendants to file a response within 21 days of this Order, not to exceed 30 pages; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 05/31/2006)

2031 MOTION for reconsideration re 2020 , 2019 of the Court's Determination to Alter Fire Safety Injunction by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (bd, ) (Entered: 06/01/2006)

2032

BRIEF in support of 2031 Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Determination to Alter Fire Safety Injunction filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments:, # 1 Attachment 1, # 2 Attachment 2, # 3 Attachment 3) (bd, ) (Entered: 06/01/2006)

Copy of Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages 2030 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle, Jeanne E. Mirer (bd, ) (Entered: 06/01/2006)

2035 LETTER from Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd, ) (Entered: 06/05/2006)

2033

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for Defs' Updated Response to Pls' March 15, 2006 Interrogatories and Requests for Documents Regarding Health Care (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/05/2006)

2034

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defs' Response to Associate Monitor Dr. Cohen's Undated Letter (Attached to a June 2, 2006 Email) to the Court Regarding Pharmacy Services (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/05/2006)

2036

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Thursday, June 8, 2006 Update of Pharmacy Services at the Hadix Facilities (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/08/2006)

2037

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Expert Dr. Robert B. Greifinger's Preliminary Report Regarding Health Care in the Hadix Facilities (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/09/2006)

06/13/2006
06/14/2006
06/16/2006 06/16/2006 06/16/2006 06/19/2006
06/20/2006 06/20/2006 06/23/2006

2038

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Status Report/Fire Safety/June 2006 Monthly Cell Block Lock Release Test Report (Attachments: # 1 Attachment DeWitt memo.061306) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/13/2006)

2039

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for Defendants' April 17, 2006, May 15, 2006 and June 14, 2006 Monthly Reports Regarding Specialty Care filed under seal (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/14/2006)

2040 SEALED document Defendants' April 17, 2006 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (bd, ) Modified text on 9/20/2006 (acr, ). (Entered: 06/19/2006)

2041 SEALED document Defendants' May 15, 2006 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (bd, ) Modified text on 9/20/2006 (acr, ). (Entered: 06/19/2006)

2042 SEALED document Defendants' June 14, 2006 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (bd, ) Modified text on 9/20/2006 (acr, ). (Entered: 06/19/2006)

2043

STIPULATION to Extend Time to File Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/19/2006)

2044

ORDER granting STIPULATION 2043 ; Defendants are allowed until June 23, 2006 to file their Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 06/20/2006)

Copy of Order on Stipulation 2044 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle, Jeanne E. Mirer (rlw, ) (Entered: 06/20/2006)

2045

RESPONSE in opposition re 2031 to Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's May 15, 2006 Order Indicating the Court's Intention to Approve the Defendants' Detailed Alternative Plan (DAP) filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie

06/27/2006
06/28/2006 06/30/2006 06/30/2006 06/30/2006 06/30/2006
07/07/2006
07/10/2006

Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Attachments: # 1 Attachment American Seating decision# 2 Attachment USA v Pennock decision# 3 Attachment Continental Casualty) (Govorchin, A.) Modified text on 6/26/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 06/23/2006)

2046

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for Defendants' June 27, 2006 Modification of the June 14, 2006 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (As to Tab 2.b.1 Only) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/27/2006)

2047 SEALED document Defendants' June 27, 2006 Modification of the June 14, 2006 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (bd, ) Modified text on 9/20/2006 (acr, ). (Entered: 06/28/2006)

2048

ORDER denying 2031 plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration re 2020 , 2019 ; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) Modified text/link on 7/3/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 06/30/2006)

2049

ORDER that Deborah LaBelle, Jeanne Mirer, L. Franklin James and Diane Hartmus are terminated from active status in this suit, and the Clerk shall so notify them of this Order; named persons may file pro se requests for continuation of active statuses within 21 days of this Order; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 06/30/2006)

Copy of Order on Motion for Reconsideration 2048 , Order 2049 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD, Diane Hartmus, J. Franklin James, Deborah A. LaBelle, Jeanne E. Mirer, (bd, ) (Entered: 06/30/2006)

2050

Plaintiffs' Preliminary WITNESS LIST; with Certificate of Service; by plaintiffs James Covington, Frank Thomas, James Haddix, James Alexander, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Perry Alan Davis, Michael Anthony Gray, Mark Lemothe, Cylester Nunnally, Everett Hadix, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Ted Sullivan, Mark A. Coleman, Richard Mapes, Patrick C. Sommerville, Danny Walker, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr, Brent E. Koster, Lee D. McDonald, Darryl Sturges, Robert Flemster, William Lovett (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 7/3/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 06/30/2006)

2051

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' July 1, 2006 Health Care Compliance Report (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Med Logs MarMay 2006.070706) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/07/2006)

2052 NOTICE Plaintiffs' Notice of Sealed Filing of Expert Report of Jerry S. Walden, M.D. by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered:

07/10/2006 07/10/2006
07/11/2006 07/12/2006 07/13/2006
07/13/2006 07/19/2006

07/10/2006)

2053

NOTICE re 1979 Plaintiffs' Notice of Filing Expert Reports by plaintiff Everett Hadix; with Certificate of Service; (Attachments: # 1 Report of Mark Creekmore, PhD# 2 Report of Curtiss Pulitzer# 3 Att.1 to Pulitzer Report-Temperature Chart) (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 7/11/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 07/10/2006)

2054

NOTICE re 1979 Plaintiffs' Notice of Filing Expert Report of Elizabeth J. Ferguson by plaintiff Everett Hadix; with Certificate of Service; (Attachments: # 1 Report of Elizabeth J. Ferguson# 2 List of Attachments to Ferguson Report# 3 Report Att. 1# 4 Report Att. 2# 5 Report Att. 3# 6 Report Att. 4# 7 Rreport Att. 5# 8 Report Att. 6# 9 Report Att. 7# 10 Report Att. 8# 11 Report Att. 9# 12 Report Att. 10# 13 Report Att. 11# 14 Report Att. 12# 15 Report Att. 13# 16 Report Att. 14# 17 Report Att. 15# 18 Report Att. 16# 19 Report Att. 17# 20 Report Att. 18# 21 Report Att. 19# 22 Report Att. 20# 23 Report Att. 21# 24 Report Att. 22# 25 Report Att. 23# 26 Report Att. 24# 27 Report Att. 25# 28 Report Att. 26# 29 Report Att. 27# 30 Report Att. 28# 31 Report Att. 29# 32 Report Att. 30# 33 Report Att. 31# 34 Report Att. 32) (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 7/11/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 07/10/2006)

2055 SEALED document Expert Report of Jerry S. Walden referenced in notice 2052 (bd, ) Modified text on 9/20/2006 (acr, ). (Entered: 07/11/2006)

2056

MINUTES of status conference; Report from Dr. Cohen; the October 11, 12 & 13, 2006 hearing will commence as scheduled; additional issues may be heard later and the Court will schedule further hearing for later dates within 45 days of October 13, 2006; held before Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Court Reporter: Kathleen Thomas) (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) Modified on 7/13/2006 to correct filing date (acr, ). (Entered: 07/13/2006)

2057

ORDER that the evidentiary hearing scheduled for October 11-13, 2006 shall commence as earlier scheduled; that such hearing will consider as a priority matter medical care issues, which may include requests by Plaintiffs for injunctive relief; and before consideration of other issues, such as termination of Consent Decree provisions; and that all issues not presented at such hearing will be heard at a later hearing, not to exceed two days in length, which will be later scheduled by notice of this Court for a date or dates within 45 days of October 13, 2006 ; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) (Entered: 07/13/2006)

Copy of Order 2057 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd, ) (Entered: 07/13/2006)

2058

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik for Defendants' July 2006 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (Govorchin, A.)

07/20/2006 07/20/2006 07/21/2006
07/25/2006 07/25/2006 07/25/2006 07/25/2006 07/26/2006

(Entered: 07/19/2006)

2059

WITNESS LIST by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/20/2006)

2060 SEALED document Defendants' July 2006 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (acr, ) Modified text on 9/20/2006 (acr, ). (Entered: 07/20/2006)

2061

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for Defendants' Second Updated Response to Plaintiffs' March 15, 2006 Interrogatories and Requests for Documents Regarding Health Care (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/21/2006)

2062 MOTION to compel Discovery Response by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/25/2006)

2063

BRIEF in support of 2062 Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel Discovery Response filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1, Plaintiffs' Mar. 15, '06 Irogs and Doc. Request# 2 Attachment 2, Defs' Response to Irogs# 3 Attachment 3, Defs' 2nd Response to Irogs# 4 Attachment 2004 WL 2905391) (Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified text on 7/27/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 07/25/2006)

2064

MOTION for extension of time to file named as Motion to Allow the Late Filing of Defendants' Witness List by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik; (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/25/2006)

2065

BRIEF in support of 2064 Motion to Allow the Late Filing of Defendants' Witness List filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/25/2006)

2066

(STRICKEN) STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Notice of Filing Defendants' Expert Witness, Dr. Robert Greifinger's, Redacted Final

07/27/2006
07/27/2006 08/01/2006 08/01/2006 08/01/2006 08/01/2006 08/01/2006
08/01/2006
08/01/2006

Report (Attachments: # 1 Attachment - Greifinger Updated Final ReportRedacted# 2 Attachment - Greifinger List of Docs & Witnesses-Redacted) (Govorchin, A.) Modified on 8/30/2006 (this document is stricken pursuant to Order, docket #2096) (bd, ). (Entered: 07/26/2006)

2067

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Status Report/Fire Safety/July 2006 Monthly Cell Block Lock Release Test Report (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - DeWitt memo.072606) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/27/2006)

2068 ORDER of USCA re appeal 1906 granting the motion to remand (rlw, ) (Entered: 07/28/2006)

2069 MOTION to expedite Motion for Expedited Consideration by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/01/2006)

2070 BRIEF in support of 2069 Plaintiffs' Motion for Expedited Consideration filed by Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/01/2006)

2071

RESPONSE in opposition re 2064 Defendants' Motion To Allow the Late Filing of Defendants' Witness List filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1 - Email# 2 Attachment 2 - Letter# 3 Attachment 3 Defendants 2nd Response# 4 Attachment 4 - Defendants' Response# 5 Attachment 5 - Cohen Email) (Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified text on 8/3/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 08/01/2006)

2072

MOTION to strike Greifinger Final Expert Report and to Limit His Testimony to the Matters Covered in His Initial Report by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified text on 8/3/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 08/01/2006)

2073

BRIEF in support of 2072 Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Greifinger Final Expert Report and to Limit His Testimony to the Matters Covered in His Initial Report filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1 Email# 2 Attachment 2 - Letter to Gorvorchin# 3 Attachment 3 Defendants 2nd Response# 4 Attachment 4 - Defendants Response# 5 Attachment 5 - Cohen Email) (Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified text on 8/3/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 08/01/2006)

2074

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Hadix Facilities MSP Staffing Plan - Status Report, April-June 2006 (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A&B - Staffing Plan for Hadix Site.080106) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/01/2006)

2075 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held July 12, 2006 before the

08/01/2006
08/03/2006
08/04/2006 08/04/2006 08/09/2006 08/09/2006 08/09/2006 08/10/2006

Honorable Richard Alan Enslen (Court Reporter: K. Thomas, (269) 3853050) (Entered: 08/01/2006)

2076

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' August 1, 2006 Status Report on Prisoners Classified to Administrative Segregation After Being Found Guilty of Sexual Misconduct or Assault and Who Are HIV Positive (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - ADW McCabe memo.072006# 2 Attachment B - PD 03.04.120# 3 Attachment C - PD 04.05.120) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/01/2006)

2077

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for Attachment D to Defendants' August 1, 2006 Status Report on Prisoners Classified to Administrative Segregation After Being Found Guilty of Sexual Misconduct or Assault and Who Are HIV Positive [dkt #2076] filed under seal (Govorchin, A.) Modified text on 8/3/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 08/03/2006)

2078 SEALED document Attachment D to 2076 status report (acr, ) Modified text on 9/20/2006 (acr, ). (Entered: 08/04/2006)

2079

NOTICE of Filing Redacted Expert Report of Jerry Walden, MD by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Redacted Walden Report# 2 Appendix A# 3 Appendix B# 4 Appendix C# 5 Appendix D# 6 Appendix E) (Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified text on 8/8/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 08/04/2006)

2080 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 2069 Plaintiffs' Motion for Expedited Consideration; signed by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) (Entered: 08/09/2006)

2081

NOTICE OF MOTION HEARING regarding document numbers 2062 , 2064 , and 2072 : motion hearing is set for 8/17/2006 at 02:30 PM at 401 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) Modified text on 8/9/2006 (acr, ). (Entered: 08/09/2006)

2082

SUPPLEMENT to response in opposition 2071 titled "Plaintiffs' Corrected Partial Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Allow the Late Filing of Defendants Witness List" by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Letter to Gorvorchin# 2 Attachment Defendants' Second Updated Discovery Response# 3 Attachment Cohen Email# 4 Attachment Status Conference) (Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified text on 8/10/2006 (acr, ). (Entered: 08/09/2006)

Copy of Order on Motion to Expedite 2080 , Notice of Motion Hearing, 2081 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen (acr, ) (Entered:

08/10/2006 08/14/2006 08/14/2006
08/14/2006
08/14/2006
08/15/2006 08/15/2006

08/10/2006)

2083

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for Defendants' August 2006 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/10/2006)

2084 SEALED document Defendants' August 2006 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (bd, ) Modified text on 9/20/2006 (acr, ). (Entered: 08/14/2006)

2085

RESPONSE in opposition re 2062 to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery Regarding Peer Review Materials filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Stringfellow v Oakwood Hosp & Med Ctr) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/14/2006)

2086

RESPONSE in opposition re 2072 to Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Greifinger Final Expert Report and in Opposition to Limiting his Testimony to the Matters Covered in his Initial Report filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - July 13, 2006 Order# 2 Attachment B Cohen ltr dated 081406) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/14/2006)

2087

RESPONSE TO 2082 Plaintiffs' Corrected Partial Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Allow the Late Filing of Defendants' Witness List filed by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - July 13, 2006 Order) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/14/2006)

2088 LETTER from Robert L. Cohen, M.D. (redacted copy) (Attachments:, # 1 e-mail from Mr. Govorchin (redacted)) (bd, ) (Entered: 08/15/2006)

2089

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Notice of Filing Defendants' Expert Witness, Dr. Ronald Shansky's Report Regarding Health Care in the Hadix Facilities (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Dr. Shansky's Report# 2 Attachment Addendum - redacted) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/15/2006)

08/16/2006
08/17/2006
08/17/2006 08/18/2006
08/21/2006 08/21/2006 08/25/2006 08/29/2006

2090

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA re 2089 for Defendants' Expert Witness, Dr. Ronald Shansky's Report Regarding Health Care in the Hadix Facilities with Unredacted Addendum provided by email (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/16/2006)

2092

MINUTES of motion hearing re 2072 MOTION to strike GREIFINGER FINAL EXPERT REPORT AND TO LIMIT HIS TESTIMONY TO THE MATTERS COVERED IN HIS INITIAL REPORT filed by Everett Hadix, 2062 MOTION to compel Discovery Response filed by Everett Hadix, 2064 MOTION for extension of time to file (named as Motion to Allow the Late Filing of Defendants' Witness List) filed by defendants held before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Proceedings Digitally Recorded) (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, mdr) (Entered: 08/18/2006)

2093

SEALED document re 2089 Status Report (Defendants' Expert Witness Dr. Ronald Shansky's Report Regarding Health Care in the Hadix Facilities with Unredated Addendum) (acr, ) Modified text on 9/20/2006 (acr, ). (Entered: 08/18/2006)

2091

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Status Report/Fire Safety/August 2006 Monthly Cell Block Lock Release Test Report (Attachments: # 1 Attachment DeWitt memo.081806) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/18/2006)

2094

AMENDED FIRE SAFETY INJUNCTION vacating 1899 Fire Safety Injunction entered Sept. 14, 2005; ENJOINING defendants to implement defendants' Alternative Fire Safety Plan immediately; defendants shall submit quarterly reports on the progress of the implementation; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 08/21/2006)

Copy of Order 2094 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd, ) (Entered: 08/21/2006)

2095 NOTICE Plaintiffs' Filing a Proposed Form of Order by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/25/2006)

2096

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 2064 Defendants' Motion to Allow Late Filing of Witness List, granting in part and denying in part 2072 Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Greifinger Final Expert Report and to Limit His Testimony to the Matters Covered in His Initial Report; signed by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) (Entered: 08/29/2006)

08/30/2006
08/30/2006 08/31/2006 08/31/2006 09/07/2006 09/07/2006 09/08/2006
09/08/2006 09/08/2006 09/08/2006

2097

STIPULATION Terminating Jurisdiction on the Issue of Flammable Liquid Fire Safety in the MSI Metal Furniture Factory by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/30/2006)

Copy of Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File, Order on Motion to Strike 2096 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd, ) (Entered: 08/30/2006)

2098

ORDER approving STIPULATION 2097 ; TERMINATING jurisdiction on the issue of flammable liquid fire safety in the MSI Metal Furniture Factory; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 08/31/2006)

Copy of Order on Stipulation 2098 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd, ) (Entered: 08/31/2006)

2099 MOTION for order to show cause by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/07/2006)

2100

BRIEF in support of 2099 Motion for Order to Show Cause filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Hladki's Responses# 2 Attachment More Hladki Responses) (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/07/2006)

2101

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for Defendants' Notices of Taking Deposition for inmates Pepper Moore, Jordan, Coin, Franklin and Jemison (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/08/2006)

2102 MOTION to alter judgment Motion to Reopen Judgment Regarding Mental Health Claims and Issue a Preliminary Injunction by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/08/2006)

2103

BRIEF in support of 2102 Motion to Reopen Judgment Regarding Mental Health Claims and Issue a Preliminary Injunction filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Responses to Cohen's Questions# 2 Attachment Walden Declaration# 3 Attachment Documents Filed Under Seal) (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/08/2006)

2104

EXHIBIT LIST named as Defendants' Amended Exhibit List by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/08/2006)

09/08/2006 09/08/2006 09/11/2006 09/13/2006
09/13/2006
09/14/2006 09/14/2006 09/15/2006
09/15/2006 09/18/2006 09/18/2006

2105 MOTION for relief from as filed Plaintiffs' Motion for Further Relief by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/08/2006)

2106 BRIEF in support of 2105 Plaintiffs' Motion for Further Relief filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Cohen's Draft Recommendations) (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/08/2006)

2107

PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff Everett Hadix Attachment 3 of Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of Motion to Reopen Judgment Regarding Mental Health Claims and Issue a Preliminary Injunction (Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified text on 9/11/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 09/11/2006)

2108

NOTICE OF APPEAL TO DISTRICT JUDGE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA regarding Magistrate Judge order number 2096 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/13/2006)

2109

BRIEF by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA re 2108 in Support of Defendants' Statement of Appeal of Magistrate Judge's Order of August 29, 2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/13/2006)

2110 MOTION for order Motion for Consent Order by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/14/2006)

2111 MEMORANDUM in support of 2110 Motion for Consent Order filed by Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/14/2006)

2112

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re motion 2099 , 2105 , 2102 ; show cause hearing set for 10/11/2006 at 09:00 AM at 174 Federal Building, Kalamazoo, MI before Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen; defendants shall answer the motions in writing in accordance with the Western District of Michigan Local Civil Rule 7.2; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) (Entered: 09/15/2006)

Copy of Order to Show Cause (Hearing Re Motion), Order to Show Cause (Hearing Re Motion) 2112 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd, ) (Entered: 09/15/2006)

2113

RESPONSE in opposition re 2108 to defendants' Statement of Appeal of Magistrate Judge's Order of August 29, 2006 filed by Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified text on 9/18/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 09/18/2006)

2114

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I.

09/18/2006 09/19/2006 09/20/2006 09/20/2006 09/20/2006
09/20/2006 09/25/2006
09/26/2006 09/26/2006 09/28/2006

Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for Defendants' September 2006 Monthly Report (submitted to the Court under seal per Order dated 2/15/06) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/18/2006)

2116 SEALED document Defendants' September 2006 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (acr, ) Modified text on 9/20/2006 (acr, ). (Entered: 09/19/2006)

2115 ORDER denying 2062 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery Response; signed by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) (Entered: 09/19/2006)

Copy of Order on Motion to Compel 2115 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd, ) (Entered: 09/20/2006)

2117

ORDER granting 2110 Plaintiffs' Motion for Consent Order; the parties are allowed to depose witnesses confined in prison pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2), and the deadline for depositions is extended to 9/30/2006; signed by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) (Entered: 09/20/2006)

2118

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Status Report/Fire Safety/September 2006 Monthly Cell Block Lock Release Test Report (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - DeWitt memo.092006) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/20/2006)

Copy of Order on Motion for Order 2117 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd, ) (Entered: 09/20/2006)

2119

NOTICE OF APPEAL TO DISTRICT JUDGE by plaintiffs James Covington, Frank Thomas, James Haddix, James Alexander, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Perry Alan Davis, Michael Anthony Gray, Mark Lemothe, Cylester Nunnally, Everett Hadix, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Ted Sullivan, Mark A. Coleman, Richard Mapes, Patrick C. Sommerville, Danny Walker, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr, Brent E. Koster, Lee D. McDonald, Darryl Sturges, Robert Flemster, William Lovett regarding Magistrate Judge order number 2115 (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1# 2 Attachment 2# 3 Attachment 3# 4 Attachment 4# 5 Attachment 5) (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/25/2006)

2120

ORDER that Defendants shall answer Plaintiffs' Appeal 2119 in writing on or before October 3, 2006, absent a contrary stipulation between the parties, filed with this Court; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 09/26/2006)

Copy of Order 2120 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd, ) (Entered: 09/26/2006)

2121 (VACATED) ORDER that should the Independent Monitor file

09/28/2006 09/28/2006 09/28/2006
09/29/2006 09/29/2006
09/29/2006 09/29/2006 09/29/2006

referenced videotape, he shall file two copies, the first an unredacted copy and the second a redacted copy which omits the prisoner's name and obscures his facial features; upon receipt, the Clerk shall seal the unredacted copy from public inspection; the redacted copy shall be maintained by the Clerk as a public record; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) Modified on 10/10/2006 (this Order vacated on 10/10/06 pursuant to order, docket #2149) (bd, ). (Entered: 09/28/2006)

Copy of Order 2121 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd, ) (Entered: 09/28/2006)

2122

MOTION to quash Plaintiffs' Discovery Subpoena Dated September 22, 2006 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik; (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/28/2006)

2123

BRIEF in support of 2122 Defendants' Motion to Quash Plaintiffs' Discovery Subpoena Dated September 22, 2006 filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Small Subpoena.092806) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/28/2006)

2124

ORDER granting Defendants a one-day briefing extension, until Oct. 4, 2006, to answer plaintiffs' appeal 2119 ; setting forth upcoming hearing schedule; approving "topics listing" of proposed agenda for use in a final agenda to be prepared by the parties; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 09/29/2006)

2125

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' September 29, 2006 DAP Status Report (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/29/2006)

2126

RESPONSE in opposition re 2122 Plaintiffs' opposition to defendants' motion to quash plaintiffs' discovery subpoena dated September 22, 2006 with Certificate of Service filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sept. 12, 2006 Letter) (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text to remove Modified on 9/29/2006 (acr, ). (Entered: 09/29/2006)

2127 NOTICE re 2126 date error in plaintiffs' opposition filed September 29, 2006 by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text to remove capitalization on 9/29/2006 (acr, ). (Entered: 09/29/2006)

Copy of Order, 2124 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (acr, ) (Entered: 09/29/2006)

10/02/2006 10/02/2006 10/02/2006
10/02/2006 10/02/2006
10/02/2006 10/02/2006 10/03/2006 10/03/2006 10/03/2006 10/03/2006 10/03/2006

2128 ORDER denying 2108 appeal of magistrate judge decision and affirming the Order of Aug. 29, 2006; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 10/02/2006)

Copy of Order on Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision 2128 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd, ) (Entered: 10/02/2006)

2129

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Status Report Regarding Construction Improvements at Duane Waters Health Center Step-Down Unit and RGC's C-Unit as Mentioned in Defendants' Health Care Plan as Amended and Approved by the Court's January 12, 2006 Order (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/02/2006)

2130 Plaintiffs' Amended WITNESS LIST by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 10/4/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 10/02/2006)

2131

UNOPPOSED MOTION for writ of habeas corpus Ad Testificandum by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Writ for Henry Franklin# 2 Proposed Order Writ for Willie Jemison# 3 Proposed Order Writ for Otha Jordan) (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 10/3/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 10/02/2006)

2132

UNOPPOSED MOTION for writ of habeas corpus Ad Prosequendum by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order - Writ for C. Moore) (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 10/3/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 10/02/2006)

2137

SEALED document: Attachment 1 of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Quash Plaintiffs' Discovery Subpoena Dated September 22, 2006 filed in redacted form as docket #2126 (bd, ) (Entered: 10/03/2006)

2133 WRIT of habeas corpus ad testificandum issued as to Clarence Moore, No. 100885; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 10/03/2006)

2134 WRIT of habeas corpus ad testificandum issued as to Henry Franklin, No. 195954 ; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 10/03/2006)

2135 WRIT of habeas corpus ad testificandum issued as to Otha Jordan, No. 157338; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 10/03/2006)

2136 WRIT of habeas corpus ad testificandum issued as to Willie Jemison, No. 104963 ; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 10/03/2006)

2138 ORDER denying 2122 defendants' motion to quash; amending Order of Sept. 28, 2006 as follows: vacating requirement of filing a redacted copy,

10/03/2006 10/03/2006 10/04/2006
10/05/2006
10/05/2006
10/06/2006 10/06/2006 10/06/2006 10/06/2006

sealing original copy; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (See text of Order, docket 2149, regarding this Order) (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) Modified text on 10/10/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 10/03/2006)

Copy of Order on Motion to Quash 2138 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd, ) (Entered: 10/03/2006)

Certified copy of Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum Issued 2135 , Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum Issued 2136 , Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum Issued 2134 , Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum Issued 2133 sent via U.S. Mail to Patricia Streeter (bd, ) (Entered: 10/03/2006)

2139

RESPONSE TO 2119 named as Response in Opposition to Appeal of Magistrate Judge Carmody's September 19, 2006 Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery Regarding Peer Review Materials filed by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Stringfellow v Oakwood) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/04/2006)

2140

RESPONSE in opposition re 2099 to Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order to Show Cause filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/05/2006)

2141

BRIEF by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA re 2140 in Support of Defendants' Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order to Show Cause (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Monthly Dialysis Note) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/05/2006)

2142 OPINION; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 10/06/2006)

2143

ORDER denying 2119 plaintiffs' appeal of magistrate judge decision, and affirming 2115 Order of Sept. 19, 2006; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 10/06/2006)

2144 NOTICE Authorizing Use of Videotape by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Redacted Letter Authorizing Use of Video Tape) (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/06/2006)

2145 RESPONSE in opposition re 2102 Plaintiffs' Motion to Reopen Judgment Regarding Mental Health Claims and Issue a Preliminary Injunction filed

10/06/2006 10/09/2006
10/09/2006
10/10/2006 10/10/2006 10/10/2006

by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Engstrom Email# 2 Exhibit B - Restriction of Seg Property# 3 Exhibit C - Waldron CV# 4 Exhibit D - Omitted# 5 Exhibit E - Marquardt v Joseph# 6 Exhibit F - Jan 8 2001 Opinion & Order) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/06/2006)

2146

RESPONSE in opposition re 2105 Plaintiffs' Motion for Further Relief filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/06/2006)

2147

SUPPLEMENT re 2145 named as Notice of Filing Amended Exhibit E to Defendants' Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Reopen Judgment Regarding Mental Health Claims and Issue a Preliminary Injunction by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit E Marquardt v Joseph) (Govorchin, A.) Modified text on 10/11/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 10/09/2006)

2148

SUPPLEMENT re 2145 named as Notice of Filing Transcripts in Support of Defendants' Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Reopen Judgment Regarding Mental Health Claims and Issue a Preliminary Injunction by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Duffy Deposition Transcript# 2 Attachment Boltjes Deposition Transcript) (Govorchin, A.) Modified text on 10/11/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 10/09/2006)

2149

ORDER vacating the entire Order of September 28, 2006 2121 and the words of the last paragraph of the Order of October 3, 2006 2138 that "[t]he original copy shall remain sealed and not disclosed to the public"; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 10/10/2006)

2150

ORDER that a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum shall issue in regards to Craig Shivers, No. 183726; letter from Craig Shivers shall be filed with the Clerk as part of the public record; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 10/10/2006)

2151 WRIT of habeas corpus ad testificandum issued as to Craig Shivers, No. 183726; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 10/10/2006)

10/10/2006 10/10/2006
10/10/2006
10/10/2006 10/10/2006 10/10/2006 10/10/2006 10/10/2006 10/11/2006 10/12/2006 10/12/2006 10/13/2006 10/13/2006
10/16/2006 10/17/2006

2152 LETTER from Craig M. Shivers #183726 (acr, ) (Entered: 10/10/2006)

2153

RESPONSE in support re 2099 as written "Reply Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Order to Show Cause" filed by Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified text on 10/11/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 10/10/2006)

2154

RESPONSE in support re 2102 as written "Reply Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Reopen Judgment Regarding Mental Health Claims and Issue a Preliminary Injunction" filed by Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified text on 10/11/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 10/10/2006)

2155 RESPONSE in support re 2105 as written "Reply Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Further Relief" filed by Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified text on 10/11/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 10/10/2006)

2156 EXHIBIT LIST by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 10/10/2006)

Copy of Order 2149 , Order on Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision 2143 , Order 2150 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd, ) (Entered: 10/10/2006)

Copy of Opinion 2142 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd, ) (Entered: 10/10/2006)

2157 SEALED document: (Attachment 1 re docket # 2144 ) filed by plaintiffs (bd, ) (Entered: 10/10/2006)

2158 MINUTES of bench trial held before Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Court Reporter: Kathleen Thomas) (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) Modified text on 10/12/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 10/12/2006)

2159 MINUTES of bench trial held before Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Court Reporter: Kathleen Thomas) (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) (Entered: 10/13/2006)

2160 SEALED document re 2103 (Attachment 3) filed by plaintiffs (bd, ) (Entered: 10/13/2006)

2161 PRO SE MOTION for order for Injunctive Relief by Larry D. Blue (bd, ) Modified text on 10/13/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 10/13/2006)

2164

MINUTES of bench trial with confidential portion of hearing held inchambers from 5:05 p.m. to 5:16 p.m. before Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Court Reporter: Kathleen Thomas) (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) Modified text on 10/27/2006 (acr, ). (Entered: 10/18/2006)

2162 ORDER regarding post-hearing litigation schedule; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 10/16/2006)

Copy of Order 2162 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd, ) Modified text on 10/17/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 10/17/2006)

10/18/2006 10/18/2006 10/18/2006
10/19/2006
10/19/2006
10/19/2006
10/20/2006 10/20/2006 10/20/2006

2163 ORDER denying 2161 Larry D. Blue's motion for injunctive relief; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 10/18/2006)

Copy of Order on Motion for Order 2163 sent via U.S. Mail to Larry D. Blue and Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd, ) (Entered: 10/18/2006)

2165

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for Defendants' October 2006 Monthly Report (submitted to the Court under seal per Order dated 2/15/06) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/18/2006)

2166

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for Defendants' Notices of Taking De Bene Esse Depositions (and Amended Notices) of Rich Russell; Bency Mathai, MD; Craig Hutchinson, MD; Barb Hladki; Deb Roth, RN; and George Pramstaller, DO (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/19/2006)

2167

STIPULATION to Request Extension by One Day of Defendants' Initial Filing Under the Court's October 16, 2006 Order by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/19/2006)

2168

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Status Report/Fire Safety/October 2006 Monthly Cell Block Lock Release Test Report (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - DeWitt memo.101906) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/19/2006)

2169 ORDER granting STIPULATION 2167 ; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 10/20/2006)

Copy of Order on Stipulation 2169 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd, ) (Entered: 10/20/2006)

2170

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I.

10/23/2006 10/23/2006 10/23/2006 10/23/2006 10/23/2006 10/25/2006
10/25/2006

Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for Defendants' Second Amended Notice of Taking De Bene Esse Depositions of Rich Russell; Bency Mathai, MD; Craig Hutchinson, MD; Barb Hladki; Deb Roth, RN; and George Pramstaller, DO (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/20/2006)

2171 SEALED document: Defendants' October 2006 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (bd, ) (Entered: 10/23/2006)

2172 TRANSCRIPT of Hearing - Volume I held October 11, 2006 before the Honorable Richard Alan Enslen (Court Reporter: K. Thomas, (269) 3853050) (Entered: 10/23/2006)

2173 TRANSCRIPT of Hearing - Volume II held October 12, 2006 before the Honorable Richard Alan Enslen (Court Reporter: K. Thomas, (269) 3853050) (Entered: 10/23/2006)

2174 TRANSCRIPT of Hearing - Volume III held October 13, 2006 before the Honorable Richard Alan Enslen (Court Reporter: K. Thomas, (269) 3853050) (Entered: 10/23/2006)

2175

TRANSCRIPT of ****SEALED**** Portion of Hearing Placed Under Seal held October 13, 2006 before the Honorable Richard Alan Enslen (Court Reporter: K. Thomas, (269) 385-3050) corrected attachment added on 10/25/2006 (bd, ), Modified on 10/25/2006 (cmi, ). (Entered: 10/23/2006)

2176

DECLARATION named as Proffer of Richard Russell's Testimony Connected to Plaintiffs' Motion to Reopen Mental Health Care Issues in This Litigation by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Russell CV# 2 Attachment B OPMHT Staff List# 3 Attachment C - PSU Staff List# 4 Attachment D Oct 18 2006 memo re PSU coverage# 5 Attachment E - Health screening form# 6 SEALED Attachment F) (Govorchin, A.) corrected attachment added on 10/26/2006 (bd, ). Modified text on 10/26/2006 (bd, ). Modified exhibit F Sealed per Order 2180 10/26/2006 (cmi, ). (Entered: 10/25/2006)

2177

RESPONSE in opposition re 2102 to Plaintiffs' Motion to Reopen Judgment Regarding Mental Health Claims and Issue a Preliminary Injunction filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Engstrom Email 100606# 2 Attachment B - Restrc Seg Prop&Priv# 3 Attachment C - Walden CV# 4 Attachment E - Marquardt v Joseph# 5 Attachment F - 108-01 Opinion & Order# 6 Attachment G - DOM 2006-13# 7 Attachment H - Franklin Cell Usage# 8 Attachment I - TS Cell Usage# 9 Attachment J - 6-Block Diagrams# 10 Attachment K - Campbell Affidavit# 11 Attachment Photo 1# 12 Attachment Photo

10/26/2006
10/26/2006
10/26/2006 10/27/2006 10/27/2006 10/27/2006 10/31/2006 11/01/2006
11/08/2006 11/08/2006

2# 13 Attachment Photo 3# 14 Attachment Photo 4# 15 Attachment Photo 5# 16 Attachment Photo 6# 17 Attachment Photo 7# 18 Attachment Photo 8) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/25/2006)

2178

MOTION to SEAL DOCUMENT named as Defendants' Motion to Seal Exhibit by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik; (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/26/2006)

2179

BRIEF in support of 2178 Motion to Seal Exhibit filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/26/2006)

2180 ORDER granting 2178 defendants' motion to seal document; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 10/26/2006)

Copy of Order on Motion to Seal Document 2180 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd, ) (Entered: 10/27/2006)

2181

ORDER that a second motion hearing/evidentiary hearing shall commence on Wednesday, January 24, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. and continue until its conclusion no later than Friday, January 26, 2007 at 4:30 p.m.; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 10/27/2006)

Copy of Order 2181 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd, ) (Entered: 10/27/2006)

2182 TRIAL BRIEF In Support of Motion to Reopen Judgment Regarding Mental Health Claims and Issue a Preliminary Injunction by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/31/2006)

2183

ORIGINAL PAPER AFFIDAVIT of Capt. Sherman Campbell in reference to the affidavit submitted electronically and assigned document number 2177 (Attachment K thereof) ; submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (bd, ) (Entered: 11/01/2006)

2184 UNOPPOSED MOTION for disclosure of prisoner personal identification information by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 11/9/2006 (acr, ). (Entered: 11/08/2006)

2185 BRIEF in support of 2184 unopposed motion to permit disclosure of prisoner identification information filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Permitting Disclosure) (Streeter, Patricia) Modified

11/13/2006 11/13/2006
11/13/2006 11/14/2006 11/14/2006
11/15/2006 11/15/2006
11/16/2006
11/16/2006

text on 11/9/2006 (acr, ). (Entered: 11/08/2006)

2186 OPINION; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 11/13/2006)

2187

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION granting 2102 plaintiffs' motion to reopen judgment regarding mental health care and issue a preliminary injunction, reopening section II.B of the Consent Decree limited to the provisions of this Order and Preliminary Injunction; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 11/13/2006)

Copy of Opinion 2186 , Order on Motion to Alter Judgment 2187 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd, ) (Entered: 11/13/2006)

2188 ORDER amending Opinion of Nov. 13, 2006; last line of text, page 39, "There" should appear as "Their" ; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 11/14/2006)

2189

ORDER granting 2184 plaintiffs' motion for disclosure of prisoner identification information whose medical cases are discussed in the July 10, 2006 report of Jerry S. Walden, M.D. to Ray S. Garza, Director of the State of Michigan Bureau of Health Professions, Health Regulatory Division; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 11/14/2006)

Copy of Order 2188 , Order on Motion for Disclosure 2189 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd, ) (Entered: 11/15/2006)

2190

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for Defendants' November 2006 Monthly Report (submitted to the Court under seal per Order dated 2/15/06) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/15/2006)

2191

SEALED DEPOSITION of Barbara Hladki; with Exhibit A; by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) attachment added on 11/17/2006 (bd, ). Modified text on 11/17/2006 (bd, ). Modified to remove and seal document per order 2207 on 11/17/2006 (cmi, ). (Entered: 11/16/2006)

2192

DEPOSITION of Richard Russell taken on 11/1/2006 by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 to R. Russell de bene esse dep) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/16/2006)

11/16/2006 11/16/2006 11/16/2006 11/16/2006 11/16/2006 11/16/2006 11/16/2006

2193

SEALED DEPOSITION of Craig Hutchinson, MD by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) attachment added on 11/17/2006 (bd, ). Modified text on 11/17/2006 (bd, ). Modified to remove and seal document per order 2207 on 11/17/2006 (cmi, ). (Entered: 11/16/2006)

2194

SEALED DEPOSITION of Bency Mathai, MD; with Exhibit 1; by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) attachment added on 11/17/2006 (bd, ). Modified text on 11/17/2006 (bd, ). Modified to remove and seal document per order 2207 on 11/17/2006 (cmi, ). (Entered: 11/16/2006)

2195

SEALED DEPOSITION of George Pramstaller, DO by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) attachment added on 11/17/2006 (bd, ). Modified text on 11/17/2006 (bd, ). Modified to remove and seal document per order 2207 on 11/17/2006 (cmi, ). (Entered: 11/16/2006)

2196

MOTION to SEAL De Bene Esse Deposition Transcripts by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik; (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/16/2006)

2197

BRIEF in support of 2196 Defendants' Motion to Seal De Bene Esse Deposition Transcripts filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/16/2006)

2198

AMENDED MOTION to SEAL De Bene Esse Deposition Transcripts by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik; (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/16/2006)

2199

BRIEF in support of 2198 Defendants' Amended Motion to Seal De Bene Esse Deposition Transcripts filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.)

11/16/2006 11/16/2006 11/16/2006 11/16/2006 11/16/2006 11/16/2006 11/16/2006

(Entered: 11/16/2006)

2200

UNOPPOSED MOTION for extension of time to File Final Briefs by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik; (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/16/2006)

2201

BRIEF in support of 2200 Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Final Briefs filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/16/2006)

2202

PROPOSED ORDER regarding Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Final Briefs by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/16/2006)

2203

AMENDED MOTION for extension of time to named as Defendants' Amended Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Final Briefs by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik; (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/16/2006)

2204

BRIEF in support of 2203 Defendants' Amended Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Final Briefs filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/16/2006)

2205

PROPOSED ORDER regarding Defendants' Amended Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Final Briefs by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/16/2006)

2206

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John

11/17/2006 11/17/2006 11/17/2006 11/17/2006
11/17/2006
11/20/2006 11/21/2006 11/21/2006 11/21/2006

Prelesnik, USA named as Status Report Regarding Defendants' Compliance with the November 13, 2006 Order and Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - DOM 2006-13 Notice# 2 Exhibit B - Burt memorandum 111606# 3 Exhibit C - Ludwick email 111606# 4 Exhibit D - Bock memorandum 111606# 5 Exhibit E - Straub email 111606# 6 Exhibit F - Straub memorandum-staffing plan 111606# 7 Exhibit G - Straub email 111506# 8 Exhibit H - Crowel email 111506# 9 Exhibit I - Small email 111606# 10 Exhibit J - Straub memoprotocols 111606) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/16/2006)

2207

ORDER granting 2198 defendants' amended motion to seal de bene esse deposition transcripts; Clerk shall remove public access to those transcripts; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 11/17/2006)

2208

ORDER granting 2203 defendants' motion for extension of time to file briefs; briefs originally due Friday, Nov. 17, 2006 shall now be due Tuesday, Nov. 21, 2006 ; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 11/17/2006)

Copy of Order on Motion to Seal 2207 and Order on Motion for Extension of Time, 2208 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd, ) (Entered: 11/17/2006)

2209

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Status Report/Fire Safety/November 2006 Monthly Cell Block Lock Release Test Report (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Dewitt memo 111706) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/17/2006)

2210

STIPULATION to Supplement the Record of the October 11-13, 2006 Hearing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - TS Autopsy Report) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/17/2006)

2211 SEALED document Defendants' November 2006 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (acr, ) (Entered: 11/20/2006)

2212 ORDER granting STIPULATION 2210 to supplement the Record of Oct. 11-13, 2006; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 11/21/2006)

Copy of Order on Stipulation 2212 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd, ) (Entered: 11/21/2006)

2213 UNOPPOSED MOTION for leave to file excess pages as Written: Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Leave to File an Over-Length Brief by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/21/2006)

11/21/2006 11/21/2006 11/21/2006 11/21/2006 11/21/2006 11/21/2006
11/21/2006
11/22/2006 11/22/2006 11/22/2006 11/22/2006 11/27/2006

2214 MEMORANDUM in support of 2213 filed by Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/21/2006)

2215 EXHIBIT LIST Plaintiffs Revised Exhibit List by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/21/2006)

2216 TRIAL BRIEF in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Order to Show Cause by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/21/2006)

2217 PROPOSED TRIAL BRIEF In Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Further Relief by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified text on 11/22/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 11/21/2006)

2218 NOTICE re 2099 , 2105 Plaintiffs' Proffer by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 List of Proffered Exhibits) (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 11/24/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 11/21/2006)

2219

RESPONSE in opposition re 2099 to Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order to Show Cause filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Monthly Dialysis Note.112106) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/21/2006)

2220

RESPONSE in opposition re 2105 named as Defendants' Trial Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Further Relief filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Med line memo.112106# 2 Attachment B - Case management info.112106# 3 Attachment C - Request for proposal.112106) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/21/2006)

2221

ORDER granting 2213 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File an Over-length Brief. The proposed Trial Brief 2217 is accepted for filing ; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) (Entered: 11/22/2006)

2222 EXHIBIT - Attachment 1 to 2223 Trial Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Further Relief by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 11/22/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 11/22/2006)

2223 TRIAL BRIEF in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Further Relief 2105 by plaintiff Everett Hadix (bd, ) Modified text on 11/24/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 11/22/2006)

Copy of Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages 2221 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd, ) (Entered: 11/22/2006)

2224 EXHIBIT to trial brief in support of plaintiffs' motion for further relief [Dkt. No. 2223] by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 11/27/2006 (acr, ). (Entered: 11/27/2006)

11/27/2006 11/29/2006 11/30/2006 12/01/2006
12/01/2006
12/04/2006

2225

NOTICE of Filing Excerpts from Deposition Transcripts of Bency Mathai, MD; Craig Hutchinson, MD; Barbara Hladki; George Pramstaller, DO; and Richard Russell in Support of Defendants' Trial Briefs in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Further Relief and Motion for Order to Show Cause by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Russell Dep Tr Excerpts.112706) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/27/2006)

2226 MOTION to intervene by movants Michael Eric Masters #192980 and Michael Marr #186617 (Attachments:, # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2) (bd, ) (Entered: 11/30/2006)

2227

TRIAL BRIEF named as Defendants' Amended Trial Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Further Relief by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D - Hrg Tr Vol III.113006# 2 Exhibit E - Ferguson Dep Tr.113006) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/30/2006)

2228

NOTICE re 2219 named as Notice of Filing Excerpts from October 1113, 2006 Hearing Transcript and Deposition Transcripts of Bency Mathai, MD; Craig Hutchinson, MD; and Barbara Hladki in Support of Defendants' Trial Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Order to Show Cause by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Hrg Transcr 101306.120106# 2 Exhibit B - Hutchinson Dep Tr.120106# 3 Exhibit C - Hladki Dep Tr.120106) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/01/2006)

2229

NOTICE re 2220 named as Notice of Filing Excerpts from Deposition Transcripts of Bency Mathai, MD; Barbara Hladki; Craig Hutchinson, MD; and George Pramstaller, DO in Support of Defendants' Trial Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Further Relief by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Mathai Dep Tr.120106# 2 Exhibit B - Hladki Dep Tr.120106# 3 Exhibit C - Hutchinson Dep Tr.120106# 4 Exhibit D - Pramstaller Dep Tr.120106) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/01/2006)

2230 NOTICE of telephone status conference set for 1/10/2007 at 10:00 AM at 401 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) (Entered:

12/05/2006 12/05/2006 12/07/2006 12/07/2006 12/07/2006 12/07/2006
12/07/2006
12/07/2006 12/08/2006 12/08/2006

12/04/2006)

Copy of Notice of Hearing 2230 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd, ) (Entered: 12/05/2006)

2231

NOTICE OF APPEAL re 2187 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/05/2006)

2232

APPEAL TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA re appeal 2231 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/07/2006)

2233

OPINION; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) Modified on 1/17/2007 to reflect that Paragraph 130 is amended pursuant to Order, docket 2274 (bd, ). (Entered: 12/07/2006)

2234

PERMANENT INJUNCTION granting in part and denying in part 2099 plaintiffs' motion for order to show cause, granting in part and denying in part 2105 plaintiffs' motion for further relief; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 12/07/2006)

2235

NOTICE re 2219 named as Notice of Filing Excerpt from Deposition Transcript of Bency Mathai, MD in Support of Defendants' Trial Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order to Show Cause by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/07/2006)

2236

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA re 2235 for sealed excerpted pages from de bene esse deposition transcript of Bency Mathai, MD (see dkt #2235) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/07/2006)

Copy of Opinion 2233 , Permanent Injuction 2234 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (acr, ) (Entered: 12/08/2006)

RECEIPT: USCA appeal fee in the amount of $455, receipt number 210819 (rlw, ) (Entered: 12/08/2006)

2237 STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso,

12/11/2006 12/12/2006 12/12/2006 12/12/2006 12/13/2006 12/14/2006
12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006
12/15/2006 12/18/2006

Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Status Report Regarding Extreme Weather Interruption of PharmaCorr Medication Deliveries and the Lack of Serious Consequences (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/08/2006)

2238 ORDER denying 2226 Michael Eric Masters and Michael Marr's pro se motion to intervene; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 12/11/2006)

Copy of Order on Motion to Intervene 2238 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD, Michael Marr, Michael Eric Masters (bd, ) (Entered: 12/12/2006)

2239 MOTION to intervene (in letter form) by movant Claude T. Hoffman (bd, ) (Entered: 12/12/2006)

2240 SEALED document: Excerpts from De Bene Esse Deposition Transcript of Bency Mathai, MD re Notice of Filing Excerpt 2235 filed by defendants (bd, ) (Entered: 12/13/2006)

CASE NUMBER 06-2591 assigned by Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to appeal 2231 (kad, ) (Entered: 12/20/2006)

2241

NOTICE OF APPEAL re 2234 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, Dale Foltz, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/14/2006)

2242 ORDER denying 2239 Claude T. Hoffman's motion to modify Hadix Consent Decree and for other relief; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 12/15/2006)

Copy of Order on Motion to Intervene 2242 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD and Claude T. Hoffman (acr, ) (Entered: 12/15/2006)

2243

MOTION to adjourn named as Defendants' Motion to Reschedule the January 24-26, 2007 Hearing to a New Date in Late April 2007 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik; (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Straub memo 121406) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/15/2006)

2244

LETTER from Michael Eric Masters regarding change of address to R. A. Handlon Correctional Facility, 1728 W. Bluewater Hwy., Ionia, MI. 48846; and request for copies of documents with response from Clerk (Attachments:, # 1 Attachment) (acr, ) (Entered: 12/18/2006)

Copy of Order on Motion to Intervene 2238 sent via U.S. Mail to Michael Eric Masters at R.A. Handlon Correctional Facility, 1728 W. Bluewater

12/18/2006 12/19/2006
12/19/2006
12/19/2006
12/19/2006 12/20/2006 12/20/2006
12/20/2006 12/20/2006 12/21/2006

Hwy., Ionia, MI 48846 (acr, ) (Entered: 12/18/2006)

RECEIPT: USCA appeal fee in the amount of $455.00, receipt number 210829 (rlw, ) (Entered: 12/19/2006)

2245

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for Defendants' December 2006 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (submitted to the Court under seal per Order dated 2/15/06) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/19/2006)

2246

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Status Report/Fire Safety/December 2006 Monthly Cell Block Lock Release Test Report (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - DeWitt memo.121906) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/19/2006)

2247

MOTION for reconsideration re 2234 and Brief in Support by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik; (Friedman, Leo) (Entered: 12/19/2006)

CASE NUMBER 06-2628 assigned by Sixth Circuit Court ofAppeals to appeal 2241 (kad, ) (Entered: 01/04/2007)

2248

ORDER regarding response to motion 2247 ; Plaintiffs are GRANTED LEAVE to respond, and shall file any response by 1/3/2007 ; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) (Entered: 12/20/2006)

2249

MOTION for reconsideration re 2234 named as Defendants' Amended Motion for Relief from Judgment and Reconsideration by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik; (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/20/2006)

2250 MOTION to intervene as plaintiff; with Proof of Service; by movant Robert Alspaugh (bd, ) (Entered: 12/20/2006)

Copy of Order Regarding Response to Motion 2248 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd, ) (Entered: 12/20/2006)

2251 RESPONSE to motion re 2243 Plaintiffs' opposition to defendants' motion to reschedule the January 24-26 hearing to a new date in late

12/22/2006 12/27/2006 12/27/2006 12/28/2006 12/28/2006
01/02/2007 01/04/2007

April filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1 - Declaration of Michael Chonko# 2 Attachment 2 - Table of Highest Heat Index Days in 2006) (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 12/26/2006 (bd, ). (Entered: 12/21/2006)

2252 SEALED document: Defendants' December 2006 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (bd, ) (Entered: 12/22/2006)

2253

APPEAL TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA re appeal 2241 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/27/2006)

2254

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Status Report Regarding Completion of Physical Plant Renovations Under Defendants' January 23, 2006 Health Care Plan for Duane Waters Health Center Step-Down Unit and C-Unit (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/27/2006)

2255

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' December 28, 2006 DAP Status Report (Second) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/28/2006)

2256

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Health Care Plan Regarding Mental Health Activities Submitted Pursuant to the Court's November 13, 2006 Order and Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A Psych On-Call Coverage Procedure# 2 Attachment B - Psych Coverage Back-Up Procedure# 3 Attachment C - Instructions for PSU Staff Rounds# 4 Attachment D - JMF PSU Seg Rounds# 5 Attachment E RGC SMHU PSU Rounds# 6 Attachment F - Case Management Plan# 7 Attachment G - OP-CFA3-04.05.112) (Govorchin, A.) Modified on text 5/7/2007 to reflect this Status Report was rejected pursuant to Order, docket #2408 (bd, ). (Entered: 12/28/2006)

2257

RESPONSE to motion re 2249 plaintiffs' response to defendants' amended motion for relief from judgment and reconsideration filed by Everett Hadix (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 1/3/2007 (bd, ). (Entered: 01/02/2007)

2258 SUPPLEMENT re 2243 Defendants' Motion to Reschedule the January

01/05/2007
01/05/2007
01/08/2007 01/08/2007 01/08/2007 01/08/2007 01/09/2007 01/09/2007 01/09/2007 01/09/2007

24-26, 2007 Hearing to a New Date in Late April 2007 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/04/2007)

2259

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Status Report Regarding Update on JMF Pill Line (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Prisoner kite re pill line) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/05/2007)

2260

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA re 2259 for Exhibit A (unredacted) to Defendants' Status Report Regarding Update on JMF Pill Line (dkt #2259) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/05/2007)

2261 MOTION for sanctions and Expedited Consideration by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 01/08/2007)

2262

MEMORANDUM in support of 2261 Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions and Expedited Consideration filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Streeter Declaration# 2 Attachment Att. 1 to Streeter Decl.# 3 Attachment Att. 2 to Streeter Decl# 4 Exhibit 2 Alexander Decl) (Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified text on 1/22/2007 (bd, ). (Entered: 01/08/2007)

2263 ORDER denying 2250 Robert Alspaugh's motion to intervene; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 01/08/2007)

2264 SEALED document: Exhibit A to Defendants' Status Report Regarding Update on JMF Pill Line 2259 filed by defendants (bd, ) (Entered: 01/08/2007)

2265 ORDER the Defendants shall answer 2261 not later than Jan. 11, 2007; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 01/09/2007)

Copy of Order on Motion to Intervene 2263 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert Alspaugh #267497, Jr and Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd, ) (Entered: 01/09/2007)

Copy of Order 2265 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd, ) (Entered: 01/09/2007)

2266 ORDER denying 2243 defendants' motion to adjourn January hearing; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan

01/10/2007 01/10/2007
01/10/2007 01/10/2007
01/10/2007
01/10/2007 01/11/2007 01/12/2007 01/12/2007 01/16/2007

Enslen, blb) (Entered: 01/09/2007)

2267

MINUTES of status conference held before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody; parties to submit stipulated proposed order regarding scheduling (Proceedings Not Recorded) (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) (Entered: 01/10/2007)

2268

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik named as Status Report: Notice of Completion of the Duane Waters Health Center Step Down (Transition) Unit Project (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/10/2007)

2269

STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER on mental health hearing schedule by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Adopting Stipulated Dates and Events) (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 1/12/2007 (bd, ). (Entered: 01/10/2007)

2270

RESPONSE to motion re 2261 Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions and Expedited Consideration filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/10/2007)

2271

PROPOSED ORDER regarding prehearing discovery by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/10/2007)

Copy of Order on Motion to Adjourn 2266 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd, ) (Entered: 01/10/2007)

2272

ORIGINAL PAPER DECLARATION of Patricia A. Streeter in reference to the declaration submitted electronically and assigned document number 2262 ; submitted for filing by plaintiff Everett Hadix (bd, ) (Entered: 01/11/2007)

2273

ORDER denying as moot 2261 plaintiffs' motion for sanctions, and adopting the parties' agreed-to prehearing discovery as enumated therein; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 01/12/2007)

Copy of Order on Motion for Sanctions 2273 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd, ) (Entered: 01/12/2007)

2274 ORDER granting 2249 defendants' motion for reconsideration re 2233 ; sentence two of Paragraph 130 of 2233 is AMENDED nunc pro tunc to read: "Therefore, Defendants shall disburse funds to the Associate

01/16/2007 01/17/2007
01/18/2007 01/18/2007 01/18/2007
01/18/2007
01/18/2007 01/19/2007 01/19/2007 01/19/2007

Monitor for the Associate Monitor to employ a full staff of medically qualified applicants."; Permanent Injunction of Dec. 7, 2006 shall be DEEMED to relate to the amended Opinion language; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 01/16/2007)

Copy of Order on Motion for Reconsideration 2274 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd) (Entered: 01/16/2007)

2275

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for Defendants' January 2007 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (filed under seal) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/17/2007)

2276 UNOPPOSED MOTION for writ Ad Prosequendum for Jan 24-26, 2007 by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Writ for C. Moore)(Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 01/18/2007)

2277 WRIT of habeas corpus ad prosequendum issued as to Clarence Moore, No. 100885; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 01/18/2007)

2278

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Status Report/Fire Safety/January 2007 Monthly Cell Block Lock Release Test Report (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - DeWitt memo)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/18/2007)

2279

LETTER from A. Peter Govorchin for defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA regarding Michael Downing #236545 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/18/2007)

2280 SEALED document: Defendants' January 2007 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (bd) (Entered: 01/18/2007)

Certified copies (2) of Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum Issued 2277 sent via U.S. Mail to Attorney Patricia Streeter (bd) (Entered: 01/19/2007)

2281 ORDER granting STIPULATION 2269 on mental health hearing schedule; signed by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) (Entered: 01/19/2007)

Copy of Order on Stipulation and Proposed Order 2281 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd) (Entered: 01/19/2007)

01/22/2007 01/22/2007 01/22/2007 01/22/2007 01/22/2007 01/23/2007 01/23/2007 01/24/2007
01/24/2007
01/25/2007
01/26/2007

2282

ORDER that hearing scheduled for Jan. 24-26, 2007 is RESCHEDULED to commence Jan. 31, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. and continue until its conclusion no later than Feb. 2, 2007 at 4:30 p.m.; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 01/22/2007)

Copy of Order 2282 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd) (Entered: 01/22/2007)

2283 WRIT of habeas corpus ad prosequendum issued as to Clarence Moore, #100885; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 01/22/2007)

2284

ORIGINAL PAPER DECLARATION of Elizabeth Alexander in reference to the declaration submitted electronically and assigned document number 2262 (Exhibit 2 thereof) ; submitted for filing by plaintiff Everett Hadix (bd) (Entered: 01/22/2007)

Certified copies (2) of Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum Issued 2283 sent via U.S. Mail to Patricia Streeter (bd) (Entered: 01/22/2007)

2285 EXHIBIT LIST for January 31, 2007 hearing on heat-related injury by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 1/24/2007 (bd, ). (Entered: 01/23/2007)

2286 Plaintiffs' January 31, 2007 hearing on heat-related injury - WITNESS LIST by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 1/24/2007 (bd, ). (Entered: 01/23/2007)

2287

LETTER from A. Peter Govorchin for defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA regarding Jeffrey Orick (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/24/2007)

2288

LETTER from A. Peter Govorchin for defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA regarding Ervin Sims #168625 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/24/2007)

2289

LETTER from A. Peter Govorchin for defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA regarding Peter Freeland #261402 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/25/2007)

2290 ORDER scheduling hearing on 2256 for Feb. 21, 2007 at 3:30 p.m.;

01/29/2007 01/29/2007 01/29/2007 01/29/2007 01/30/2007
01/31/2007
01/31/2007 02/01/2007 02/01/2007 02/01/2007 02/01/2007 02/02/2007

parties shall file initial briefs not later than Feb. 9, 2007; parties may file response briefs not later than Feb. 15, 2007; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 01/26/2007)

Copy of Order, 2290 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen (rlw) (Entered: 01/29/2007)

2291 EXHIBIT LIST for January 31, 2007 hearing on heat related injury revised January 29, 2007 by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 1/30/2007 (bd, ). (Entered: 01/29/2007)

2293 MOTION to intervene, MOTION for order to show cause (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Scott A. Falkiweicz# 2 Affidavit of Ada M. Falkiewicz# 3 Lisa Franks)(bd) (Entered: 01/31/2007)

2294 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by movant Scott A. Falkiewicz #244693 re 2293 (bd) (Entered: 01/31/2007)

2292

EXHIBIT LIST for Jan 31-Feb 2 Temperature Hearing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/30/2007)

2295

STIPULATION of the parties by plaintiff Everett Hadix and by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (bd) (Entered: 01/31/2007)

2296 MINUTES of evidentiary hearing held before Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Court Reporter: Kathleen Thomas) (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) (Entered: 01/31/2007)

2297

ORDER granting defendants' verbal motion of Jan. 31, 2007 to permit supplemental proofs concerning present hearing; briefing scheduled outlined; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 02/01/2007)

2298 MINUTES of evidentiary hearing held before Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Court Reporter: Kathleen Thomas) (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) (Entered: 02/01/2007)

2299

ORDER approving STIPULATION 2295 , Defendants are ENJOINED to comply with the terms of the Stipulation; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 02/01/2007)

Copy of Order on Stipulation 2299 , Order 2297 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd) (Entered: 02/01/2007)

2300 AMENDED STIPULATED INJUNCTION; signed by Senior Judge

02/02/2007 02/02/2007
02/02/2007 02/02/2007 02/05/2007
02/05/2007 02/05/2007 02/06/2007

Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 02/02/2007)

2301

ORDER denying 2293 Scott A. Falkiewicz's motion for order to show cause; Clerk shall submit notice of Scott Falkiewicz's Motion and this Order to the Medical Monitor; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) Modified text on 2/6/2007 (acr, ). (Entered: 02/02/2007)

2302

INJUNCTION granting Medical Monitor Dr. Robert Cohen's oral requests; Defendants shall immediately transfer to the Medical Monitor $100,000 to be used to fund preliminary activities of the Office of the Independent Monitor at the Hadix facilities; Defendants shall immediately furnish remote access to SERAPIS for Dr. Robert Cohen; Dr. Cohen shall provide timely oral or written notice of all problem cases discovered to either defense counsel, Barbara Hladki, or such other representave as Defendants might appoint for this purpose; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 02/02/2007)

Copy of Order on Motion to Intervene, Order on Motion for Order to Show Cause 2301 sent via U.S. Mail to Scott A. Falkiewicz #244693 and Robert Cohen, MD (bd) (Entered: 02/02/2007)

Copy of Order 2300 , Order 2302 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd) (Entered: 02/02/2007)

2303

EXHIBIT LIST named as Defendants' Amended Exhibit List for Temperature Hearing with attached Exhibit 9 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 9 - Recher CV.020507)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/05/2007)

2304

LETTER from attorney A. Peter Govorchin for defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA regarding Ervin Sims #168625 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/05/2007)

2305

LETTER from attorney A. Peter Govorchin for defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA regarding Leland Taylor #366058 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/05/2007)

2306 MOTION to amend/correct as filed Plaintiffs Motion for Modification of Amended Stipulated Injunction by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 02/06/2007)

02/06/2007 02/06/2007 02/06/2007 02/07/2007 02/07/2007
02/09/2007
02/09/2007 02/09/2007

2307 BRIEF in support of MOTION to amend/correct as filed Plaintiffs Motion for Modification of Amended Stipulated Injunction2306 filed by Everett Hadix(Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 02/06/2007)

Copy of Motion to Intervene, Motion for Order to Show Cause 2293 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd) (Entered: 02/06/2007)

2308

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for Defendants' Notice of Taking De Bene Esse Depositions (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/06/2007)

2309

LETTER from attorney A. Peter Govorchin for defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA regarding Vester Mills #208720 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/07/2007)

2310

RESPONSE in opposition to MOTION to amend/correct as filed Plaintiffs Motion for Modification of Amended Stipulated Injunction 2306 filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/07/2007)

2311

MOTION for extension of time to named as Defendants' Motion to Hold in Abeyance that Portion of the Court's February 2, 2007 Order Mandating the Immediate Payment to Dr. Cohen of $100,000.00 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik; (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/09/2007)

2312

OBJECTION Plaintiffs Response to Defendants' Health Care Plan Regarding Mental Health Activities Submitted Pursuant to the Courts Nov. 13, 2006 Order and Preliminary Injunction by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 02/09/2007)

2313

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Brief Concerning Defendants' Health Care Plan Regarding Mental Health Activities as Required by the Court's January 26, 2007 Briefing Order (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/09/2007)

02/09/2007
02/12/2007 02/12/2007 02/12/2007 02/12/2007 02/13/2007
02/13/2007 02/13/2007 02/14/2007
02/15/2007

2314

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA re 2313 for attachments (submitted under seal) to Defs' Brief Concerning Defs' Health Care Plan Regarding Mental Health Activities as Required by the Court's January 26, 2007 Briefing Order (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/09/2007)

2315

ORDER that plaintiffs shall answer Defendants' motion 2311 not later than close of business on Feb. 13, 2007; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 02/12/2007)

2316

ORDER denying 2306 plaintiffs' motion to amend; the issue of whether PLRA findings should be made in connection with the agreed relief shall be included within the parties' post-trial briefs to be filed on March 9, 2007; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 02/12/2007)

Copy of Order on Motion to Amend/Correct 2316 , Order 2315 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohan, MD (bd) (Entered: 02/12/2007)

2317 SEALED document re 2313 (bd) (Entered: 02/13/2007)

2318

RESPONSE TO MOTION for extension of time to named as Defendants' Motion to Hold in Abeyance that Portion of the Court's February 2, 2007 Order Mandating the Immediate Payment to Dr. Cohen of $100,000.00 2311 filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1DOC Funding History# 2 Exhibit 2 - Letter to Hladki from Cohen)(Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified text on 2/14/2007 (bd, ). (Entered: 02/13/2007)

2319

ORDER denying 2311 defendants' motion to hold in abeyance that portion of the Court's Feb. 2, 2007 Order mandating the immediate payment to Dr. Cohen; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 02/13/2007)

Copy of Order on Motion for Extension of Time 2319 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (acr) (Entered: 02/13/2007)

2320

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Status Report Regarding SERAPIS and C-Unit (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/14/2007)

2321

BRIEF by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA

02/16/2007
02/16/2007 02/16/2007 02/17/2007 02/20/2007
02/20/2007
02/20/2007

re 2312 named as Defendants' Response Brief to Plaintiffs' February 9, 2007 Response to Defendants' Health Care Plan (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/15/2007)

2322

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for Defendants' February 16, 2007 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (submitted to the Court under seal per Order dated 2/15/06) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/16/2007)

2323

LETTER from attorney A. Peter Govorchin for defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA regarding George Alford #271742 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/16/2007)

2324 SEALED document (bd) (Entered: 02/16/2007)

2325 TRANSCRIPT of the Hearing held January 31 and February 1, 2007, before the Honorable Richard Alan Enslen (Court Reporter: K. Thomas, (269) 385-3050) (Entered: 02/17/2007)

2326

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Status Report/Fire Safety/February 2007 Monthly Cell Block Lock Release Test Report (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - DeWitt memo.022007)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/20/2007)

2327

NOTICE re 2297 named as Notice of Filing Transcripts in Support of Defendants' Position on Temperature and in Compliance with the Court's February 1, 2007 Order by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Robert Recher# 2 Attachment B - Shane Puckett# 3 Attachment C - Thomas Faussettt)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/20/2007)

2328

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Notification of Facility Developments (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/20/2007)

02/20/2007
02/20/2007 02/21/2007 02/22/2007 02/22/2007 02/27/2007 02/28/2007

2329

EXHIBIT re 2327 Exhibits to Recher De Bene Esse Deposition Transcript, Attachment A to Defendants' Notice of FIling Transcripts in Support of Defendants' Position on Temperature and in Compliance with the Court's February 1, 2007 Order by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Cost Est Draft 021207# 2 Exhibit B - Estimate Rpt CB #1# 3 Exhibit C - Estimate Rpt CB #2# 4 Exhibit D - Estimate Rpt CB #3# 5 Exhibit E - Estimate Rpt CB #4# 6 Exhibit F - Estimate Rpt CB #5# 7 Exhibit G - Estimate Rpt CB #6A-B# 8 Exhibit H - Estimate Rpt CB #7# 9 Exhibit I-1 - ASHRAE Standard Thermal# 10 Exhibit I-2 - ASHRAE Standard Thermal# 11 Exhibit J-1 - ASHRAE Standard Ventilation# 12 Exhibit J-2 - ASHRAE Standard Ventilation# 13 Exhibit J-3 - ASHRAE Standard Ventilation)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/20/2007)

2330 SEALED document: Defendants' February 16, 2007 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (bd) (Entered: 02/20/2007)

2331

MINUTES of MENTAL HEALTH, PHYSICAL RESTRAINT & TRO HEARING: Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order granted for 7 day period; Plaintiff's may file formal motion for TRO within 7 day period; Defendants shall respond to motion at any time within 7 days held before Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Court Reporter: Kathleen Thomas) (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) (Entered: 02/21/2007)

2332

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION that Defendants shall cease and desist from prisoner transfers from Hadix facilities other than routine prisoner transfers not intended to reduce prisoner population at the Hadix facilities; the limitation expressed shall commence effective Wednesday, February 21, 2007 at 5:00 p.m. nunc pro tunc and shall continue in force for seven calendar days unless renewed, extended or modified; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 02/22/2007)

Copy of Preliminary Injunction 2332 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd) (Entered: 02/22/2007)

2333

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Status Report Regarding Defendants' Compliance with Dialysis Physician Staffing (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/27/2007)

2334

BRIEF by plaintiff Everett Hadix Brief in Support of 2335 Motion for Modification to Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Email# 2 Attachment Cohen Letter# 3 Attachment Letter to Counsel)(Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified text on 3/1/2007 (acr, ). (Entered: 02/28/2007)

02/28/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007
03/05/2007 03/05/2007 03/05/2007
03/06/2007 03/06/2007
03/06/2007 03/06/2007

2335

MOTION to amend/correct 2332 as written Plaintiffs' Motion for Modification of Preliminary Injunction (Brief in Support filed earlier, Docket #2334) by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 02/28/2007)

2336 MOTION for temporary restraining order by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/02/2007)

2337

BRIEF in support of MOTION for temporary restraining order 2336 filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1 - Email# 2 Attachment 2)(Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified text on 3/2/2007 (acr, ). (Entered: 03/02/2007)

2338

RESPONSE TO MOTION to amend/correct 2332 as written Plaintiffs' Motion for Modification of Preliminary Injunction (Brief in Support filed earlier, Docket #2334) 2335 named as Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Transfer protocol email# 2 Exhibit B - Modified transfer grid)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/02/2007)

2339 ORDER REJECTING PLEADING; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document Affidavit in Support of Notice of Contempt submitted by Scott Reyst)(acr) (Entered: 03/05/2007)

Copy of Order Rejecting Pleading 2339 sent via U.S. Mail to Scott Reyst along with original proposed document and to Robert L. Cohen, MD (acr) (Entered: 03/05/2007)

2340

MOTION for extension of time to File Temperature Brief by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik; (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/05/2007)

2341 TRANSCRIPT of the Hearing held February 21, 2007, before the Honorable Richard Alan Enslen (Court Reporter: K. Thomas, (269) 3853050) (Entered: 03/06/2007)

2342

LETTER from attorney A. Peter Govorchin for defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA regarding Wesley Stauffer #373307 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/06/2007)

2343 OPINION ; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) (Entered: 03/06/2007)

2344 ORDER granting 2335 motion to amend/correct; Defendants shall file a

03/06/2007
03/07/2007 03/07/2007 03/07/2007
03/08/2007 03/09/2007 03/09/2007 03/09/2007
03/09/2007

transfer plan in accordance with parts V.F.1 through V.G.2 of the Courts Opinion within 45 days ; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) (Entered: 03/06/2007)

2345

NOTICE OF APPEAL re 2344 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/06/2007)

2346

ORDER granting 2340 defendants' motion for extension of time; parties' deadline for the filing of post-trial briefs is ENLARGED until March 16, 2007; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 03/07/2007)

Copy of Order on Motion for Extension of Time 2346 , Opinion 2343 , Order on Motion to Amend/Correct 2344 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd) (Entered: 03/07/2007)

2347

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik [entitled "Plans Submitted as Required by the Court's Permanent Injunction of December 7, 2006"] (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Staffing Plan# 2 Attachment B - Specialty Care# 3 Attachment C - Office Plan)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/07/2007)

RECEIPT: USCA appeal fee in the amount of $455, receipt number KZ000136 (rlw) (Entered: 03/08/2007)

2348 MOTION for leave to file Instanter Plaintiffs' Notice of Filing Transcripts and Exhibits by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 3/12/2007 (bd, ). (Entered: 03/09/2007)

2349 BRIEF in support of MOTION for leave to file Instanter Plaintiffs' Notice of Filing Transcripts and Exhibits 2348 filed by Everett Hadix(Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 3/12/2007 (bd, ). (Entered: 03/09/2007)

2350

(PROPOSED) NOTICE re 2348 , 2297 Filing of Transcripts and Exhibits by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Transcript of Michael Chonko de bene esse deposition (2/23/07)# 2 Transcript of Curtiss Puliter de bene esse deposition (2/23/07)# 3 Pls.' Exhibit 268# 4 Pls.' Exhibit 269# 5 Pls.' Exhibit 270# 6 Pls.' Exhibit 271)(Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 3/12/2007 (bd, ). (Entered: 03/09/2007)

2351

(PROPOSED) NOTICE re 2291 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Lists for January 31, 2007 Hearing on Heat Related Injury by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Revised Exhibit List for January 31, 2007 Hearing on Heat-Related Injury # 2 Plaintiffs' February 1, 2007 Exhibit Proffer List)(Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 3/12/2007 (bd, ). (Entered:

03/12/2007 03/12/2007 03/12/2007 03/12/2007 03/12/2007 03/12/2007 03/14/2007
03/15/2007
03/15/2007

03/09/2007)

2352 ORDER granting 2348 plaintiffs' motion to file instanter plaintiffs' notice of filing transcripts and exhibits; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 03/12/2007)

2353

ORDER that plaintiffs shall file any objections re 2347 not later than 3/28/07; defendants shall respond to any objections not later than 4/11/07; Dr. Cohen shall file special report concerning the sufficiency of the plans not later than 4/18/07 ; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 03/12/2007)

Copy of Order on Motion for Leave to File 2352 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd) (Entered: 03/12/2007)

Copy of Order 2353 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd) (Entered: 03/12/2007)

2354

NOTICE re 2348 , 2297 Filing of Transcripts and Exhibits by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Transcript of Michael Chonko de bene esse deposition (2/23/07)# 2 Transcript of Curtiss Puliter de bene esse deposition (2/23/07)# 3 Exhibit 268# 4 Exhibit 269# 5 Exhibit 270# 6 Exhibit 271)(bd) (Entered: 03/12/2007)

2355

NOTICE re 2291 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Lists for January 31, 2007 Hearing on Heat Related Injury by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Revised Exhibit List for Jan. 31, 2007 Hearing on Heat-Related Injury# 2 Plaintiffs' Feb. 1, 2007 Exhibit Proffer List)(bd) (Entered: 03/12/2007)

2356

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for Defendants' March 14, 2007 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (being filed with the Court under seal) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/14/2007)

2357

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Status Report Regarding Transfer Grid (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Transfer Grid.031507# 2 Attachment B - Facilities List with no FTE Physician.031507)(Govorchin, A.) Modified text on 5/7/2007 to reflect that this Status Report was rejected pursuant to Order, docket 2410 (bd, ). (Entered: 03/15/2007)

2358

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen,

03/16/2007
03/16/2007 03/16/2007 03/16/2007
03/16/2007
03/16/2007 03/19/2007 03/19/2007 03/19/2007

Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Status Report Regarding Expansion of Glucometer Program System-Wide (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Glucometer program memo.031507# 2 Attachment B - OP 03.04.100.031507)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/15/2007)

2359

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Status Report Regarding Heat Reduction Evaluation Final Plan (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A-1 Heat Red Eval Plan, part 1# 2 Attachment A-2 - Heat Red Eval Plan, part 2)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/16/2007)

2360 TRIAL BRIEF in Suport of Injunction Requiring Protection from Heat Injury by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/16/2007)

2361 CORRECTED TRIAL BRIEF in Support of Injunction Requiring Protection From Heat Injury by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified text on 3/16/2007 (acr, ). (Entered: 03/16/2007)

2362

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Plan for Moving its Dialysis Unit from JMF to the Ryan Correctional Facility on April 14-15, 2007 (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Dialysis Clinic Move.031607)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/16/2007)

2363

TRIAL BRIEF named as Defendants' Trial Brief Opposing Plaintiffs' Request that the Court Order Air Conditioning in the Hadix Cell Blocks by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/16/2007)

CASE NUMBER 07-1344 assigned by Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to appeal 2345 (kad) (Entered: 03/26/2007)

2364

ORDER denying 2336 motion for TRO as unnecessary in light of the Amended Preliminary Injunction entered on March 6, 2007 ; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) (Entered: 03/19/2007)

2365 SEALED document Defendants' March 14, 2007 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (acr) (Entered: 03/19/2007)

Copy of Order on Motion for TRO 2364 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L.

03/19/2007
03/20/2007 03/20/2007
03/23/2007 03/23/2007 03/26/2007 03/26/2007 03/29/2007 03/30/2007
03/30/2007

Cohen, MD (acr) (Entered: 03/19/2007)

2366

ORDER that plaintiffs shall file any objections re 2357 , 2358 and 2362 not later than 3/30/07; defendants shall respond to any objections not later than 14 days after the filing of objections; Dr. Cohen shall file a written report concerning the sufficiency of the transfer plans not later than 14 days after the filing of any response; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 03/19/2007)

Copy of Order 2366 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (acr) (Entered: 03/20/2007)

2367

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Status Report/Fire Safety/March 2007 Monthly Cell Block Lock Release Test Report (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - DeWitt memo)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/20/2007)

2368 MOTION for extension of time to Respond to Defendants' Plans (Unopposed) by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 03/23/2007)

2369 BRIEF in support of MOTION for extension of time to Respond to Defendants' Plans (Unopposed) 2368 filed by Everett Hadix(Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 03/23/2007)

2370 ORDER granting 2368 plaintiffs' motion for extension of time ; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 03/26/2007)

Copy of Order on Motion for Extension of Time 2370 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (acr) (Entered: 03/26/2007)

2371

BRIEF by plaintiff Everett Hadix as written Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Plans Submitted as Required by the Court's Permanent Injunction of December 7, 2006 (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1# 2 Attachment 2# 3 Attachment 3# 4 Attachment 4)(Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified text on 3/30/2007 (acr, ). (Entered: 03/29/2007)

2372

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' March 30, 2007 DAP Status Report (Third) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/30/2007)

2373

NOTICE of Purging Contempt Identified in This Court's December 7, 2006 Permanent Injunction by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don

04/02/2007
04/03/2007 04/03/2007
04/03/2007 04/03/2007 04/04/2007 04/04/2007 04/09/2007

P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1 - Straub affidavit - Dialysis# 2 Attachment 2 - Straub affidavit - JMF Physicians)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/30/2007)

2374

MOTION to dismiss named as Defendants' Motion to Terminate the Court's Consent Decree Jurisdiction Over 8-Block of the Parnall Correctional Facility by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik; (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Affidavit of Dennis Straub)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/02/2007)

2375

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb); also, SEE docket #2389 regarding this document; Modified text on 4/3/2007 (acr, ). Modified text on 4/17/2007 (re #2389) (bd, ). (Entered: 04/03/2007)

2376

FINAL INJUNCTION CONCERNING HEAT-RELATED ILLNESS Defendants, their employees, officers and assigns, are ENJOINED to implement the remedy outlined in paragraph 46 of the Courts Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law not later than July 15, 2007; Defendants, their employees, officers and assigns, are ENJOINED to file a corrective plan, together with a construction schedule, not later than 45 days from the entry of this Injunction; REJECTING 2359 Defendants' Heat Reduction Evaluation Final Plan as insufficient to create safe conditions of confinement and as a large waste of public resources; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 04/03/2007)

2377

NOTICE Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Transfer Plans by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1 - Letter Cohen to Counsel# 2 Attachment 2 - Girard Dep# 3 Attachment 3 Declaration# 4 Attachment 4 - Roth Dep# 5 Attachment 5 - Stribling Decl# 6 Attachment 6 - Walden Decl)(Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified text on 4/4/2007 (bd, ). (Entered: 04/03/2007)

Copy of Opinion 2375 , Permanent Injunction, 2376 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd) (Entered: 04/03/2007)

2378 MOTION for order Pursuant to Rule 23 and For Expedited Consideration by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 04/04/2007)

2379

BRIEF in support of MOTION for order Pursuant to Rule 23 and For Expedited Consideration 2378 filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1 - Coronado Letter# 2 Attachment 2 - Unpublished Opinion)(Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified text on 4/6/2007 (bd, ). (Entered: 04/04/2007)

2380 LETTER from attorney A. Peter Govorchin for defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F.

04/09/2007 04/09/2007 04/10/2007
04/12/2007 04/12/2007 04/12/2007
04/13/2007 04/13/2007
04/13/2007

Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA regarding Marvin Sanders #162070 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/09/2007)

2381 ORDER that Defendants shall file a written response to 2378 not later than April 13, 2007; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 04/09/2007)

Copy of Order 2381 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MC (bd) (Entered: 04/09/2007)

2382

LETTER from attorney A. Peter Govorchin for defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA regarding Leonard Stewart #244075 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/10/2007)

2383

ORDER that Independent Medical Monitor Robert Cohen, M.D. shall file a special report concerning the physical restraint/mental health plan not later than April 25, 2007; hearing on the other outstanding remedial plans is scheduled for May 23, 2007 at 2:30 p.m.; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 04/12/2007)

Copy of Order 2383 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd) (Entered: 04/12/2007)

2384

RESPONSE TO MOTION for order Pursuant to Rule 23 and For Expedited Consideration 2378 filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/12/2007)

2385

RESPONSE in support of MOTION for order Pursuant to Rule 23 and For Expedited Consideration 2378 Reply Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion For Order Pursuant to Rule 23 and For Expedited Consideration filed by Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 04/13/2007)

2386

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for Defendants' April 13, 2007 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (submitted to the Court under seal per Order dated 2/15/06) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/13/2007)

2387 REPLY to objection to 2347 named as Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs'

04/13/2007 04/16/2007 04/16/2007 04/16/2007 04/16/2007 04/17/2007
04/17/2007 04/18/2007
04/19/2007 04/19/2007

Response to Defendants' Plans Submitted as Required by the Court's Permanent Injunction of December 7, 2006 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/13/2007)

REPLY to response to MOTION for order Pursuant to Rule 23 and For Expedited Consideration 2378 filed as Response in Support of Motion, docket #2385 filed by Everett Hadix (bd) (Entered: 04/13/2007)

2388

REPLY to response to MOTION for order Pursuant to Rule 23 and For Expedited Consideration 2378 filed as Response in Support of Motion filed by Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 04/16/2007)

2389 ORDER correcting 2375 , line 6 of page 5, Elizabeth Alexander should appear as Elizabeth Ferguson; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 04/16/2007)

2390

ORDER granting 2378 plaintiffs' motion for order pursuant to Rule 23; Defendants are ORDERED to retain copies of the disputed papers, and similar future filings, in the law libraries for the purpose of prisoner review; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 04/16/2007)

2391 SEALED document: Defendants' April 13, 2007 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (bd) (Entered: 04/16/2007)

2392

RESPONSE TO 2377 named as Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Response to "Defendants' Transfer Plans" filed by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/17/2007)

Copy of Order on Motion for Order 2390 and Order 2389 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd) (Entered: 04/17/2007)

2393

NOTICE OF APPEAL re 2376 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/18/2007)

2394

ORDER that enlargement of the report filing deadline for Independent Medical Monitor, Dr. Robert L. Cohen, M.D.'s special report concerning Defendants plan to comply with the Courts December 2006 Injunction is GRANTED until April 25, 2007; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 04/19/2007)

Copy of Order 2394 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, M.D. (bd)

04/19/2007 04/19/2007 04/20/2007 04/20/2007
04/23/2007 04/23/2007

(Entered: 04/19/2007)

RECEIPT: USCA appeal fee in the amount of $455, receipt number KZ000175 (rlw) (Entered: 04/19/2007)

2395

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Status Report Regarding Completion of the Special Housing Unit Door Vents in 1-Block of RGC (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/19/2007)

2396

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Status Report/Fire Safety/April 2007 Monthly Cell Block Lock Release Test Report (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - DeWitt memo.042007)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/20/2007)

2397

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Transfer Plan for Closing JMF as Required by the Court's March 6, 2007 Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1 - Transfer Grid# 2 Attachment 2 - Transfer Assessment Screen.042007# 3 Attachment 3 - Glucometer program memo & OP.042007# 4 Attachment 4 - Specialty Care List.042007# 5 Attachment 5 - Health Review for MDOC Transfer.042007)(Govorchin, A.) Modified text on 5/7/2007 to reflect that this Status Report was rejected pursuant to Order, docket 2410 (bd, ). (Entered: 04/20/2007)

2398

LETTER from attorney A. Peter Govorchin for defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA regarding Norman Kater Clark #350755 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/23/2007)

2399

LETTER from attorney A. Peter Govorchin for defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA regarding Benjamin Ragan #314744 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/23/2007)

04/26/2007
04/26/2007 04/26/2007 04/27/2007 04/30/2007
04/30/2007 04/30/2007 05/01/2007 05/03/2007 05/03/2007

2400

STATUS REPORT (Associate Monitor's Status Report on Mental Health Plan submitted by Defendants Pursuant to the Court's November 13, 2006 Order and Preliminary Injunction) submitted for filing by unknown Robert L. Cohen, MD Associate Monitor (unsigned) (bd) Modified text on 4/26/2007 (bd, ). Modified text on 5/21/2007 (bd, ). (Entered: 04/26/2007)

2401

STATUS REPORT (Associate Monitor's Comments on Defendants' Plans Submitted as Required by the Court's Permanent Injunction of December 7, 2006) submitted for filing by unknown Robert L. Cohen, MD Associate Medical Monitor (unsigned) (bd) Modified text on 4/26/2007 (bd, ). Modified text on 5/21/2007 (bd, ). (Entered: 04/26/2007)

2402

RESPONSE TO MOTION to dismiss named as Defendants' Motion to Terminate the Court's Consent Decree Jurisdiction Over 8-Block of the Parnall Correctional Facility 2374 filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Opinion Hadix v. Johnson)(Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 04/26/2007)

CASE NUMBER 07-1503 assigned by Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to appeal 2393 (kad) (Entered: 05/04/2007)

2403

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs' March 30, 2007 Interrogatories and Requests for Documents Regarding Mental Health Care (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/30/2007)

2404 STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by unknown Robert L. Cohen, MD , Associate Medical Monitor, (Report on Sufficiency of Defendants' April 20 Transfer Plan) (unsigned) (bd) (Entered: 04/30/2007)

2405 ORDER of USCA re appeal 2345 denying defendants' motion for a stay of the 3/6/07 amended preliminary injunction (rlw) (Entered: 05/01/2007)

2406 ORDER REJECTING PLEADING; signed by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document)(bd) (Entered: 05/03/2007)

Copy of Order Rejecting Pleading 2406 sent via U.S. Mail to Patricia A. Streeter with original proposed document and to Robert L. Cohen, M.D. (bd) (Entered: 05/03/2007)

2407

REPLY to response to MOTION to dismiss named as Defendants' Motion to Terminate the Court's Consent Decree Jurisdiction Over 8-Block of the Parnall Correctional Facility 2374 filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Affidavit of Will Riley# 2 Attachment B - Affidavit of Chris Crysler)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/03/2007)

05/04/2007
05/04/2007 05/04/2007
05/04/2007 05/04/2007 05/07/2007
05/08/2007 05/09/2007

2408

ORDER granting 2312 plaintiffs' objections and REJECTING 2256 Defendants' Plan; Defendants shall submit a revised Plan addressing all of the Court's concerns within 30 days; should Plaintiffs disapprove of the revised Plan, they shall file objections within 7 days of the filing of the revised Plan; should Plaintiffs object, Defendants shall file a response within 7 days of the filing of objections, and the Independent Medical Monitor shall file a further report with this Court not later then 7 days after the filing of Defendants' response; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 05/04/2007)

2409 OPINION; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 05/04/2007)

2410

ORDER REJECTING 2347 & attachments - Defendants' Dec. 7, 2006 Injunction plans and 2357 & 2397 Defendants' transfer plans; Defendants shall submit revised plans addressing all of the Court's concerns within 30 days; ADJOURNING May 23, 2007 hearing; Plaintiffs shall file objections to the revised plan language within 7 days of the filing of said plans; Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiffs' objections within 7 days of the filing of objections, and the Independent Medical Monitor shall file a further report not later than 7 days after the filing of Defendants' response; SEALING the Apr. 25, 2007 report of Independent Medical Monitor Robert Cohen, M.D.; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 05/04/2007)

2411 SEALED STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by Robert L. Cohen, MD, Independent Medical Monitor, regarding D.U. (acr) Modified to correct filing date on 5/4/2007 (acr, ). (Entered: 05/04/2007)

Copy of Opinion 2409 , Order 2408 , Order 2410 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd) (Entered: 05/04/2007)

2412

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Status Report Regarding Making Selected Pleadings Available in the JMF and RGC Law Libraries (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/07/2007)

2413

NOTICE OF APPEAL re 2410 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/08/2007)

2414

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John

05/09/2007 05/10/2007 05/14/2007 05/14/2007 05/14/2007 05/14/2007

Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Supplement to Dialysis Transfer Plan (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Dialysis pictures# 2 Attachment B - RRF Temp Dialysis Unit diagram# 3 Attachment C - Ltr to Dr Cohen re patient #5# 4 Attachment D - Clinical Practice in Corr Med# 5 Attachment E - Testimony of Dr. Cohen July 20, 2005# 6 Attachment F - KRS Operating Procedure# 7 Attachment G Apr 26 2007 Middlebrook ltr# 8 Attachment H - May 1 2007 Middlebrook ltr# 9 Attachment I - Patient Info Material list# 10 Attachment J - Renal health information# 11 Attachment K Missed treatment guidelines# 12 Attachment L - Renal Network 11 app info)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/09/2007)

RECEIPT: USCA appeal fee in the amount of $455.00, receipt number KZ000206; copy of receipt mailed to A. Peter Govorchin (acr) (Entered: 05/09/2007)

2415

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Status Report Regarding Defendants' January 2006 Health Care Plan - C-Unit Renovations (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/10/2007)

2416

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Status Report Regarding the Closing of E Pod in 6-Block of JMF (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/14/2007)

2417

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for Defendants' May 14, 2007 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (submitted to the Court under seal per Order dated 2/15/06) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/14/2007)

2418

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Second Supplement to Dialysis Transfer Plan (Attachments: # 1 Attachment M - KRS Operational Procedure)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/14/2007)

2419 ORDER granting 2374 defendants' motion to dismiss to the extent that jurisdiction over 8-Block of Parnall Correctional Facility is TERMINATED; jurisdiction shall continue over Hadix class members

05/15/2007 05/15/2007
05/15/2007
05/15/2007 05/18/2007
05/18/2007
05/18/2007 05/18/2007 05/21/2007 05/21/2007 05/21/2007

transferred to Buildings A and B of the Parnall Correctional Facility, which buildings are deemed de facto Hadix facilities for the purpose of remedy; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 05/14/2007)

Copy of Order on Motion to Dismiss 2419 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd) (Entered: 05/15/2007)

2420

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik named as Defendants' Third Supplement to Dialysis Transfer Plan (Attachments: # 1 Attachment N - May 9 2007 Middlebrook ltr)(Govorchin, A.) Modified text on 5/17/2007 (bd, ). (Entered: 05/15/2007)

2421

NOTICE OF APPEAL re 2419 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/15/2007)

2422 SEALED document: Defendants' May 14, 2007 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (bd) (Entered: 05/16/2007)

2423

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten with Certificate of Service (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/18/2007)

2424

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten Defendants' Plan to Comply with Court Ordered Air Conditioning w/Certificate of Service (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/18/2007)

CASE NUMBER 07-1608 assigned by Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to appeal 2413 (kad) (Entered: 05/29/2007)

CASE NUMBER 07-1609 assigned by Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to appeal 2421 (kad) (Entered: 05/29/2007)

2425 SUPPLEMENT re 2400 (signature page - 13) by unknown Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd) (Entered: 05/21/2007)

2426 SUPPLEMENT re 2401 (signature page - 7) by unknown Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd) (Entered: 05/21/2007)

2427 SUPPLEMENT re 2404 (signature page - 19) by unknown Robert L.

05/21/2007
05/21/2007 05/21/2007 05/22/2007 05/22/2007 05/23/2007
05/23/2007 05/23/2007

Cohen, MD (bd) (Entered: 05/21/2007)

2428

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Status Report/Fire Safety/May 2007 Monthly Cell Block Lock Release Test Report (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - DeWitt memo)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/21/2007)

2429

MOTION to expedite as written: Plaintiffs' Motion to Reject Defendants' Plan to Comply with Court Ordered Air Conditioning and Motion for Expedited Treatment by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 05/21/2007)

2430

BRIEF in support of MOTION to expedite as written: Plaintiffs' Motion to Reject Defendants' Plan to Comply with Court Ordered Air Conditioning and Motion for Expedited Treatment 2429 filed by Everett Hadix(Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 05/21/2007)

2431

ORDER that Defendants shall respond to 2429 not later than Friday, May 25, 2007, and Plaintiffs may reply not later than Tuesday, May 29, 2007; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 05/22/2007)

Copy of Order 2431 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd) (Entered: 05/22/2007)

2432

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Status Report Regarding the Closing of D Pod in 6-Block of JMF (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/23/2007)

RECEIPT: USCA appeal fee in the amount of $455.00, receipt number KZ000218; copy of receipt mailed to A. Peter Govorchin (acr) (Entered: 05/23/2007)

2433

SUPPLEMENT re 2432 Dialysis Transfer Plan by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Offsite Apptmts# 2 Exhibit 2 - Diet Instruction Manual# 3 Exhibit 2-1 Extra Packet# 4 Exhibit 2-2 Diet Order form# 5 Exhibit 2-3 Daily Meal Plan# 6 Exhibit 2-4, Pages from 125# 7 Exhibit 2-4 Part 2, Pages 1-15# 8 Exhibit 2-4 Part 3, Pages 18# 9 Exhibit 2-4 Part 3, Pages 9-16# 10 Exhibit 2-5 RRF Prisoner store list# 11 Exhibit 4-A-1 LofU CMHP & MDOC# 12 Exhibit 4-A-2 OP 04.06.180A# 13 Exhibit 4-A-3 OP 04.06.180B# 14 Exhibit 4-A-4 OP 04.08.180D# 15 Exhibit 4-C-1 OP 04.06.115# 16 Exhibit 4-C-2 OP

05/24/2007 05/24/2007 05/24/2007
05/24/2007 05/24/2007
05/24/2007
05/25/2007 05/25/2007

04.06.183# 17 Exhibit 4-C-3 Emergency contacts# 18 Exhibit 4-D-1 Psych Med Ordering protocol# 19 Exhibit 4-E-2 Guidelines re Psychotropic med chng# 20 Exhibit 5A - Daily Med Orders Process at RRF# 21 Exhibit 7-A Hutchinson 052307 ltr# 22 Exhibit 7D - KRS Contact Numbers)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/23/2007)

2434 MOTION for extension of time to submit written discovery by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 5/24/2007 (acr, ). (Entered: 05/24/2007)

2435 BRIEF in support of MOTION for extension of time to submit written discovery 2434 filed by Everett Hadix(Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 5/24/2007 (acr, ). (Entered: 05/24/2007)

2436

ORDER granting 2434 plaintiffs' motion for extension of time, the May 25, 2007 discovery deadline is EXTENDED until June 8, 2007; the June 29, 2007 witness list filing deadline is EXTENDED until July 13, 2007; all other deadlines contained in the January 19, 2007 scheduling Order remain unchanged; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 05/24/2007)

Copy of Order on Motion for Extension of Time, 2436 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (acr) (Entered: 05/24/2007)

2437

RESPONSE in opposition to MOTION for extension of time to SUBMIT WRITTEN DISCOVERY 2434 filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/24/2007)

2438

AMENDED ORDER granting 2434 plaintiffs' motion for extension of time, the May 25, 2007 discovery deadline is EXTENDED until June 8, 2007; the June 29, 2007 witness list filing deadline is EXTENDED until July 13, 2007; all other deadlines contained in the January 19, 2007 scheduling Order remain unchanged; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 05/24/2007)

Copy of Order, 2438 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (acr) (Entered: 05/25/2007)

2439

RESPONSE TO MOTION to expedite as written: Plaintiffs' Motion to Reject Defendants' Plan to Comply with Court Ordered Air Conditioning and Motion for Expedited Treatment 2429 named as Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Motion to Reject Defendants' Plan to Comply with CourtOrdered Air Conditioning filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-1 Photo 021S# 2 Exhibit A-2 Photo 017S# 3 Exhibit A-3 Photo 09S# 4 Exhibit A-4 Photo 007S# 5 Exhibit A-5 Photo 006S# 6 Exhibit A-6 Photo 018S# 7 Exhibit A-7 Photo 012S# 8 Exhibit B

05/29/2007 05/29/2007 05/29/2007
05/30/2007 05/30/2007 05/30/2007 05/30/2007 05/31/2007

- Diagram-Cool Dome Site)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/25/2007)

2440

MOTION to amend/correct named as Defendants' Motion to Change and Update Caption by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik; (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Defs employment status)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/29/2007)

2441

REPLY to response to motion 2429 in support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Reject Defendants' Plan to Comply with Court-Ordered Air Conditioning filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Declaration of Clarence Moore)(Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 05/29/2007)

2442

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Fifth Supplement to Dialysis Transfer Plan (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 4-A-2 OPMHT OP 04.06.180A Amended)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/29/2007)

2443

LETTER from attorney A. Peter Govorchin for defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA regarding Donald Louks #407241 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/30/2007)

2444

MOTION for extension of time to named as Defendants' Motion for an Enlargement of Certain Dates by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik; (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/30/2007)

2445

ORDER granting 2444 defendants' motion for extension of time, the pertinent plans shall be filed not later than June 11, 2007; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 05/30/2007)

Copy of Order on Motion for Extension of Time 2445 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd) (Entered: 05/30/2007)

2446

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Status Report Regarding Administrative Actions Preparatory to Closing JMF, If Possible, on

05/31/2007 05/31/2007
05/31/2007 05/31/2007 05/31/2007 06/01/2007 06/01/2007
06/01/2007

Schedule (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1 - Moore Declaration)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/31/2007)

2447

MOTION for discovery Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery Regarding Possible Contempt of Court, Retaliation Against Class Members, and Bad Faith Conduct by Defendants, and Motion for Expedited Treatment by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 05/31/2007)

2448

BRIEF in support of MOTION for discovery Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery Regarding Possible Contempt of Court, Retaliation Against Class Members, and Bad Faith Conduct by Defendants, and Motion for Expedited Treatment 2447 filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1 - News Article# 2 Attachment 2 - News Article# 3 Attachment 3 - Decl. of Mindy Miller# 4 Attachment 4 Appeal)(Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified text on 5/31/2007 (bd, ). (Entered: 05/31/2007)

2449

NOTICE re 2441 filing corrected Declaration by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Corrected Moore Declaration# 2 Streeter Declaration)(Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 5/31/2007 (bd, ). (Entered: 05/31/2007)

2450

SUPPLEMENT re 2424 named as Defendants' Second Supplement to the Plan to Comply with Court-Ordered Air Conditioning by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/31/2007)

2451

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by unknown Robert L. Cohen, MD , Associate Medical Monitor, (Report on Sufficiency of Defendants' Dialysis Transfer Plan) (unsigned) (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(bd) Modified text on 5/31/2007 (bd, ). (Entered: 05/31/2007)

2452 NOTICE re 2433 Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Fourth Dialysis Transfer Plan by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 6/5/2007 (acr, ). (Entered: 06/01/2007)

2453

MOTION to SEAL DOCUMENT named as Defendants' Motion to Seal Attachment to Defendants' Second Supplement to the Plan to Comply with Court-Ordered Air Conditioning by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik; (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/01/2007)

2454

BRIEF in support of MOTION to SEAL DOCUMENT named as Defendants' Motion to Seal Attachment to Defendants' Second Supplement to the Plan to Comply with Court-Ordered Air Conditioning 2453 filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc,

06/01/2007
06/01/2007 06/01/2007 06/01/2007 06/01/2007
06/01/2007 06/01/2007 06/01/2007 06/01/2007 06/04/2007

Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/01/2007)

2455

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for Attachment only to Defendants' Second Supplement to the Plan to Comply with Court-Ordered Air Conditioning (attachment filed as proposed sealed document with Court) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/01/2007)

2456 ORDER that Defendants shall respond to Plaintiffs Motion 2447 not later than Wednesday, June 6, 2007; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 06/01/2007)

2457

ORDER granting permission to Robert L. Cohen, M.D. to file and receive court documents by use of the ECF system; the Clerk is directed to process and otherwise facilitate Robert L. Cohen, M.D.'s E-filing Registration Form; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 06/01/2007)

2458

RESPONSE TO MOTION to amend/correct named as Defendants' Motion to Change and Update Caption 2440 Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Motion to Change and Update Caption filed by Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/01/2007)

2459

RESPONSE TO MOTION to SEAL DOCUMENT named as Defendants' Motion to Seal Attachment to Defendants' Second Supplement to the Plan to Comply with Court-Ordered Air Conditioning 2453 Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Motion to Seal Attachment to Defendants' Second Supplement to the Plan to Comply with Court-Ordered Air Conditioning filed by Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/01/2007)

Copy of Order 2456 , Order 2457 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd) (Entered: 06/01/2007)

2460 MOTION to strike Defendants' Status Report Regarding Administrative Actions Preparatory to Closing JMF, If Possible, On Schedule by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/01/2007)

2461

BRIEF in support of MOTION to strike Defendants' Status Report Regarding Administrative Actions Preparatory to Closing JMF, If Possible, On Schedule 2460 filed by Everett Hadix(Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/01/2007)

2462

NOTICE Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Second Supplement to the Plan to Comply with Court-Ordered Air Conditioning by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Cohen Memo)(Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/01/2007)

2463 STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso,

06/04/2007
06/04/2007 06/05/2007
06/05/2007 06/05/2007
06/05/2007 06/05/2007 06/06/2007

Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Third Supplement to the Plan to Comply with Court-Ordered Air Conditioning (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/04/2007)

2464

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Sixth Supplement to Dialysis Transfer Plan (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/04/2007)

2476 SEALED document: Attachment to 2450 Defendants' Second Supplement to the Plan to Comply with Court-Ordered Air Conditioning: RGC Prisoners at Risk for Heat-Related Illness (bd) (Entered: 06/11/2007)

2465

ORDER APPROVING Defendants' dialysis transfer plan, as supplemented, subject to Defendants' compliance with the conditions of transfer sought by the Office of the Independent Medical Monitor and by Plaintiffs; the exercise of jurisdiction over the Ryan Correctional Facility and the medical monitoring of the same shall be limited to the care and treatment of patients of the dialysis unit and shall cease as soon as compliance with Eighth Amendment standards is demonstrated by Defendants ; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 06/05/2007)

2466 OPINION ; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 06/05/2007)

2467

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 2429 plaintiffs' motion to reject Defendants' plan; APPROVING 2424 Defendants' plan to comply with Court-Ordered Air Conditioning subject to the conditions set forth on pages four through six of the Opinion; denying 2460 plaintiffs' motion to strike; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 06/05/2007)

2468 SUPPLEMENT re 2451 (signature page 13) by unknown Robert L. Cohen, MD (rlw) (Entered: 06/05/2007)

Copy of Order, 2465 , Order on Motion to Expedite, Order on Motion to Strike, 2467 , Opinion 2466 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (acr) (Entered: 06/05/2007)

2469

STIPULATION to Allow the Periodic Filing of Documents with Prisoner Identifying Information Under Seal by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/06/2007)

06/06/2007 06/07/2007 06/07/2007 06/07/2007 06/07/2007 06/08/2007

2470

RESPONSE in opposition to MOTION for discovery Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery Regarding Possible Contempt of Court, Retaliation Against Class Members, and Bad Faith Conduct by Defendants, and Motion for Expedited Treatment2447 filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/06/2007)

2471

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Fourth Supplement to the Plan to Comply with Court-Ordered Air Conditioning (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1 - RGC HRHRI List# 2 Attachment 2 - Puckett ltr 060407)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/07/2007)

2472

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for Attachment 1 to Defs' Fourth Supplement to the Plan to Comply with Court-Ordered Air Conditioning (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/07/2007)

2473

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Seventh Supplement to Dialysis Transfer Plan (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1 - Hutchinson ltr 060607# 2 Attachment 2 - OP-CFA3-04.05.112)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/07/2007)

2474

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Revised Health Care Plan Regarding Mental Health Activities Submitted Pursuant to the Court's May 4, 2007 Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - CMHP Guidelines 052107# 2 Exhibit 2 - CSP Statistics 060607)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/07/2007)

2493

SEALED document: Attachment 1 to 2471 Defendants' Fourth Supplement to the Plan to Comply with Court-Ordered Air Conditioning: RGC Prisoners at High Risk for Heat-Related Illness; filed by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe,

06/11/2007 06/11/2007
06/11/2007 06/11/2007
06/11/2007 06/11/2007
06/11/2007

James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik (bd) (Entered: 06/19/2007)

2475

ORDER granting 2440 defendants' motion to change and update caption, caption shall be amended to reflect the three active Defendants Patricia Caruso, John Ocwieja and Nick Ludwick; granting 2453 defendants' motion to seal attachement to Defendants' Second Supplement 2453 , attachment shall be sealed from public inspection; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 06/11/2007)

2477

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Status Report Regarding Completion of the Transfer of the Dialysis Unit from Southern Michigan Correctional Facility Back to Ryan Correctional Facility (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/11/2007)

Copy of Order on Motion to Amend/Correct, Order on Motion to Seal Document 2475 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd) (Entered: 06/11/2007)

2478

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for ATTACHMENT 1 to Defendants' Status Report Regarding Completion of the Transfer of the Dialysis Unit from JMF to RRF (submitted to the Court under seal) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/11/2007)

2479 OPINION; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/12/2007 (acr, ). (Entered: 06/11/2007)

2480

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 2447 plaintiffs' expedited motion for leave to conduct discovery; discovery shall be permitted limited to the issues of whether the renewed JMF transfer plan as proposed by Defendants is bona fide and whether the JMF transfer is calculated to result in adequate medical care for Hadix prisoners; schedule for discovery is as follows: all written discovery requests, including deposition notices, shall be submitted by Plaintiffs within three days; all depositions shall be scheduled within 15 days; and Defendants responses to written discovery requests shall be submitted within 15 days of service; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 06/11/2007)

2481 STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy

06/11/2007
06/12/2007 06/12/2007 06/13/2007 06/13/2007
06/14/2007 06/14/2007 06/15/2007

Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Revised Health Care Staffing Plan Required by the May 4, 2007 Court Order in Hadix v Caruso (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Monitor Requests form# 2 Exhibit B - Untimeliness reasons chart)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/11/2007)

2482

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Transfer Plan for Closing JMF as Required by the Court's May 4, 2007 Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Transfer Grid 060807# 2 Exhibit 2 - Health Review for Transfer form# 3 Exhibit 3 - Advanced TAS Worksheet# 4 Exhibit 4 - Facility Chronic Care Numbers)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/11/2007)

Copy of Opinion 2479 , Order on Motion for Discovery 2480 sent via U.S. Mail to Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd) (Entered: 06/12/2007)

2484

SEALED document: Attachment 1 to 2477 , Defendants' Status Report Regarding Completion of the Transfer of the Dialysis Unit from Southern Michigan Correctional Facility Back to Ryan Correctional Facility (bd) Modified text on 6/14/2007 (bd, ). (Entered: 06/13/2007)

Copy of SEALED APPENDIX re Opinion 2479 sent via U.S. Mail to Elizabeth Alexander, Michael Barnhart, F. Warren Benton, Leo H. Friedman, A. Peter Govorchin, Patricia A. Streeter and Robert L. Cohen, MD (under seal) (bd) (Entered: 06/13/2007)

2483

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Status Report/Fire Safety/June 2007 Monthly Cell Block Lock Release Test Report (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - DeWitt memo)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/13/2007)

2485 MOTION for order to show cause by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/14/2007)

2486

BRIEF in support of MOTION for order to show cause 2485 and in Opposition to Defendants Revised Health Care Staffing Plan Required by the May 4, 2007 Court Order 2481 In Hadix v. Caruso filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1 - Doc. 2312)(Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified text on 6/15/2007 (bd, ). (Entered: 06/14/2007)

2487

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank

06/18/2007 06/18/2007
06/18/2007 06/18/2007 06/18/2007 06/19/2007

Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Fifth Supplement to the Plan to Comply with Court-Ordered Air Conditioning of JMF and RGC [As Necessary] (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Flack affidavit# 2 Exhibit B - OP-RGC-03.04.100-A# 3 Exhibit C Prisoner Rules# 4 Exhibit D - MI Plbg Code# 5 Exhibit E - Prisoner Waiver)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/15/2007)

2488

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA for reports accompanying Defendants' June 18, 2007 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (institutional reports filed under seal per 2/15/06 Order) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/18/2007)

2489

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' June 18, 2007 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (Govorchin, A.) Modified text on 6/19/2007 to reflect attorney's office confirmed that document is NOT SEALED; sealed portion filed as #2497(bd, ). (Entered: 06/18/2007)

2490

EXHIBIT A re 2489 Defendants' June 18, 2007 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA (Govorchin, A.) Modified text on 6/19/2007 (bd, ). (Entered: 06/18/2007)

2491

ORDER approving STIPULATION 2469 allowing the periodic filing of documents with prisoner identifying information under seal; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 06/18/2007)

2492

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA named as Defendants' Status Report Regarding Prisoner Accommodations (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Notice re TVs)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/18/2007)

2494 MOTION for extension of time to as written Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Allow Late Filing by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/19/2007)

06/19/2007 06/19/2007 06/19/2007 06/19/2007 06/19/2007 06/19/2007
06/19/2007 06/20/2007 06/22/2007 06/22/2007 06/26/2007

2495 BRIEF in support of MOTION for extension of time to as written Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Allow Late Filing 2494 filed by Everett Hadix(Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/19/2007)

2496

NOTICE Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Transer Plan for Closing JMF as Required by the Court's May 4, 2007 Order by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Streeter Declaration)(Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/19/2007)

2497 SEALED document: Sealed Exhibits to 2489 Defendants' June 18, 2007 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (based on data from May, 2007) (bd) Modified text on 6/19/2007 (bd, ). (Entered: 06/19/2007)

2498

ORDER granting 2494 plaintiffs' unopposed motion to allow late filing; ACCEPTING 2496 plaintiffs' opposition to Defendants' transfer plan for filing; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 06/19/2007)

2499

MOTION to expedite as written Motion for Expedited Discovery Ruling, for Extension of Time to Take Depositions, and for Expedited Consideratioin by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/19/2007)

2500

BRIEF in support of MOTION to expedite as written Motion for Expedited Discovery Ruling, for Extension of Time to Take Depositions, and for Expedited Consideratioin 2499 filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Irogs and Doc Request# 2 Attachment Deposition Notices# 3 Attachment Bogan v. City of Boston# 4 Attachment Bagley v. Blagojevich)(Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/19/2007)

2501

ORDER that defendants shall provide expedited briefing in response to 2499 not later than June 25, 2007; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 06/19/2007)

2502

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick regarding Closing of A-Pod of 4 Block at JMF (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A to Status Report.062007)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/20/2007)

2503

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick entitled "Defendants' Sixth Supplement to the Plan to Comply with Court-Ordered Air Conditioning of JMF and RGC" (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Cool Dome Diagram.062207)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/22/2007)

2504 MOTION to amend/correct or Rescind Discovery Schedule by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick; (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/22/2007)

2505

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Status Report Regarding Ryan Correctional Facility (RRF) Dialysis Unit - Diet Orders (Attachment A filed under seal) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/26/2007)

06/26/2007 06/26/2007 06/26/2007 06/26/2007
06/26/2007 06/26/2007 06/28/2007
06/28/2007 06/28/2007 06/29/2007

2506 RESPONSE TO MOTION to amend/correct or Rescind Discovery Schedule 2504 filed by Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/26/2007)

2507

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick for Attachment A (filed with the Court under seal) to Defendants' Status Report Regarding Ryan Corr Fac Dialysis Unit - Diet Orders [dkt #2505] (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/26/2007)

2508 ORDER of USCA re appeal 2345 , 2421 granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion for a stay pending appeal (rlw) (Entered: 06/26/2007)

2509

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' Seventh Status Report on the Cool Dome Implementation at the Reception & Guidance Center (RGC) (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Cool Dome pad# 2 Attachment B - Fencing and temp work# 3 Attachment C - Cool Dome floor space# 4 Attachment D - HVAC units# 5 Attachment E Cool Dome orientation# 6 Attachment F - Annex# 7 Attachment G - Cool Dome ribs)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/26/2007)

2510 MOTION for protective order or, in the alternative, motion to quash subpoena by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick; (Friedman, Leo) (Entered: 06/26/2007)

2511

BRIEF in support of MOTION for protective order or, in the alternative, motion to quash subpoena 2510 filed by Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1 - Caruso Subpoena)(Friedman, Leo) (Entered: 06/26/2007)

2512

ORDER granting 2499 plaintiffs' motion to expedite discovery to the extent that the relief sought in 2506 plaintiffs' response to defendants' motion to amend/rescind discovery schedule is GRANTED; denying 2504 defendants' motion to amend/rescind discovery schedule; parties shall file supplemental briefing within 15 days after the completion of discovery; parties shall file responsive briefs not later than 15 days after the filing of the initial briefs; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 06/28/2007)

2513

RESPONSE TO 2496 the Allegations Contained in Ms. Streeter's Declaration Regarding Dialysis Prisoner 1 filed by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/28/2007)

2514

SEALED document: Attachment A re 2505 Defendants' Status Report Regarding Ryan Correctional Facility Dialysis Unit - Diet Orders filed by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (bd) (Entered: 06/28/2007)

2515

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick for Attachment A - Affidavit of Jodi DeAngelo (submitted to the Court under seal) to Defendants' Response to the Allegations Contained in Ms. Streeter's Declaration Regarding Dialysis Prisoner 1

06/29/2007
07/02/2007 07/02/2007
07/03/2007 07/03/2007 07/05/2007 07/05/2007 07/06/2007
07/06/2007 07/06/2007
07/06/2007

(Dkt #2513) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/29/2007)

2516

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick for Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Request for Documents Pursuant to the June 11, 2007 Order Regarding Defendants' Renewed JMF Transfer Plan w/ att. 1-4 and 12 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/29/2007)

2517

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' Eighth Dialysis Transfer Plan Status Report: "The Ice Machine Cometh" (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/02/2007)

2518

SEALED document: Attachment A (Affidavit of Jodi DeAngelo) filed as part of 2513 Defendants' Response to the Allegations Contained in Ms. Streeter's Declaration Regarding Dialysis Prisoner 1 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (bd) (Entered: 07/03/2007)

2519 MOTION for temporary restraining order by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/03/2007)

2520 MEMORANDUM in support of Motion for TRO 2519 filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Declaration)(Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/03/2007)

2521 NOTICE OF APPEAL re 2465 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/05/2007)

2522

RESPONSE TO MOTION for protective order or, in the alternative, motion to quash subpoena 2510 filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1 # 2 Attachment 2 )(Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified text on 7/6/2007 (bd, ). (Entered: 07/05/2007)

2523

(VACATED) TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER is granted 2519 a hearing is scheduled for July 11, 2007 at 9:00 a.m.; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) Modified text on 7/20/2007 to reflect this document is vacated pursuant to Order, docket #2569 (bd, ). (Entered: 07/06/2007)

2524 ORDER denying 2510 motion for protective order ; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) (Entered: 07/06/2007)

2525

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' Status Report: Stryker Stair-Pro (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Stair-Pro Chair# 2 Attachment B - Transport diagrams)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/06/2007)

2526

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick for attachments 10, 13 and 15 to Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Request for Documents Pursuant to the June 11, 2007 Order Regarding Defendants' Renewed JMF Transfer Plan (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/06/2007)

07/06/2007 07/06/2007 07/06/2007 07/06/2007 07/06/2007
07/09/2007 07/09/2007 07/09/2007 07/10/2007 07/10/2007 07/10/2007

2527 FOURTH STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' July 6, 2007 DAP Status Report (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/06/2007)

2528

UNOPPOSED MOTION for extension of time to complete discovery to approve July 17, 2007 deposition completion related to June 11, 2007 Order by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Attachments: # 1 Stipulation# 2 Proposed Order)(Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 7/6/2007 (bd, ). (Entered: 07/06/2007)

2529

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' Status Report Regarding JMF (4-Block 4D Closed, Air Conditioning for 5- and 6-Block and Cool Dome for RGC on Schedule) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/06/2007)

2530

UNOPPOSED MOTION for writ of habeas corpus AD PROSEQUENDUM FOR JULY 11, 2007 by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Writ for Class Representative C. Moore)(Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 07/06/2007)

2531

RESPONSE TO Plaintiff Class Members Paul Coleman #181524, Robert Steele #262783 and Claude Boling's #191936 Complaints to the Court Concerning Their Transfers filed by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Classif Screen - Steele# 2 Attachment B - Classif Screen-Boling# 3 Attachment C Classif Screen-Coleman# 4 Attachment D - Screen & Transfer OrderSteele# 5 Attachment E - Screen & Transfer Order-Boling# 6 Attachment F - Screen & Transfer Order-Coleman)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/06/2007)

2532 ORDER granting 2530 motion for writ of habeas corpus; WRIT issued; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) Modified text on 7/10/2007 (acr, ). (Entered: 07/09/2007)

RECEIPT: USCA appeal fee in the amount of $455.00, receipt number KZ000256 (rlw) (Entered: 07/09/2007)

Certified Copy of Order on Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus 2532 delivered to Kalamazoo US Marshal's Office (acr) (Entered: 07/09/2007)

2533

ORDER granting 2528 motion for extension of time to complete discovery; depositions related to the June 11, 2007 Order may conclude on July 17, 2007; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 07/10/2007)

2534 STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick Regarding Prisoner Gregory Butts #247237 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/10/2007)

2535

FIRST STATUS REPORT on Medications submitted for filing by Robert L. Cohen, MD (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter to Judge Enslen# 2 OIMM Sealed Document Cover Sheet # 3 OIMM Sealed Documents Cover Sheet)(Cohen, Robert) Sealed documents will be mailed to the court.

07/10/2007 07/11/2007 07/11/2007 07/11/2007
07/11/2007
07/11/2007 07/12/2007 07/12/2007 07/12/2007 07/13/2007

Modified text on 7/10/2007 (kw). sealed attachment added on 7/13/2007 (bd, ). Modified text and corrected attachment to seal on 7/13/2007 (cmi, ). Modified text on 7/13/2007 (bd, ). (Entered: 07/10/2007)

2536

ORDER that the preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for July 11, 2007 is ADJOURNED until July 18, 2007 at 9:00 a.m.; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 07/10/2007)

2537 MOTION for order to show cause by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/11/2007)

2538 MEMORANDUM in support of Motion for Order to Show Cause 2537 filed by Everett Hadix(Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/11/2007)

2539

ORDER that Defendants shall show cause in writing and at hearing as to why they should not be held in contempt as set forth herein; this issue will be heard together with the Preliminary Injunction Hearing/Contempt Hearing scheduled for July 18, 2007 at 9:00 a.m.; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb) (Entered: 07/11/2007)

2540

MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction named as Defendants' Motion to Terminate the Court's Jurisdiction Extended Over SMT's B Unit After Some 8-Block Prisoners Transferred There on April 2, 2007 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick; (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Pfaff Affidavit)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/11/2007)

2541

EXHIBIT re 2540 Addendum to Attachment A of Defendants' Motion to Terminate the Court's Jurisdiction Extended Over SMT's B Unit After Some 8-Block Prisoners Transferred There on April 2, 2007 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/11/2007)

2542

NOTICE rescheduling hearing that was previously set for 7/18/07 at 9:00 a.m. before Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen; In-court hearing set for 7/18/2007 at 3:00 p.m. at 601 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Chief Judge Robert Holmes Bell;(Chief Judge Robert Holmes Bell, sdb) (Entered: 07/12/2007)

2543

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' Status Report Regarding Compliance with the April 3, 2007 Court-Ordered Air Conditioning in Hadix Facilities (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1 - OPRGC-03.04.100-A)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/12/2007)

2545

MOTION to intervene titled "Motion and Memorandum of Law for Leave for Joinder of Party and/or Intervention" by movant James R. Perna (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D)(bd) Modified text on 7/18/2007 (acr, ). (Entered: 07/13/2007)

2544 UNOPPOSED MOTION for writ of habeas corpus Ad Prosequendum for July 18, 2007 by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Attachments: # 1 Proposed

07/13/2007 07/13/2007 07/13/2007
07/13/2007 07/13/2007 07/13/2007 07/13/2007 07/13/2007
07/13/2007 07/13/2007

Order Proposed Writ)(Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 7/13/2007 (bd, ). (Entered: 07/13/2007)

2546 ORDER granting 2544 motion for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum as to Clarence Moore; signed by Chief Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Chief Judge Robert Holmes Bell, gjf) (Entered: 07/13/2007)

Certified Copy of Order on Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus 2546 delivered to USM (gjf) (Entered: 07/13/2007)

2547

RESPONSE in opposition to MOTION for temporary restraining order 2519 filed by Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Sixth Circ stay decision# 2 Attachment B - Amended Prelim Inj# 3 Attachment C - PD 05.01.130# 4 Attachment D - OP 05.01.130CFA# 5 Attachment E - Att A to OP 05.01.130CFA# 6 Attachment F - Part 1, JMF Transfer List# 7 Attachment F - Part 2, JMF Transfer list# 8 Attachment G Prisoner A documents (sealed)# 9 Attachment H - Prisoner B documents (sealed)# 10 Attachment I - Coleman #181524 (sealed)# 11 Attachment J - Boling #191936# 12 Attachment K - Steele #262783 (sealed))(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/13/2007)

2548 WITNESS LIST by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/13/2007)

2549 MENTAL HEALTH HEARING WITNESS LIST by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 07/13/2007)

2550

RESPONSE TO 2539 the Show Cause Order Regarding SERAPIS Electronic Connectivity to PharmaCorr filed by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A RFP documents)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/13/2007)

2551

MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction named as Defendants' Motion to Terminate the Court's Consent Decree Jurisdiction Over 4-Block of the Southern Michigan Correctional Facility (JMF) by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick; (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A Caruso affidavit)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/13/2007)

2552

RESPONSE TO 2536 named as Defendants' Response SHowing Why They Should Not Be Held in Contempt for Their Failure to File a Reply to Plaintiffs' Objections to Defendants' June 7, 2007 Revised Health Care Plan Regarding Mental Health Activities filed by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A Defs' mental health plan)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/13/2007)

2553

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' July 13, 2007 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - July timeliness statistics)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/13/2007)

2554 MOTION for extension of time to Respond to Mental Health Discovery by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick; (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/13/2007)

07/15/2007 07/15/2007 07/16/2007 07/16/2007 07/16/2007 07/17/2007 07/17/2007 07/17/2007 07/17/2007 07/18/2007
07/19/2007
07/20/2007

2555

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick for the spreadsheet detail for Defendants' July 13, 2007 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (dkt #2553) - filed under seal (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/15/2007)

2556

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick for Attachments G-K to Defendants' Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (filed under seal) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/15/2007)

2557 RESPONSE in support of MOTION for order to show cause regarding medication 2537 and 2550 filed by Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified on 7/16/2007 to edit text (elc, ). (Entered: 07/16/2007)

2558 RESPONSE TO 2537 and 2552 regarding mental health plan filed by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified on 7/16/2007 to edit text (elc, ). (Entered: 07/16/2007)

2559 RESPONSE TO 2344 Plaintiffs' Reply Brief in Support of Preliminary Injunction filed by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/16/2007)

2560 ORDER granting 2554 motion for extension of time to July 30, 2007 to respond to Mental Health Discovery; signed by Chief Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Chief Judge Robert Holmes Bell, gjf) (Entered: 07/17/2007)

2561

SEALED document: Sealed Exhibits to First Status Report on Medications (part 2 of docket 2535 ) submitted by Medical Monitor, Robert L. Cohen, MD (bd) Modified text/link on 7/17/2007 (bd, ). (Entered: 07/17/2007)

2562

SEALED document: Sealed Attachments G - K filed as part of Defendants' Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, docket 2547 submitted by A. Peter Govorchin (bd) (Entered: 07/17/2007)

2563

SEALED document: Sealed Attachment filed as part of 2553 , Status Report submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' July 13, 2007 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (bd) (Entered: 07/17/2007)

2565

MINUTES of motion hearing re 2485 MOTION for order to show cause filed by Everett Hadix, 2537 MOTION for order to show cause filed by Everett Hadix, 2535 First Status Report, Preliminary Injunction. Held before Chief Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Court Reporter: Kevin Gaugier) (Chief Judge Robert Holmes Bell, sdb) (Entered: 07/20/2007)

2564

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' Status Report - Fire Safety - July 2007 Monthly Cell Block Lock Release Test Report (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - DeWitt memo)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/19/2007)

2566 MOTION to amend/correct 2302 February 2, 2007 Injunction Regarding Remote Access to SERAPIS for Dr. Robert Cohen by defendants Patricia

07/20/2007 07/20/2007 07/20/2007
07/23/2007 07/23/2007 07/25/2007 07/26/2007
07/26/2007 07/26/2007 07/26/2007

L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick; (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Injunction 020207# 2 Attachment B - Sixth Circ stay decision)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/20/2007)

2567 MOTION for extension of time to Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/20/2007)

2568 MEMORANDUM in support of Motion for Extension of Time 2567 filed by Everett Hadix(Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/20/2007)

2569

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: plts' motion for preliminary injunction (docket #2519) granted in part and denied in part; TRO of 7/6/07 is vacated; hearing on plts' motions (docket #'s 2485, 2537) and on First Status report of the Independent Medical Monitor (docket #2535) continued to 8/29/07 at 2:00 p.m. before Chief Judge Robert Holmes Bell, Courtroom 601, Grand Rapids, Michigan; defts shall respond in writing to the First Status Report of the Independent Medical Monitor by 8/20/07; signed by Chief Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Chief Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kad) (Entered: 07/20/2007)

2570

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by unknown Robert L. Cohen, MD (Attachments: # 1 Attachment June P&L Schedule# 2 Attachment Financial Forecast May thru August# 3 Attachment Hadix Bill)(Cohen, Robert) (Entered: 07/23/2007)

2571 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER No. 07-082 that this case is reassigned to Judge Robert J. Jonker for all further proceedings; signed by Chief Judge Robert Holmes Bell (acr) (Entered: 07/25/2007)

(DISREGARD) Copy of Administrative Order Reassigning Case 2571 sent via U.S. Mail to James R. Perna (acr) Modified to reflect that order was not mailed on 7/25/2007 (acr, ). (Entered: 07/25/2007)

2572

RESPONSE in opposition to MOTION to amend/correct 2302 February 2, 2007 Injunction Regarding Remote Access to SERAPIS for Dr. Robert Cohen MOTION to amend/correct 2302 February 2, 2007 Injunction Regarding Remote Access to SERAPIS for Dr. Robert Cohen 2566 filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Email# 2 Attachment Cohen's Resume)(Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/26/2007)

2573 ORDER granting 2567 motion for extension of time; initial brief filing date for both parties is enlarged until 8/1/2007; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 07/26/2007)

2574

NOTICE of TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE; telephone status conference set for 8/2/2007 at 2:00 PM before Judge Robert J. Jonker. Lead counsel for each party must participate; other counsel may also participate but not required. See attached notice for contact information. (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 07/26/2007)

2575

RESPONSE in opposition to MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction named as Defendants' Motion to Terminate the Court's Jurisdiction Extended Over SMT's B Unit After Some 8-Block Prisoners Transferred There on April 2, 2007 2540 filed by Everett Hadix

07/26/2007 07/26/2007 07/26/2007 07/27/2007
07/27/2007
07/31/2007
07/31/2007 07/31/2007 08/01/2007 08/02/2007
08/02/2007 08/03/2007 08/03/2007

(Attachments: # 1 Attachment 6th Circuit Opinion)(Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/26/2007)

2582 MOTION to intervene as a named party filed by Andre K. Davis, #198028 (mbb) (Entered: 08/01/2007)

2583 MEMORANDUM in support of Motion to Intervene 2582 filed by Andre K. Davis #198028(mbb) (Entered: 08/01/2007)

2584 AFFIDAVIT in support of Motion to Intervene 2582 filed by Andre K. Davis #198028(mbb) (Entered: 08/01/2007)

2576

MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction named as Defendants' Unopposed Motion to Terminate Injunctive Relief Regarding 7-Block of the Egeler Correctional Facility (RGC) by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick; (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Caruso Affidavit)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/27/2007)

2577

MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction named as Defendants' Corrected Unopposed Motion to Terminate Injunctive Relief Regarding 7Block of the Egeler Correctional Facility (RGC) by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick; (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A Caruso Affidavit)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/27/2007)

2578

TRANSCRIPT of Hearing re: Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Order to Show Cause held July 18, 2007 before Chief Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Court Reporter: Gaugier, Kevin (616) 4566133) (Entered: 07/31/2007)

2579 SECOND MOTION for extension of time to as written: Plaintiffs' Second Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/31/2007)

2580 MEMORANDUM in support of Motion for Extension of Time 2579 filed by Everett Hadix(Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/31/2007)

2581 ORDER granting 2579 motion for extension of time to 8/6/07 for both parties to file briefs; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 08/01/2007)

(DISREGARD) Copy of Order on Motion for Extension of Time 2581 sent via U.S. Mail to James R. Perna, #122062 and Andre K. Davis, #198028 (mbb) Modified text on 8/2/2007 (mbb, ). (Entered: 08/02/2007)

2585 MINUTES of telephone status conference held before Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 08/02/2007)

2586 UNOPPOSED MOTION for extension of time to file brief regarding Transfer Plan by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick; (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/03/2007)

2587 RESPONSE TO MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction named as Defendants' Motion to Terminate the Court's Consent Decree Jurisdiction Over 4-Block of the Southern Michigan Correctional Facility

08/03/2007
08/03/2007 08/06/2007 08/06/2007 08/07/2007 08/07/2007 08/09/2007 08/13/2007

(JMF) MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction named as Defendants' Motion to Terminate the Court's Consent Decree Jurisdiction Over 4Block of the Southern Michigan Correctional Facility (JMF) 2551 filed by Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/03/2007)

2588

ORDER; time of hearing scheduled for 8/29/2007 is changed to 10:00 a.m. and shall be conducted by Judge Robert J. Jonker at 699 Ford Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI; matters before the Court at the 8/29/2007 hearing shall include Plaintiffs' Motion for Order to Show Cause regarding Defendants' mental health plan 2485 ; Plaintiffs' Motion for Order to Show Cause regarding connectivity of SERAPIS with the Pharmacorr system 2537 ; the questions posed on page three of the Order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 2508 , and any related matters pending before the District Court on transfer issues; Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction over B Unit 2540 ; Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction over 4-Block of JMF 2551 ; and the First Status Report of the Office of the Independent Medical Monitor 2535 ; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Dr. Cohen shall have no ex parte contact with the Court before the 8/29/2007 hearing without first obtaining the parties' and the Court's consent; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 08/03/2007)

2589

ORDER granting defendants' motion 2577 terminating injunctive relief under conditions specified in the PLRA signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) Modified on 8/6/2007 to edit text (elc, ). (Entered: 08/03/2007)

2590

ORDER granting 2586 motion for extension of time for both parties to 8/13/2007 to file briefs regarding the efficacy of Defendants' plans for transferring medical prisoners from JMF to other facilities; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 08/06/2007)

2591

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 2551 ; granting to the extent that all injunctive relief in this case regarding 4-Block of JMF is terminated, and denied in all other respects; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 08/06/2007)

Copy of Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction 2589 sent via U.S. Mail to Andre K. Davis #198028, James R. Perna #122062 (elc) (Entered: 08/07/2007)

Copy of Order on Motion for Extension of Time, 2590 , Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction 2591 sent via U.S. Mail to Andre K. Davis #198028, James R. Perna #122062 (elc) (Entered: 08/07/2007)

2592

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick for attachments to Defendants' Responses (#56 and #57 - 6 boxes) to Plaintiffs' June 14, 2007 Interrogatories and Request for Documents Regarding Mental Health Care (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/09/2007)

2593 STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' Transfer Plan for

08/13/2007
08/14/2007 08/14/2007 08/14/2007 08/15/2007 08/16/2007 08/16/2007 08/17/2007 08/20/2007

Closing JMF as Required by the Court's May 4, 2007 Order (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1 - Transfer Grid# 2 Attachment 2 Sample transfer form# 3 Attachment 3 - Health Review for Transfer# 4 Attachment 4 - Glucose meters memo & OP# 5 Attachment 5 - Specialist list# 6 Attachment 6 - Facility list)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/13/2007)

2594

NOTICE as written: Plaintiffs' Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Approve Transfer Plans by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Walden Decl# 2 Attachment Feb Visit# 3 Attachment Dialysis Meeting# 4 Attachment # 5 Attachment Pram Dep# 6 Attachment Filed Under Seal# 7 Attachment Filed Under Seal# 8 Attachment Filed Under Seal# 9 Attachment Filed Under Seal# 10 Attachment Performance Improv Meeting# 11 Attachment JCF Audit '06 (Too large to file electronically)# 12 Attachment Kuper Decl (Too large for electronic filing)# 13 Attachment PAC/Chiefs Meeting# 14 Attachment Walsh Decl# 15 Attachment Performanc Improv Minutes# 16 Attachment Hutchinson Dep# 17 Attachment Med Necessity# 18 Attachment USCA Opinion# 19 Attachment Filed Under Seal)(Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/13/2007)

2595

OPINION AND ORDER denying 2566 motion to amend/correct the 2/2/2007 Injunction; Defendants shall comply forthwith with this Court's 2/2/2007 Injunction mandating remote access to SERAPIS for Dr. Robert Cohen; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 08/14/2007)

2596 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by plaintiff Everett Hadix re 2594 (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/14/2007)

2607 SEALED EXHIBITS 6-9 and 19 re brief in opposition to defendants' motion to approve transfer plans 2594 by plaintiffs (elc) Modified on 8/23/2007 to edit text (elc, ). (Entered: 08/23/2007)

Copy of Order on Motion to Amend/Correct, 2595 sent via U.S. Mail to Andre K. Davis #198028, James R. Perna #122062 (elc) (Entered: 08/15/2007)

2597

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' August 16, 2007 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Facility Timeliness Rates)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/16/2007)

2598

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' Status Report/Fire Safety/August 2007 Monthly Cell Block Lock Release Test Report (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - DeWitt memo)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/16/2007)

2599

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick for Excel spreadsheet attachments to Defendants' August 16, 2007 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (attachments submitted to Court under seal) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/17/2007)

2600 STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso,

08/20/2007
08/20/2007 08/20/2007 08/20/2007 08/21/2007 08/22/2007 08/23/2007 08/23/2007 08/24/2007

John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick Regarding Defendants' Progress at "Connectivity" with PharmaCorr's Database (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/20/2007)

2601

REVISED MENTAL HEALTH CARE PLAN submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' Revised Hadix Mental Health Care Plan Submitted Pursuant to the Court's November 13, 2006 and May 4, 2007 Orders (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Case Management Protocol# 2 Attachment B - Oncall coverage OP# 3 Attachment B-1 - Psych Backup Coverage OP# 4 Attachment C - JMF PSU Seg Rounds# 5 Attachment D - RGC SMHU Rounds# 6 Attachment E - PSU Staff Rounding Instructions# 7 Attachment F - OP-CFA3-04.05.112# 8 Attachment G OP-CFA3-04.06.180# 9 Attachment H - Guidelines re Psychotropic Med followup# 10 Attachment I - Calley CSP 060607 memo# 11 Attachment J - PSU OPT Mtg minutes)(Govorchin, A.) Modified on 8/21/2007 to edit text (elc, ). (Entered: 08/20/2007)

2602 MOTION for leave to file excess pages named as Defendants' Motion to Allow Oversize Response by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick; (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/20/2007)

2603

RESPONSE TO 2535 "First Report of the Office of the Independent Medical Monitor" filed by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Govorchin, A.) Modified on 8/21/2007 to edit text (elc, ). Modified on 9/12/2007: accepted for filing per order, entry 2628 (elc, ). (Entered: 08/20/2007)

2604 SEALED Excel Spreadsheets by defendant Patricia L. Caruso (elc) Modified on 8/21/2007 to edit text (elc, ). (Entered: 08/21/2007)

2605

UNOPPOSED MOTION for writ of habeas corpus AD PROSEQUENDUM FOR AUGUST 29, 2007 by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 08/21/2007)

2606 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD PROSEQUENDUM entered 2605 on petition for writ of habeas corpus ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil) (Entered: 08/22/2007)

Two Certified Copies of Order on Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus 2606 hand delivered to USM; certified copy faxed to Gordon Maclane, Litigation Coordinator at (fax) 517-780-6599; (phone number: 517-780-6100, ext. 6071) (elc) Modified on 8/23/2007 to edit text (elc, ). (Entered: 08/23/2007)

2608 SECOND STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by court monitor Robert L. Cohen, MD REGARDING SPECIALTY CARE (Cohen, Robert) (Entered: 08/23/2007)

2609

NOTICE re 2436 , 2281 plaintiffs' expert reports for mental health hearing by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment report on mental health issues at Hadix facilities by Terry A. Kupers, M.D., M.S.P.# 2 Attachment Kupers Rpt Exh A - Kupers' Declaration of Aug 10, 2007# 3 Attachment Kupers Rpt Exh B - Curriculum

08/24/2007 08/24/2007
08/24/2007
08/24/2007 08/24/2007 08/27/2007 08/28/2007 08/28/2007

Vitae# 4 Attachment report on mental health issues at Hadix facilities by Robert Walsh, Ph.D.# 5 Attachment Walsh Rpt Att A - Curriculum Vitae# 6 Attachment Walsh Rpt Exh B - Segregation Report# 7 Attachment Walsh Rpt Exh C - RGC Report# 8 Attachment Walsh Rpt Exh D - Rpt to State Bar, Mental Health Crisis in Mich Prisons# 9 Attachment Walsh Rpt Exh E - Discovery Document Pages Referenced)(Streeter, Patricia) Modified on 8/27/2007 to edit capitalization (elc, ). (Entered: 08/24/2007)

2610

NOTICE Regarding Mental Health Expert Reports by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Metzner Expert Report# 2 Attachment Rome Expert Report & CV)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/24/2007)

2611

BRIEF by plaintiff Everett Hadix Plaintiffs' Brief in Response to the August Status Conference (Attachments: # 1 Attachment ED Order# 2 Attachment Order# 3 Attachment Motion for Appointment of Monitor# 4 Attachment Revised Order re Appoint of Monitor# 5 Attachment Proposed Order of Appointment# 6 Attachment Letter to Counsel# 7 Attachment Flynn v. Doyle# 8 Attachment Russell v. Johnson)(Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/24/2007)

2612

MOTION for reconsideration re 2595 named as Defendants' Motion for Rehearing of the Court's Opinion and Order of August 14, 2007 Regarding the Scope of Dr. Cohen's Remote SERAPIS Access by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick; (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Sixth Circ partial stay decision)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/24/2007)

2613

PROPOSED ORDER regarding Defendants' Motion for Rehearing of the Court's Opinion and Order of August 14, 2007 Regarding the Scope of Dr. Cohen's Remote SERAPIS Access by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/24/2007)

2614

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' Statement of the Status of this Hadix Litigation (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Consent Decree Index)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/24/2007)

2615

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick for Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs' June 14, 2007 Interrogatories and Request for Documents Regarding Mental Health Care (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/27/2007)

2616

NOTICE re 2610 named as Defendants' Notice Regarding CV of Mental Health Expert Jeffrey L. Metzner, M.D. by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Metzner CV)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/28/2007)

2617

RESPONSE TO 2611 named as Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Brief in Response to the August Status Conference Concerning the Question of the Associate Monitor Having Ex Parte Communications with the Court filed by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Email exchange)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/28/2007)

08/29/2007
08/31/2007 09/05/2007 09/05/2007 09/08/2007
09/08/2007 09/10/2007 09/10/2007 09/11/2007 09/11/2007

2618

MINUTES of Plaintiffs' Motion for Order to Show Cause regarding Defendants' Mental Health Plan 2485 ; Plaintiffs' Motion for Order to Show Cause regarding SERAPIS connectivity with PharmaCorr system 2537 ; questions posed by Order of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 2508 with regard to transfer issues; Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction over B Unit 2540 ; and the First Status Report of the Office of the Independent Medical Monitor 2535 held before Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 08/30/2007)

2619 SEALED document - patient legend to second report of the OIMM (elc) (Entered: 09/04/2007)

2620

NOTICE by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Redacted Memo# 2 Attachment Walden Decl.# 3 Attachment Redacted Cohen Memos# 4 Attachment F. Veliz Decl.)(Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/05/2007)

2621 TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held August 29, 2007 before U.S. District Judge Robert J. Jonker (Court Reporter: Gaugier, Kevin (616) 456-6133) (Entered: 09/05/2007)

2622

ORDER denying 2485 motion for order to show cause regarding mental health plans; granting 2537 motion for order to show cause regarding SERAPIS connectivity; granting in part and denying in part 2540 motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; responding to the directives of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 2508 ; and approving Defendants' current Transfer Plan 2593 , but staying effectiveness of approval pending mandate of the Court of Appeals on matters set for hearing there on September 14, 2007 ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Jonker, Judge Robert) Modified on 9/12/2007 to edit text (elc, ). (Entered: 09/08/2007)

2623 OPINION ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Jonker, Judge Robert) (Entered: 09/08/2007)

2624

REVISED OPINION (Revisions include minor typographic and stylistic changes. No substantive changes have been made to the opinion entered 9/8/07 2623 ); signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) Modified on 9/12/2007 to correct spelling (elc, ). (Entered: 09/10/2007)

2625

REVISED ORDER re 2622 (Revisions include minor typographic and stylistic changes. No substantive changes have been made to the order entered 9/8/07 2622 ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) Modified on 9/12/2007 to correct spelling (elc, ). (Entered: 09/10/2007)

2626 ORDER denying 2612 motion for reconsideration re 2595 ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 09/11/2007)

2627 NOTICE re 2622 , 2623 of Partial Purging of Contempt Identified in this Court's September 8, 2007 Order by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/11/2007)

09/11/2007 09/12/2007
09/12/2007 09/12/2007 09/13/2007 09/19/2007 09/21/2007
09/21/2007
09/21/2007 09/24/2007 09/24/2007

2628 ORDER granting 2602 motion for leave to file excess pages ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil) (Entered: 09/11/2007)

2629

SUPPLEMENT re 2601 named as Defendants' Supplement to their August 20, 2007 Revised Mental Health Plan by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A-1 RGC SHMU Rounds Dec 2006# 2 Attachment A-2 - JMF SHMU Rounds Dec 2006# 3 Attachment B-1 - RGC SHMU Rounds# 4 Attachment B-2 JMF SHMU Rounds)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/12/2007)

2630

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' September 12, 2007 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Facility timeliness rates# 2 Attachment B - JMF Untimeliness reasons)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/12/2007)

2631

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick for the spreadsheet attachments (filed under seal) to Defendants' September 12, 2007 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/12/2007)

2632 SEALED spreadsheet detail for defendants' 9/12/07 monthly report regarding specialty care (elc) (Entered: 09/14/2007)

2633

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' Status Report/Fire Safety/September 2007 Monthly Cell Block Lock Release Test Report (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - DeWitt memo)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/19/2007)

2634

UNOPPOSED MOTION for extension of time to perform certain activities, entitled, Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Approve Stipulation Extending Dates Related to Mental Health Hearing by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Attachments: # 1 Stipulation to Extend Dates Related to Mental Health Hearing# 2 Proposed Order Order Approving Extended Dates Related to Mental Health Hearing Schedule)(Streeter, Patricia) Modified on 9/24/2007 to edit capitalization (elc, ). (Entered: 09/21/2007)

2635

MOTION for reconsideration re 2624 , 2625 by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration# 2 Attachment 2, Pt. 1# 3 Attachment 2, Pt. 2# 4 Attachment 2, Pt. 3# 5 Attachment 2, Pt. 4# 6 Attachment 2, Pt. 5# 7 Attachment 2, Pt. 6# 8 Attachment 2, Pt. 7# 9 Attachment 2, Pt. 8# 10 Attachment 2, Pt. 9)(Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/21/2007)

2636

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' Status Report Regarding Associate Monitor Dr. Cohen's Remote SERAPIS Access (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/21/2007)

2637 AMENDED MOTION for reconsideration re 2624 , 2625 by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/24/2007)

2638 BRIEF in support of AMENDED MOTION for reconsideration

09/26/2007 09/28/2007
09/28/2007 09/28/2007 10/01/2007 10/04/2007 10/05/2007 10/09/2007 10/09/2007 10/11/2007

re 2624 , 2625 2637 filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/24/2007)

2639 INFORMATION COPY from CCA; these cases are remanded to the District Court (elc) Modified on 9/28/2007 to edit text (elc, ). Modified on 10/22/2007 to edit text (elc, ). (Entered: 09/28/2007)

2640

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' Temperature Report as Required by the Court's June 5, 2007 Order Approving the Defendants' Temperature Plan (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - 1985 Consent Decree excerpt# 2 Attachment B - RGC Warden heat alert response memo# 3 Attachment C - RGC HI report# 4 Attachment D - Memo re HI monitors# 5 Attachment E - HI readings cell block 1North# 6 Attachment F - HI readings cell block 1-South# 7 Attachment G - HI readings cell block 2-North# 8 Attachment H - HI readings cell block 2-South# 9 Attachment I - HI readings cell block 3-North# 10 Attachment J - HI readings cell block 3-South# 11 Attachment K - RGC temp readings weeks 7-19# 12 Attachment L - Cool Dome waiver summary)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/28/2007)

2641

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2640 for prisoner waivers, filed under seal, as part of Att. L of Defendants' Temperature Report (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/28/2007)

2642

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' September 28, 2007 DAP Status Report (Fifth) (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1 - 1-Block gallery bridges)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/28/2007)

2643 SEALED Prisoner Waivers to Attachment L of defendants' temperature report 2640 (elc) (Entered: 10/01/2007)

2644 ORDER denying 2637 motion for reconsideration re 2624 , 2625 ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 10/04/2007)

2645

MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction named as Defendants' Motion to Terminate Injunctive Relief Regarding Parnall Correctional Facility's (SMT) A Unit by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick; (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/05/2007)

2646

STIPULATION that Defendants' Motion to Terminate Injunctive Relief Regarding SMT's A Unit May Be Resolved by the Court Without Further Briefing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/09/2007)

2647 STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick Regarding Southern Michigan Correctional Facility's 6-Block, Pod B, Closure (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/09/2007)

2648 ORDER granting 2634 motion for extension of time ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil) (Entered: 10/11/2007)

10/11/2007 10/11/2007 10/11/2007 10/11/2007 10/12/2007 10/12/2007
10/12/2007 10/15/2007 10/15/2007
10/15/2007 10/15/2007 10/15/2007 10/16/2007

2649 Plaintiffs' NOTICE OF APPEAL re 2624 , 2625 , 2644 , 2524 by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/11/2007)

Copy of Order on Motion for Extension of Time 2648 sent via U.S. Mail to plaintiff Davis & Perna (gjf) (Entered: 10/11/2007)

2650 STIPULATION as written Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Approval of Stipulation by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/11/2007)

2651 MEMORANDUM in support of Stipulation 2650 filed by Everett Hadix(Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/11/2007)

RECEIPT: USCA appeal fee re 2649 by plaintiff Everett Hadix in the amount of $450.00, receipt number GR005643 (attorney notified of balance) (mrs) (Entered: 10/12/2007)

2652

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' October 12, 2007 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Facility timeliness rates# 2 Attachment B - JMF untimeliness reasons)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/12/2007)

2653

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2652 for the Excel spreadsheet attachments to Defendants' Oct 12, 2007 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (att. filed under seal) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/12/2007)

2654 MOTION to stay as filed, Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Stay Pending Appeal, For Waiver of Bond, and for Expedited Consideration by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/15/2007)

2655

BRIEF in support of MOTION to stay as filed, Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Stay Pending Appeal, For Waiver of Bond, and for Expedited Consideration 2654 filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 3rd Report of Monitor-Draft# 2 Attachment Onsite Health Care Services Grid# 3 Attachment Declaration# 4 Attachment Email re Transfer of Prisoners)(Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/15/2007)

MOTION for waiver of bond, and for expedited consideration (see entry 2654 to view document) (elc) Modified on 10/16/2007 to edit text (elc, ). (Entered: 10/16/2007)

2656 SEALED spreadsheets supporting defendants' 10/12/07 monthly report (elc) Modified on 10/17/2007 to edit text (elc, ). (Entered: 10/16/2007)

RECEIPT: remainder of USCA appeal fee re 2649 in the amount of $5.00, receipt number GR005676 (elc) Modified on 10/16/2007 to edit text (elc, ). (Entered: 10/16/2007)

2657

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' Status Report Regarding Mental Health Services at Egeler Correctional Facility and Duane Waters Health Center (Govorchin, A.) Modified on 10/22/2007 to edit text (elc, ). (Entered: 10/16/2007)

10/16/2007 10/17/2007 10/17/2007 10/19/2007 10/22/2007 10/23/2007 10/25/2007
10/26/2007 10/26/2007 10/29/2007 11/02/2007

2658

NOTICE re 2595 , 2302 Defendants' Compliance with Court Order Regarding Remote Access to SERAPIS for Associate Monitor Dr. Cohen by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Cohen email)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/16/2007)

2659

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' Status Report/Fire Safety/October 2007 Monthly Cell Block Lock Release Test Report (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - DeWitt memo)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/17/2007)

2661 MANDATE of USCA re appeal 2345 , 2421 , 2393 , 2241 , 2413 , 2231 ; these cases are remanded to the District Court (elc) (Entered: 10/22/2007)

2660 NOTICE of telephone status conference set for 11/16/2007 at 10:00 AM at 699 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Judge Robert J. Jonker;(Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil) (Entered: 10/19/2007)

ORDER (non-document) that the deadline for filing a response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay (docket #2654, filed October 15, 2007) is October 25, 2007 ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil) (Entered: 10/22/2007)

CASE NUMBER 07-2319 assigned by Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to appeal 2649 (elc) (Entered: 10/30/2007)

2662

RESPONSE TO MOTION to stay as filed, Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Stay Pending Appeal, For Waiver of Bond, and for Expedited Consideration 2654 named as Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Stay of This Court's September 10, 2007 Opinion and Order Approving Defendants' Transfer Plan Allowing Defendants to Close Southern MI Corr Fac filed by Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - List of facilities transferred to# 2 Attachment C - Patient 10# 3 Attachment D - Pats. 3 12 15 16 19# 4 Attachment E - Oct 15 TAS# 5 Attachment F - ATF & ARF TAS# 6 Attachment G - Tooks JMF TAS)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/25/2007)

2663 EXHIBIT re 2662 Defendants' Response to Monitor's Draft Report on Transfers by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/26/2007)

2664 ORDER denying 2654 motion for partial stay pending appeal; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 10/26/2007)

2665 NOTICE re 2622 Purging of Contempt Identified in this Court's September 8, 2007 Order by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/29/2007)

2666 MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction named as Defendants' Motion to Terminate Injunctive Relief Regarding the Southern Michigan Correctional Facility (JMF) by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John

11/02/2007 11/04/2007 11/06/2007 11/07/2007 11/07/2007 11/08/2007
11/14/2007 11/14/2007 11/14/2007
11/16/2007
11/16/2007

Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick; (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Affidavit of P Caruso)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/02/2007)

2667

MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction named as Defendants' Motion to Terminate Injunctive Relief Regarding Ryan Correctional Facility's (RRF) Dialysis Unit by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick; (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/02/2007)

2668 ORDER granting 2645 motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; approving STIPULATION 2646 ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil) (Entered: 11/04/2007)

2669 ORDER denying 2545 motion to intervene; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 11/06/2007)

Copy of Order on Motion to Intervene filed by pro se movant James R. Perna #122062 2669 sent via U.S. Mail to movant Perna (elc) (Entered: 11/07/2007)

2670 ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION adding attorney Sandra Girard in the place of Michael Barnhart (Barnhart, Michael) (Entered: 11/07/2007)

2671

RESPONSE TO MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction named as Defendants' Motion to Terminate Injunctive Relief Regarding the Southern Michigan Correctional Facility (JMF) MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction named as Defendants' Motion to Terminate Injunctive Relief Regarding the Southern Michigan Correctional Facility (JMF) 2666 filed by Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/08/2007)

2672

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' Status Report Regarding JMF Prisoner Transfers After July 20, 2007 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

2673

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2672 for Attachment A to Defendants' Status Report Regarding JMF Prisoner Transfers After July 20, 2007 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

2674

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' Status Report/Fire Safety/November 2007 Monthly Cell Block Lock Release Test Report (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - DeWitt memo)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

2675

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' November 16, 2007 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Facility timeliness rates# 2 Attachment B - JMF untimeliness reasons)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/16/2007)

2676 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2675 for Attachments A & B (filed with the Court under seal) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/16/2007)

11/16/2007
11/16/2007 11/19/2007 11/19/2007 11/19/2007 11/19/2007 11/20/2007 11/20/2007 11/20/2007
11/21/2007

2677

RESPONSE in opposition to MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction named as Defendants' Motion to Terminate Injunctive Relief Regarding Ryan Correctional Facility's (RRF) Dialysis Unit MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction named as Defendants' Motion to Terminate Injunctive Relief Regarding Ryan Correctional Facility's (RRF) Dialysis Unit2667 filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Hadix Case# 2 Attachment Cohen Memo# 3 Attachment Hladki Email# 4 Attachment 4A Decl DS# 5 Attachment 4B Decl LF# 6 Attachment 4C Decl JH# 7 Attachment 4D Decl TW# 8 Attachment 4E Decl MW# 9 Attachment 4F Decl. MRB# 10 Attachment 5A Decl LF# 11 Attachment 5B Decl RM# 12 Attachment 5C Decl DS# 13 Attachment 5D Decl MB# 14 Attachment 6 Decl of Girard)(Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/16/2007)

2683 MINUTES of telephone status conference held before Judge Robert J. Jonker (Court Reporter: Glenda Trexler) (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 11/20/2007)

2678 SEALED ATTACHMENT A regarding defendants' status report 2672 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (elc) Modified on 11/19/2007 to edit text (elc, ). (Entered: 11/19/2007)

2679 SEALED EXCEL SPREADSHEETS regarding status report 2675 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (elc) Modified on 11/19/2007 to edit text (elc, ). (Entered: 11/19/2007)

2680 MOTION for order to show cause by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/19/2007)

2681 BRIEF in support of MOTION for order to show cause 2680 filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Dialysis Monthly Meeting)(Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/19/2007)

2682 TRANSCRIPT of Telephone Status Conference held 11-16-07 before Judge Jonker (Court Reporter: Trexler, Glenda 517-819-0396) (Entered: 11/20/2007)

2684

MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction named as Defendants' Motion to Terminate Injunctive Relief Regarding Mental Health for the Hadix Facilities by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick; (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - RGC PSU Rounds)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/20/2007)

2685

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by court monitor Robert L. Cohen, MD Sealed (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Attachment 1# 2 Attachment Attachment 2# 3 Attachment Attachment 3# 4 Attachment Attachment 4# 5 Attachment Attachment 5# 6 Attachment Attachment 6# 7 Attachment Attachment 7# 8 Attachment Attachment 8)(Cohen, Robert) (Entered: 11/20/2007)

2686 STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by court monitor Robert L. Cohen, MD (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1# 2 Attachment 2)(Cohen, Robert) Modified on 11/26/2007 to edit text (elc, ). (Entered: 11/21/2007)

11/23/2007 11/26/2007 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 11/30/2007
11/30/2007
12/03/2007 12/03/2007 12/03/2007 12/03/2007 12/03/2007 12/04/2007 12/06/2007 12/06/2007 12/06/2007

2688 SEALED document regarding entry 2685 (elc) (Entered: 11/29/2007)

2689 SEALED document regarding entry 2686 (elc) (Entered: 11/29/2007)

2687 NOTICE OF APPEAL re 2668 by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/28/2007)

APPEAL FEE PAID re 2687 by plaintiff Everett Hadix in the amount of $455, receipt number 1127584 (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/28/2007)

2690

MOTION to strike 2684 Defendants' Motion to Terminate Injunctive Relief Regarding Mental Health for the Hadix Facilities and to Expedite Consideration of this Motion by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/30/2007)

2691

BRIEF in support of MOTION to strike 2684 Defendants' Motion to Terminate Injunctive Relief Regarding Mental Health for the Hadix Facilities and to Expedite Consideration of this Motion 2690 filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1# 2 Attachment 2# 3 Attachment 3)(Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/30/2007)

2692 ORDER REJECTING PLEADING (letter written by Michael Oliver) ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document)(elc) (Entered: 12/06/2007)

2693 ORDER REJECTING PLEADING (proposed affidavit) ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document)(elc) (Entered: 12/06/2007)

2694 ORDER REJECTING PLEADING (letter and attachments) ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document)(elc) (Entered: 12/06/2007)

2695 ORDER REJECTING PLEADING (letter) ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document)(elc) (Entered: 12/06/2007)

2696 ORDER REJECTING PLEADING (letter and attachment) ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document) (elc) Modified on 12/6/2007 to edit text (elc). (Entered: 12/06/2007)

2697 ORDER REJECTING PLEADING (proposed affidavit) ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document)(elc) (Entered: 12/06/2007)

Copy of Order Rejecting Pleading 2692 sent via U.S. Mail to Michael Oliver, #232621 with proposed letter (elc) Modified on 12/6/2007 to edit text (elc). (Entered: 12/06/2007)

Copy of Order Rejecting Pleading 2693 sent via U.S. Mail to Michael Oliver, #232621 with proposed documents (elc) (Entered: 12/06/2007)

Copy of Order Rejecting Pleading 2694 sent via U.S. Mail to Ervin Sims, #168625 with proposed documents (elc) (Entered: 12/06/2007)

12/06/2007 12/06/2007 12/06/2007 12/10/2007
12/12/2007 12/17/2007
12/18/2007 12/18/2007
12/18/2007 12/18/2007 12/18/2007 12/19/2007 12/20/2007 12/21/2007 01/04/2008

Copy of Order Rejecting Pleading 2695 sent via U.S. Mail to James Brown Edwards, #215456 with proposed document (elc) (Entered: 12/06/2007)

Copy of Order Rejecting Pleading 2696 sent via U.S. Mail to Wayne Roy Hosinger, #134597 with proposed document (elc) (Entered: 12/06/2007)

Copy of Order Rejecting Pleading 2697 sent via U.S. Mail to Vonlee Nicole Titlow, #384878 with proposed documents (elc) (Entered: 12/06/2007)

2698

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' Status Report/Fire Safety/December 2007 Monthly Cell Block Lock Release Test Report (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - DeWitt memo)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/10/2007)

2699 MOTION to withdraw as attorney by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick; (Friedman, Leo) (Entered: 12/12/2007)

2700

RETURNED MAIL: Copy of Order Rejecting Pleading 2695 that was sent via U.S. Mail to James Brown Edwards with proposed document returned to the Court marked "name and number do not match"; remailed with correct MDOC number (elc) (Entered: 12/18/2007)

2701 STIPULATION to Allow the Withdrawal of Leo Friedman as Co-Counsel for Defendants by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/18/2007)

2702

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' December 18, 2007 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Facility timeliness rates)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/18/2007)

2703 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2702 for the Excel spreadsheet attachments filed under seal (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/18/2007)

2704 MOTION for leave to file excess pages as written: Motion for Permission to File an Overlength Brief by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 12/18/2007)

2705 MEMORANDUM in support of Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages 2704 filed by Everett Hadix(Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 12/18/2007)

ORDER approving STIPULATION 2701 ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil) (Entered: 12/19/2007)

CASE NUMBER 07-2560 assigned by Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to appeal 2687 (elc) (Entered: 12/28/2007)

2707 SEALED document per entry 1970 (elc) (Entered: 12/21/2007)

2708 NOTICE of filing documents that were described in 2706 brief in

01/07/2008
01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/10/2008 01/14/2008 01/14/2008 01/14/2008 01/14/2008 01/14/2008 01/15/2008 01/15/2008 01/15/2008 01/15/2008

opposition to motion to terminate relief by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Deposition of T.V. Thai, # 2 Attachment Deposition of R.H. Calley)(Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified text on 1/7/2008 (mrs). (Entered: 01/04/2008)

2709

NOTICE rescheduling hearing that was previously set for 1/14/08, 1/15/08, and 1/16/08; in-court hearing set for 2/19/2008, 2/20/08 and 2/21/08 at 09:00 AM, each morning, at 699 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Judge Robert J. Jonker;(Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil) (Entered: 01/07/2008)

2710 STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' January 9, 2008 DAP Status Report (Sixth) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/09/2008)

2711 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick for Defendants' Notice of Taking De Bene Esse Deposition of Dr. Kupers (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/09/2008)

2715 ORDER REJECTING PLEADING (letter from non-party) ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document)(elc) (Entered: 01/15/2008)

2712 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick for Defendants' Amended Notice of Taking De Bene Esse Deposition of Dr. Terry Kupers (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/14/2008)

2713 JOINT MOTION to adjourn as written Parties Joint Motion for Adjournment of Mental Health Hearing by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 01/14/2008)

2714 MEMORANDUM in support of Motion to Adjourn 2713 filed by Everett Hadix(Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 01/14/2008)

2716 ORDER REJECTING PLEADING (proposed affidavit) ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document)(elc) (Entered: 01/15/2008)

2717 ORDER REJECTING PLEADING (letter) ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Attachments: # 1 Letter from Judge Jonker, # 2 Proposed Document)(elc) (Entered: 01/15/2008)

Copy of Order Rejecting Pleading 2715 sent via U.S. Mail to Joseph Ginther, #339136 with proposed document (elc) (Entered: 01/15/2008)

Copy of Order Rejecting Pleading 2716 sent via U.S. Mail to Mark E. White, #228524 with proposed document (elc) (Entered: 01/15/2008)

Copy of Order Rejecting Pleading 2717 sent via U.S. Mail to Clarence Pepper Moore, #100885 with letter from Judge Jonker and proposed document (elc) (Entered: 01/15/2008)

2718 STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' January 15, 2008 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (Attachments: # 1 Attachment

01/15/2008 01/17/2008
01/17/2008 01/17/2008 01/17/2008 01/18/2008 01/18/2008 01/18/2008 01/22/2008 01/25/2008 01/25/2008

A - Facility timeliness rates)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/15/2008)

2719 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2718 for Excel spreadsheet attachments, filed with the Court under seal (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/15/2008)

2706

RESPONSE in opposition to MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction named as Defendants' Motion to Terminate Injunctive Relief Regarding Mental Health for the Hadix Facilities 2684 as filed: Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Terminate Relief Regarding Mental Health for the Hadix Facilities filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Def-Appellants Brief Table of Contents, # 2 Attachment Decl. of J. Walden, # 3 Attachment Redacted OIMM Memo, # 4 Attachment Redacted OIMM Memo, # 5 Attachment Jaynes v. Austin)(Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified on 12/19/2007 to edit text (elc). Modified on 1/18/2008 to edit text (elc). (Entered: 12/18/2007)

2720 ORDER dismissing as moot or otherwise not justiciable in its present form 2582 motion to intervene; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 01/17/2008)

ORDER (non-document) granting 2704 motion for leave to file excess pages ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil) (Entered: 01/17/2008)

2721

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 2713 motion to adjourn; request to adjourn is granted; denied as to new hearing dates provided in motion; the mental health hearing dates are adjourned to commence at 9:00 a.m. on 4/28/08, 4/29/08 and 4/30/08; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 01/17/2008)

ORDER (non-document)The Court will address docket # 2684 and any non-mooted aspects of docket #2690 following the hearing scheduled for April 28, 2008 ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil) (Entered: 01/18/2008)

2722 SEALED Excel Spreadsheets regarding 1/15/08 monthly report (elc) (Entered: 01/18/2008)

2723

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' Status Report/Fire Safety/January 2008 Monthly Cell Block Lock Release Test Report (Attachments: # 1 Attachment a - DeWitt memo)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/18/2008)

2724 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick for Defendants' Notice of Taking Discovery Deposition of Dr. Robert Walsh (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/22/2008)

2725 MOTION for hearing named as Defendants' Motion to Request a Telephone Status Conference by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick; (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/25/2008)

2726 STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by court monitor Robert L. Cohen, MD (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Patient Legend (under seal),

01/25/2008
01/28/2008 01/28/2008 02/06/2008 02/06/2008
02/14/2008 02/15/2008
02/15/2008 02/15/2008 02/15/2008 02/19/2008 02/21/2008

# 2 Attachment CV of Eric M Gibney MD)(Cohen, Robert) (Entered: 01/25/2008)

2727

RESPONSE in opposition to MOTION for hearing named as Defendants' Motion to Request a Telephone Status Conference2725 written as Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Request a Telephone Status Conference filed by James Haddix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 01/25/2008)

2728 SEALED ATTACHMENT re 2726 by court monitor Robert L. Cohen, MD (elc) Modified on 1/28/2008 to edit text (elc). (Entered: 01/28/2008)

2729

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' Status Report Regarding the Ryan Correctional Facility (RRF) Dialysis Unit (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/28/2008)

2730 MOTION to compel Depositions and Responses to Subpoenas by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 02/06/2008)

2731

MEMORANDUM in support of Motion to Compel 2730 filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment MH Deposition Schedule, # 2 Attachment Dep Notices and Subpoenas, # 3 Attachment Decl. P. Streeter, # 4 Attachment Email Streeter to Govorchin, # 5 Attachment Email Smuts to Pls, # 6 Attachment Email Alexander to Govorchin)(Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 02/06/2008)

2732 ORDER denying 2725 motion for telephone status conference; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 02/14/2008)

2733

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' Status Report/Fire Safety/February 2008 Monthly Cell Block Lock Release Test Report (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - DeWitt memo)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/15/2008)

2734

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' February 15, 2008 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Facility timeliness rates)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/15/2008)

2735

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2734 for the Excel spreadsheet attachments (filed with the Court under seal) to Defendants' February 15, 2008 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/15/2008)

ORDER (non-document) finding as moot 2690 motion to strike, based on a response having been filed on 1/17/08 ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil) (Entered: 02/15/2008)

2736 SEALED Excel spreadsheets regarding defendants' 2/15/08 monthly report (elc) (Entered: 02/20/2008)

2737 ORDER RETURNING PLEADING (letter) ; signed by Judge Robert J.

02/21/2008 02/21/2008 02/21/2008 02/29/2008 02/29/2008
02/29/2008
03/03/2008 03/04/2008 03/12/2008
03/12/2008 03/12/2008 03/14/2008

Jonker (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document)(elc) Modified on 2/21/2008 to edit text (elc). (Entered: 02/21/2008)

Copy of Order Returning Pleading 2737 sent via U.S. Mail to Joseph Ziegler, #165049 with proposed document (elc) (Entered: 02/21/2008)

2738 ORDER RETURNING PLEADING (letter) ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document)(elc) (Entered: 02/21/2008)

Copy of Order Returning Pleading 2738 sent via U.S. Mail to Donald Smith, #302252 with proposed document (elc) (Entered: 02/21/2008)

2739

NOTICE OF MOTION HEARING regarding document number 2730 : motion hearing is set for 3/13/2008 at 03:00 PM at 699 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Judge Robert J. Jonker;(Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil) (Entered: 02/29/2008)

2740

AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION HEARING regarding document number 2730 : motion hearing is set for 3/11/2008 at 03:30 PM at 699 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Judge Robert J. Jonker;(Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil) Modified on 3/3/2008 to edit text (elc). (Entered: 02/29/2008)

2741

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' Status Report Regarding Psychotropic Medication Bridge Orders at RGC (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Bridge order memo)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/29/2008)

2742

NOTICE OF MOTION HEARING regarding document number 2730 : motion hearing is reset for 3/18/2008 at 03:30 PM at 699 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Judge Robert J. Jonker;(Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil) (Entered: 03/03/2008)

Copy of Notice of Motion Hearing 2742 sent via U.S. Mail to Andre K. Davis and James R. Perna (leh) (Entered: 03/04/2008)

2743

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' Status Report/Fire Safety/March 2008 Monthly Cell Block Lock Release Test Report (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - DeWitt memo)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/12/2008)

2744

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' March 12, 2008 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Facility timeliness rates)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/12/2008)

2745

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2744 for Excel spreadsheet detail (filed with Court under seal) to March 12, 2008 Monthly Specialty Care Report (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/12/2008)

2746 RESPONSE in opposition to MOTION to compel Depositions and Responses to Subpoenas 2730 filed by Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja,

03/14/2008 03/14/2008 03/17/2008 03/17/2008 03/18/2008 03/19/2008
03/21/2008 03/24/2008
04/03/2008 04/07/2008

Nick Ludwick (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/14/2008)

2747 MOTION to strike Defendants' Opposition to Motion to Compel Depositions by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/14/2008)

2748 MEMORANDUM in support of Motion to Strike 2747 filed by Everett Hadix(Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/14/2008)

2749 SEALED Excel Spreadsheets regarding defendants' 3/12/08 monthly report (elc) (Entered: 03/17/2008)

2750 CHANGE OF ADDRESS for movant James R. Perna #122062 to Florence Crane Correctional Facility, 38 Fourth St., Coldwater, MI 49036 (elc) (Entered: 03/18/2008)

2751

MINUTES of motion hearing re 2730 MOTION to compel Depositions and Responses to Subpoenas filed by Everett Hadix held before Judge Robert J. Jonker (Court Reporter: Glenda Trexler) (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 03/19/2008)

ORDER (non-document); Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Depositions and Responses to Subpoenas 2730 is GRANTED to the extent that Defendants shall make their proposed mental health experts available for deposition on 3/25/2008, and that the scope of permitted questioning may include any unprivileged matter germane to the subject matter of the dispute: namely, the Mental Health provisions of the Consent Decree, including without limitation the particulars identified in the Court's Order of 11/13/2006 2187 ("IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall be permitted discovery as to mental health care in advance of a final injunctive hearing.") This is without prejudice to any party's substantive position of the proper scope of issues open for decision of mental health issues or otherwise. The Motion to Compel is DISMISSED AS MOOT in all other respects. Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendants' Opposition to Motion to Compel Depositions 2747 is DISMISSED AS MOOT; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 03/19/2008)

2752 TRANSCRIPT of Motion to Compel held 03-18-08 before Judge Robert Jonker (Court Reporter: Trexler, Glenda 517-819-0396) (Entered: 03/21/2008)

2753

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' Construction Progress Status Report on the Permanent RRF Dialysis Unit (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Building 200, # 2 Attachment B Temp dialysis stations, # 3 Attachment C - Phase 2)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/24/2008)

2754 STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' April 3, 2008 DAP Status Report (Seventh) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/03/2008)

2755 (DISREGARD) MOTION to expedite AS WRITTEN PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR FURTHER RELIEF AND EXPEDITED TREATMENT,

04/07/2008
04/07/2008 04/07/2008 04/11/2008
04/15/2008 04/16/2008 04/16/2008 04/16/2008 04/17/2008
04/21/2008 04/21/2008 04/21/2008

WAIVER OF BOND by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified on 4/7/2008 to edit text (elc). (Entered: 04/07/2008)

2756

(DISREGARD) BRIEF in support of MOTION to expedite AS WRITTEN PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR FURTHER RELIEF AND EXPEDITED TREATMENT, WAIVER OF BOND 2755 filed by Everett Hadix(Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified on 4/7/2008 to edit text (elc). (Entered: 04/07/2008)

2757 MOTION to expedite as written Plaintiffs' Motion for Further Relief, Expedited Treatment, and Waiver of Bond by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 04/07/2008)

2758 BRIEF in support of MOTION to expedite as written Plaintiffs' Motion for Further Relief, Expedited Treatment, and Waiver of Bond 2757 filed by Everett Hadix(Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 04/07/2008)

ORDER (non-document): The parties shall file no later than 4/24/2008 proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law concerning mental health issues under the Consent Decree and Prison Litigation Reform Act that are the subject of the evidentiary hearing beginning 4/28/2008; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 04/11/2008)

2759

NOTICE of telephone status conference set for 4/16/2008 at 02:00 PM. Counsel for defendant shall initiate the conference by getting all parties on the line and calling into chambers; before Judge Robert J. Jonker; (Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil) (Entered: 04/15/2008)

2760

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' April 16, 2008 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Facility timeliness rates)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/16/2008)

2761

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2760 for the Excel spreadsheet attachments (filed with the Court under seal) to Defendants' April 16, 2008 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/16/2008)

2762 MINUTES of telephone status conference held before Judge Robert J. Jonker (Court Reporter: Glenda Trexler) (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 04/17/2008)

2763

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' Status Report/Fire Safety/April 2008 Monthly Cell Block Lock Release Test Report (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - DeWitt memo)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/17/2008)

2764 SEALED Excel Spreadsheets (elc) (Entered: 04/21/2008)

2765 EXHIBIT LIST FOR MENTAL HEALTH HEARING by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 04/21/2008)

2766 AMENDED WITNESS LIST by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Streeter,

04/22/2008 04/22/2008 04/22/2008 04/22/2008
04/23/2008
04/23/2008 04/23/2008 04/24/2008 04/24/2008 04/24/2008 04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/28/2008 04/29/2008 04/29/2008

Patricia) (Entered: 04/21/2008)

2767 Revised Mental Health WITNESS LIST by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/22/2008)

2768 EXHIBIT LIST for April 2008 Hearing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/22/2008)

2769 EXHIBIT LIST - AMENDED - by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 04/22/2008)

2770

UNOPPOSED MOTION for writ of habeas corpus Ad Testificandum for C. Moore by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum)(Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 04/22/2008)

2771

ORDER granting 2770 motion for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum (copy of writ faxed to Ryan Correctional Facility by yc); signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 04/23/2008)

Two Certified Copies of Writ of Habeas Corpus 2771 sent via U.S. Mail to USM (elc) (Entered: 04/23/2008)

2772 EXHIBIT LIST named as Defendants' Amended Exhibit List by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/23/2008)

2773 STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by court monitor Robert L. Cohen, MD (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List)(Cohen, Robert) (Entered: 04/24/2008)

2774 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/24/2008)

2775 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 04/24/2008)

2776 EXHIBIT Amended Exhibit List to Fourth Report OIMM on Mental Health Services in Hadix Facilities by court monitor Robert L. Cohen, MD (Cohen, Robert) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

2777 EXHIBIT LIST - Second Amended by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

2778 MINUTES of evidentiary hearing re 2187 2648 2721 held before Judge Robert J. Jonker (Court Reporter: Glenda Trexler) (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 05/01/2008)

2779 MINUTES of evidentiary hearing re 2187 2648 2721 held before Judge Robert J. Jonker (Court Reporter: Glenda Trexler) (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 05/01/2008)

2780 (DISREGARD) MINUTES of evidentiary hearing 2187 2648 2721 held before Judge Robert J. Jonker (Court Reporter: Glenda Trexler) (Judge

04/30/2008 05/13/2008
05/14/2008 05/15/2008 05/16/2008 05/16/2008 05/19/2008 05/28/2008
05/28/2008

Robert J. Jonker, ymc) duplicative entry of 2779 Modified text on 5/1/2008 per chambers (cmi). (Entered: 05/01/2008)

2781 MINUTES of evidentiary hearing re 2187 2648 2721 held before Judge Robert J. Jonker (Court Reporter: Glenda Trexler) (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 05/01/2008)

NOTICE (non-document) of in-court hearing set for 5/15/2008 at 09:30 AM, for the sole purpose of receiving exhibit 34A, Testimony of Diana Childers by video deposition de bene esse of April 17,2008 and exhibit 49, Recording Excerpts, T. Vinh Thai Deposition, December 12, 2007. Counsel are welcome, but not required, to attend. To be held at 699 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Judge Robert J. Jonker;(Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil) (Entered: 05/13/2008)

2782

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' Status Report/Fire Safety/May 2008 Monthly Cell Block Lock Release Test Report (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - DeWitt memo)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/14/2008)

2790

MINUTES of evidentiary hearing for the sole purpose of receiving exhibit 34A, Testimony of Diana Childers by video deposition de bene esse of 4/17/2008 and exhibit 49, Recording Excerpts, T. Vinh Thai Deposition, 12/12/2007 held before Judge Robert J. Jonker (Court Reporter: Glenda Trexler) (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 05/29/2008)

2783

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick named as Defendants' May 16, 2008 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Facility timeliness rates)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/16/2008)

2784

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2783 for Excel spreadsheet attachments (filed with the Court under seal) to Defendants' May 16, 2008 Monthly Report Regarding Specialty Care (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/16/2008)

2785 SEALED Excel Spreadsheets (elc) (Entered: 05/19/2008)

2786

TRANSCRIPT of Hearing on Mental Health Issues - Vol. I held 04-28-08 before Judge Robert J. Jonker; NOTE: this transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the release of transcript restriction date; after that date it may be obtained through PACER; under the Policy Regarding Transcripts the parties have 10 days within which to file a Notice of Intent to redact, and 21 days within which to file a Redaction Request; if no Transcript Redaction Request is filed, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and this transcript will be made available via PACER after the release of transcript restriction set for 8/26/2008 ; redaction request due 6/18/2008 (Court Reporter: Trexler, Glenda 517-819-0396) (Entered: 05/28/2008)

2787 TRANSCRIPT of Hearing on Mental Health Issues - Vol. II held 04-2908 before Judge Robert J. Jonker; NOTE: this transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court

05/28/2008
05/28/2008
06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/03/2008 06/03/2008 06/04/2008

Reporter/Transcriber before the release of transcript restriction date; after that date it may be obtained through PACER; under the Policy Regarding Transcripts the parties have 10 days within which to file a Notice of Intent to redact, and 21 days within which to file a Redaction Request; if no Transcript Redaction Request is filed, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and this transcript will be made available via PACER after the release of transcript restriction set for 8/26/2008 ; redaction request due 6/18/2008 (Court Reporter: Trexler, Glenda 517-819-0396) (Entered: 05/28/2008)

2788

TRANSCRIPT of Hearing on Mental Health Issues - Vol. III held 04-3008 before Judge Robert J. Jonker; NOTE: this transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the release of transcript restriction date; after that date it may be obtained through PACER; under the Policy Regarding Transcripts the parties have 10 days within which to file a Notice of Intent to redact, and 21 days within which to file a Redaction Request; if no Transcript Redaction Request is filed, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and this transcript will be made available via PACER after the release of transcript restriction set for 8/26/2008 ; redaction request due 6/18/2008 (Court Reporter: Trexler, Glenda 517-819-0396) (Entered: 05/28/2008)

2789

TRANSCRIPT of Hearing on Mental Health Issues - Vol. IV held 05-1508 before Judge Robert J. Jonker; NOTE: this transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the release of transcript restriction date; after that date it may be obtained through PACER; under the Policy Regarding Transcripts the parties have 10 days within which to file a Notice of Intent to redact, and 21 days within which to file a Redaction Request; if no Transcript Redaction Request is filed, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and this transcript will be made available via PACER after the release of transcript restriction set for 8/26/2008 ; redaction request due 6/18/2008 (Court Reporter: Trexler, Glenda 517-819-0396) (Entered: 05/28/2008)

2791

ORDER RETURNING DOCUMENT (letter from Claude D. Boling) ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document)(elc) Modified on 6/2/2008 to edit text (elc). (Entered: 06/02/2008)

Copy of Order Returning Document 2791 sent via U.S. Mail to Claude D. Boling, #191936 with proposed document (elc) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

2792 MOTION for writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 06/03/2008)

2793 PROPOSED ORDER regarding Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 06/03/2008)

2794

ORDER granting 2792 writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum for hearing before Judge Robert J. Jonker on 6/11-12/2008 (copy of writ faxed to Ryan Correctional Facility by yc); signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 06/04/2008)

06/04/2008 06/04/2008 06/05/2008 06/06/2008
06/09/2008 06/10/2008 06/10/2008
06/11/2008 06/12/2008 06/13/2008 06/13/2008
06/17/2008 06/17/2008 06/23/2008

2795 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/04/2008)

2796 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/04/2008)

Two Certified Copies of MOTION for writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum 2792 and Order on Motion for Writ 2794 hand delivered to USM (elc) (Entered: 06/05/2008)

2797

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by court monitor Robert L. Cohen, MD (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Attachment 1 -Notice of Sealed Defendants' Bridge Study Data, # 2 Attachment Attachment 2 Notice of Sealed RGC Intake Logs from May 1 to May 7 2008, # 3 Attachment Attachment 3 Notice of Sealed RGC Bridge Medication Spreadsheet, # 4 Attachment Attachment 4 Notice of Sealed RGC Bridge Medication Study Patient Legend)(Cohen, Robert) (Entered: 06/06/2008)

2799 SEALED document regarding entry 2797 (elc) (Entered: 06/10/2008)

2798 THIRD AMENDED EXHIBIT LIST for mental health hearing by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Streeter, Patricia) Modified on 6/13/2008 to edit capitalization (elc). (Entered: 06/10/2008)

2800

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by court monitor Robert L. Cohen, MD (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit SMHU AXIS I Study Spreadsheet 5-15-08, # 2 Exhibit Notice of sealed document prisoner key to SMHU AXIS I study spreadsheet 5-15-08)(Cohen, Robert) (Entered: 06/10/2008)

2813 MINUTES of evidentiary hearing on mental health issues re 2187 2648 2721 held before Judge Robert J. Jonker (Court Reporter: Glenda Trexler) (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 07/01/2008)

2814 MINUTES of evidentiary hearing re mental health issues re 2187 2648 2721 held before Judge Robert J. Jonker (Court Reporter: Glenda Trexler) (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 07/01/2008)

2801 SEALED document to entry 2800 (elc) (Entered: 06/13/2008)

2802

NOTICE BRIEFING SCHEDULE and NOTICE of closing on evidentiary hearing set for 8/8/2008 at 10:00 AM at 699 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Judge Robert J. Jonker;(Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil) (Entered: 06/13/2008)

2803 STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - DeWitt Memo.061108)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/17/2008)

2804 NOTICE re 1970 Notice of Plaintiffs' Reponse to Court's Inquiry Re Sealing by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/17/2008)

2805 STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick Regarding Specialty Care (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/23/2008)

06/23/2008 06/23/2008 06/23/2008 06/23/2008 06/24/2008 06/25/2008 06/25/2008 06/26/2008 06/26/2008 07/02/2008
07/02/2008

2806 NOTICE re 2804 Amened Notice by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/23/2008)

2807 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2805 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/23/2008)

2808 EXHIBIT re 2805 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/23/2008)

2809 STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick regarding DAP Status Report (Seventh) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/23/2008)

2811 ORDER REJECTING PLEADING (proposed motion to amend) ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document)(elc) (Entered: 06/25/2008)

2810 SEALED 2/15/09 spreadsheet detail for the 6/23/08 monthly report regarding security care (elc) (Entered: 06/25/2008)

Copy of Order Rejecting Pleading 2811 sent via U.S. Mail to Henry Franklin, #195954 with proposed document (elc) (Entered: 06/25/2008)

2812 ORDER RETURNING DOCUMENT (letter from Joey Kott) ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document)(elc) (Entered: 06/26/2008)

Copy of Order Rejecting Pleading 2812 sent via U.S. Mail to Joey Kott, #229695 with returned document (elc) (Entered: 06/26/2008)

2815

TRANSCRIPT of Hearing on Mental Health Issues Vol. V held 06-11-08 before Judge Robert J. Jonker; NOTE: this transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the release of transcript restriction date; after that date it may be obtained through PACER; under the Policy Regarding Transcripts the parties have 10 days within which to file a Notice of Intent to redact, and 21 days within which to file a Redaction Request; if no Transcript Redaction Request is filed, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and this transcript will be made available via PACER after the release of transcript restriction set for 9/30/2008 ; redaction request due 7/23/2008 (Court Reporter: Trexler, Glenda 517-819-0396) (Entered: 07/02/2008)

2816

TRANSCRIPT of Hearing on Mental Health Issues Vol. VI held 06-12-08 before Judge Robert J. Jonker; NOTE: this transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the release of transcript restriction date; after that date it may be obtained through PACER; under the Policy Regarding Transcripts the parties have 10 days within which to file a Notice of Intent to redact, and 21 days within which to file a Redaction Request; if no Transcript Redaction Request is filed, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and this transcript will be made available via PACER after the release of transcript restriction set for 9/30/2008 ; redaction request due 7/23/2008 (Court Reporter: Trexler, Glenda 517-819-0396) (Entered: 07/02/2008)

07/11/2008 07/11/2008 07/14/2008 07/15/2008
07/15/2008 07/15/2008 07/17/2008 07/17/2008 07/18/2008 07/22/2008
07/23/2008 07/23/2008
07/25/2008
07/25/2008

2817 MOTION for extension of time to file Post Hearing Brief by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick; (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/11/2008)

2818 BRIEF in support of MOTION for extension of time to file Post Hearing Brief 2817 filed by Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/11/2008)

2819 TRIAL BRIEF Plaintiffs' Trial Brief by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/14/2008)

ORDER (non-document) granting 2817 motion for extension of time based on agreement of the parties and for good cause shown. The new deadline for the initial post-hearing briefs is 7/18/2008. Response briefs are now due 8/4/2008; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 07/15/2008)

2820 STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Monthly Report Re Specialty Care)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/15/2008)

2821 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2822 (Govorchin, A.) Modified on 7/17/2008 to edit text (elc). (Entered: 07/15/2008)

2822 SEALED Excel Spreadsheets regarding the July 15, 2008 Monthly Report (elc) (Entered: 07/17/2008)

2823 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2820 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/17/2008)

2824 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/18/2008)

2825

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - RGC Monthly Cell Block Door Test Report)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/22/2008)

2826 MOTION for writ of habeas corpus AD PROSEQUENDUM FOR AUGUST 8, 2008 by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 07/23/2008)

2827

AMENDED PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Govorchin, A.) Modified text on 7/23/2008 per request from Attorney General's office (mla) (Entered: 07/23/2008)

2828

ORDER granting 2826 motion for writ of habeas corpus for 8/8/2008 hearing; copy faxed to Ryan Correctional Facility; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) Modified on 7/25/2008 to add text (elc). (Entered: 07/25/2008)

2829 SECOND AMENDED POST-HEARING PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT and conclusions of law by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John

07/25/2008 08/04/2008 08/04/2008 08/08/2008 08/14/2008 08/14/2008 08/14/2008
08/15/2008 08/15/2008
08/15/2008 08/15/2008 08/15/2008

Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Govorchin, A.) Modified text on 7/25/2008 (gjf). (Entered: 07/25/2008)

Two Certified Copies of Order on Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus 2828 hand delivered to USM (elc) (Entered: 07/25/2008)

2830 TRIAL BRIEF Plaintiffs' Trial Brief Reply by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/04/2008)

2831

RESPONSE TO MOTION to expedite as written Plaintiffs' Motion for Further Relief, Expedited Treatment, and Waiver of Bond 2757 filed by Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/04/2008)

2832 MINUTES of evidentiary hearing re 2187 2648 2721 held before Judge Robert J. Jonker (Court Reporter: Glenda Trexler) (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 08/12/2008)

2833

PROPOSED STIPULATION and ORDER to terminate Section III of the 1985 Hadix consent decree concerning fire safety by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Govorchin, A.) Modified on 8/15/2008 to edit capitalization (elc). (Entered: 08/14/2008)

2834 ORDER RETURNING DOCUMENT (letter from Michael Clark) ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document)(elc) (Entered: 08/15/2008)

2835

LETTER from attorney Elizabeth Alexander for plaintiffs James Covington, Frank Thomas, James Haddix, James Alexander, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Perry Alan Davis #121739, Michael Anthony Gray, Mark Lemothe, Cylester Nunnally, Everett Hadix, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Ted Sullivan, Mark A. Coleman, Richard Mapes, Patrick C. Sommerville, Danny Walker, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr, Brent E. Koster, Lee D. McDonald, Darryl Sturges, Robert Flemster, William Lovett regarding state guardianship procedures (elc) (Entered: 08/15/2008)

Copy of Order Returning Document 2834 sent via U.S. Mail to Michael Clark with proposed document (elc) (Entered: 08/15/2008)

2836

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick Entitled: Defendants' Status Report/Fire Safety/August 2008 Monthly Cell Block Lock Release Test Report (Attachments: # 1 Attachment RGC Monthly Cell Block Door Test Report)(Govorchin, A.) Modified text on 8/18/2008 (mkc). (Entered: 08/15/2008)

2837

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Timeframe attachment)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/15/2008)

2838 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2837 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/15/2008)

2839 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja,

08/19/2008
08/19/2008 09/03/2008 09/04/2008 09/05/2008
09/09/2008 09/16/2008

Nick Ludwick re 2837 showing service of emailed spreedsheets (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/15/2008)

2840

TRANSCRIPT of Closing Arguments held 08-08-08 before Judge Robert J. Jonker; NOTE: this transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the release of transcript restriction date; after that date it may be obtained through PACER; under the Policy Regarding Transcripts the parties have 10 days within which to file a Notice of Intent to redact, and 21 days within which to file a Redaction Request; if no Transcript Redaction Request is filed, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and this transcript will be made available via PACER after the release of transcript restriction set for 11/17/2008 ; redaction request due 9/9/2008 (Court Reporter: Trexler, Glenda 517-819-0396) (Entered: 08/19/2008)

2841 SEALED Excel Spreadsheets Regarding Defendants' 8/15/08 Monthly Report (elc) (Entered: 08/22/2008)

2842

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by court monitor Robert L. Cohen, MD (Attachments: # 1 Attachment, # 2 Attachment, # 3 Attachment, # 4 Attachment, # 5 Attachment, # 6 Attachment, # 7 Attachment, # 8 Attachment, # 9 Attachment, # 10 Attachment, # 11 Attachment, # 12 Attachment, # 13 Attachment, # 14 Attachment)(Cohen, Robert) (Entered: 09/03/2008)

2843 SEALED Exhibits 11-14 regarding entry 2842 (elc) (Entered: 09/04/2008)

2844

CORRECTED STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by court monitor Robert L. Cohen, MD (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Att 1 ESRD 11 Recom Treatment Goals, # 2 Attachment Att 2 Dialysis Patient Forum Meeting Minutes, # 3 Attachment Att 3 Memo from Glover to Jones, # 4 Attachment Att 4 Email Jones and Bernth, # 5 Attachment RRF Water Filtration Room Pictures - Set 1, # 6 Attachment Att 6 RRF Water Filtration Room Pictures - Set 2, # 7 Attachment Att 7 NW Renal Network Monitoring Dialysis Water Treatment System, # 8 Attachment Att 8 Email between Lowrie and Jones, # 9 Attachment Att 9 RRF Dialysis Nephrology Meeting Minutes, # 10 Attachment Att 10 NY State DOC Div Health Services Policy 1.57, # 11 Attachment Att 11 Notice of Sealed OIMM Spreadsheets, # 12 Attachment Att 12 Notice of sealed Patient Records, # 13 Attachment Att 13 Notice of sealed Specialty Care Comparison Documents, # 14 Attachment Att 14 Notice of sealed Patient Legend)(Cohen, Robert) Modified on 9/8/2008 to edit text (elc). (Entered: 09/05/2008)

2845 SEALED Exhibits 11-14 to entry 2844 (elc) (Entered: 09/10/2008)

2846

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA of September 16, 2008 Regarding Speciality Care (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Govorchin, A.)

09/16/2008
09/16/2008
09/18/2008 09/19/2008 09/25/2008 10/01/2008 10/01/2008 10/14/2008 10/15/2008 10/15/2008 10/15/2008 10/17/2008

(Entered: 09/16/2008)

2847

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA re 2846 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/16/2008)

2848

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick, Perry M. Johnson, Barry Mintzes, Charles Anderson, William F. Grant, Dale Foltz, Daniel Trudell, Duane Sholes, John Jabe, James Pogats, Roy Rider, Charles Ustess, Don P. Leduc, Robert Brown, Jr, Graham Allen, Elton I. Scott, Pamela Withrow, Frank Elo, Marjorie Van Ochten, John Prelesnik, USA of Excel Spreadsheet attachments of 9/16/08 Monthly Report re: Specialty Care (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/16/2008)

2849 SEALED Excel spreadsheets regarding the 9/16/08 monthly report (elc) (Entered: 09/19/2008)

2850

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick of September 2008 (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - September 2008)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/19/2008)

2851

LETTER from attorney Elizabeth Alexander for plaintiff Everett Hadix regarding Supplemental Authority (Attachments: # 1 Attachment MorganMapp v. Hill Correctional Facility)(Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/25/2008)

2852 ORDER REJECTING PLEADING filed by Joseph Ginther; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Attachments: # 1 rejected documents)(mkc) Modified text on 10/2/2008 (kvt). (Entered: 10/01/2008)

Copy of Order Rejecting Pleading 2852 and proposed documents sent via U.S. Mail to Joseph Ginther (kvt) Modified text on 10/6/2008 (mla) (Entered: 10/02/2008)

2853 RETURNED MAIL: Copy of Order Rejecting Paper Document 2852 that was sent via U.S. Mail to Joseph Ginther, #339136 returned to the Court marked "paroled" (elc) (Entered: 10/14/2008)

2854 STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendant Patricia L. Caruso (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - September 2008 Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/15/2008)

2855 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendant Patricia L. Caruso re 2854 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/15/2008)

2856 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendant Patricia L. Caruso re 2854 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/15/2008)

2857 SEALED document per 2/15/06 order 1970 ; Excel spreadsheets

10/20/2008 10/23/2008 10/27/2008 10/27/2008 11/06/2008 11/06/2008 11/07/2008
11/07/2008
11/12/2008 11/12/2008

regarding the 10/16/08 monthly report. (mkc) (mkc). (Entered: 10/17/2008)

2858 STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendant Patricia L. Caruso (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - October 2008)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/20/2008)

2859

INFORMATION COPY from USCA re judgment 2624 , 2625 , 2644 , 2524 ; the district court's terminiation of injunctive relief is affirmed; mandate to issue (elc) Modified on 10/28/2008 to add text (elc). (Entered: 10/24/2008)

2860

MOTION for order Requiring Appropriate Maintenance of Records, Accurate Submissions of Reports to the Court, and Appropriate Cooperation with the OIMM by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/27/2008)

2861

BRIEF in support of MOTION for order Requiring Appropriate Maintenance of Records, Accurate Submissions of Reports to the Court, and Appropriate Cooperation with the OIMM 2860 filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/27/2008)

2862 MOTION to stay discovery regarding RRF's Dialysis Unit by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick; (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/06/2008)

2863 BRIEF in support of MOTION to stay discovery regarding RRF's Dialysis Unit 2862 filed by Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/06/2008)

2864

STIPULATED MOTION to withdraw as attorney by plaintiffs James Covington, Frank Thomas, James Haddix, James Alexander, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Perry Alan Davis #121739, Mark Lemothe, Cylester Nunnally, Everett Hadix, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Ted Sullivan, Mark A. Coleman, Richard Mapes, Patrick C. Sommerville, Danny Walker, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr, Brent E. Koster, Lee D. McDonald, Darryl Sturges, Robert Flemster, William Lovett; (Girard, Sandra) (Entered: 11/07/2008)

2865

STIPULATION to motion by Prison Legal Services of MI., Inc. to withdraw as co-counsel for plaintiffs by plaintiffs James Covington, Frank Thomas, James Haddix, James Alexander, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Perry Alan Davis #121739, Mark Lemothe, Cylester Nunnally, Everett Hadix, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Ted Sullivan, Mark A. Coleman, Richard Mapes, Patrick C. Sommerville, Danny Walker, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr, Brent E. Koster, Lee D. McDonald, Darryl Sturges, Robert Flemster, William Lovett (Girard, Sandra) Modified on 11/10/2008 to edit capitalization (elc). (Entered: 11/07/2008)

2866 RESPONSE in opposition to MOTION to stay discovery regarding RRF's Dialysis Unit 2862 filed by Everett Hadix (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 11/12/2008)

2867 CORRECTED RESPONSE in opposition to MOTION to stay discovery

11/14/2008 11/14/2008 11/17/2008
11/17/2008
11/17/2008 11/17/2008 11/18/2008 11/19/2008 11/20/2008 11/26/2008 12/15/2008 12/19/2008 12/19/2008 12/19/2008 12/23/2008

regarding RRF's Dialysis Unit 2862 filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Alexander correspondence, # 2 Attachment Govorchin correspondence)(Streeter, Patricia) Modified on 11/13/2008 to edit text (elc). (Entered: 11/12/2008)

2868 MANDATE of USCA re appeal 2687 ; the district court's terminiation of injunctive relief is affirmed (elc) (Entered: 11/17/2008)

APPEAL reinstated 2687 (elc) Modified on 11/18/2008 to edit text (elc). (Entered: 11/18/2008)

2869

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick for November 2008 (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - November 2008)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/17/2008)

2870

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick -Specialty Care Report (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/17/2008)

2871 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2870 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/17/2008)

2873 MANDATE of USCA re appeal 2687 ; the district court's terminiation of injunctive relief is affirmed (elc) (Entered: 11/19/2008)

2872 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2870 Excel Spreadsheet attachments (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/18/2008)

2874 SEALED Excel Spreadsheets regarding defendant's 11/17/08 monthly report (elc) (Entered: 11/20/2008)

2875 NOTICE Plaintiffs' Suggestion of Mootness by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/20/2008)

2876 NOTICE re 2860 by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/26/2008)

2877 STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A December 2008)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/15/2008)

2878 STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A Reduction Spread Sheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/19/2008)

2879 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2878 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/19/2008)

2880 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2878 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/19/2008)

2881 SEALED Excel Spreadsheets regarding defendant's 12/19/08 monthly

01/08/2009 01/16/2009 01/21/2009 01/21/2009 01/21/2009 01/22/2009 01/27/2009
02/12/2009 02/20/2009 02/20/2009 02/20/2009 02/24/2009 02/25/2009

report regarding specialty care (elc) (Entered: 12/24/2008)

2882 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 01/08/2009)

2883

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick for January 2009 (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - RGC Monthly Cell Block Report)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/16/2009)

2884 STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick for December 2008 (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/21/2009)

2885 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2884 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/21/2009)

2886 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2884 -Excel Spreadsheets (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/21/2009)

2887 SEALED Excel Spreadsheets regarding defendant's 1/21/09 monthly report (elc) (Entered: 01/22/2009)

2888

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE of Daniel Stewart Korobkin on behalf of plaintiffs James Covington, Frank Thomas, James Haddix, James Alexander, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Perry Alan Davis #121739, Mark Lemothe, Cylester Nunnally, Everett Hadix, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Ted Sullivan, Mark A. Coleman, Richard Mapes, Patrick C. Sommerville, Danny Walker, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr, Brent E. Koster, Lee D. McDonald, Darryl Sturges, Robert Flemster, William Lovett (Korobkin, Daniel) (Entered: 01/27/2009)

2889

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick for February 2009 (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Memo from John DeWitt)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/12/2009)

2890 STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick for January 2009 (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/20/2009)

2891 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2890 Excel Spreadsheets (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/20/2009)

2892 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2890 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/20/2009)

2893 SEALED Excel Spreadsheets containing data regarding the 2/20/09 monthly report (elc) (Entered: 02/24/2009)

2894 NOTICE re 2860 of Supplemental Authority by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 02/25/2009)

02/26/2009 03/06/2009
03/10/2009 03/13/2009
03/16/2009 03/16/2009 03/16/2009 03/19/2009 03/31/2009 03/31/2009
04/01/2009 04/01/2009 04/02/2009 04/06/2009

2895 LETTER from attorney Elizabeth Alexander for plaintiff Everett Hadix regarding Setting a Status Conference (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 02/26/2009)

2896

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by court monitor Robert L. Cohen, MD (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Reference Materials, # 2 Attachment Spreadsheets - Sealed, # 3 Attachment Patient Legend and Patient Records SEALED, # 4 Attachment Correspondence SEALED)(Cohen, Robert) (Entered: 03/06/2009)

2897 SEALED attachments to entry 2896 (elc) (Entered: 03/11/2009)

2898

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick Fire Safety/Cell Block (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Cell Block Report)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/13/2009)

2899

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick regarding Specialty Care (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Summary of facility reporting)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/16/2009)

2900 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2899 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/16/2009)

2901 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2899 Excel Spreadsheets (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/16/2009)

2902 SEALED Excel Spreadsheets containing data regarding the 3/16/09 monthly report by defendants (elc) (Entered: 03/19/2009)

2903 OPINION ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil) (Entered: 03/31/2009)

2904

ORDER granting 2666 motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; granting 2667 motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; dismissing 2680 motion for order to show cause; granting in part and denying in part 2684 motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; denying 2757 motion to expedite ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil) (Entered: 03/31/2009)

2905 NOTICE OF APPEAL re 2904 , 2903 by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 04/01/2009)

APPEAL FEE PAID re 2905 by plaintiff Everett Hadix in the amount of $455, receipt number 06460000000001433452 (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 04/01/2009)

2906

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by court monitor Robert L. Cohen, MD (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Att 1 Notice of Sealed Pt Legend and Records, # 2 Attachment Att 2 Research Documents)(Cohen, Robert) (Entered: 04/02/2009)

2907 SEALED attachment to entry 2906 (elc) (Entered: 04/06/2009)

04/13/2009
04/17/2009
04/17/2009 04/17/2009 04/20/2009 04/22/2009 04/23/2009 04/29/2009 04/29/2009 05/08/2009
05/08/2009
05/14/2009 05/22/2009 05/22/2009

2908

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick April 2009 (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - April 2009 Report)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/13/2009)

2909

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick for March 2009 (Attachments: # 1 Attachment March 2009)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/17/2009)

2910 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2909 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/17/2009)

2911 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2909 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/17/2009)

2912 SEALED Excel Spreadsheets containing data regarding the 4/17/09 monthly report by defendants (elc) (Entered: 04/20/2009)

2913 ORDER RETURNING DOCUMENT to Shannon J. Griffith; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(mrs) (Entered: 04/23/2009)

Copy of Order 2913 and the proposed document sent via U.S. Mail to Shannon J. Griffith #165268 (mrs) (Entered: 04/23/2009)

2914 ORDER RETURNING DOCUMENT (letter from Keith Daniels) ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document)(elc) (Entered: 04/29/2009)

Copy of Order Returning Document 2914 sent via U.S. Mail to Keith Daniels, #494592 with proposed document (elc) (Entered: 04/29/2009)

2915

MOTION for leave to add new party as written: Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Add New Named Plaintiffs by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified text based on phone call with attorney Alexander's office on 5/8/2009 (kw). (Entered: 05/08/2009)

2916

BRIEF in support of MOTION for leave as written: Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Add New Named Plaintiffs 2915 filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment, # 2 Attachment)(Alexander, Elizabeth) Modified text on 5/8/2009 (kw). (Entered: 05/08/2009)

2917 STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick for May 2009 (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - May 2009)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/14/2009)

2918 PROPOSED STIPULATION and ORDER for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/22/2009)

ORDER (non-document) granting STIPULATION 2918 ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil) (Entered: 05/22/2009)

05/26/2009 05/26/2009
05/27/2009 05/27/2009 06/02/2009 06/05/2009 06/05/2009 06/05/2009 06/09/2009 06/10/2009 06/16/2009 06/16/2009 06/16/2009

2919

RESPONSE in opposition to MOTION for leave to file as written: Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Add New Named Plaintiffs2915 filed by Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/26/2009)

2920

BRIEF IN SUPPORT of response in opposition to motion for leave to file as written: Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Add New Named Plaintiffs 2915 Brief in Support filed by John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - October 1985 order, # 2 Appendix B - May 1985 Order)(Govorchin, A.) Modified text on 5/27/2009 (elc). (Entered: 05/26/2009)

2921 ORDER RETURNING DOCUMENT (letter from Shannon J. Griffith) ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document)(elc) Modified text on 5/27/2009 (elc). (Entered: 05/27/2009)

Copy of Order Rejecting Pleading 2921 sent via U.S. Mail to Shannon J. Griffith with proposed document (elc) (Entered: 05/27/2009)

2922

RESPONSE in support of MOTION for leave to file as written: Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Add New Named Plaintiffs2915 Reply Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Add New Plaintiffs filed by Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/02/2009)

2923

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick - May 19, 2009 (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Spreadsheet attachment)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/05/2009)

2924 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2923 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/05/2009)

2925 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2923 excel spreadsheets (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/05/2009)

2926

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Memo from DeWitt)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/09/2009)

2927 SEALED Excel Spreadsheets containing data regarding the 5/19/09 monthly report by defendants (elc) (Entered: 06/10/2009)

2928

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - June 08 May 09, # 2 Attachment B - 4/24/09 Explanation Memo)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/16/2009)

2929 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick regarding monthly status report 2928 (Govorchin, A.) Modified text on 6/17/2009 (elc). (Entered: 06/16/2009)

2930 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2928 of Excel sheets (Govorchin, A.) (Entered:

06/19/2009 07/02/2009
07/15/2009 07/15/2009 07/15/2009 07/15/2009 07/15/2009 07/16/2009 07/16/2009 07/23/2009
08/17/2009 08/17/2009 08/17/2009

06/16/2009)

2931 SEALED Excel Spreadsheets containing data supporting defendants' June 16, 2009 monthly report (mrs) (Entered: 06/19/2009)

2932

ORDER re Registry Funds deposited by Defendants 6/30/1997 re 906 . Any party asserting a claim to the funds shall file a written statement with the Court within 30 days of the date of this order describing the basis for the claim; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 07/02/2009)

2933

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick - July 2009 (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - July 2009 Report)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/15/2009)

2934

STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick for July 15, 2009 (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Reduced Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/15/2009)

2935 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2934 July Monthly Status Report (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/15/2009)

2936 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2934 Excel Spreadsheet attachments (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/15/2009)

2937 STIPULATION to Allow Refund of Defendants Funds Deposited on 6/30/97 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/15/2009)

2938 ORDER approving STIPULATION 2937 ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 07/16/2009)

2939 SEALED Excel Spreadsheets containing data supporting defendants' July 15, 2009 monthly report (elc) (Entered: 07/16/2009)

2940

LETTER forwarding payment representing proceeds in the amount of $38,572.66 to State of Michigan- Corrections Division pursuant to Stipulation & Order to Allow the Refund to the Defendants of the Funds Deposited on June 30, 1997, plus Interest (Financial Administrator, mp) (Entered: 07/23/2009)

2941

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick for month of July 2009 (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/17/2009)

2942 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2941 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/17/2009)

2943 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2941 of Excel Spreadsheets (Govorchin, A.) (Entered:

08/18/2009 08/19/2009 08/26/2009 08/27/2009 09/04/2009 09/04/2009 09/04/2009 09/04/2009 09/08/2009
09/08/2009
09/10/2009

08/17/2009)

2944 SEALED Excel Spreadsheets containing data supporting defendants' 8/17/09 monthly report (elc) (Entered: 08/18/2009)

2945

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick - August 2009 (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/19/2009)

2946 ORDER RETURNING DOCUMENT (documents received from Tyrone Smith on 8/20/09) ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document)(elc) (Entered: 08/27/2009)

Copy of Order Rejecting Pleading 2946 sent via U.S. Mail to Tyrone Smith, #188273, with proposed documents (elc) (Entered: 08/27/2009)

ORDER (non-document) dismissing 2860 motion for order as moot in light of docket #2903; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil) Modified text on 9/8/2009 (mrs). (Entered: 09/04/2009)

ORDER (non-document) granting STIPULATION 2865 ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil) (Entered: 09/04/2009)

ORDER (non-document) denying without prejudice 2862 motion to stay, pending outcome of the current appeal; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil) Modified text on 9/8/2009 (mrs). (Entered: 09/04/2009)

ORDER (non-document) denying without prejudice 2915 motion for leave to file pending outcome of current appeal ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil) (Entered: 09/04/2009)

2947

MOTION for reconsideration regarding non-document order filed 9/4/09 by plaintiffs James Covington, Frank Thomas, James Haddix, James Alexander, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Perry Alan Davis #121739, Mark Lemothe, Cylester Nunnally, Everett Hadix, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Ted Sullivan, Mark A. Coleman, Richard Mapes, Patrick C. Sommerville, Danny Walker, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr, Brent E. Koster, Lee D. McDonald, Darryl Sturges, Robert Flemster, William Lovett; (Korobkin, Daniel) Modified text on 9/9/2009 (elc). (Entered: 09/08/2009)

2948

BRIEF in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration filed by James Covington, Frank Thomas, James Haddix, James Alexander, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Perry Alan Davis #121739, Mark Lemothe, Cylester Nunnally, Everett Hadix, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Ted Sullivan, Mark A. Coleman, Richard Mapes, Patrick C. Sommerville, Danny Walker, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr, Brent E. Koster, Lee D. McDonald, Darryl Sturges, Robert Flemster, William Lovett (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A - Notice of Electronic Filing, # 2 Exhibit Ex. B - Plaintiffs' Brief on Appeal, Table of Contents)(Korobkin, Daniel) (Entered: 09/08/2009)

2949 ORDER denying 2947 motion for reconsideration re [NDO dated 9/4/2009]; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker,

09/16/2009
09/16/2009 09/18/2009 09/18/2009 09/22/2009 09/22/2009 09/22/2009 09/25/2009 10/05/2009 10/05/2009 10/20/2009 10/20/2009 10/20/2009 10/21/2009

ymc) (Entered: 09/10/2009)
(NON-DOCUMENT) ORDER accepting the stipulation of the parties 2833 terminating injunctive relief as to fire safety only under the Hadix Consent Decree, Section III, and associated plans including those referenced in the 5/15/2006 opinion and order 2019 and 2020 . IT IS SO ORDERED; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 09/16/2009)
2950 ORDER granting 2864 motion of Prison Legal Services, Inc., by Sandra Girard, to withdraw as attorney; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 09/16/2009)
2951 NOTICE OF APPEAL re 2949 by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/18/2009)
APPEAL FEE PAID re 2951 by plaintiff Everett Hadix in the amount of $455, receipt number 06460000000001537943 (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/18/2009)
2952 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A---Monthly Report)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/22/2009)
2953 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2952 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/22/2009)
2954 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick for Sealed Documents (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/22/2009)
2955 SEALED Excel Spreadsheet attachments to defendants' 9/22/09 monthly report (elc) (Entered: 09/25/2009)
CASE NUMBER 09-1424 assigned by the Sixth Circuit to appeal 2905 (elc) (Entered: 10/05/2009)
CASE NUMBER 09-2255 assigned by the Sixth Circuit to appeal 2951 (elc) (Entered: 10/05/2009)
2956 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A -- Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/20/2009)
2957 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2956 Monthly Status Report (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/20/2009)
2958 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2956 for documents filed under seal (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/20/2009)
2959 SEALED Excel Spreadsheet attachments to defendants' 10/20/09 monthly report (elc) Modified text on 10/23/2009 (elc). (Entered: 10/23/2009)

11/16/2009 11/16/2009 11/16/2009 11/17/2009 12/17/2009
12/17/2009 12/17/2009 12/18/2009 12/29/2009 01/19/2010
01/19/2010 01/19/2010 01/20/2010 02/19/2010
02/19/2010

2960 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/16/2009)

2961 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2960 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/16/2009)

2962 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re 2960 for documents filed under seal with the Court (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/16/2009)

2963 SEALED Excel spreadsheet detail to defendants' 11/16/09 monthly report (elc) (Entered: 11/17/2009)

2964

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Attachment A HADIX Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/17/2009)

2965 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re Status Report 2964 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/17/2009)

2966 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re Status Report 2964 Sealed Documents (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/17/2009)

2967 SEALED Excel Spreadsheet attachments to defendants' 12/17/09 monthly report (elc) (Entered: 12/18/2009)

2968 CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Elizabeth Alexander counsel for plaintiff Everett Hadix (Alexander, Elizabeth) (Entered: 12/29/2009)

2969

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A---Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/19/2010)

2970 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re Status Report 2969 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/19/2010)

2971 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re Status Report 2969 for documents filed under seal with the court (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/19/2010)

2972 SEALED Excel Spreadsheet attachments to defendants' 1/19/10 monthly report (elc) (Entered: 01/21/2010)

2973

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A--Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/19/2010)

2974 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja,

02/19/2010 02/23/2010 03/19/2010
03/19/2010 03/19/2010 03/22/2010 03/22/2010
03/23/2010 04/20/2010
04/20/2010 04/20/2010 04/21/2010 05/10/2010 05/10/2010

Nick Ludwick re Status Report 2973 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/19/2010)

2975 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re Status Report 2973 for Sealed Documents (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/19/2010)

2976 SEALED Excel Spreadsheet attachments to defendants' 2/19/10 monthly report(elc) (Entered: 02/23/2010)

2977

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A--Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/19/2010)

2978 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re Status Report 2977 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/19/2010)

2979 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re Status Report 2977 for documents filed under seal (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/19/2010)

2980 SEALED Excel Spreadsheet attachments to defendants' 3/19/10 monthly report. (mkc) (Entered: 03/22/2010)

2981

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick for Amended Excel Spreadsheet attachments to defendants' 3/19/10 monthly report 2982 (Govorchin, A.) Modified text on 3/23/2010 (elc). (Entered: 03/22/2010)

2982 SEALED Amended Excel Spreadsheet attachments to defendants' 3/19/10 monthly report (elc) (Entered: 03/23/2010)

2983

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A--Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/20/2010)

2984 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re Status Report 2983 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/20/2010)

2985 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick for documents filed under seal (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/20/2010)

2986 SEALED Excel spreadsheet attachments 4/20/10 monthly report (mkc) (Entered: 04/21/2010)

2987 ORDER REJECTING PLEADING (letter); signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(mrs) (Entered: 05/10/2010)

Copy of Order Rejecting Pleading 2987 sent via U.S. Mail to Thomas Thorpe #247978 (mrs) (Entered: 05/10/2010)

05/18/2010
05/18/2010 05/18/2010 05/19/2010 06/21/2010
06/21/2010 06/21/2010 06/23/2010 07/21/2010
07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/22/2010 08/10/2010
08/10/2010

2988

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A--Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/18/2010)

2989 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re Status Report 2988 for Defendants' Monthly Status Report (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/18/2010)

2990 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, John Ocwieja, Nick Ludwick re Status Report 2988 for Sealed Documents (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/18/2010)

2991 SEALED Excel Spreadsheets supporting defendants' 5/18/10 monthly report (elc) (Entered: 05/19/2010)

2992

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A---Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/21/2010)

2993 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 2992 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/21/2010)

2994 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 2992 for documents filed under seal with the Court (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/21/2010)

2995 SEALED Excel Spreadsheets supporting defendants' 6/21/10 monthly report (elc) (Entered: 06/23/2010)

2996

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A---Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/21/2010)

2997 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 2996 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/21/2010)

2998 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 2996 for reports filed under seal with the Court (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/21/2010)

2999 SEALED Excel Spreadsheets supporting defendants' 7/19/10 monthly report (elc) (Entered: 07/22/2010)

3000

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A---Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/10/2010)

3001 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3000 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered:

08/10/2010 08/11/2010 09/17/2010 09/17/2010
09/24/2010
09/24/2010 09/24/2010 09/27/2010 10/19/2010
10/19/2010 10/19/2010 10/20/2010 11/22/2010

08/10/2010)

3002 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja for Documents filed under seal with the Court (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/10/2010)

3003 SEALED Excel Spreadsheets supporting defendants' 8/10/10 monthly report (elc) (Entered: 08/11/2010)

3004 ORDER RETURNING PLEADING (letter and multiple enclosures) ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1, # 2 Attachment 2)(elc) (Entered: 09/17/2010)

Copy of Order Rejecting Pleading 3004 with proposed documents and partial docket sheet containing the names of the parties and attorneys sent via U.S. Mail to Paul D. Coleman (elc) Modified text on 9/17/2010 (elc). (Entered: 09/17/2010)

3005

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A---Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

3006 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3005 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

3007 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3005 for documents filed under seal with the Court (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

3008 SEALED Excel Spreadsheets supporting defendants' 9/24/10 monthly report (mkc) Modified text on 9/27/2010 (mkc). (Entered: 09/27/2010)

3009

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A---Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/19/2010)

3010 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3009 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/19/2010)

3011 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3009 for documents filed under seal with the Court (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/19/2010)

3012 SEALED Excel Spreadsheets supporting defendants' 10/19/10 monthly report (elc) (Entered: 10/21/2010)

3013

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A---Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/22/2010)

11/22/2010 11/22/2010 11/23/2010 12/16/2010 12/16/2010 12/20/2010 01/19/2011 01/19/2011 01/19/2011 02/17/2011 02/17/2011 02/17/2011 02/17/2011

3014 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3013 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/22/2010)

3015

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Proof of Service 3014 , Status Report 3013 for the documents filed under seal with the Court (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/22/2010)

3016 SEALED excel spreadsheets supporting defendants' 11/22/10 monthly report 3013 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/06 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(mbb) (Entered: 11/23/2010)

3017

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A--Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/16/2010)

3018 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3017 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/16/2010)

3019 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3017 for documents filed under seal (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/20/2010)

3020

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A---Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/19/2011)

3021 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3020 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/19/2011)

3022 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3020 for documents filed under seal (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/19/2011)

3023

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A---Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/17/2011)

3024 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3023 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/17/2011)

3025 SEALED DOCUMENT by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3023 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 2/15/06 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/17/2011)

3026 SEALED DOCUMENT by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3023 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 2/15/06 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/17/2011)

02/17/2011 03/22/2011 03/22/2011 03/22/2011 03/22/2011 03/22/2011 03/22/2011 03/30/2011 03/30/2011 03/30/2011 04/11/2011 04/11/2011
04/11/2011

3027 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3026 , Sealed Document 3025 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/17/2011)

3028

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A---Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/22/2011)

3029 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3028 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/22/2011)

3030 SEALED DOCUMENT RGC - February 2011 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3028 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 2/15/06 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/22/2011)

3031 SEALED DOCUMENT DWH - February 2011 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3028 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 2/15/06 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/22/2011)

3032 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3031 , Sealed Document 3030 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/22/2011)

3033 ORDER of USCA re appeal 2905 ; the judgment of the district court is affirmed ; mandate to issue (elc) (Entered: 03/23/2011)

3034 MOTION for order Plaintiffs' Motion to Add New Named Plaintiffs by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 03/30/2011)

3035

BRIEF in support of MOTION for order Plaintiffs' Motion to Add New Named Plaintiffs 3034 filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment List of Attachments, # 2 Attachment 1, # 3 Attachment 2, # 4 Attachment 3)(Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 03/30/2011)

3036 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff Everett Hadix re Brief in Support of a Motion, 3035 , MOTION for order Plaintiffs' Motion to Add New Named Plaintiffs 3034 (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 03/30/2011)

3037 SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION to supplement Plaintiff's Motion to Add New Named Plaintiffs by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 04/11/2011)

3038

BRIEF in support of SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION to supplement Plaintiff's Motion to Add New Named Plaintiffs 3037 filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Index List of Attachments, # 2 Attachment 1, # 3 Attachment 2, # 4 Attachment 3)(Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 04/11/2011)

3039

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by plaintiff Everett Hadix re Brief in Support of a Motion, 3038 , SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION to supplement Plaintiff's Motion to Add New Named Plaintiffs 3037 (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 04/11/2011)

04/13/2011 04/14/2011 04/19/2011 04/26/2011 04/26/2011 04/26/2011 04/26/2011 04/26/2011 05/13/2011 05/13/2011 05/13/2011 05/13/2011 05/13/2011

3040 MANDATE of USCA re appeal 2905 ; the judgment of the district court is affirmed (elc) (Entered: 04/13/2011)

3041

NOTICE of status conference set for 5/27/2011 at 02:00 PM (the personal appearance of counsel for the parties is required) at 699 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Judge Robert J. Jonker; (Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil) (Entered: 04/14/2011)

(NON-DOCUMENT) NOTICE from chambers: The response deadline for Plaintiff's Motion to Add New Named Plaintiffs is May 15, 2011;(Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil) (Entered: 04/19/2011)

3042

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A---Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/26/2011)

3043 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3042 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/26/2011)

3044 SEALED DOCUMENT by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3042 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970 2/15/06 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/26/2011)

3045 SEALED DOCUMENT by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3042 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. #1970 2/15/06 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/26/2011)

3046 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3044 , Sealed Document 3045 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/26/2011)

3047

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A -- Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/13/2011)

3048 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3047 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/13/2011)

3049

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC April 2011 Report by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3047 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. #1970 2/15/06 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/13/2011)

3050

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH April 2011 Report by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3047 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt #1970 2/15/06 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/13/2011)

3051 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3049 , Sealed Document 3050 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/13/2011)

05/16/2011
05/23/2011 05/23/2011 05/27/2011
06/16/2011 06/16/2011 06/16/2011 06/16/2011 06/16/2011 07/29/2011 07/29/2011 07/29/2011

3052

RESPONSE in opposition to MOTION for order Plaintiffs' Motion to Add New Named Plaintiffs 3034 , SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION to supplement Plaintiff's Motion to Add New Named Plaintiffs 3037 with Certificate of Service filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A---Consent Decree, # 2 Attachment B---Order Regarding Jurisdiction Over the Egeler Facility)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/16/2011)

3053 REPLY to response to motion 3034 to Add New Named Plaintiffs filed by Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1)(Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 05/23/2011)

3054 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by plaintiff Everett Hadix re Reply to Response to Motion 3053 (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 05/23/2011)

3055

MINUTES of motion hearing re 3034 MOTION for order Plaintiffs' Motion to Add New Named Plaintiffs filed by Everett Hadix, 3037 SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION to supplement Plaintiff's Motion to Add New Named Plaintiffs filed by Everett Hadix, status conference held before Judge Robert J. Jonker (Court Reporter: Glenda Trexler) (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 06/01/2011)

3056

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A---Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/16/2011)

3057 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3056 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/16/2011)

3058

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH May 2011 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3056 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/06 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/16/2011)

3059

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC May 2011 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3056 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/06 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/16/2011)

3060 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3059 , Sealed Document 3058 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/16/2011)

3061

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A---Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/29/2011)

3062 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3061 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/29/2011)

3063 SEALED DOCUMENT DWH June 2011 by defendants Patricia L.

07/29/2011 07/29/2011 08/26/2011 08/26/2011 08/26/2011 08/26/2011 08/26/2011 09/22/2011 09/22/2011 09/22/2011 09/22/2011 09/22/2011

Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3061 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt 1970 dated 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/29/2011)

3064

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC June 2011 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3061 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970 dated 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/29/2011)

3065 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3064 , Sealed Document 3063 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/29/2011)

3066

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A---Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/26/2011)

3067 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3066 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/26/2011)

3068

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC - July 2011 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3066 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 2/15/2006, Dkt #1970 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/26/2011)

3069

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH - July 2011 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3066 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 2/16/2006, Dkt. 1970 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/26/2011)

3070 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3068 , Sealed Document 3069 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/26/2011)

3071

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A---Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/22/2011)

3072 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3071 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/22/2011)

3073 SEALED DWH August 2011 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3071 ; filed under seal pursuant to order #1970 dated 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/22/2011)

3074

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC August 2011 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3071 ; filed under seal pursuant to order #1970 dated 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/22/2011)

3075 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick,

10/24/2011 10/24/2011 10/24/2011 10/24/2011 10/24/2011 11/18/2011 11/18/2011 11/18/2011 11/18/2011 11/18/2011 12/29/2011 12/29/2011

John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3074 , Sealed Document 3073 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/22/2011)

3076

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/24/2011)

3077 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3076 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/24/2011)

3078

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC September 2011 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3076 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/24/2011)

3079

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH September 2011 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3076 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/24/2011)

3080 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3078 , Sealed Document 3079 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/24/2011)

3081

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A---Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/18/2011)

3082 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3081 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/18/2011)

3083

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH October 2011 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3081 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, Dated 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/18/2011)

3084

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC October 2011 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3081 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, Dated 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/18/2011)

3085 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3083 , Sealed Document 3084 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/18/2011)

3086

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment A -- Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/29/2011)

3087 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick,

12/29/2011 12/29/2011 12/29/2011 01/17/2012 01/24/2012 01/24/2012 01/24/2012 01/24/2012 01/24/2012 02/21/2012 02/21/2012 02/21/2012

John Ocwieja re Status Report 3086 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/29/2011)

3088

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH November 2011 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3086 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, Dated 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/29/2011)

3089

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC November 2011 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3086 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, Dated 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/29/2011)

3090 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3089 , Sealed Document 3088 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/29/2011)

3091

OPINION AND ORDER granting 3034 motion to Add New Named Plaintiffs; granting 3037 Supplemental Motion to Add New Named Plaintiffs ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 01/17/2012)

3092

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A---Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/24/2012)

3093 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3092 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/24/2012)

3094

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC - December 2011 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3092 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/24/2012)

3095

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH December 2011 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3092 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/24/2012)

3096 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3095 , Sealed Document 3094 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/24/2012)

3097

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/21/2012)

3098 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3097 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/21/2012)

3099 SEALED DOCUMENT DWH January 2012 by defendants Patricia L.

02/21/2012 02/21/2012 02/29/2012
03/01/2012 03/09/2012 03/16/2012 03/16/2012 03/16/2012 03/16/2012 03/20/2012

Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3097 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/21/2012)

3100

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC January 2012 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3097 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/21/2012)

3101 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3099 , Sealed Document 3100 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/21/2012)

3102

TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference and Plaintiffs' Motion to Add New Named Plaintiffs held 05/27/2011 before Judge Robert J. Jonker; NOTE: this transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the release of transcript restriction date; after that date it may be obtained through PACER; under the Policy Regarding Transcripts the parties have 14 days within which to file a Notice of Intent to redact, and 21 days within which to file a Redaction Request; if no Transcript Redaction Request is filed, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and this transcript will be made available via PACER after the release of transcript restriction set for 5/29/2012 ; redaction request due 3/21/2012 (Court Reporter: Trexler, Glenda (517)819-0396) (Entered: 02/29/2012)

Copy of portion of docket sheet containing information regarding transcript (3102) sent via U.S. Mail to Andre K. Davis #198028 and James R. Perna #122062 (mkc) (Entered: 03/01/2012)

3103

RETURNED MAIL: Copy of portion of docket sheet containing information regarding transcript (3102) that was sent via U.S. Mail to James R. Perna #122062 returned to the Court marked not deliverable as addressed/unable to forward; per MDOC, defendant discharged; no further action taken (kvt) (Entered: 03/12/2012)

3104

JOINT STATUS REPORT (Attachments: # 1 Index List of Attachments, # 2Attachment 1, # 3 Attachment 2, # 4 Attachment 3, # 5 Attachment 4)(Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 3/19/2012 (mkc). (Entered: 03/16/2012)

3105

EXHIBITS re 3104 by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 5, # 2Attachment 6, # 3 Attachment 7, # 4 Attachment 7continued, # 5 Attachment 8)(Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 3/19/2012 (mkc). (Entered: 03/16/2012)

3106 EXHIBITS re 3104 by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 9, # 2Attachment 10)(Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 3/19/2012 (mkc). (Entered: 03/16/2012)

3107 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff Everett Hadix re Joint Status Report (Rule 16) 3104 , Exhibit, 3105 , Exhibit 3106 (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 03/16/2012)

3108 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants

03/20/2012 03/20/2012 03/20/2012 03/20/2012 04/24/2012 04/24/2012 04/24/2012 04/24/2012 04/24/2012 05/21/2012 05/21/2012 05/21/2012

Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A---Reduction Spreadsheeet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/20/2012)

3109 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3108 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/20/2012)

3110

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC - February 2012 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3108 ; filed under seal pursuant to order #1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/20/2012)

3111

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH - February 2012 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3108 ; filed under seal pursuant to order #1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/20/2012)

3112 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3110 , Sealed Document 3111 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/20/2012)

3113

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A---Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/24/2012)

3114 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3113 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/24/2012)

3115 SEALED DOCUMENT by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3113 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970 Dated 2/16/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/24/2012)

3116 SEALED DOCUMENT by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3113 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. #1970, dated 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/24/2012)

3117 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3115 , Sealed Document 3116 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/24/2012)

3118

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A-Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) Modified text on 5/23/2012 (mkc). (Entered: 05/21/2012)

3119 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3118 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

3120 SEALED DOCUMENT DWH April 2012 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3118 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered:

05/21/2012 05/21/2012 06/19/2012 06/19/2012 06/19/2012 06/19/2012 06/19/2012 06/22/2012 06/22/2012
06/22/2012
06/25/2012

05/21/2012)

3121

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC April 2012 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3118 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

3122 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3121 , Sealed Document 3120 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

3123

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A---Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/19/2012)

3124 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3123 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/19/2012)

3125

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH May 2012 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3123 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/19/2012)

3126

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC May 2012 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3123 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/19/2012)

3127 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3126 , Sealed Document 3125 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/19/2012)

3128

JOINT MOTION for hearing for Approval of Parties' Stipulation to Terminate Prospective Relief Regarding Heat Abatement and for Setting Scheduling Conference by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja; (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/22/2012)

3129

MEMORANDUM in support of Motion for Hearing 3128 for Approval of Parties' Stipulation to Terminate Prospective Relief Regarding Heat Abatement and for Setting Scheduling Conference filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/22/2012)

3130

PROPOSED STIPULATION and ORDER to Terminate Prospective Relief Regarding Heat Abatement by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1--RGC Operating Procedure 03-04-100-A, # 2 Attachment 2--5/10/12 Memo from Heidi Washington)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/22/2012)

3131

(CORRECTED) MEMORANDUM in support of Motion for Hearing 3128 (W/CORRECTED ATTACHMENT 1-B) filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1--RGC Operating Procedure 03-04-100-A, # 2 Attachment 2---May 10,

07/17/2012 07/18/2012
07/25/2012
07/26/2012 07/27/2012 07/27/2012 07/27/2012 07/27/2012 07/27/2012 07/30/2012 07/31/2012 08/02/2012

2012 Memo from Heidi Washington)(Govorchin, A.) Modified text on 6/26/2012 (kvt). (Entered: 06/25/2012)

3132 NOTICE of status conference set for 8/27/2012 at 03:30 PM at 699 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Judge Robert J. Jonker; (Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil) (Entered: 07/17/2012)

Copy of Notice of Hearing 3132 sent via U.S. Mail to plaintiffs Thompson, Davis, Jordan, McKinley, Reilly, Smith, Marr, Blue, Cannon, Drake, Roberts, Mears, Fee, Kovaleski, Alspaugh, Masters, Hoffman, Falkiewicz, Perna and Special Master Hartmus (gjf) (Entered: 07/18/2012)

3133

RETURNED MAIL: Copy of Notice of Hearing 3132 that was sent via U.S. Mail to Scott A. Falkiewicz #244693, Mark H. Roberts #19730, Avis A. Fee #265115, Wellington L. Drake #229939, Ronald Kovaleski #213896, Richard Thompson #568688 returned to the Court marked "paroled"; no action taken, parties terminated on case (mkc) (Entered: 07/26/2012)

3134 RETURNED MAIL: Copy of Notice of Hearing 3132 that was sent via U.S. Mail to James R. Perna #122062 returned to the Court marked paroled/discharged ;no action taken (mkc) (Entered: 07/27/2012)

3135

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Attachment A -- Reduction spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/27/2012)

3136 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3135 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/27/2012)

3137 SEALED DOCUMENT by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3135 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/27/2012)

3138 SEALED DOCUMENT by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3135 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/27/2012)

3139 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3138 , Sealed Document 3137 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/27/2012)

3140 RETURNED MAIL: Copy of Notice of Hearing 3132 that was sent via U.S. Mail to Melvin Smith returned to the Court marked "paroled" ;no action taken (gjf) (Entered: 07/30/2012)

3141

RETURNED MAIL: Copy of Notice of Hearing 3132 that was sent via U.S. Mail to William T. Mears #180220 returned to the Court marked "not deliverable as addressed, unable to forward" ;no action taken; party has been terminated on 2/3/2000 (mkc) (Entered: 08/01/2012)

3142 RETURNED MAIL: Copy of Notice of Hearing 3132 that was sent via

08/03/2012 08/24/2012 08/24/2012 08/24/2012 08/24/2012 08/24/2012 08/27/2012 08/28/2012 08/30/2012 09/06/2012 09/06/2012
09/07/2012

U.S. Mail to Claude T. Hoffman #246624 returned to the Court marked marked "paroled/discharged" ;no action taken; party was terminated on 12/15/2006 (ald) (Entered: 08/02/2012)

3143

RETURNED MAIL: Copy of Notice of Hearing 3132 that was sent via U.S. Mail to Diane Hartmus returned to the Court marked "attempted not known, unable to forward"; no action taken (gjf) (Entered: 08/03/2012)

3144

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A---Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/24/2012)

3145 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3144 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/24/2012)

3146

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH July 2012 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3144 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. #1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/24/2012)

3147

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC July 2012 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3144 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/24/2012)

3148 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3147 , Sealed Document 3146 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/24/2012)

3150 MINUTES of status conference held before Judge Robert J. Jonker (Court Reporter: Glenda Trexler) (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 09/05/2012)

3149 ORDER granting STIPULATION 3130 granting stipulation to terminate prospective relief regarding heat abatement; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 08/28/2012)

Copy of Order on Stipulation and Proposed Order 3149 sent via U.S. Mail to Andre K. Davis #198028 (mla) (Entered: 08/30/2012)

3151 ORDER re scheduling following 8/27/2012 status converence ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 09/06/2012)

3152

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: final pretrial conference set for 5/13/2013 at 2:00 PM at 699 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Judge Robert J. Jonker; bench trial set for 6/4/2013 at 8:30 AM at 699 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Judge Robert J. Jonker; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 09/06/2012)

Copy of Order 3151 and Case Management Order 3152 sent via U.S. Mail

09/17/2012
09/20/2012 09/28/2012 09/28/2012 09/28/2012 09/28/2012 09/28/2012 10/22/2012 10/22/2012 10/22/2012 10/22/2012

to Andre Davis and James Perna (gjf) (Entered: 09/07/2012)

3153

RETURNED MAIL: Copy of Order 3151 , Case Management Order, 3152 that was sent via U.S. Mail to James R. Perna returned to the Court marked "not deliverable as addressed, unable to forward" ; MDOC website shows status as "Discharged", no action taken (mkc) (Entered: 09/18/2012)

3154

RETURNED MAIL: Copy of Notice of Hearing 3132 that was sent via U.S. Mail to Larry D. Blue returned to the Court marked "not deliverable as addressed; unable to forward" ; no action taken (mkc) (Entered: 09/21/2012)

3155

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A---Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/28/2012)

3156 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3155 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/28/2012)

3157

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH - September 2012 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3155 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/28/2012)

3158

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC September 2012 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3155 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/28/2012)

3159 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3157 , Sealed Document 3158 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/28/2012)

3160

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A---Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/22/2012)

3161 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3160 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/22/2012)

3162

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH September 2012 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3160 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/16/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/22/2012)

3163

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC September 2012 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3160 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/22/2012)

10/22/2012 11/09/2012 11/16/2012 11/19/2012 11/19/2012 11/19/2012 11/19/2012 11/19/2012 11/29/2012 11/30/2012 11/30/2012 12/03/2012 12/14/2012

3164 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3163 , Sealed Document 3162 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/22/2012)

(NON-DOCUMENT) ATTORNEY APPEARANCE of James T. Farrell on behalf of defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Appearance as Co-Counsel) (Farrell, James) (Entered: 11/09/2012)

3165

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja for First Request for Admissions, First Interrogatories and First Requests for Production of Documents (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/16/2012)

3166

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A---Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/19/2012)

3167 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3166 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/19/2012)

3168

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH, October 2012 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3166 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/19/2012)

3169

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC October 2012 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3166 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/19/2012)

3170 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3168 , Sealed Document 3169 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/19/2012)

3171 PROPOSED STIPULATION and ORDER by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/29/2012)

3172 MOTION for relief from Termination of Prospective Relief by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja; (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/30/2012)

3173 BRIEF in support of MOTION for relief from Termination of Prospective Relief 3172 with Certificate of Service filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/30/2012)

3174 ORDER granting STIPULATED 3171 protective order ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 12/03/2012)

3175 PROPOSED STIPULATION and ORDER Regarding Discovery Response Deadline and Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Motion for Termination of Prospective Relief by plaintiffs James Alexander, Deandre

12/18/2012 12/20/2012 12/20/2012 12/20/2012 12/20/2012 12/20/2012 12/28/2012 01/14/2013
01/16/2013

Benson, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Mark A. Coleman, James Covington, Perry Alan Davis #121739, Arnold Elijah, Robert Flemster, Mark Edward Gilman, Richard Girard, James Haddix, Everett Hadix, Steven Hines, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr, Brent E. Koster, Mark Lemothe, Mark Litwalk, William Lovett, Richard Mapes, Lee D. McDonald, Cylester Nunnally, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Patrick C. Sommerville, Darryl Sturges, Ted Sullivan, Frank Thomas, Danny Walker (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 12/14/2012)

3176 ORDER granting STIPULATION 3175 ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 12/18/2012)

3177

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A--Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/20/2012)

3178 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3177 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/20/2012)

3179

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH November 2012 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3177 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/20/2012)

3180

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC November 2012 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3177 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/20/2012)

3181 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/20/2012)

3182

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja for Response to September 2012 Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents Regarding Health Care and Response to Second Request for Documents Regarding Health Care (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/28/2012)

3183

PROPOSED STIPULATION and ORDER Regarding Due Date for Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Motion for Termination of Prospective Relief by plaintiffs James Alexander, Deandre Benson, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Mark A. Coleman, James Covington, Perry Alan Davis #121739, Arnold Elijah, Robert Flemster, Mark Edward Gilman, Richard Girard, James Haddix, Everett Hadix, Steven Hines, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr, Brent E. Koster, Mark Lemothe, Mark Litwalk, William Lovett, Richard Mapes, Lee D. McDonald, Cylester Nunnally, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Patrick C. Sommerville, Darryl Sturges, Ted Sullivan, Frank Thomas, Danny Walker (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 01/14/2013)

3184 ORDER granting STIPULATION 3183 re due date for Plaintiffs' Response ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 01/16/2013)

01/22/2013 01/22/2013 01/24/2013 01/24/2013 01/24/2013 01/24/2013 01/24/2013 02/19/2013 02/19/2013 02/19/2013 02/19/2013 02/19/2013 03/08/2013

3185

RESPONSE in opposition to MOTION for relief from Termination of Prospective Relief 3172 Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Motion to Terminate Prospective Relief filed by Everett Hadix (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 01/22/2013)

3186 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by plaintiff Everett Hadix re Response in Opposition 3185 (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 01/22/2013)

3187

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A -- Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) Modified text on 1/25/2013 (jem). (Entered: 01/24/2013)

3188 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3187 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/24/2013)

3189

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH December 2012 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3187 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/24/2013)

3190

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC Dec. 2012 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3187 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/24/2013)

3191 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3190 , Sealed Document 3189 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/24/2013)

3192

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Attachment A - Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/19/2013)

3193 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3192 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/19/2013)

3194

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH January 2013 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3192 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/19/2013)

3195

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC January 2013 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3192 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/19/2013)

3196 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3195 , Sealed Document 3194 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/19/2013)

3197 ORDER REJECTING PLEADING by Gary Hunter #135890; signed by

03/20/2013 03/20/2013 03/20/2013 03/20/2013 03/20/2013 03/22/2013
03/25/2013 03/29/2013 04/01/2013

Magistrate Judge Hugh W. Brenneman, Jr (Attachments: # 1 original documents)(ns) Modified text on 3/13/2013 (kvt). (Entered: 03/08/2013)

3198

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/20/2013)

3199 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3198 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/20/2013)

3200

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH Feb 2013 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3198 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/20/2013)

3201

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC Feb 2013 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3198 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/20/2013)

3202 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3200 , Sealed Document 3201 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/20/2013)

3203

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING re Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' First Request for Admissions, First Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents & Plaintiffs' Supplemental Response to Defendants' First Interrogatories by plaintiffs James Alexander, Deandre Benson, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Mark A. Coleman, James Covington, Perry Alan Davis #121739, Arnold Elijah, Robert Flemster, Mark Edward Gilman, Richard Girard, James Haddix, Everett Hadix, Steven Hines, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr, Brent E. Koster, Mark Lemothe, Mark Litwalk, William Lovett, Richard Mapes, Lee D. McDonald, Cylester Nunnally, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Patrick C. Sommerville, Darryl Sturges, Ted Sullivan, Frank Thomas, Danny Walker (Streeter, Patricia) Modified on 3/25/2013 (jem). (Entered: 03/22/2013)

3204 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja of Defedants' Interrogatories re Allegations of Plaintiff Mark Boussum (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/25/2013)

3205

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja of the MDOC's Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents and Things to Plaintiffs (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/29/2013)

3206

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING re Plaintiffs' Third Interrogatories and Request for Documents Regarding Health Care by plaintiffs James Alexander, Deandre Benson, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Mark A. Coleman, James Covington, Perry Alan Davis #121739, Arnold Elijah, Robert Flemster, Mark Edward Gilman, Richard Girard, James Haddix, Everett Hadix, Steven Hines, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr, Brent E. Koster, Mark Lemothe, Mark Litwalk, William Lovett, Richard Mapes, Lee D.

04/15/2013 04/15/2013 04/16/2013
04/19/2013 04/19/2013 04/19/2013 04/19/2013 04/19/2013 04/26/2013 04/29/2013

McDonald, Cylester Nunnally, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Patrick C. Sommerville, Darryl Sturges, Ted Sullivan, Frank Thomas, Danny Walker (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 4/2/2013 (jem). (Entered: 04/01/2013)

3207 WITNESS LIST by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/15/2013)

3208 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Witness List 3207 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/15/2013)

3209

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING by plaintiffs James Alexander, Deandre Benson, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Mark A. Coleman, James Covington, Perry Alan Davis #121739, Arnold Elijah, Robert Flemster, Mark Edward Gilman, Richard Girard, James Haddix, Everett Hadix, Steven Hines, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr, Brent E. Koster, Mark Lemothe, Mark Litwalk, William Lovett, Richard Mapes, Lee D. McDonald, Cylester Nunnally, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Patrick C. Sommerville, Darryl Sturges, Ted Sullivan, Frank Thomas, Danny Walker Witness List and Expert Report (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 04/16/2013)

3210 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/19/2013)

3211 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3210 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/19/2013)

3212

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH March 2013 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3210 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/19/2013)

3213

MONTHLY SEALED DOCUMENT RGC March 2013 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3210 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/19/2013)

3214 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3212 , Sealed Document 3213 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/19/2013)

3215 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja of Notice of Taking Deposition of Karen Saylor, M.D. (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/26/2013)

3216

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING re Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Interrogatories re Allegations of Plaintiff Mark Boussum #160825, Plaintiffs' Response to MDOC Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents and Things, and Notice of Deposition for Chad Zawitz, M.D. by plaintiffs James Alexander, Deandre Benson, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Mark A. Coleman, James Covington, Perry Alan Davis #121739, Arnold Elijah, Robert Flemster, Mark Edward

04/30/2013 05/03/2013 05/03/2013 05/06/2013 05/07/2013 05/09/2013 05/09/2013 05/10/2013
05/10/2013

Gilman, Richard Girard, James Haddix, Everett Hadix, Steven Hines, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr, Brent E. Koster, Mark Lemothe, Mark Litwalk, William Lovett, Richard Mapes, Lee D. McDonald, Cylester Nunnally, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Patrick C. Sommerville, Darryl Sturges, Ted Sullivan, Frank Thomas, Danny Walker (Streeter, Patricia) Modified on 4/30/2013 (jem). (Entered: 04/29/2013)

3217

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja of Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Third Interrogatories and Request for Documents Regarding Healthcare (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/30/2013)

3218

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re Redacted Report of Plaintiffs' Medical Expert, Karen Saylor, M.D. 3219 by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 5/3/2013 pursuant to Help Desk call (bd). (Entered: 05/03/2013)

3219 NOTICE Redacted Report of Dr. Karen Saylor by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 05/03/2013)

3220 UNOPPOSED MOTION for extension of time to To Submit Pretrial Materials, with Stipulation by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 05/06/2013)

3221 ORDER granting 3220 motion for extension of time ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 05/07/2013)

3222 WITNESS LIST by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/09/2013)

3223 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Witness List 3222 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/09/2013)

3224

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re Plaintiffs' Proposed Trial Exhibits by plaintiffs James Alexander, Deandre Benson, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Mark A. Coleman, James Covington, Perry Alan Davis #121739, Arnold Elijah, Robert Flemster, Mark Edward Gilman, Richard Girard, James Haddix, Everett Hadix, Steven Hines, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr, Brent E. Koster, Mark Lemothe, Mark Litwalk, William Lovett, Richard Mapes, Lee D. McDonald, Cylester Nunnally, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Patrick C. Sommerville, Darryl Sturges, Ted Sullivan, Frank Thomas, Danny Walker (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 5/13/2013 (jem). (Entered: 05/10/2013)

3225

TRIAL BRIEF Plaintiffs' Trial Brief by plaintiffs James Alexander, Deandre Benson, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Mark A. Coleman, James Covington, Perry Alan Davis #121739, Arnold Elijah, Robert Flemster, Mark Edward Gilman, Richard Girard, James Haddix, Everett Hadix, Steven Hines, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr, Brent E. Koster, Mark Lemothe, Mark Litwalk, William Lovett, Richard Mapes, Lee D. McDonald, Cylester Nunnally, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Patrick C. Sommerville, Darryl Sturges, Ted Sullivan, Frank Thomas, Danny Walker (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 05/10/2013)

05/10/2013
05/10/2013
05/10/2013 05/10/2013 05/10/2013 05/10/2013 05/10/2013 05/10/2013 05/10/2013 05/13/2013 05/13/2013

3226

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT by plaintiffs James Alexander, Deandre Benson, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Mark A. Coleman, James Covington, Perry Alan Davis #121739, Arnold Elijah, Robert Flemster, Mark Edward Gilman, Richard Girard, James Haddix, Everett Hadix, Steven Hines, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr, Brent E. Koster, Mark Lemothe, Mark Litwalk, William Lovett, Richard Mapes, Lee D. McDonald, Cylester Nunnally, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Patrick C. Sommerville, Darryl Sturges, Ted Sullivan, Frank Thomas, Danny Walker (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 05/10/2013)

3227

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by plaintiffs James Alexander, Deandre Benson, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Mark A. Coleman, James Covington, Perry Alan Davis #121739, Arnold Elijah, Robert Flemster, Mark Edward Gilman, Richard Girard, James Haddix, Everett Hadix, Steven Hines, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr, Brent E. Koster, Mark Lemothe, Mark Litwalk, William Lovett, Richard Mapes, Lee D. McDonald, Cylester Nunnally, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Patrick C. Sommerville, Darryl Sturges, Ted Sullivan, Frank Thomas, Danny Walker re Proposed Findings of Fact,, 3226 , Trial Brief,, 3225 (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 05/10/2013)

3228 MOTION for leave to file excess pages for Trial Brief 3225 by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Streeter, Patricia) Modified relationship on 5/13/2013 (jem). (Entered: 05/10/2013)

3229 BRIEF in support of MOTION for leave to file excess pages for Trial Brief Dkt. 3225 3228 filed by Everett Hadix(Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 05/10/2013)

3230 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by plaintiff Everett Hadix re Brief in Support of a Motion 3229 , MOTION for leave to file excess pages for Trial Brief Dkt. 3225 3228 (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 05/10/2013)

3231 TRIAL BRIEF Containing Defendants' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/10/2013)

3232 PROPOSED PRETRIAL ORDER by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/10/2013)

3233 WITNESS LIST by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A, # 2 Attachment B, # 3 Attachment C)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/10/2013)

3234 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Witness List 3233 , Proposed Pretrial Order 3232 , Trial Brief 3231 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/10/2013)

3235 ORDER re 5/13/2013 Final Pretrial Conference ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 05/13/2013)

3236 MINUTES of initial final pretrial conference held before Judge Robert J. Jonker (Court Reporter: Glenda Trexler) (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 05/13/2013)

05/15/2013
05/16/2013 05/16/2013
05/16/2013 05/16/2013 05/16/2013 05/16/2013 05/16/2013 05/16/2013 05/17/2013

3237

PROPOSED PRETRIAL ORDER by plaintiffs James Alexander, Deandre Benson, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Mark A. Coleman, James Covington, Perry Alan Davis #121739, Arnold Elijah, Robert Flemster, Mark Edward Gilman, Richard Girard, James Haddix, Everett Hadix, Steven Hines, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr, Brent E. Koster, Mark Lemothe, Mark Litwalk, William Lovett, Richard Mapes, Lee D. McDonald, Cylester Nunnally, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Patrick C. Sommerville, Darryl Sturges, Ted Sullivan, Frank Thomas, Danny Walker, defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja, court monitor Robert L. Cohen, MD, Special Master (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/15/2013)

3238 NOTICE to attorney A. Peter Govorchin regarding recent filing 3237 (jem) (Entered: 05/16/2013)

3239

(CORRECTED) PROPOSED PRETRIAL ORDER by plaintiffs James Alexander, Deandre Benson, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Mark A. Coleman, James Covington, Perry Alan Davis #121739, Arnold Elijah, Robert Flemster, Mark Edward Gilman, Richard Girard, James Haddix, Everett Hadix, Steven Hines, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr, Brent E. Koster, Mark Lemothe, Mark Litwalk, William Lovett, Richard Mapes, Lee D. McDonald, Cylester Nunnally, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Patrick C. Sommerville, Darryl Sturges, Ted Sullivan, Frank Thomas, Danny Walker, defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja, court monitor Robert L. Cohen, MD, Special Master (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Exhibit 1)(Govorchin, A.) Modified text on 5/17/2013 (mkc). (Entered: 05/16/2013)

3240 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/16/2013)

3241 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3240 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/16/2013)

3242

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH April 2013 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3240 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/16/2013)

3243

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC April 2013 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3240 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/16/2013)

3244 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3243 , Sealed Document 3242 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/16/2013)

3245

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja of Defendants' Notice of Taking Deposition of Alexander, Boyette, Culp, Girard, Ross and Little (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/16/2013)

3246 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick,

05/17/2013 05/17/2013 05/21/2013 05/29/2013
05/29/2013
05/29/2013 05/29/2013

John Ocwieja of Defendants Notice of Taking Deposition of Billups, Legree, Ransom, Tenant and White (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/17/2013)

(NON-DOCUMENT) ATTORNEY APPEARANCE of James T. Farrell on behalf of defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Farrell, James) (Entered: 05/17/2013)

3247

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja of Defendants' Amended Notice of Taking Deposition of Billups, Legree, Ransom, Tenant and White (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/17/2013)

3248

ORDER SETTING final pretrial conference set for 6/3/2013 at 4:30 PM at 699 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Judge Robert J. Jonker; The Court accepts the Corrected Proposed Final Pretrial Order except as otherwise stated in this Order (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 05/21/2013)

3249

PROPOSED STIPULATION and ORDER Unopposed & Stipulation to Substitute Named Plaintiff by plaintiffs James Alexander, Deandre Benson, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Mark A. Coleman, James Covington, Perry Alan Davis #121739, Arnold Elijah, Robert Flemster, Mark Edward Gilman, Richard Girard, James Haddix, Everett Hadix, Steven Hines, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr, Brent E. Koster, Mark Lemothe, Mark Litwalk, William Lovett, Richard Mapes, Lee D. McDonald, Cylester Nunnally, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Patrick C. Sommerville, Darryl Sturges, Ted Sullivan, Frank Thomas, Danny Walker (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 05/29/2013)

3250

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by plaintiffs James Alexander, Deandre Benson, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Mark A. Coleman, James Covington, Perry Alan Davis #121739, Arnold Elijah, Robert Flemster, Mark Edward Gilman, Richard Girard, James Haddix, Everett Hadix, Steven Hines, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr, Brent E. Koster, Mark Lemothe, Mark Litwalk, William Lovett, Richard Mapes, Lee D. McDonald, Cylester Nunnally, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Patrick C. Sommerville, Darryl Sturges, Ted Sullivan, Frank Thomas, Danny Walker re PROPOSED STIPULATION and ORDER Unopposed & Stipulation to Substitute Named Plaintiff by plaintiffs James Alexander, Deandre Benson, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Mark A. Coleman, James Covington, Perry Alan Davis #121739, Arnold Elijah, Rober 3249 (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 05/29/2013)

3251 MOTION for writ of habeas corpus Ad Prosequendum for Trial, June 4-6, 2013 by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Writ)(Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 05/29/2013)

3252

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by plaintiffs James Alexander, Deandre Benson, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Mark A. Coleman, James Covington, Perry Alan Davis #121739, Arnold Elijah, Robert Flemster, Mark Edward Gilman, Richard Girard, James Haddix, Everett Hadix, Steven Hines, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr, Brent E. Koster, Mark Lemothe, Mark Litwalk, William Lovett, Richard Mapes, Lee D. McDonald, Cylester Nunnally, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Patrick C. Sommerville,

05/30/2013 05/30/2013 05/30/2013 06/03/2013 06/04/2013 06/05/2013
06/05/2013 06/06/2013 06/07/2013 06/10/2013

Darryl Sturges, Ted Sullivan, Frank Thomas, Danny Walker re MOTION for writ of habeas corpus Ad Prosequendum for Trial, June 4-6, 2013 3251 (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 05/29/2013)

3253 ORDER granting STIPULATION 3249 ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil) (Entered: 05/30/2013)

3254 ORDER granting 3251 motion for writ of habeas corpus ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil) (Entered: 05/30/2013)

3255 WRIT of habeas corpus ad prosequendum issued as to Charles Culp, No. 176085 ; issued by deputy clerk (Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil) (Entered: 05/30/2013)

3260 MINUTES of final pretrial conference held before Judge Robert J. Jonker (Court Reporter: Glenda Trexler) (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 06/06/2013)

3257 MINUTES of bench trial - day 1 held before Judge Robert J. Jonker (Court Reporter: Glenda Trexler) (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 06/05/2013)

3256

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re Plaintiffs' Notice of Depositions De Bene Esse by plaintiffs James Alexander, Deandre Benson, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Mark A. Coleman, James Covington, Charles Culp #176085, Perry Alan Davis #121739, Arnold Elijah, Robert Flemster, Mark Edward Gilman, Richard Girard, James Haddix, Everett Hadix, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr, Brent E. Koster, Mark Lemothe, Mark Litwalk, William Lovett, Richard Mapes, Lee D. McDonald, Cylester Nunnally, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Patrick C. Sommerville, Darryl Sturges, Ted Sullivan, Frank Thomas, Danny Walker (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 6/6/2013 (jem). (Entered: 06/05/2013)

3258 MINUTES of bench trial - day 2 held before Judge Robert J. Jonker (Court Reporter: Glenda Trexler) (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 06/05/2013)

3259 MINUTES of bench trial - day 3 held before Judge Robert J. Jonker (Court Reporter: Glenda Trexler) (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 06/06/2013)

3261 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja of Defendants' Notice of Taking Deposition of David Rhinehart and Clyde Smith (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/07/2013)

3262

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by plaintiffs James Alexander, Deandre Benson, Al Buttons, James Chipman, Mark A. Coleman, James Covington, Charles Culp #176085, Perry Alan Davis #121739, Arnold Elijah, Robert Flemster, Mark Edward Gilman, Richard Girard, James Haddix, Everett Hadix, Roosevelt Hudson, Jr, Brent E. Koster, Mark Lemothe, Mark Litwalk, William Lovett, Richard Mapes, Lee D. McDonald, Cylester Nunnally, Ted Rhode, Orvel Simmons, Patrick C. Sommerville, Darryl Sturges, Ted Sullivan, Frank Thomas, Danny Walker Amended De Bene Esse Deposition Notice (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 06/10/2013)

06/11/2013 06/14/2013 06/17/2013 06/17/2013 06/18/2013 06/18/2013 06/18/2013 06/18/2013 06/19/2013
06/19/2013

3263 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja of Defendants' Amended Notice of Taking Deposition of Clyde Smith (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/11/2013)

3264 MOTION for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document Proposed Writ)(Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 06/14/2013)

3265 ORDER granting 3264 motion for writ of habeas corpus ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil) (Entered: 06/17/2013)

3266 WRIT of habeas corpus ad prosequendum issued as to Charles Culp, No. 176085 ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil) Modified text on 6/19/2013 (jem). (Entered: 06/17/2013)

3267 MOTION for writ of habeas corpus Ad Testificandum for Trial June 20, 2013 by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Writ)(Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 06/18/2013)

3268 ORDER granting 3267 motion for writ of habeas corpus ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 06/18/2013)

3269 WRIT of habeas corpus ad testificandum issued as to Edward Alexander, No 462138 ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) Modified text on 6/19/2013 (jem). (Entered: 06/18/2013)

3273 MINUTES of bench trial - day 4 held before Judge Robert J. Jonker (Court Reporter: Glenda Trexler) (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) Modified on 6/19/2013 to reflect correct date filed (cmi). (Entered: 06/19/2013)

3270

TRANSCRIPT of Volume I of Bench Trial held 06/04/2013 before Hon. Robert J. Jonker; NOTE: this transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the release of transcript restriction date; after that date it may be obtained through PACER; under the Policy Regarding Transcripts the parties have 14 days within which to file a Notice of Intent to redact, and 21 days within which to file a Redaction Request; if no Transcript Redaction Request is filed, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and this transcript will be made available via PACER after the release of transcript restriction set for 9/17/2013 ; redaction request due 7/10/2013 (Court Reporter: Trexler, Glenda (517)819-0396) (Entered: 06/19/2013)

3271

TRANSCRIPT of Volume II of Bench Trial held 06/05/2013 before Hon. Robert J. Jonker; NOTE: this transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the release of transcript restriction date; after that date it may be obtained through PACER; under the Policy Regarding Transcripts the parties have 14 days within which to file a Notice of Intent to redact, and 21 days within which to file a Redaction Request; if no Transcript Redaction Request is filed, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and this transcript will be made available via PACER after the release of transcript restriction set for 9/17/2013 ; redaction request due 7/10/2013 (Court Reporter: Trexler, Glenda (517)819-0396) (Entered: 06/19/2013)

06/19/2013
06/19/2013 06/20/2013 06/21/2013 06/21/2013 06/21/2013 06/21/2013 06/21/2013 06/21/2013 06/25/2013 06/25/2013

3272

TRANSCRIPT of Volume III of Bench Trial held 06/06/2013 before Hon. Robert J. Jonker; NOTE: this transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the release of transcript restriction date; after that date it may be obtained through PACER; under the Policy Regarding Transcripts the parties have 14 days within which to file a Notice of Intent to redact, and 21 days within which to file a Redaction Request; if no Transcript Redaction Request is filed, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and this transcript will be made available via PACER after the release of transcript restriction set for 9/17/2013 ; redaction request due 7/10/2013 (Court Reporter: Trexler, Glenda (517)819-0396) (Entered: 06/19/2013)

3274 MINUTES of bench trial - day 5 held before Judge Robert J. Jonker (Court Reporter: Glenda Trexler) (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 06/19/2013)

3275

MOTION for writ of habeas corpus Ad Prosequendum for Trial June 2527, 2013 by plaintiffs Charles Culp #176085, Everett Hadix; (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Writ)(Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 06/20/2013)

3276 ORDER granting 3275 motion for writ of habeas corpus ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil) (Entered: 06/21/2013)

3277 WRIT of habeas corpus ad prosequendum issued as to Charles Culp, No. 176085 ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil) (Entered: 06/21/2013)

3278 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/21/2013)

3279 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3278 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/21/2013)

3280

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH May 2013 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3278 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/16/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/21/2013)

3281

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC May 2013 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3278 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/21/2013)

3282 ORDER CANCELLING Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Prosequendum re 3277 ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 06/25/2013)

3284

MINUTES of bench trial completed - Day 7 held before Judge Robert J. Jonker (Court Reporter: Glenda Trexler) (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) Modified on 6/27/2013 to correct date per RJJ chambers (gjf). (Entered: 06/26/2013)

06/26/2013 06/28/2013 07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013

3283 ORDER re briefing schedule following bench trial ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 06/26/2013)

3285 ORDER: Defendant may file proposed exhibit re non-formulary drug grants no later than 7/15/2013 ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 06/28/2013)

3286

TRANSCRIPT of Volume IV of Bench Trial held 06/18/2013 before Hon. Robert J. Jonker; NOTE: this transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the release of transcript restriction date; after that date it may be obtained through PACER; under the Policy Regarding Transcripts the parties have 14 days within which to file a Notice of Intent to redact, and 21 days within which to file a Redaction Request; if no Transcript Redaction Request is filed, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and this transcript will be made available via PACER after the release of transcript restriction set for 9/30/2013 ; redaction request due 7/23/2013 (Court Reporter: Trexler, Glenda (517)819-0396) (Entered: 07/02/2013)

3287

TRANSCRIPT of Volume V of Bench Trial held 06/19/2013 before Hon. Robert J. Jonker; NOTE: this transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the release of transcript restriction date; after that date it may be obtained through PACER; under the Policy Regarding Transcripts the parties have 14 days within which to file a Notice of Intent to redact, and 21 days within which to file a Redaction Request; if no Transcript Redaction Request is filed, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and this transcript will be made available via PACER after the release of transcript restriction set for 9/30/2013 ; redaction request due 7/23/2013 (Court Reporter: Trexler, Glenda (517)819-0396) (Entered: 07/02/2013)

3288

TRANSCRIPT of Volume VI of Bench Trial held 06/20/2013 before Hon. Robert J. Jonker; NOTE: this transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the release of transcript restriction date; after that date it may be obtained through PACER; under the Policy Regarding Transcripts the parties have 14 days within which to file a Notice of Intent to redact, and 21 days within which to file a Redaction Request; if no Transcript Redaction Request is filed, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and this transcript will be made available via PACER after the release of transcript restriction set for 9/30/2013 ; redaction request due 7/23/2013 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit PLF EXH. 34B - Testimony of John Legree, # 2 Exhibit PLF EXH. 35B - Testimony of Richard Girard, # 3 Exhibit PLF EXH. 36B - Testimony of William Ross) (Court Reporter: Trexler, Glenda (517)819-0396) (Entered: 07/02/2013)

3289

TRANSCRIPT of Volume VII of Bench Trial held 06/25/2013 before Hon. Robert J. Jonker; NOTE: this transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the release of transcript restriction date; after that date it may be obtained through PACER; under the Policy Regarding Transcripts the parties have 14 days within which to file a Notice of Intent to redact, and

07/10/2013 07/11/2013 07/15/2013 07/22/2013 07/22/2013 07/22/2013 07/22/2013 07/22/2013 08/19/2013 08/19/2013

21 days within which to file a Redaction Request; if no Transcript Redaction Request is filed, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and this transcript will be made available via PACER after the release of transcript restriction set for 9/30/2013 ; redaction request due 7/23/2013 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit PLF EXH. 37B - Transcript Testimony of Keith Boyette, # 2 Exhibit PLF EXH. 38B - Transcript Testimony of Louis Ransom, # 3 Exhibit PLF EXH. 39B Transcript Testimony of George Billups, # 4 Exhibit PLF EXH. 40B Transcript Testimony of James Tennant, # 5 Exhibit PLF EXH. 41B Transcript Testimony of Michael White) (Court Reporter: Trexler, Glenda (517)819-0396) (Entered: 07/02/2013)

3290 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja of Defendants' Supplement to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 21 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/10/2013)

3291 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja of Defendants' Supplement to Plaintiff's Exhibit 19 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/11/2013)

3292 STIPULATION for Compliance with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Court's Order of June 26, 2013 (Dkt. 3283) by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/15/2013)

3293

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Attachment A - Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/22/2013)

3294 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3293 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/22/2013)

3295

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH June 2013 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3293 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/22/2013)

3296

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC June 2013 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3293 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/22/2013)

3297 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3295 , Sealed Document 3296 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/22/2013)

3298 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/19/2013)

3299 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3298 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/19/2013)

08/19/2013
08/19/2013
08/19/2013 08/19/2013 09/16/2013 09/16/2013 09/16/2013
09/16/2013
09/16/2013 09/16/2013 09/16/2013 09/16/2013 09/16/2013 09/16/2013

3300

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH July 2013 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3298 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/19/2013)

3301

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC July 2013 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3298 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/19/2013)

3302 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3301 , Sealed Document 3300 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/19/2013)

3303 Attachment A EXHIBIT re 3298 Monthly Status Report by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/19/2013)

3304 MOTION for leave to file excess pages by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja; (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/16/2013)

3305 BRIEF in support of MOTION for leave to file excess pages 3304 filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/16/2013)

3306

TRIAL BRIEF - Post-Trial Brief by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Govorchin, A.) Modified text on 9/17/2013 (jem). Modified text on 9/19/2013; filed per Order 3322 (jem). (Entered: 09/16/2013)

3307

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Brief in Support of a Motion 3305 , Trial Brief 3306 , MOTION for leave to file excess pages 3304 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/16/2013)

3308 MOTION for leave to file excess pages by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 09/16/2013)

3309 MEMORANDUM in support of Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages 3308 filed by Everett Hadix(Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 09/16/2013)

3310 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by plaintiff Everett Hadix re Memorandum in Support of a Motion 3309 , MOTION for leave to file excess pages 3308 (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 09/16/2013)

3311 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 9/19/2013; Filed per Order 3322 (jem). (Entered: 09/16/2013)

3312 MOTION for leave to file excess pages by plaintiff Everett Hadix; (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 09/16/2013)

3313 MEMORANDUM in support of Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages 3312 filed by Everett Hadix(Streeter, Patricia) (Entered:

09/16/2013 09/16/2013 09/16/2013 09/17/2013 09/17/2013 09/17/2013
09/17/2013
09/17/2013 09/18/2013
09/30/2013 09/30/2013 09/30/2013 09/30/2013

09/16/2013)

3314 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by plaintiff Everett Hadix re MOTION for leave to file excess pages 3312 , Memorandum in Support of a Motion 3313 (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 09/16/2013)

3315 TRIAL BRIEF by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Streeter, Patricia) Modified text on 9/17/2013 (jem). Modified text on 9/19/2013; filed per Order 3322 (jem). (Entered: 09/16/2013)

3316 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by plaintiff Everett Hadix re Trial Brief 3315 , Proposed Findings of Fact 3311 (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 09/16/2013)

3317 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/17/2013)

3318 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3317 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/17/2013)

3319

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH August 2013 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3317 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/17/2013)

3320

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC August 2013 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3317 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/17/2013)

3321 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3320 , Sealed Document 3319 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/17/2013)

3322

ORDER granting 3304 motion for leave to file excess pages; granting 3308 motion for leave to file excess pages; granting 3312 motion for leave to file excess pages ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil) (Entered: 09/18/2013)

3323 RESPONSE TO 3306 Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Trial Brief filed by plaintiff Everett Hadix (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 09/30/2013)

3324 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by plaintiff Everett Hadix re Response (non-motion) 3323 (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 09/30/2013)

3325 RESPONSE TO 3315 , 3311 filed by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/30/2013)

3326 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Response (non-motion) 3325 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/30/2013)

10/18/2013 10/18/2013 10/18/2013 10/18/2013 10/18/2013 11/18/2013 11/18/2013 11/18/2013 11/18/2013 11/18/2013 12/18/2013 12/18/2013 12/18/2013

3327 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/18/2013)

3328 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3327 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/18/2013)

3329

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH September 2013 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3327 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/18/2013)

3330

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC September 2013 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3327 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/18/2013)

3331 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3330 , Sealed Document 3329 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/18/2013)

3332 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/18/2013)

3333 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3332 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/18/2013)

3334

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH October 2013 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3332 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/18/2013)

3335

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC October 2013 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3332 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/18/2013)

3336 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3335 , Sealed Document 3334 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/18/2013)

3337 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/18/2013)

3338 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3337 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/18/2013)

3339 SEALED DOCUMENT DWH November 2013 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3337 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered:

12/18/2013 12/18/2013 01/16/2014 01/16/2014 01/16/2014 01/16/2014 01/16/2014 01/24/2014 02/19/2014 02/19/2014 02/19/2014 02/19/2014

12/18/2013)

3340

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC November 2013 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3337 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/18/2013)

3341 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3339 , Sealed Document 3340 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/18/2013)

3342 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/16/2014)

3343 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3342 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/16/2014)

3344

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH December 2013 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3342 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/06 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/16/2014)

3345

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC December 2013 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3342 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/06 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/16/2014)

3346 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3345 , Sealed Document 3344 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/16/2014)

3347 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: Closing arguments scheduled for May 9, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil) (Entered: 01/24/2014)

3348 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/19/2014)

3349 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3348 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/19/2014)

3350

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH January 2014 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3348 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/06 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/19/2014)

3351

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC January 2014 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3348 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/06 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/19/2014)

02/19/2014 03/19/2014 03/19/2014 03/19/2014 03/19/2014 03/19/2014 04/22/2014 04/22/2014 04/22/2014 04/22/2014 04/22/2014 05/02/2014 05/09/2014

3352 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3350 , Sealed Document 3351 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/19/2014)

3353 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/19/2014)

3354 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3353 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/19/2014)

3355

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH Feb 2014 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3353 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/06 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/19/2014)

3356

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC Feb 2014 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3353 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/06 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/19/2014)

3357 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3355 , Sealed Document 3356 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/19/2014)

3358 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/22/2014)

3359 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3358 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/22/2014)

3360

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH March 2014 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3358 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/06 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/22/2014)

3361

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC March 2014 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3358 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/06 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/22/2014)

3362 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3361 , Sealed Document 3360 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/22/2014)

3363 ORDER re closing arguments set for 5/9/2014 at 2:00 p.m. ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 05/02/2014)

3364 MINUTES of bench trial completed; closing arguments; taken under advisement held before Judge Robert J. Jonker (Court Reporter: Glenda Trexler) (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 05/13/2014)

05/16/2014
05/27/2014 05/27/2014 05/27/2014 05/27/2014 05/27/2014 06/26/2014 06/26/2014 06/26/2014 06/26/2014 06/26/2014

3365

TRANSCRIPT of Bench Trial Closing Arguments held 05/09/2014 before Hon. Robert J. Jonker; NOTE: this transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the release of transcript restriction date; after that date it may be obtained through PACER; under the Policy Regarding Transcripts the parties have 14 days within which to file a Notice of Intent to redact, and 21 days within which to file a Redaction Request; if no Transcript Redaction Request is filed, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and this transcript will be made available via PACER after the release of transcript restriction set for 8/14/2014 ; redaction request due 6/6/2014 (Court Reporter: Trexler, Glenda (517)819-0396) (Entered: 05/16/2014)

3366 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/27/2014)

3367 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3366 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/27/2014)

3368

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH April 2014 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3366 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/06 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/27/2014)

3369

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC April 2014 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3366 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/06 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/27/2014)

3370 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3368 , Sealed Document 3369 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/27/2014)

3371 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/26/2014)

3372 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3371 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/26/2014)

3373

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH May 2014 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3371 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/06 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/26/2014)

3374

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC May 2014 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3371 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/06 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/26/2014)

3375 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3373 , Sealed

07/22/2014 07/22/2014 07/22/2014 07/22/2014 07/22/2014 08/25/2014 08/25/2014 08/25/2014 08/25/2014 08/25/2014 09/23/2014 09/23/2014

Document 3374 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/26/2014)

3376 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/22/2014)

3377 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3376 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/22/2014)

3378

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH June 2014 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3376 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/06 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/22/2014)

3379

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC June 2014 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3376 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/06 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/22/2014)

3380 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3379 , Sealed Document 3378 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/22/2014)

3381 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/25/2014)

3382 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3381 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/25/2014)

3383

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH July 2014 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3381 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/06 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/25/2014)

3384

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC July 2014 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3381 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/06 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/25/2014)

3385 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3384 , Sealed Document 3383 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/25/2014)

3386 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/23/2014)

3387

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH August 2014 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3386 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/06 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/23/2014)

09/23/2014 09/23/2014 10/15/2014 10/15/2014 10/15/2014 10/15/2014 11/18/2014 11/18/2014 11/18/2014 11/18/2014 12/16/2014 12/16/2014

3388

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC August 2014 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3386 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/06 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/23/2014)

3389 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3387 , Sealed Document 3388 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/23/2014)

3390 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/15/2014)

3391

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH Sept 2014 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3390 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/06 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/15/2014)

3392

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC Sept 2014 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3390 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/06 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/15/2014)

3393 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3391 , Sealed Document 3392 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 10/15/2014)

3394 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/18/2014)

3395

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH Oct 2014 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3394 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/06 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/18/2014)

3396

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC Oct 2014 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3394 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/06 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/18/2014)

3397 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3396 , Sealed Document 3395 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 11/18/2014)

3398

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/16/2014)

3399

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH November 2014 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3398 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/16/2014)

12/16/2014 12/16/2014 01/02/2015 01/21/2015 01/21/2015 01/21/2015 01/21/2015 02/18/2015 02/18/2015 02/18/2015 02/18/2015 03/17/2015

3400

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC November 2014 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3398 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/16/2014)

3401 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3400 , Sealed Document 3399 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 12/16/2014)

3402 CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Patricia A. Streeter counsel for plaintiff Everett Hadix (Streeter, Patricia) (Entered: 01/02/2015)

3403

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A, Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/21/2015)

3404

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH January 2015 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3403 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/21/2015)

3405

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC January 2015 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3403 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/21/2015)

3406 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3404 , Sealed Document 3405 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 01/21/2015)

3407

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Reduction Spreadsheet)(Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/18/2015)

3408

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH February 2015 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3407 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/18/2015)

3409

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC February 2015 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3407 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/18/2015)

3410 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3409 , Sealed Document 3408 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 02/18/2015)

3411

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A, Reduction Spreadsheet) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/17/2015)

03/17/2015 03/17/2015 03/17/2015 04/17/2015 04/17/2015 04/17/2015 04/17/2015 05/15/2015 05/15/2015 05/15/2015 05/15/2015 06/15/2015

3412

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH March 2015 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3411 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/17/2015)

3413 SEALED DOCUMENT RGC March 2015 by defendant John Ocwieja re Status Report 3411 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/17/2015)

3414 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3413 , Sealed Document 3412 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 03/17/2015)

3415

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A, Reduction Spreadsheets) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/17/2015)

3416

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH March 2015 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3415 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/17/2015)

3417

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC March 2015 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3415 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/17/2015)

3418 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3417 , Sealed Document 3416 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 04/17/2015)

3419

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Reduction Spreadsheets) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/15/2015)

3420

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC April 2015 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3419 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/15/2015)

3421

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC April 2015 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3419 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/15/2015)

3422 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3421 , Sealed Document 3420 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 05/15/2015)

3423

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A, Reduction Spreadsheets) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/15/2015)

06/15/2015 06/15/2015 06/15/2015 07/15/2015 07/15/2015 07/15/2015 07/15/2015 08/17/2015 08/17/2015 08/17/2015 08/17/2015 09/21/2015

3424

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH May 2015 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3423 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/15/2015)

3425

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC May 2015 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3423 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/15/2015)

3426 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3425 , Sealed Document 3424 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 06/15/2015)

3427

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A, Reduction Spreadsheets) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/15/2015)

3428

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH June 2015 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3427 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/15/2015)

3429

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC June 2015 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3427 ; filed under seal pursuant to order Dkt. 1970, 2/15/2006 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/15/2015)

3430 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3429 , Sealed Document 3428 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 07/15/2015)

3431 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/17/2015)

3432

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH July 2015 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3431 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/06 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/17/2015)

3433

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC July 2015 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3431 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/06 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/17/2015)

3434 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3433 , Sealed Document 3432 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 08/17/2015)

3435 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A) (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/21/2015)

09/21/2015 09/21/2015 09/21/2015 09/29/2015 09/29/2015

3436

SEALED DOCUMENT DWH Sept 2015 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3435 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/06 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/21/2015)

3437

SEALED DOCUMENT RGC Sept 2015 by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Status Report 3435 ; filed under seal pursuant to order 1970 dated 2/15/06 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/21/2015)

3438 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Patricia L. Caruso, Nick Ludwick, John Ocwieja re Sealed Document 3436 , Sealed Document 3437 (Govorchin, A.) (Entered: 09/21/2015)

3439 OPINION ; signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker (Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 09/29/2015)

3440

ORDER: Consent Decree Sections II.A.3.b; II.A.4.a; II.A.5.a; II.A.7; and II.A.11 are CLOSED; To the extent Plaintiffs seek ongoing prospective injunctive relief under orders issued earlier in the case ( 142 , 405 , 822 , 2334 ), the request is DENIED -- the orders are CLOSED; federal supervision over the Hadix facilities and the Hadix class is terminated; signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker (Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) (Entered: 09/29/2015)

PACER Login: Description: Billable Pages:

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

03/12/2017 09:58:24

hs0328:2563377:0

Client Code:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

30

Cost:

4:92-cv-00110-RJJ 3.00