Case: 2:10-cv-01097-PCE-TPK Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/10 Page: 1 of 36 PAGEID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

D.D1. by and through his mother and next friend, B.T. ; K.M. by and through his mother and next friend, J.M.; N.B. by and through his mother and next friend, A.D.; B.M. by and through her mother and next friend, J.A.; C.M., by and through her mother and next friend, E.M.; W.G., by and through his mother and next friend ,D.G.; J.R.; and J.L., by and through his mother and next friend, S.S.;
Individually and on Behalf of Class of All Others Similarly Situated;
c/o Gerhardstein & Branch Co. LPA 432 Walnut Street, Suite 400 Cincinnati, OH 45202,
Plaintiffs, v.
WASHINGTON COUNTY, OHIO/ WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 205 Putnam Street Marietta, OH 45750,
and
TIMOTHY A. WILLIAMS Washington County Juvenile Center 1699 Colegate Drive

: Case No. 2:10-cv-1097 : : : : : : : CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT : FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND : DAMAGES WITH JURY DEMAND : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

1 Plaintiffs are identified through initials and not by their full name in order to protect their juvenile histories which are confidential and not public records. Defense counsel and the Court will be provided with a key revealing the identities of the plaintiffs and, if approved, such key shall be subject to a protective order issued by the Court.

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-PCE-TPK Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/10 Page: 2 of 36 PAGEID #: 2

Marietta, OH 45750,

:

Individually and in his nonjudicial

:

administrative capacity as presiding official :

responsible for the Washington County

:

Juvenile Center,

:

:

and

:

:

:

RAE ANN WARD

:

Washington County Juvenile Center

:

1699 Colegate Drive

:

Marietta, OH 45750,

:

individually and in her official capacity as :

former Director of the Washington County :

Juvenile Center,

:

:

and

:

:

BRIAN HESSON

:

Washington County Juvenile Center

:

1699 Colegate Drive

:

Marietta, OH 45750,

:

Individually and in his official capacity as

:

Director of the Washington County Juvenile :

Center,

:

:

and

:

:

BRIAN ORDERS

:

Washington County Juvenile Center

:

1699 Colegate Drive

:

Marietta, OH 45750,

:

individually and in his capacity as an

:

employee of Washington County, Ohio,

:

:

and

:

:

STEPHANIE GALATI

:

Washington County Juvenile Center

:

1699 Colegate Drive

:

Marietta, OH 45750,

:

individually and in her capacity as an

:

employee of Washington County, Ohio,

:

:

and

:

2

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-PCE-TPK Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/10 Page: 3 of 36 PAGEID #: 3

:

MICHELLE BURKHART

:

Washington County Juvenile Center

:

1699 Colegate Drive

:

Marietta, OH 45750,

:

individually and in her capacity as an

:

employee of Washington County, Ohio,

:

:

and

:

:

DAVID MATTHEW MONTGOMERY, DO :

400 Matthew Street, Suite 201

:

Marietta, OH.

:

individually and in his official capacity as a :

contractor providing medical services at the :

Washington County Juvenile Center in

:

Washington County, Ohio,

:

:

and

:

:

John and Jane Does 1-20

:

Washington County Juvenile Center

:

1699 Colegate Drive

:

Marietta, OH 45750

:

individually and in their capacities as

:

employees of Washington County, Ohio,

:

:

Defendants.

:

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This is a civil rights action alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinement endured
by juveniles housed at the Washington County Juvenile Center (“the Center”). These young people have endured abusive, inhumane, and illegal conditions of confinement, assaults on their person and outrageous indignities. These include but are not limited to locking youth in cells for 23 hours per day; denying water to youth in their cells for extended periods; requiring youth only limited recreation – often forcing them to recreate in shackles; forcibly removing the clothes of youth by staff of the opposite gender;

3

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-PCE-TPK Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/10 Page: 4 of 36 PAGEID #: 4
routinely invading the privacy of youth through surveillance by staff of the opposite gender; requiring youth to wear suicide smocks as punishment; imposing punishment without due process; forcing youth to work at for profit businesses in the community without remuneration; requiring youth to languish in detention cells for extended periods of time; arbitrarily extending program time for youth; requiring youth to engage in degrading activities such as cleaning an entire gymnasium with toothbrushes; ignoring, delaying and providing inappropriate treatment for scabies and other medical conditions including attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD); denying education and other programming; and denying necessary physical and mental health care. Defendants’ actions have been deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs’ constitutional and legal rights. Defendants’ actions described in this complaint constitute punishment and are a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practices, and standards. 2. Plaintiffs seek just compensation and injunctive relief to ensure that if they are ever reincarcerated at the Center they will not endure these conditions. By bringing a class action, Plaintiffs also seek to ensure that other children do not have to endure these conditions while confined by Defendants. Since Plaintiffs’ Counsel first made inquiries of Defendants regarding these claims the population at the Center has dramatically dropped and many youth are now being transferred to other facilities. Plaintiffs need to assess the actual plans for the Center before filing a motion for injunctive relief.
II. JURISDICTION 3. Jurisdiction over claims brought under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 is conferred on this
Court by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 (3) and (4). Jurisdiction over the state law claims is conferred by 28 U.S.C. §1367. Venue is proper in this Division.
4

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-PCE-TPK Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/10 Page: 5 of 36 PAGEID #: 5
4. This Court is authorized to grant declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
5. The representative plaintiffs are no longer in custody. Therefore the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act do not apply to this case. III. THE PARTIES
6. Plaintiff D.D. is a resident of Washington County, Ohio, and a citizen of the State of Ohio. Plaintiff is 17 years old and is no longer in the custody of Defendant Washington County. D.D. currently resides with his adoptive mother, B.T., through whom he brings this suit. At all times relevant to this action, D.D. suffered from depression and is a person with a disability pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 42 U.S.C. §12132.
7. Plaintiff K.M. is a resident of Washington County, Ohio, and a citizen of the State of Ohio. Plaintiff is 14 years old and is no longer in the custody of Defendant Washington County. K.M. currently resides with his mother, J.M., through whom he brings this suit. K.M. is under the supervision of the Department of Youth Services and is at risk of returning to the Center should he violate the terms of his supervision. K.M. suffers from ADHD and is a person with a disability pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 42 U.S.C. §12132.
8. Plaintiffs N.B., B.M., C.M., W.G., J.R. and J.L. have all been previously in the custody of Defendant Washington County. Those who are minors bring this suit through their parents or guardians.
5

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-PCE-TPK Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/10 Page: 6 of 36 PAGEID #: 6
9. All of the individual plaintiffs are hereafter collectively referred to as the “representative plaintiffs.” By using this term plaintiffs intend to rename each of the plaintiffs individually as well as collectively.
10. Defendant Washington County, Ohio is a unit of local government organized under the laws of the State of Ohio. The County is sued through the Washington County Ohio Board of Commissioners who are named only in their official capacity pursuant to O.R.C. § 305.12. Defendant Washington County is a “person” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and at all times relevant to this case acted under color of law. Washington County is a “public entity” under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 42 U.S.C. §12132.
11. Defendant Timothy A. Williams is a judge in Washington County, Ohio, with administrative responsibility for the Washington County Juvenile Center. Defendant Williams is not sued in his judicial capacity, only in his administrative capacity as presiding official responsible for the Washington County Juvenile Center. Defendant is a “person” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and at all times relevant to this case acted under color of law. He is sued in his individual and official capacity. He was a county policy maker with respect to customs, practices, policies and procedures at the Washington County Juvenile Center.
12. Defendant Rae Ann Ward is an employee of Washington County, Ohio. She is the former director of the Washington County Juvenile Center. Defendant is a “person” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and at all times relevant to this case acted under color of law. She is sued in her individual and official capacities. She was a county policy maker with respect to customs, practices, policies and procedures at the Washington County Juvenile Center.
6

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-PCE-TPK Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/10 Page: 7 of 36 PAGEID #: 7
13. Defendant Brian Hesson is an employee of Washington County, Ohio. Defendant is a “person” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and at all times relevant to this case acted under color of law. He was a county policy maker with respect to customs, practices, policies and procedures at the Fairfield County Jail. He is sued in his individual and official capacities.
14. Defendant Brian Orders was at all times relevant an employee of Washington County, Ohio. Defendant is a “person” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and at all times relevant to this case acted under color of law. He is sued in his individual and official capacities.
15. Defendant Stephanie Galati was at all times relevant an employee of Washington County, Ohio. Defendant is a “person” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and at all times relevant to this case acted under color of law. She is sued in her individual and official capacities.
16. Defendant Michelle Burkhart was at all times relevant an employee of Washington County, Ohio. Defendant is a “person” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and at all times relevant to this case acted under color of law. She is sued in her individual and official capacities.
17. Defendant David Matthew Montgomery, DO was at all times relevant a physician under contract with Washington County, Ohio to provide medical care to youth at the Center and establish medical policies, practices and customs for the Center. Defendant is a “person” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and at all times relevant to this case acted under color of law. He is sued in his individual and official capacities.
18. John and Jane Does Numbers 1-20 are, as of yet, unidentified individuals who were, at all relevant times, employees of Washington County, Ohio assigned to the Washington County Juvenile Center. Defendants are “persons” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and at all
7

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-PCE-TPK Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/10 Page: 8 of 36 PAGEID #: 8
times relevant to this case acted under color of law. They are sued in their individual and official capacities. 19. All of the individual defendants (everyone except Washington County) are hereafter referred to collectively as the “individual defendants.” The use of this term is intended to rename each and every one of the individual defendants as individuals and collectively.
IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 20. The representative Plaintiffs, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2)
and (b)(3), bring this action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a class of persons defined as: All persons twenty-two years of age or less as of the date on which this lawsuit is filed (and others for whom the statute of limitations is legally tolled) who have been, are now, or in the future, held in custody at the Washington County, Ohio Juvenile Center. 21. The class of Plaintiffs is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, with hundreds of youth confined at the Center each year. In addition, as set out in detail in this complaint there are questions of law and fact common to the members of the Plaintiff class. These include the factual circumstances and the legality and constitutionality of the conditions, policies, and practices under which Defendant confines Plaintiffs at the Center. 22. Defendants imposed the conditions, policies, and practices challenged in this action on the representative Plaintiffs and on the members of the Plaintiff class so that the claims of the representative Plaintiffs are typical of those of the class. 23. The representative Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. These Plaintiffs possess the requisite personal interest in the subject matter of the lawsuit. They are represented by counsel experienced in class action litigation on behalf of
8

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-PCE-TPK Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/10 Page: 9 of 36 PAGEID #: 9
children involving conditions of confinement. Alphonse A. Gerhardstein is currently lead or co class counsel on four other pending class actions and has previously served as class counsel on many civil rights and criminal justice class actions during his thirty-four year career. Jennifer Branch has also served as lead or co counsel of multiple civil rights individual and class actions during her twenty-three year career. 24. Defendants have acted and continue to act in a manner generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief and injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole as required by Civil Rule 23(b) (20. 25. The common questions of fact and law predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Plaintiff class, as required by Civil Rule 23(b)(3). Any slight differences among the class members can be accommodated by establishing subclasses as the facts are developed through discovery. 26. A class action is superior to other available methods for fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation, in satisfaction of the requirements of Civil Rule 23(b) (3), since joinder of all members of the Class is impracticable. Even if the members of the Class were able to prosecute their individual actions, it would be unduly burdensome on the courts to proceed with hundreds of individual cases stretched out over an extended period since most of the class members are minors and have many years available within which to bring their claims. By contrast, the class action device presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefits of unitary adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.
9

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-PCE-TPK Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/10 Page: 10 of 36 PAGEID #: 10
27. The injuries suffered by the representative Plaintiffs and the members of the Plaintiff class are capable of repetition, yet may evade review, thereby making class wide injunctive relief appropriate. V. FACTS A. Characteristics of the Center and Allegations Common to All Class Members
28. The Washington County Juvenile Center is located in Marietta, Ohio. 29. Center residents are between 12 and 18 years of age and are typically committed to the
facility by the Juvenile Judge. 30. In 2009 the Center served approximately 61 youth in its two programs and held
approximately 85 youth in detention. The number of youth in custody at the Center was comparable during previous years. 31. Youth held in detention are held in one of four detention cells. The cells are furnished with a bunk and mattress, a toilet, a sink, and a table. The doors to the detention cells are solid, with one window used for observation purposes. The cells have one window to the outside, which remains closed. All detention cells are under 24 hour video surveillance, monitored at a control desk. One detention cell also holds a shower which is used by all juveniles housed in the detention cells. 32. Youth have been held in detention for extended periods of time, some longer than 100 days. 33. Youth in detention receive no outdoor recreation and receive only one hour of indoor recreation per day. 34. Many youth are required to participate in indoor recreation while wearing leg shackles. They suffer physical injuries to their legs and they often fall when they run in shackles.
10

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-PCE-TPK Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/10 Page: 11 of 36 PAGEID #: 11
35. Many youth in detention have been forced to remove all their clothing and wear suicide gowns that drape over their naked bodies – even when they are not suicidal. In these instances the gown is required as punishment for allegedly violating rules at the Center.
36. Many youth in detention have been subjected to intrusive surveillance that violates all privacy while they are showering, toileting, and/or wearing the suicide gown.
37. Detention from 30 – 90 days is imposed by Defendants on all youth who run from the Center and no credit is received for the time they serve in detention.
38. Many youth in detention receive no rehabilitation treatment, no education, no counseling, and no health care and/or the services provided in these areas are so inadequate that they reflect a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practices, and standards.
39. Many youth have government benefits improperly taken from them during their stay at the Center.
40. The stated theory behind the programming offered at the Center is cognitive behavioral therapy. Specifically a youth “earns days” by demonstrating “prosocial behavior” during his or her stay. Misbehavior can result in “suspended days” or days that are not counted toward the progress a youth must make to earn release through the various program levels. Critical to this type of treatment is fidelity to the model. Defendants regularly and routinely fail to adhere to the cognitive behavior treatment principles.
41. Many of the youth enrolled in treatment at the Center are not appropriate for treatment because they are not high risk offenders. That is, they do not pose a serious risk of committing crime or recidivating. These youth suffer from overincarceration.
11

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-PCE-TPK Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/10 Page: 12 of 36 PAGEID #: 12
42. Youth enrolled in the treatment programs are often held for inappropriately long periods of time – up to two years – because Defendants apply the standards of conduct and consequences for misconduct in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
43. Youth in programming are denied their free exercise of religion and improperly coerced to engage in “Bible Study” or Protestant Christian services in order to secure programming credit for Sundays when religious programming is offered at the Center.
44. Youth in programming are often assigned to (a) work at private for profit businesses doing unpaid tasks that are not appropriate for their age and status as minors; (b) engage in degrading tasks such as cleaning the floor with a toothbush; and (c) perform tasks for staff members such as washing their cars.
45. Youth in programming are required to submit to arbitrary rules including but not limited to walking with their hands behind their back and can lose credit for days needed for release if they fail to abide by these rules.
46. The medical director and physician responsible for providing medical care to the youth as well as establishing policies, procedures, customs and protocols for the delivery of medical and mental health care has been Defendant Montgomery. Treatment for the serious medical and mental health needs of the members of the class has routinely been delayed or altogether denied by Dr. Montgomery and the health care provider(s) that he directs. B. Plaintiff D.D.
D.D. suffered Depression after the deaths of both parents. 47. When he was younger, D.D. was a normal, active child who participated in school sports,
including football, and was an average student academically.
12

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-PCE-TPK Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/10 Page: 13 of 36 PAGEID #: 13
48. D.D. was arrested for underage consumption in November of 2007. He was placed on probation.
49. Two days after Christmas, December 27, 2007, D.D.’s father committed suicide. His death devastated D.D.
50. D.D. became despondent and very depressed. He stopped attending school and withdrew from his friends and peers. D.D. attended individual counseling, but failed to attend group counseling for drug and alcohol abuse as required by the terms of his probation.
51. On August 14, 2008, D.D. was taken into the custody of the Center for violating the terms of his probation. He failed a drug screen and was charged with possession of marijuana, a minor misdemeanor.
52. D.D. remained at the Center for approximately one month, spending only one day in detention, and was released to the custody of an aunt and uncle on September 16, 2008.
53. D.D ran away from his aunt and uncle on or around October 13, 2008. D.D. missed his mother, who was suffering from cancer, and was still distraught over the death of his father, which occurred less than a year prior
54. On August 14, 2009, D.D.’s mother died of cancer. D.D. was Subjected to Excessive, and Unconstitutional, Periods of Confinement. 55. D.D. was arrested on or around September 3, 2009, and was taken back to the Center, this
time spending more than one month (44 days) in a detention cell. During his detention, D.D. was locked in the cell for 23 hours per day, being released only for a one hour, supervised recreation period in the gymnasium. D.D. was shackled during these recreation periods. 56. On October 18, 2009, D.D. escaped from the Center.
13

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-PCE-TPK Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/10 Page: 14 of 36 PAGEID #: 14
57. On November 3, 2009, D.D. was captured and returned to the Center. 58. From November 3, 2009 to March 8, 2010, D.D. was once again locked in a detention
cell for 23 hours every day. Thus, he was confined in detention for 126 days. When combined with his prior time in detention, D.D. spent 170 days locked in a cell during the 2009-2010 school year. 59. During the majority of the daytime hours D.D. either sat on his bed and looked out the window or simply lay down. 60. At various times D.D. was exposed to female staff monitoring the surveillance system when he entered or left the shower and/or used the toilet facilities in one of the detention cells. 61. D.D. was permitted a maximum of one hour of recreation per day. On some days, only a half an hour was provided. This time was spent indoors, in the gymnasium. D.D. was shackled at the ankles at all times during this “rec time.” The shackles caused him to fall during recreation and caused cuts and bruising on his ankles. 62. D.D. was not permitted to attend classes. Instead, he was occasionally given some homework assignments to complete in his detention cell. D.D. was provided “school work” on only 25 of the 126 days he was held in detention. Also, he was provided with a pencil, paper, and a bible. 63. D.D. was denied access to an instructor or tutor, despite requests for these services. When D.D. had difficulty completing an assignment, or when the assignment was completed incorrectly, D.D. was simply required to try again and again until he figured it out himself.
14

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-PCE-TPK Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/10 Page: 15 of 36 PAGEID #: 15
64. D.D. was not suicidal at the Center. He was nonetheless ordered to strip and wear a suicide gown. A suicide gown is a stiff, heavy garment which is designed to prevent inmates or patients from using their clothing to hang themselves. Pursuant to County policy, the garment is worn without underwear. D.D. was ordered to wear the gown over his naked body as punishment for misbehaving.
65. D.D. was repeatedly denied visits with his younger brother who moved out of state to live with relatives after D.D. was placed at the Center. Finally, shortly before he departed the area, D.D. was permitted a 30 minute visit. This was extremely frustrating and sad for D.D. who was coping (along with his brother) with the loss of both parents at that time.
66. D.D.’s conditions of confinement in detention only exacerbated his depression. 67. D.D. was required to pay his social security benefits to the Center in violation of Social
Security regulations and laws. Harm to D.D. 68. D.D. suffered physical injury, undue physical confinement, emotional distress, anguish
and despair during that physical confinement. D.D. still suffers emotional turmoil and distress, and extreme anxiety as a result of the conditions of his confinement. 69. Defendants’ excessive confinement of D.D., and denial of rehabilitative services, resulted in an extreme and needless delay in D.D.’s education and rehabilitation. C. Plaintiff K.M. K.M. is a Child with an Emotional Disability. 70. In 2009 K.M. was diagnosed as suffering from attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This condition makes it hard for him to control his behavior and follow rules. 71. As experienced by K.M., ADHD is a serious medical need and a disabling condition.
15

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-PCE-TPK Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/10 Page: 16 of 36 PAGEID #: 16
72. K.M. has been identified as a child in need of special education services since at least the 2008 academic year.
73. In 2009 K.M. was receiving educational services through the Road to Achievement Program (RAP) in Washington County, Ohio.
74. On November 19, 2009, while engaged in RAP programming, K.M. assaulted another student. He was charged with misdemeanor assault and placed at the Center.
75. At all times relevant to this case K.M. was prescribed medication known as Strattera in order to relieve the symptoms of his ADHD.
K.M. Was Placed in Detention at the Center and Denied Basic Necessities. 76. K.M. was immediately placed in a detention cell when he arrived at the Center.
Defendant former Director Rae Ward authorized the initial detention. 77. K.M. remained in detention for 20 consecutive days. 78. K.M. was not permitted to have educational materials or class-work in his detention cell.
No rehabilitation programming was provided to K.M. during his entire time in the detention cell. During the majority of the daytime hours K.M. either sat on his bed and looked out the window or simply lay down. 79. At various times K.M. was exposed to female staff monitoring the surveillance system when he entered or left the shower and/or used the toilet facilities in one of the detention cells. 80. K.M. would sometimes attempt to talk to juveniles in neighboring cells. When he did so, he was reprimanded and told to stop. Defendants were inconsistent with respect to what conduct was permitted in the cell.
16

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-PCE-TPK Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/10 Page: 17 of 36 PAGEID #: 17
81. K.M. was permitted only one hour of exercise per day. All exercise was conducted in a single room. K.M. was not permitted any outside exercise the entire time he was incarcerated in detention.
82. Upon K.M.’s admission, Defendants Ward, Hesson, Montgomery and Doe(s) were aware of K.M.’s need for prescription Strattera. But Strattera was not provided to K.M. until December 4, 2009, more than two weeks after admission. This medication helps K.M. control his behavior.
83. As a result of his lack of medication and the severe conditions of confinement K.M. had a very difficult time controlling his impulses. It was foreseeable by Defendants Ward, Hesson and Montgomery that the failure to provide medication combined with the severe conditions of confinement in detention would cause K.M. to engage in disruptive conduct.
Forced Removal of K.M.’s Clothing By Mixed Gender Team of Officers. 84. K.M.’s 14th birthday occurred on December 01, 2009. He had been in detention for 12
days and began acting out in various ways: kicking the cell door and the wall, cursing at staff, yelling, and striking the surveillance camera in his cell with his pillow. 85. On the evening of December 2, 2009, K.M. began jumping on the bed and striking a surveillance camera with his pillow. 86. Defendants Stephanie Galati and Brian Orders then entered K.M.’s cell. Defendant Galati demanded that K.M. remove all of his clothing. K.M. refused. Defendant Galati then removed K.M.’s socks and pants. 87. After a period of resistance, K.M. was restrained, clad only in a white t-shirt and his underwear. Defendant Galati told K.M. that he could either remove his underwear
17

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-PCE-TPK Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/10 Page: 18 of 36 PAGEID #: 18
himself, or that she would remove it. K.M. refused to remove his underwear. Defendant Galati asked that Defendant Michelle Burkhart bring a suicide gown into the cell to be placed on K.M. 88. Defendants Orders and Burkhart then ripped K.M.’s shirt off of him. By this time, all three defendants were actively restraining K.M. and wrestled him to the floor. Defendants Galati and Burkhart then restrained K.M.’s arms. Defendant Orders ripped K.M.’s underwear off in the presence of both female employees. 89. Defendant Galati left the suicide gown for K.M. to put on and then she, Defendant Burkhart and Defendant Orders exited the cell. 90. K.M. was forced to remain naked with only the suicide gown available to him until the afternoon of the following day. 91. Defendants Orders, Galati, and Burkhart all filed reports detailing the incidents of December 2nd. None of the reports indicate that K.M. ever threatened to harm himself or expressed suicidal thoughts or impulses. The purpose of placing K.M. in the gown was to prevent him from hitting the camera and/or to punish him for his actions. 92. At no time did Defendants Montgomery, Ward, Hesson, Orders, Galati, or Burkhart seek or provide a medical or mental health evaluation of K.M. even though his conduct was clearly a manifestation of his disability and an accommodation – including his prescribed medication – was required to help permit him to endure the unbearable conditions of confinement. 93. Defendants Orders, Galati, and Burkhart acted in a shocking manner and with deliberate indifference to the safety and health of K.M. The conduct of all defendants constitutes
18

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-PCE-TPK Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/10 Page: 19 of 36 PAGEID #: 19
punishment and reflects a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practices and standards. Harm to K.M. 94. K.M., a 14 year old boy, was humiliated and embarrassed as a result of having his entire, nude, body exposed to members of the opposite sex. 95. K.M.’s rehabilitation and education were needlessly delayed by Defendants. 96. The conditions of confinement including the denial of his prescription medication caused K.M. to deteriorate emotionally, lose impulse control, and generally suffer pain, embarrassment, humiliation, mental anguish, and psychological and emotional distress. 97. K.M. suffered physical pain and undue physical confinement at the Center. D. Plaintiff N.B. 98. N.B. was fourteen years old when he was admitted to the Center for disorderly conduct. 99. Between October 23, 2009 and June 30, 2010 he served approximately eight months at the Center. 100. N.B. served all of his time on the program side of the Center. 101. N.B. performed 190 hours of community service which was nearly twice the required number of hours he was ordered to perform. 102. Community service for N.B. included extensive work at private businesses including a private, for profit strawberry farm where N.B. would pick berries, pick up plants and pick up black plastic sheeting. N.B. developed blisters on his hands because he was not provided proper protective clothing by Defendants. N.B. was not paid for his work at private businesses.
19

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-PCE-TPK Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/10 Page: 20 of 36 PAGEID #: 20
103. At intake N.B. and his mother advised Defendants that he had back problems and was scheduled for physical therapy. He never received physical therapy while he was at the Center and his back continued to bother him.
104. N.B. and other children at the Center were required by Defendants to clean very large surfaces with toothbrushes.
105. N.B. was denied access to some recreational activities because of his back pain but always required by Defendants to shovel snow regardless of his back pain. N.B. was required to wear boots with holes and had cold, wet feet as he shoveled the snow.
106. N.B. contracted scabies at the Center. He did not know what it was and would itch the mites making him extremely uncomfortable as the condition spread. N.B. complained for weeks about the scabies before he finally received treatment for the scabies.
107. Defendant Does and Hesson were very demeaning in their statements to N.B., telling him that he was a “mama’s boy,” he was stupid, that he would never amount to anything and that he was worthless.
108. While Defendants held N.B. at the Center they received his social security benefits which violated social security regulations and laws.
109. N.B. was not a high risk offender and he was an inappropriate candidate for the treatment program at the Center. The application of the Center program to N.B. was a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practices, and standards.
110. N.B. was traumatized by his treatment at the Center. He suffered emotional and physical abuse. He suffered physical injury and pain. He has not yet recovered from the emotional abuse.
20

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-PCE-TPK Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/10 Page: 21 of 36 PAGEID #: 21
E. Plaintiff C.M. 111. C.M. was 13 years old when she was sent to the Center for being unruly C.M. earned
236.25 community service hours from December 2009-July 2010. 112. C.M. entered the Center with a diagnosis of ADHD, a condition she has had since she
was 5 years old. 113. C.M. spent 30 days in detention. She was alone in the cell. During the first week,
Defendants allowed her out of the detention cell the first week for just one hour per day so she could receive indoor recreation. She was never provided outdoor recreation. The remaining weeks of detention, C.M. was allowed out of the detention cell for indoor recreation and school. She had to wear shackles to recreation and school. During recreation she was required to play kick ball with the other girls while wearing leg shackles, which caused her to fall and caused the skin under the shackles to tear and bleed. The wounds on her ankles became infected. She and her mother asked Defendants for treatment but they denied C.M. proper medical care for this serious medical need. The wounds left scars on her ankles. 114. While C.M. was in detention she was depressed and lonely. She cried a lot alone in the cell. The first day in detention she head butted the table causing a black eye. She had little to do when she was locked in the cell and would pace back and forth so much she wore out her socks. Defendants allowed C.M. to request one book at a time to read, but every night she would have to return the book to staff. The next day she would be given a different book to read. The blinds in her cell were kept shut so she could not see outside unless she squinted through a hole in the blinds.
21

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-PCE-TPK Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/10 Page: 22 of 36 PAGEID #: 22
115. C.M.'s family visited her while she was held in detention. Her mother was shocked to see her daughter crying, rocking back and forth, and biting all her nails down to the skin. Her socks were sticking to the sores on her ankles. Her mother complained to Defendant Brian Hesson who failed to provide medical care to C.M.
116. C.M. requested to see someone for her depression while she was in detention but she was denied adequate mental health treatment. Defendants did not give C.M. with any medication for her depression.
117. C.M. joined the running team in an effort to earn points. Earning points was important to the juveniles in the program because they could not advance in the program unless they earned enough points to "earn a day." If they did not earn a day, that day was "dead time" meaning, the day did not count toward the total number of days they needed to complete to advance through the levels of the program.
118. Defendant Brian Hesson forced C.M. to run even though she was suffering from an asthma attack. She had stopped running and was in pain because her inhaler was not working. Brian Hesson came upon her and ordered her to run another mile. She cried and told him she could not breathe. He discharged her from the running team.
119. C.M. was forced to work on a for-profit strawberry farm. She and other girls and boys from the Center worked about approximately four hours a day for several weeks picking berries at the farm, pulling plants, removing plastic and irrigation hoses. Defendants did not give C.M. proper gloves and her hands were covered in blisters. She requested treatment for the blisters but Defendants denied her adequate medical treatment. She also worked for for-profit private businesses such as Kmart, doing yard work, picking up
22

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-PCE-TPK Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/10 Page: 23 of 36 PAGEID #: 23
trash, or painting at a cemetery, a Wal-Mart parking lot, and a bait shop. She also worked for three days shucking corn for the corn festival. 120. Defendants required C.M., and all the girls in programming, to clean the bathroom stalls and shower, staff bathrooms and visitor bathroom. On Tuesdays the girls were forced to clean the cafeteria floor with toothbrushes. 121. C.M. was traumatized by her treatment at the Center. She suffered emotional and physical abuse. She has not yet recovered from the emotional abuse. F. Plaintiff B.M. 122. B.M. was 14 years old when she was admitted to the Center for assault. She entered the Center September 2, 2009 and was not released until seven months later on April, 7, 2010. She completed 137 hours of community service. 123. B.M. witnessed excessive force being used on other juveniles, including throwing a boy to the floor and slamming in on his bed; seeing another boy restrained with three sets of cuffs and shackles, and seeing a juvenile tased multiple times. B.M. also witnessed her cell mate attempt suicide. 124. B.M. was on the running team run by Defendant Brian Hesson. She ran in a number of competitive races. She and the other members trained daily, running several miles a day. B.M. decided to quit the running team but Defendant Brian Hesson told her if she quit she would be put back a program level. On another occasion he threatened her with 15 days of "dead time." She did not want to have to repeat a level or loss days, so she continued on the team. 125. B.M. ran with a knee brace but during one three mile race her brace broke and she could not run without it. Brian Hesson forced her to race without her knee brace. When she
23

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-PCE-TPK Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/10 Page: 24 of 36 PAGEID #: 24
wanted to stop before the finish, Brian Hesson told her to finish the race. She finished, she injured her knee. 126. It took B.M. a long time to complete the program because Defendants refused to credit her for the days she completed the program. For example, she spent 30 days in orientation - earning no credit toward the program. She lost two days when she returned to the Center from a home visit without her identification bracelet. Even though her mother brought the bracelet to the Center 10 minutes later, B.M. was penalized. Center officials would write her up, causing her to lose days, for arbitrary reasons: she forgot a rag in the bathroom after cleaning, she did not keep her hands behind her back for extended periods of time, she refused to pick up trash during community service because the rocks by the river were too slippery and she feared she would fall. 127. B.M. was forced to scrub the gym floor, the cafeteria floor, and bathroom floors on her knees with a toothbrush. After her knee injury she was allowed to sit when she scrubbed. She was ordered to clean up urine, feces, and blood from a detention cell after KM was injured in his cell. She was not given any bio-hazard protection to wear nor disinfectant to use. 128. B.M. suffered emotional and physical abuse at the Center. She has not yet recovered from the abuse. G. Plaintiff W.G. 129. W.G. was thirteen years old when he was admitted to the Center following an altercation with his mother.
24

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-PCE-TPK Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/10 Page: 25 of 36 PAGEID #: 25
130. Between April 10, 2007 and October 26, 2007 he was in detention, released for a short period and also in shelter care for a short period. W.G. spent approximately 90 days in detention.
131. Upon intake at the Center W.G. and other boys must have their hair cut off. The shears used on W.G. were not sanitary. They were used improperly and W.G. was bleeding from several places on his scalp after his hair was cut.
132. While in detention W.G. received no educational programming from the Defendants. He was locked in his cell 23 hours per day. W.G. was released on some days for one hour of indoor recreation. He never received outdoor recreation. On many days Defendants required that W.G. participate in recreation while he was wearing leg shackles.
133. The detention cells were often cold. 134. For many days W.G. was forced by Defendants to remove all his normal clothing and
underwear and wear only a suicide smock which was filthy with blood and stains from previous youth who wore the gown. For many of the days W.G. was forced to wear the gown he was not suicidal or reasonably believed by Defendants to be suicidal. 135. W.G. was not permitted to lie down on his bed during the day and was required to endure long days of forced idleness by Defendants. 136. W.G. had no privacy in the detention cells and was observed naked by female staff when changing clothes, when using the toilet and when wearing the suicide gown. 137. From time to time Defendants would turn off the water in the detention cell of W.G. as punishment for misconduct. 138. Defendants also delayed delivery of toilet paper to W.G. in the detention cells.
25

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-PCE-TPK Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/10 Page: 26 of 36 PAGEID #: 26
139. Defendants often delayed delivery of food to the detention cell of W.G. causing him to eat many meals after they were cold.
140. Defendant Galati approved the transfer of W.G. from shelter care to detention on September 6, 2007 after W.G. allegedly pushed another youth. This transfer to detention was accomplished without a hearing and without providing W.G. any due process or opportunity to be heard.
141. W.G. suffered physical injury, emotional distress, anguish and despair as a result of his conditions of confinement at the Center. H. Plaintiff J.R.
142. J.R. was fifteen years old when he was admitted to the Center for possession of marijuana.
143. Between February, 2007 and January, 2008 he served approximately nine months at the center.
144. J.R. served approximately two months in detention in 2007. 145. While in detention J.R. was permitted by Defendants to leave his cell on some days to
attend classes. He was also permitted to go to recreation one hour per day. While in detention J.R. never received outdoor recreation. 146. J.R. was always cold in the detention cells. 147. Defendants severely restricted J.R.’s conduct while he was in detention. He was not permitted to open the shade and let sunlight into his room through the one window that faced the outside. He was permitted to sit on his bed but could not lie down during the day. He was permitted to read but required to deliver the book to staff at night.
26

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-PCE-TPK Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/10 Page: 27 of 36 PAGEID #: 27
148. Early in his stay in detention J.R. was crying and extremely distressed. He was required by Defendants to remove his clothing and wear only a suicide smock. This continued for approximately two days.
149. For many days in detention J.R. was alone in his cell. On some occasions he would have a cellmate. The long days of forced idleness, particularly when he was alone and cold, caused severe emotional and physical distress for J.R.
150. J.R. was assigned by Defendants to the Program side of the Center for approximately seven months.
151. During his stay in the program J.R. was required by Defendants to perform community service at for profit businesses including Wal-Mart, Lowes and Holiday Inn.
152. During his stay in the program, J.R. needed medical treatment on a few occasions. Defendants required that he wear leg shackles and handcuffs fixed to a belly belt when he left the facility. J.R. suffered sores and skin injuries as a result of the restraints. He was also humiliated, embarrassed and severely distressed by the use of these restraints.
153. During his stay in the program J.R. was required by Defendants to clean large surfaces with a toothbrush.
154. J.R. cooperated with staff during treatment and educational programming. He did not seriously misbehave or act out while in detention or in the program. J.R. was a low risk offender and he was not an appropriate candidate for the cognitive behavioral programming at the Center. Given his low risk of engaging in serious offenses, and his high level of cooperation and compliance, the duration of his confinement in the Center, away from his parents and community was excessive and reflects a substantial departure
27

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-PCE-TPK Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/10 Page: 28 of 36 PAGEID #: 28
from accepted professional judgment, practices and standards and violates the evolving standards of decency in a civilized society. 155. J.R. was traumatized by his treatment at the Center. He suffered emotional and physical abuse. He has not yet recovered from the emotional abuse. I. Plaintiff J.L. 156. J.L. was placed in the Center at 17 based on a trespassing charge. He was forced to stay in the Center for approximately 14 months. 157. J.L. was placed on suicide watch four times during his stay for over 45 total days in isolation. During this time he was forced to wear nothing but a suicide gown. He was not treated for his mental health issues before, during, or after he was placed on suicide watch. His mental health deteriorated during his detention and isolation while on suicide watch. Defendants placed J.L. on suicide watch as a punitive measure. 158. J.L. was in solitary confinement in a detention cell or isolation cell for over 7 months of the 14 months he spent at the Center. For the most part he was locked alone in the cell without any schooling or productive activities to occupy his time. He felt like he was going crazy while in detention and as a result acted out. 159. While in detention, J.L. was never allowed outside recreation. When he was on suicide watch for 45 days he was allowed no recreation, not even indoor recreation. When he was in detention, he was occasionally allowed indoor recreation, which he had to do in leg shackles. When he was not in detention he was forced to wear leg shackles while in gym class. Whenever he wore shackles at recreation or at the gym, the shackles would cause bleeding, cuts, and bruising to his ankles and soak his socks in blood. 160. J.L. was not allowed by Defendants to go to school when he was in detention.
28

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-PCE-TPK Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/10 Page: 29 of 36 PAGEID #: 29
161. The conditions in the detention cell were deplorable. J.L. was left in the detention cell for long periods of time without running water so he could not use the toilet, wash, shower, brush his teeth, or use the toilet. He was placed in hand restraints and leg shackles while in his detention cell on a number of occasions. At times, as punishment, he was deprived of toilet paper during the day and evenings. The temperature in the cell was kept freezing cold and J.L. was deprived of proper clothing, bed covers, and a mattress. At times he was stripped searched in front of female staff members without any regard to his privacy.
162. J.L. was celled with a violent adult male for several weeks until the Center removed the cell mate to an adult facility. The cell mate was in his mid twenties and was being held for stabbing someone. The cell mate made death threats to J.L. J.L. reported the threats but no action was taken to remove the adult cell mate for an extended period of time.
163. Officer Boley used excessive force on J.L. at times causing bruises, scrapes, and cuts on his face and body.
164. J.L. was forced by Defendants to work on two for-profit strawberry farms, picking berries and pulling plants. He was not given proper gloves and suffered blisters on his hands. He was also required to work at other for profit companies like Wal-Mart, Kmart, Holiday Inn, and a private housing complex. None of this work was for wages.
165. J.L. was forced to clean bathrooms and the entire gym floor with tooth brushes. He was also required to wash staff member's cars.
166. J.L. was at the Center he was called names and verbally abused by defendant Boley such as inbred mountaineer, snaggle tooth, or hillbilly, etc.
29

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-PCE-TPK Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/10 Page: 30 of 36 PAGEID #: 30
167. J.L. was traumatized by his treatment at the Center. He suffered emotional and physical abuse, from which he has not yet recovered. J. Policies, Customs and Practices.
168. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants County, Williams, Ward, Montgomery and Hesson established policies, practices, and customs at the Center that resulted in the conditions of confinement described above and experienced by the representative plaintiffs while they were incarcerated at the Center. Those conditions of confinement, including lack of education and programming, denial of medication, lack of privacy, lack of exercise and lack of mental health care all reflect a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practices, and standards; shock the conscience, and constitute deliberate indifference to the serious s health and safety needs of residents including the representative plaintiffs and the members of the plaintiff class.
169. The forced removal of K.M.’s clothing by Defendants Orders, Galati, and Burkhart was done consistent with the practice and custom and training provided by Defendants County, Williams, Hesson and Ward.
170. All of the Defendants have acted negligently, recklessly, wantonly, willfully, knowingly, intentionally and with deliberate indifference to the serious medical, mental and safety needs of the representative plaintiffs and members of the class. The conduct of the Defendants was a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practices, and standards.
171. At all times relevant to this case the Defendants failed to reasonably accommodate K.M.’s disability and D.D.’s disability and they denied to K.M. and D.D. services
30

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-PCE-TPK Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/10 Page: 31 of 36 PAGEID #: 31
because of their disabilities. On information and belief there are numerous other members of the class who have disabilities that were not accommodated. 172. At all times relevant to this case, Defendants County, Williams, Ward, Hesson and Montgomery failed to train and supervise Center staff to protect persons and property in the Center without violating the privacy and other rights of the residents. That failure to train and supervise staff was a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practices, and standards, shocks the conscience and was deliberately indifferent to the health and safety of the residents at the Center including the representative plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff class. 173. The emotional and behavioral deterioration of those representative plaintiffs and class members in detention was foreseeable but Defendants acted in a shocking manner, a manner reflecting a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practices, and standards, and with deliberate indifference to needs of the representative plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff class for mental health treatment, nonetheless caused the injuries suffered by the representative plaintiffs and the members of the plaintiff class. 174. The conduct of the Defendants and the conditions of confinement in detention at the Center shocks the conscience, reflects a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practices, and standards and violates the evolving standards of decency in a civilized society. 175. The policies, customs and practices of Defendants described above were the moving force behind the deprivations suffered by the representative plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff class.
31

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-PCE-TPK Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/10 Page: 32 of 36 PAGEID #: 32
176. Defendants Williams, Ward, Montgomery and Hesson acted negligently, knowingly, intentionally, recklessly, maliciously and with deliberate indifference when they retained and failed to supervise and train the staff members who violated the rights of the representative plaintiffs and the members of the plaintiff class. K. Need for Injunctive Relief
177. Defendants have acted and continue to act in violation of the law as described herein. Plaintiffs do not have an adequate remedy at law. As a proximate result of the policies, practices, acts, and omissions of Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer serious and irreparable physical, psychological, mental, and emotional injuries. Without action by this Court members of the Plaintiff class will continue to suffer irreparable injuries from the conditions of confinement at the Center and the application of Defendant’s policies, practices, acts, and omissions. V. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION – 42 U.S.C. §1983
178. Defendants deprived the representative plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff class of rights secured under the Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by imposing unconstitutional conditions of confinement on them in detention including, but not limited to, the right to exercise, education, physical and mental health care, fair discipline, privacy and rehabilitation.
179. The actions of Defendants are a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, standards, and practices, and thereby subject Plaintiffs to denial of due process of law, in violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The actions of Defendants also reflect conduct that
32

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-PCE-TPK Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/10 Page: 33 of 36 PAGEID #: 33
shocks the conscience and that reflects deliberate indifference to the health, safety and other rights of the representative plaintiffs and the members of the plaintiff class. 180. The conditions of confinement at the Center and Defendants’ policies, practices, acts, and omissions complained of herein constitute punishment and subject Plaintiffs to denial of due process of law, in violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
VI. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION – 42 U.S.C. §12132 181. K.M. and D.D. are qualified individuals with a disability. Defendant Washington County
is a public entity. Defendants were aware of K.M.’s and D.D.’s disabilities and intentionally deprived K.M. and D.D. of the benefit of education, mental health services, medication, and rehabilitation services in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Numerous additional class members also were disabled and denied rights to services because of their disabilities.
VII. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION – 29 U.S.C. §794 182. K.M and D.D. are qualified individuals with disabilities. Defendant County receives
federal funding. Defendants’ actions in denying K.M. and D.D. access to government services constituted a violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Numerous additional class members also were disabled and denied rights to services because of their disabilities.
VIII. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION – OHIO REVISED CODE §4112.99 183. Defendants deprived K.M. and D.D. and other members of the class of access to
educational, medical, and other services in violation of the Ohio Civil Rights Act. IX. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION – STATE LAW– OHIO REV. CODE §2933.32
33

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-PCE-TPK Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/10 Page: 34 of 36 PAGEID #: 34
184. Defendants Orders, Galati and Burkhart, pursuant to official custom and/or policy established by Defendants County, Williams, Ward, and Hesson, subjected Plaintiff K.M. to an illegal strip search in violation of §2933.32(B)(1) of the Ohio Revised Code. Defendants had no probable cause to suspect that K.M. carried contraband, nor was there any legitimate medical or hygienic reason justifying their actions. Further, the involvement of Defendants Galati and Burkhart clearly violated §2933.32(B) (6) of the Revised Code §2933.32 waives immunity and permits a victim to pursue a civil action against public officials who violate this act. X. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION – STATE LAW – ASSAULT AND BATTERY
185. Defendants Orders, Galati, and Burkhart battered K.M. when they intentionally touched him in a harmful and offensive way and without his consent. Defendants’ forcible removal of K.M.’s clothing was offensive to a reasonable sense of personal dignity. XI. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – STATE LAW – INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOIONAL DISTRESS
186. The Individual Defendants intentionally inflicted severe emotional distress on the representative plaintiffs and the members of the Plaintiff Class. XII. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION – STATE LAW – NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
187. The Individual Defendants negligently inflicted emotional distress on the representative plaintiffs and the members of the Plaintiff Class. XIII. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION – NEGLIGENT RETENTION AND SUPERVISION
188. Defendants Williams, Ward, Hesson, and Washington County negligently, knowingly recklessly and wantonly supervised and retained staff that caused the injuries to the representative plaintiffs and the members of the plaintiff class described above and
34

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-PCE-TPK Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/10 Page: 35 of 36 PAGEID #: 35
thereby also proximately caused the injuries to the representative plaintiffs and the members of the plaintiff class.
XIV. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – MEDICAL MALPRACTICE 189. After K.M. was admitted to the Center, Defendant Dr. Montgomery failed to use
reasonable care in diagnosing and treating the ADHD symptoms experienced by K.M., including his risk of acting out in response to the undue restrictions on his liberty in the detention cells at the center. Defendant Montgomery breached his duty of care to K.M. 190. Defendant Medical Director Dr. Montgomery failed to ensure that adequate policies, practices and customs were in place at the Center to appropriately diagnose, treat and monitor inmates housed at the Center who were at risk of harming themselves, others or property, due to ADHD or similar conditions. 191. The conduct of Defendant Dr. Montgomery deviated from standard medical practice, all in violation of Ohio law. See Declaration of Lynne H. Milliner, MD (attached). His conduct was a proximate cause of K.M.’s injury. 192. To the extent the treatment of K.M. is typical of the treatment of other class members, Defendant Montgomery has similarly failed to use reasonable care with respect to all of the members of the class.
XV. JURY DEMAND 193. Plaintiff requests a trial by jury on all claims triable to a jury.
XVI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that the Court: A. Assume jurisdiction over this action and permit the Plaintiffs to proceed by pseudonym; B. Certify this case as a class action pursuant to Civil Rule 23 (a), (b)(2) and (b)(3);
35

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-PCE-TPK Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/10 Page: 36 of 36 PAGEID #: 36
C. Issue declaratory and Injunctive relief barring the continued implementation of the customs, policies and procedures challenged herein and ensuring that the Washington County Juvenile Center meets minimum constitutional standards in the treatment and confinement of current and future juvenile detainees housed in the Center;
D. Compensatory damages in an amount to be shown at trial; E. Punitive damages in an amount to be shown at trial against the individual defendants (not
the County); F. Award Plaintiffs pre- and post – judgment interest; G. Reasonable attorney fees, costs, expenses; H. Such other relief as the Court might deem proper and just.
Respectfully submitted, _____________________________ Alphonse A. Gerhardstein (0032053) Trial Attorney for Plaintiffs Jennifer L. Branch (0038893) Attorney for Plaintiffs GERHARDSTEIN & BRANCH CO. LPA 432 Walnut Street, Suite 400 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 (513) 621-9100 (513) 345-5543 fax agerhardstein@gbfirm.com jbranch@gbfirm.com
36

 
 2011 WL 830761

2011 WL 830761 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, S.D. Ohio,
Eastern Division.
D.D. and all other similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
WASHINGTON COUNTY, OHIO, et al., Defendants.
No. 2:10–cv–1097. | March 3, 2011.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein, Jennifer Lynn Branch, Gerhardstein & Branch Co. LPA, Cincinnati, OH, for Plaintiffs.
Cheri B. Hass, Downes Fishel Hass Kim LLP, Columbus, OH, Kimberly Vanover Riley, Lisa Marie Zaring, Montgomery Rennie & Jonson, Brian David Goldwasser, Reminger & Reminger Co LPA, Cincinnati, OH, for Defendants.
Opinion
ORDER CERTIFYING CLASS
EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR., District Judge.
OPINION AND ORDER
*1 This matter is before the Court on a motion to certify a class of plaintiffs pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 (Doc. 20). For the following reasons, the motion to certify the class will be granted.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This class action was filed on December 6, 2010. The parties have met with the court on two occasions since the case was filed and are in the process of determining if the matter can be resolved through alternative dispute resolution. Plaintiffs have filed a motion to certify the

class and defendants have agreed not to oppose the motion as class certification is viewed by all parties as an aid to their efforts to resolve the matter. The parties have further agreed that defendants have preserved their right to move to decertify the class or seek subclasses and if they do file such a motion the burden will return to the plaintiffs to establish compliance with all of the requirements of Rule 23.
II. ANALYSIS
Although Rule 23(a) requirements are procedural, not jurisdictional, in nature, a party must satisfy the requisite criteria before class certification can be granted. In order for class certification to be granted, the Court must analyze any request to certify a class in light of the four factors outlined in Rule 23. See, e.g., Equal Opp. Comm. v. Whirlpool, 80 F.R.D. 10, 14 (N.D.Ind.1978) (citing Katz v. Carte Blanche Corp., 496 F.2d 747, 757 (3d Cir.l974)) (“The Rule 23 prerequisites are mandatory”); Charal v. Andes, 81 F.R.D. 99, 100 (E.D.Pa.1979) (citing Wetzel v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 508 F.2d 239, 246 (3d Cir.1975)) (“The satisfaction of each of these requirements is mandatory and may not be waived”). Put simply, parties cannot consent to Rule 23 certification. Rather, the Court may certify the proposed class only if it concludes, based on the record before the Court, that the four factors stated in Rule 23 are satisfied. Rule 23(a) states:
One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
These four requirements are known as numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation.
A district court is required to conduct a “rigorous analysis” into whether the prerequisites of Rule 23 are satisfied before certifying a class. General Tel. Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161, 102 S.Ct. 2364, 72 L.Ed.2d

2011 WL 830761

740 (1982). While a district court has broad discretion on whether to certify a class that determination must be made within the confines of Rule 23. See Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 100, 101 S.Ct. 2193, 68 L.Ed.2d 693 (1981) (district court bound by Federal Rules). A class is not maintainable as a class action merely because it is designated as such in the pleadings. In re American Medical Systems, Inc., 75 F.3d 1069, 1079 (6th Cir.1996). Although a hearing prior to class certification is not always required, “it may be necessary for the court to probe behind the pleadings before coming to rest on the certification question.” Id. (citing Falcon, 457 U.S. at 160). As the Court of Appeals has stated: Mere repetition of the language of Rule 23(a) is not sufficient. There must be an adequate statement of the basic facts to indicate that each requirement of the rule is fulfilled. Maintainability may be determined by the court on the basis of the pleadings, if sufficient facts are set forth, but ordinarily the determination should be predicated on more information than the pleadings will provide. Weathers v. Peters Realty Corp., 499 F.2d 1197, 1200 (6th Cir.1974) (citation omitted).
*2 According to ¶ 20 of the complaint (Doc. 1), the proposed class consists of
All persons twenty-two1 years of age or less as of December 6, 2010 (and others for whom the statute of limitations is legally tolled) who have been, are now, or in the future, held in custody at the Washington County, Ohio Juvenile Center.
Because the named plaintiffs did not file additional evidence to support their motion for class certification, see Falcon, 457 U.S. at 161 (party seeking the class certification bears the burden of proof), the Court will analyze the amended complaint to see if sufficient facts are set forth to allow the Court to certify a class.
A. Numerosity Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the class be “so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” There is no strict numerical test for determining the impracticability of joinder, American Medical Systems, 75 F.3d at 1079. Instead, the numerosity requirement varies depending on the specific facts of each case. Id. Additionally, when the class size reaches substantial numbers, the impracticability requirement is usually satisfied based on numbers alone. Id. (citing 1 Herbert B. Newberg & Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions, § 3.05, at 3–26).
The complaint indicates that “hundreds of youth [are]

confined at the Center each year.” ¶ 21 Complaint. This does not include any future potential juveniles who would or could be subjected to the alleged constitutional violations detailed in the complaint. The Court concludes that this number is so large that joinder of all juveniles who have been, are currently, or will in the future be housed at the Center is impracticable.
B. Commonality Rule 23(a)(2) requires that there be “questions of law or fact common to the class” before certification can be granted. The commonality test is qualitative, rather than quantitative, in nature, meaning that there needs to be only one single issue common to all class members. Id. at 1080 (citing 1 Newberg on Class Actions, § 3.10, at 3–50). In the instant case, the named plaintiffs claim that the alleged illegal policies, conditions, and practices at the Center are consistently applied to all persons housed within the Center. These Center-wide polices, conditions and practices which are alleged in the complaint, include:
• Locking youth in cells 23 hours per day, permitting youth only limited recreation
• Denying water to youth in their cells for extended periods
• Requiring youth to recreate and attend classes in shackles
• Invading privacy of youth through surveillance and other practices
• Requiring that suicide smocks be worn as punishment
• Removing youth from program without due process
• Assigning degrading and humiliating tasks to youth such as cleaning wide areas with a toothbrush
• Delaying and denying adequate medical and mental health treatment
• Denying education to youth
*3 • Requiring youth to work for-profit business without pay
• Arbitrarily extending confinement without due process
Because all proposed class members are allegedly subjected or at risk of experiencing these practices, the Court concludes that there are questions of law common to all members of the proposed class and, very likely,

2011 WL 830761

common questions of fact as well.
C. Typicality Rule 23(a)(3) states that “claims or defenses of the representative parties [be] typical of the claims or defenses of the class. The Court of Appeals indicated that [t]ypicality determines whether a sufficient relationship exists between the injury to the named plaintiff and the conduct affecting the class, so that the court may properly attribute a collective nature to the challenged conduct. In other words, when such a relationship is shown, a plaintiff’s injury arises from or is directly related to a wrong to a class, and that wrong includes the wrong to the plaintiff. Thus, a plaintiff’s claim is typical if it arises from the same event or practice or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of other class members, and if his or her claims are based on the same legal theory. A necessary consequence of the typicality requirement is that the representative’s interests will be aligned with those of the represented group, and in pursuing his own claims, the named plaintiff will also advance the interests of the class members. Id . at 1082 (citing 1 Newberg on Class Actions, § 3.13, at 3–75 and 3–76(footnote omitted)). Here, because the named plaintiffs are seeking systematic changes to the alleged unconstitutional and illegal policies, conditions and practices at DYS, the Court concludes that the named plaintiffs’ interests are aligned with those of the proposed class. Moreover, the named plaintiffs’ pursuit of claims against the defendants advances the interests of all the purported class members.
D. Adequacy of Representation Rule 23(a)(4) permits certification only if “the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The Court of Appeals annunciated two criteria in determining adequacy of representation: “1) the representative must have common interests with unnamed members of the class, and 2) it must appear that the representatives will vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through qualified counsel.” Senter v. General Motors Corp., 532 F.2d 511, 525 (6th Cir.1976). The complaint states, in relevant part, that [t]he named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. These plaintiffs possess the requisite personal interest in the subject matter of the lawsuit. They are represented by counsel experienced in class action litigation on behalf of children involving conditions of confinement. Alphonse A. Gerhardstein is currently lead class counsel on several pending class actions and has previously served as class counsel on many civil rights and criminal justice class actions during his thirty-four year career.

*4 Based on this statement in the complaint, the Court concludes that the named plaintiffs have common interests with the unnamed members of the class. Specifically, the named class members are recent juveniles that have been subjected to the alleged unconstitutional and illegal practices at the Center and are at risk of return to the Center. Additionally, the Court concludes that the named plaintiffs will vigorously prosecute the interests of the class because the named plaintiffs have a significant interest in eliminating any potential illegal and unconstitutional Center practice that the named plaintiffs themselves may be subjected to on a reoccurring basis. Finally, based on the experiences of the attorneys representing the class, it appears that the class’s legal representation is sufficient.
E. Rule 23(b) Rule 23 requires not only that the four prerequisites of Rule 23(a) be met, but it also requires that Rule 23(b) be satisfied as well. That rule states, in relevant part:
An action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites of subdivision (a) are satisfied, and in addition ... the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2).
To the extent the plaintiffs seek injunctive relief directed to alleged systematic unconstitutional and illegal Center practices, conditions and policies, the Court concludes that Rule 23(b) (2)certification is appropriate. See generally, Shreve et al v. Franklin County, et al., USDC, SD OH Case No. 2:10–cv–644., Doc. 69 (challenging use of tasers against jail inmates) (certifying a class (b)(2) class of “all persons who, now or at any time during the pendency of this litigation, are or will be placed in the custody of the Franklin County Sheriff’s Department at the Franklin County Corrections Centers.”)
Under Rule 23(b)(3), class certification is appropriate where (i) questions common to the class predominate over questions affecting only individual class members, and (ii) class resolution is superior to alternative methods for adjudicating the controversy. In re: Scrap metal Antitrust Litig., 527 F.3d 517, 535 (6th Cir.2008), rehearing and rehearing en banc denied (Oct. 20, 2008); Olden v.

2011 WL 830761

LaFarge Corp., 383 F.3d 495, 507 (6th Cir.2004), rehearing en banc denied (Nov. 10, 2004). When a court can determine liability on a class-wide basis, common questions predominate despite the fact that the damages calculation may involve individualized analysis. Olden, 383 F.3d at 508; Van Horn, 2008 WL 347758 at*11; City of Columbus, 2008 WL 3981459 at *7; and Patrick, 2008 WL 4758673 at *6. See also Velsicol Chem. Corp., 855 F.2d at 1197 (common issues relating to liability warranted class certification). It is clear that based on the complaint the common issues predominate in this case as required by Rule 23(b)(3).
*5 In addition to the requirement that common questions of law and fact predominate over individual issues, Rule 23(b)(3) requires that class treatment be superior to other methods of adjudication. The “superiority” requirement is intended to ensure that “a class action would achieve economies of time, effort, and expense, and promote ... uniformity of decision as to persons similarly situated, without sacrificing procedural fairness or bringing about undesirable results.” Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 615, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997), citing advisory committee notes for the 1966 revision of Rule 23.
Rule 23(b)(3) identifies four factors pertinent to finding superiority: (i) the interest of class members in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (ii) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by or against members of the class; (iii) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and (iv) any difficulties likely to be encountered in managing a class action. See Olden, supra, 383 F.3d at 507. These factors are satisfied based upon the complaint in this case.

III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the unopposed motion for class certification is granted. Further, the Court certifies a class in this case under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) which consists of the following:
All persons under twenty-two years of age as of the date on which this lawsuit is filed (and others for whom the statute of limitations is legally tolled) who have been, are now, or in the future, held in custody at the Washington County, Ohio Juvenile Center.
The Court further orders that K.M., D.D., N.B., B.M., C.M., W.G., J.L., and J. R., are appointed as class representatives and that Alphonse A. Gerhardstein and Jennifer L. Branch are appointed as class counsel. This is a provisional class order. Defendants have preserved their right to move to decertify based upon future developments in this case, to move for subclasses and assert any defenses they deem appropriate in this matter. Should a motion to decertify be filed, the parties agree that the burden of proof rests with the plaintiffs to satisfy all of the requirements of Rule 23.
Notice submitted by counsel is approved and shall be published by plaintiffs on a date agreed to by the parties at the mediation on April 14, 2011. Publication shall be made in the local newspapers in Marietta and Parkersburg; by posting the notice on the website of Gerhardstein & Branch; by plaintiffs mailing the notice to the last known address of every putative class member; and as further ordered by the Court.

 
 Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 29 Filed: 10/17/11 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 203

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

D. D., individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Washington County, Ohio, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 2:10-cv-1097
JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. Magistrate Judge Kemp

ORDER This matter is before the Court on Defendants' motion to partially decertify the class of plaintiffs, and to provide certification notice to only those class members who remain after this partial decertification. The original certification of the class occurred earlier this year, and nowfollowing extensive investigation, factfinding, and negotitation- the parties have reached a proposed agreement that applies to a smaller group of individuals than what was conditionally and initially certified. For the reasons articulated in Defendants' motion, the Defendants' unopposed motion to partially decertify the class (#27) is GRANTED. Further, the Court certifies the class that remains in this case under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b) {2) and (b) (3) consists of the following:

All persons under twenty years of age as of the date on which this lawsuit is filed (and others for whom the statute of limitations is legally tolled) who have been, are now, or in the future, held in custody at the Washington County, Ohio Juvenile Center

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 29 Filed: 10/17/11 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 204
The Court further orders that K.M., D.O., N.B., B.M., C.M., W.G., J.L., and J. R., remain appointed as class representatives and that Alphonse A. Gerhardstein and Jennifer L. Branch remain appointed as class counsel. This remains a provisional class order. Defendants have preserved their right to move to decertify based upon future developments in this case, to move for subclasses and assert any defenses they deem appropriate in this matter. Should a motion to decertify again be filed, the parties agree that the burden of proof rests with the plaintiffs to satisfy all of the requirements of Rule 23.
The Notice submitted by counsel as part of the joint motion to preliminarily approve consent decree is approved and shall be published by plaintiffs as provided for in the order on that motion. Notice shall occur in the local newspapers in Marietta and Parkersburg; posting on the website of Gerhardstein & Branch; mailed by plaintiffs to the last known address of every putative class member (as defined in the newly revised, partially decertified class); and as further ordered by the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
rgus, Jr. United Sta es District Judge
2

 
 Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 30 Filed: 10/17/11 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 205

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

D. D., individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Washington County, Ohio, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 2:10-cv-1097
JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. Magistrate Judge Kemp

ORDER This matter is before the Court on the joint motion of the parties (#28), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 to approve a proposed consent decree between Plaintiffs and Defendants in this case. Having reviewed this matter, it is hereby ORDERED: I. Preliminary Approval. The proposed consent decree between Plaintiffs and Defendants appears, upon preliminary review, to be within the range of reasonableness and accordingly shall be submitted to the class members for their consideration and for a fairness hearing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). The terms of the proposed consent decree are attached as Exhibit I to the parties' motion. 2. Hearing. A hearing shall be held in the Courtroom of District Judge Edmund A. Sargus, 85 Marconi Boulevard, Columbus, OH 43215 on November 21,2011 at 9:00a.m. to consider final approval of this consent decree.

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 30 Filed: 10/17/11 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 206
3. Objections. All objections by members of the class to the proposed consent decree must be filed with the Clerk of Court and postmarked no later than November 7, 20 11. The Clerk shall redact names, dates of birth, and any other private information from the objections before making them part of the public record. At the hearing, the objections by class members shall be reviewed and considered by the Court.
4. Notice. The class notice submitted by the parties, as revised and attached hereto as Exhibit I, is hereby approved. Counsel shall note that the Court bas made certain alterations to the form of notice submitted with the motion and that the notice attached hereto, and not the notice submitted with the motion, shall be the notice used to inform class members about the certification of the class and the proposed settlement. Within 7 calendar days, Class Counsel shall mail the notice to all members of the class at their last known address; research current address for class members whose current address is unknown to the parties, publish the notice in the local Marietta, Ohio newspaper; post the notice in the Washington County Juvenile Center; and post the notice on the plaintiff counsel's website. Defendants shall pay the cost of providing notice to the class members, including postage and newspaper notice, and reasonable search fees for missing addresses.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: fO-I? .....)..D\\
2

 
 Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: 260

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

D.D. and all other similarly situated, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WASHINGTON COUNTY, OHIO, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 2:10-cv-1097
Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Kemp
ORDER APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND CLAIMS PROCESS

This matter is before the Court on the joint motion of the parties (#28), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(e), to approve the proposed consent decree between Plaintiffs

and Defendants in this case. Having reviewed this matter, reviewed the material on the

sealed DVO submitted by Plaintiffs, and conducted a fairness hearing on November 21 ,

2011, the Court considered the following factors which all weigh in favor of approving

the settlement:

( 1) the plaintiffs' likelihood of ultimate success on the merits balanced against the amount and form of relief offered in the settlement; (2) the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation; (3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed; (4) the judgment of experienced trial counsel; (5) the nature of the negotiations; (6) the fact that no objections were raised by class members; and (7) the public interest.

Enterprise Energy Corp., 137 F.R.D. at 245, citing Williams v. Vukovich, 720 F.2d 909,

920 (6th Cir. 1983); Thompson, 124 F.R.D. at 157. As stated in open court on the record,

upon consideration of these factors in this case, this Court concludes that this settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. In addition, the Court finds there has been no fraud or

collusion in arriving at the proposed settlement. Accordingly, the consent decree, signed and attached hereto as Exhibit A, is approved.

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 2 of 7 PAGEID #: 261
Mr. Steve Martin is hereby appointed Monitor by agreement of the parties. The parties have also submitted a claims process and claim form to be used in implementing the settlement. The Court has reviewed the proposed process and heard counsel's presentation at the Fairness Hearing. The proposed plan and claim form are approved. A. Claims Process Responsibilities Defendants will: I. Pay $650,170 to the Qualified Settlement Fund ("QSF") within 30 days of the Court approving the consent decree. 2. Pay $7,500 to the QSF within 14 days of the Court approval of the QSF as an initial deposit for QSF administration fees and expenses. 3. Pay additional funds into the QSF within 14 days of the Administrator's request for funds to pay the Monitor fees and expenses, the Administrator fees and expenses, Class Counsel's monitoring fees and expenses (an amount not to exceed $20,000) and any additional settlement funds for Schedules A- I, A-2, A-3 , or A-4 as a result of a fmal decision on appeal. 4. Cooperate with the QSF Administrator to facilitate Probate Court Approval in the most efficient and cost effective way for claimants. Class counsel will: 1. Mail claim forms to all class members for whom Class Counsel have a current addresses before December 31, 20 I I. If Plaintiff learns of an additional class member's name or address after December 31, 20I I, Class Counsel may send
2

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 3 of 7 PAGEID #: 262
claim forms to class members up until February 22,2012. The Claim Form attached filed as Doc. 36-1 shall be used by Class Counsel. 2. The claim form must include the following information:
a. The amount of money the class member is entitled to receive according to Schedules A-1 through A-4. If the class member is entitled to no recovery according to the schedules the claim form will explain why (over age, no record in detention, no record in shackles, etc.).
b. The class member may make only one of three elections: 1. elect to receive the scheduled settlement amount 11. elect to appeal the scheduled settlement amount (for example, disputes the numbers of days held in detention or in shackles, submits proof that tolling applies, etc.)
iii. elect to reject the scheduled settlement amount and instead
make a claim to the common fund c. A notice to all Ohio minor class members of the need to have an Ohio
Probate Court approve ofany settlement amount over $1,000.00 before any money is sent to the class member. Claims under $1 ,000.00 will be paid as indicated in Section C. Probate Court Approval below. d. A notice to all class members that those claimants who receive public benefits and receive settlement money may see an impact in their public benefits.
3

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 4 of 7 PAGEID #: 263
e. All claim forms must be signed, notarized, and postmarked to Class Counsel on or before February 29, 2012. All minor class members must sign the claim form as well as one parent or custodian. Class members who do not postmark a claim form on or before February 29, 2012 will receive no settlement award.
f. Class Counsel will enclose a self-addressed stamped envelope. 3. Class Counsel will process claim forms and send the claim forms and any
supporting documents: a. to the QSF Administrator all claim forms that elect to receive the scheduled settlement amount b. to the QSF Administrator all claim forms that elect to appeal the scheduled amount c. to Magistrate Judge Kemp all claim forms that elect to make a claim to the common fund
The Qualified Settlement Fund Administrator ("Administrator") will: 1. Process the claim forms that elect to receive the scheduled settlement amount. The Administrator will pay all adults their settlement within 60 days of the Administrator's receipt of the claim form. The Administrator will apply to the appropriate Ohio Probate Court for approval of the minor's settlement. Within 60 days of receiving the final Probate Court approval, the Administrator will pay the minor' s settlement, as directed by the Probate Court.
4

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 5 of 7 PAGEID #: 264
2. Process all appeals ofthe scheduled amount. The Administrator will review all documents the class member submits, including his sworn statement, and all documents submitted by class counsel before making a decision on the appeal. If the appeal is denied, Administrator will notify class member of the right to make a final appeal to the Magistrate Judge. lfthe appeal is granted and no appeal to the Magistrate Judge is made, the Administrator will request any additional money from the Defendants and, within 60 days of the receipt of the additional money, either pay the claim to the adult class member or seek Probate Court approval (as outlined above) for minor class members. If the Administrator' s decision is appealed to the Magistrate Judge, the Administrator will request any additional money from the Defendants and pay the settlement amount in the Magistrate Judge's decision within 60 days of the receipt of the additional money or, if the class member is a minor at that time, apply to the Probate Court for approval as outlined above.
3. Pay common fund applicants within 60 days of receiving this Court's decision on the last common fund applicant appeal, unless Probate Court approval is required. Within 60 days ofbeing notified by this Court of its decision on the last appeal to the common fund, the Administrator shall pay all common fund claims (those decided by the Magistrate Judge that were not appealed and those decided on appeal) to the adult class member or if the class member is a minor at the time, seek Probate Court approval (as outlined above).
4. The common fund is limited to $100,000. If all proposed awards from the Magistrate Judge and this Court total more than $100,000 the Administrator
5

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 6 of 7 PAGEID #: 265
shall notify this Court before paying any common fund award. Principal is defined as money deposited by the Defendant. Unclaimed funds on which checks are issued but not cashed will be reissued once if a known address exists. Ifthe second check is not cashed or there is no current address readily available, the Administrator shall escheat the funds to the State of Ohio. Any interest earned on the Fund shall be used to pay Qualified Settlement Fund expenses and fees. 5. Return to Defendants any principal deposits made by Defendants to the QSF that were not spent. 6. File a report of activities, including an accounting of the QSF fund, with the District Court, with a copy to defense counsel, on July 31 and January 31 every year until the QSF fund is closed. Magistrate Judge Kemp will: 1. Decide all appeals of the QSF Administrator's decision to deny an appeal of the schedule settlement amount. The Magistrate Judge shall notify the class member and the Administrator ofhis decision. The Magistrate Judge's decision is final and not appealable further. 2. Decide all claims made to the $100,000 common fund. The Magistrate Judge shall notify each class member, class counsel, and the Administrator ofhis decision and provide appeal rights. Class members may appeal the Magistrate Judge's decision to this Court within 30 days ofthe date ofthe Magistrate Judge's decision. The District Court will:
6

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 7 of 7 PAGEID #: 266

1. Decide all appeals ofthe Magistrate Judge's common fund decisions. The

Court will notify each class member, class counsel, and the Administrator of

his decision. The Court's decision is final and not appealable further.

2. Hold a status conference with the parties and Administrator one year after the

fund is established and thereafter, as appropriate.

B. Probate Court Approval

The QSF Administrator will apply for Probate Court approval for all Ohio minors whose claims exceed $1,000 and pay the settlement amount as ordered by the Probate

Court. For any award for a minor receiving $1,000.00 or less, the Administrator will distribute the award to the parent, or if no parent exists, the guardian of the child, and if no guardians exists, the custodian ofthe child solely for the benefit ofthe child, without

the need to seek Probate Court approval. The parties are directed to submit a Probate Form to be included with the Claim Form for Court approval prior to the mailing of any Claim Forms.

C. Miscellaneous Orders

All records related to this claim process that identity an individual class member are ordered to be filed under seaL

Class Counsel and the Monitor may apply to the QSF Administrator for fees and

expenses when they choose. Attorney and monitor fees and expenses are not taxable to any plaintiff class member.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date:

IJ; )_~ - .). Qll

us, Jr.
United States istrict Judge

7

 
 Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39-1 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 1 of 31 PAGEID #: 267

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

D.D. and all other similarly situated, et al.,

Case No. 2:10-cv-1097

Plaintiffs,
v.
WASHINGTON COUNTY, OHIO, et al.,

Judge: Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. Magistrate Judge: Terence P. Kemp

Defendants.

CLASS ACTION CONSENT DECREE

I. INTRODUCTION 1. This consent decree is entered into by the parties to resolve all of the claims made in this
action and seeks to build on initiatives already commenced at the Washington County Juvenile Center (WCJC) to improve the care and treatment of youth in its custody. 2. In this case, the Plaintiffs D.D. by and through his legal custodian and nextfriend, B.T.; K.M., by and through his mother and nextfriend, J.M.; N.B., by and through his mother and nextfriend, A.D.; B.M. by and through her mother and nextfriend, J.A.; C.M., by and through her mother and nextfriend, E.M.; W.G., by and through his grandmother, and custodian and nextfriend, D.G.; J.R. by and through his mother and next.friend, WR.; and J.L., by and through his mother and next friend, S.S., bring a number of claims on behalf of the class of all youth who have been, are, or will be in the custody at the WCJC. 3. The Defendants have agreed to enter into a settlement and this consent decree in an effort to improve the services at the Juvenile Center, while avoiding the time and expense of litigation. The Plaintiffs acknowledge the Defendants' efforts to amicably resolve these

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39-1 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 2 of 31 PAGEID #: 268
disputes, and their willingness to provide services that exceed legal requirements and which benefit the juveniles in their care. 4. This action was filed by Plaintiffs on December 6, 2010. Doc. I. On March 3, 2011, the Court entered an Order certifying this case as a class action and naming Alphonse A. Gerhardstein and Jennifer L. Branch as Class Counsel and the Plaintiffs as representative Plaintiffs. Doc. 22. 5. On January 11, 2011, the Court, upon request of both parties, set a process in place to assist the parties in reaching an early resolution of the matter by encouraging an exchange of facts and expert opinions. Doc. 16. The resulting exchange of class member files, policies, site visit observations, and expert opinions served as the basis for the extensive, informal negotiations that followed. These negotiations have been undertaken in good faith and at arm's length, allowing the parties to reach agreement on the procedures and substantive criteria the parties will follow for improving services to the youth in the class. The parties freely and voluntarily, and with the advice of counsel, enter into this consent decree for that purpose. 6. In drafting this consent decree to correct a violation of a Federal right, the parties and the Court have given substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of the criminal justice system caused by the relief.
II. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE WCJC 7. The WCJC is located at 1699 Colegate Dr., Marietta, Ohio. The facility was remodeled in
1999 and it has two girls' bedrooms, three boys' bedrooms, girls' and boys' day rooms, classrooms, offices, programming space, dining room, kitchen and a gymnasium. The girls' bedrooms accommodate five girls. The boys' bedrooms accommodate five boys.
2

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39-1 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 3 of 31 PAGEID #: 269
8. The ·'observation cell" is located at the beginning of the girls' wing of the facility. It has a single-occupancy design and is used for intake, suicide observation, isolation and detention. The other three detention cells are located on the boys' side ofthe facility. One detention room is a single-occupancy design and the other two are double-occupancy. All four rooms have an institutional sink/commode, a table with stools and beds that are attached to the floor. There is no other furniture. The single-occupancy detention room has a shower that is used by all detention youth. Cameras that are viewed by an employee stationed at the front desk monitor all four rooms. That front desk position is staffed twenty-four hours a day by both male and female staff members.
III.REVISED CLASS DEFINITION 9. Based upon the investigation, research and negotiations of the parties, they hereby agree to
the following revised class definition: "All persons under twenty years of age as of December 6, 2010 (and others for whom the statute of limitations is legally tolled) who have been, arc now, or will in the future, be held in custody at the Washington County, Ohio, Juvenile Center." IV. SUBSTANTIVE REMEDIAL MEASURES- INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
A. DETENTION AND OBSERVATION CELLS 10. Defendants may place a program or shelter care youth into isolation due to behavior issues
in either the observation cell or a detention cell pursuant to the administrative code governing Community Residential Centers (OAC 5139-35), but shall not house said program/shelter care youth in isolation in said cells for longer than 24 hours, with the exception that Defendants may place a program/shelter care youth into the observation cell for suicide watch purposes in accordance with the recommendation of the mental health provider.
3

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39-1 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 4 of 31 PAGEID #: 270
11. Youth in detention status shall not be held at the WCJC longer than 24 hours. All detention admissions shall be in accordance with Rule 7 of the Ohio Rules of Juvenile Procedure.
12. With respect to detention youth, Defendants will continue their policy of permitting halfhour visits from the child's parent/custodian where feasible, prior to transport, and visits from counsel at any time, prior to transport. Visits with a youth' s parent, custodian, or counsel are scheduled as time permits and subject to the schedules of the transporting officials. Visits will not be unreasonably denied.
13. Youth held in detention between 7am-7pm shall be permitted a minimum of one hour large muscle activity in the gymnasium every day. No physical restraints shall be placed on the youth while the youth is being held in the detention cells, in the gymnasium, while transported inside the facility, or while attending school. Youth may be placed in restraints for transport outside of the facility.
14. Defendants agree to either re-position or obscure the view of the monitoring camera in each cell so that there is a privacy zone around the shower and toilet areas, which will be demarcated on the floor of the cell. In the event a youth is placed on suicide watch, all areas of the cell may be observed by a staff member of the same gender if instructed by the mental health provider.
15. If a youth's behavior warrants, and he or she is held in detention on a date and time when the Center is offering religious programming, he or she may attend the religious programmmg.
16. Defendants may continue to tum offwatertemporarily in a detention cell to prevent damage to Center property, fixtures, the cell, or to prevent harm to a youth, as documented in an
4

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39-1 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 5 of 31 PAGEID #: 271
incident report. Water will be restored as quickly as a youth's behavior warrants and as required to protect the health and safety ofthe youth. B. MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH 17. Defendants shall appoint a physician to serve as medical director of the WCJC. 18. The medical director or his designee (physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, RNs, or LPNs) shall, consistent with their licensure, provide medical evaluations for WCJC youth who request medical care. Evaluations shall be provided at least once every week. The director shall be on call or make arrangements for coverage at all other times, which may include designating a local medical facility to provide care after hours and on weekends. The medical director or his designee, consistent with their licensure, has the authority to determine, after review of a request, that an in-person consult is not medically necessary. The medical director or his designee shall not be a WCJC employee. 19. The medical director shall approve all medical and mental health policies and procedures and train staff in the proper implementation ofthose policies and procedures. The medical director shall ensure that an annual quality assurance audit of the facility is performed either by himself or a peer. The medical director shall ensure that appropriate mental health professionals are available to address the mental health needs of the youth. A contract will be established with the outside mental health provider setting out scope and terms of service for mental health care. 20. The Defendants shall continue their current efforts to secure all medical records and medical information in a locked cabinet in the medication administration room to protect
5

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39-1 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 6 of 31 PAGEID #: 272
confidentiality of the youth. The defendants will ensure that only appropriate staff shall have access to the medical records. 21. All youth shall be screened for medical and mental health issues on intake by the staff using a medical assessment form approved by the Medical Director as well as the MAYSI -2 mental health assessment instrument or other similar instrument. All youth shall be given a medical exam within 14 days of admission. 22. Defendants shall continue with their efforts to utilize and train staff to use a screening instrument such as the MAYSI-2 or a similar instrument that will identify mental health concerns including youth at risk for suicide. Any youth at risk for suicide will be promptly assessed by a mental health professional and any recommendations of the mental health professional shall be followed by the Center. Suicide gowns shall only be used when a mental health professional determines that use of the gown is appropriate. 23. All staff will receive an annual training in suicide prevention. C. PROGRAMMING 24. Defendants shall not use for-profit entities as community service sites. Youths will continue to be advised monthly as to the number of community service hours they have logged. 25. The Center shall make a good faith effort to provide some form of Non-Christian religious services to youth seeking same. 26. Defendants shall continue to consult with the University of Cincinnati (UC) regarding the cognitive behavioral treatment program at the WCJC, including retaining UC to assess and make recommendations regarding the ongoing operation of the program at least once during the first nine months of the term ofthis consent decree. The Monitor shall simply ensure
6

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39-1 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 7 of 31 PAGEID #: 273
that the UC consult is accomplished and that all reports from the consult are received by the Defendants and shared with Plaintiffs' counsel. This decree does not permit the Monitor to mandate implementation of the UC recommendations. The Monitor has no authority to oversee the implementation of any UC recommendations. Rather, the Monitor shall simply ensure that the UC consult is undertaken during the first nine months ofthe consent decree and that the reports are shared with counsel as set out above. 27. Defendants shall continue to inform the home school district of each youth's admission to the WCJC Rehabilitation Program, and request current copies ofiEPs, so that the school's compliance with all special education rules and laws may be achieved on a timely basis. The WCJC shall make a good faith effort to cooperate with area school districts in those districts' provision of special education services on a timely basis. 28. Defendants shall update the WCJC handbook to reflect any changes in rights, responsibilities and programming that are implemented to comply with this consent decree. The handbook shall continue to be shared with parents as well as youth. 29. Defendants shall continue to ensure that all searches of youth are performed by and conducted in presence of staffof the same gender, except in emergency circumstances. 30. Defendants shall continue to ensure that youth will not be permanently terminated from the program without a court hearing. 31. Defendants shall continue to provide staff training in accordance with Ohio Administrative Code 5139-35-06 governing Residential Centers and document the training in the employee personnel files. One staff member shall be designated as training director with responsibility for keeping training records, monitoring training needs and scheduling training as needed.
7

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39-1 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 8 of 31 PAGEID #: 274
32. Defendants will end the practice of ordering parents/custodians to pay child support or social security to the County's General Fund. V. MONITORING
33. Mr. Steve Martin is hereby appointed Monitor by agreement of the parties. Defendants shall pay the Monitor's reasonable monitoring fees and expenses. The general goal of such monitoring and oversight shall be to promote and assist the parties in achieving compliance with Section IV of this decree rather than simply finding noncompliance. The Monitor is a coach and partner in achieving success. The Monitor must also report on the compliance with the terms ofthis consent decree. Monitoring principles shall include: a. The Monitor, to ensure the Center's compliance with Section IV of the Decree, shall gather appropriate data and statistics and conduct on-site inspections. The Monitor shall ensure that decree terms are implemented in a timely fashion through appropriate policies and procedures, staff training and staff supervision, consistent with the objectives of the consent decree. Where disputes between the parties occur or where there appears to be non-compliance, the Monitor shall attempt to resolve such matters in the most expeditious and non-adversarial fashion possible; and b. The Monitor will seek to minimize interference with the mission of the WCJC. Defendants will provide timely and complete access to all relevant files, reports, memoranda, or other relevant documents within the control of the Defendants or subject to access by the Defendants; unobstructed access during announced and unannounced on-site tours and inspections to the WCJC, to include any WCJC administrative offices; and unobstructed access to staff and youth and other 8

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39-1 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 9 of 31 PAGEID #: 275
persons employed by WCJC and having information relevant to the implementation of this consent decree. WCJC will encourage the teachers who work on site and contractors to cooperate with the Monitor. The parties agree that the Monitor may engage in a private conversation with any party hereto and their counsel. c. In the event that Steve Martin is unable or unwilling to serve as the Monitor, the parties will mutually agree on a substitute Monitor. d. The Monitor shall not be subject to dismissal except upon the agreement of the parties or by the Court upon motion ofone of the parties and a showing ofgood cause. e. The Monitor shall make an initial site visit and issue an initial report within 120 days of the execution of this decree. Additionally, the Monitor will conduct a site visit and issue a comprehensive compliance report at the end of one year from the effective date of this decree. The report will address whether Defendants have substantially complied with the terms set out in Section IV of this decree. Ifthe Monitor finds that the Defendants are not in substantial compliance with any of the terms set out in Section IV, then the Monitor shall continue monitoring only those terms that are non-compliant for an additional six month period of time.
VI. DISPUTE RESOLUTION 34. In the event a dispute arises as to whether either party has failed to substantially comply
with any term of this consent decree, as determined by the Monitor, counsel for the parties shall proceed as follows:
9

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39-1 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 10 of 31 PAGEID #: 276
a. Counsel for the parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve any difference that may arise between them over matters of compliance, utilizing the Monitor initially in an effort to resolve such dispute. Prior to the initiation of any proceeding to enforce the provisions of this consent decree, the moving party shall notify the opposing party in writing of any claim the moving party believes violates any provision of this consent decree.
b. Within thirty (30) business days of the receipt of this notice, counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants shall meet in an attempt to arrive at an amicable resolution of the claim. Either party may request the attendance and involvement of the Monitor at such meeting. If, after twenty (20) business days following such meeting, the matter has not been resolved, the opposing party and the Monitor shall be so informed by Plaintiffs' counsel, in writing, and the moving party may then have due recourse to any appropriate legal proceeding or authorize the Monitor to make a recommendation that is not binding on the parties. The time frames set out in this paragraph will not prevent the parties from seeking prompt judicial relief in the event of an emergency posing an immediate systemic threat to the health or safety ofyouth.
c. Any complaints by youth objecting to any conditions of confinement, as referenced in Section IV, shall be addressed through WCJC grievance procedures. During the pendency of this consent decree, copies of any such grievances and related documents shall be provided to the Monitor as requested.
35. No legal action seeking equitable relief relating to the issues resolved herein, including a motion to enforce the terms of this consent decree, shall be filed on behalf of the Plaintiff
10

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39-1 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 11 of 31 PAGEID #: 277
class or by a member of the Plaintiff class without first resorting to the dispute resolution mechanisms set out in this consent decree, i.e., advising the Defendants of the issue and making a good faith effort to resolve said issue extra-judicially. 36. The Plaintiffs shall not seek an order of contempt unless and until (I) the Plaintiffs have sought to enforce this consent decree by filing an appropriate motion with the Court and (2) the Court has issued a clear and unambiguous order of specific performance to the Defendants.
VII. COMPLIANCE AND TERMINATION. 37. The parties agree that a one (I) year period is presumptively required to implement the
terms agreed upon in this consent decree and that an additional six month period is acceptable in accordance with Section V (Paragraph 33(e)). In adopting this term, the parties intend to comply with the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (P.L.R.A.), 18 U.S.C.A. § 3626. 38. Oversight by the Monitor shall continue as set forth in Section V ("Monitoring") following the entry of this consent decree unless sooner terminated on motion to the Court by the Defendants, and the Court finds, after obtaining a determination on that issue by the Monitor, that substantial compliance has been achieved on all terms. 39. The court shall find that this consent decree satisfies the requirements of 18 U.S.C.A. § 3626 and shall retain jurisdiction to enforce its terms. Subject to the dispute resolution provisions, the court shall have the power to enforce the consent decree through specific performance and all other remedies permitted by law.
11

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39-1 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 12 of 31 PAGEID #: 278
VIII. SETTLEMENT OF DAMAGE CLAIMS 40. Within 30 days of the signing of this consent decree, Defendant Washington County, on
behalf of all Defendants, shall cause to be paid to the WCJC Qualified Settlement Fund (QSF) established by the Court the sum of Six Hundred, Twenty-Six Thousand, Two Hundred and Thirty Dollars ($626,230.00). This sum is derived by totaling the various damage categories explained below plus all sums agreed to by the parties for attorney fees as set forth in paragraph 46 and expenses. The total damages to be deposited must be verified by class counsel by examining the class member files before the fairness hearing. Any discrepancy discovered that causes Plaintiffs to seek a change in the total sum to be paid shall be negotiated by the parties before the fairness hearing. Once Defendant Washington County makes the payment required under this paragraph then all Defendants shall have fully discharged their payment obligations for damages under this paragraph. If, for any reason, the settlement is not completed and no monies are paid to the class, the Defendant shall be reimbursed the full amount of its payment. Similarly, if there are monies deposited for damages remaining in the WCJC QSF after all settlement payments have been made, then that sum shall also be returned to the Defendant County. 41. The members ofthe class entitled to participate in the monetary settlement and affected by the release of claims are set forth as follow:
a. Class members held in detention beyond 24 hours per incident, as listed on Schedule (A)(l ), shall receive $60.00 for each day held in detention excluding the first 24 hours per incident without being released to attend school classes.
12

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39-1 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 13 of 31 PAGEID #: 279
b. Class members listed on Schedule (A)(2) shall receive $160.00 for each day they were placed in a suicide gown while in detention without a mental health practitioner being called to do an assessment.
c. Class members listed on Schedule (A)(3) shall receive $50.00 for each day they were in detention and required to wear shackles while participating in recreation, in school, or in the detention cell.
d. Class members listed on Schedule (A)(4) (program children) shall receive $40.00 for each day they were held in isolation beyond 24 hours per incident and not released for school classes.
e. Class members listed on Schedule (A)(5) are the representative Plaintiffs appointed by the Court in this case. They are the only representatives who shall each receive $2,500.00 for their service as class representatives. No other class members shall receive compensation for serving as representatives, even if they are substituted for a current class representative in the future.
f. Defendants shall also provide the total sum of $100,000.00 to be used to compensate all of those class members who can establish serious and significant physical and/or emotional personal injury such as pain and suffering due to delayed medical or mental health care, or actions by staff.
42. Upon application by Class Counsel, a United States Magistrate Judge shall adopt a Distribution Plan for monetary awards to the members of the class. The Plan shall require the QSF Administrator to make the initial awards to members of the class who make claims based on their listing on the attached Schedules. Appeals from awards based on the attached schedules, (A)(l)-(A)(4), shall be to the Magistrate Judge. The decision ofthe Magistrate
13

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39-1 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 14 of 31 PAGEID #: 280
Judge on those appeals from class members who seek to recover based on the schedules shall be final. 43. The Distribution Plan proposed by Class Counsel and the representative Plaintiffs shall be presented to the Court (Magistrate Judge) no later than one week before the Fairness hearing. Defendants shall cooperate with reasonable requests for information by Class Counsel and/or the QSF Administrator and provide copies ofrecords requested by Class Counsel and/or the QSF Administrator which may relate to class member claims for monetary relief. 44. As described in the Distribution Plan, in addition to the damages award based on the schedules, there shall be a fund of $100,000.00 for additional damages which are available
to class members in the place of the Schedule (A)(l)-(4) awards as set out below. Any class
member who chooses to pursue an award from the $100,000 settlement fund has the ability to file a claim with the Magistrate Judge to seek that award. The Magistrate Judge shall make the initial awards to members ofthe class who apply for damages from the $100,000 settlement fund. Appeals from those awards shall be to the District Judge. The decision of the District Judge shall be final as to these awards. A class member's decision to pursue an award from this fund forfeits their ability to recover under Schedules (A)(l)-(4). 45. The parties agree that the provisions of 42 U.S.C. §1997(e) do not apply to this action because none ofthe representative parties were confined in the WCJC at the time the action was filed.
14

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39-1 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 15 of 31 PAGEID #: 281
IX. ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES 46. Defendants shall pay Plaintiffs' reasonable attorney fees and costs in the amount of
$220,000.00. This amount is inclusive of all Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, other than fees relative to the monitoring process, from the beginning of time until the approval ofthis decree after the fairness hearing. Plaintiffs' attorneys shall receive fair and adequate fees and costs for representation of the class during monitoring and compliance actions regarding the consent decree. This includes all fees and expenses related to the assistance that must be provided to class members during the claims process. The fees and expenses under this paragraph shall be capped at $20,000 for the life of the decree. Provided that, if an enforcement action is brought under paragraphs 35 or 36 and plaintiffs are successful through judicial order or settlement of said enforcement action, then Plaintiffs may apply for fees and expenses in connection with said enforcement action, which defendants may oppose.
X. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 47. All parties hereto agree to exercise their best efforts and to take all reasonable steps
necessary to effectuate the settlement set forth in this consent decree. Defendants will make reasonable efforts to provide Class Counsel with any information in their possession that Class Counsel requests in order to facilitate giving individual notice to Class members. 48. Defendants shall be responsible for paying the costs of issuing notice to the class, providing and processing class member claim forms, and notifying class members of awards. Defendants shall be responsible for paying the QSF Administrator's fees and expenses, including any fees and expenses related to obtaining Probate Court approval of minor class member's awards. Defendants shall also be responsible for paying the Monitor's fees and
15

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39-1 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 16 of 31 PAGEID #: 282
expenses. The QSF Administrator's fees and expenses and the Monitor's fees and expenses
will be paid through the QSF fund.
49. This consent decree shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and
their respective estates, heirs, successors and assigns.
50. This consent decree, and all documents specifically incorporated and referenced herein,
constitutes the entire agreement among the parties with regard to the subject matter of this
consent decree. This consent decree may not be modified or amended except in writing
signed by all parties hereto.
51. This agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
52. The titles in headings in this consent decree are purely for the convenience of the reader.
The parties do not intend that they be given any weight in interpreting the consent decree.
53. Any notice, request, instruction or other document to be given hereunder by any party hereto
to any other party (other than class notification) shall be in writing and delivered personally
or sent registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, and by email to Defendants as follows:
To: Washington County Defendants Cheri B. Hass Downes Fishel Hass Kim LLP 400 S Fifth Street Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43215 CHass@downesfishel.com To: Judge Timothy Williams Kimberly Vanover Riley Lisa M. Zaring Montgomery, Rennie & Jonson 36 E. Seventh Street, Suite 2100 Cincinnati, OH 45202 KRiley@mrjlaw.com LZaring@mrjlaw.com
16

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39-1 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 17 of 31 PAGEID #: 283
To: Class Counsel and Plaintiff or class member: Alphonse A. Gerhardstein Jennifer L. Branch Class Counsel Gerhardstein & Branch Co. LPA 432 Walnut Street, Room 400 Cincinnati, OH 45202 agerhardstein@gbfirm.com Jbranch@gbfirm.com or at such other address for a party as such be specified by like notice. 54. This consent decree shall be construed in accordance with the law of the State of Ohio and federal law. 55. All information and documents which are not otherwise public records and which are obtained in execution of this consent decree shall be maintained confidentially by the parties, their counsel, and the monitors appointed pursuant to this consent decree. No such information or document obtained in execution of this consent decree shall be disclosed to or shared with any person or entity not a party to this consent decree without the express consent of all other parties, except that such information or document may be disclosed to or shared with law enforcement authorities (where required or authorized by law) or with a court in response to an order (in which case the information shall be provided under seal and the parties to this consent decree notified), without the express consent of the other parties. 56. The parties agree to act in good faith in carrying out their obligations under this consent decree. Defendants will not unreasonably deny production of documents or information based upon reasonable, unanticipated requests that originate during a visit to the facility. 57. In entering this consent decree, the parties agree and represent that this consent decree is fair, reasonable, and adequate to protect the interests ofthe class ofjuveniles incarcerated within the WCJC and all parties.
17

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39-1 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 18 of 31 PAGEID #: 284
58. The parties agree, and the Court finds, that this consent decree satisfies the requirements of 18 U.S.C.A. §3626(a)(l )(A).
59. This consent decree is binding upon the Defendants named in this lawsuit, the Defendants'
successors in office, employees and agents, and the Plaintiffs. 60. Only the Plaintiffs named in this consent decree shall have standing to file a motion seeking
enforcement of any of the terms and conditions of this consent decree. As class representatives, Plaintiffs can adequately represent the interests ofthe class ofyouth who have been, are, or will be housed at the WCJC. The fact that Plaintiffs have been released from custody will not interfere with their ability to serve as class representatives. Plaintiffs may replace class representatives from time to time as needed upon notice to Defendants and approval of the Court, provided this does not result in the additional compensation to any new representative. This consent decree does not confer, and is not intended to confer, any rights upon any other party. 61. Nothing in this decree prevents the Juvenile Court Judge's right to temporarily or permanently close the WCJC, should he deem it appropriate to do so. In the event of a closure during the term ofthis decree, Section IV of the decree will be suspended until such time as the WCJC reopens.
XI. RELEASE OF CLAIMS 62. This release shall apply to all parties to this consent decree, including all class members as
defined in paragraph 9, except for those members that opt-out of this action. 63. Upon the effective date, the Plaintiff Class representatives and the Plaintiff class members
shall by operation of this paragraph individually and jointly, for their heirs, executors, agents, attorneys, successors and assigns, hereby release, acquit and forever discharge
18

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39-1 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 19 of 31 PAGEID #: 285
Washington County, Ohio, Washington County Juvenile Center, and the Washington County Juvenile Court, along with its Elected Officials, Agents, Corporations, Servants and Employees and their assigns and successors, in their individual and official capacities, from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, rights of property, damages, costs and expenses of every kind, nature and description, whether in law or in equity, whether based on State or Federal law, whether known or unknown, which the parties may now or hereafter have against the other arising from, in connection with, as a result of or in any way pertaining to their admittance to, stay in, or release from, the WCJC at any time through the date of this consent decree, as more particularly set forth in Case No.2: 10-cv-01097, entitled D.D. et al v. Washington County eta/, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. 64. Upon the effective date, Washington County Juvenile Center, and its agents, officials, corporations, servants and employees, in their individual and official capacities, shall by operation of this paragraph individually and jointly, for their heirs, executors, agents, attorneys, successors, and assigns hereby release, acquit and forever discharge the Plaintiff Class and the Plaintiffs and their heirs, executors, agents, attorneys, successors, assigns and employees from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, rights, property damages, costs and expenses of every kind, nature and description, whether in law or in equity, whether based on State or Federal law, whether known or unknown, which the parties may now or hereafter have against the other arising from, in connection with, as a result of or in any way pertaining to any incident or incidents which have occurred or arisen as a result of or in any way pertaining to the admittance to, stay in, or release from, the WCJC by plaintiffs for any period through the date of this consent decree, as more particularly set
19

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39-1 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 20 of 31 PAGEID #: 286
forth in Case No. 2:1 0-cv-0 I097, entitled D.D. et al v. Washington County et al, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. 65. Within fourteen days of execution of this consent decree, Plaintiff class representatives, on behalf of themselves and all Plaintiffs who have not opted out, will dismiss without prejudice all Defendants, in both their individual and official capacities except Washington County, Ohio and Judge Williams in his official capacity. Said entry shall state that the dismissals will become ''with prejudice" upon the effective date of the consent decree. Plaintiff class representatives, on behalf of themselves and all Plaintiffs who have not opted out, will dismiss Washington County and Judge Williams, in his official capacity, with prejudice within 14 days ofthe termination ofthe consent decree. 66. This consent decree shall not release any claim for damages arising after the effective date of this consent decree. 67. The effective date of this consent decree shall be the day on which the Final Order and Judgment approving the settlement becomes final. Defendants shall begin implementation ofthe remedial provisions set out in Section IV upon the effective date. For the purposes of this consent decree, the Final Order and Judgment approving the settlement shall be deemed to become final on the later of (i) the thirty-first day after it is entered if no notice of appeal is filed or (ii) if a notice of appeal is filed, on the day following the date on which the Final Order and Judgment approving the settlement is not subject to further judicial review or appeal, either by reason of the affirmance by a court of last resort or by reason of lapse of time or otherwise, provided that the Final Order and Judgment approving the settlement is not reversed or substantially modified by this Court or an appellate court, in which case this consent decree shall be null and void..
20

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39-1 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 21 of 31 PAGEID #: 287

XII. FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. 68. The parties agree to file a Joint Motion to Approve Settlement in D.D. eta! v. Washington
County, eta!, USDC SD OH Case No. 2:1 0-cv-01 097, and to cooperate in good faith to defend the settlement. The Joint Motion will be filed with the following attachments which must be agreeable to a11 parties: Draft Class Notice and Draft Order Preliminarily Approving Consent Decree, Authorizing Class Notice and Setting Fairness Hearing.

IT IS SO STIPULATED AND AGREED:
Is/ Alphonse A. Gerhardstein Alphonse A. Gerhardstein Class Counsel
Is! Jennifer L. Branch Jennifer L. Branch Class Counsel
Is! Cheri B. Hass Cheri B. Hass Counsel for Washington County Defendants
Is/ Kimberly Vanover Riley Kimberly Vanover Riley Counsel for Timothy Williams

Washington County Juvenile Center
lsi Timothy Williams by: Judge Timothy Williams

SO ORDERED:

Date: JI - ~~ -J-Oll 21

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39-1 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 22 of 31 PAGEID #: 288 Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc#: 28-1 Filed: 10/10/11 Page: 31 of 31 PAGEID #: 197

Class Member Key
JL
DD
CM KM NB BM WG JR

SCHEDULE A-5 WASHINGTON COUNTY JUVENILE CENTER
CLASS REPRESENTATIVES FEE Class Rep
2500.00 2500.00 2500.00 2500.00 2500.00 2500.00 2500.00 2500.00

10/6/2011 10:37 AM

A-5 CLASS REPS Final.xls

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39-1 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 23 of 31 PAGEID #: 289

SCHEDULE A-1 WASHINGTON COUNTY JUVENILE CENTER
SETTLEMENT-DETENTION DAYS

Class Member
No.

Total No. of Dallsln
DETENTION

Total No. of Times in
DETENTION

Breakdown of Dalls in DETENTION

Total No. of davs out No. of Dalls Excluding

of cell for SCHOOL & One Dalll!!!:r Incident

REC

& SCHOOL DAYS

Detention Amount AT
i60/DAY

2

8

3

35

-4

2

7

3

8

5

10

1

11

12

12

13

13

50

16

2

17

20

18

91

19

B

20

73

21

20

23

3

24

4

25

15

28

2

29

164

30

5

31

98

32

10

- -3-3

57

34

15

- 35

67

36

13

37

47

38

4

39

27

40

8

11/18/2011 Page: 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 6 1 6 --·- 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1

2,71 2,18
4,43,57,31.42 15,4,5 .28,16,30
3,10 23.4

0 13 0 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 10 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 52 0 ·- - ··-· -- 19 0 19 0 42 0 20 0 14 0

7

$

420.00

21

$ 1,260.00

1

$

60.00

2

$

120.00

2

$

120.00

0

$

-

11

$

660.00

8

$

480.00

49

$ 2,940.00

1

$

60.00

19

$ 1,140.00

80

$ 4,800.00

7

$

420..0- 0

40

$ 2,400.00

18

$ 1,080.00

2

$

120.00

3

$

180.00

14

$

840.00

1

$

60.00

126

$ 7,560.00

4

$

240.00

73

$ 4,380.00

9

$

540.00

37

$ 2,220.00

14

$

840.00

24

$ 1,440.00

11

$

660.00

26

$ 1,560.00

3

$

180.00

11

$

660.00

7

$

420.00

Schedule A-1 filed 11-18-11.xls

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39-1 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 24 of 31 PAGEID #: 290

WASHINGTON COUNTY JUVENILE CENTER SETTLEMENT-DETENTION DAYS

Class Member
No.

Total No. of Dallsin
!;!!;!ENTION

Total No. of Times In
DETENTION

Breakdown of Dalls In DETiit!TIQN

Total No. of davs out No. of Dalls Excluding

of cell for SCHOOL & Qn! Dall ~r in!;11dent

REC

& SCHOOL DAYS

Detention Amount AT
i§O/DAY

42

172

43

5

~-

29

45

13

46

34

47

41

~--

8

49

12

51

5

52

15

54

2

55

46

56

179

57

53

58

35

59

17

60

4

61

1

- -6-2

71

63 .

4

64

83

65

3

66

4

67

1

68

168

70

2

- -71

76

72

7

73

2

74

191

75

17

76

11

11/18/2011 Page: 2

3

2,44,126

0

~ - --

1

2

1

4

3

9 ,2,2

0

1

5

2 ·-

12,29

13

1

0

2

2,10

6

1

0

1

4

1

0

3

20,23,3

18

10

2, 14,4,2,4,11 ,50,19,60,13

64

4

8 ,3,37,5

2

4

14,17,2,2

8

2

1,16

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

2

- --- 0 70,13_

8

1

0

1

0

1

0

- -- 7

16,18,5,24.41 017,47 - -

23

1

0

4 -
1

- - - 14,44,2,16 ..

34

0

1

0

6

42,11 ,36,55,22,25

52

4

4,8,2,3

0

1

1

169

$ 10,140.00

2

$

120.00

24

$ 1,440.00

10

$

600.00

28

$ 1,680.00

26

$ 1,560.00

7

$

420.00

4

$

240.00

4

$

240.00

10

$

600 .00

1

$

60.00

25

$ 1,500.00

105

$ 6,300.00

47

$ 2,820.00

23

$ 1,380.00

15

$

900.00

3

$

180.00

0

$

.

70

$ 4,200.00

3

$

180.00

73

$ 4,380.00

2

$

120.00

3

$

180.00

0

$

.

138

$ 8,280.00

1

$

60.00

38

$ 2,280.00

6

$

360.00

1

$

60.00

133

$ 7,980.00

13

$

780.00

9

$

540.00

Schedule A-1 filed 11-18-11.xls

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39-1 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 25 of 31 PAGEID #: 291

WASHINGTON COUNTY JUVENILE CENTER SETTLEMENT-DETENTION DAYS

Class Member
No.

Total No. of DaJtSin
DETENTION

Total No. of Times in
DETENTION -

Breakdown of DaJlS in DETENTION -·---- -·

Total No. of davs out No. of DaJls Excluding

of cell for SCHOOL & One DBJll!!!r Incident

REC

& SCHOOL DAYS

Detention Amount AT
j60/DAY

77

66

.. 78

9

79

2

80

4

81

53

82

78

83

15

84

8

85

1

86

6

87

9

89

4

90

81

91

4

92

3

93

2

94

2

95

5

96

127

97

65

98

6

99

68

100

47

101

163

105

1

103

43

104

13

105

4

106

14

107

196

108

40

109

108

11/18/2011 Page:3

5

1

1

1

3-- --·- - _ ?1 ,3212_____ _ -

6

·- 7,2,11 ,45,8,5

1

1

1

1

2

4,5

1

4

4,12,2,63

1

1

1

1

1

-

6

1,3,20,30, 18,55

2

4,61

1

5

--- --~5_,_32, 7,20

4

9,16,20,2

4 - ·-
1

6,16,41,100

4

14,17,4.~ ---·

3

3,8,2

1

1

5

27,52,39,44,34

2

31,9

8

11,17 30 16,3,3,26,2

25 0 0 0 14 33 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 34 0 11 - -9 0 0 2 2 0 0 18 15 6

36

$ 2,160.00

8

$

480.00

1

$

60.00

3

$

180.00

36

$ 2,160.00

39

$ 2,340.00

11

$

660.00

4

$

240.00

0

$

-

3

$

180- .-00

7

$

4-2-0.0-0

3

$

180.00

77

$

4.6~0.00

3

$

180.00

2

$

120.00

1

$

60.00

1

$

60.00

4

$

240.00

71

$ 4,260.00

29

$ 1,740.00

5

$

300.00

52

$ 3,120.00

34

$ 2,040.00

159

$ 9,540.00

0

$

-

37

$ 2,220.00

8

$

480.00

3

$

180.00

13

$

780.00

173

$ 10,380.00

23

$ 1,380.00

94

$ 5,640.00

Schedule A-1 filed 11-18-11.xls

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39-1 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 26 of 31 PAGEID #: 292

WASHINGTON COUNTY JUVENILE CENTER SETTLEMENT-DETENTION DAYS
1------~-----------------------------------------------------.-------------------------· ·

Class Total No. of Total No. of

Member Days in

Times in

Total No. of davs out No. of Davs Excluding Detention Breakdown of Days in of cell for SCHOOL & One Day per incident Amount AT

I---'N'-"'o;,;·:__-..j_;D;;:E::;,T;,;E;;,;N=:T;,;,IO==N'--,;;;D,;;;E:::,T;;;,EN;,;T,:,:I;,:;O_N"'"'------·- DETENTION_____________;R,;;E;;,:C=-------+-=&:=S:=C;:,;,H:=O:=O;;:L;,;D;;:A'=Y,;,;S=-------'S!:::6:=0:=/D;:,;,A;;,;Y:,._-l

110

3

1

0

2

$

120.00

111

43

3

4,2,37

15

25

$ 1,500.00

112

21

4

4,2,6,9

3

14

$

840.00

113

2

1

0

1

$

60.00

--'""1-'-14-'--·-+ ____;1..:co.:.6_________;4________ ____..i~~i4,47 -- - --------=2:..:cs______+-------7'-'7_______.:::._$___4""',.::.62:.;o:.:.o:..:o:..1

116

5

1

0

4

$

240.00

118

21

1

0

20

$ 1,200.00

119

30

1

1 0

19

$ 1'14Q.QQ

120

36

4

7,8,2,19

1

31

$ 1,860.00

121

2

1

0

1

$

60.00

123

4

1

0

3

$

180.00

124

3

1

0

2

$

120.00

125

5

1

•

0

4

$

240.00

126

90

2

88,2

0

88

$ 5,280.00

127

21

1

0

20

$ 1,200.00

130

2

1

•

0

1

$

60.00

131

54

1

26

27

$ 1,620.00

l---1.:....:3...:c3__+ ____2..:....________1

0

1

$

60.00

l---1-'3'-=5-+-----=2.c...6_ _ _ _ _ _4__

. 4.2~ 6,i.__ - - ·- - ·- ..::9______---+--------'-13..._________..$._____._7_..8_..0.._00.""'..J

136

16

1

8

7

$

420.00

l---1-'3:....7_ _--1_ _ _ _ 4_8_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _3 _

13,22,13

13

32

$ 1,920.00

138

4

1

0

3

$

180.00

1---1'--'3'-"-9--+--_ _ _1.:....:6:....__ _~-----'-3._______

5,5,6

0

13

$

780.00

140

7

1

2

4

$

240.00

1----'-14'-'1-+-----=2..:..3_ _~___2 _ ___

4,19

7

14

$

840.00

142

2

1

0

1

$

60.00

t-----'--14.:...:3'--+------'-1-=-5_________2 _ __ _ _ _ _s....._1, _0 ___________o_____--+-------1-'3'------- ..:..$_____78.:...co:..:..o.:...co'---~

144

2

1

0

1

$

60.00

145

3

1

0

2

$

120.00

14 7

4

1

0

3

$

180.00

148

3

1

0

2

$

120.00

149

29

2

14,15

14

1

13

$

780.00

11/18/2011 Page:4

Schedule A-1 filed 11-18-11.xls

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39-1 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 27 of 31 PAGEID #: 293

WASHINGTON COUNTY JUVENILE CENTER SETTLEMENT-DETENTION DAYS

Class Member
No.
--
f--150 151
- -15-3
154 155 157 _J.§~ 160 161 162 163 165 166 167 168 169 170
- 171
172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179
- - 180
181 182 183 184 185

Total No. of Dal(sin
DETENTION

Total No. of Times in
DETENTION

Total No. of davs out No. of DaJr:s Excluding

Breakdown of Dal(S in of cell for SCHOOL & One Cal( ~r Incident

DETENT-ION

REC
----·

& SCHOOL DAYS

Detention Amount AT
$60/DAY

81

2 · - - -- · -

4,77

6

40

1

0

14

4

8,2,2,2

0

52

4-- - -

3,12,35,2

0

11

1

4

25

2

11,14

3

54

3

9,13,32

28

70

8

2, 15,1 '1 0,2,_29,4,7

22

5

1

0

7

2

3,4

0

32

1

0

37

2

2,35

0

73

1

22

15

1

0

3

1

0

43

4

5,2,5,31

0

6

1

0

11

2 ·- -

10,1

0

4

1

0

20

2

16.4 - --

7

4 -- ----1

0

34

5 -- - - ·__ __Jl ,15,4,4,2._

0

2

1

0

2

1

0

19

1

5

4

1

0

29

3 __ __ ____ _ll_,_!_9 ,L-

3

161

1

67

43

3

26,9,8

15

4

1

0

2

1

0

56

2

5,51

35

73

$ 4,380.00

39

$ 2,340.00

10

$

600.00

48

$ 2,880.00

6

$

360.00

20

$ 1,200.00

23

$ 1,380.00

40

$ 2,40Q.OO

4

$

240.00

5

$

300.00

31

$ 1,860.00

35

$ 2,100.00

50

$ 3,000.00

14

$

840.00

2

$

120.00

39

$ 2,340.00

5

$

300.00

9

$

540.00

3

$

180.00

11

$

660.00

3

$

180.00

29

$ 1,740.00

1

$

60.00

1

$

60.00

13

$

780.00

3

$

180.00

23

$ 1,380.00

93

$ 5,580.00

25

$ 1,500.00

3

$

180.00

1

$

60.00

19

$ 1,140.00

11/18/2011
Page:S

ScheduleA-1 filed 11-18-11.xls

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39-1 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 28 of 31 PAGEID #: 294

WASHINGTON COUNTY JUVENILE CENTER SETTLEMENT-DETENTION DAYS

Class Member
No.

Total No. of Dal(s in
DETENTION

Total No. of Times in
DETENTION

Breakdown of Dal(S In DETENTION

Total No. of davs out No. of Dal(S Excluding

of cell for SCHOOL & One Dal( l!!r incident

REC

& SCHOOL DAYS

Detention Amount AT
~60/DAY

186

231

7

36,22,29, 14,25,59,46

187

26

1

189

41

190

2

4

--· - 11. ~_6,2

1

191

3

1

193

4

1

194

4

1

195

9

1

196

9

1

197

4

2

2,2

198

4

1

200

15

2

11,4

201

17

1

202

4

1

203

5

1

204

92

3

32,53,7

205

7

1

206

8

1

207

71

208

3

6 - - - - - 6,39,9,13,2,2 1

5,630

356

34 12 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 17 0
1,136

190

$ 11,400.00

13

$

780.00

32

$ 1,920.00

1

$

60.00

2

$

120.00

3

$

180.00

3

$

180.00

8

$

48. 0- .0- 0

6

$

360.00

•

-- +

2

$

120.00

3

$

180.00

13

$

780-.0-0

16

$

960.00

3

$

180.00

4

$

240.00

70

$ 4,200.00

6

$

360.00

7

$

420.00

48

$ 2,880.00

2

$

120.00

4,138 $ 248,280.00

11/18/2011 Page:6

ScheduleA-1 filed 11-1B-11.xls

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39-1 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 29 of 31 PAGEID #: 295

WASHINGTON COUNTY JUVENILE CENTER

SETTLEMENT • GOWN DAYS

Schedule A-2

Class

Member

No. DATES

MENTAL

HEALTH

TOTAL DAYS

TOTAL AMOUNT HOURS $160/DAY

42

12/07/09 Detention No Assessment

22 $ 160.00

77

02/21/09 Detention No Assessment

19 $ 160.00

99

12/06/09 Detention No Assessment

10 $ 160.00

107

09/19/08 Detention No Assessment

03/08/09 Program No Assessment

03/09/09 Detention No Assessment

07/07/09 Detention No Assessment

07/22/09 Detention No Assessment

09/06/09 Detention No Assessment

09/10/09 Detention No Assessment

10/02/09 Detention No Assessment

1

14 $ 160.00

1

21

$ 160.00

17

393 $2,720.00

7

161 $1,120.00

8

187 $1,280.00

2

38 $ 320.00

2

42

$ 320.00

4

94 $ 640.00

127

12/02/09 Detention No Assessment

12/07/09

Detention No Assessment

1

17 $ 160.00

3

55 $ 480.00

Total

49

$7,840.00

A·2 Gowns Final 11/18/2011

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39-1 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 30 of 31 PAGEID #: 296

WASHINGTON COUNTY JUVENILE CENTER SETTLEMENT-SHACKLEDAYS
Schedule A-3

Class Member
No.

TOTAL DAYS

AMOUNT $50/DAY

2

6

12

1

13

43

25

11

29

51

31

11

42

145

44

22

46

15

47

10

56

21

57

3

58

8

62

7

64

3

75

1

74

29

81

14

90

44

96

74

101

137

107

51

109

9

119

26

126

74

151

22

163

3

165

18

181

145

187

25

207

21

$

300.00

$

50.00

$

2,150.00

$

550.00

$

2 ,550.0 0

$

550.00

$

7,250.00

$

1,100.00

$

750.00

$

500.00

$

1,050.00

$

150.00

$

400.00

$

350.00

$

150.00

$

50.00

$

1,450.00

$

700.00

$

2 ,200.0 0

$

3 ,700.00

$

6 ,850.00

$

2,550.00

$

4 5 0 .0 0

$

1,300.00

$

3,700.00

$

1,100.00

$

150.00

$

900.00

$

7,250 .00

$

1,250.00

$

1,050.00

1050

$

52,500.00

A-3 Shackle Final 11/18/2011

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK Doc #: 39-1 Filed: 11/22/11 Page: 31 of 31 PAGEID #: 297

WASHINGTON COUNTY JUVENILE CENTER SETTLEMENT -ISOLATION DAYS
Schedule A- 4

Class Member
No.

NO. OF HOURS IN ISOLATION

NO. OF DAYS ABOVE
24+ HOURS

ISOLATION AMOUNT AT
$40/DAY

22

48,48,48

29

48,48,48,45

68

45 ,46,48,48,48

77

48

90

37

96

48

99

48,48,48

107

45,48

109

48

112

48

120

47,48

139

48

151

37

156

48

160

48

175

48,48

180

48,46

182

48,48

187

48,48,48,28,46

201

48

3

$

120.00

4

$

160.00

5

$

200.00

1

$

40.00

1

$

40.00

1

$

40.00

3

$

120.00

2

$

80.00

1

$

40.00

1

$

40.00

2

$

80.00

1

$

40.00

1

$

40.00

1

$

40.00

1

$

40.00

2

$

80.00

2

$

80.00

2

$

80.00

5

$

200.00

1

$

40.00

40

$ 1,600.00

A-4 Isolation Final 11/18/2011

 
 Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK As of: 03/27/2016 08:26 PM EDT 1 of 10
CLOSED,JURY,PROTO
U.S. District Court Southern District of Ohio (Columbus) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:10−cv−01097−EAS−TPK

D.D. et al v. Washington County Ohio et al Assigned to: Judge Edmund A Sargus Referred to: Magistrate Judge Terence P Kemp Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Special Master
Ms. Karen Diane Meyers Qualified Settlement Fund Administrator

Date Filed: 12/06/2010 Date Terminated: 09/13/2012 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Karen D. Meyers Karen D. Meyers &Associates PSC 2651 Observatory Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45208 513/979−5361 Email: kmeyers@lmasettlements.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
D. D. Individually and on Behalf of Class of All Others Similary Situated agent of by and through his mother and next friend, B.T.

represented by Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein Gerhardstein &Branch Co. LPA 432 Walnut Street, Suite 400 Cincinnati, OH 45202 513−621−9100 Fax: 513−345−5543 Email: agerhardstein@gbfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kane Paul Kayser Social Security Administration ODAR Enquirer Building, Suite 2100 312 Elm Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 513−361−0072 Fax: 513−361−0072 Email: kayserkp@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Lynn Branch Gerhardstein &Branch Co. LPA 432 Walnut Street, Suite 400 Cincinnati, OH 45202 513−621−9100 x13 Fax: 513−345−5543 Email: jbranch@gbfirm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
K. M. Individually and on Behalf of Class of All Others Similarly Situated agent of by and through his mother and next friend, J.M.

represented by Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kane Paul Kayser (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Lynn Branch

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK As of: 03/27/2016 08:26 PM EDT 2 of 10

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
N. B. agent of by and through his mother and next friend, A.D.

represented by Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kane Paul Kayser (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Lynn Branch (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
B. M. Individually and on Behalf of Class of All Others Similarly Situated agent of by and through her mother and next friend, J.A.

represented by Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kane Paul Kayser (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Lynn Branch (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
C. M. Individually and on Behalf of Class of All Others Similarly Situated agent of by and through her mother and next friend, E.M.

represented by Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kane Paul Kayser (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Lynn Branch (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
W. G. Individually and on Behalf of Class of All Others Similarly Situated agent of by and through his mother and next friend, D.G

represented by Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kane Paul Kayser (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Lynn Branch (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
J. L. Individually and on Behalf of Class of All

represented by Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein (See above for address)

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK As of: 03/27/2016 08:26 PM EDT 3 of 10

Others Similarly Situated agent of by and through his mother and next friend S.S.

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kane Paul Kayser (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Lynn Branch (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff J. R.

represented by Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kane Paul Kayser (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Lynn Branch (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Washington County Ohio
Defendant Washington County Board of County Commissioners

represented by Daniel T Downey Fishel, Hass, Kim &Albrecht, LLP 400 S 5th Street Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 221−1216 Email: ddowney@fishelhass.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cheri B Hass Fishel Hass Kim Albrecht LLP 400 S Fifth Street Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43215 614−221−1216 Email: chass@fishelhass.com TERMINATED: 01/27/2014
Stacy Virginia Pollock Mazanec, Raskin &Ryder Co., L.P.A. 175 South Third Street Suite 1000 Columbus, OH 43215 614−228−5931 Fax: 614−228−5934 Email: spollock@mrrlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel T Downey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK As of: 03/27/2016 08:26 PM EDT 4 of 10

Defendant Timothy A. Williams Individually and in his nonjudicial administrative capacity as presiding official responsible for the Washington County Juvenile Center
Defendant Rae Ann Ward Individually and in her official capacity as former Director of the Washington County Juvenile Center TERMINATED: 10/21/2011 Defendant Brian Hesson Individually and in his official capacity as Director of the Washington County Juvenile Center TERMINATED: 10/21/2011 Defendant Brian Orders Individually and in his capacity as an

Cheri B Hass (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/27/2014
Stacy Virginia Pollock (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel T Downey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kimberly Vanover Riley Montgomery Rennie &Jonson URS Center 36 E Seventh Street Suite 2100 Cincinnati, OH 45202 513−241−4722 Fax: 513−241−8775 Email: kriley@mrjlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cheri B Hass (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/27/2014
Lisa Marie Zaring Montgomery, Rennie &Jonson 36 East Seventh St. Suite 2100 Cincinnati, OH 45202 513−241−4722 Fax: 513−241−8775 Email: lzaring@mrjlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Virginia Pollock (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cheri B Hass (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/27/2014
represented by Cheri B Hass (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/27/2014
represented by Cheri B Hass (See above for address)

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK As of: 03/27/2016 08:26 PM EDT 5 of 10

employee of Washington County, Ohio TERMINATED: 10/21/2011

TERMINATED: 01/27/2014

Defendant
Stephanie Galati Individually and in her capacity as an employee of Washington County, Ohio TERMINATED: 10/21/2011

represented by Cheri B Hass (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/27/2014

Defendant
Michelle Burkhart Individually and in her capacity as an employee of Washington County, Ohio TERMINATED: 10/21/2011

represented by Cheri B Hass (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/27/2014

Defendant
David Matthew Montgomery, DO Individually and in his official capacity as a contractor providing medical services at the Washington County Juvenile Center in Washington County, Ohio TERMINATED: 02/24/2011

represented by Brian David Goldwasser White, Getgey &Meyer 4th &Vine Tower 1 W. 4th St., Suite 1700 Cincinnati, OH 45202 513−241−3685 Email: bgoldwasser@wgmlpa.com TERMINATED: 02/24/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
John and Jane Does 1−20 Individually and in their capacities as employees of Washington County, Ohio TERMINATED: 10/21/2011

Date Filed 12/06/2010 12/06/2010 12/06/2010 12/07/2010
12/08/2010 12/09/2010

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT with JURY DEMAND against All Defendants filed by W. G., B. M., D. D., J. L., J. R., K. M., C. M. &N. B. ( Filing fee $ 350 paid − receipt number: 0648−2905348)(Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Affidavit of Merit of Lynn H. Milliner, M.D.) (Branch, Jennifer) (Entered: 12/06/2010)
2 NOTICE of Appearance by Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein for Plaintiffs N. B., D. D., W. G., J. L., B. M., C. M., K. M. &J. R. (Gerhardstein, Alphonse) (Entered: 12/06/2010)
3 NOTICE of Filing Proposed Case Management Plan by Plaintiffs N. B., D. D., W. G., J. L., B. M., C. M., K. M. &J. R. (Gerhardstein, Alphonse) Modified text on 12/7/2010 (er1). (Entered: 12/06/2010)
4 COMPLAINT with JURY DEMAND (refiled at the request of the Court) against Michelle Burkhart, John and Jane Does 1−20, Stephanie Galati, Brian Hesson, David Matthew Montgomery, DO, Brian Orders, Rae Ann Ward, Washington County Board of County Commissioners, Washington County Ohio &Timothy A. Williams filed by W. G., B. M., D. D., J. L., J. R., K. M., C. M. &N. B. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Affidavit Lynn H. Milliner, M.D.) (Branch, Jennifer) Modified on 12/8/2010 (kk2). (Entered: 12/07/2010)
Notice of Correction: Docket # 1 (Complaint) filed by Jennifer Branch was not signed by counsel. A signed copy of the document has been re−filed as docket # 4 (Complaint). (kk2) (Entered: 12/08/2010)
5 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Waiver sent to Timothy A. Williams on 12/6/2010, answer due 2/4/2011. (Branch, Jennifer) (Entered: 12/09/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK As of: 03/27/2016 08:26 PM EDT 6 of 10

12/10/2010 12/14/2010 12/14/2010 12/16/2010 12/16/2010
12/16/2010
12/23/2010
12/28/2010 12/29/2010 01/05/2011 01/06/2011 01/11/2011
01/24/2011 02/08/2011
02/15/2011

6 ORDER OF TRANSFER: Case reassigned to Judge Edmund A Sargus for all further proceedings. Signed by Judge Peter C. Economus and Judge Edmund A Sargus on 12/10/2010. (er1) (Entered: 12/13/2010)
7 NOTICE of Appearance by Kimberly Vanover Riley for Defendant Timothy A. Williams (Riley, Kimberly) (Entered: 12/14/2010)
8 NOTICE of Appearance by Lisa Marie Zaring for Defendant Timothy A. Williams (Zaring, Lisa) (Entered: 12/14/2010)
9 NOTICE of Appearance by Cheri B Hass for Defendants Michelle Burkhart, Stephanie Galati, Brian Hesson, Brian Orders, Rae Ann Ward, Washington County Board of County Commissioners, Washington County Ohio, Timothy A. Williams (Hass, Cheri) (Entered: 12/16/2010)
10 Joint MOTION to Stay Proceedings and Extend Timeframes by Plaintiffs N. B., D. D., W. G., J. L., B. M., C. M., K. M., J. R., Defendants Michelle Burkhart, Stephanie Galati, Brian Hesson, Brian Orders, Rae Ann Ward, Washington County Board of County Commissioners, Washington County Ohio, Timothy A. Williams. (Hass, Cheri) (Entered: 12/16/2010)
11 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF DOCUMENT by Plaintiffs N. B., D. D., W. G., J. L., B. M., C. M., K. M., J. R., Defendants Michelle Burkhart, Stephanie Galati, Brian Hesson, Brian Orders, Rae Ann Ward, Washington County Board of County Commissioners, Washington County Ohio, Timothy A. Williams re 10 Joint MOTION to Stay Proceedings and Extend Timeframes (Hass, Cheri) (Entered: 12/16/2010)
12 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by Plaintiffs N. B., D. D., W. G., J. L., B. M., C. M., K. M., J. R., Defendants Michelle Burkhart, Stephanie Galati, Brian Hesson, Brian Orders, Rae Ann Ward, Washington County Board of County Commissioners, Washington County Ohio, Timothy A. Williams. (Hass, Cheri) (Entered: 12/23/2010)
13 AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P Kemp on 12/28/10. (jcw1) Modified on 12/29/2010 to correct text (kk2) (Entered: 12/28/2010)
14 NOTICE: Status Conference set for 1/6/2011 @ 10:00am in chambers before Magistrate Judge Terence P Kemp (wh1) (Entered: 12/29/2010)
15 NOTICE of Appearance by Brian David Goldwasser for Defendant David Matthew Montgomery, DO (Goldwasser, Brian) (Entered: 01/05/2011)
Status Conference held on 1/6/2011 before Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp. (jv) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
16 ORDER: Plaintiff's to provide defendants with list of issues and supporting documents which plaintiffs believe are common to the members of the proposed class by 1/14/2011. Status Conference set for 2/4/2011 @ 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Terence P Kemp. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P Kemp on 01/11/2011. (sr) Modified on 1/12/2011 to correct text (kk2) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
17 NOTICE: Status Conference set for 2/4/2011 @ 10:00am in chambers before Magistrate Judge Terence P Kemp (wh1) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
18 ORDER: Motions to certify class due by 02/18/2011. Draft documents which should be filed if parties wish the Court to certify class due by 02/07/2011. Defendants will serve plaintiff with statement of facts and law by 02/16/2011. Plaintiff's response to statement of facts due by 03/02/2011. Parties will arrange for tour of facility on 03/07/2011. Mediation Conference scheduled for 04/14/2011 at 9:00 a.m. Confidential mediation statements and documents for the Court to consider prior to conference due by 04/11/2011. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P Kemp on 02/08/2011. (sr) (Entered: 02/08/2011)
19 NOTICE: Settlement Conference set for 4/14/2011 @ 9:00am in chambers before Magistrate Judge Terence P Kemp (wh1) (Entered: 02/15/2011)

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK As of: 03/27/2016 08:26 PM EDT 7 of 10

02/22/2011 02/24/2011 03/03/2011 04/14/2011 04/15/2011 04/18/2011 05/19/2011 07/20/2011 09/30/2011 10/10/2011
10/10/2011
10/17/2011
10/17/2011
10/21/2011

20 Unopposed MOTION to Certify Class by Plaintiffs N. B., D. D., W. G., J. L., B. M., C. M., K. M. &J. R. Responses due by 3/18/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Notice, # 2 Text of Proposed Order) (Branch, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/22/2011)
21 STIPULATION of Dismissal of David Matthew Montgomery, D.O., as Defendant without Prejudice by Plaintiffs N. B., D. D., W. G., J. L., B. M., C. M., K. M. &J. R. (Gerhardstein, Alphonse) (Entered: 02/24/2011)
22 OPINION AND ORDER granting 20 Motion to Certify a Class of Plaintiffs pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 03/03/2011. (dh1) (Entered: 03/03/2011)
Settlement Conference held on 4/14/2011 before Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp. (jv) (Entered: 04/22/2011)
23 NOTICE: Settlement Conference set for 5/18/2011 @ 9:00am in chambers before Magistrate Judge Terence P Kemp (wh1) Modified on 4/18/2011 to correct type of conference (wh1) (Entered: 04/15/2011)
PLEASE NOTE: the docket text for #23 is inaccurate −the case is scheduled for a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Kemp but the conference is NOT a part of settlement week −the docket text for doc 23 has been corrected (wh1) (Entered: 04/18/2011)
24 NOTICE: Settlement Conference set for 6/28/2011 @ 9:00am in chambers before Magistrate Judge Terence P Kemp (wh1) (Entered: 05/19/2011)
25 NOTICE of Appearance by Kane Paul Kayser for Plaintiffs N. B., D. D., W. G., J. L., B. M., C. M., K. M. &J. R. (Kayser, Kane) (Entered: 07/20/2011)
26 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Defendant Jane Doe #1, Erin Cailin Lockhart, as a Defendant, with Prejudice by all Plaintiffs &all Defendants. (Branch, Jennifer) Modified on 10/4/2011 to correct filers (kk2) (Entered: 09/30/2011)
27 MOTION for Order to Partially Decertify Class and Instruct Certification Notice to Only the Remaining Class by Defendants Michelle Burkhart, Stephanie Galati, Brian Hesson, David Matthew Montgomery, DO, Brian Orders, Rae Ann Ward, Washington County Board of County Commissioners, Washington County Ohio &Timothy A. Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Riley, Kimberly) Modified on 10/17/2011 to correct filers (kk2) (Entered: 10/10/2011)
28 Joint MOTION for Order to Preliminarily Approve Consent Decree by Plaintiffs N. B., D. D., W. G., J. L., B. M., C. M., K. M., J. R. &All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Decree, # 2 Class Notice, # 3 Text of Proposed Order Preliminarily Approving Consent Decree) (Branch, Jennifer) Modified on 10/17/2011 to correct filers (kk2) (Entered: 10/10/2011)
29 ORDER granting 27 Defendants' motion to partially decertify the class of plaintiffs, and to provide certification notice to only those class members who remain after this partial decertification. The Court further orders that K.M., D.D., N.B., B.M., C.M., W.G., J.L. and J.R. remain appointed as class representatives and that Alphonse A. Gerhardstein and Jennifer L. Branch remain appointed as class counsel. Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 10/17/2011. (dh1) (Entered: 10/17/2011)
30 ORDER granting preliminary approval of the proposed consent decree between Plaintiffs and Defendant. A hearing will be held on 11/21/2011 at 9:00 a.m. to consider final approval of this consent decree. All objections by members of the class to the proposed consent decree must be filed with the Clerk of Court and postmarked no later than 11/07/2011. The class notice submitted by the parties as revised and attached as Exhibit One, is approved. Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 10/17/2011. (Attachment: Exhibit One) (dh1) (Entered: 10/17/2011)
31 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Defendants Rae Ann Ward, Brian Hesson, Brian Orders, Stephanie Galati, Michelle Burkhart, and John and Jane Does 1−20 Without Prejudice and Dismissing Defendant Timothy A. Williams in his Individual Capacity Only Without Prejudice by Plaintiffs N. B., D. D., W. G., J. L., B. M., C. M., K. M., J. R. &all Defendants. (Gerhardstein, Alphonse) Modified on

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK As of: 03/27/2016 08:26 PM EDT 8 of 10

10/26/2011 11/16/2011 11/17/2011 11/17/2011 11/18/2011 11/18/2011 11/20/2011 11/21/2011 11/21/2011 11/22/2011 04/12/2012 05/11/2012 05/14/2012 07/30/2012 07/31/2012 08/01/2012

10/24/2011 to correct filers (kk2) (Entered: 10/21/2011)
Status Conference held on 10/26/2011 before Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp. (jv) (Entered: 10/28/2011)
32 NOTICE by Plaintiffs N. B., D. D., W. G., J. L., B. M., C. M., K. M., J. R. re 30 Order on Motion for Order to,, of Manual Filing of DVD in Support of Plaintiffs' Request to Finally Approve Class Action Consent Decree. (Gerhardstein, Alphonse) (Entered: 11/16/2011)
DVD in Support of Plaintiffs' Request to Finally Approve Class Action Consent Decree received and manually filed in the Clerk's Office. (pes1) (Entered: 11/17/2011)
33 ORDER re 32 Plaintiffs' Notice of Manual Filing of DVD and Request to File Under Seal. Plaintiff's Request to file the DVD under seal is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 11/17/2011. (dh1) (Entered: 11/17/2011)
34 NOTICE by Plaintiffs N. B., D. D., W. G., J. L., B. M., C. M., K. M., J. R. re 30 Order on Motion for Order to,, of Filing Declaration in Support of Proof of Notice to Class (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Correspondence from Class Counsel, # 2 Exhibit B: Proofs of Publication) (Branch, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/18/2011)
35 Joint MOTION for Order to Establish Qualified Settlement Fund and Appoint Administrator by Plaintiffs N. B., D. D., W. G., J. L., B. M., C. M., K. M., J. R.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Karen Meyers Resume) (Branch, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/18/2011)
36 Joint MOTION for Order to Approve Claims Process by Plaintiffs N. B., D. D., W. G., J. L., B. M., C. M., K. M., J. R.. (Attachments: # 1 Claim Form, # 2 Schedule A−1 revised, # 3 Schedule A−2 revised, # 4 Schedule A−3 revised, # 5 Schedule A−4 revised) (Branch, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/20/2011)
37 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Edmund A Sargus: Hearing on Final Approval of Consent Decree held on 11/21/2011, 9:00am. (Court Reporter Laura Samuels.) (aq1) (Entered: 11/21/2011)
38 ORDER establishing D.D. v Washington County, Ohio Qualified Settlement Fund and Appointing Administrator. Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 11/21/11. (aq1) (Entered: 11/21/2011)
39 Order Approving Class Action Settlement and Claims Process. Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 11/22/2011. (dh1) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/29/2011: Exhibit A − Class Action Consent Decree) (dah1). (Entered: 11/22/2011)
40 NOTICE by Plaintiffs N. B., D. D., W. G., J. L., B. M., C. M., K. M., J. R., Defendant Timothy A. Williams of Filing First Report of Monitor Steve Martin (Attachments: # 1 First Report of Monitor Steve Martin) (Hass, Cheri) (Entered: 04/12/2012)
41 MOTION for Order to Permit Administrator to Pay Late Claims by Plaintiffs N. B., D. D., W. G., J. L., B. M., C. M., K. M., J. R.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Branch with Exhibits A−E) (Branch, Jennifer) (Entered: 05/11/2012)
42 ORDER granting 41 Motion for Order to permit the administrator to pay late claims. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P Kemp on 5/14/12. (jcw1) (Entered: 05/14/2012)
43 NOTICE of Appearance by Karen D. Meyers for Special Master Karen Diane Meyers (Meyers, Karen) (Entered: 07/30/2012)
44 STATUS REPORT of the Qualified Settlement Fund Administrator by Special Master Karen Diane Meyers. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B) (Meyers, Karen) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2012: # 3 Exhibit B (Amended)) (kk2). (Entered: 07/31/2012)
45 First MOTION to Amend/Correct 44 Status Report Filed on July 31, 2012 by Special Master Karen Diane Meyers. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (Amended) Exhibit

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK As of: 03/27/2016 08:26 PM EDT 9 of 10

08/08/2012 08/08/2012 12/05/2012 12/06/2012 12/07/2012 12/18/2012 12/21/2012 12/28/2012
04/10/2013 04/10/2013 04/23/2013 04/23/2013 05/07/2013
05/07/2013 05/22/2013 06/07/2013 06/12/2013 06/14/2013

B to Status Report of QSF Administrator Filed 07/31/2012, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Draft Entry Granting Motion to Amend/Correct) (Meyers, Karen) (Entered: 08/01/2012)
46 ORDER granting 45 Motion to Amend re 44 Status Report of the Qualified Settlement Fund Administrator. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P Kemp on 8/7/2012. (kk2) (Entered: 08/08/2012)
Pursuant to 46 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct, the amended exhibit B has been added to docket entry # 44 (Status Report) and bears page ID #s 393−406. (kk2) (Entered: 08/08/2012)
47 MOTION for Hearing /Status Conference by Defendant Timothy A. Williams. (Hass, Cheri) (Entered: 12/05/2012)
48 NOTICE by Defendant Timothy A. Williams Filing of Final Report of Monitor Steve Martin (Attachments: # 1 Comprehensive Compliance Report) (Hass, Cheri) (Entered: 12/06/2012)
49 NOTICE: Status Conference set for 12/18/2012 @ 10:30am in chambers before Magistrate Judge Terence P Kemp (wh1) (Entered: 12/07/2012)
Status Conference held on 12/18/2012 before Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp. (jv) (Entered: 12/19/2012)
50 ORDER: Class counsel shall make his submission of claims for approval by 1/2/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P Kemp on 12/21/2012. (kk2) (Entered: 12/21/2012)
51 STATUS REPORT of the Qualified Settlement Fund Administrator by Special Master Karen Diane Meyers. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Transaction Summary / Check Detail, # 2 Exhibit Copies of Administration Invoices) (Meyers, Karen) (Entered: 12/28/2012)
52 ***SEALED*** ORDER re claims submissions of class members. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P Kemp on 4/10/2013. (kk2) (Entered: 04/10/2013)
53 ***SEALED*** Claims Packets of class members manually filed Under Seal on 2 compact disks in Clerk's Office re 52 Sealed Order (kk2) (Entered: 04/10/2013)
54 NOTICE by Plaintiffs N. B., D. D., B. M. re 52 Sealed Document Requesting Doc. 52 be Redacted Before Being Unsealed (Branch, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/23/2013)
55 NOTICE by Plaintiffs N. B., D. D., B. M. re 52 Sealed Document of Compliance with Court Order to Notice Claimants of Doc. 52 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 letter, # 2 Exhibit 2 Appeal form) (Branch, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/23/2013)
56 MOTION for Final Determination of Class C Claimants by Defendants Michelle Burkhart, Stephanie Galati, Brian Hesson, Brian Orders, Rae Ann Ward, Washington County Board of County Commissioners, Washington County Ohio, Timothy A. Williams. (Hass, Cheri) (Entered: 05/07/2013)
57 SEALED Notice of Appeal of Magistrate Judge Order on Common Fund Claim by B.W. (kk2) (Entered: 05/07/2013)
59 ORDER awarding claimants N.B., D.D., K.H., M.P. &B.W. amounts to be paid from the fund established in paragraph 41(f) of the consent decree. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P Kemp on 5/22/2013. (kk2) (Entered: 05/22/2013)
60 NOTICE by Plaintiff D. D. re 59 Order Notice of Compliance with Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 letter, # 2 Exhibit 2 Appeal form) (Branch, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/07/2013)
61 SEALED Notice of Appeal of Magistrate Judge Order on Common Fund Claim by K.H. (kk2) (Entered: 06/13/2013)
62 ORDER granting 56 Motion or Final Determination of Class C Claimants − B.M.'s claim is denied on procedural grounds, i.e. the failure to attest to the accuracy of the facts submitted in support of the claim. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P

Case: 2:10-cv-01097-EAS-TPK As of: 03/27/2016 08:26 PM EDT 10 of 10

11/12/2013 01/23/2014 01/23/2014 01/27/2014 05/28/2014
06/03/2014 06/25/2014 07/22/2014 07/23/2014 09/12/2014 09/15/2014
10/08/2014 10/09/2014

Kemp on 6/14/2013. (kk2) (Entered: 06/14/2013)
64 NOTICE by Plaintiffs N. B., D. D., W. G., J. L., B. M., C. M., K. M., J. R. of Compliance with Doc. 63 (Branch, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/12/2013)
65 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel T Downey for Defendants Washington County Board of County Commissioners, Washington County Ohio, Timothy A. Williams (Downey, Daniel) (Entered: 01/23/2014)
66 MOTION to Substitute Attorney Daniel T. Downey for Cheri B. Hass by Defendants Washington County Board of County Commissioners, Washington County Ohio, Timothy A. Williams. (Downey, Daniel) (Entered: 01/23/2014)
67 ORDER granting 66 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Attorney Cheri B Hass terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P Kemp on 1/27/2014. (kk2) (Entered: 01/27/2014)
68 Joint MOTION for Order to for Stipulated Entry (by All Parties) by Defendants Michelle Burkhart, John and Jane Does 1−20, Stephanie Galati, Brian Hesson, David Matthew Montgomery, DO, Brian Orders, Rae Ann Ward, Washington County Board of County Commissioners, Washington County Ohio, Timothy A. Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Resident 166 Chronology, # 2 Exhibit B − Letter, # 3 Exhibit C − Payment for Member #101, # 4 Text of Proposed Order) (Riley, Kimberly) (Entered: 05/28/2014)
69 STIPULATED ENTRY. Telephone Status Conference set for 7/23/2014 @ 10:00am. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P Kemp on 6/3/2014. (kk2) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
70 NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for 7/23/2014 @ 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Terence P Kemp. (sh1) (Entered: 06/25/2014)
71 NOTICE of Appearance by Stacy Virginia Pollock for Defendants Washington County Board of County Commissioners, Washington County Ohio, Timothy A. Williams (Pollock, Stacy) (Entered: 07/22/2014)
Status Conference held on 7/23/2014 before Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp. (jv) (Entered: 07/23/2014)
72 Amended MOTION for Order to (with Plaintiffs) to Close Qualified Settlement Fund by Defendants Washington County Board of County Commissioners, Washington County Ohio, Timothy A. Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Riley, Kimberly) (Entered: 09/12/2014)
73 ORDER granting 72 Joint Amended Motion to Close Qualified Settlement Fund. The final distributions are set forth in this Order. The Court further orders that Plaintiffs' Class Counsel file an Order terminating the Consent Decree closing the case and dismissing the remaining parties. Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 09/15/2014. (dh1) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
74 STIPULATION of Dismissal Defendants Judge Timothy Williams in his Official Capacity and Washington County, Ohio with Prejudice by Plaintiffs N. B., D. D., W. G., J. L., B. M., C. M., K. M., J. R.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order to Terminate Consent Decree) (Branch, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/08/2014)
75 ORDER Terminating the Consent Decree. Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 10/09/2014. (dh1) (Entered: 10/09/2014)

 
 _______________________________________
GERHARDSTEIN & BRANCH
A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 432 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 400 CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202 TELEPHONE: (513) 621-9100 FACSIMILE: (513) 345-5543

*ALPHONSE A. GERHARDSTEIN
JENNIFER L. BRANCH KANE P. KAYSER
Of counsel ROBERT F. LAUFMAN

PRESS RELEASE

*Also admitted in Minnesota

MARIETTA JUVENILE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT PROPOSED TERMS INCLUDE FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND IN DAMAGES PLUS REFORMS

Contact: Al Gerhardstein (o) 513.621.9100; (c) 513.659.4765

Columbus, Ohio. A settlement has been proposed in the civil rights class action challenging conditions at the Washington County Juvenile Center in Marietta, Ohio. A consent decree has been filed with the federal court that, if approved, will result in damages totaling approximately $406,230.00. Additional funds will be paid for attorney fees, expenses and monitoring result in extensive reforms.

Reforms: The Settlement calls for changes in the way the Center is operated, including:

• No youth will be held in detention for more than 24 hours • No youth will be held in isolation for more than 24 hours (there is an exception to the
limit if a mental health provider recommends suicide watch) • Youth in detention between 7 a.m. and 7 p. m. shall receive a minimum of one hour
recreation without restraints • Privacy zone will be established for detention and observation cells so the view in the
monitoring camera does not shows areas around the toilet and shower • Medical director to be appointed and medical policies will be established • Suicide screening and staff training will be improved • End all community service at farms or other for profit establishments • Consult with University of Cincinnati on programming • Communicate timely with home schools to ensure special education compliance • Update handbook • Searches by staff of same gender as youth • End payments of child support or social security to County General Fund.

If approved by the Court the Settlement will be in place for one year but can be extended for six more months if the terms are not implemented. The parties have asked the Court to appoint

1

corrections expert Steve Martin as monitor to ensure compliance with the terms regarding operations. Plaintiff co-counsel Al Gerhardstein of Cincinnati stated, “I commend Washington County for addressing our concerns promptly and working with us to remedy the problems at the Center. We are hopeful that Judge Sargus will approve the settlement and that we can start making distributions early next year.” The case was filed in federal court in Columbus in December, 2010. A detailed notice must be sent to all members of the class and a fairness hearing must be scheduled by the Court before the settlement can be finally approved. Any class members with questions should contact cocounsel for the Plaintiffs Jennifer Branch 513-621-9100
2