Case 2: 12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 1 of 38

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LASHAWN JONES, KENT

)

ANDERSON, STEVEN DOMINICK, )

ANTHONY GIOUSTAVIA, JIMMIE )

JENKINS, GREG JOURNEE,

)

RICHARD LANFORD, LEONARD

)

LEWIS, EUELL SYLVESTER and

)

MARK WALKER, on behalf of

)

themselves and all others similarly

)

situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

MARLIN GUSMAN, Sheriff, Orleans )

Parish, CARLOS LOUQUE, Warden, )

House of Detention, KEVIN WINFIELD, )

Warden, Old Parish Prison, BONITA )

PITTMAN, Warden, Templeman

)

Phase V, CHARLES EZEB, Warden, )

Temporary Jails, JERROD SPINNEY, )

Warden, Conchetta, JOHN DOE,

)

Warden, Temporary Detention Center, )

SAMUEL GORE, Medical Director, )

and CHARLES HIGGINS,

)

Psychiatric Director,

)

)

Defendants.

)

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

Civil Action No.
Class Action for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION 1. This is a class action filed on behalf of the men, women and youth imprisoned at the Orleans Parish Prison ("OPP"), to protect them from abusive and unconstitutional conditions of confinement. The majority of people incarcerated in Orleans Parish Prison are pre-trial detainees; they are held at the jail while they await their court dates.

Case 2:12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 2 of 38
2. Individuals housed at the jail are at imminent risk of serious harm. Rapes, sexual assaults, and beatings are common place throughout the facility. Violence regularly occurs at the hands of sheriffs' deputies, as well as other prisoners. The facility is full of homemade knives, or "shanks." People living with serious mental illnesses languish without treatment, left vulnerable to physical and sexual abuse. These conditions have created a public safety crisis that affects the entire City of New Orleans. The jail is oversized, understaffed, and Sheriff Gusman's classification and secur~ty policies and practices are dangerously deficient. The men and women housed there are at constant risk of physical harm due to the presence of contraband and weapons in the facility, which, coupled with the absence of meaningful mental health services, places the lives of people incarcerated there in immediate jeopardy.
3. Sheriff Gusman demonstrates deliberate indifference to the basic rights of the people housed at OPP by implementing constitutionally deficient security, staffing, classification and mental health policies and practices. Defendants' inability or refusal to manage a facility of this size has become increasingly apparent in recent years, with violence and health crises steadily escalating within the facility.
4. Sheriff Gusman and the Defendant wardens knowingly allow their deputies to abandon their obligations to protect the people in their custody from harm. Deputies fail to supervise the housing tiers-they do notperform cell checks or regular inspections of the living areas. As a result, a culture of brutal violence has flourished throughout the facility. Men, women and youth in Sheriff Gusman's custody have endured brutal rapes and prolonged beatings-all a direct result of the policies and practices of the Orleans Parish Sherriff's Office..
5. Sheriff Gusman purports to run one protective custody floor for the entire complex. This floor is supposed to protect individuals who are particularly vulnerable to
2

Case 2:12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 3 of 38
violence and abuse on the regular housing units. Yet many of the cell doors do not lock and the Sheriff's dangerously deficient staffing policies and practices extend onto this unit. As a result, violence is rampant even on this floor. The Sheriff punishes some individuals who seek protection by placing them in the "hole." On this disciplinary tier individuals often are subject to solitary confinement-locked alone in their cells for 24 hours a day-deprived of human contact and sensory stimulation.
6. According to data released by the federal government, up to 64% of people held in local jails live with a mental illness. Sheriff Gusman implements a number of policies and procedures that deprive people living with mental illness of constitutionally adequate care. Upon admission to OPP, Defendants have a policy of suspending medication for 30 days, and sometimes longer. This makes people living with mental illness particularly susceptible to abuse, because symptoms of their mental illness begin to manifest acutely when they are denied medication. Unsurprisingly, this practice causes some individuals to experience suicidal ideation.
7. Suicidal prisoners with mental health needs are transferred to a direct observation cell, in which they are held almost naked for days. Once they no longer express a desire to injure themselves, they then are transferred to the psychiatric tiers---'where they are locked down in their cells for 23 hours a day and deprived of mental health interventions. People living there are not allowed to go outside or visit with their families. Overhead lights are on 24 hours per day, and the tier contains actively psychotic people living on the ground in overcrowded cells. Deputies do not walk the tiers. Rape is rampant. The conditions have been well documented, by the U.S. Department of Justice, the federal Prison Rape Elimination Act Commission, the U.S. Marshals, the media, by individual civil lawsuits and by motions in criminal cases. In spite of widespread public knowledge about the conditions within the facility, the Defendants have failed
3

Case 2:12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 4 of 38
to correct known deficiencies, and, indeed, recently opened an additional 400 bed temporary detention facility.
8. An expert hired by the City of New Orleans has recommended a jail with 1,438 beds, based upon New Orleans' population and crime rates. OPP currently has 3,400 beds. The Defendants are not adequately staffing or supervising a facility of this size. As additional beds are opened up, more lives are placed in danger. The City of New Orleans has made some efforts to reduce the number of people incarcerated in OPP for low-level offenses, but over 35,000 people are processed through intake annually. This means that people are detained in the facility for non-violent and low-level crimes, as well as more serious crimes of rape and murder.
9. Additionally, Sheriff Gusman continues to house approximately 1,000 individuals who have been convicted of state offenses and have been sentenced to the State Department of Public Safety and Corrections ("DPSC"). Sheriff Gusman's decision to house 1,000 convicted state prisoners makes the facility more dangerous for everyone, by unnecessarily significantly expanding the size of the jail. The larger population makes it harder for deputies to staff and maintain order.
10. Individual lawsuits are unable to accomplish the sort of systemic overhaul necessary to creating a constitutionally acceptable facility. Therefore, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons imprisoned at the Orleans Parish Prison, the Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief ordering the Defendants to cease all unconstitutional and unlawful policies and practices at the prison and to provide class members with required care and living conditions.
4

Case 2:12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 5 of 38
JURISDICTION 11. This cause of action arises under the United States Constitution, enforceable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Jurisdiction in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3). . 12. This Court is authorized to grant declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and injunctive relief pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
VENUE
13. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim[s] occurred" in this district.
PARTIES 14. The Plaintiffs are all people who are currently or will be incarcerated at the Orleans Parish Prison ("OPP") and who are subject to conditions of confin~ment that violate their rights under the U.S. Constitution. 15. Plaintiff LaShawn Jones is a pretrial detainee currently incarcerated in OPP, Temp~eman Phase V. The Defendants have exhibited deliberate indifference to LaShawn's serious mental health needs. LaShawn also has been brutally assaulted by an OPCSO deputy, as a result of Defendants' deficient staffing and security policies. LaShawn fears for her safety and is in desperate need of mental health services. 16. Plaintiff Kent Anderson is a pretrial detainee currently incarcerated in the psychiatric tier of OPP, House of Detention. Anderson filed multiple sick calls and grievances prior to being given his required medication. He became suicidal and still was denied access to psychiatric care. Anderson is in immediate need of mental health care, and is suffering as a result of Defendants' deliberate indifference to his serious mental health needs.
5

Case 2:12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 6 of 38
17. Plaintiff Steven Dominick is a DOC prisoner housed in Orleans Parish Prison, House of Detention. Dominick is on protective custody because he has been jumped, stabbed and threatened, as a result of Defendants' dangerously deficient security, staffing and classification policies and practices. Dominick fears for his safety.
18. Plaintiff Anthony Gioustavia is a pretrial detainee currently incarcerated in OPP, Old Parish Prison. Gioustavia was attacked by another prisoner quickly after being booked .into OPP, and has witnessed multiple fights and stabbings, as a result of Defendants' dangerously deficient policies and practices. Gioustavia fears for his safety.
19. Plaintiff Jimmie Jenkins is a pretrial detainee currently incarcerated in the psychiatric tier of OPP, House of Detention. Jenkins suffers from schizophrenia and has been denied access to constitutionally adequate mental health care. Jenkins is in immediate need of mental health care, and is suffering as a result of Defendants' dangerously deficient mental health policies and practices.
20. Plaintiff Greg Joumee is a pretrial detainee c~rrently incarcerated in OPP, House of Detention. Joumee was moved from Old Parish Prison to House of Detention because he was unsafe, but then was stabbed repeatedly in the House of Detention. Joumee fears for his safety, as a result of Defendants' dangerously deficient staffing, security and classification policies and practices.
21. Plaintiff Richard Lanford has been attacked severely mUltiple times in OPP. He was beaten so severely that he sustained broken facial bones and had to be transported to the hospital for injuries. He is currently injured and in extreme pain. He has experienced threats of sexual assault. Lanford has been attacked in various facilities throughout OPP, as a result of
6

Case 2:12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 7 of 38
Defendants' dangerously deficient classification, staffing and security policies and practices. Lanford fears for his safety.
22. Plaintiff Leonard Lewis is pretrial detainee currently incarcerated in OPP, House of Detention. Lewis has repeatedly been stabbed and beaten in OPP, in various buildings and locations, including"while in protective custody, as a result of Defendants' dangerously deficient classification, staffing and security policies and practices. Lewis fears for his safety.
23. Plaintiff Euell Sylvester is a pretrial detainee currently incarcerated in OPP, House of Detention. Since arriving at OPP, Sylvester has been beaten and sexually assaulted, as a result of Defendants' dangerously deficient classification, staffing and security policies and practices. Sylvester fears for his safety.
24. Plaintiff Mark Walker is a sentenced DOC prisoner currently incarcerated in OPP, Old Parish Prison. Walker is diagnosed with bipolar disorder and is legally blind. He has been raped, beaten up by guards, jumped by prisoners and denied mental healthcare while in OPP, as a result of Defendants' dangerously deficient policies and practices. Walker fears for his safety.
25. Defendant Marlin Gusman is the elected Sheriff for Orleans Parish. He has overall responsibility for the policies, procedures, operations and supervision of the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office, its employees, agents, and assigns, including all correctional facilities under the control of his office, including the Orleans Parish Prison ("OPP"). Orleans Parish Prison is composed of several correctional facilities including the House of Detention ("HOD"), Old Parish Prison, Temporary Jails ("the Tents"), Templeman V, Conchetta, and the new Temporary Detention Center ("TDC"). There is additionally the Work Release center located on South Broad Street. Defendant Gusman is the final policymaker for the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office and the Orleans Parish Prison. He is ultimately responsible for determining staffing,
7

Case 2:12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 8 of 38
classification, security and mental health policies at OPP. He is sued in his official capacity only. He is a resident of full age of majority of the Eastern District of Louisiana.
26. Defendant Carlos Louque is an employee of the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office, acting under the direction and supervision of Defendant Gusman. He is the warden of the House of Detention (HOD), one of the facilities comprising the Orleans Parish Prison. HOD is also sometimes referred to as "CLD." He has responsibility for the policies, procedures, and operations of the HOD, its employees, agents and assigns, including determining staffing, security, classification and mental health policies. On information and belief he is a final policymaker for HOD regarding these policies and practices, and is also responsible for implementing policies promulgated by Sheriff Gusman. He is sued in his official capacity only. He is a resident of full age of majority of the Eastern District of Louisiana.
27. Defendant Kevin Winfield is an employee of the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office, acting under the direction and supervision of Defendant Gusman. He is the warden of the Old Parish Prison, one of the facilities comprising the Orleans Parish Prison. He has responsibility for the policies, procedures, and operations of the Old Parish Prison, its employees, agents and assigns, including determining staffing, security, classification and mental health policies. On information and belief he is a final policymaker for Old Parish Prison regarding these policies and practices, and is also responsible for implementing policies promulgated by Sheriff Gusman. He is sued in his official capacity only. He is a resident of full age of majority of the Eastern District of Louisiana.
28. Defendant Bonita Pittman is an employee of the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office, acting under the direction and supervision of Defendant Gusman. She is the warden of Templeman V, one of the facilities comprising the Orleans Parish Prison. She has responsibility
8

Case 2: 12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 9 of 38
for the policies, procedures, and operations of Templeman V, its employees, agents and assigns, including determining staffing, security, classification and mental health policies. On information and belief she is a final policymaker for Templeman V regarding these policies and practices, and is also responsible for implementing policies promulgated by Sheriff Gusman. She is sued in her official capacity only. She is a resident of full age of majority of the Eastern District of Louisiana.
29. Defendant Charles Ezeb is an employee of the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office, acting under the direction and supervision of Defendant Gusman. He is the warden of the
(
Temporary Jails ("Tents"), one of the facilities comprising the Orleans Parish Prison. He has responsibility for the policies, procedures, and operations of the Tents, its employees, agents and assigns, including determining staffing, security, classification and mental health policies. On information and belief he is a final policymaker for the Tents regarding these policies and practices, and is also responsible for implementing policies promulgated by Sheriff Gusman. He is sued in his official capacity only. He is a resident of full age of majority of the Eastern District of Louisiana.
30. Defendant Jerrod Spinney is an employee of the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office, acting under the direction and supervision of Defendant Gusman. He is the warden of Conchetta, one of the facilities comprising the Orleans Parish Prison. He has responsibility for the policies, procedures, and operations of Conchetta, its employees, agents and assigns, including determining staffing, security, classification and mental health policies. On information and belief he is a final policymaker for Conchetta regarding these policies and practices, and is also responsible for implementing policies promulgated by Sheriff Gusman. He
9

Case 2:12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 10 of 38
is sued in his official capacity only. He is a resident of full age of majority of the Eastern District of Louisiana.
31. Defendant Doe is an employee of the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office, acting under the direction and supervision of Defendant Gusman. He or she is the warden of The Temporary Detention Center ("TDC"), one of the facilities comprising the Orleans Parish Prison. He or she has responsibility for the policies, procedures, and operations of TDC, its employees, agents and assigns, including determining staffing, security, classification and mental health policies. On information and belief he or she is a final policymaker for TDC regarding these policies and practices, and is also responsible for implementing policies promulgated by Sheriff Gusman. He or she is sued in his official capacity only. He or she is a resident of full age of majority of the Eastern District of Louisiana.
32. Defendant Gore is an employee of the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office, acting under the direction and supervision of Defendant Gusman. Dr. Gore has responsibility for the policies, procedures, and operations of OPP's medical department, its employees, agents and assigns, including mental health policies and procedures. On information and belief he is a final policymaker for OPP regarding these policies and practices. He is sued in his official capacity only. He is a resident of full age of majority of the Eastern District of Louisiana.
33. Defendant Higgins is an employee of the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office, acting under the direction and supervision of Defendants Gore and Gusman. He has responsibility for the policies, procedures, and operations of psychiatric services at OPP, its employees, agents and assigns. On information and belief he is a final policymaker for OPP regarding mental health policies and practices. He is sued in his official capacity only. He is a resident of full age of majority of the Eastern District of Louisiana.
10

Case 2:12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 11 of 38
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 34. The named Plaintiffs bring this suit on their own behalf and on behalf of all people who are, or will in the future be, incarcerated at the OPP. Included in this class is a proposed sub-
class comprised of all individuals who now are, or who will in the future be incarcerated at the
opp and who live with a serious mental illness ("mental health sub-class").
35. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. OPP currently
houses approximately 3,400 people and is undergoing expansion.! The class also includes many
future members whose names are not known, as the facility regularly admits new arrestees. It is
believed that approximately 35,000 people cycle through OPP annually, and therefore the prospective class is 35,000 people per year.2 It is estimated that the mental health subclass is
currently comprised of approximately 2, 176 individuals and that during the course of one year, approximately 21,760 individual sub-class members will pass through the OPP.
There are contentions that are common to all class members, including but not limited to the
following:
1) The Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to take reasonable measures to protect individuals from harm. The Defendants' dangerous deficient staffing policies and practices related to security (including policies and practices related to contraband, classification and staffing) result in the Plaintiffs enduring brutal beatings, rapes, assaults and/or being exposed to an unacceptably high risk these injuries.
1 Sheriff Gusman recently opened an additional 400 bed facility called TDC. This brings the total number of beds at OPP to 3800. It is Plaintiffs' understanding that some of the Tents .are undergoing renovations as is the House of Detention, but until the closure of beds is announced, the Sheriff has expanded the jail size significantly, from 3,400 beds to 3,800 beds. 2 This number is down significantly from years past due to City arrest policy reforms, but a recent Metropolitan Crime Commission study found that still one third of arrests are for out of parish warrants, which generally are traffic violations, meaning that there are very low level offenders housed in OPP, as well as people accused of violent crimes. Metropolitan Crime Commission, Orleans Parish Criminal Justice Accountability Report, November 2011. Available at: http://www.metropolitancrimecommission.org/htmlfresearch.html, last checked March 31, 2012.
11

Case 2:12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 12 of 38
2) The Defendants have a policy and practice of exhibiting deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs' serious mental health needs. The Defendants' deliberate indifference manifests in depriving individuals of necessary medication, evaluations, psychiatrist visits and other mental health inventions, of subjecting Plaintiffs seeking mental health treatment and suicide protections to degrading, humiliating and de-humanizing treatment-including forcing them to strip naked, holding them in large congruent cells, and locking them down for 23 hours a day, and
3) The Defendants have been and are currently aware of the unconstitutional policies and practices that are in place throughout OPP, which function to expose prisoners to brutal violence and to deprive them of mental health services.
36. Because the policies, practices and customs challenged in this Complaint apply with equal force to the named Plaintiffs and the other members of the class, and because every class members seeks identical declaratory and injunctive relief that would require the Defendants to cure their unconstitutional policies and practices, the claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the class in general. 37. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. They possess a strong personal interest in the subject matter of the lawsuit and are represented by experienced counsel with expertise in class action prison conditions litigation in federal court. Counsel have the legal knowledge and resources to fairly and adequately represent the interests of all class members in this action.
38. The Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class. Their policies, practices, acts, and omissions have affected all class members. Accordingly, final injunctive and declaratory relief is appropriate to the class as a whole.
STATEMENT OF FACTS 39. The people imprisoned at OPP live in unconstitutional and inhumane conditions and endure great risks to their safety and security. Because OPP is dangerously understaffed and because existing staff lack the training and supervision necessary to care for the people in their
12

Case 2: 12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 13 of 38
custody, corruption and violence are rampant. The classification system is inadequate, and fails to screen for prisoners with enemies, as well as fails to sort prisoners into dorms according to propensity for violence or risk of harm. Prisoners face threats to their lives and safety on an almost daily basis, and struggle to secure even the most basic services at OPP. Mental health care is dangerously deficient,exacerbating-and in some instances causing-the violent crises within the facility.
40. New Orleans taxpayers pay Defendants over $22 per day per prisoner to house and care for City prisoners, plus additional millions of dollars for medical care and operating expenses. Louisiana taxpayers pay Defendants $27 per day per prisoner to house and care for State prisoners housed at OPP, plus additional funds for prisoners needing mental health services. Defendants also previously received a per diem from the Federal government, but last week the U.S. Marshals announced that they have pulled all of their prisoners from OPP due to concerns about conditions and safety.
41. A 2009 findings letter by the United States Department of Justice concluded that conditions in Orleans Parish Prison are unconstitutional. Violations found included inadequate protection from harm, including specifically inadequate classification and staffing. The DOJ also found inadequate mental health and medical care, including staffing and an express finding of a failure to follow-up on mental health issues at intake screening.
42. This Complaint describes conditions that currently exist and gives examples involving specific individuals who are or were incarcerated at OPP. Some of tqe individuals are named plaintiffs and some are not.
13

Case 2:12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 14 of 38
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment Violations: Inadequate Mental Health Treatment 84. New Orleans continues to experience a mental health crisis. Recent Department of Health and Hospital (DHH) budget cuts have made OPP the largest psychiatric unit in the City of New Orleans. National statistics indicate that 64% of incarcerated people suffer from mental illness, and Orleans Parish's numbers are higher. Defendant Gore recently estimated that 45% of the OPP population had some form of mental health need. In spite of this, OPP identifies only 6% of its population as receiving psychotropic medications, indicating a gross failure to identify and treat mental illness. OPP mental health policies, conditions and staffing are exacerbating the crisis. 85. Defendants maintain a policy of not prescribing psychiatric medications for the first thirty to sixty days of a person's incarceration. Upon incarceration, it is Defendants' policy to automatically deprive detainees of mental health medications, unless the individual can provide records verifying treatment. Defendants do not conduct a meaningful independent evaluation of the detainee. The policy fails to ensure the provision of adequate mental health care in no small part because it requires imprisoned individuals living with serious mental health issues to have the capacity and means to verify their medical records from behind' the prison's walls. These individuals need immediate treatment, but are denied under Defendants' .current policy. 86. Additionally, even where detainees identify as needing medication and identify outside providers, Defendant Higgins and his staff do not receive or verify those records for weeks or months. Moreover, if the acquired records show that the individual was non-compliant with the treatment regiment prior to incarceration, or if records reflect that the person was also on drugs or alcohol, all medication is suspended. In this way, people who enter OPP experience a suspension or denial of needed medication.
14

Case 2:12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 15 of 38
87. This policy has disastrous consequences. Individuals who take psychiatric medications cannot be abruptly deprived of these medications without suffering serious harm. A significant number of the people incarcerated in OPP have untreated serious mental health needs. Under Defendant Riggin's 'policy of only providing treatment to people whose outside records he can verify, opp fails to ensure adequate psychological assessments of people incarcerated there. This results in under-identification of, and inadequate treatment for, people with serious mental illnesses. As was noted in the DOJ findings letter, prisoners do not receive adequate mental health evaluations. The mental health evaluations they do receive are perfunctory. 88. People who are suddenly removed from their medication, or who do not receive needed medication, understandably experience serious mental health crises and deteriorate. As a result, they are significantly more vulnerable to guard and prisoner abuse and violence. It also puts them at increased risk of suicide. There is no reliable way to get mental health services in case of emergencies, even for those at high risk of suicide. There are no panic call buttons in the cells or on the tiers and often no deputies are present in areas where prisoners are housed, putting these individuals at great risk of harm. 89. Once an individual is designated by a staff member as suicidal, he or she is moved to "direct observation" on the psychiatric floor, which is the 10th floor of the House of Detention. He must remain there until he is evaluated by a mental health professional who can determine whether the person remains a suicide risk. All suicidal prisoners are forced to strip naked and change into a suicide smock,3 and are housed in a large holding tank, together. They are forced to stay in this holding tanlc for 24 hours a day.
3 The smock looks like a dress or wrap. It is a black vest that wraps around the body, and falls to about mid-thigh. Other than the smock, suicidal prisoners are naked, except that they are often allowed to keep their shoes.
15

Case 2:12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 16 of 38
90. In the direct observation tank, there is nowhere to lie down or go to the bathroom. They are denied access to telephones, families and lawyers. People are housed in this tank until they sign a contract stating that they will not harm themselves or others. Once that contract is signed, they are moved elsewhere on the 10lh floor. The floor contains three male psychiatric tiers and one tier for women, who are not exclusively psychiatric patients. 91. The psychiatric floor reeks of urine, and is extremely hot and loud. Most cells are two man cells, but many have three men in them, with people sleeping on the floor. Each of the three psychiatric tiers also has a six man cell, which routinely house between 10 and 15 prisoners, with men sleeping on the floor, sometimes without mats. 92. OPP has a policy and practice of hiring insufficient numbers of qualified medical and mental health professionals. In accordance with this policy and practice, OPP has not hired enough staff to properly care for the mental health needs of 3,400 men, women and youth. OPP currently employs one full-time psychiatrist, Defendant Higgins. Higgins does not conduct minimally adequate assessments or review necessary information before diagnosing (or dismissing) patients and making determinations about whether to prescribe medication. 93. Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to supervise its medical staff and of failing to implement effective systems to ensure that medications are timely ordered and delivered and that prescribed care is provided. Medical staff commonly fail to provide prescribed treatment. Inconsistent prescription drug delivery and other lapses in treatment are customary. Staff repeatedly run out of medication prescribed, causing lengthy gaps in treatment. Additionally, individuals are commonly given multiple doses of their medication at one time, which creates fights over additional medication, again creating a gap in treatment. Defendants
16

Case 2: 12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04102/12 Page 17 of 38
Gore and Higgins have a duty to ensure these lapses do not occur, but they do not correct these recurrent problems. 94. People who need mental health services are discouraged from seeking necessary care because they are charged a three-dollar copayment for submitting a sick call form. The prisoners~ accounts are charged as soon as the form is filled out, whether or not the individual is seen by medical personnel. If a condition worsens or becomes more severe, prisoners are hesitant to submit additional forms, which will debit money from their account, without assurance that they will actually be treated. . 95. Defendants also fail to ensure that OPP staff receive necessary training on managing mentally ill individuals and on suicide prevention training. The woefully deficient training, monitoring, and supervision of OPP staff has led to several tragic deaths in recent years. 96. In January 2009, Cayne Miceli died after spending four hours in five point restraints on OPP's psychiatric tier. 97. In April 2010, Michael Hitzman told deputies he felt suicidal, and deputies told him to sit down. When he became "belligerent" Sherriff's deputies threw him into a holding cell. He was later found, having hung himself with his t-shirt. 98. In August 2011, Bill Goetzee was arrested after attempting to grab a federal security officer's gun from its holster, saying he wanted to kill himself. Goetzee was placed on the psychiatric tier at OPP but, upon information and belief was not placed on suicide watch. Prisoners have reported that he attempted to hang himself, but was stopped. Days later he killed himself by ingesting toilet paper. 99. Defendants have a policy and practice of denying access to constitutionally adequate mental health services that demonstrates deliberate indifference to the serious mental health
17

Case 2:12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 18 of 38
needs of individuals in their custody. This deliberate indifference has disastrous and often fatal consequences for the men, women and youth housed in the facility. 100. The injuries suffered by the individuals described below illustrate how the Defendants' policies and practices of deliberate indifference to prisoners' serious mental health needs harm the Plaintiffs and the class members. LASHAWN JONES 101. LaShawn Jones is diagnosed Bipolar and Manic Schizophrenic. She is prescribed to receive Divalproex and Haloperidol. She was arrested and placed in OPP on March 21, 2012. Her charges are unknown to both her and her family. 102. LaShawn has struggled with her mental health issues for years. She knows when she hears voices that she needs to go to the mental health center. She went there on March 21,2012. It is unclear what happened, but somehow LaShawn was arrested. Her family has been informed by the health service provider that LaShawn was arrested because the facility could not take care of her due to budget cuts. 103. LaShawn was brought to the psychiatric floor of OPP, in the House of Detention. Other prisoners on the tier saw her brought in. They heard the female deputy who brought her in, say "You wanna fu**in' fight me one on one? You wanna fu**in' play with me?" At this point the deputy proceeded to beat and attack LaShawn. LaShawn sustained lacerations and bruising to her face and body. Other women attest that the beating was severe and lasted awhile. LaShawn was seen immediately afterwards, bleeding all over herself from lacerations to her face and wearing nothing but her underwear. LaShawn was left on the tier for days without medical care. Eventually she was transported to the hospital.
18

Case 2:12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04102/12 Page 19 of 38

104. As of this filing, LaShawn has a bloody, blackened eye, from the attack that occurred

over a week ago.

105. Defendants' policies of inadequately training staff to interact with persons living with

mental illness, and failing to supervise and train staff generally, have resulted in serious injuries

to LaShawn. She is need of immediate mental health services and is currently extremely fearful

for her safety.

KENT ANDERSON

106. Kent Anderson has a history of stress and anxiety disorders. He also is suffering from

severe depression. Prior to incarceration, Kent was prescribed Abilify and Buspirone, amongst

other medications. Kent was not provided with medication in OPP, and his disorders worsened.

His fiance brought his medication to the jail in an attempt to verify his need for medication, but

the deputies told her that they do not "deal with that." Kent therefore languished without his

medication.

107. Kent became suicidal while housed in the Old Parish Prison and is now on the psychiatric

floor of the Rouse of Detention. He is in desperate need of mental health interventions and is

currently experiencing a mental health crisis. He is receiving inadequate care. Resays, "it's hard

to keep waking up."

JIMMIE JENKINS

108. Plaintiff Jimmie Jenkins has a history of schizophrenia and depression. When he arrived

at

OPP

on

June

28

th ,

2010

he

was

non-cooperative

in

his

initial

screening.

On

July

3,

however,

he reported a history of mental illness, and identified the clinic at which he was treated.

19

Case 2:12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04102/12 Page 20 of 38
109. Jimmie was seen by the psychiatric department on July 14, which noted a past history of schizophrenia, and also noted that he had prior inpatient treatment at two different mental health facilities. Still he was not prescribed medications. 110. Jimmie was seen again for a psychiatric appointment on July 28. At that point he again is not prescribed medications, but OPP requested his medical records from his outside providers. 111. Jimmie is seen again by psychiatric services on August 19. Doctors determine not to prescribe him medications. 112. On January 18, 2012, Jimmie wrote a sick call saying that he needed mental health care. ("I need to be seen by a mind doctor. Psychology.") He is seen by a nurse on January 23,2012, who notes, "says he hasn't had psych meds in 19 months, says saw Dr. Higgins, nothing was ordered." 113. On January 30, 2012 Jimmie reported suicidal ideations and was transferred to the psychiatric tier, where he now remains. 114. Jimmie's records illustrate Dr. Higgins' policy of suspending medication for a period of time upon arrest. Jimmie was in OPP for almost two months before his outside medical records were even requested, in spite of the fact that the facility was on notice that he had a diagnosis of schizophrenia, and had two inpatient hospitalizations in mental health facilities. 115. Through implementing this policy, the Defendants manifest deliberate indifference to Jimmie's mental health needs, and the mental·health needs of all individuals with serious mental health needs incarcerated in OPP. T.P. 116. T.P. is an individual living with mental illness who has been denied care in OPP.
20

Case 2:12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 21 of 38
117. One week after arrest, T.P. informed Sheriff's deputies that he is bipolar and schizophrenic. This fact is also noted on his medical intake form. T.P. was receiving medications for these illnesses prior to being incarcerated. He explained to the jail that he needed the medication to treat his serious mental health needs, and that it was urgent. Sheriff's deputies advised him that he would get a psych visit. 118. A week later, the Defendants still failed to provide T.P. with mental health services. During this time T.P. was attacked, which is directly related to his initial plea for care. He told the nurse he needs his medication, and that he was afraid for his safety. He also signed a release for his medication records to be sent to the facility. 119. Several days later, T.P. was placed on suicide watch, yet the Defendants still failed to provide him with adequate mental health services. For the next several days, medical records indicate that T.P. was involved in altercations with other prisoners, which were directly related to his initial plea for mental health treatment. He was taken to the hospital for a head laceration that requires stitches. He also was started on a daily regiment of Thorzine. 120. T.P. bounced between suicide watch and protective custody over the course of three months, but somehow there is a note in his file three months after his arrest: "no psych meds at this time." In this time, T.P. consistently reported to medical staff that other inmates were threatening him. 121. Months later, T.P. is found hitting his head against a wall. At this point, Halidol is ordered. T.P. reports being "jumped by homosexuals" and nurses note facial swelling, bruising and "passion marks." No rape kit is conducted. 122. T.P. is transferred to suicide watch after being found with a shirt tied around his neck, and to a pole.
21

Case 2:12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 22 of 38
123. T.P. remains on suicide watch. 124. In the first week he was in OPP, T.P. requested medical care. He advised the Defendants of exactly what his diagnosis is, and what medication he was on. He warned them that he would have serious problems if they did not give him his medication. He signed release forms for his records to be sent to Defendants. He did not receive any appointment or medication until after he sustained a lacerated skull. He has subsequently sustained multiple attacks. This is a direct failure of the Defendants failure to implement adequate mental health services. T.P., as a mentally ill prisoner, was particularly vulnerable to abuse and harm in OPP. Defendants' policies exhibit deliberate indifference to his serious medical need.
125. C.S. has a history of schizophrenia, but was diagnosed in jail as having major depression. Prior to his incarceration, he was taldng Remeron, Tremodal, and Promethezine. He also has a history of being prescribed Celexa, Haldol and Ativan. C.S. has previously been hospitalized to receive mental health services. 126. Upon his arrest on May 4, 2011 C.S. signed for a release of his medical records to OPP. His exam noted schizophrenia. He was not provided any medication. 127. On May 21, 2011 C.S. filed a sick call, explaining that he was hearing voices. He also reported hallucinations. On May 24, 2011 OPP determined "no psych meds necessary." 128. In July C.S. reports as suicidal. 129. In early November, C.S. was prescribed Celexa. He advised the nurse that because his medication was not working he would take multiple doses at one time. 130. In mid-November he attempted suicide by taking 11 pills at once, and was brought by ambulance to the hospital. The hospital ordered anti-depressants and counseling.
22

Case 2:12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 23 of 38
131. Two weeks later, the jail provided him with Wellbutrin, an anti-depressant. 132. C.S. has continued to struggle with hallucinations and suicidal ideations at the jail. 133. Defendants' policies exhibit deliberate indifference to C.S.'s serious medical needs. He came in with a known mental health history, including two instances of inpatient care. Defendants still denied him care for the first several months of his incarceration, until he reported as suicidal. Then the Defendants' policy of distributing multiple pills at one time exhibited deliberate indifference to C.S.'s mental health, and constituted a security risk. He did attempt suiCide with those pills. As a result of the Defendants' deliberate indifference, C.S.'s life was in jeopardy.
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment Violations: Protection from Harm and Dangerous and Violent Conditions of Confinement
134. OPP is an extremely dangerous prison. For years, violent fights have occurred at OPP seemingly every day. 135. Defendants Gusman has a longstanding policy of understaffing the prison. In much of the prison, it appears that often only one officer is assigned to supervise each floor. This is consistent with the DOJ findings letter, which noted that there often is one deputy per 88 man Tent, or one guard per floor in the HOD, which would be one individual deputy supervising 60 prisoners. These conditions have continued unabated. Prisoners are left unsupervised when the assigned officer leaves the area for other reasons, such as using the bathroom, eating lunch, etc. Moreover, it is believed that there is a policy at OPP that prohibits a lone guard from entering the tier in response to a crisis. Prisoners have to scream for guards and beat on the door or window to get attention in the event of a medical emergency or a fight. In the event of an emergency, prisoners generally have to administer first aid to one another, and often have to resort to calling 911 for
23

Case 2: 12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 24 of 38
assistance. This understaffing and inability to respond to emergency situations creates violent conditions that subject prisoners to serious and sometimes permanent injury, including death. 136. Defendants have long been aware that the routine understaffing of OPP creates a risk of serious harm to the people incarcerated there. In addition to the DOJ letter referenced above, Sheriff Gusman has been the Defendant in over 200 lawsuits in the three years since that letter came out. Many of those suits involved excessive violence in the facility. Likewise, many criminal defense attorneys have filed motions in their clients' criminal cases that detailed the brutality their clients suffered while in Sheriff Gusman's custody. In many of these cases, the State court judges ordered transfer of vulnerable or victimized detainees. The media has widely reported criminal defendants showing up for court with wounds from the prison. In January of this year, undersigned counsel placed Defendants on notice of violent conditions in certain areas of the jail. Still, the conditions persist. A reviev: of the routes from OPP to University Hospital for the month of February 2012 show 23 transports to the hospital from OPP for fractures, puncture wounds, lacerations, trauma and the like. This does not include medical emergencies handled in-house at OPP. 137. The understaffing of the facility and the minimal supervision that Defendants provide to deputies in the facility contributes to staff abuse and exploitation of the people incarcerated there. Because staffing is so thin and supervision so minimal, correctional officers who want to exploit prisoners have ample opportunity to do so. 138. Officers who enter the prison at night are not searched. This allows correctional officers to smuggle in drugs and contraband. Defendants are aware that the contraband-smuggling takes place, but they have not taken reasonably adequate measures to halt the practice, including
24

Case 2:12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 25 of 38
adequate measures to ensure that correctional officers are properly searched before entering the facility. The presence of contraband in the facility increases violence. 139. Cell doors on almost all units can easily be rigged to remain unlocked when shut, allowing prisoners to leave their cells and enter the cells of others at any time, resulting in many assaults. Defendants have received multiple reports of assaults stating that prisoners escaped or entered other cells through rigged doors, including on the protective custody tiers. Despite these reports, Defendants have failed to adequately supervise correctional officers to ensure that they routinely and effectively protect the individuals in their custody from harm. 140. Sheriff's deputies do not routinely conduct security checks to confirm that prisoners are safe inside their cells. In the House of Detention in particular, deputies cannot see what is happening on the tiers without walking onto the tier, which they do not do. There are no emergency call buttons on the tier, so victimized or sick prisoners often cannot get help. As a result of these failures, several Plaintiffs were raped or beaten for prolonged periods of time. Yet despite their knowledge of this and other assaults that frequently occur inside cells, Defendants have failed to enact adequate policies and procedures, adopt adequate staffing complements, or train and supervise officers to ensure that individuals are protected from harm. 141. Many officers knowingly instigate fights and attacks by purposefully opening cell doors to allow prisoners who are in conflict to leave their cells at the same time. Some officers order or persuade prisoners to attack other prisoners. Many officers also facilitate attacks by intentionally leaving cell blocks unsupervised and cell doors unsecured. Defendants have received many complaints about these problems from prisoners, but rarely conduct thorough investigations or take cOlTective action. Defendants have a policy and practice of not training and supervising
25

Case 2:12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 26 of 38
staff to ensure that the deputies employed there take their obligation to protect prisoners seriously. 142. Weapons are readily available throughout the prison. The facilities are full of homemade knives, or "shanks." Every prisoner reports knives on his tier. Defendants are aware of this grave problem. It is documented in their own incident reports and medical records, as well as prisoner grievances they review. Despite their knowledge, they have failed to take reasonable measures to protect prisoners from suffering weapon-induced injuries. 143. Prisoners in protective custody are not safe. While in protective custody, prisoners have been attacked and stabbed. OPP staff fail to take reasonable measures to ensure the safety of these prisoners, who are particularly vulnerable to prison violence due to a variety of factors including size, disposition, nature of their offense, and mental illnesses. Even on the protective custody tiers, cells do not lock. A number of prisoners have complained to prison authorities about these practices, but Defendants have failed to conduct an appropriate investigation into the allegations or to take any other precautions to protect the vulnerable people in their custody. 144. Inadequate classification is a significant contributor to the violence in OPP. As noted by the DO], the primary purpose of a classification system is "to determine the degree of
I
supervision required to control each inmate and to maintain safety and security" ,," A good classification system would use objective, behavior-based factors to determine appropriate custody level, such as: severity of offense, prior convictions, prior incarcerations, and personal characteristics such as age, residence and employment. It also would screen for known enemies, checking to ensure that prisoners are not housed with persons against whom they are testifying, or family members of the victim of their crime.
26

Case 2:12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 27 of 38
145. Defendants fail to complete proper investigations before making housing determinations. Officials have repeatedly placed prisoners on tiers with other people from whom they had requested separation and protection-resulting in numerous attacks. Defendants are aware of these dangers, having received numerous complaints from prisoners about these issues, but have not taken adequate measures to protect people. Even on a tier supposedly reserved for vulnerable prisoners, Defendants expose those in their custody to the risk of serious harm. There is no area of protection for youth who endure threats of violence; they are simply held in a cell on the same tier as their attackers, where they are subjected to horrific abuse and prolonged cell confinement. Likewise, Defendants fail to screen for enemies in transporting people to court arid holding them prior to court, which is when many attacks occur. 146. The injuries suffered by the individuals described below illustrate how the Defendants' dangerously deficient security practices put the Plaintiffs and other prisoners in danger. fray Tapp 147. In late February 2012, Jray Tapp was arrested on municipal charges of disturbing the peace and public drunkenness. Jray was in OPP for 28 days, until March 15, 2012. 148. Upon arriving on the psychiatric tier, Jray was initially placed in the ,suicide tank. Once it was determined that he was no longer suicidal, Jray was moved to an overcrowded cell on the psychiatric tier, where people were sleeping on the floor. Rather than giving Jray a mat to sleep on, the guard sent another prisoner in with the mat. When Jray tried to get his mat, the other prisoner stabbed him in the back of the neck. 149. Jray went in and out of consciousness as he was hit and stabbed by multiple prisoners. "Altogether, they stabbed me once in the neck, multiple times in the head and back. My hand
27

Case 2:12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04102/12 Page 28 of 38
was sliced up when I tried to grab the knife. I also had two black eyes and my face was all swollen up." 150. It took the guards a long time to respond, and even longer for an ambulance to arrive, as Jray lay in his blood. The guards yelled at him-demanding that he stand up and asserting that he was not injured. He told them that he could not move his neck, at which time deputies grabbed his neck and twisted it. He was transported to the hospital, where he was treated. The OPP medical unit transport order says that he was sent for "multiple puncture wounds." 151. Upon return from the hospital Jray was placed on another psychiatric tier. His cellmate, who is seriously mentally ill, needed a colostomy bag but did not have one and was defecating on himself and in the cell. Jray slept on the floor without a mat for multiple nights. 152. Jray then was transferred to the Tents, where he again was jumped by another prisoner. That attack resulted in facial bruising, and reopened some of the wounds from his earlier stabbing. 153. As a low level offender without much of a criminal history, Defendants should have taken cautionary measures to protect Jray. Instead, in the short time he was at opp; Jray was housed in two locations where J:le was seriously injured. Defendants' deficient classification, security and staffing policies directly caused him harm. EUELL SYLVESTER 154. Euell is pru.1icularly vulnerable to violence because he is a witness in a crime and is currently pressing charges against another prisoner. This is a matter of public record, yet Defendants failed to take reasonable measures to assure Euell's safety. 155. Defendants placed Euell in the same building as the person he is pressing charges against, Old Parish Prison. That person "put a hit" on Euell. Because of this, multiple men cornered
28

Case 2:12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 29 of 38
Euell. Some of them had knives. They restrained him and beat him. They hit him with their slippers and mop buckets. The beating tore skin off of his back. The men also sexually assaulted Euell. 156. It is unclear where the deputies were while this attack was occurring, but Old Parish Prison has open dorm-style housing, and had a guard looked into the dorm, they would have seen what was occurring. 157. Euell reported what happened to deputies. He did not get a rape kit. He had to file a request to get an HIV and STD test. 158. Since the attack, Euell has been placed in proximity to his attackers mUltiple times, and, as his assault made clear, prisoners can "order hits" throughout the facility. He is in protective custody now, but continues to get threats. Cells pop open and knives are readily available to prisoners. Euell does not feel safe in Orleans Parish Prison. LEONARD LEWIS 159.. Plaintiff Leonard Lewis is in need of protection because he is testifying against a man in a criminal case. Despite this known affiliation, Leonard has been threatened, beat up and stabbed in multiple buildings at OPP. Defendants have failed to take reasonable measure to provide him with adequate protection. 160. Leonard was first attacked in August of 2010, when a deputy put him in a cell with a person who knew the man Leonard is testifying against. The deputy knew Leonard was at risk, but placed him in the cell anyway. Leonard was stabbed multiple times. 161. Leonard filed a grievance on that incident immediately after it happened, on August 20, 2010. He was informed that he was placed in that cell "by mistake."
29

Case 2:12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 30 of 38
162. Leonard filed a second step grievance, saying he was dissatisfied with that response, and asking that he be protected. He received a response saying that the matter had been taken care of, but he still felt unsafe. Leonard filed a third step grievance in September 2010. Just this month, after undersigned counsel began investigating this matter, (and two years after the attack) Leonard received a response from Defendant Gusman himself that the deputy who placed him in jeopardy has been "counseled." 163. During the two year time period the Defendants waited to respond to Leonard's grievance, he was beaten, attacked and stabbed additional times, while on protective custody. He was jumped one day when he was brought to court with general population prisoners. 164. In November, while on protective custody, Leonard was jumped again on his way back from court. Someone yelled at him that he was a "rat," because they knew that he was a witness in protective custody. Because the cells Were open, men came into his cell and beat him. He yelled for help, but it took him hours to get the deputy's attention. His face was swollen and his nose injured. He filed another grievance about the issue, and was informed that SOD ("Special Operations Division") is investigating it. 165. On March 27, 2012 he was brought to court with the man he is testifying against. He is not supposed to be around the man. 166. Leonard does not feel safe because he has been seriously attacked multiple times. Defendants' policies and practices of inadequate staffing, security and classification have resulted in his being injured multiple times, and he remains vulnerable in the Defendants' custody.
30

Case 2:12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 31 of 38
MARK WALKER 167. Mark Walker is currently incarcerated in OPP on a medical tier in Old Parish Prison. He is diagnosed with bipolar disorder and is legally blind. After his arrest, Mark was forced to perform oral sex on another prisoner. He yelled for the guards but they did not come. After the assault, Mark was placed on suicide watch. 168. Mark reported the assault, but was not seen by SOD until 41 days .after the attack. They interviewed him in front of other prisoners heightening his fear of retaliation. It also took a long time for Mark to get an HIV test. He still has not received the results of that test. 169. Mark is particularly vulnerable to attack and abuse because he is legally blind. As a result, he was jumped multiple times in the Tents. Sheriff's deputies failed to protect him. 170. One night, Mark was packing up his items to move to another facility. When he grabbed his mat, the deputy said that Mark had hit him with it. The deputy took Mark to the back of Tent One and beat him, while he was handcuffed. A female deputy witnessed this incident and initially laughed while Mark endured the beating, but eventually, after the Deputy continued to beat Mark for an extended period of time, she told him to stop. 171. Mark has asked mUltiple times to see a social worker. When he asks why he has not been seen, he is told that his complaints are not in the computer. 172. Mark says, "the guards do not patrol the tiers, they do not respond to verbal complaints or grievances. Like everyone else in here, I am constantly in fear for my well-being." Due to his heightened vulnerabilities, Mark has been consistently subjected to attacks in various facilities in OPP. The Defendants' deficient staffing, security and classification systems have failed to protect him from abuse.
31

Case 2:12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 32 of 38
ANTHONY GIOUSTAVIA 173. Anthony is 19 years old, and was attacked by a bigger, older man when he first arrived in the House of Detention. The attack was prolonged because no deputies were present on his tier. Since then, Anthony has seen many other fights, including an attack on a very small prisoner, who was grabbed by other men while he was sleeping. He also witnessed a fight where one man was stabbed in the mouth and twice in the back. 174. Anthony is currently in OPP, and feels like his safety is immediately at risk. He is located on a violent tier and is aware of other prisoners tying people up and choking them until they pass out. Anthony says, "Guards are never around when fights break out, which is often. They usually come by for count time, and then leave again for hours." Defendants' policies and practices of failing to protect people in their custody are creating an imminent risk to Anthony's safety. GREG JOURNEE 175. Greg was originally housed in Old Parish Prison, but asked to be moved because he was receiving threats. When he asked to be moved, the Warden said, "you know this is ajail facility. I can't make sure nothing happens to you." 176. Right after being moved into the House of Detention, Joumee was jumped by several men. Some of them held him, while one stabbed him over and over. He was bleeding and yelled for a deputy. No one came until the next day. Greg did not receive medical attention for the stabbing.
32

Case 2:12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 33 of 38
177. Greg says, "all of the cells pop in all of the tiers and the guards leave us alone. People on my tier have shanks so big they look like kitchen knives. Guys can get out and come get you at any time. The guards aren't going to do anything to stop it. Tdon't think anyone is safe here." STEVEN DOMINICK 178. Steven Dominick is in protective custody in the House of Detention because he is a witness against someone accused of another crime. Steven has been threatened with knives, jumped and stabbed. He also has witnessed many stabbings in OPP. 179. Steven says, "guards do nothing to prevent violence. In fact, they often instigate it. When severe injury results from a fight, guards fail to respond with urgency. It can take hours for a deputy to come to a tier. Consequently, I have had to apply pressure to knife wounds and called family members to call 911 since the guards refuse to help. These facilities are not undermanned, they are unmanned. Deputies frequently leave their posts. Guards typically work two floors during one shift, which is about 94 people. It doesn't matter what facility you are in, you're going to be lucky to escape without some scars." RICHARD LANFORD 180. Plaintiff Richard Lanford is currently housed in the Conchetta facility at OPP. Richard is especially vulnerable to attack because he this is his first time in OPP. 181. Richard has sustained serious injuries in two facilities at OPP: Old Parish Prison and House of Detention. Since his arrest in the fall, Richard has been beaten multiple times, and had to be taken to the hospital for injuries sustained. 182. Richard was jumped soon after arriving in the House of Detention, probably because he is particularly vulnerable to attack. He suffered serious injury in that attack; his arm was injured, and he now cannot move it without extreme pain. He reported it to deputies, who refused to help
33

Case 2:12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 34 of 38
or move him away from the people who attacked him. Richard remains in significant pain from that attack, and deputies continue to deny him medical attention. 183. Richard was subsequently moved to the Old Parish Prison. He was jumped again and this time, his face was severely injured. He had to wait over an hour for medical attention, and ultimately required surgery.as a result of the attack. Inexplicably, Richard was returned from the hospital to OPP. Other prisoners knew that he had reported the attack and received medical care for his injuries, so they labeled him a "rat." Immediately after returning to OPP, Richard was jumped again, this time in the medical tier of Old Parish Prison. He was reinjured in that attack. 184. Because of the severe abuse he was sustaining, and due to his appearing in criminal court with bruises and lacerations, the two judges in Richard's criminal case ordered that he be moved from Old Parish to Conchetta for his safety. However, he was moved back to OPP, where he was threatened again. 185. Subsequent to undersigned counsel meeting with Richard, Defendants finally moved him to Conchetta. He is now on a tier with one of the men who attacked him in Old Parish Prison. He does not feel safe. 186. Richard explains that guards patrol too many areas at once and are absent for long
1
periods of time. Medication is distributed in bulk, with multiple doses at once, called a "keep on person" medication distribution system. Richard is on pain medication because of his surgery. He has been threatened for his medication and is forced to give it away, in lieu of being attacked. 187. Defendants' classification and staffing deficiencies directly led to Richard's severe facial injuries, and the injury to his arm. Even after he was attacked in HOD, the Defendants failed to classify him as needing protection, allowing further victimization in OPP. After he was brutalized in OPP, he was returned there, only to be immediately attacked again. He was not
34

Case 2:12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 35 of 38
moved until undersigned counsel began visiting him. Richard says, "I am extremely depressed as a result of the violence and conditions of this place. I feel like I have aged ten years in the six months I have spent here. We're treated like animals here." J.J. 188. J.J. was incarcerated at OPP at the age of 15, because he is being tried as an adult. He was booked onto the juvenile tier in Templeman V. J.J. was jumped on the juvenile tier as soon as he entered; he was confronted by older, tougher youth with knives. 189. J.J. witnessed rape and violence on the juvenile tier. He witnessed a youth being raped anally with toothbrush. J.J. reported the unconstitutional conditions. He requested protective custody, and was placed on 23 hour cell confinement, still on the same tier with the other youth. 190. J.J. continued to be tormented by some of the other youth on the tier, who called him a "rat" for being on protective custody. The one hour per day that J.J. was allowed out of his cell to use the telephone and shower meant that other youth had to be locked down during that time. This created intense animosity between others on the tier and J.J. 191. Other youth threw ice water and urine on J.J. They obtained his educational records, which were left out by the guards and contained his home address, and threatened to kill his mother, because he was a "rat." 192. The conditions made J.J. suicidal. He reported to the guards that he wanted to kill himself. 193. J.J. was transported to the psychiatric tier in the House of Detention. Because he was a juvenile, they placed him in the shower-which was the only cell in which he could be kept separate from adults. The shower floor was covered in semen and urine. J.J. was naked, except for a suicide smock. He was afraid to sit down, so he stood up all night long.
35

Case 2:12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 36 of 38
194. While on the tier, he heard a prisoner being raped. The next morning, I.J. overheard the prisoner tell the guard that he had been raped. The guard said that the prisoner was lying. 195. I.I. signed a contract to get off of the psychiatric tier. 196. J.J. was transferred back to protective custody on the juvenile unit. However, guards threatened to allow other youth to attack him, because he continued to report to outside sources the unconstitutional conditions on the tier. 197. I.I. was jumped twice, once on his way to court, and once in the visitation room, while visiting with his mother. 198. As a result of outside advocacy, I.I. was moved to another building. He is now housed in a special unit. That unit initially consisted of 23 hour lockdown and solitary cell confinement. For weeks, there was no television or books. The solitary cell confinement caused the people housed there to deteriorate mentally. I.J. and the other people on that tier have struggled· significantly emotionally over the last several months. The cell confinement has been extremely damaging to them.
EXHAUSTION 199. The named Plaintiffs have exhausted all available administrative remedies, to the extent that the ARP procedure is available.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF First Claim
Eigl!th Amendment Violations: Deliberate Indifference to Plaintiffs' Serious Mental Health Needs
By failing to provide constitutionally adequate mental health care to address the Plaintiffs' serious medical and mental health needs and by allowing the policies and practices of providing
36

Case 2:12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 37 of 38

grossly substandard healthcare to continue, Defendants violate the Plaintiffs' rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Second Claim Eighth Amendment Violations: Failure to Protect From Dangerously
Violent Conditions of Confinement By subjecting Plaintiffs to dangerously violent conditions of confinement and by exhibiting deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs' substantial risk of serious physical injury as a result of these conditions, Defendants '\(iolate the Plaintiffs' rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray that this Honorable Court grant the following relief:

a.

Declare that the acts and omissions of the Defendants violate Plaintiffs' constitutional

rights and federal law;

b.

Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring the Defendants, their agents,

subordinates, employees and all others acting in concert with them to cease their unconstitutional

and unlawful practices and to remedy their violations of the Constitution and the laws;

c.

Award to the Plaintiffs reasonable costs and attorney's fees; and

d.

Grant the Plaintiff such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

37

Case 2:12-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 38 of 38 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this the 2nd day of April, 2012. Katie M. Schwartzmann Katie M. Schwartzmann, T.A., La. Bar No. 30295 Sheila A. Bedi, Miss. Bar No. 101652 (pro hac vice application forthcoming) The Southern Poverty Law Center 4431 Canal Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70119 504-486-8982 (phone) 504-486-8947 (fax)
38

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DECLARATION STATE OF LOUISIANA ) PARISH OF ORLEANS )
I, Ralph Anderson, declare the following is true to the best of my knowledge. 1. I am 28 years of age and competent to sign this declaration. 2. I am a prisoner at Orleans Parish Prison and expect to be here until I am transferred to Angola Correctional Facility. 3. While in Orleans Parish Prison, I was recovering from a recent surgery on both my legs from a gunshot wound. I entered Orleans Parish Prison in a wheelchair. I was not seen by any medical staff or cleared by a doctor to be removed from my wheelchair but my wheelchair was taken from me and I was given crutches. Less than a week later guards came and took my crutches, again without me seeing any medical staff. I was then placed ·in a lOman holding cell in general population. The cell was already overcrowded and I was forced to sleep on the floor, even though I was not recovered from my surgery. I was unable to stand for long periods oftime and I was unable to get myself off the ground in the morning. I was forced to ask for assistance from other people being housed in the cell. While I was in the lOman cell I was very vulnerable to violence· because I was unable to defend myself; this caused my belongings to be taken from me multiple times. 4. The only way Orleans Parish Prison and Sheriff Gusman responded to multiple calls and complaints from my family about my Clm-ent medical condition was to place me on 23 hour lock down protective custody on the 8th floor of the House of

Detention. Sheriff Gusman assured my family and I that I would not have a cellmate during my time on the 8th floor due to my inability to protect myself and the nature of my condition. On the 14th of January, 2012 I received a cellmate. TIllS was after my family and I had been reassured that I would not have a cellmate because of my medical condition)and violence I was already subjected to. When my celhllate first arrived I did not feel safe at all. I was very vulnerable because of my medical condition with my legs and I felt that I was open to violence at any time. I filed a grievance on the 14th of January the fact that I had a cellmate and was not supposed to have one but I never received a reply.
5. The sliding front of the cell that opens and closes and allows people to enter and leave the cell are being held closed with shac1des. I witnessed the Fire Marshal come onto the tier and tell guards that the shackles are a fire hazard and that they need to come down. They did not come dovn.l and are still being used to hold the cells closed.

On this, the~ day of ff\nrCn
perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

2010, I declare under penalty of

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DECLARATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA ) PARlSH OF ORLEANS )
I, Joel Dixon, do hereby declare:
1. I am currently incarcerated in Old Parish Prison in Orleans Parish Prison.
2. During my time in the facility, I have witnessed several incidents of prisoner on prisoner violence.
3. Before I was on the medical tier, I saw one incident of sexual violence. Multiple prisoners locked another man in a cell and raped him. I couldn't see everything that was going on because I was in the adjacent cell, but I could hear everything.
4. Recently on the medical tier, a guy who really needs some mental healthcare lunged at me and scratched me under my jaw with something sharp. It left a mark from my chin to my jaw. I know he needs help and wasn't getting any, because I helped him fill out sick calls before the incident. He told me all the prescription medication he was on prior to coming to jail. He also told me that he wasn't getting that medication in here. As far as I know, he never received treatment.
5. The same guy got in another fight a few weeks later. He was trying to spit on us and gouge people's eyes out. I'm not mad at him. He needs help. Like all of us, he just needs help. If medical had only responded to those sick calls, these fights never would have happened.
6. I have struggled with depression since I've been back here, but I didn't want to say anything because I don't want to go to HOD 10. I even had plans to commit suicide, but was too afraid to ask for help.
7. When a fight or other incident occurs, we are discouraged from reporting it. If someone rats to a guard, the guards will tip off the tier as to who the rat is, so the guys on the tier can punish or intimidate him.
8. Guards aren't around for the fights and then they encourage more violence by telling the prisoners who reports them.
9. They have been painting a lot ofthe tiers recently, trying to make things look better. But they are·merely camouflaging their inadequacies. It is going to take a lot more than paint to make us safe.

@'\~N Joel IXon

Witness

f'rr'I -,-_ day of

,2012.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DECLARATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA ) PARISH OF ORLEANS )
I, Brent Gill, do hereby declare:
1. I am currently incarcerated in the Temporary Detention Facility in Orleans Parish Prison.
2. Before I got here, I was in the Broad Street Work Release program.
3. I had a lot of problems over there. Guards weren't giving me paychecks, they threatened me and tried to get me to fight them.
i."
4. I started filing grievance after grievance for all of these things, but I never got a response back. One time I heard one of the guards say, "He just don't know. He keeps writing grievances, and we're just gonna keep ripping them up." I think they started retaliating against me since I kept filing grievances on them.
5. I have also seen guards throw grievances away.
6. After a while I started filling out two grievances at a time so I could give my attorneys a copy of what I was writing.
7. I don't know what else I'm supposed to do to getmy money back or make sure I'm safe, since I never get a response to my grievances.

On this, the.i day of 'f iJ. (J1(!;yt(fh
foregoing is true and correct.

~012, I declare under penalty of perjury that the

rent GIll

Sworn before me this.:L day of 1~2012.

[\lL1i. /

uld~

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

STATE OF LOUISIANA ) PARISH OF ORLEANS )

DECLARATION

I, Joshua Hobson, do hereby declare:
1. I was formerly incarcerated in Orleans Parish Prison from late November 2011 to the middle of December 2011.
2. During my time there I witnessed guards encourage violence and cheer fights on between inmates until the first blood was drawn. I had to.remain constantly alert to an attack fi'om guards or other guys on my tier. When I tried to draw attention to the situation, I was intimidated, harassed and ignored by the Sheriff s staff.
3. "When I first arrived I was put in a holding cell in the House of Detention before my First Appearance. 'While I was waiting I witnessed a guard drag two bleeding inmates down the hallway. The guard threw them into the holding cell with me. One had a dime size hole in his head. After a little while, the guard came back and dragged the two men out of the cell to the elevator where he threw them in like trash and said, "serves you to niggers right."
4. In early December I was dragged out of my bed at night by several guards. They threatened to hurt me and hit me a few times in an attempt to intimidate me from publicizing the appalling conditions.
5. In addition to the violence and abusive guards, the grievance procedure is non-existent. Prisoners in OPP have absolutely no way of reporting problems. While in custody, I tried three different times to file grievances. The first time I tried to tum one into a guard, he read it in fi'ont of me and then ripped the grievance into little pieces in fi'ont of my face. The second and third times I filed a grievance, deputies took the forms, but I never received a response.
6. As a result of all of this I became hopeless. I stopped eating and couldn't sleep. These were the worst weeks of my life.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, this the ~ day of ~ ,2012.
Sworn before me this ~ day of m~, ?012.
~ ~~ >

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DECLARATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA ) PARlSH OF ORLEANS )
I, J.J., hereby declare:
1. I am a pre-trial detainee currently incarcerated in the House of Detention. I am locked in a cell with my cell-mate for twenty-three hours a day.
2. I was transferred to Orleans Parish Prison from the Youth Study Center four days after my arrest and spent several months in Templeman Phase V.
3. During my time in Orleans Parish Prison, I have been beaten up by tier-mates, abused by guards and neglected by medical staff. I am afraid for my life. This is no place for a juvenile.
HOD 10
4. Early on in Templeman V, I got really depressed and thought about hurting myself. Before I did, though, I reported my thoughts of suicide. In October I was moved to the tenth floor of the House of Detention for suicide watch.
5. When I arrived on HOD 10, guards made me strip down in front of several people and put me in a vest without any shoes. Then the guards put me in a shower that was full of urine and semen. I asked for my shoes, but the deputies refused to give them to me. Because I didn't want to sit or lay down in the mess, I stood in the entire night.
6. During the night I spent in HOD, I heard someone get raped. When he told the guard the next day, the guard said "you're lying." Another time I saw a guard pepper spray a pnsoner.
7. Since that incident I am afraid to tell the guards if I feel suicidal. I asked to see a nurse twice for depression but no one came to see me. I do not want to tell them if I feel like hurting myself, though, because I do not want to be sent back to the tenth floor.

Templeman V
8. In Templeman V the other guys on tier harassed, threatened, beat and abused us in every way possible. They pulled shanks on us, stole our stuff and contaminated our food.
9. Guys were getting raped on the tier.
10. The guards yelled at us and called us rats for talking to our lawyers about what is happening.
11. Even after I was protective custody I got jumped because the guards do not protect us.
House of Detention
12. When I got out of Templeman, they put me on a maximum security tier in HOD with adults. All the cells popped open and one of the adults hit one of the kids who came over with me. Guards were not on the tier to protect us. I have never been so scared in my life.
13. I'm still scared when I leave my tier to go to attorney visits or court because those guys in Templeman have people all over this jail who can get me. Guards don't do much to protect me and it only takes a second to get stabbed. Only takes a second to lose your life. I am also won-ied about new kids coming to Templeman V. I have heard that guys are still getting jumped back there. There's nowhere safe for us.
On this, the ~ day of-/.A~.1(~IO!'--'·'l-l_ _ _ _ 2012, I declare tmder penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and con-ect.
X --0--,-. J.
J.J.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DECLARATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA ) PARISH OF ORLEANS )
I, Nicholas Miorana, do hereby declare:
1. Around Mardi Gras I grew extremely depressed. I asked to see a psychiatrist, but guards told me I had to go to HOD 10 to see a psychiatrist, so I said I was suicidal in order to get sent there.
2. When I arrived, I was firstput in the suicide tank. I waited in my underwear with other guys. I couldn't use a phone to call anyone. Guards wouldn't let us out to go to the bathroom. The following morning I saw the psychiatrist. When he learned I was never suicidal and just wanted to talk to someone about my troubles, he became angry. He had a really bad attitude and kept telling me if! want to talk, talk to a social worker. But it's almost impossible to get an appointment with the social worker here.
3. I asked to go back to Old Parish, but guards put me on the tier with this small, young guy who was just coming on too. I watched as some bigger guys stabbed the little one a bunch of times in the neck and his body. Two ofthem had knives. The little guy tried to fight back and was yelling loudly. Guards finally came and opened the gate to the tier, but wouldn't come on the tier.
4. The kid made his way out and immediately lay down. His blood was pooling all around him. I came off with him because I didn't want to stay on that tier after that. It took a long time before the ambulance arrived.
5. Guys have almost died on the tier because guards are never around. Sometimes it takes 30 or 45 minutes of banging on the door before guards respond.
6. This is serious. You can die in here. You can easily be killed any day. On some tiers, inmates have shackles. There are at least two to ten knives on every tier. If you report something, though, you'll probably get stabbed up. Animals can't live back here, much less human beings.

On this, the _\_ day of ~ \ -'-~-->..f''--'--''--t-\- - - - 2012, I declare under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
-..--_ day of~, 2012.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DECLARATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA ) PARISH OF ORLEANS )

I, Damon Patterson, hereby declare:

1. I am a pre-trial detainee currently housed in the Tents in Orleans Parish Prison.

2. Since my arrest, I have witnessed several violent incidents including fights between inmates and beatings by guards. I try to stay out of it and stay safe. No one in safe in here, though.

3. After a few days in the House of Detention I was transferred to Tent One. I didn't have any problems there, but I saw one guy get stabbed up. He was hurt so badly that they put him in the Hole to heal up. They put guys in the Hole since you don't get visitation when you're in there. That way your family can't see how bad you're hurt.

4. It's not just inmate on inmate violence in there. I've seen guards beating on people in

Tent One. They take guys into the back area by their office. They tell everyone to get

away from the gate and then they beat the guys up. It happened a lot, usually during the

night shift. The guys that have been beaten up by guards were mostly young and almost

always were handcuffed for the beating.

.

5. Later on, I was transferred to Tent Six where I am now. Tent Five and Six are worse than the other tents. They are a cesspool for violence and corruption. Since I have been in Tent Six I've seen fights and stabbings.

6. Fights are allowed in here. Guards let them do it, either by putting guys together they know are going to fight, or by not stopping the fights once guys get into it. But mostly it's because they're never around. You only see a guards a few times a day.

L/1
On this, the

day of--,-A~:¥F-"-V1-'-1\--'_ _ _ 2012, I declare under penalty of perjury that

the foregoing is true and correct.

X&~1i3iib

Damon Patterson

L Sworn before me this

day of A"f0 \ ,2012.

4/kitness

~J

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DECLARATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA ) PARISH OF ORLEANS ) I, Jelpi Picou, an individual of the age of majority, do hereby state:
1. That I was incarcerated in Orleans Parish Prison for one year and was released on or around July 15,2011.
2. During this period, I witnessed systemic prisoner on prisoner violence as well as abuse and neglect by the guards in several Orleans Parish Prison facilities.
3. For instance, I was held temporarily in the Templeman V facility directly across from the juvenile tier. There were no visual obstructions between the tiers, and guards often encouraged us to watch the juveniles beat each other for entertainment.
4. Guards are aware ofthe rampant violence on the juvenile tier of Templeman V, yet, they do nothing to curb or prevent it. In fact, they provoke violence by turning off the televisions, aware that the lack of stimulation leads to fights.
5. Prisoner on prisoner violence is not contained to the juvenile tier of Templeman V. A culture of violence exists across all facilities under Sheriff Gusman's control, due to the guards' failure to patrol tiers, enforce safety measures and respond efficiently to emergencies.

6. I witnessed most violent acts occurring when guards were absent from the tier for several hours at a time. '1IThen guards do ma1ce rounds, they perpetuate the violence by taunting and inciting prisoners through verbal abuse. The resulting experience ofhumiliation and emasculation among the prisoners leads to increased instances of aggression.
7. On the rare occasion that guards are present for a physical altercation, they wait either for its conclusion or until prisoners to draw blood before responding to scene.
8. On top of the hostile and unsafe environment, opp lacks an established grievance system. If you file a grievance about someone on your tier, the guard tells them within in minutes which puts you at risk. If you file a grievance against a guard, they usually rip it up and throw it away. Consequently, you feel cut off from any type of order. You are totally on your own.
9. Due to the pervasive violence across facilities coupled with the lack of available institutional remedies, juveniles suffering physical and sexual abuse in Templeman V will not benefit fl.·om transferring to an adult facility. Prisoners and guards alike identify the weakest targets to attack, thus putting juveniles at a heightened risk in facilities outside of Templeman V.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, this the 18th day of January, 2012.

' J ' Sworn before me this . \gl1 day of

2012.

WliLt_njeJsJs~~ -=

-

IN THE VNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

STATE OF LOUISIANA ) PARISH OF ORLEANS )

DECLARATION

I, Paul Robinson, do hereby declare:
1. I am currently incarcerated on the tenth floor of the House of Detention in Orleans Parish Prison.
2. I am afraid for my life in here. They're really stabbing people up. I have heard guards beat on people, I have seen guys get in fights, and guys have attacked me too.
3. When I was in Old Parish Prison my cellmate pushed me, and I fell and hit my face on the toilet. My face was swollen. My nose was also busted and bleeding. I didn't tell the guards I got in a fight, but they moved me anyway. I never did get medical attention for my face, though. There's no help in this place.
4. Now I'm on the tenth floor and I'm afraid to come off of it because people are waiting to get me back in Old Parish Prison.· People are out to get you all over this jail and guards don't stop it. Guards encourage it. The tenth floor isn't even safe. Ijustchecked offmy tier because I was afraid for my life. I've n~ver done that before because it makes you look weak.
5. All the cells pop open up here and guards only come through a few times a shift. I think I would only be safe on PC. We're all in a house of danger back here.

ArVi L On this, the day of

-I

foregoing is true and correct.

2012, I declare under penalty of perjury that the

Sworn before me this --'--_ day of~' ,2012.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOmSIANA
DECLARATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA ) PARlSH OF ORLEANS ) I, Ben Sabine, do hereby declare:
1. I am currently incarcerated in Old Parish Prison in Orleans Parish Prison, waiting for a bed to open up in a rehab program.
2. I'm on the medical tier right now because I was on crutches when I was arrested. I had just gotten a tumor taken out of my leg.
3. A little while ago, one ofthe guys I was cool with gave some of my pills away. I got upset with him and then he put his shoes on to fight. While we were fighting in the back away from the guards, two other guys came up behind me and hit me on the head and face over and over like they were boxing. I was seeing stars by the end. When it was over, my eyes were swollen and black and I had to get stitches at LSU for a cut under my eye.
4. Another time a guy on the tier stabbed someone up when he thought someone stole his stuff. The guy that got stabbed had to run to the window and start banging on it to get someone's attention. He was yelling, "I got stabbed! I got stabbed!"
5. For all of these fights, guards weren't around. Because I'm on a medical tier, though, it is the safest tier to be on. I can't imagine what goes down on the regular tiers;
t On this, the day of---'b?----"-1f-V\--'\~___ 2012, I declare under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and conect.
Sworn before me this _--1,--_ day of ~ , , 2012.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DECLARATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA ) PARISH OF ORLEANS )
I, Jray Tapp, do hereby declare:
1. I was incarcerated in Old Parish Prison in February and March of 2012.
2. The weeks I spent in OPP were the worst weeks of my life. Immediately after booking I was put on the tenth floor. I spent some time in the suicide tank and then was released to a cell with a ton of other people in it. I didn't have a bed or a mat, so I asked a guard ifI could have a mat. He sent another inmate in with one. I went to grab it, but he stabbed me in the back in the neck. I passed out and when I came to, there were two guys kicking and stomping me. I tried to fight back, but they just kept hitting me. They stabbed me again, and I passed out a second time. They stole my shoes when I was blacked out.
3. Altogether, they stabbed me once in the neck, multiple times in the head and the back. My hand was also sliced when I tried to grab the knife. I also had two black eyes and my face was all swollen up.
4. It took a while for guards to respond. Then the nurses came. It took even longer for an ambulance to get there. The whole time I was just lying in my own blood. I was in shock. I was shaking. There was blood oozing everywhere and I couldn't breathe. Then I started coughing up blood and stuff.
5. Guards were yelling at me to shut up. They said I wasn't even hurt that bad. I told them I couldn't move my head, so one of them grabbed my neck and yanked it around to prove that I could.
6. When I got to the hospital, they gave me fluids and cleaned out my wounds. A few hours later they brought me to jail and put me back on the tenth floor, but a different tier. One of the guys in my cell needed a colostomy bag. Since he didn't have one, he was just making a mess all over himself and the cell. I didn't have a mat or a bed and I slept on the floor for a few nights.
7. They moved me to the Tents after a few more days. But some big guy came up and told me I took his rack. He put his shoes on for a fight. Then he slammed me on the ground a couple oftimes and hit me too. My face puffed back up and he bruised my elbow. The worst part was that my stab wounds opened back up.

8. I'm really lucky to have made it out of there alive, but I'm worried about everyone still in OPP. I'm not the only person this has happened to and I know that it will continue to happen unless some action is taken. On this, the _(.._ day of----!-f}--pvz./-FL-L-·-/-I_ _ _ _ 2012, I declare under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
(worn before me this .-==:;::::=-=d.::::ay~Of~, 2012.

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DECLARATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA ) PARISH OF ORLEANS )
I, Kent Anderson, do hereby declare:
1. I am cun-ently incarcerated on the tenth floor of the House of Detention in Orleans Parish Prison.
2. I suffer from several health conditions including stress and anxiety. My fiance tried to bring my prescriptions to jail to show the doctors what I was taking on the outside, but the deputy said, "we don't.deal with that."
3. I put in several sick calls, but most times they are never answered. It took a really long time and lots of sick calls before I got any medicine. When I filed a grievance on not getting the medicine, they told me to file a sick call.
4. Some of the nurses on duty refuse to pass out medicine.
5. I recently came to the tenth floor of HOD from Old Parish Prison because I was getting really depressed. I told someone that I was thinking about taking pills to kill myself.
6. I was put on suicide watch and when I got off, the psychiatrist was hard to talk to, like I did something wrong. I needed help, but he only spent a couple minutes with me.
7. I put in another sick call last week to see the psychiatrist. I keep having nightmares and am really stressing. When I saw the psychiatrist he told me to talk to a counselor. He said, "I'm a fucking doctor! That's it. I prescribe medicine. If you want to talk, talk to a fucking counselor!"
8. I have met a lot people with mental health issues in here. None of them are getting the help they need. I feel all alone. Sometimes I -get claustrophobic. The medicine isn't helping much and there's no one to talk to. It's hard to keep waking up.
9. I believe that this lawsuit is in my best interest. I want to bring this lawsuit so that I can make the prison safer for me and all the other prisoners here now and in the future.
10. I will fairly and adequately represent the interests of all the prisoners in Orleans Parish Prison.

m On this, the 31 day of o.x cAt\.
foregoing is true and COlTect.

2012, I declare under penalty of perjury that the
~fkJU~ ent Anderson

3 Sworn before me this 1 day oflv\tvrcJ.\ 2012.
Witness
11.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTIUCT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DECLARATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA ) PARISE OF ORLEANS )
I, Steven Dominick, do hereby declare:
1. I am currently incarcerated on a protective custody tier in the House of Detention in Orleans Parish Prison. I am on lockdown for twenty-three hours a day.
2. I have been threatened with lmives, jumped, and stabbed. I have also witnessed many stabbings sincer have been OPP.
3. Guards do nothing to prevent the violence. In fact, they often instigate it. ""When severe injury 'results from a fight, guards fail to respond with urgency. It can take hours for a deputy to come on the tier. Consequently, I have had to apply pressure to knife wounds and called family members to contact 9~1-1 since the guards refuse to help.
4. When I was at Old Parish Prison, they put a transgendered woman on my tier. She was living life fully as a woman and had breasts and everything. Guys were giving her a really hard time and I was worried for her. I kept telling guards they needed to move her. There was also gay, effeminate, white guy on the tier at one point. People would take him into the shower and coerce him to perform oral sex. I didn't see it, but I could hear it., It could happen because we were all alone for hours. I still struggle thinking about how I couldn't protect him.
5. I came to HOD protective custody from Old Parish Prison since I was testifying against someone in a trial. But this isn't protective custody. There are shanks everywhere and everyone's cell pops open. I have inforD;led the jail of this breach in security, but nothing has been done to .rectify it.
6. These facilities are not undermanned, they are unmanned. Deputies frequently leave their posts. Guards typically work two floors during one shift,especially in Old Parish Prisor~. It doesn't matter what facility you are in, you're going to be lucky to escape without some scars.
7. I believe that this lawsuit is in my best interest. I want to bring this lawsuit so that I can make the prison safer for me and all the other prisoners here now and in the future.
8. I will fairly and adequately represent the interes~s of all the prisoners in Orleans Parish Prison.

On this, the ~ day of m~~ foregoing is true and correct.

2012, I declare under penalty of perjury that the

Sworn before me this 3\ day of \J'\e...yc..h, 2012.
~~~Witness

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DECLARATION
. STATE OF LOUISIANA ) PARISH OF ORLEANS )
I, Anthony Gioustavia, do hereby declare:
1. I am a pre-trial detainee incarcerated at Old Parish Prison in Orleans Parish Prison.
2. An older, bigger guy attacked me when I fIrst rolled in. Guards weren't around when it happened. It lasted a long time.
3. I have seen lots of other fIghts. One time some men grabbed this little guy when he was sleeping and started to fIght him. Another time, there were two guys with knives fIghting on the open tier. One of them got stabbed in the mouth and twice in the back. Other guys with knives were watching and were waiting to fIght.
4. Guards are never around when fIghts break out, which is often. They usually come by for count time and then leave again for hours; I don't feel like they are doing much to protect any of us.
5. I believe that this lawsuit is in my best interest. I want to bring this lawsuit so that I Cml make the prison safer for me and all the other prisoners here now and in the future.
6. I will fairly and adequately represent the interests of all the prisoners in Orleans Parish Prison
L On this, the day of_~'--"f:::.2.-.'-·+-\____ 2012, I declare tmder penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.

~ ¥ , waIn before me this

day of

2012.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DECLARATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA ) PARISH OF ORLEANS )
I, Jimmie Jenkins, do hereby declare:
1. I am a pre-trial detainee currently incarcerated on the tenth floor of the House of Detention in Orleans Parish Prison.
2. I am locked in my cell for twenty-three hours a day, but the locks pop so people can get out when the guards aren't looking.
3. Before I was arrested, I was taking prescription medication for my bipolar disorder. I have not gotten my medication here in OPP.
4. It's hard without my medicine in here and not being able to talk to a counselor or social worker. Plus, there are fights all the time. I came over to the psych tier in order to get some help after a guy stabbed me up in Old Parish Prison. I have been hit here too and seen lots of other fights. I just got punched a couple weeks ago when a guy was trying to steal my cookies.
5. I thought it would bebetter on HOD 10, but guards leave us unattended just like they do in Old Parish Prison and I still haven't had any mental healthcare.
6. I believe that this lawsuit is in my best interest. I want to bring this lawsuit so that I can make the prison safer for me and all the other prisoners here now and in the future.
7. I will fairly and adequately represent the interests of all the prisoners in Orleans Parish Prison.

3i On this, the day of f\J'\. 04-~
the foregoing is true and correct.

2012, I declare under penalty of perjury that

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

DECLARATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA ) PARISH OF ORLEANS )
I, Greg Journee, do hereby declare:
1. I am a pre-trial detainee currently incarcerated on the seventh floor ofthe House of Detention in Orleans parish Prison.
2. Before I got to HOD, I was in Old Parish Prison. There, I had to move because of threats I was getting. When the warden finally moved me he said, "you know this is a jail facility. I can't make sure that nothing happens to you."
3. When I moved to HOD I was jumped by a bunch of guys right after I got on the tier. Some of them held me while another one stabbed me over and over. I was bleeding all over and yelled for a deputy. No one came until the next day. When a guard fmally came, he didn't do anything. I never even received medical attention.
4. All ofthe cells pop in all of the tiers and guards leave us alone. People on my tier have shanks so big, they look like kitchen knives. Guys can get out and come get you any time. The guards aren't going to do anything to stop it. I don't think anyone is safe in here..
5. I believe that this lawsuit is in my best interest. I want to bring this lawsuit so that I can make the prison safer for me and all the other prisoners here now and in the future.
6. I will fairly and adequately represent the interests of all the prisoners in Orleans Parish Prison.

On this, the 3/ day of M tA-V ~
foregoing is true and correct.

2012, I declare under penalty of perjury that the

Greg Journee
Sworn before me this 3{ day of ~2012.
AJr·~ Wi ess

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

STATE OF LOUISIANA ) PARISH OF ORLEANS )

DECLARATION

I, Richard J. Lanford, do hereby declare:
1. I am currently incarcerated in the Conchetta facility in Orleans Parish Prison. I have also been held at the House of Detention and the Old Parish facilities.
2. Since my arrest in August 2011, I have been jumped at least three times, and other inmates have attempted to sexually assault me and threatened to kill me numerous times. I have sustained multiple physical injuries as a result of these attacks, and have had to be taken to the hospital for surgery to treat broken bones and lacerations experienced as a result of getting jumped.
3. I was placed in the Old Parish facility because my bail was really high. Old Parish is where they keep the most violent offenders - yet my offense was not violent. Putting me in there with violent people exposed me to a lot of physical and emotional harm, stress, anxiety, and fear.

4. The first time I was jumped in September, my ann was twisted behind me. As a result, I can't move my arm.. I am in a lot of pain but the guards say my arm is fine and won't give me medical attention to see if the ligaments in my arm. are torn. When I reported this incident right away to the guards, they told me I was lying and refused to get me help or to move me away from the inmates who jumped me.

5. I was jumped again in November and had my cheekbone and jaw broken. The guards ignored me and made me wait over an hour before giving me any medical attention. I had to be taken to the hospital for surgery to have these injuries fixed.
6. Just weeks later, I was jumped in the medical tier of the Old Parish facility where I was recovering from surgery required to repair my broken cheekbone and jaw. I was jumped by a guy who thought I was a rat for complaining about getting jumped earlier.
7. Because I reported getting jumped all three times so I could get medical attention, everywhere I go men call me a rat - in my cell, on my tier, at court. I never know when I might run into someone who wants to hurt me.

8. Because ofthe severe violence and threats I was receiving in the Old Parish facility, I both asked and my judge ordered that I be moved to Conchetta but it took months for me to be moved. Now that I am in Conchetta, I'm on a tier with one of the men who attacked me at the Old Parish facility. I still don't feel safe.
9. The guards keep these facilities unsafe. Guards patrol two floors at once, so my tiers have gone without supervision for long periods of time. When guards are present, they ignore us and sleep. When I was recovering on the medical tier at the Old Parish facility, the guards would leave our cells open, which caused me to get attacked again.
10. I have seen violence happen constantly in the House of Detention and in the Old Parish Prison facilities. This violence includes men getting jumped, and men with knives stabbing other inmates.
11. I am being prescribed pain medication as a result of the numerous injuries I have sustained from other inmates. The nurses bring me largequ8ntities of my pain medication at a time - usually enough to last me for one to two weeks. Having this many pills on me at once threatens my safety - other inmates know that I have large amounts of pills on me and threaten to attack me ifI don't give them away.
12. I am extremely depressed as a result ofthe violence and conditions in this place. I am constantly looking over my shoulder, convinced someone else is going to try and get me. I feel like I have aged ten years in the six months I've spent here.
13. I know that sexual assault happens here from other imnates, and I have had imnates attempt to sexually assault me. I would rather die than have someone do that to me. Having that happen to me is my worst nightmare.
14. We are treated like animals here. The conditions are horrible - there is mildew everywhere and it is making me sick. Toilets are always broken and the food is disgusting.
15. I believe that this lawsuit is in my best interest. I want to bring this lawsuit so that I can get my physical injuries fixed, andto malce the prison safer for me and all the other prisoners here now and in the future.
16. I will fairly and adequately represent the interests of all the prisoners in Orleans Parish Prison.

h A I On this, the

day of ~CI

foregoing is true and correct.

2012, I declare under penalty of perjury that the

\ Swom before me this ~ day of A~~,

,2012.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

DECLARATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA ) PARISH OF ORLEANS )

I, Leonard Lewis, hereby declare:

1. I am a pre-trial detainee currently housed on the ninth floor of the House of Detention. This is a protective custody tier. I am locked in my cell twenty-three hours a day.
)
2. I was transferred to HOD from Old Parish Prison about seven months ago, because I am testifying against another prisoner. But time and again jail officials keep putting me in unsafe situations with him. I have been threatened, beat up and stabbed multiple times in different buildings since my arrest. Noone responds when I ask for help. No one is safe in here.

3. During the 2010 summer I was in the holding tan1<.. A deputy put me in a cell with a guy that knew the prisoner I'm testifying against. He stabbed me up a bunch oftimes. The guard knew he was my enemy, but he didn't care. I think he wanted to see one of us get hurt.

4. I filed a grievance, asking that a supervisor deal with the deputy. The grievance I got back said I was placed in the holding cell by mistake.

5. I filed another grievance because that is not an acceptable mistake to make. My life is on the line. I asked in my Step Two grievance, "what ifI would have got hurt real bad?"

6. The next response said that the matter was already taken care of. I filed a third grievance, saying that the other guy had a knife and if it wasn't for a female deputy who passed by, I would have been cut up.

7. Two years later, I received a response to that grievance from Sheriff Gusman himself. It

should not take two years to take me seriously. No one cares about my safety or anyone

else's in this place. I know because in those two years it took to get a response, I was

jumped several more times.

.

8. After I was on protective custody, they took me to court with general population. I ended up getting stabbed and jumped by a bunch of guys when I was on the docks waiting for court.

9. I got jumped again by a couple of guys when I came back after another time in court. Someone yelled out, "I heard you were a rat." The cells were open and this guy came

into my cell and started fighting me. Some other guys came and joined in against me. Deputy Lyons knew it was going to happen. He locked the interlock so I couldn't run off
the tier. I yelled for help, but it took a long time to get a deputy's attention.
10. My whole face was swollen from the fight and I think my nose was broken. A nurse just gave me an ice pack.
11. I filed another grievance on it, and Warden Louque said SOD was investigating. But I haven't heard anything from SOD since. They moved me up to another PC floor, but I still feel unsafe.
12. We're not actually in protective custody up here. The deputies are never around and all the cells pop open. No one is doi~g their job. They're all just busy covering up for each _ other.
13. On March 27,2012 I went to court, but was brought with the guy I am testifying against. Everyone knows I'm not supposed to be in court with him. Everyone knows I'm testifying against him. They just don't care. I told someone from the Special Operations Division that I was not supposed to be with that guy, but he wouldn't do anything.
14. I was walking right behind him into court. When we were by the judge's desk he turned around and said, "stupid bitch." Then he spit in my face. I'm lucky he didn't do something worse. The DA saw what happened and asked if! was OK, but SOD didn't do a thing.
15. I filed another grievance on this when I got back to jail from court, the same day. I don't think those grievances do a thing, though, and sometimes you can't even get a fonn or turn it in. The mail lady hasn't been by for weeks and the last time I saw her, she said they didn't have any more copies of the forms.
16. We're on our own in here. Ijust pray that I make it out of here alive. People die back here. I don't want to be the next one to die, and I don't think anyone else should die back here either.
17. I believe that this lawsuit is in my best interest. I want to bring this lawsuit so that I can make the prison safer for me and all the other prisoners here now and in the future.
18. I will fairly and adequately represent the interests of all the prisoners in Orleans Parish Prison.
On this, the day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2012, I declare under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, this __( _day of
A,\?Vl \ ,2012. ~~~
Leonard Lewis
_~dayof~,2012.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DECLARATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA ) PARISH OF ORLEANS )
I, Euell Sylvester, do hereby declare:
1. I am currently a pre-trial detainee, incarcerated in the House of Detention in Orleans Parish Prison. I anl protective custody and am supposed to be on lockdown for twentythree hours a day.
2. Prior to my arrest, I pressed charges on someone. When I was arrested, the jail didn't check for this conflict. They put me in the same building as my defendant, who put a hit on me.
3. Because of the hit, a lot of guys came up to me one night and started giving me a hard time. Things escalated until they stripped me, restrained me and beat me in the middle of the night. Some of them had knives. They hit me with their slippers and mop buckets. The beating tore the skin off my back.
4. They sexually assaulted me including anal penetration.
5. During the attack, a deputy came on the floor, but he never looked into the tier. If he had, he would have seen what was happening. But deputies don't really care about what happens to us.
6. The next morning I did not receive any medical treatment. I never got a rape kit even after I repOlied what happened. I had to file something to get HIV/STD testing and it took months for them to even give me that.
7. Since the beating in Old Parish Prison, guards have put me in contact with my defendant and my attackers a few more times. It's like they want to see me get messed up.
8. I'm on protective custody now, but I still don't feel safe. All the cells pop and guys are always threatening me, both on the tier and when I go to court. They tell me they're going to beat me up. I complain to guards and ask them to move me, but they refuse.
9. Anywhere they put me, I'm not going to be safe. All of our safety is at risk. The guards aren't doing their jobs and there are knives everywhere. Plus, I think they try to set up the fights. I don't care why anyone is in this jail. We are still human beings and we do not deserve this. This violence has got to stop.

10. I believe that this lawsuit is in my best interest. I want to bring this lawsuit so that I can make the prison safer for me and all the other prisoners here now and in the future.
11. I will fairly and adequately represent the interests of all the prisoners in Orleans Parish Prison.

On this, the BO day of ·mM'"vh.,
foregoing is true and conect.

2012, I declare under penalty of perjury that the

Sworn before me this -+--=-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DECLARATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA ) PARISH OF ORLEANS )
I, MaTk Walker, do hereby declare:
1. I am currently incarcerated in Orleans Parish Prison on a medical tier in Old Parish Prison.
2. I am diagnosed with bipolar disorder and am legally blind.
3. Since my arrest in October20 11, I have been in the House of Detention, Orleans Parish Prison, Conchetta and the Tents. I have not been safe from harm in any of these facilities. I have been raped, beat up by guards, jumped by prisoners, had my stuff stolen, and denied access to mental healthcare. Nobody, especially those of us with a physical or
. mental disability, are safe here.
4. Shortly after my atTest, I was forced to perfOlmoral sex while I was sitting on the toilet. I started malcing noise as loud as I could, but people in the cell got mad at me for yelling and the guards didn't check on me. I reported it to a·guard afterwards, butite didn't believe me.
5. I was put on homicide/suicide watch after the assault because I told the guard ifhe did not protect me, I would defend myself. On suicide watch I asked for grievances to repOli the rape. Guards kept telling me, "'We don't have any," or "It's not even worth giving you a grievance because I can't give you a pen to fill it out since you're on suicide watch." I had to ask every day for weeks untill obtained a grievance form and pen.
6. I don't think the grievances I wrote were ever turned in because people from the special investigation division didn't come see me for forty-one days after the assault. I didn't tell them everything because they interviewed me in front of other prisoners and I didn't feel comfOliable.
7. It took a really long time for the jail to give me HIV testing. I still have not gotten my results back.
8. Before they moved me from HOD 10, I was jumped a couple times. In Tent One I was jumped again repeatedly and had cleaning solution sprayed in my eyes. I was moved around different tents and I kept getting jumped. Guards were never around to protect me or to break up the fights. I think they were smoking outside.

9. In December a guard told me to pack up. I obeyed, but he said that I hit him with my mat when I grabbed it to go. He got so mad that he took me and beat me up in the back part of Tent One. I was handcuffed and couldn't protect myself. He beat me so badly that a female deputy, who had been laughing at first, finally stepped in to stop him.

10. Now I'm in Old Parish. Recently a gU)! was harassing me in the shower. When I tried to tell jail officials about it they said to me, "do what you gotta do."

11. I have filed multiple sick calls for a variety of complaints. When I finally saw medical, they said that my sick calls were never put in the computer. How can I see the social worker if they do not put my sick calls in the system?

12. The guards do not patrol the tiers, they do not respond to verbal complaints or grievances. Like everyone else in here, I am constantly in fear for my well-being.

13. I believe that this lawsuit is in my best interest. I want to bring this lawsuit so that I can make the prison safer for me and all the other prisoners here now and in the future.

14. I will fairly and adequately represent the interests of all the prisoners in Orleans Parish Prison.

ffJ On this, the'30 day of

~

2012, I declare under penalty of perjury that the

foregoing is true and COlTect.

Mark Walker

Sworn before me this 3 0 day of M~k1012.
AliA (A~v;;~

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

____________________________________

)

LaShawn Jones, et al.

)

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

)

MARLIN GUSMAN, Sheriff, Orleans

)

Parish, et al.

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________

CLASS ACTION Case No. 2:12cv00859

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL FILING IN SUPPORT OF CLASS CERTIFICATION
Today, the United States Department of Justice released its Report on Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails (“DOJ Report”) (Exhibit 1). This report contains the findings of the Review Panel on Prison Rape (“Panel”). The Panel held hearings in Washington D.C. during the fall of 2011 during which Orleans Parish Prison (“OPP”) was identified as a jail that had reported an unusually high incidence of sexual abuse and victimization. DOJ Report at iii.
The DOJ Report describes in detail the culture of sexual violence and the lack of accountability that permeates OPP. These findings confirm many of the allegations contained in the Plaintiffs’ complaint. For this reason, the Plaintiffs hereby file a copy of the Report with this Honorable Court, in support of their motion for class certification.
As a jail that has a high incidence of sexual abuse and victimization, the Panel carefully investigated OPP operations. DOJ Report at 68-83. The investigation consisted of requests for supplemental data from the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s office, notarized statements from Sheriff Gusman, who was unable to appear in person before the U.S. Department of Justice Panel

because he had previously accepted another invitation, an on-site visit to OPP, testimony from an
advocate, a civil rights attorney and an individual formerly imprisoned in OPP. Id.
The DOJ Panel concluded that it was “deeply disturbed by the apparent culture of
violence at the OPP.” DOJ Report at 82. In 2009, the DOJ issued an investigating findings
letter regarding OPP, in which it documented systemic and brutal violence, inadequate medical
care and dangerous sanitation and environmental conditions. (Rec. Doc. 2-6). Referencing these
2009 findings the Panel stated that “many of the deplorable conditions of the jail have not
changed significantly since the issuance of the OPP Letter of Finding.” DOJ Report at 82.
The DOJ Panel made the following additional findings:
1) A.A., an individual formerly imprisoned in OPP testified about the sexual violence he endured while imprisoned at OPP. “…three of the inmates—all large men—anally raped me. With no one to help I laid down on the floor, bleeding from my injuries and terrified about what would happen next. My cellmates continued to orally and anally gang rape me…the whole time I was at OPP…it happened so many times, I lost count.” DOJ Report at 77. A.A. further testified that he filed at least six grievances in an attempt to get help. One guard responded to his grievance “a faggot raped in prison—imagine that!” Id. After A.A.’s testimony, the Panel requested documentation related to stay at OPP. The documentation confirmed that A.A. had filed multiple grievances about the abuse he endured at OPP, but that officials failed to respond or investigate his allegations. Colonel Jerry Ursin admitted to the Panel that with regard to A.A., the Sherriff’s Office “dropped the ball on that case as an organization.” DOJ Report at 79.
2) The Panel heard another account of victimization that it deemed “consistent with A.A.’s account.” DOJ Report at 81. “A larger individual over-powered Robert and raped him, he screamed for help, but no officer responded” and “despite sustaining serious injuries, no correctional officer checked on him through the night.” Id. Like A.A., Robert’s attempts to secure protection from the Sherriff’s deputies was futile. “I filed a number of grievances while I was at OPP, including an emergency grievance complaining about the rape as well as one complaining about being physically abused by an OPP guard. I never received a response to my grievances.” DOJ Report at 82.
3) During the Panel’s tour of OPP, “inmates approached the Panel privately, stating that their grievances went unanswered. These appeals are a particular cause for concern . . .The Panel urges OPP. . .to conduct a thorough review of its grievance process, making sure that all inmates receive a fair, timely response to every grievance.” DOJ Report at 83.

4) The Panel concurs with the DOJ Civil Rights Divisions which concluded that “Staffing levels at OPP are inadequate to protect inmates from harm.” Id.
5) The Panel also recommended that OPP implement an objective classification system that “protects vulnerable inmates from sexual assault.” Id.
Given the DOJ Report’s relevance to the instant case, and the significant factual overlap
between the Panel’s conclusions and the Plaintiff’s allegations in the instant case, the Plaintiffs
respectfully provide this Report to the Court in support of their Motion for Class Certification.
This Report makes clear that the violations outlined in Plaintiffs’ complaint are system-wide in
nature, such that class certification is appropriate.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this the 9th day of April 2012.
I/s/ Katie M. Schwartzmann Katie M. Schwartzmann, La. Bar No. 30295 Sheila A. Bedi, Miss. Bar No. 101652 (pro hac vice application forthcoming) The Southern Poverty Law Center 4431 Canal Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70119 504-486-8982 (phone) 504-486-8947 (fax)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by email to all parties by the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s CM/ECF System. A copy is also being placed in the U.S. Mail.
This 9th day of April, 2012.
/s/ Katie Schwartzmann

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68 Filed 09/24/12 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LASHAWN JONES, KENT

)

ANDERSON, STEVEN DOMINICK, )

ANTHONY GIOUSTAVIA, JIMMIE)

JENKINS, GREG JOURNEE,

)

RICHARD LANFORD, LEONARD )

LEWIS, EUELL SYLVESTER and )

MARK WALKER, on behalf of

)

themselves and all others similarly )

situated,

)

Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-00859 Section I Judge Lance M. Africk Magistrate Judge Shushan

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

Applicant for Intervention,

)

)

v.

)

UNITED STATES' MOTION TO INTERVENE PURSUANT TO THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1997

) --MkRJ:;INGUSMAN,-- ----\-)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sheriff, Orleans Parish,

)

)

)

Defendant.

)

UNITED STATES' UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE
The United States of America moves to interv:ene,_pursuant.to_Rule.24,Federal Rule.s.oCCivii _ Procedure, in the above styled case, Jones v. Gusman, No.2: 12-cv-00859 (LMA) (E.D. La., filed Apr. 2,2012). Pursuant to Rule 24(c), the United States has attached its Complaint in Intervention against Defendant Sheriff Marlin Gusman. In support, the United States submits that:
1. On September 11, 2009, following an extensive investigation, the United States formally notified Defendant Sheriff Marlin Gusman of its findings of serious constitutional violations regarding the conditions of confinement at the Orleans Parish Prison ("OPP") pursuant to the Civil Rights ofInstitutionalized Persons Act ("CRIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997. CRIPA gives the Department of Justice authority to seek a remedy for a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the constitutional rights of prisoners in adult detention and correctional facilities. The United States'

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68 Filed 09/24/12 Page 2 of 5
letter of findings detailed numerous constitutional deficiencies, including: inadequately protecting prisoners from harm, including physical harm from excessive use of force by staff and inmate-oninmate violence; inadequate mental health care, including poor suicide prevention practices; deficiencies in medication management; and serious risks posed by inadequate environmental and sanitation conditions.
2. On April 23, 2012, the United States sent Defendant a letter re-enforcing its finding and detailing current constitutional deficiencies at OPP necessitating emergency action, including inadequate protection from violence and sexual assault; inadequate suicide prevention; inadequate mental health care and access to medical care; and inadequate services to limited English proficient ("LEP") prisoners in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.
3. Since issuing its letter offindings, the United Stateshas engaged in good faith negotiations with Defendant to develop a comprehensive reform plan to remedy the unconstitutional conditions.
4. On January 18,2012, Plaintiffs in this action filed a Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief, alleging that unconstitutional conditions at OPP subject youths to imminent and
serious risk of bodily harm or death. J.J. v. Gusman, No. 2:12-cv-138 (E.D. La., filed Jan. 18,2012).
On April 2, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a class action on behalf of the men, women and youth imprisoned at OPP to protect them from abusive and unconstitutional conditions of confinement and dangers similar to those outlined in the United States' September 2009 letter of findings and April 2012 letter regarding emergency conditions. (Complaint, ECF No.1.) The cases were consolidated into the Clment matter before this Court on April 30, 2012. (Order, ECF No. 13.)
5. CRIPA provides that the United States may intervene in any action seeking relief from egregious or flagrant conditions of conilnement that deprive prisoners "of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States causing them to suffer grievous harm" where the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that such deprivation is pursuant to a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enj oyment of such rights. 42 U.S.c. § 1997c.
2

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68 Filed 09/24/12 Page 3 of 5
6. Given the overlap between the United States' investigation and the subject matter of this litigation, both the parties and the United States believe it would be most efficient to resolve Plaintiffs' claims and the United States' investigation with a single, comprehensive remedy.
7. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997c, the Attorney General certifies to this Court that all prerequisites to filing this Motion to Intervene have been met. The Attorney General certifies that:
a. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997c(b)(I)(A), notice was provided to Defendant Sheriff, and his chief legal officer, at least 15 days previous to this Motion to Intervene. This notice included the: (1) alleged conditions which deprive rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States and the alleged pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of such rights, privjleges, orimrnunities; (2) supporting facts giving rise_to the aUeged conditions, including the dates and time period during which the alleged conditions and pattern or practice of resistance occurred; and (3) minimum measures which the Attorney General believes may remedy the alleged conditions and the alleged pattern or practice of resistance 42 U.S.C. § 1997c; and
b. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997c(b)(I)(B), the Attorney General believes that such intervention by the United States is of general public importance and will materially further the vindication of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws ofthe United States; and
c. The Attorney General has the "reasonable cause to believe" set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 1997c(a)(I).
8. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.6, the undersigned cotillsel of record certifies that on September 13, 2012, both parties' counsel represented to the United States that they consent to the United States' Motion to Intervene.
9. As such, the United States moves this Court for intervention of right, purSUffilt to Rule 24(a)(2), ffild alternatively for permissive intervention, pursuffilt to Rule 24(b).
3

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68 Filed 09/24/12 Page 4 of 5
WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests that this Court grmlt this Motion to Intervene ffild enter ffil order:
a. Granting the United States' Motion to Intervene; b. Adding the United States to Case No. 2:12-cv-00859 as a full party plaintiff-
intervenor; c. Ordering the Clerk of the Court to enter the United States' Complaint in
Intervention, and allowing it to proceed on its claim stated therein.
-----------------------------------------------------------
~. . ----~----------------------------------------------------------------
4

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68 Filed 09/24/12 Page 5 of 5
Respectfully submitted this~~day of September, 2012.

~!- - - -

RIC H. HOLDER, Attorney General of the Unit d

JAMES B. LETTEN (LA 8517) United States Attorney District of New Orleans

THOMAS E. PEREZ Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

ROY L. AUSTIN, JR. (DC 211491) ---------Qeputy-Assistant-Attemey-QeneFaI---------
Civil Rights D!vision

I
/

;I.'

'/ l

! /

dw',W""
Ii 'h.lef
i AURACOON

Special Counsel

COREY SANDERS (DC 490940)

KERRY DEAN (DC-474260)

Trial Attorneys

United States Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division

Special Litigation Section

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530

Tel.: (202) 514-6255

Email: corey.sanders@usdoj.gov

5

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68-3 Filed 09/24/12 Page 1 of 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LASHAWN JONES, KENT

)

ANDERSON, STEVEN DOMINICK, )

ANTHONY GIOUSTAVIA, JIMMIE )

JENKINS, GREG JOURNEE,

)

RICHARD LANFORD, LEONARD )

LEWIS, EUELLSYLVESTER and )

MARK WALKER, on behalf of

)

themselves and all others similarly )

situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

Applicant for Intervention,

)

)

v.

)

)

---MARLIN-GUSMAN,-·---- --)

Sheriff, Orleans Parish,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-00859 Section I Judge Lance M. Africk Magistrate Judge Shus.!lan
•
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF UNITED STATES' UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE PURSUANT TO THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1997

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF UNITED STATES' UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE

The United States of America, pursuant to Rule 24, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, submits

this Memorandum of Law in supportofits Unopposed Motionto Intervene in the above-styled case,

Jones v. Gusman, No. 2:12-cv-00859 (LMA) (E.D. La., filed Apr. 2, 2012).

I. INTRODUCTION

The Orleans Parish Prison ("OPP") is a violent and dangerous institution. The United States

has found reasonable cause to believe that prisoners confined to OPP are subject to physical assaults

by others prisoners and staff, including sexual assaults, denied access to necessary medical and

mental health care for serious conditions, and subjected to unsafe physical plant conditions. The

United States and Defendant Sheriff Marlin Gusman have negotiated an agreement that will resolve

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68-3 Filed 09/24/12 Page 2 of 16
the concerns of the United States as well as those raised by the parties to this litigation. Upon being granted leave to intervene in this case, the United States and Defendant will submit the proposed agreement to the Court and request that it be entered as an injunction.
On February 12, 2008, the United States formally notified the City of New Orleans that the Department of Justice ("Department") was opening an investigation of conditions of confinement at OPP pursuant to the Civil Rights ofInstitutionalized Persons Act ("CRIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997. CRIPA gives the Department authority to seek a remedy for a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the constitutional rights of prisoners in adult detention and correctional facilities.
On September 11, 2009, the United States issued a public findings letter concluding that numerous conditions and practices at OPP violated the constitutional rights of prisoners. More specifically, the Department found that prisoners were not adequately protected against harm, including harm from excessive use of force by staff and prisoner-on-prisoner violence due to inadequate supervision; that prisoners did not receive adequate mental and medical health care, including proper suicide prevention; that prisoners faced serious risks posed by inadequate fire safety precautions; and that the physical plant caused harm and posed an unreasonable risk of serious harm to prisoners' health and safety.
On Apri123, 2012, the United States sent Defendant a letter detailing current deficiencies at OPP necessitating emergency action, including inadequate protection from violence and sexual assault; inadequate suicide prevention; inadequate mental health care and access to medical care; and inadequate services to limited English proficient ("LEP") prisoners in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VI"). The Defendant has not, despite notice of the problems and minimally necessary steps necessary to remedy the problems, resolved the findings.
2
f--

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68-3 Filed 09/24/12 Page 3 of 16
On April 2, 2012, Plaintiffs filed this class action on behalf of the men, women and youth imprisoned at OPP to protect them from abusive and unconstitutional conditions of confinement and dangers substantially similar to many of the conditions outlined in the United States' September 2009 letter of findings and April 2012 letter regarding emergency conditions. (Complaint, ECF No. 1)1
CRIPA provides that the United States may intervene in any action seeking relief from egregious or flagrant conditions of confinement that deprive prisoners "of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States causing them to suffer grievous harm," where the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that such deprivation is pursuant to a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of such rights. 42 U.S.C. § 1997c.
Given the overlap between the United States' CRIPA investigation and the subject matter of
------
this litigation, both Plaintiffs and Defendant believe it would be most efficient to resolve Plaintiffs' claims and the United States' CRIPA investigation with a single, comprehensive remedy. Indeed, Plaintiffs invited the United States to intervene in this action and Defendant supports the United States' intervention. The parties and the United States have already engaged in negotiations regarding a mutually agreeable, global settlement. Intervention by the United States in this matter will serve the interests of judicial economy and will facilitate much needed reforms at OPP in the fastest and most efficient manner.
As such, the United States moves this Court for intervention of right, pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2), and alternatively for permissive intervention, pursuant to Rule 24(b). The parties consent to the United States' intervention in this case.
This matter was consolidated widl a previously filed complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief, which alleged that unconstitutional conditions at opp subject youths to imminent and serious risk of bodily harm or death. (ECF No. 13)
3

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68-3 Filed 09/24/12 Page 4 of 16

II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS

A. CRIPA
CRIPA provides:
Whenever an action has been commenced in any court of the United States seeking relief from egregious or flagrant conditions which deprive persons residing in institutions of any rights, privileges, or immnnities secnred or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States causing them to snffer grievons hann and the Attorney General has reasonable canse to believe that such deprivation is pursuant to a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of such rights, privileges, or immunities, the Attorney General, for or in the name of the United States, may intervene in such action npon motion by the Attorney General.

42 U.S.C. § 1997c.

The United States has met each of the conditions required in order to intervene pursuant to

CRIPA. First, more than 90 days have expired since the April 2, 2012 commencement of this action.
- ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ . _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
42 U.S.C. § 1997c(a)(2). Second, the United States' Complaint in Intervention includes a

--~

certification by the Attorney General that the United States has provided Defendant with at least 15

days' written notice of: (a) the alleged conditions which deprive rights, privileges, or immunities

secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States and the alleged pattern or

practice of resistance to the full enjoYl11ent of such rights, privileges, or itl1l1lUnities; (b)the __ supporting facts giving rise to the alleged conditions, including the dates and time period during

which the alleged conditions and pattern or practice of resistance occurred; and (c) the minimum

measures which the Attorney General believes may remedy the alleged conditions. 42 U.S.C. §

1997c(b)(1)(A). The Department's September 2009 findings letter and April20l21etter of cnrrent

deficiencies satisfy these requirements. In addition, the certification affirms that the Attorney

General believes that intervention by the United States is of general public importance and will

F - ---

materially further the vindication of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the 4

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68-3 Filed 09/24/12 Page 5 of 16
Constitution or laws of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1997c(b)(I)(B). Finally, the Attorney General has personally signed the United States' Motion to Intervene, Complaint in Intervention, and certification. 42 U.S.c. § 1997c(b)-(c).
B. Intervention Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for two types of intervention-
"Intervention of Right" and "Pennissive Intervention." Rule 24(a)(2), which sets forth the requirements for intervention as of right, states in relevant part, that:
On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who ... claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the snbject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). Rule 24(b) provides for pennissive intervention. Under that provision:
- - ---- -- - ------- ---
On timely motion, the court may pennit anyone to intervene who: (A) is givt:n a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or (8) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1). The rule further instructs that "[iln exercising its discretion, the court must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties' rights."_Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3).
III. DISCUSSION "Federal courts should allow intervention where no one would be hurt and the greater justice could be attained." Doe # I v. Glickman, 256 FJd 371, 375 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing Sierra Club v. Espy, 18 F.3d 1202,1205 (5th Cir.1994». This Court should grant the United States' Motion to Intervene. The United States satisfies both the requirements to intervene as of right and for
permissive intervention. First, this Court should pennit the United States to intervene as of right
5
i
~-~~--

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68-3 Filed 09/24/12 Page 6 of 16
because (1) the United States has timely filed its Motion to Intervene; (2) it has a significant, legally protectable interest in the proceedings; (3) that interest may be impaired by the disposition of the case; and (4) the existing parties may not adequately protect the United States' interest in ensuring that opp provides constitutional conditions and compliance with federal law with regard to all of its prisoners. In the alternative, this Court should grant the United States' pennissive intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b). The motion is timely, the United States has a conditional right to intervene pursuant to CRIPA, the United States' CRIPA claims share cormnon questions oflaw and fact with the current action, and it will not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the case.
"Rule 24 represents 'an accommodation between two potentially conflicting goals: to achieve judicial economies of scale by resolving related issues in a single lawsuit, and to prevent the single lawsuit from becoming fruitlessly complex or unending.''' United States v. Texas E. Transmission
--------~
Corp., 923 F.2d 410, 413 (5th Cir.1991) (quoting Smuck v. Hobson, 408 F.2d 175, 179 (D.C.Cir.1969) (en bane». The United States' intervention in this matter will serve both goals. A. The United States Is Entitled to Intervention of Right
A Court should grant a timely motion for intervention as of right under Rule 24(a) where tlle movant has a "direct, substantial, and legally protectable interest" in the subject matter of the litigation; the denial of intervention could significantly impair or impede the movant's ability to protect this interest; and the movant's protectable interests may not be adequately represented by the existing parties. Edwards v. City o/Houston, 78 F.3d 983, 999 (5th Cir. 1996); New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co, 732 F.2d 452, 463 (5th Cir. 1984) (en bane). Each of these requirements must be met to intervene as of right. Haspel & Davis Milling & Planting Co. Ltd. v. Board o/Levee Commissioners a/New Orleans, 493 F.3d 570, 577-78 (5th Cir. 2007). However, "the inquiry under subsection (a)(2) is a flexible one, which focuses on the particular facts and
6

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68-3 Filed 09/24/12 Page 7 of 16
circumstances surrounding each application.... [and] intervention of right must be measured by a practical rather than technical yardstick." Texas E. Transmission Corp., 923 F.2d at 413 (quoting United States v. Allegheny-Ludlum Indus., Inc., 517 F.2d 826,841 (5th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 944 (1976».
1. The United States' Motion for Intervention Is Timely In Stallworth v. Monsanto Co., 558 F.2d 257 (5th Cir.1977), the Fifth Circuit established four factors to consider when evaluating the timeliness of a motion to intervene: (1) the length oftiIne during which the movant actually knew or reasonably should have known of its interest in the case before petitioning for leave to intervene; (2) the extent of the prejudice that the existing parties to the litigation may suffer as a result of the movant's failure to apply for intervention as soon as it actually knew or reasonably should have known of its interest in the case; (3) the extent of the prejudice that
------ - - - - -
the movant may suffer if its petition for leave to intervene is denied; and (4) the existence of unusual circumstances militating either for or against a determination that the application is timely. ld. at 264-66. Timeliness is to be determined from an analysis of all the relevant circumstances. Corley v. Jackson Police Dep't, 755 F.2d 1207, 1209 (5th Cir.1985) (citing NAACP v. New York, 413 U.S. 345, 366,93 S.Ct. 2591,2603,37 L.Ed.2d 648 (1973». "Accordingly, these factors merely comprise a framework for the analysis ofthis threshold consideration." ld.; Edwards, 78 F.3d at 1000 ("There are no absolute measures of timeliness.").
The United States' application for intervention is timely. Although the United States had knowledge of Plaintiffs' case from the time it was filed, it has only recently become clear that both the parties are amenable to resolving this case and the United States' investigation through a single remedy. The United States has been engaged in settlement discussions Witll Defendant for an extended period, including meetings in June and July of this year. On September 7, 2012,
7
i~--­
I

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68-3 Filed 09/24/12 Page 8 of 16
representatives from Plaintiffs contacted the Department and requested that the United States consider intervening in the current lawsuit achieve a global settlement remedying abusive and unconstitutional conditions of confinement at oPP. The United States thereafter discussed a potential intervention with Defendant and received his support. Following these discussions, the United States ilmnediately prepared to move for intervention, including obtaining the Attorney General's certification and signature on these papers. Such proceedings have progressed in a very timely manner. See, e.g., Espy, 18 FJd at 1205 (motion found timely when made within two months of becoming aware that interests were affected); Association ofProfessional Flight Attendants v. Gibbs, 804 F.2d 318 (5th Cir.1986) (five month lapse found not unreasonable).
Given that a global settlement is preferred by and to tlle benefit ofboth the United States and the original parties in this matter, and will serve the interests ofjudicial economy by achieving the most efficient resolution to Plaintiffs' and the United States' claims, the original parties to the litigation will not suffer any prejudice as a result of the timing of the United States' motion.
2. The United States Has a Protectable Interest The United States has a "direct, substantial, legally protectable" interest in these proceedings. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., 732 F.2d at 463. The interest must be "one which the substantive law recognizes as belonging to or being owned by the applicant." Id. at 464 (emphasis in original); Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d 745,757 (5th Cir. 2005). An entity has such an interest where it "would have standing to raise the claim." United States v. Alcan Aluminum, Inc., 25 FJd 1174, 1185 (3d Cir. 1994); see also United States v. 936.71 Acres ofLand, 418 F.2d 551, 556 (5th Cir.1969). "This 'interest test' is primarily a practical gnide to disposing oflawsuits by involving as many apparently concerned persons as is compatible with efficiency and due process." Espy, 18 F.3d at 1207. The United States satisfies the significantly protectable interest test. The United States bases
8

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68-3 Filed 09/24/12 Page 9 of 16
its claims here on the same facts and conditions asserted by plaintiffs. Its interest thus relates directly to the subject of the existing litigation. CRIPA gives the United States standing to institute civil litigation to obtain equitable relief "to insure the minimum corrective measures necessary to insure the full enjoyment of such rights, privileges, or immunities" secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States for individual confined to a correctional facility. 42 U.S.C. § 1997a. Courts have previously recognized tlIat a government agency has an interest sufficient to support intervention in cases in which, as here, the subj eet of the suit comes within the scope of the agency's duties. See Harris v. Pernsley, 820 F.2d 592, 602 (3d Cir. 1987); Blowers v. Lawyers Coop. Publ 'g Co., 527 F.2d 333, 334 (2d Cir. 1975) (instructing courts to take a "hospitable attitude" toward "allowing a government agency to intervene in cases involving a statute it is required to enforce"). As tlle United States is tasked with insuring the "full enjoyment" of opp's prisoners' rights to constitutional conditions of confinement, it has a significantly protectable interest in the current litigation, in which Plaintiffs seek to enforce those same rights.
3. This Case May Threaten the United States' Ability To Protect Its Interest To establish tlle third requirement for intervention as of right, an applicant must demonstrate that disposition of the action "may realistically impair" the movant's interest. Texas E. Transmission Corp., 923 F.2d at 413. The United States satisfies this requirement because this case threatens its ability to protect its sovereign interest in the protection and enforcement of opp prisoners' constitutional rights and protections under federal law. Intervention will allow the United States to resolve its opp investigation, as well as this litigation, in an effective and efficient manner, which will conserve resources and best serve judicial economy. In contrast, allowing the current litigation to proceed without the United States will impede the United States' ability to settle with Defendant and increase the likelihood that the United States will need to file a separate, duplicative lawsuit to
9

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68-3 Filed 09/24/12 Page 10 of 16

protect its interests. Given the substantially similar claims contained in Plaintiffs' complaint and the

United States' CRIPA findings, an unfavorable ruling here could preclude the use of factual and legal

arguments in a separate CRIPA case brought by the United States to resolve its current investigation.

See Southeast Recovery Group, LLCv. BP America, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 162, 167 (E.D. La. 2012)

(stating that intervention was appropriate where United States' interest in a criminal investigation

could be impaired by discovery based on the same facts at issue in the civil litigation). Moreover, an

adverse ruling here could negatively impact the Deparhnent's ability to bring CRIPA enforcement

actions nationally. The Fifth Circuit has frequently analyzed this factor by evalnating the effect of

stare decisis on a prospective intervenor's rights. See Espy, 18 FJd at 1207; Texas E. Transmission

Corp., 923 F.2d at 413; Woolen v. Surtran Taxicabs, Inc., 684 F.2d 324 (5tll Cir.1982); see also

Brody ex rel. Sugzdinis v.Spang, 957 F.2d 1108, 1123 (3d Cir. 1992) (stating that snch a "stare

- - ~

~~-

--~-

-

- - - -~-

~

~

--

- ------------

- - - - - - - --- -

decisis effect" maybe sufficient on its own to satisfy the third factor); Smith v. Pangilinan, 651 F.2d

1320,1324-25 (9th Cir. 1981) (finding Attorney General, charged with administering innnigration,

had protected interest in construction and application of ilrunigration law, and that Attorney General

had right to intervene because of a possible stare decisis impairment).

4. The Existing Parties May Not Adequately Represent the United States' Interest

The existing parties to tlns class action lawsuit do not represent the United States' interests

adequately, satisfying the final requirement for intervention as of right. The burden of establishing

inadequacy of representation is "minimal." Edwards, 78 F.3d at 1005 (citing Trbovich v. United

Mine Workers, 404 U.S. 528, 538 n.1 0 (1972)). Moreover, an applicant need not demonstrate a

certainty that the existing parties will inadequately represent its interests, only that such

representation "may be" inadequate. Id. When evaluating an application to intervene, courts

consider representation inadequate where the applicant's interests, though similar to those of an 10

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68-3 Filed 09/24/12 Page 11 of 16
existing party, "diverge sufficiently that the existing party cannot devote proper attention to the applicant's interests." Brody, 957 F.2d at 1123.
The Fifth Circuit recognizes a presumption of adequate representation when the would-be intervenor has the same ultimate objective as a party to the lawsuit. Edwards, 78 F.3d at 1005; see Kneeland v. National Collegiate Athlete Ass 'n, 806 F.2d 1285 5th Cir. 1987) (denying movants' motion for intervention on the grounds that would-be intervenors and defendants had the same ultimate objective to prevent disclosure of documents). While it is true that Plaintiffs, the United States, and even Defendant share the same ultimate goal of constitutional conditions at OPP, the United States is tasked with remedying conditions of confinement that deprive prisoners "of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States causing them to suffer grievous harm." 42 U.S.C. § 1997c. This goal extends beyond the claims of
---------
the individual class members, and indeed the United States' proposed Complaint in Intervention includes allegations not included in Plaintiffs' complaint. As such, it carmot be claimed that the parties' similar objectives equate to adequate representation of the United States' interest. Espy, 18 F.3d at 1208 (holding that intervention is appropriate where "the government must present the broad public interest, not just the [concerns of the parties]."); see also Forest Conservation Council v. U.s. Forest Service, 66 F.3d 1489, 1499 (9th Cir. 1995) (bolding that intervention applicants that have "more narrow, parochial interests" than the government, have interests unprotected by the government); Natural Resources Defense Council v. Costle, 561 F.2d 904, 912 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (bolding that government and individual interests may not coincide where government is "broadly concerned Witll implementation and enforcement of the settlement agreement" and individuals are "more narrowly focused").
11

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68-3 Filed 09/24/12 Page 12 of 16
The United States is charged by statute with representin,g the public interest on a national scale. While this responsibility may overlap somewhat with plaintiffs' interests, its interests can and do diverge significantly from theirs. Although the United States recognizes that the Plaintiffs are seeking class certification in this case, the United States' interests nevertheless extend beyond class members' claims regarding their safety and well-being to include ensuring that opp provides comprehensive constitutional conditions and complies with federal laws regarding the services required for all prisoners. See JLS, Inc. v. PSC of West Virginia, 321 Fed. Appx. 286, 291 (4th Cir. 2009) (explaining that "even when a goverrunental agency's interests appear aligned with those of a particular private group at a particular moment in time, the 'government's position is defined by the public interest, not simply the interests of a particular group of citizens. "') (quoting Feller v. Brock, 802 F.2d 722,730 (4th Cir. 1986)).
---- ------------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In the case at hand, the allegations stated in the United States' CRIPA findings letter of 2009 and April 2012 letter of current deficiencies encompass, but are broader than, the claims stated in Plaintiffs' class complaint. For example, the United States has alleged that opp is in violation of its Title VI obligations by failing to provide meaningful access for Latino and other national origin minority LEP prisoners to the intake, processing, housing, and medical services at each of the opp facilities. opp's lack of meaningful LEP services has a discriminatory effect on Latino prisoners. Title VI authorizes the United States to initiate civil litigation against a recipient of federal assistance, like OPP, whose program or activity violates Title VI by discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin, including language access procedures that have a discriminatory effect. 42 U.S.c. § 2000d-l; 28 C.F.R. § 42.108; 28 C.F.R. § 42. 104(a); 28 C.F.R. § 42.l04(b)(2) (prohibiting discriminatory effect); see also N. Y. Urban League, Inc. v. New York, 71 F.3d 1031, 1036 (2d Cir. 1995). Plaintiffs have not included similar allegations in their complaint. The United States is tasked
12

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68-3 Filed 09/24/12 Page 13 of 16
with representing the interests of all opp prisoners who may be impacted by unconstitutional conditions. United States v. City ofMiami, 614 F.2d 1322, 1332 (5th Cir. 1980), affd in part, vacated and remanded in part on reh 'g, 664 F.2d 435 (noting that any tendency to seek affirmative relief that goes too far in a Title VII case is likely to be constrained when the Justice Department represents the plaintiff, because it represents the interests of all citizens). Plaintiffs therefore cannotand should not - be expected to make all oftlle United States' arguments. This lack of identity of arguments and ultimate objectives is sufficient to satisfy the minimal burden of demonstrating
u.s. inadeqnacy of representation. See Kleissler v. Forest Serv., 157 F.3d 964, 973-74 (3d Cir. 1998)
(concluding that federal govermnent agency and private businesses seeking to intervene had "interests inextricably intertwined with, but distinct from" each other and thus govermnent's representation of private interests would be inadequate).
The Fifth Circuit has long relied on the presumption that where an existing party to a lawsuit is a gove=ent entity charged by law with representing the interests of a private applicant for intervention, the government's representation will be adequate. Hopwood v. Texas, 21 F.3d 603, 605 (5th Cir.1994). This is because the govermnent generally is required to represent both the public interest and individuals' interests by law, while individuals have only their own "narrower" or "parochial" views to advocate. See Trbovich, 404 U.S. at 538-39. The presumption tl1US does not hold in tlle reverse situation, as individual litigants are not tasked Witll the responsibility of- and therefore cannot be expected to - represent adequately tlle public interest on behalf of the government. Accordingly, Plaintiffs here cannot and should not be expected to represent tlle public interest on behalf of the United States.
13

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68-3 Filed 09/24/12 Page 14 of 16
B. The United States Is Entitled to Permissive Intervention Should the Court decline to grant the United States intervention of right, it should, in its
discretion, nevertheless grant the United States permissive intervention. Permissive intervention is appropriate where a movant "is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question oflaw or fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1). A court, in exercising its discretion, "must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties' rights." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3).
Pennissive intervention "is wholly discretionary with the [district] court ... even though there is a common question of law or fact, or the requirements of Rule 24(b) are otherwise satisfied." New Orleans Public Service, Inc., 732 F.2d at 470-71 (quoting 7C C. Wright, A. Miller & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1913, at 376-77 (2d ed. 1986». In acting on a request for
-_._._--------- ---
permissive intervention, the district court may consider, among other factors, whether the movants' interests are adequately represented by other parties, id. at 472, and whether intervention will unduly delay the proceedings or prejudice existing parties, Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b). In addition, it is proper to consider whether movants will "significantly contribute to full development of the underlying fachlal issues in the suit." New Orleans Public Services Inc., 732 F.2d at 472.
The United States' CRIPA claims clearly share connnon questions offact and law with the Plaintiffs' claims that Defendant is violating the constitutional rights of prisoners at opp by subjecting them to abusive and unconstitutional conditions of confinement.
In addition, the United States has a conditional right to intervene pursuant to CRIPA. As discussed above, the United States has met each of the conditions required for intervention lmder CRIPA. 42 U.S.C. § 1997c.
14

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68-3 Filed 09/24/12 Page 15 of 16
Finally, both parties and the United States agree that, in contrast to a resulting delay or prejudice to the original parties, permitting intervention will allow for the most efficient and effective method of resolving this litigation. The United States and the parties are ready to propose a settlement to the Court to resolve this litigation, if the United States is pennitted to intervene. As such, intervention is likely to provide the quickest relief to opp prisoners while conserving the most judicial resources and saving the parties and the United States from expending additional time and money on unnecessary litigation.
Permissive intervention is appropriate because the United States has a conditional right to intervene, its claims are substantially similar to Plaintiffs' claims, and intervention will serve the interests ofjudicial economy by permitting the most efficient resolution of Plaintiffs' and the United States' claims.
IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully requests that this Court grant its Motion to Intervene.
15

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68-3 Filed 09/24/12 Page 16 of 16

Respectfully submitted this ~ day of September ,2012.

FOR THE UNITED STATES:

•
•
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. Attorney General ofthe United Sta

JAMES B. LETTEN (LA 8517) United States Attorney District of New Orleans

THOMAS E. PEREZ Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

ROY L. AUSTIN, JR. (DC 211491) Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

--_._---

---~JGNA'I'HAN-M._BMI'I'H~------­
Chief LAURA COON Special Counsel Special Litigation Section

/s/ Corey Sanders COREY SANDERS (DC 490940) Kerry Dean (DC 474260) Trial-Attorneys -- - - - - -
United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pelllisylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel.: (202) 514-6255 Email: corey.sanders@usdoj.gov

16

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68-2 Filed 09/24/12 Page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LASHAWN JONES, KENT

)

ANDERSON, STEVEN DOMINICK, )

ANTHONY GIOUSTAVIA, JIMMIE )

JENKINS, GREG JOURNEE,

)

Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-00859

RICHARD LANFORD, LEONARD

)

Section I

LEWIS, EUELL SYLVESTER and

)

Judge Lance M. Africk

MARK WALKER, on behalf of

)

Magistrate Judge Shushan

themselves and all others similarly

)

situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

)

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

)

Applicant for Intervention,

)

FOR VIOLATIONS OF:

)

)

THE CONSTITUTION, and

v.

)

--------),--'I'I+hE-VI-QF-1'HE-Gl¥Ib-RIGH'I'S---

MARLIN GUSMAN,

)

ACT OF 1964

Sheriff, Orleans Parish,

)

)

)

Defendant.

)

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

I. Defendant ORLEANS PARISH SHERIFF is engaging in a pattern or practice of

violating the constitutional rights of prisoners at the Orleans Parish Prison ("OPP"). Defendant's

deliberate indifference to these constitutional rights causes OPP prisoners serious harm fi'om,

inter alia, violent and sexual assaults by OPP staff and other prisoners; suicide and self harm;

unaddressed serious mental health and medical needs; and hazardous environmental conditions.

Additionally, Defendant discriminates against Latino prisoners by failing to provide minimal

limited English proficiency services. Accordingly, this Complaint sets out claims of Defendant's

unlawful conduct for: (1) a pattern or practice of violating OPP prisoners' Eighth and Fourteenth

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68-2 Filed 09/24/12 Page 2 of 17

Amendment rights and (2) discrimination against OPP Latino prisoners in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.
2. The United States alleges the following, based on information and belief:

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. The United States is authorized to bring this action pursuant to the Civil Rights of

Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997c, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

42 U.S.C. § 2000d ("Title VI").

4. The Attorney General certifies that all pre-filing requirements specified by

42 U.S.C. § 1997c have been met. The Attorney General's certificate is attached to, and

incorporated in, this Complaint in Intervention.

- - - - S.

'I'his-CQurthas-ju~isdictiQn-Q¥er-this-action-under-28-U.S.C.-§-§-l-33-L&-1345.------

This Court may grant the relief sought in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 & 2202.

6. Venue is proper in this district. The acts and omissions giving rise to this action

occurred in the Eastern District of Louisiana. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

II. DEFENDANT

7. Defendant ORLEANS PARISH SHERIFF operates OPP, and is responsible for the safety, care, custody, and control of prisoners incarcerated in OPP, as well as the actions of OPP staff. The Sheriff, Marlin N. Gusman, is sued only in his official capacity as ORLEANS PARISH SHERIFF.
8. Defendant ORLEANS PARISH SHERIFF receives federal financial assistance, including from the United States Department of Justice ("United States"). As a recipient of federal funds, the ORLEANS PARISH SHERIFF is responsible for ensuring that OPP will comply with Title VI and its implementing regulations.
2

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68-2 Filed 09/24/12 Page 3 of 17
9. Defendant is legally responsible for the operation, maintenance, and conditions of OPP, and for the safety and health of prisoners incarcerated at OPP.
10. At all relevant times, Defendant has acted or failed to act, as alleged herein, under color of state law.
III. BACKGROUND 11. OPP is an institution within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1997. 12. OPP currently houses approximately 2500 to 2900 prisoners consisting of a large number of pre-trial detainees and prisoners serving short misdemeanor sentences. OPP operates seven-jail buildings and employs a staff of approximately 450 security officers. OPP houses prisoners in six of the buildings, namely the Temporary Detention Center ("TDC"), original ---- ---GlFlganB- I'aI"iBh-F-r-ison-Jail,---1'empleman-\',-Conchetta,-the-Broad-Street-work"release~facilil¥,-anu-d----­ eight windowless tents constructed with FEMA financial assistance ("the Tents"). OPP also operates a seventh building, the Intake Processing Center ("IPC"), which does not house prisoners. 13. The United States sent Defendant a findings letter on September 11, 2009, and an update to its findings letter on April 23, 2012. -These-Iettersdetailedthe-unoonstitutional conditions at OPP, including those alleged in this Complaint. The United States' September 11, 20091etter also notified Defendant of the minimal measures necessary to remedy the unconstitutional conditions at OPP. The United States' April 23, 2012 letter further advised Defendant that OPP's limited English proficiency ("LEP") services violate Title VI and its implementing regulations. Defendant has failed to take basic steps to correct, and remains deliberately indifferent to, tl1e known unlawful deficiencies described in the United States' letters and elsewhere.
3

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68-2 Filed 09/24/12 Page 4 of 17

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. OPP Fails to Protect Prisoners from Harm

14. The Constitution requires Defendant to protect prisoners from violence inflicted

by opp staff and other prisoners. Defendant has failed to take minimum reasonable measures to

protect prisoners from harm, and is deliberately indifferent to the obvious and substantial risk of

harm to prisoners, caused by opp staff and other prisoners.

15. OPP prisoners suffer serious harm and risk of serious harm from OPP's failure to

take reasonable measures to protect prisoners from excessive use of force and sexual misconduct

i

by OPP staff. These failures have resulted in the following instances of harm to prisoners, as

1-

shown by Defendant's own documentation:

a. In September 2011, an OPP deputy forced a prisoner to perform oral sex. The

iumate was placed in handcuffs, removed from his cell, and taken into a closet.

where he was forced to perform oral sex.

b. In July 2011, correctional officers beat a prisoner in the Tents, as shown on OPSO

video. Officers involved in the beating then attempted to cover up the beating by

failing to accurately report the facts surrounding the incident.

--

-- -

--

---

c. In August 2010, a prisoner committed suicide one day after an officer beat him.

Officers pepper sprayed the prisoner inside his cell multiple times, opened his cell

door, and physically assaulted him.

16. OPP prisoners suffer serious harm and risk of serious harm from Defendant's failure to take reasonable measures to protect prisoners from physical and sexual violence by other prisoners. As a result, OPP prisoners suffer high rates of serious prisoner-on-prisoner violence and sexual assaults. In 20 II, OPP reported over 65 incidents of prisoner-on-prisoner

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68-2 Filed 09/24/12 Page 5 of 17

assaults. In many of these incidents, opp staff ignored requests for help or protections from prisoners.
17. OPP's failure to provide reasonably safe conditions have resulted in the following
instances of serious injury and harm to prisoners, as shown by OPP's own documentation:
a. In March 2010, a 22-year-old prisoner died after he was attacked and stabbed by
another prisoner at OPP; b. In June 2010, a prisoner suffered injuries to his back, lungs, and kidneys after he
was stabbed 18 times at OPP; and
c. In July 20 I 0, a prisoner was taken to the emergency room after he was attacked
and stabbed multiple times at OPP.

-----18.---Qefendant-is-subjeGtively-aware_of~the_ongoing-serious-hafffi-and-risk-of-serious:-----­

harm from the United States' September 11,2009 findings letter and April 23, 2012 update

letter, yet fails to correct the Imown deficiencies.

19. Defendant is deliberately indifferent to the known harm and risk of harm by, inter

alia, failing to maintain adequate security policies and procedures, deficient staffing and prisoner

supervision, failing to classify and house prisoners based on-objective risk of violence and- -­

victimization, inappropriate reliance on prisoners to provide security supervision, inadequate

staff training, and failed systems of accountability.

20.

Defendant is deliberately indifferent to inadequate staffing levels at OPP, which

cause prisoners serious harm. Defendant fails to staff adequately densely populated housing

pods and violence-prone buildings. As a result, rampant prisoner-on-prisoner violence goes

unnoticed and unaddressed.

5

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68-2 Filed 09/24/12 Page 6 of 17

21. Defendant is deliberately indifferent to prisoners' safety by failing to implement a

prisoner classification system that properly determines with whom each prisoner may be housed

and the degree of supervision required for each prisoner. This failure causes poor supervision of

violent prisoners, and the inappropriate commingling of violent prisoners with non-violent

prisoners. Prisoner-on-prisoner physical and sexual assaults result.

22. Defendant is deliberately indifferent to prisoners' safety by relying on certain

prisoners to perform security functions, giving prisoners inappropriate power and control over

other prisoners and compromising safety.

23. Defendant is deliberately indifferent to prisoners' safety by failing to train staff

adequately to prevent prisoner-on-prisoner violence and to use only reasonable force on

prisoners.

------

24.

Defendant is deliberately indifferent to prisoners' safety by failing to correct

broken accountability measures. Defendant's substandard accountability measures at OPP, such

as his use of force policies, investigation practices, and prisoner grievance system, fail to

prevent, detect, or correct OPP staffs use of unconstitutionally excessive force.

B. OPP Fails to Provide Constitutional Suicide Protection and Mental Health Care 25. The Constitution requires Defendant to protect prisoners from suicide and selfharm and to provide adequate care for prisoners' serious medical and mental health care needs. Defendant has exhibited deliberate indifference to prisoners' serious medical and mental health care needs and to the obvious and substantial ongoing risk of prisoner suicide, self-harm, and untreated mental illness.

6

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68-2 Filed 09/24/12 Page 7 of 17

26. OPP prisoners suffer serious harm from Defendant's deliberate indifference to

prisoners' serious mental health needs and to the ongoing risk of suicide and self-harm, as shown

by Defendant's own documentation:

a. In April 2010, a prisoner committed suicide after being placed in an isolation cell

for erratic behavior. Less than one hour after being placed in the cell, the prisoner

tied his shirt to the bars in the cell door and hanged himself;

b. In August 2011, an OPP prisoner committed suicide by asphyxiation while on

constant observation; and

c. In August 2011, a prisoner with known mental illness and suicidal thoughts was

i-

--

- - - -- -

-

-- -

- - -- -- -- -

I

inappropriately placed in general population. He was then moved to suicide

watch and committed suicide one week later.

27. Defendant is subjectively aware of the ongoing serious harm and risk of serious

harm from the United States' September 11,2009 findings letter and April 23, 2012 update

letter, yet fails to correct the known deficiencies.

i. Inadequate Suicide Prevention

28. Defendant is deliberately indifferent to the known harm and risk of harm by, inter

alia, failing to implement adequate policies and procedures to treat and supervise prisoners with

suicidal and self harm tendencies, failing to hire adequate staffto implement such policies and

procedures, continuing to house suicidal prisoners in cells with obvious suicide hazards, and

failing to train staff adequately to monitor and supervise suicidal prisoners.

29. Defendant is deliberately indifferent by failing to provide comprehensive, basic

training to correctional staff to identify and respond to prisoners who are at risk of suicide, self-

harm, or untreated mental illness.

7

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68-2 Filed 09/24/12 Page 8 of 17

30. Defendant is deliberately indifferent by housing suicidal prisoners in suicide

watch cells that exacerbate mental illness and contain suicide hazards. These hazards include

protrusions that prisoners can use as tie-off points to commit suicide.

31. Defendant is deliberately indifferent by failing to timely or adequately evaluate

prisoners for level of suicide risk and, based on risk, provide the appropriate supervision, or

transfer to an outpatient mental health facility.

32. Defendant is deliberately indifferent by failing to adequately monitor, and provide

meaningful treatment to, prisoners on suicide watch. This failure allows prisoners to commit

suicide or engage in self-harm.

1--

33. Defendant is deliberately indifferent by failing to employ adequate numbers of

trained correctional staff to monitor prisoners on suicide watch.

34. Defendant is deliberately indifferent by failing to adequately evaluate prisoners

before removing them from suicide watch and failing to implement any step-down program for

prisoners being removed from suicide watch.

ii. Inadequate Mental Health Care

35. Defendant is deliberately indifferent to prisoners' serious mental health needs by,

inter alia, continuing to use deficient: (1) screening and evaluation practices; (2) staffing;

(3) assessment and treatment practices; and (4) quality assurance measures. Defendant is aware

that these conditions exist and are causing harm to prisoners and fails to correct these conditions

despite this knowledge. These deficient OPP practices cause prisoners serious harm and create

an mrreasonable risk of harm.

36. Defendant is deliberately indifferent to prisoners' serious mental health needs by

failing to implement initial mental health screening and evaluation. OPP inappropriately relies

8

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68-2 Filed 09/24/12 Page 9 of 17

on untrained licensed practical nurses ("LPNs") to perform duties outside the scope of their

training and expertise, including mental health screenings and initial evaluations. Untrained

LPNs fail to identify and refer prisoners with mental illness to the psychiatrist for treatment,

causing harm to prisoners.

37. Defendant is deliberately indifferent to prisoners' serious mental health needs by

understaffing OPP's mental health care services, and consequentially failing to provide minimal

treatment for prisoners' mental illnesses. OPP's understaffing limits the psychiatrist primarily to

writing prescriptions and occasionally providing reactive crisis care. The psychiatrist's heavy

workload prevents the psychiatrist from treating all prisoners with serious mental illness.

i -

-

----

38. Defendant is deliberately indifferent to prisoners' serious mental health needs by

rarely ensuring adequate mental health assessments. This results in OPP not identifying and

providing treatment to prisoners with mental illness. For those prisoners opp does identify as

having serious mental illness, opp provides inadequate treatment that consists only of

medications and reactions to crises.

39. Defendant is deliberately indifferent to prisoners' serious mental health needs by

failing to evaluate prisoners properly before prescribing prescription medications and failing to

monitor properly these medications' effects.

40. Defendant is deliberately indifferent to prisoners' serious mental health needs by

failing to formulate, document and implement treatment plans for prisoners with mental

illnesses.

41. Defendant is deliberately indifferent to prisoners' serious mental health needs by

failing to employ a quality assurance system that monitors high-risk, high-volume, and problem-

prone aspects of mental health care.

9

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68-2 Filed 09/24/12 Page 10 of 17

42. Defendant is deliberately indifferent to prisoners' serious mental health needs by failing to follow, measure, and document the-quality and timeliness of critical mental health processes such as assessments, suicide prevention evaluations, suicide management, medication management, and treatment services.

C. OPP Provides Unconstitutional Medical Care

43. The Constitution requires Defendant to provide prisoners with adequate care for

their serious medical needs. Defendant has exhibited deliberate indifference to OPP prisoners'

serious medical needs. opp prisoners suffer serious harm from Defendant's failure to provide

,

treatment for their serious medical needs.

I

44. Defendant is subjectively aware of the ongoing serious harm and risk of serious

harm from the United States' September 11, 2009 findings letter and April 23, 2012 update
----
letter, yet fails to correct the known deficiencies.

45. Defendant is deliberately indifferent to prisoners' serious medical needs by failing

to implement an adequate sick call process or medication administration system.

46. OPP's sick call process fails to adequately collect, process, and track prisoners'

sick call requests. This failure causes prisoners harm from unnecessary delays before treatment,

and unanswered sick call requests that result in no treatment for the prisoner's serious medical

need.

47. Defendant's medication administration process inappropriately allows prisoners

to self-administer many of their own medications.

48. The inappropriate medication practice causes harm and risk of harm to prisoners

from under and over medication, including from powerful psychotropic drugs.

10

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68-2 Filed 09/24/12 Page 11 of 17
D. opp Subjects Prisoners to Unconstitutional Physical Plant Conditions 49. The Constitution requires Defendant to provide prisoners with a minimal civilized measure of life's necessities, including protection from environmental and fire safety hazards. Defendant has failed to take minimum reasonable measures to protect prisoners from environmental and fire safety hazards, and is deliberately indifferent to the resulting harm and risk of harm to prisoners. 50. OPP prisoners snffer harm and risk of harm from OPP's substandard environmental health and sanitation conditions. 51. Defendant is subjectively aware of the ongoing serious harm and risk of serious . harm from the United Sta1:es' September 11, 2009f1ndings letter and April 23, 201'2 update letter, yet fails to correct the known deficiencies. 52. Defendant is deliberately indifferent to prisoners' safety by maintaining OPP in a state of disrepair, causing illness and injury to prisoners. Broken floor tiles, toilets, sinles, showers, water leaks, mold, and electrical hazards exist throughout OPP. Poor ventilation exacerbates harm from OPP's elevated prisoner cell temperatures. 53. Defendant is deliberately indifferent to prisoners' safety by serving prisoners unsanitary food. Prisoners serve food, with bacteria-prone temperatures, prepared in unsanitary food service areas. This food service practice subjects prisoners to food-borne illnesses. Defendant is deliberately indifferent to prisoners' health and safety by housing prisoners in units without operational smoke or alarm systems and without implementation of appropriate fire watches.
11

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68-2 Filed 09/24/12 Page 12 of 17

E. OPP Unlawfully Discriminates Against Latino Limited English Proficient Prisoners

i. Unlawful Discrimination

54. Defendant is aware of opp prisoners who are LEP and of what is necessary to

provide meaningful LEP assistance and services in the correctional context.

55. Defendant is aware of the discriminatory treatment of Latino LEP prisoners at

OPP, yet it allows OPP to continue to operate in a discriminatory manner and fails to take basic

measures to address and correct this discrimination.

56. Defendant's failure to provide language assistance at OPP denies Latino LEP

I

prisoners the services, programs, and activities that OPP makes available to non-LEP prisoners.

-

-

-

-

I

57. For example, Defendant's failure to provide LEP assistance prevents Latino LEP

____prisoners_frolILmeaningfuLacces~tnJ;hdntake,-processil1g, housing, and medical services, at

each of the OPP fadlilks.

58. Defendant lacks a sufficient number of LEP competent Spanish speaking staff at

OPP.

59. Defendant conducts OPP's intalce process almost exclusively in English, leaving

Latino LEP prisoners uninformed about the intake-and classification process,-and OPP's general _

rules.

60. Defendant fails to translate important OPP documents, including documents

regarding prisoner rights and access to services, into Spanish for Latino LEP prisoners. OPP

staff members regularly ask Latino LEP prisoners to sign important forms written in English

without the aid of appropriate language assistance.

12

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68-2 Filed 09/24/12 Page 13 of 17
61. For example, Defendant does not make OPP grievance forms available in Spanish. Grievance forms provide the means for prisoners to report misconduct by a detention officer.
62. OPP security staff routinely issue commands and make announcements only in English. Some of these are basic announcements informing prisoners, among other things, when it is time for them to go outdoors, receive clothing, use the telephone, be released from a 48-hour immigration hold, or eat.
63. OPP security officers use Spanish-speaking prisoners to interpret for them, but oPP makes no determination whether these prisoners have the language competency to interpret.
64. The use of prisoner interpreters risks not only inaccuracy, but also may give the prisoner-interpreter access to personal or private information about the LEP prisoner and presents a security and safety risk in a correctional setting.
ii. Federal Funding 65. At all relevant times described in paragraphs 1-69, Defendant has been and continues to be a recipient offederal financial assistance from DOJ, either directly or through another recipient of federal financial assistance. 66. Title VI and its implementing regulations prohibit intentional disc, rimination on the grounds of race, color, or national origin in any of a grant recipient's or subrecipient's operations, and they also prohibit methods of administration that have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin, or have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the grant recipient's or subrecipient's operations as respects individuals of a particular race, color, or national origin.
13

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68-2 Filed 09/24/12 Page 14 of 17
67. Through an April 23, 2012, letter and other means, the United States advised Defendant that OPP's LEP services violate Title VI and its implementing regulations.
68. Since the April 23, 2012, letter, the United States has made concerted efforts to secure Defendant's voluntary compliance with Title VI and its implementing regulations.
69. The United States has determined that Defendant's compliance with Title VI and its implementing regulations cannot be secured by voluntary means without court ordered remedies.
V. VIOLATIONS
FIRST CLAIM: DEFENDANT'S PATTERN AND PRACTICE OF VIOLATING PRISONERS'
----------CONSIIXUIIONAL-RIGlIXS'----------------
70. The United States re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-533, above.
71. The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997, authorizes the United States to seek equitable and declaratory reliefto remedy a pattern or practice of Defendant depriving prisoners confined to OPP of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution.
72. Defendant is, has been, or should have been aware ofthe deficiencies alleged in paragraphs 1-533, but has failed to take effective measures to remedy these deficiencies. These failures amount to deliberate indifference to the safety and health of opp prisoners, in violations ofthe rights, privileges, and immunities of those prisoners that the Constitution secures and protects. See U.S. Const. Amend. VIII & XIV. This deliberate indifference caused and continues to cause the violations of constitutional rights alleged.
14

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68-2 Filed 09/24/12 Page 15 of 17
73. Unless restrained by this Court, Defendant will continue to engage in the acts and omissions set forth in paragraphs 1-533, that deprive persons confined in OPP of the rights, privileges, and immunities of those prisoners that the Constitution secures and protects.
SECOND CLAIM: DEFENDANT'S TREATMENT OF LATINO LEP PRISONERS
VIOLATES TITLE VI
74. The United States re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-69, above.
75. Title VI authorizes the United States to seek declaratory and equitable relief to ensure that no person is excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to _ _~d=i=s.c.r.c"iminatiQn under anYJ"Jrogram or activity receiving federal funding on the ground of race, color, or national origin.
76. The DOJ's Title VI implementing regulations prohibit methods of administration that have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin, or have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment ofthe objectives of the grant recipient's or s_ubrecipient's_ Qpexations lluesp~,,-tsilldividuals~f iL particular race, color, or national origin.
77. Defendant received and continues to receive federal financial assistance for Defendant's programs and activities.
78. Defendant or Defendant's agents have excluded LEP Latino prisoners fTOm participation in, denied LEP Latino prisoners the benefits of, and subjected LEP Latino prisoners to discrimination under their programs and activities relating to the operations of OPP on the basis of those prisoners' race, color, and national origin.
15

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68-2 Filed 09/24/12 Page 16 of 17

79. This treatment of Latino LEP prisoners by Defendant or Defendant's agents is unjustified and has an adverse disparate impact/discriminatory effect on Latinos.
80. Defendant's discrimination against LEP prisoners violates Title VI and the DOJ's Title VI implementing regulations.

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

81. WHEREFORE, the United States prays that the Court will:

82. Declare that Defendant's acts and omissions constitute a pattern or practice of

conduct that deprives OPP prisoners of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by

1-

the Constitution;

83. El~oin Defendant and Defendant's agents from continuing these acts and

- - - - --0mis&i0ns,ancl-0rder-Qefenclant~t0-take-suGh-remeclial-aGtions-a£-will-ensure-lawtul-Gonditiolls-of'------­

confinement at OPP;

84. Declare that Defendant has excluded persons from paliicipation in, denied

persons the benefits of, or subjected persons to discrimination under programs or activities

receiving federal financial assistance, on the basis of race, color, or national origin, in violation

ofTitle VI; -

85. Enjoin Defendant and Defendant's agents from engaging in any of the

discriminatory acts forming the Title VI violation, and order Defendant to take such remedial

action as will eliminate such discrimination; and

86. Order such other relief as the interests of justice may require.

16

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 68-2 Filed 09/24/12 Page 17 of 17

Respectfully submitted this 23rd day of September, 2012.

..

RIC H. HOLDER, JR.

•

Attorney General of the Unite

JAMES B. LETTEN (LA 8517) United States Attorney District of New Orleans

THOMAS E. PEREZ Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

ROY L. AUSTIN, JR. (DC 211491) Deputy Assistant Attorney G neral -------------,eivil-Rights-Bivis·on---!-----------­
/1/1 II
PI/;
~l~f It· .
ytAURACOON Special Counsel COREY SANDERS (DC 490940) KERRY DEAN (DC 474260) Trial Attorneys United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel.: (202) 514-6255 Email: corey.sanders@usdoj.gov

17

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 1 of 53

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

_________________________________________

LASHAWN JONES, et al., and

)

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

PLAINTIFFS,

)

)

v.

)

)

MARLIN GUSMAN, Sheriff,

)

)

)

DEFENDANT.

)

_________________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-00859 Section I Judge Lance M. Africk Magistrate Judge Chasez

CONSENT JUDGMENT

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 2 of 53
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PARTIES .............................................................................................................................- 1 II. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................- 1 III. DEFINITIONS.................................................................................................................- 2 IV. SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS......................................................................................- 5 -
A. PROTECTION FROM HARM....................................................................................- 5 1. Use of Force Policies and Procedures ..........................................................................- 5 2. Use of Force Training ..................................................................................................- 6 3. Use of Force Reporting ................................................................................................- 7 4. Early Intervention System (“EIS”).............................................................................- 10 5. Safety and Supervision...............................................................................................- 11 6. Security Staffing.........................................................................................................- 13 7. Incidents and Referrals...............................................................................................- 14 8. Investigations .............................................................................................................- 16 9. Pretrial Placement in Alternative Settings: ................................................................- 17 10. Custodial Placement within OPP............................................................................- 17 11. Prisoner Grievance Process ....................................................................................- 18 12. Sexual Abuse ..........................................................................................................- 19 13. Access to Information.............................................................................................- 19 -
B. MENTAL HEALTH CARE.......................................................................................- 19 1. Screening and Assessment .........................................................................................- 20 2. Treatment ...................................................................................................................- 21 3. Counseling..................................................................................................................- 22 4. Suicide Prevention Training Program ........................................................................- 22 -
ii

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 3 of 53
5. Suicide Precautions ....................................................................................................- 24 6. Use of Restraints ........................................................................................................- 25 7. Detoxification and Training .......................................................................................- 26 8. Medical and Mental Health Staffing ..........................................................................- 27 9. Risk Management.......................................................................................................- 27 C. MEDICAL CARE ......................................................................................................- 29 1. Quality Management of Medication Administration .................................................- 29 2. Health Care Delivered................................................................................................- 30 3. Release and Transfer ..................................................................................................- 31 D. SANITATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS .....................................- 31 1. Sanitation and Environmental Conditions..................................................................- 31 2. Environmental Control...............................................................................................- 32 3. Food Service...............................................................................................................- 32 4. Sanitation and Environmental Conditions Reporting.................................................- 33 E. FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY............................................................................................- 33 1. Fire and Life Safety....................................................................................................- 33 2. Fire and Life Safety Reporting...................................................................................- 34 F. LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE ........................................................................................- 34 1. Timely and Meaningful Access to Services...............................................................- 34 2. Language Assistance Policies and Procedures...........................................................- 35 3. Language Assistance Training ...................................................................................- 36 4. Bilingual Staff ............................................................................................................- 37 G. YOUTHFUL PRISONERS........................................................................................- 37 V. FUNDING......................................................................................................................- 37 VI. THE NEW JAIL FACILITY .........................................................................................- 38 -
iii

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 4 of 53 VII. COMPLIANCE AND QUALITY IMPROVEMENT...................................................- 38 VIII. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND RIGHT OF ACCESS ................................- 39 IX. MONITORING..............................................................................................................- 40 X. ENFORCEMENT ..........................................................................................................- 42 XI. CONSTRUCTION, IMPLEMENTATION, AND TERMINATION ...........................- 43 XII. STIPULATION PURSUANT TO THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT,
18 U.S.C. § 3626............................................................................................................- 44 -
iv

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 5 of 53
I. PARTIES
This Consent Judgment (“Agreement”) is entered among and between the Plaintiff class; United States of America, acting through the United States Department of Justice; and the Orleans Parish Sheriff (in his official capacity).
II. INTRODUCTION
1. The purpose of this Agreement is to address the constitutional violations alleged in this matter, as well as the violations alleged in the findings letter issued by the United States on September 11, 2009. The Orleans Parish Prison (“OPP”) is an integral part of the public safety system in New Orleans. Through the provisions of this Agreement, the Parties seek to ensure that the conditions in OPP protect the constitutional rights of prisoners confined there. By ensuring that the conditions in OPP are constitutional, the Sheriff will also provide for the safety of staff and promote public safety in the community.
2. Plaintiffs are the settlement class (Jones and JJ Plaintiffs) and the United States. The Parties agree to a settlement class comprised of all individuals who are now or will be imprisoned in OPP.
3. Defendant is the Orleans Parish Sheriff (in his official capacity) and each of his successors in office ( the “Defendant”). Defendant shall ensure that the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office (“OPSO”) will take all actions necessary to comply with the provisions of this Agreement.
4. As indicated in Section XII of this Agreement, the Parties consent to a finding that this Agreement complies in all respects with the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a).
5. OPP is a parish-wide correctional facility in New Orleans, Louisiana. OPSO is responsible for providing care, custody, and control of prisoners. The Parties recognize that the conditions in OPP and the treatment of prisoners confined there have an impact on whether prisoners will be successfully re-integrated on release, whether released prisoners will re-offend, and on the public confidence in the criminal justice system.
6. OPSO has taken steps to address concerns at OPP. OPSO has in place certain policies, practices, and procedures, and has plans to adopt certain other policies, practices, and procedures. This Consent Judgment is based on these policies, practices, and procedures, and contemplates that the dispute between the Parties will be resolved by the continued development and implementation of these measures.
-1 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 6 of 53
III. DEFINITIONS
1. “OPSO” refers to the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office, which is responsible for all corrections and security functions at the Facility.
2. “OPP” or “Facility” or “Jail” refers to the Orleans Parish Prison, and shall include the Temporary Detention Center (“TDC”), Templeman V, Conchetta, the FEMA-supplied windowless canvas-tents (“The Tents”), the original Orleans Parish Prison Jail, and the Broad Street work-release facility, as well as any facility that is built, leased, or otherwise used, to replace or supplement the current OPP or any part of OPP.
3. “DOJ” refers to the United States Department of Justice, which represents the United States in this matter.
4. “SPLC” refers to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which represents the Plaintiff class in this matter. Should SPLC cease to represent the Plaintiff class, “Plaintiffs’ counsel” will be substituted for “SPLC.”
5. “Assessment factors” refers to the evaluation or estimate of the levels of risk for suicide and self-injurious behavior requiring intervention.
6. “Bilingual staff” means a staff person who has demonstrated and verified proficiency, pursuant to generally accepted objective criteria, in both spoken English and at least one other language as authorized by OPP. Bilingual staff must be routinely assessed and serve as bilingual employees on behalf of OPP.
7. Consistent with, or in accordance with, the term “generally accepted correctional standards” shall mean those industry standards accepted by correctional professionals or organizations in the relevant subject area as agreed to by the Parties (e.g., the NCCHC or ACA).
8. “Days” are measured in calendar days; weekend days are included.
9. “Describe” means provide a clear and detailed description of anything done, seen, or heard.
10. “District Attorney” or “DA’s Office” refers to the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office.
11. “Document” when used in this Agreement as a verb means completing a report either in hard copy or in electronic format.
12. “Effective Date” means the date the Court enters a definitive judgment regarding the amount of funding needed to ensure compliance with the signed Agreement that has been entered as a court order by the Court.
-2 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 7 of 53
13. “EIS” means the Early Intervention System, which is a system to collect and analyze data regarding uses of force and is used to identify the need for corrective action, including changes to training protocols and policy or retraining or disciplining individual officers or groups of officers.
14. “Emergency maintenance needs” means items that affect building security, or which may cause imminent danger to the life, safety, or health of prisoners.
15. “Good cause” means fair and honest reasons, regulated by good faith on the part of either party, that are not arbitrary, capricious, trivial, or pretextual.
16. “IAD” refers to the Internal Affairs Division.
17. “Include,” “includes”, or “including” means “include, but not be limited to” or “including, but not limited to.”
18. “Interdisciplinary Team” refers to a team consisting of treatment staff from various disciplines, including medical, nursing, and mental health and one or more members from security.
19. “Limited English Proficient” or “LEP” refers to a person who does not speak English as his/her primary language and has a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English. LEP individuals may be competent in certain types of communication (e.g. speaking or understanding), but still be LEP for other purposes (e.g. reading or writing).
20. “Monitor” means an individual and his or her team of professionals, all of whom are selected by the Parties to oversee implementation of the Agreement.
21. “NOPRS” means City of New Orleans PreTrial Release Services.
22. “Prisoners” or “Prisoner” is construed broadly to refer to one or more individuals detained at, or otherwise housed, held, in the custody of, or confined at OPP based on arrests, detainers, criminal charges, civil contempt charges, or convictions.
23. “Psychotropic medication” means any medication used to affect mental activity, perception, behavior, or mood.
24. “Qualified Health Care Professional” means an individual who has received instruction and supervision in identifying and interacting with individuals in need of health care services.
25. “Qualified Medical Professional” means a licensed physician, licensed physician assistant, or a licensed nurse practitioner, who is currently licensed by the State of Louisiana to deliver those health care services he or she has undertaken to provide.
-3 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 8 of 53
26. “Qualified Medical Staff” refers to Qualified Medical Professionals and Qualified Nursing Staff.
27. “Qualified Mental Health Professional” refers to an individual with a minimum of masters-level education and training in psychiatry, psychology, counseling, social work or psychiatric nursing, who is currently licensed by the State of Louisiana to deliver those mental health services he or she has undertaken to provide.
28. “Qualified Nursing Staff” means registered nurses and licensed practical nurses currently licensed by the State of Louisiana to deliver those health care services he or she has undertaken to provide.
29. “Reportable incidents” refers to any incident that involves a Level 1 or 2 rule violation, a prisoner death or serious injury, serious suicide attempt, sexual threats, a cell extraction, a use of force or restraint, a medical emergency, escapes and escape attempts, and fires.
30. “Serious injury” means any injury requiring hospitalization and/or follow-up medical care.
31. “Serious suicide attempt” means a suicide attempt that is considered to be either potentially life-threatening or that requires hospitalization. Even if caught in the early stages of the attempt, if the injury resulting from the attempted act could be life threatening, the suicide attempt is “serious” and is reportable under this Agreement.
32. “Special Management Units” mean those housing units of the Facility designated for prisoners in administrative or disciplinary segregation, in protective custody, on suicide precautions, with mental illness, or who are youth age 17 and below.
33. “Staff Members” includes all employees, including correctional officers, who have contact with prisoners.
34. “Suicide Attempt” means any serious effort to commit an act of self-harm that can result in death and involving definite risk.
35. “Suicide Precautions” means any level of watch, observation, or measures to prevent suicide or self-harm.
36. “Train” means to instruct in skills to a level that the trainee has the demonstrated proficiency by testing to implement those skills as and when called for. “Trained” means proficient in the skills.
37. “Threshold” or “threshold event” means requiring a certain level of intervention due to a serious event or a number of serious events. This term is further explained in Appendix A.
-4 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 9 of 53
38. “Triggers” or “triggering event” means an event or events, like a suicide or serious suicide attempt that causes the Facility to self-assess. This term is further explained in Appendix A.
39. “Use of force” means the application of physical or mechanical measures to compel compliance. “Use of force” shall include all force to compel compliance except complaints of minor discomfort from un-resisted handcuffing or un-resisted shackling of prisoners for movement purposes.
40. “Vital Documents” means paper or electronic written material that contains information that is critical for accessing OPP’s programs, services, or activities, or is required by law. Vital documents may include grievance forms, notification to prisoners (such as rule violations, transfers, and grievance responses), prisoner handbooks, sick call forms, and request for service forms.
41. “Youth” and “youthful prisoner” shall mean any person in OPSO custody who is age 17 or younger, or who is housed in OPP as a “transfer” youth being tried as an adult.
42. Throughout this Agreement, the following terms are used when discussing compliance: substantial compliance, partial compliance, and non-compliance. “Substantial Compliance” indicates that Defendant has achieved compliance with most or all components of the relevant provision of the Agreement. “Partial Compliance” indicates that Defendant achieved compliance on some of the components of the relevant provision of the Agreement, but significant work remains. “Non-compliance” indicates that Defendant has not met most or all of the components of the Agreement.
IV. SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS
A. PROTECTION FROM HARM
Consistent with constitutional standards, Defendant shall provide prisoners with a safe and secure environment and ensure their reasonable safety from harm. OPSO shall take all reasonable measures to ensure that during the course of incarceration prisoners are not subjected to unnecessary or excessive force by OPSO staff and are protected from violence by other prisoners.
1. Use of Force Policies and Procedures
a. OPSO shall develop, implement, and maintain comprehensive policies and procedures (in accordance with generally accepted correctional standards) relating to the use of force with particular emphasis regarding permissible and impermissible uses of force.
b. OPSO shall develop and implement a single, uniform, reporting system under a Use of Force Reporting policy. OPSO reportable force shall be divided into two levels, as further specified in policy: Level 1 uses of force will include all serious
-5 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 10 of 53
uses of force (i.e., the use of force leads to injuries that are extensive, serious or visible in nature, including black eyes, lacerations, injuries to the mouth or head, multiple bruises, injuries to the genitals, etc.), injuries requiring hospitalization, staff misconduct, and occasions when use of force reports are inconsistent, conflicting, or otherwise suspicious. Level 2 uses of force will include all escort or control holds used to overcome resistance that are not covered by the definition of Level 1 force.
c. OPSO shall assess, annually, all data collected regarding uses of force and make any necessary changes to use of force policies or procedures to ensure that unnecessary or excessive use of force is not used in OPP. The review and recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor, DOJ, and SPLC.
2. Use of Force Training
a. OPSO shall ensure that all correctional officers are knowledgeable of and have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to comply with use of force policies and procedures. At a minimum OPSO shall provide correctional officers with pre-service and annual in-service training in use of force, defensive tactics, and use of force policies and procedures. The training will include the following:
(1) instruction on what constitutes excessive force;
(2) de-escalation tactics; and
(3) management of prisoners with mental illness to limit the need for using force.
b. OPSO shall ensure that officers are aware of any change to policies and practices throughout their employment with OPP. At a minimum, OPSO shall provide preservice and annual in-service use of force training that prohibits:
(1) use of force as a response to verbal insults or prisoner threats where there is no immediate threat to the safety or security of the institution, prisoners, staff or visitors;
(2) use of force as a response to prisoners’ failure to follow instructions where there is no immediate threat to the safety or security of the institution, prisoners, staff or visitors;
(3) use of force against a prisoner after the prisoner has ceased to offer resistance and is under control;
(4) use of force as punishment or retaliation; and
-6 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 11 of 53
(5) use of force involving kicking, striking, hitting, or punching a non-combative prisoner.
c. OPSO shall randomly test five percent of the correctional officer staff on an annual basis to determine their knowledge of the use of force policies and procedures. The testing instrument and policies shall be approved by the Monitor. The results of these assessments shall be evaluated to determine the need for changes in training practices. The review and conclusions will be documented and provided to the Monitor.
3. Use of Force Reporting
a. Failure to report a use of force incident by any staff member engaging in the use of force or witnessing the use of force shall be grounds for discipline, up to and including termination.
b. OPSO shall ensure that sufficient information is collected on uses of force to assess whether staff members complied with policy; whether corrective action is necessary including training or discipline; the effectiveness of training and policies; and whether the conditions in OPP comply with this Agreement. At a minimum, OPSO will ensure that officers using or observing a Level 1 use of force shall complete a use of force report that will:
(1) include the names of all staff, prisoner(s), or other visual or oral witness(es);
(2) contain an accurate and specific account of the events leading to the use of force;
(3) describe the level of resistance and the type and level of force used, consistent with OPP use of force policy and procedure, as well as the precise actions taken by OPSO staff in response to the incident;
(4) describe the weapon or instrument(s) of restraint, if any, and the manner of such use;
(5) be accompanied by a prisoner disciplinary report, if it exists, pertaining to the events or prisoner activity that prompted the use of force incident;
(6) describe the nature and extent of injuries sustained by anyone involved in the incident;
(7) contain the date and time when medical attention, if any, was requested and actually provided;
(8) describe any attempts the staff took to de-escalate prior to use of force;
-7 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 12 of 53
(9) include an individual written account of the use of force from every staff member who witnessed the use of force;
(10) include photographs taken promptly, but no later than two hours after an use of force incident, of all injuries sustained, or as evidence that no injuries were sustained, by prisoners and staff involved in the use of force incident;
(11) document whether the use of force was digitally or otherwise recorded. If the use of force is not digitally or otherwise recorded, the reporting officer and/or watch commander will provide an explanation as to why it was not recorded; and
(12) include a statement about the incident from the prisoner(s) against whom force was used.
c. All officers using a Level 2 use of force shall complete a use of force report that will:
(1) include the names of staff, prisoner(s), or other visual or oral witness(es);
(2) contain an accurate and specific account of the events leading to the use of force;
(3) describe the level of resistance and the type and level of force used, consistent with OPP Use Of Force policy and procedure, as well as the precise actions taken by OPSO staff in response to the incident;
(4) describe the weapon or instrument(s) of restraint, if any, and the manner of such use;
(5) be accompanied by a prisoner disciplinary report, if it exists, pertaining to the events or prisoner activity that prompted the use of force incident;
(6) describe the nature and extent of injuries sustained by anyone involved in the incident;
(7) contain the date and time when medical attention, if any, was requested and actually provided; and
(8) describe any attempts the staff took to de-escalate prior to use of force;
d. OPSO shall require correctional officers to notify the watch commander as soon as practical of any use of force incident or allegation of use of force. When
-8 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 13 of 53
notified, the watch commander will respond to the scene of all Level 1 uses of force. When arriving on the scene, the watch commanders shall:
(1) ensure the safety of everyone involved in or proximate to the incident;
(2) determine if any prisoner or correctional officer is injured and ensure that necessary medical care is provided;
(3) ensure that personnel and witnesses are identified, separated, and advised that communications with other witnesses or correctional officers regarding the incident are prohibited;
(4) ensure that witness and subject statements are taken of both staff and prisoner(s) outside of the presence of other prisoners and staff;
(5) ensure that the supervisor’s use of force report is forwarded to IAD for investigation if, upon the supervisor’s review, a violation of law or policy is suspected. The determination of what type of investigation is needed will be based on the degree of the force used consistent with the terms of this Agreement;
(6) If the watch commander is not involved in the use of force incident, the watch commander shall review all submitted use of force reports within 36 hours of the end of the incident, and shall specify his findings as to completeness and procedural errors. If the watch commander believes that the use of force may have been unnecessary or excessive, he shall immediately contact IAD for investigation consideration and shall notify the warden or assistant warden; and
(7) All Level 1 use of force reports, whether or not the force is believed by any party to be unnecessary or excessive, shall be sent to IAD for review. IAD shall develop and submit to the Monitor within 90 days of the Effective Date clear criteria to identify use of force incidents that warrant a full investigation, including injuries that are extensive or serious, visible in nature (including black eyes, injuries to the mouth, injuries to the genitals, etc.), injuries requiring hospitalization, staff misconduct (including inappropriate relationships with prisoners), and occasions when use of force reports are inconsistent, conflicting, or otherwise suspicious.
e. Ensure that a first-line supervisor is present during all pre-planned uses of force, such as cell extractions.
f. Within 36 hours, exclusive of weekends and holidays, of receiving the report and review from the shift commander, in order to determine the appropriateness of the force used and whether policy was followed, the Warden or Assistant Warden shall review all use of force reports and supervisory reviews including:
-9 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 14 of 53
(1) the incident report associated with the use of force;
(2) any medical documentation of injuries and any further medical care;
(3) the prisoner disciplinary report associated with the use of force; and
(4) the Warden or Assistant Warden shall complete a written report or written statement of specific findings and determinations of the appropriateness of force.
g. Provide the Monitor a periodic report detailing use of force by staff. These periodic reports shall be provided to the monitor within four months of the Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until termination of this Agreement. Each report will include the following information:
(1) a brief summary of all uses of force, by type;
(2) date that force was used;
(3) identity of staff members involved in using force;
(4) identity of prisoners against whom force was used;
(5) a brief summary of all uses of force resulting in injuries;
(6) number of planned and unplanned uses of force;
(7) a summary of all in-custody deaths related to use of force, including the identity of the decedent and the circumstances of the death; and
(8) a listing of serious injuries requiring hospitalization.
h. OPSO shall conduct, annually, a review of the use of force reporting system to ensure that it has been effective in reducing unnecessary or excessive uses of force. OPSO will document its review and conclusions and provide them to the Monitor, SPLC, and DOJ.
4. Early Intervention System (“EIS”)
a. OPSO shall develop, within 120 days of the Effective Date, a computerized relational database (“EIS”) that will document and track staff members who are involved in use of force incidents and any complaints related to the inappropriate or excessive use of force, in order to alert OPSO management to any potential problematic policies or supervision lapses or need for retraining or discipline. The Chief of Operations Deputy, supervisors, and investigative staff shall have
- 10 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 15 of 53

access to this information and shall review on a regular basis, but not less than quarterly, system reports to evaluate individual staff, supervisor, and housing area activity. OPSO will use the EIS as a tool for correcting inappropriate staff behavior before it escalates to more serious misconduct.

b. Within 120 days of the Effective Date, OPSO senior management shall use EIS information to improve quality management practices, identify patterns and trends, and take necessary corrective action both on an individual and systemic level. IAD will manage and administer EIS systems. SOD will have access to the EIS. IAD will conduct quarterly audits of the EIS to ensure that analysis and intervention is taken according to the process described below. Command staff shall review the data collected by the EIS on at least a quarterly basis to identify potential patterns or trends resulting in harm to prisoners. The Use of Force Review Board will periodically review information collected regarding uses of force in order to identify the need for corrective action, including changes to training protocols and policy or retraining or disciplining individual staff or staff members. Through comparison of the operation of this system to changes in the conditions in OPP, OPSO will assess whether the mechanism is effective at addressing the requirements of this Agreement.

c. OPSO shall provide, within 180 days of the implementation date of its EIS, to SPLC, DOJ and the Monitor, a list of all staff members identified through the EIS and corrective action taken.

d. The EIS protocol shall include the following components: data storage, data retrieval, reporting, data analysis, pattern identification, supervisory assessment, supervisory intervention, documentation, and audit.

e. On an annual basis, OPSO shall review the EIS to ensure that it has been effective in identifying concerns regarding policy, training, or the need for discipline. This assessment will be based in part on the number and severity of harm and injury identified through data collected pursuant to this Agreement. OPSO will document its review and conclusions and provide them to the Monitor, who shall forward this document to DOJ and SPLC.

5. Safety and Supervision

Recognizing that some danger is inherent in a jail setting, OPSO shall take all reasonable measures to ensure that prisoners are not subjected to harm or the risk of harm. At a minimum, OPSO shall do the following:

a.

Maintain security policies, procedures, and practices to provide a reasonably safe

and secure environment for prisoners and staff in accordance with this

Agreement.

- 11 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 16 of 53

b.

Maintain policies, procedures, and practices to ensure the adequate supervision of

prisoner work areas and trustees.

c.

Maintain policies and procedures regarding care for and housing of protective

custody prisoners and prisoners requesting protection from harm.

d.

Continue to ensure that correctional officers conduct appropriate rounds at least

once during every 30 minute period, at irregular times, inside each general

population housing unit and at least once every 15 minute period of special

management prisoners, or more often if necessary. All security rounds shall be

documented on forms or logs that do not contain pre-printed rounding times. In

the alternative, OPSO may provide direct supervision of prisoners by posting a

correctional officer inside the day room area of a housing unit to conduct

surveillance.

e.

Staff shall provide direct supervision in housing units that are designed for this

type of supervision. Video surveillance may be used to supplement, but must not

be used to replace, rounds by correctional officers.

f.

Increase the use of overhead video surveillance and recording cameras to provide

adequate coverage throughout the common areas of the Jail, including the Intake

Processing Center, all divisions’ intake areas, mental health units, special

management units, prisoner housing units, and in common areas of the divisions.

g.

Continue to ensure that correctional officers who are transferred from one

division to another are required to attend training on division-specific post orders

before working on the unit.

h.

Continue to ensure that correctional officers assigned to special management

units, which include youth tiers, mental health tiers, disciplinary segregation, and

protective custody, receive eight hours of specialized training regarding such units

on prisoner safety and security on at least an annual basis.

i.

Continue to ensure that supervisors conduct daily rounds on each shift in the

prisoner housing units, and document the results of their rounds.

j.

Continue to ensure that staff conduct daily inspections of cells and common areas

of the housing units to protect prisoners from unreasonable harm or unreasonable

risk of harm.

k.

Continue to ensure that staff conduct random monthly shakedowns of cells and

common areas so that prisoners do not possess or have access to dangerous

contraband.

l.

Provide the Monitor a periodic report of safety and supervision at the Facility.

These periodic reports shall be provided to the monitor within four months of the

- 12 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 17 of 53
Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until termination of this Agreement. Each report will provide the following information::
(1) a listing of special management prisoners, their housing assignments, the basis for them being placed in the specialized housing unit, and the date placed in the unit; and
(2) a listing of all contraband, including weapons, seized, including the type of contraband, date of seizure, location and shift of seizure.
6. Security Staffing
a. OPSO shall ensure that correctional staffing and supervision is sufficient to adequately supervise prisoners, fulfill the terms of this Agreement, and allow for the safe operation of the Facility, consistent with constitutional standards. OPSO shall achieve adequate correctional officer staffing in the following manner:
(1) Within 90 days of the Effective Date, develop a staffing plan that will identify all posts and positions, the adequate number and qualification of staff to cover each post and position, adequate shift relief and coverage for vacations. The staffing plan will ensure that there is adequate coverage inside each housing and specialized housing area and to accompany prisoners for court, visits and legal visits and other operations of OPP and to comply with all provisions of this Agreement. OPSO will provide its plan to the Monitor, SPLC, and DOJ for approval. The Monitor, SPLC, or DOJ will have 60 days to raise any objections and recommend revisions to the staffing plan.
(2) Within 120 days before the opening of any new facility, submit a staffing plan consistent with subsection (1) above.
(3) Within 90 days after completion of the staffing study, OPSO shall recruit and hire a full-time professional corrections administrator to analyze and review OPP operations. The professional corrections administrator shall report directly to the Sheriff and shall have responsibilities to be determined by the Sheriff. The professional corrections administrator shall have at least the following qualifications: (a) a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice or other closely related field; (b) five years of experience in supervising a large correctional facility; and (c) knowledge of and experience in applying modern correctional standards, maintained through regular participation in corrections-related conferences or other continuing education.
(4) Provide the Monitor a periodic report on staffing levels at the Facility. These periodic reports shall be provided to the monitor within four months
- 13 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 18 of 53
of the Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until termination of this Agreement Each report will include the following information:
i. a listing of each post and position needed;
ii. the number of hours needed for each post and position;
iii. a listing of staff hired and positions filled;
iv. a listing of staff working overtime and the amount of overtime worked by each staff member;
v. a listing of supervisors working overtime; and
vi. a listing of and types of critical incidents reported.
b. Review the periodic report to determine whether staffing is adequate to meet the requirements of this Agreement. OPSO shall make recommendations regarding staffing based on this review. The review and recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor.
7. Incidents and Referrals
a. OPSO shall develop and implement policies that ensure that Facility watch commanders have knowledge of reportable incidents in OPP to take action in a timely manner to prevent harm to prisoners or take other corrective action. At a minimum, OPSO shall do the following:
b. Continue to ensure that Facility watch commanders document all reportable incidents by the end of their shift, but no later than 24 hours after the incident, including prisoner fights, rule violations, prisoner injuries, suicide attempts, cell extractions, medical emergencies, found contraband, vandalism, escapes and escape attempts, and fires.
c. Continue to ensure that Facility watch commanders report all suicides and deaths no later than one hour after the incident, to a supervisor, IAD, the Special Operations Division, and medical and mental health staff.
d. Provide formal pre-service and annual in-service training on proper incident reporting policies and procedures.
e. Implement a policy providing that it is a disciplinary infraction for staff to fail to report any reportable incident that occurred on his or her shift. Failure to formally report any observed prisoner injury may result in staff discipline, up to and including termination.
- 14 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 19 of 53

f. Maintain a system to track all reportable incidents that, at a minimum, includes the following information:

(1) tracking number;

(2) the prisoner(s) name;

(3) housing classification and location;

(4) date and time;

(5) type of incident;

(6) injuries to staff or prisoner;

(7) medical care;

(8) primary and secondary staff involved;

(9) reviewing supervisor;

(10) external reviews and results;

(11) corrective action taken; and

(12) administrative sign-off.

e.

Ensure that incident reports and prisoner grievances are screened for allegations

of staff misconduct, and, if the incident or allegation meets established criteria in

accordance with this Agreement that it is referred for investigation.

f.

Provide the Monitor a periodic data report of incidents at the Facility. These

periodic reports shall be provided to the Monitor within four months of the

Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until termination of this

Agreement.

g.

The report will include the following information:

(1) a brief summary of all reportable incidents, by type and date;

(2) a description of all suicides and in-custody deaths, including the date, name of prisoner, and housing unit;

(3) number of prisoner grievances screened for allegations of misconduct; and

(4) number of grievances referred to IAD or SOD for investigation.

- 15 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 20 of 53

h.

Conduct internal reviews of the periodic reports to determine whether the incident

reporting system is ensuring that the constitutional rights of prisoners are

respected. Review the quarterly report to determine whether the incident

reporting system is meeting the requirements of this Agreement. OPSO shall

make recommendations regarding the reporting system or other necessary

changes in policy or staffing based on this review. The review and

recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor.

8. Investigations

OPSO shall ensure that it has sufficient staff to identify, investigate, and recommend correcting misconduct that has or may lead to a violation of the Constitution. At a minimum, OPSO shall:

a. Maintain implementation of comprehensive policies, procedures, and practices for the timely and thorough investigation of alleged staff misconduct, sexual assaults, and physical assaults of prisoners resulting in serious injury, in accordance with this Agreement. Investigations shall:

(1) be conducted by persons who do not have conflicts of interest that bear on the partiality of the investigation;

(2) include timely, thorough, and documented interviews of all relevant staff and prisoners who were involved in or who witnessed the incident in question, to the extent practicable; and

(3) include all supporting evidence, including logs, witness and participant statements, references to policies and procedures relevant to the incident, physical evidence, and video or audio recordings.

b. Continue to provide SOD and IAD staff with pre-service and annual in-service training on appropriate investigation policies and procedures, the investigation tracking process, investigatory interviewing techniques, and confidentiality requirements.

c. Ensure that any investigative report indicating possible criminal behavior will be referred to IAD/SOD and then referred to the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office if appropriate.

d. Provide the Monitor a periodic report of investigations conducted at the Facility. These periodic reports shall be provided to the monitor within four months of the Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until termination of this Agreement.

e. The report will include the following information:

- 16 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 21 of 53
(1) a brief summary of all completed investigations, by type and date;
(2) a listing of investigations referred for administrative investigation;
(3) a listing of all investigations referred to an appropriate law enforcement agency and the name of the agency; and
(4) a listing of all staff suspended, terminated, arrested or reassigned because of misconduct or violations of policy and procedures. This list must also contain the specific misconduct and/or violation.
f. OPSO shall review the periodic report to determine whether the investigation system is meeting the requirements of this Agreement and make recommendations regarding the investigation system or other necessary changes in policy based on this review. The review and recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor.
9. Pretrial Placement in Alternative Settings:
a. OPSO shall maintain its role of providing space and security to facilitate interviews conducted pursuant to the City’s pretrial release program, which is intended to ensure placement in the least restrictive appropriate placement consistent with public safety.
b. OPSO shall create a system to ensure that it does not unlawfully confine prisoners whose sole detainer is by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), where the detainer has expired.
10. Custodial Placement within OPP
a. OPP shall implement an objective and validated classification system that assigns prisoners to housing units by security levels, among other valid factors, in order to protect prisoners from unreasonable risk of harm. The system shall include consideration of a prisoner’s security needs, severity of the current charge, types of prior commitments, suicide risk, history of escape attempts, history of violence, gang affiliations, and special needs, including mental illness, gender identity, age and education requirements. OPSO shall anticipate periods of unusual intake volume and schedule sufficient classification staff to classify prisoners within 24 hours of booking and perform prisoner reclassifications, assist eligible DOC prisoners with re-entry assistance (release preparation), among other duties related to case management.
b. Prohibit classifications based solely on race, color, national origin, or ethnicity.
- 17 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 22 of 53
c. Ensure that the classification staff has sufficient access to current information regarding cell availability in each division.
d. Continue to update the classification system to include information on each prisoner’s history at OPSO.
e. Continue competency-based training and access to all supervisors on the full capabilities of the OPSO classification and prisoner tracking system.
f. Conduct internal and external review and validation of the prisoner classification system on at least an annual basis.
g. Provide the Monitor a periodic report on classification at the Facility. These periodic reports shall be provided to the monitor within four months of the Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until termination of this Agreement. Each report will include the following information:
(1) number of prisoner-on-prisoner assaults;
(2) number of assaults against prisoners with mental illness;
(3) number of prisoners who report having gang affiliations;
(4) most serious offense leading to incarceration;
(5) number of prisoners classified in each security level;
(6) number of prisoners placed in protective custody; and number of misconduct complaints.
h. OPSO shall review the periodic data report and make recommendations regarding proper placement consistent with this Agreement or other necessary changes in policy based on this review. The review and recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor.
11. Prisoner Grievance Process
a. OPSO shall ensure that prisoners have a mechanism to express their grievances, resolve disputes, and ensure that concerns regarding their constitutional rights are addressed. OPSO shall, at a minimum, do the following:
(1) Continue to maintain policies and procedures to ensure that prisoners have access to an adequate grievance process and to ensure that grievances may be reported and filed confidentially, without requiring the intervention of a correctional officer. The policies and procedures should be applicable and standardized across all the Facility divisions.
- 18 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 23 of 53
(2) Ensure that each grievance receives appropriate follow-up, including providing a timely written response and tracking implementation of resolutions.
(3) Ensure that grievance forms are available on all units and are available in Spanish and Vietnamese and that there is adequate opportunity for illiterate prisoners and prisoners who have physical or cognitive disabilities or language barriers to access the grievance system.
(4) Separate the process of “requests to staff” from the grievance process and prioritize grievances that raise issues regarding prisoner safety or health.
(5) Ensure that prisoner grievances are screened for allegations of staff misconduct and, if an incident or allegation warrants per this Agreement, that it is referred for investigation.
(6) A member of the management staff shall review the grievance tracking system quarterly to identify areas of concerns. These reviews and any recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor.
12. Sexual Abuse
OPSO will develop and implement policies, protocols, trainings, and audits consistent with the requirements of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, 42 U.S.C. § 15601, et seq., and its implementation of regulations, including but not limited to, preventing, detecting, reporting, investigating, and collecting sexual abuse data, including prisoneron-prisoner and staff-on-prisoner sexual abuse, sexual harassment, and sexual touching.
13. Access to Information
OPSO will ensure that all newly admitted prisoners receive information, through an inmate handbook and, at the discretion of the Jail, an orientation video, regarding the following topics: understanding Facility disciplinary process and rules and regulations; reporting misconduct; reporting sexual abuse or assault; accessing medical and mental health care, emergency procedures, and sending and receiving mail, understanding the visitation process, and accessing the grievance process.
B. MENTAL HEALTH CARE
OPSO shall ensure constitutionally adequate intake, assessment, treatment, and monitoring of prisoners’ mental health needs, including but not limited to, protecting the safety of and giving priority access to prisoners at risk for self-injurious behavior or suicide. OPSO shall assess on an annual or more frequent basis whether the mental health services at OPP comply with the Constitution. In order to provide mental health services to prisoners, OPSO, at a minimum, shall:
- 19 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 24 of 53
1. Screening and Assessment
a. Develop and maintain comprehensive policies and procedures for appropriate screening and assessment of prisoners with mental illness. These policies should include definitions of emergent, urgent, and routine mental health needs, as well as timeframes for the provision of services for each category of mental health needs.
b. Develop and implement an appropriate screening instrument that identifies mental health needs, and ensures timely access to a mental health professional when presenting symptoms requiring such care. The screening instrument should include the factors described in Appendix B. The screening instrument will be validated by a qualified professional approved by the Monitor within 180 days of the Effective Date and every 12 months thereafter, if necessary
c. Ensure that all prisoners are screened by Qualified Medical Staff upon arrival to OPP, but no later than within eight hours, to identify a prisoner’s risk for suicide or self-injurious behavior. No prisoner shall be held in isolation prior to an evaluation by medical staff.
d. Implement a triage policy that utilizes the screening and assessment procedures to ensure that prisoners with emergent and urgent mental health needs are prioritized for services.
e. Develop and implement protocols, commensurate with the level of risk of suicide or self-harm, to ensure that prisoners are protected from identified risks for suicide or self-injurious behavior. The protocols shall also require that a Qualified Mental Health Professional perform a mental health assessment, based on the prisoner’s risk.
f. For prisoners with emergent or urgent mental health needs, search the prisoner and monitor with constant supervision until the prisoner is transferred to a Qualified Mental Health Professional for assessment.
g. Ensure that a Qualified Mental Health Professional conducts appropriate mental health assessments within the following periods from the initial screen or other identification of need:
(1) 14 days, or sooner, if medically necessary, for prisoners with routine mental health needs;
(2) 48 hours, or sooner, if medically necessary, for prisoners with urgent mental health needs; and
- 20 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 25 of 53
(3) immediately, but no later than two hours, for prisoners with emergent mental health needs.
h. Ensure that a Qualified Mental Health Professional performs a mental health assessment no later than the next working day following any adverse triggering event (i.e., any suicide attempt, any suicide ideation, and any aggression to self resulting in serious injury).
i. Ensure that a Qualified Mental Health Professional, as part of the prisoner’s interdisciplinary treatment team, maintains a risk profile for each prisoner on the mental health case load based on the Assessment Factors identified in Appendix B, and develops and implements a treatment plan to minimize the risk of harm to each of these prisoners.
j. Ensure adequate and timely treatment for prisoners, whose assessments reveal mental illness and/or suicidal ideation, including timely and appropriate referrals for specialty care and visits with Qualified Mental Health Professionals, as clinically appropriate.
k. Ensure crisis services are available to manage psychiatric emergencies. Such services include licensed in-patient psychiatric care, when clinically appropriate.
l. On an annual basis, assess the process for screening prisoners for mental health needs to determine whether prisoners are being appropriately identified for care. Based on this assessment, OPSO shall recommend changes to the screening system. The assessment and recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor.
2. Treatment
a. Review, revise, and supplement its existing policies in order to implement a policy for the delivery of mental health services that includes a continuum of services, provides for necessary and appropriate mental health staff, includes a treatment plan for prisoners with serious mental illness and collects data and contains mechanisms sufficient to measure whether care is being provided in a manner consistent with the Constitution.
b. Ensure that treatment plans adequately address prisoners’ serious mental health needs and that the treatment plans contain interventions specifically tailored to the prisoners’ diagnoses and problems.
c. Provide group or individual therapy services by an appropriately licensed provider where necessary for prisoners with mental health needs.
d. Ensure that mental health evaluations that are done as part of the disciplinary process include recommendations based on the prisoner's mental health status.
- 21 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 26 of 53
e. Ensure that prisoners receive psychotropic medications in a timely manner and that prisoners have proper diagnoses and/or indications for each psychotropic medication they receive.
f. Ensure that psychotropic medications are administered in a clinically appropriate manner as to prevent misuse, overdose, theft or violence related to the medication.
g. Ensure that prescriptions for psychotropic medications are reviewed by a Qualified Mental Health Professional on a regular, timely basis and prisoners are properly monitored.
h. Ensure that standards are established for the frequency of review and associated charting of psychotropic medication monitoring, including monitoring for metabolic effects of second generation psychotropic medications.
3. Counseling
a. OPSO shall develop and implement policies and procedures for prisoner counseling in the areas of general mental health/therapy, sexual-abuse counseling, and alcohol and drug counseling. This should, at a minimum, include some provision for individual services.
b. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, report all prisoner counseling services quarterly to the Monitor, which should include:
(1) the number of prisoners who report having participated in general mental health/therapy counseling at OPP;
(2) the number of prisoners who report having participated in alcohol and drug counseling services at OPP;
(3) the number of prisoners who report having participated in sexual-abuse counseling at OPP; and
(4) the number of cases with an appropriately licensed practitioner and related one-to-one counseling at OPP.
4. Suicide Prevention Training Program
a. OPSO shall ensure that all staff who supervise prisoners have the adequate knowledge, skill, and ability to address the needs of prisoners at risk for suicide. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, OPSO shall review and revise its current suicide prevention training curriculum, to include, the following topics:
- 22 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 27 of 53
(1) suicide prevention policies and procedures (as revised consistent with this Agreement);
(2) analysis of facility environments and why they may contribute to suicidal behavior;
(3) potential predisposing factors to suicide;
(4) high-risk suicide periods;
(5) warning signs and symptoms of suicidal behavior;
(6) case studies of recent suicides and serious suicide attempts;
(7) mock demonstrations regarding the proper response to a suicide attempt;
(8) differentiating between suicidal and self-injurious behavior; and
(9) the proper use of emergency equipment.
b. Ensure that all correctional, medical, and mental health staff are trained on the suicide screening instrument and the medical intake tool.
c. Ensure that multi-disciplinary in-service training is completed annually by all correctional, medical, and mental health staff, to include training on updated policies, procedures, and techniques. The training will be reviewed and approved by the Monitor.
d. Ensure that staff are trained in observing prisoners on suicide watch and stepdown unit status.
e. Ensure that all staff that have contact with prisoners are certified in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (“CPR”).
f. Ensure that an emergency response bag that includes a first aid kit and emergency rescue tool shall be in close proximity to all housing units. All staff that has contact with prisoners shall know the location of this emergency response bag and be trained to use its contents.
g. Randomly test five percent of relevant staff on an annual basis to determine their knowledge of suicide prevention policies. The testing instrument and policies shall be approved by the Monitor. The results of these assessments shall be evaluated to determine the need for changes in training practices. The review and conclusions will be documented and provided to the Monitor.
- 23 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 28 of 53
5. Suicide Precautions
a. OPSO shall implement a policy to ensure that prisoners at risk of self harm are identified, protected, and treated in a manner consistent with the Constitution.
b. Ensure that suicide prevention procedures include provisions for constant direct supervision of actively suicidal prisoners and close supervision of special needs prisoners with lower levels of risk (at a minimum, 15 minute checks). Correctional officers shall document their checks in a format that does not have pre-printed times.
c. Ensure that prisoners on suicide watch are immediately searched and monitored with constant direct supervision until a Qualified Mental Health Professional conducts a suicide risk assessment, determines the degree of risk, and specifies the appropriate degree of supervision.
d. Ensure that all prisoners discharged from suicide precautions receive a follow-up assessment within three to eight working days after discharge, as clinically appropriate, in accordance with a treatment plan developed by a Qualified Mental Health Care Professional. Upon discharge, the Qualified Mental Health Care Professional shall conduct a documented in-person assessment regarding the clinically appropriate follow-up intervals.
e. Implement a step-down program providing clinically appropriate transition from suicide precautions for prisoners discharged from suicide precautions.
f. Develop and implement policies and procedures for suicide precautions that set forth the conditions of the watch, incorporating a requirement of an individualized clinical determination of allowable clothing, property, and utensils. These conditions shall be altered only on the written instruction of a Qualified Mental Health Professional, except under emergency circumstances or when security considerations require.
g. Ensure that cells designated by OPSO for housing suicidal prisoners are retrofitted to render them suicide-resistant (e.g., eliminating bed frames/holes, sprinkler heads, water faucet lips, and unshielded lighting or electrical sockets).
h. Ensure that every suicide or serious suicide attempt is investigated by appropriate mental health and correctional staff, and that the results of the investigation are provided to the Sheriff and the Monitor.
i. Direct observation orders for inmates placed on suicide watch shall be individualized by the ordering clinician based upon the clinical needs of each inmate, and shall not be more restrictive than is deemed necessary by the ordering clinician to ensure the safety and well being of the inmate.
- 24 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 29 of 53
j. Provide the Monitor a periodic report on suicide and self-harm at the Facility. These periodic reports shall be provided to the monitor within four months of the Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until termination of this Agreement. The report will include the following:
(1) all suicides;
(2) all serious suicide or self-harm attempts; and
(3) all uses of restraints to respond to or prevent a suicide attempt .
k. Assess the periodic report to determine whether prisoners are being appropriately identified for risk of self harm, protected, and treated. Based on this assessment, OPSO shall document recommended changes to policies and procedures and provide these to the Monitor.
6. Use of Restraints
a. OPSO shall prevent the unnecessary or excessive use of physical or chemical restraints on prisoners with mental illness.
b. Maintain comprehensive policies and procedures for the use of restraints for prisoners with mental illness consistent with the Constitution.
c. Ensure that approval by a Qualified Medical or Mental Health Professional is received and documented prior to the use of restraints on prisoners living with mental illness or requiring suicide precautions.
d. Ensure that restrained prisoners with mental illnesses are monitored at least every 15 minutes by Custody Staff to assess their physical condition.
e. Ensure that Qualified Medical or Mental Health Staff document the use of restraints, including the basis for and duration of the use of restraints and the performance and results of welfare checks on restrained prisoners.
f. Provide the Monitor a periodic report of restraint use at the Facility. These periodic reports shall be provided to the monitor within four months of the Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until termination of this Agreement. Each report shall include: (1) A list of prisoners whom were restrained; (2) A list of any self-injurious behavior observed or discovered while restrained; and
- 25 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 30 of 53
(3) A list of any prisoners whom were placed in restraints on three or more occasions in a thirty (30) day period or whom were kept in restraints for a period exceeding twenty-four (24) hours.
g. Assess the periodic report to determine whether restraints are being used appropriately on prisoners with mental illness. Based on this assessment, OPSO shall document recommended changes to policies and procedures and provide these to the Monitor.
7. Detoxification and Training
a. OPSO shall ensure that all staff who supervise prisoners have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to identify and respond to detoxifying prisoners. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, OPSO shall institute an annual in-service detoxification training program for Qualified Medical and Mental Health Staff and for correctional staff. The detoxification training program shall include:
(1) annual staff training on alcohol and drug abuse withdrawal;
(2) training of Qualified Medical and Mental Health Staff on treatment of alcohol and drug abuse conducted by the Chief Medical Officer or his or her delegate;
(3) oversight of the training of correctional staff, including booking and housing unit officers, on the policies and procedures of the detoxification unit, by the Chief Medical Officer or his or her delegate;
(4) training on drug and alcohol withdrawal by Qualified Medical and Mental Health Staff;
(5) training of Qualified Medical and Mental Health Staff in providing prisoners with timely access to a Qualified Mental Health Professional, including psychiatrists, as clinically appropriate; and
(6) training of Qualified Medical and Mental Health Staff on the use and treatment of withdrawals, where medically appropriate.
b. Provide medical screenings to determine the degree of risk for potentially lifethreatening withdrawal from alcohol, benzodiazepines, and other substances, in accordance with Appendix B.
c. Ensure that the nursing staff complete assessments of prisoners in detoxification on an individualized schedule, ordered by a Qualified Medical or Mental Health Professional, as clinically appropriate, to include observations and vital signs, including blood pressure.
d. Annually, conduct a review of whether the detoxification training program has been effective in identifying concerns regarding policy, training, or the proper
- 26 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 31 of 53
identification of and response to detoxifying prisoners. OPSO will document this review and provide its conclusions to the Monitor.
8. Medical and Mental Health Staffing
a. OPSO shall ensure that medical and mental health staffing is sufficient to provide adequate care for prisoners’ serious medical and mental health needs, fulfill constitutional mandates and the terms of this Agreement, and allow for the adequate operation of the Facility, consistent with constitutional standards.
b. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, OPSO shall conduct a comprehensive staffing plan and/or analysis to determine the medical and mental health staffing levels necessary to provide adequate care for prisoners’ mental health needs and to carry out the requirements of this Agreement. Upon completion of the staffing plan and or analysis, OPSO shall provide its findings to the Monitor, SPLC, and DOJ for review. The Monitor, SPLC, and DOJ will have 60 days to raise any objections and recommend revisions to the staffing plan.
9. Risk Management
a. OPSO shall develop, implement, and maintain a system to ensure that trends and incidents involving avoidable suicides and self-injurious behavior are identified and corrected in a timely manner. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, OPSO shall develop and implement a risk management system that identifies levels of risk for suicide and self-injurious behavior and requires intervention at the individual and system levels to prevent or minimize harm to prisoners, based on the triggers and thresholds set forth in Appendix B.
b. The risk management system shall include the following processes to supplement the mental health screening and assessment processes: incident reporting, data collection, and data aggregation to capture sufficient information to formulate a reliable risk assessment at the individual and system levels; identification of atrisk prisoners in need of clinical treatment or assessment by the Interdisciplinary Team or the Mental Health Committee; and development and implementation of interventions that minimize and prevent harm in response to identified patterns and trends.
c. OPSO shall develop and implement an Interdisciplinary Team, which utilizes intake screening, health assessment, and triggering event information for formulating treatment plans. The Interdisciplinary Team shall:
(1) include the Medical and Nursing directors, one or more members of the psychiatry staff, counseling staff, social services staff, and security staff, and other members as clinical circumstances dictate;
- 27 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 32 of 53
(2) conduct interdisciplinary treatment rounds, on a weekly basis, during which targeted patients are reviewed based upon screening and assessment factors, as well as triggering events; and
(3) provide individualized treatment plans based, in part, on screening and assessment factors, to all mental health patients seen by various providers.
d. OPSO shall develop and implement a Mental Health Review Committee that will, on a monthly basis, review mental health statistics including, but not limited to, risk management triggers and trends at both the individual and system levels. The Mental Health Review Committee shall:
(1) include the Medical and Nursing Director, one or more members of the psychiatry staff and social services staff, the Health Services Administrator, the Warden of the facility housing the Acute Psychiatric Unit, and the Risk Manager.
(2) identify at-risk patients in need of mental health case management who may require intervention from and referral to the Interdisciplinary Team, the OPSO administration, or other providers.
(3) conduct department-wide analyses and validation of both the mental health and self-harm screening and assessment processes and tools, review the quality of screenings and assessments and the timeliness and appropriateness of care provided, and make recommendations on changes and corrective actions;
(4) analyze individual and aggregate mental health data and identify trends and triggers that indicate risk of harm;
(5) review data on mental health appointments, including the number of appointments and wait times before care is received; and
(6) review policies, training, and staffing and recommend changes, supplemental training, or corrective actions.
e. OPSO shall develop and implement a Quality Improvement and Morbidity and Mortality Review Committee that will review, on at least a quarterly basis, risk management triggers and trends and quality improvement reports in order to improve care on a Jail-wide basis.
(1) The Quality Improvement Committee shall include the Medical Director, the Director of Psychiatry, the Chief Deputy, the Risk Manager, and the Director of Training. The Quality Improvement Committee shall review and analyze activities and conclusions of the Mental Health Review Committee and pursue Jail-wide corrective actions.
- 28 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 33 of 53
(2) The Quality Improvement Committee shall:
i. monitor all risk management activities of the facilities through the review of risk data, identification of individual and systemic trends, and recommendation and monitored implementation of investigation or corrective action; and
ii. generate reports of risk data analyzed and corrective actions taken.
(3) The Morbidity and Mortality Review Committee shall include one or more members of Jail operations, the medical department, the mental health department, related clinical disciplines, corrections, and the Risk Manager. The Morbidity and Mortality Review Committee shall:
i. Review suicides and serious suicide attempts in a morbidity and mortality capacity;
ii. outline the factors involved in each case, including the individual circumstances, identification of predisposing factors, documentation, medical and security procedures and training, and perform a psychological autopsy and morbidity report;
iii. recommend changes to medical and security policies and procedures;
iv. develop a written plan, with a timetable, for corrective actions; and
v. Ensure a final mortality review report is completed within 30 days of a suicide or suicide attempt.
f. OPSO shall review mortality and morbidity reports quarterly to determine whether the risk management system is ensuring compliance with the terms of this Agreement. OPSO shall make recommendations regarding the risk management system or other necessary changes in policy based on this review. The review and recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor.
C. MEDICAL CARE
OPSO shall ensure constitutionally adequate treatment of prisoners’ medical needs. OPSO shall prevent unnecessary risks to prisoners and ensure proper medication administration practices. OPSO shall assess on an annual or more frequent basis whether the medical services at OPP comply with the Constitution. At a minimum, OPSO shall:
1. Quality Management of Medication Administration
- 29 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 34 of 53
a. Within 120 days of the Effective Date, ensure that medical and mental health staff are trained on proper medication administration practices, including appropriately labeling containers and contemporaneously recording medication administration;
b. Ensure that physicians provide a systematic review of the use of medication to ensure that each prisoner’s prescribed regimen continues to be appropriate and effective for his or her condition;
c. Maintain medication administration protocols that provide adequate direction on how to take medications, describe the names of the medications, how frequently to take medications, and identify how prisoners taking such medications are monitored; and
d. Maintain medication administration protocols that prevent misuse, overdose, theft or violence related to medication.
2. Health Care Delivered
a. Provide the Monitor a periodic report on health care at the Facility. These periodic reports shall be provided to the monitor within four months of the Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until termination of this Agreement. Each report will include:
(1) number of prisoners transferred to the emergency room for medical treatment related to medication errors;
(2) number of prisoners taken to the infirmary for non-emergency treatment related to medication errors;
(3) number of prisoners prescribed psychotropic medications;
(4) number of prisoners prescribed “keep on person” medications; and
(5) occurrences of medication variances.
b. Review the periodic health care delivery reports to determine whether the medication administration protocols and requirements of this Agreement are followed. OPSO shall make recommendations regarding the medication administration process, or other necessary changes in policy, based on this review. The review and recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor.
- 30 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 35 of 53
3. Release and Transfer
a. OPSO shall notify Qualified Medical or Mental Health staff regarding the release of prisoners with serious medical and/or mental health needs from OPSO custody, as soon as such information is available.
b. When Qualified Medical or Mental Health staff are notified of the release of prisoners with serious medical and/or mental health needs from OPSO custody, OPSO shall provide these prisoners with at least a seven-day supply of appropriate prescription medication, unless a different amount is necessary and medically appropriate to serve as a bridge until prisoners can reasonably arrange for continuity of care in the community.
c. For all other prisoners with serious medical and/or mental health needs who are released from OPSO custody without advance notice, OPSO shall provide the prisoner a prescription for his or her medications, printed instructions regarding prescription medications, and resources indicating where prescriptions may be filled in the community.
d. For prisoners who are being transferred to another facility, OPSO shall prepare and send with a transferring prisoner a transition summary detailing major health problems and listing current medications and dosages, as well as medication history while at the Facility. OPSO shall also supply sufficient medication for the period of transit for prisoners who are being transferred to another correctional facility or other institution, in the amount required by the receiving agency.
D. SANITATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Defendant shall ensure that prisoners are provided with constitutionally adequate sanitation and environmental conditions. To provide prisoners safe living conditions, OPSO, at a minimum, shall:
1. Sanitation and Environmental Conditions
a. OPSO shall provide oversight and supervision of routine cleaning of housing units, showers, and medical areas. Such oversight and supervision will include meaningful inspection processes and documentation, as well as establish routine cleaning requirements for toilets, showers, and housing units to be documented at least once a week but to occur more frequently.
b. Continue the preventive maintenance plan to respond to routine and emergency maintenance needs, including ensuring that showers, toilets, and sink units are adequately installed and maintained. Work orders will be submitted within 48 hours of identified deficiencies, or within 24 hours in the case of emergency maintenance needs.
- 31 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 36 of 53
c. Maintain adequate ventilation throughout OPSO facilities to ensure that prisoners receive adequate air flow and reasonable levels of heating and cooling. Maintenance staff shall review and assess compliance with this requirement, as necessary, but no less than twice annually.
d. Ensure adequate lighting in all prisoner housing units and prompt replacement and repair of malfunctioning lighting fixtures in living areas within five days, unless the item must be specially ordered.
e. Ensure adequate pest control throughout the housing units, including routine pest control spraying on at least a quarterly basis and additional spraying as needed.
f. Ensure that any prisoner or staff assigned to clean a biohazardous area is properly trained in universal precautions, outfitted with protective materials, and properly supervised.
g. Ensure the use of cleaning chemicals that sufficiently destroy the pathogens and organisms in biohazard spills.
h. Maintain an infection control plan that addresses contact, blood borne, and airborne hazards and infections. The plan shall include provisions for the identification, treatment, and control of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (“MRSA”) at the Facility.
2. Environmental Control
a. OPSO shall ensure that broken or missing electrical panels are repaired within 30 days of identified deficiencies, unless the item needs to be specially ordered.
b. Develop and implement a system for maintenance and timely repair of electrical panels, devices, and exposed electrical wires.
3. Food Service
a. OPSO shall ensure that food service staff, including prisoner staff, continues to receive in-service annual training in the areas of food safety, safe food handling procedures, and proper hygiene, to reduce the risk of food contamination and food-borne illnesses.
b. Ensure that dishes and utensils, food preparation and storage areas, and vehicles and containers used to transport food are appropriately cleaned and sanitized on a daily basis.
c. Check and record on a daily basis the temperatures in the refrigerators, coolers, walk-in refrigerators, the dishwasher water, and all other kitchen equipment with a temperature monitor, to ensure proper maintenance of food service equipment.
- 32 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 37 of 53
4. Sanitation and Environmental Conditions Reporting
a. Provide the Monitor a periodic report on sanitation and environmental conditions in the Facility. These periodic reports shall be provided to the Monitor within four months of the Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until termination of this Agreement. The report will include:
(1) number and type of violations reported by health and sanitation inspectors;
(2) number and type of violations of state standards;
(3) number of prisoner grievances filed regarding the environmental conditions at the Facility;
(4) number of inoperative plumbing fixtures, light fixtures, HVAC systems, fire protection systems, and security systems that have not been repaired within 30 days of discovery;
(5) number of prisoner-occupied areas with significant vandalism, broken furnishings, or excessive clutter;
(6) occurrences of insects and rodents in the housing units and dining halls; and
(7) occurrences of poor air circulation in housing units.
b. Review the periodic sanitation and environmental conditions reports to determine whether the prisoner grievances and violations reported by health, sanitation, or state inspectors are addressed, ensuring that the requirements of this Agreement are met. OPSO shall make recommendations regarding the sanitation and environmental conditions, or other necessary changes in policy, based on this review. The review and recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor.
E. FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY
OPSO shall ensure that the Facility’s emergency preparedness and fire and life safety equipment are consistent with constitutional standards. To protect prisoners from fires and related hazards, OPSO, at a minimum, shall:
1. Fire and Life Safety
a. Ensure that necessary fire and life safety equipment is properly maintained and inspected at least quarterly. These inspections must be documented.
- 33 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 38 of 53
b. Ensure that a qualified fire safety officer conducts a monthly inspection of the facilities for compliance with fire and life safety standards (e.g., fire escapes, sprinkler heads, smoke detectors, etc.).
c. Ensure that comprehensive fire drills are conducted every six months. OPSO shall document these drills, including start and stop times and the number and location of prisoners who were moved as part of the drills.
d. Provide competency-based training to staff on proper fire and emergency practices and procedures at least annually.
e. Within 120 days of the Effective Date, ensure that emergency keys are appropriately marked and identifiable by touch and consistently stored in a quickly accessible location, and that staff are adequately trained in use of the emergency keys.
2. Fire and Life Safety Reporting
a. Provide the Monitor a periodic report on fire and life safety conditions at the Facility. These periodic reports shall be provided to the Monitor within four months of the Effective Date and every six months thereafter until termination of this Agreement. Each report shall include:
(1) number and type of violations reported by fire and life safety inspectors;
(2) fire code violations during annual fire inspections; and
(3) occurrences of hazardous clutter in housing units that could lead to a fire.
b. Review the periodic fire and life safety reports to determine whether the prisoner grievances and violations reported by fire and life safety inspectors are addressed, ensuring the requirements of this Agreement are being met. OPSO shall make recommendations regarding the fire and life safety conditions, or other necessary changes in policy, based on this review. The review and recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor.
F. LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE
1. Timely and Meaningful Access to Services
a. OPP shall ensure effective communication with, and provide timely and meaningful access to services at OPP to all prisoners at OPP, regardless of their national origin or limited ability to speak, read, write, or understand English. To achieve this outcome, OPP shall:
- 34 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 39 of 53
(1) Develop and implement a comprehensive language assistance plan and policy that complies, at a minimum, with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, (42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.) and other applicable law;
(2) Ensure that all OPP personnel take reasonable steps to provide timely, meaningful language assistance services to limited English Proficient (“LEP”) prisoners;
(3) At intake and classification, identify and assess demographic data, specifically including the number of LEP individuals at OPP on a monthly basis, and the language(s) they speak;
(4) Use collected demographic information to develop and implement hiring goals for bilingual staff that meet the needs of the current monthly average population of LEP prisoners;
(5) Regularly assess the proficiency and qualifications of bilingual staff to become an OPP authorized interpreter (“OPPAI”);
(6) Create and maintain an OPPAI list and provide that list to the classification and intake staff; and
(7) Ensure that while at OPP, LEP prisoners are not asked to sign or initial documents in English without the benefit of a written translation from an OPPAI.
2. Language Assistance Policies and Procedures
a. OPP shall develop and implement written policies, procedures and protocols for documenting, processing, and tracking of individuals held for up to 48 hours for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”);
b. Policies, procedures, and protocols for processing 48-hour holds for DHS will:
(1) Clearly delineate when a 48-hour hold is deemed to begin and end;
(2) Ensure that, if necessary, an OPPAI communicates verbally with the OPP prisoner about when the 48-hold period begins and is expected to end;
(3) Provide a mechanism for the prisoner’s family member and attorney to be informed of the 48-hour hold time period, using, as needed, an OPPAI or telephonic interpretation service;
- 35 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 40 of 53
(4) Create an automated tracking method, not reliant on human memory or paper documentation, to trigger notification to DHS and to ensure that the 48-hour time period is not exceeded.
(5) Ensure that telephone services have recorded instructions in English and Spanish;
(6) Ensure that signs providing instructions to OPP prisoners or their families are translated into Spanish and posted;
(7) Provide Spanish translations of vital documents that are subject to dissemination to OPP prisoners or their family members. Such vital documents include, but are not limited to:
i. grievance forms;
ii. sick call forms;
iii. OPP inmate handbooks; Prisoner Notifications (e.g., rule violations, transfers, and grievance responses) and
iv. “Request for Services” forms.
(8) Ensure that Spanish-speaking LEP prisoners obtain the Spanish language translations of forms provided by DHS; and
(9) Provide its language assistance plan and related policies to all staff within 180 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement.
3. Language Assistance Training
a. Within 180 days of the effective date, OPP shall provide at least eight hours of LEP training to all corrections and medical and mental health staff who may regularly interact with LEP prisoners.
(1) LEP training to OPP staff shall include:
i. OPP’s LEP plan and policies, and the requirements of Title VI and this Agreement;
ii. how to access OPP-authorized, telephonic and in-person OPPAIs; and
iii. basic commands and statements in Spanish for OPP staff.
(2) OPP shall translate the language assistance plan and policy into Spanish, and other languages as appropriate, and post the English and translated versions in a public area of the OPP facilities, as well as online.
- 36 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 41 of 53
(3) OPP shall make its language assistance plan available to the public.
4. Bilingual Staff
(1) OPP shall ensure that adequate bilingual staff are posted in housing units where DHS detainees and other LEP prisoners may be housed.
(2) OPP shall ensure that an appropriate number of bilingual staff are available to translate or interpret for prisoners and other OPP staff. The appropriate number of bilingual staff will be determined based on a staffing assessment by OPP.
G. YOUTHFUL PRISONERS
Consistent with the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, 42 U.S.C. § 15601, et seq., and its implementation of regulations, a youthful prisoner shall not be placed in a housing unit in which the youthful prisoner will have sight, sound, or physical contact with any adult prisoner through use of a shared dayroom or other common space, shower area, or sleeping quarters. In areas outside of housing units, OPSO shall either: maintain sight and sound separation between youthful prisoners and adult prisoners, or provide direct staff supervision when youthful prisoners and adult prisoners have sight, sound, or physical contact. OPP shall ensure that youthful prisoners in protective custody status shall have no contact with, or access to or from, non-protective custody prisoners. OPP will develop policies for the provision of developmentally appropriate mental health and programming services.
V. FUNDING
A. The Court shall determine the funding needed to ensure constitutional conditions of confinement at OPP, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, and the source(s) responsible for providing that funding. Defendant shall be responsible for implementation of this Agreement upon a definitive judgment with regard to such funding.
B. Once the funding is determined pursuant to Paragraph A, the funding amount thereafter may be adjusted on an annual basis to account for changes in the size of the prisoner population, inflation, or other operating costs. If the Parties are unable to agree upon such adjustments to the annual budget, the Monitor will intervene and resolve the dispute. If the Monitor cannot resolve the dispute within 45 days, the dispute will be submitted to the district judge for resolution. The Parties agree to work in good faith to determine available cost savings measures that may result from the ongoing implementation of this Agreement or otherwise.
C. Defendant will provide an annual budget for the expenditure of the funds for operation of OPP and an annual audited financial statement to the Monitor and the Parties. The
- 37 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 42 of 53
Monitor will assist in conducting oversight to ensure that funds for implementing this Agreement are allocated to achieve compliance with this Agreement.
VI. THE NEW JAIL FACILITY
A. The Parties anticipate that Defendant will build a new jail facility or facilities that will replace or supplement the current facility located at 2800 Gravier Street, New Orleans, Louisiana. This Agreement shall apply to any new jail facility.
B. Defendant shall obtain the services of a qualified professional to evaluate, design, plan, oversee, and implement the construction of any new facility. At each major stage of the facility construction, Defendant shall provide the Monitor with copies of design documents.
C. Defendant shall consult with a qualified corrections expert as to the required services and staffing levels needed for any replacement facility. OPSO shall complete a staffing study to ensure that any new facility is adequately staffed to provide prisoners with reasonable safety.
D. Defendant will ensure that the new jail facility will be built in accordance with: (1) the American Correctional Association’s standards in effect at the time of construction; (2) the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, including changes made by the ADA Amendments of 2008 (P.L. 110-325) and 47 U.S.C. §§ 225-661, and the regulations thereunder; and (3) all applicable fire codes and regulations.
VII. COMPLIANCE AND QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
A. Within 120 days of the Effective Date, OPSO shall revise and/or develop its policies, procedures, protocols, training curricula, and practices to ensure that they are consistent with, incorporate, address, and implement all provisions of this Agreement. OPSO shall revise and/or develop as necessary other written documents such as screening tools, logs, handbooks, manuals, and forms, to effectuate the provisions of this Agreement. OPSO shall send pertinent newly-drafted and revised policies and procedures to the Monitor as they are promulgated. The Monitor will provide comments on the policies to OPSO, SPLC and DOJ within 30 days. OPSO, SPLC and DOJ may provide comments on the Monitor’s comments within 15 days. At that point, the Monitor will consider the Parties’ comments, mediate any disputes, and approve the policies with any changes within 30 days. If either party disagrees with the Monitor, they may bring the dispute to the Court. OPSO shall provide initial and in-service training to all Facility staff with respect to newly implemented or revised policies and procedures. OPSO shall document employee review of and training in new or revised policies and procedures.
H. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, Defendant shall develop and implement written quality improvement policies and procedures adequate to identify serious deficiencies in protection from harm, prisoner suicide prevention, detoxification, mental health care, environmental health, and fire and life safety in order to assess and ensure compliance
- 38 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 43 of 53
with the terms of this Agreement on an ongoing basis. Within 90 days after identifying serious deficiencies, OPSO shall develop and implement policies and procedures to address problems that are uncovered during the course of quality improvement activities. These policies and procedures shall include the development and implementation of corrective action plans, as necessary, within 30 days of each biannual review.
I. The Parties agree that OPSO will hire and retain, or reassign a current OPSO employee for the duration of this Agreement, to serve as a full-time OPSO Compliance Coordinator. The Compliance Coordinator will serve as a liaison between the Parties and the Monitor and will assist with OPSO’s compliance with this Agreement. At a minimum, the Compliance Coordinator will: coordinate OPSO’s compliance and implementation activities; facilitate the provision of data, documents, materials, and access to OPSO’s personnel to the Monitor, SPLC, DOJ, and the public, as needed; ensure that all documents and records are maintained as provided in this Agreement; and assist in assigning compliance tasks to OPSO personnel, as directed by the Sheriff or his or her designee. The Compliance Coordinator will take primary responsibility for collecting information the Monitor requires to carry out the duties assigned to the Monitor.
J. On a bi-annual basis, OPSO will provide the public with a self-assessment in which areas of significant improvement or areas still undergoing improvement are presented either through use of the OPSO website or through issuance of a public statement or report.
VIII. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND RIGHT OF ACCESS
A. OPSO shall submit periodic compliance reports to the Monitor. These periodic reports shall be provided to the Monitor within four months from the date of a definitive judgment on funding; and every six months thereafter until termination of this Agreement. Each compliance report shall describe the actions Defendant has taken during the reporting period to implement this Agreement and shall make specific reference to the Agreement provisions being implemented. The report shall also summarize audits and continuous improvement and quality assurance activities, and contain findings and recommendations that would be used to track and trend data compiled at the Facility. The report shall also capture data that is tracked and monitored under the reporting provisions of the following provisions: Use of Force; Suicide Prevention; Health Care Delivered; Sanitation and Environmental Conditions; and Fire and Life Safety.
B. OPSO shall, within 24 hours, notify the Monitor upon the death of any prisoner. The Monitor shall forward any such notifications to SPLC and DOJ upon receipt. OPSO shall forward to the Monitor incident reports and medical and/or mental health reports related to deaths, autopsies, and/or death summaries of prisoners, as well as all final SOD and IAD reports that involve prisoners. The Monitor shall forward any such reports to SPLC and DOJ upon receipt.
- 39 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 44 of 53
C. Defendant shall maintain sufficient records to document that the requirements of this Agreement are being properly implemented and shall make such records available to the Monitor within seven days of request for inspection and copying. In addition, Defendant shall maintain and provide, upon request, all records or other documents to verify that they have taken the actions described in their compliance reports (e.g., census summaries, policies, procedures, protocols, training materials, investigations, incident reports, tier logs, use of force reports).
D. SPLC, DOJ and their attorneys, consultants, and agents shall have unrestricted access to the Facility, prisoners, staff and documents, as reasonably necessary to address issues affected by this Agreement. SPLC and DOJ shall provide at least seven days’ notice and disclose the names of each individual to participate in the visit, each individual’s role, and the purpose of the visit. SPLC shall not have to provide seven days notice for regular attorneys’ visits.
E. Within 30 days of receipt of written questions from SPLC or DOJ concerning Defendant’s compliance with the requirements of this Agreement, Defendant shall provide the requester with written answers and any requested documents.
IX. MONITORING
A. Monitor Selection: The Parties will jointly select a Monitor to oversee implementation of the Agreement. Should the monitor position become vacant and the Parties are unable to agree on a replacement, the Parties shall recommend candidates to the Court, and the Court will appoint the Monitor from the names submitted by the Parties. Neither party, nor any employee or agent of either party, shall have any supervisory authority over the Monitor’s activities, reports, findings, or recommendations. Allocation of the cost for the Monitor’s fees and expenses shall be determined by the Court. Should all the Parties agree that the Monitor is not fulfilling his or her duties in accordance with this Agreement, the Parties may petition the Court for the Monitor’s immediate removal and replacement. One party may unilaterally petition the Court for the Monitor’s removal for good cause, and the other Parties will have the opportunity to respond to the petition.
B. Good cause for the purposes of this Agreement shall mean, but not be limited to: gross neglect of duties; willful misconduct; inappropriate personal relationship with Defendant or any OPSO employee; conflicts of interest; or any criminal conduct during the pendency of this Agreement.
C. Monitor Qualifications: The Monitor and his or her staff shall have appropriate experience and education or training related to the subject areas covered in this Agreement. The Parties reserve the right to object for good cause to any member of the Monitor’s staff.
D. Monitor Access: The Monitor shall have full and complete access to the Facility, all Facility records, prisoner medical and mental health records, staff, and prisoners. OPSO
- 40 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 45 of 53
shall direct all employees to cooperate fully with the Monitor. All information obtained by the Monitor shall be maintained in a confidential manner.
E. Monitor Ex Parte Communications: The Monitor shall be permitted to initiate and receive ex parte communications with all Parties.
F. Monitor Distribution of OPSO Documents, Reports, and Assessments: Within seven days of receipt, the Monitor shall distribute all OPSO assessments and reports to SPLC and DOJ. The Monitor also shall provide any OPSO compliance-related documents within seven days to DOJ and SPLC, upon request.
G. Limitations on Public Disclosures by the Monitor: Except as required or authorized by the terms of this Agreement or the Parties acting together, the Monitor shall not make any public or press statements (at a conference or otherwise) or issue findings with regard to any act or omission of Defendant or Defendant’s agents, representatives or employees, or disclose information provided to the Monitor pursuant to this Agreement. The Monitor shall not testify in any other litigation or proceeding with regard to any act or omission of Defendant or any of Defendant’s agents, representatives, or employees related to this Agreement, nor testify regarding any matter or subject that he or she may have learned as a result of his or her performance under this Agreement, nor serve as a non-testifying expert regarding any matter or subject that he or she may have learned as a result of his or her performance under this Agreement. Unless such conflict is waived by all Parties, the Monitor shall not accept employment or provide consulting services that would present a conflict of interest with the Monitor’s responsibilities under this Agreement, including being retained (on a paid or unpaid basis) by any current or future litigant or claimant, or such litigant’s or claimant’s attorney, in connection with a claim or suit against Defendant, Defendant’s departments, officers, agents or employees. The Monitor is not a State/County or local agency or an agent thereof, and accordingly the records maintained by the Monitor shall not be deemed public records subject to public inspection. Neither the Monitor nor any person or entity hired or otherwise retained by the Monitor to assist in furthering any provision of this Agreement shall be liable for any claim, lawsuit or demand arising out of the Monitor’s performance pursuant to this Agreement. This provision does not apply to any proceeding before a court related to performance of contracts or subcontracts for monitoring this Agreement.
H. Monitor’s Reports: The Monitor shall file with the Court and provide the Parties with reports describing the steps taken by Defendant to implement this Agreement and evaluate the extent to which Defendant has complied with each substantive provision of the Agreement. The Monitor shall issue an initial report 120 days after the Effective Date, and then every 180 days thereafter. The reports shall be provided to the Parties in draft form for comment at least 14 days prior to their issuance. The Monitor shall consider the Parties’ responses and make appropriate changes, if any, before issuing the report. These reports shall be written with due regard for the privacy interests of individual prisoners and staff and the interest of Defendant in protecting against disclosure of information not permitted by this Agreement.
- 41 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 46 of 53
I. Reports issued by the Monitor shall not be admissible against Defendant in any proceeding other than a proceeding related to the enforcement of this Agreement initiated and handled exclusively by Defendant, SPLC, or DOJ.
J. Compliance Assessments: In the Monitor’s report, the Monitor shall evaluate the status of compliance for each relevant provision of the Agreement using the following standards: (1) Substantial Compliance; (2) Partial Compliance, and (3) Non-compliance. In order to assess compliance, the Monitor shall review a sufficient number of pertinent documents to accurately assess current conditions, interview all necessary staff, and interview a sufficient number of prisoners to accurately assess current conditions. The Monitor shall be responsible for independently verifying representations from Defendant regarding progress toward compliance, and examining supporting documentation. Each Monitor report shall describe the steps taken by each member of the monitoring team to analyze conditions and assess compliance, including documents reviewed and individuals interviewed, and the factual basis for each of the Monitor’s findings.
K. Technical Assistance by the Monitor: The Monitor shall provide Defendant with technical assistance as requested by Defendant. Technical assistance should be reasonable and should not interfere with the Monitor’s ability to assess compliance.
X. ENFORCEMENT
A. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over the implementation of this Agreement at the existing OPP or any other facility used to replace or supplement OPP for all purposes.
B. During the period that the Agreement is in force, if the Monitor, SPLC, or DOJ determines that Defendant has not made material progress toward substantial compliance with a significant obligation under the Agreement, and such failure constitutes a violation of prisoners’ constitutional rights, SPLC or DOJ may initiate contempt or enforcement proceedings against Defendant for an alleged failure to fulfill an obligation under Sections IV through X of this Agreement in Court.
C. Before taking judicial action to initiate contempt or other enforcement proceedings, SPLC or DOJ shall give Defendant written notice of its intent to initiate such proceedings, and the Parties shall engage in good-faith discussions to resolve the dispute and may petition the Court for a status conference to assist in resolution.
D. Defendant shall have 30 days from the date of such notice to cure the failure (or such additional time as is reasonable due to the nature of the issue and agreed upon by the Parties) and provide the complaining party with sufficient proof of its cure. At the end of the 30-day period (or such additional time as is reasonable due to the nature of the issue and agreed upon by the Parties), in the event that the complaining party determines that the failure has not been cured, that party may initiate contempt proceedings without further notice. The Parties commit to work in good faith with Defendant to avoid enforcement actions.
- 42 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 47 of 53
E. In case of an emergency posing an immediate threat to the health or safety of any prisoner or staff member at OPP, however, DOJ or SPLC may omit the notice and cure requirements herein and seek enforcement of the Agreement.
XI. CONSTRUCTION, IMPLEMENTATION, AND TERMINATION
A. Defendant shall implement all reforms, as designated within the provisions of this Agreement, that are necessary to effectuate this Agreement. The implementation of this Agreement will begin immediately upon the Effective Date.
B. Except where otherwise agreed to under a specific provision of this Agreement, Defendant shall implement all provisions of this Agreement within 180 days of the Effective Date.
C. This Agreement shall terminate when Defendant has achieved substantial compliance with each provision of the Agreement and have maintained Substantial Compliance with the Agreement for a period of two years.
D. If any unforeseen circumstance occurs that causes a failure to timely carry out any requirements of this Agreement, Defendant shall notify DOJ and SPLC in writing within seven days after Defendant becomes aware of the unforeseen circumstance and its impact on the Defendant’s ability to perform under the Agreement. The notice shall describe the cause of the failure to perform and the measures taken to prevent or minimize the failure. Defendant shall implement all reasonable measures to avoid or minimize any such failure.
E. This Agreement shall constitute the entire integrated Agreement of the Parties. No prior or contemporaneous communications, oral or written, will be relevant or admissible for purposes of determining the meaning of any provisions herein, in this litigation or in any other proceeding.
F. The Agreement shall be applicable to, and binding upon, all Parties, their officers, agents, employees, assigns, and their successors in office.
G. Failure by any party to enforce this entire Agreement or any provision thereof with respect to any deadline or any other provision herein shall not be construed as a waiver of the party’s right to enforce other deadlines or provisions of this Agreement.
H. If any provision of this Agreement is declared invalid for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, said finding shall not affect the remaining provisions of this Agreement.
- 43 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 48 of 53 XII. STIPULATION PURSUANT TO THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT,
18 U.S.C. § 3626 The Parties stipulate that this Agreement complies in all respects with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). The Parties further stipulate and agree and the Court finds that the prospective relief in this Agreement is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violations of federal rights as alleged by Plaintiffs in the Complaints, is the least intrusive means necessary to correct these violations, and will not have an adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system. Accordingly, the Parties agree and represent that the Agreement complies in all respects with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). Any admission made for purposes of this Agreement is not admissible if presented by third Parties in another proceeding. So ORDERED this ___________ day of __________________, 2012
The Honorable _____________________________________, United States District Court Judge
- 44 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 49 of 53

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 50 of 53

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 51 of 53

APPENDIX A Criteria that Trigger Referral for Investigation

Trigger Events Occurring in OPP

Thresholds Reached at OPP

1. Existence of resulting injuries that are extensive or serious
2. Existence of resulting injuries involving fractures or head trauma
3. Existence of resulting injuries that require treatment at outside hospitals
4. Reports of events by staff and inmates that are materially inconsistent .5. Failure to report or report accurately the use of force
6. Retaliation against an inmate or other staff member for reporting the use of excessive or inappropriate force
7. Interfered or failed to cooperate with an investigation regarding a use of force
8. Sexual conduct with an inmate

1. Two or more use of force incidents or complaints in a 30-day period.
2. Inmate death resulting from a use of force
3. Officer arrested for suspected misconduct related to a use of force

- 47 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 52 of 53

APPENDIX B Screening and Assessment Factors, Triggers, and Thresholds

Screening Factors

Assessment Factors

Trigger Events Occurring in Orleans Parish Prison

Thresholds Reached in Orleans Parish Prison

History, Ideation, and Observation

Intake screening shall inquire as to the following:
1. Past suicidal ideation and/or attempts 2. Current suicidal ideation, threat, or
plan 3. Prior mental health treatment or
hospitalization 4. Recent significant loss - such as the
death of a family member or close friend 5. History of suicidal behavior by family members and close friends 6. Suicide risk during any prior confinement 7. Any observations of the transporting officer, court, transferring agency, or similar individuals regarding the prisoner’s potential suicidal risk

Any of the following:
1. Suicide risk screening indicates moderate or high risk
2. Any suicide attempt in the past 3. Any suicidal ideations, with intent/plan within the
past 30 days 4. Any command hallucinations to harm self within
the past 30 days 5. Any combination of the following:
a) Suicidal ideations within the past year with or without intent/plan
b) Suicidal gestures (current and/or within past year)
c) One or more of the following diagnoses: i) Bipolar Disorder, Depressed ii) Major Depression With or Without Psychotic Features iii) Schizophrenia iv) Schizoaffective Disorder v) Any diagnosis within the Pervasive Developmental Disorder Spectrum vi) Any other factor(s) determined by the interdisciplinary team (IDT) as contributing to suicide risk (e.g. recent loss, family history of suicide, etc.)
6. Any history of self-injurious behavior (SIB) resulting in injury requiring medical attention within the past year

1. Any suicide attempt 2. Any suicide ideation, with or
without a plan 3. Any aggression to self resulting
in major injury

1. Any suicide 2. Any suicide attempt
resulting in outside medical treatment 3. Two or more episodes of suicidal ideation/attempts within 14 consecutive days 4. Four or more episodes of suicidal ideations/ attempts within 30 consecutive days

-48-

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 101-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 53 of 53

Detoxification and Use of Illicit Substances

Intake screening shall inquire as to the following: 1. Substance(s) or medications used 2. Amount 3. Time of last use 4. History of use 5. Any physical observations, such as
shaking, seizing, hallucinating, history of drug withdrawal symptoms, such as agitation, tremors, seizures, hallucinations, and D.T.’s (delirium tremens)

Any of the following: 1. Immediate history of substance use disorder 2. History of substance use disorder within the past
year. 3. Any degree of risk for potentially life-threatening
withdrawal from alcohol, benzodiazepines, opiates, opioid derivatives and other substances. 4. Vital signs appearing abnormal, when measuring body temperature, pulse rate, blood pressure, and respirations. 5. CIWA-AR score of 10 or over.

1. Any incident of an individual testing positive for illicit substance (street drug) use
2. Use of benzodiazepines (continuous for more than 60 days) in an individual with past history of substance use disorder
4. Any suicide attempt 5. Any suicidal ideation, with or
without a plan 6. Any aggression to self resulting
in major injury

1. Two or more incidents of illicit use in 7 consecutive days
2. Four or more incidents of illicit use in 30 consecutive days

- 49 -

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 75 Filed 10/01/12 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

)

LASHAWN JONES , ET AL,

)

Plaintiffs; and

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

PlaintitTs in Intervention

)

)

v.

)

)

)

MARLINN. GUSMAN, ET AL,

)

Defendants

)

- - -- -·- - - -- - - - ) )

MARLIN N. GUSMAN,

)

Third-Party Plaintiff

)

)

V.

)

)

THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS,

)

Third-Party Defendant

)

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

Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-00859 Section I, Division 1 Judge Lance M. Africk Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan

THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT BY ORLEANS PARISH SHERIFF MARLIN N. GUSMAN AGAINST THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS RE: THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes Defendant Marlin N. Gusman, in his capacity as the the Sheriff of Orleans Parish, who pursuant to Rule 14(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, files the following Third-Party Complaint against the City ofNew Orleans:
PARTIES TO THIS THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT I . Third-Party Plaintiff, Marlin N. Gusman, is the presently acting, duly authorized and elected ShcrifTofthe Parish of Orleans, State ofLouisiana. Pursuant to La. R.S. 15:704, Sheriff Gusman is the keeper of the public jail in the Parish of Orleans and is responsible for the care and custody of its inmates.

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 75 Filed 10/01/12 Page 2 of 4
2. Third-Party Defendant is the City ofNew Orleans, which is a political subdivision ofthe State ofLouisiana, organized and operating pursuant to a duly adopted Home Rule Charter.
OTHER PARTIES AND THEIR CLAIMS 3. Original Plaintiffs Lashawn Jones, et al. , are present or former inmates ofjail facilities operated by Sheriff Gusman. In their Complaint (Doc. 1), they allege that the conditions of confinement therein violate the United States Constitution. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy such alleged violations, and also seek certification of a class of present and future inmates in the custody of the Orleans Parish Sheriff. Their Complaint the subject of a separate Third-Party Complaint tendered by the Sheriff for contemporaneously herewith. 4. The United States of America has been granted leave by this Court to file a Complaint in Intervention in this action (Doc . 70). The allegations of its Complaint are similar to those made by original plaintiffs Lashawn Jones, et al., but also include alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. , Title VI. The United States seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy such alleged violations. A copy of its Complaint in Intervention is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" .
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. Jurisdiction of the causes of action in the Complaint in Intervention is asserted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345 . 6. As the Complaint in Intervention asserts claims within this Court's federal question jurisdiction, this Court also has jurisdiction of the claims asserted in this Third Party Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S .C. § 1367(a). 7. Venue is proper in this District because all ofthe events or omissions recited herein

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 75 Filed 10/01/12 Page 3 of 4
arose in this District. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
8. The City ofNew Orleans is responsible for funding jail facilities of the Orleans Parish Sheriffs Office pursuant to various provisions ofLouisiana law. The City ofNew Orleans has acknowledged its funding obligations and has provided funding with respect to the Sheriff's jail facil ities in the numerous consent decrees or settlement agreements executed and filed into the record in Hamilton. et al. v. Morial, et al., Case No. 69-2443, Section "A"(5).
9. To the extent that the Court should conclude that the Sheriff must provide prospective relief in the form of additional staffing, training, care, treatment or other services to Orleans Parish inmates which will necessitate funding over and above that currently provided by the City ofNew Orleans, judgment should also be entered in favor ofthe Sheriff ordering the City of New Orleans to pay the Sheriff the full cost, as determined by the Court, of providing such prospective relief
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Third-party plaintiff, Marlin N . Gusman, the Sheriff of Orleans Parish, prays that: 1) Third-party defendant, the City ofNew Orleans, be required to appear and answer, all and singular, the allegations of this Third-Party Complaint; 2) After due proceedings had, should judgment be rendered granting any prospective relief against third-party plaintiffin favor ofthe United States ofAmerica on its Complaint in Intervention, then, in that event, third-party plaintiff be awarded judgment herein against third-party defendant, ordering the City of New Orleans to pay the Orleans Parish Sheriff the full cost, as determined by the Court, of providing any prospective relief ordered by this Court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626; and

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 75 Filed 10/01/12 Page 4 of 4

3) For all other general and equitable relief to which third-party plaintiff may be entitled

under the law.

Respectfully submitted,

USRY, vVEEKS & MATTHEWS

Bv:

>

T. Allen Usry, (LSBN 1

Freeman R. Matthews, , BN 9050)

Timothy R. Richardson, (LSBN 27625)

Blake J. Arcuri, (LSBN 32322)

1615 Poydras Street, Suite 1250

New Orleans, LA 70112

Tel: (504) 592-4600; Fax: (504) 592-4641

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT AND THIRD PARTY PLAINTIFF

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that on this 28th day of September, 2012, a copy ofthe foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 75-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 1 of 15

,.

I

I
l

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 70 Filed 09/25/12 Page 1 of 17

I

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT Olf LOUISIANA

LASHAWN JONES, KENT

)

ANDERSON, STEVEN DOMINICK, )

ANTHONY GIOUSTAVIA, .JIMl\lllE )

JENKINS, GREG JOURNEE,

)

RICHARD LANFORD, LEONARD )

LEWIS, EUELL SYLVESTER and

)

MARK WALKER, on behalf of

)

themselves and an others similarly

)

situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

UNITED STATES OJ!' AMERICA

)

)

AppJica~t for lnJcn:.ention, .

) ..

)

)

v.

)

- - - -).__

MAIU-IN GUSMAN,

)

Sheriff, Orleans Parish,

)

)

)

Defendant.

)

Civil Action No. 2 :12-cv-00859 Section I Judge Lance M. Africk Magistrate Judge Shushan
COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF: THE CONSTITUTION, and - __;+J.TcLE-VI-GF-~HE-Gl¥lb-RIGJI.'J'-SACT OF 1.964

--

COMPLAINT IN INTERVE~TION 1. Defendant OIU.,EANS PARISH SHBRJFF is engaging in a pattern or practice of

violating the constitutional rights of prisoners at the Orleans Parish Prison ("OPP"). Defendant's

deliberate indifference to these constitutional rights ca1.1ses OPP prisoners serious harm from,

inter alia, violent and sexual assaults by OPP staff and other prisoners; suicide and self harm;

unaddressed serious mental health and medical needs; and hazardous environmental conditions.

Additionally, Defendant discriminates against Latino prisoners by tailing to provide minimal

limited English proficiency services. Accordingly, this Complaint sets out claims ofDefendant's

unlawful conduct for: (l) a pattern or practice of violating OPP prisoners' Eighth and Fourteenth

EXHIBIT
I A

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 75-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 2 of 15
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LIVlA-SS Document 70 Filed 09/25/12 Page 2 of 17
Amendment rights and (2) disctimination against OPP Latino prisoners in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.
2. The United States alleges the following, based on information and belief: I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. The United States is authorized to bring this action pmsuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997c, and Title VI ofthe. Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d ("Title VI").
4. The Attorney General certifies that all pre-filing requirements specified by 42 U:S.C. § 1 9~7c have been met. -r:he Atto!.ney General's certificate is.attached to,~~ incorporated in, this Complaint in Intervention. - - - - -5. - -1bi.s-CGurt-haS-j.ut:isdiction..o.l.Ler-this-action-under-28-U.S..C.-§.§-l3.3.L&J.3.4.5._ __ This Court may grant the relief sought in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 & 2202.
6. Venue is proper in this distJict. The acts and omissions giving rise to this action occurred in the Eastern District of Louisiana. 28 U.S.C. § 139l(b).
II. DEFENDANT 7. Defendant ORLEANS PARISH SHERIFF operates OPP, and is responsible for the safety, care, custody, and control ofprisoners incarcerated in OPP, as well as the actions of OPP staff. The Sheriff, Marlin N. Gusman, is sued only in his official capacity as ORLEANS PARISH SHERIPF. 8. Defendant ORLEANS PARISH SHERIFF receives federal financial assistance, including from the United States Department of Justice ("United States"). As a recipient of -federal funds, the ORLEANS PARISH SHERIFF is responsible for ensuring that OPP will comply with Title VI and its implementing regulations.
~----------~-----------------------------------------------------------~---------
2

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 75-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 3 of 15
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 70 Filed 09/25/12 Page 3 of 17

9. Defendant is legally responsible for the operation, maintenance, and conditions of OPP, and for the safety and health of prisoners incarcerated at OPP.
10. At all relevant times, Defendant has acted or fai led to act, as alleged herein, under color of state law.

Ill. BACKGROUND

11. OPP is an institution within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1997.

12. OPP currently houses approximately 2500 to 2900 prisoners consisting of a large

number ofpre-trial detainees and prisoners serving short misdemeanor sentences. OPP operates

1-

seven.jail build~ngs and.employs a staff of B:Ppro~imately 450 secu~ity offi.ce_rs. OPP houses

prisoners in six ofthe buildings, namely the Temporary Detention Center ("TDC"), original

--- ---Or-leans Jtat:lsh-P-~isGn Jail,:I.:emp-leman.¥-,--Conchctta,-the.E.coadStreet-worle=.release_:facility, and-- - -- ·

eight windowless tents constructed with FEMA fmancial assistance ("the Tents"). OPP also

operates a seventh building, the Intake Processing Center ("TI>C"), which does not house

prisoners.

13. The United States sent Defendant a findings letter on September 11 , 2009, and an

update to its findings letter on April 23, 20-12-. ~rhese letters-detailed·the-unconstitutiona.l

conditions at OPP, including those alleged in this Complaint. The United States' September 11,

2009-letter also notified Defendant of the minimal measures necessary to remedy the

unconstitutional conditions at OPP. The United States' April23, 2012letterfurther advised

Defendant that OPP's limited English proficiency C'LEP") services violate Title Vl and its

implementil1g regulations. Defendant has fai led to take basic steps to correct, and remains

deliberately inclHTerent to, the known tmlawful deficiencies described in the United States' letters

and elsewhere.

3

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 75-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 4 of 15
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 70 Filed 09/25/12 Page 4 of .17

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. OPP Fails to Protect Prisoners from Hann

14. 1be Constitution requires Defendant to protect prisoners from violence inflicted

by OPP staff and other prisoners. Defendant has failed to take minimum reasonable measures to

protect prisoners from harm, and is deliberately indifferent to the obvious and substantial risk of

harm to prisoners, caused by OPP staff and other prisoners.

'15. OPP prisoners suffer serious harm and risk of serious harm from OPP's failure to

take reasonable measures to protect prisoners from excessive use of force and sexual misconduct

by OPP staff. These failures have resulted in the following instances of harm to prisoners, as

shown by Defendant's own documentation:

I I l • - - · - · - · - - ·- -

a. In September 201 1, an OPP deputy forced a prisoner to perform oral sex. The -----------------
inmate was placed in handcuffs, removed from his cell, and taken into a closet,

where he was forced to perform oral sex.

b. In July 201 1, correctional officers beat a prisoner in the Tents, as shown on OPSO

video. Officers involved in the beating then attempted to cover up the beating by

failing to accurately report the facts surrow1ding the incident.

-

-

-

~-~-

~

··-

c. In August 2010, a prisoner committed suicide one day after an officer beat him.

Officers pepper sprayed the prisoner inside his cell multiple times, opened his cell

door, and physically assaulted him.

16. OPP prisoners suffer serious harm and risk of serious harm ti'om Defendant's failure to take reasonable measures to protect prisoners from physical and sexual violence by other prisoners. As a result, OPP prisoners suffer high rates of serious prisoner-on-prisoner violence and sexual assaults. In 2011, OPP reported over 65 incidents ofprisoner-on-prisoner
4

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 75-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 5 of 15
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 70 Filed 09/25/12 Page 5 of 17
assaults. In many ofthese incidents, OPP staff ignored requests for help or protections from plisoners.
17. OPP's failure to provide reasonably safe conditions have resulted in the following instances of serious injury and harm to prisoners, as shown by OPP's own documentation:
a. In March 2010, a 22-year-old prisoner died after he was attacked and stabbed by another prisoner at OPl';
b. In June 2010, a prisoner suffered injuries to his back, lungs, and kidneys after he was stabbed 18 times at OPP; and
c. In July 2010, a prisoner was taken to the emergency room after he was attacked and stabbed multiple times at OPP.
i- - ···· - -- ~ --l-8:---9efendant-is-subjeGti·vely-aware-ef.thG-engeing-t>~Fi0t~£-haFnHmd-r-H>~e.fserious
r
harm from the United States' September 11, 2009 findings letter and April 23, 2012 update letter, yet fails to correct the known deficiencies.
19. Defendant is deliberately indifferent to the known harm and risk of harm by, inter alia, failing to maintain adequate security policies and procedures, deficient staffing and prisoner supervision, failing to classify and house prisoners based on·objective risk ofviolence·and· victimization, inappropriate reliance on prisoners to provide security supervision, inadequate staff training, and failed systems of accountability.
20. Defendant is deliberately indifferent to inadequate staffing levels at OPP, which cause prisoners serious harm. Defemhmt fails to staff adequately densely populated housing pods and violence-prone buildings. As a result, rampant prisoner-on-prisoner violence goes unnoticed and unaddressed.
~-------------------------------------------------------------------------·----------------5

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 75-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 6 of 15
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 70 Filed 09/25/12 Page 6 of 17

2I. Defendant is deliberately indifferent to prisoners' safety by fajling to implement a

prisoner classification system that properly determines with whom each prisoner may be housed

and the degree of supervision required for each prisoner. This failure causes poor supervision of

violent prisoners, and the inapproptiate commingling of violent prisoners with non-violent

prisoners. Prisoner-on-prisoner physical and sexual assaults result.

22. Defendant is deliberately indifferent to prisoners' safety by relying on certain

prisoners to perform security functions, giving prisoners inappropriate power and control over

other prisoners and compromising safety.

23. Defendant is deliberately indifferent to prisoners' safety by failing to train staff

l·-

adequately to prevent prisoner-on-prisoner viOience ~d to use only-~easonable force on -

prisoners.

24. Defendant is deliberately indifferent to prisoners' safety by failing to cori·ect

broken accountability measures. Defendant's substandard accountability mcasmcs at OPP, such

as his usc of :force policies, investigation practices, and prisoner grievance system, fail to

prevent, detect, or correct OPP staff's use of unconstitutionally excessive force.

B. OPP Fails to Provide Constitutional Suicide Protection and Mental Health Care 25. The Constitution requires Defendant to protect prisoners from suicide and selfharm and to provide adequate care for prisoners' serious medical and mental health care needs. Defendant has exhibited deliberate indifference to prisoners' serious medical and mental heultl1 care needs and to the obvious and substantial ongoing risk of prisoner suicide, self-harm, and untreated mental illness.

6

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 75-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 7 of 15
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 70 Filed 09/25/12 Page 7 of 17

26. OPP prisoners sutTer serious harm from Defendant's deliberate indifference to

prisoners' serious mental health needs and to the ongoing risk of suicide and self-harm, as shown

by Defendant's own documentation:

a. In April 2010, a prisoner committed suicide after being placed in an isolation cell

for erratic behavior. Less than one hour after being placed in the cell, the prisoner

tied his shirt to the bars in the cell door and hanged himself;

b. In August 2011, an OPP prisoner committed suicide by asphyxiation while on

constant observation; and

c. In August 2011, a prisoner with kno'rvn mental illness and suicidal thoughts was

·l·

inapp;opriately,_placed.iri gencrai population.·-fie wa-s then'moved to suicide

watch and committed suicide one week later.
- - - - - - · · -- - --. -
27. Defendant is subjectivcly aware ofthe ongoing serious harm and risk of serious

harm from the United States' September 11, 2009 findings letter and April 23, 2012 update

Jetter, yet fails to correct the known deficiencies.

i. Imulequate Suicide Prevention

28. Defendant is deliberately indifferent to the known harm and risk ofharm by, inter

alia, failing to implement adequate policies and procedures to treat tmd supervise prisoners with

suicidal and self harm tendencies, failing to hire adequate staff to implement such policies and

procedures, continuing to house suicidal prisoners in cells with obvious suicide hazards, and

failing to train staff adequately to monitor and supervise suicidal prisoners.

29. Defendant is deliberately indifferent by failing to provide comprehensive, basic

training to correctional staff to identify and respond to prisoners who Em::: at risk of suicide, self-

harm, or untreated mental illness.

7

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 75-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 8 of 15
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 70 Filed 09/25/12 Page 8 of 17

30. Defendant is deliberately indifferent by housing suicidal prisoners in suicide

watch cells that exacerbate mental illness and contain suicide hazards. These hazards include

protrusions that prisoners can use as tie-off points to commit suicide.

31. Defendant is deliberately indifferent by failing to timely or adequately evaluate

prisoners for level of suicide risk and, based on risk, provide the appropriate supervision, or

transfer to an outpatient mental health facility.

32. Defendant is deliberately indifferent by failing to adequately monitor, and provide

meaningful treatment to, prisoners on suicide watch. This failure allows prisoners to commit

suicide or engage in sclf-hmm.

00

0

0

0

9 0

0

0

0

• •N

0 - OM

-

33. Defendant is deliberately indifferent by failing to employ adequate nwnbers of

trained correctional staff to monitor prisoners on suicide watch.
- - - - ----- - - - - - -
34. Defendant is deliberately indifferent by failing to adequately evaluate prisoners

before removing them from suicide watch and failing to implement any step-down program for

prisoners being removed from suicide watch.

iL Inadequate Mental Jlealth Care

35. Defendant is deliberately indifferent to prisoners' serious mental health needs by,

inter alia, continuing to use deficient: (1) screening and evaluation practices; (2) stafftng;

(3) assessment and treatment practices; and (4) quality assurance measures. Defendant is aware

that these conditions exist and are causing harm to prisoners and fails to correct these conditions

despite this knowledge. These deficient OPP practices cause prisoners serious harm and create

an unreasonable risk ofharm.

36. Defendant is deliberately indifferent to prisoners' serious mental health needs by

failing to implement initial mental health screening and evaluation. OPP inappropriately relies

8

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 75-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 9 of 15
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 70 Filed 09/25/12 Page 9 of 17

on untrained licensed practical nurses ("LPNs") to pctform duties outside the scope of their

training and expertise, including mental health screenings and initial evaluations. Untrained

LPNs fail to identify and refer prisoners Vvith mental illness to the psychiatrist for treatment,

causing harm to prisoners.

37. Defendant is deliberately indifferent to prisoners' serious mental health needs by

understaffing OPP's mental health care services, and consequentially failing to provide minimal

treatment for prisoners' mental illnesses. OPP's understa±Iing limits the psychiatrist primarily to

'i'vriting prescriptions and occasionally providing reactive crisis care. The psychiatrist's heavy

workload prevents the psychiatrist from treating all prisoners with serious mental illness.

I·

... . .
38. Defendant is deliberately indifferent to prisoners' serious mental health needs by

rarely ensuring adequate mental health assessments. This results in OPP not identifying and
- -- - -- - - ------ - - -- -
providing treatment to prisoners with mental illness. For those prisoners OPP does identify as

having serious mental illness, OPP provides inadequate treatment that con.c;ists only of

medications and reactions to crises.

39. Defendant is deliberately indifferent to prisoners' serious mental health needs by

fail.ing to evaluate prisoners properly before prescribing prescription medications and failing to

monitor properly these medications' effects.

40. Defendant is deliberately indifferent to prisoners' serious mental health needs by

failing to fmmulate, document and implement treatment plans for prisoners with mental

illnesses.

41 , Defendant is deliberately indifferent to prisoners' serious mental health needs by

failing to employ a quality assurance system that monitors high-risk, high-volume, and problem-

prone aspects of mental health care.

9

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 75-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 10 of 15
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 70 Filed 09/25/12 Page 10 of 17

42. Defendant is deliberately indifferent to prisoners' serious mental health needs by failing to follow, measure, and document the-quality and timeliness of critical mental health processes such as assessments, suicide prevention evaluations, suicide management, medication management, and treatment services.

C. OPP Provides Unconstitutional Medical Care 43. The Constitution requires Defendant to provide prisoners with adequate care for

their serious medical needs. Defendant has exhibited deliberate indifference to OPP prisoners'

serious medical needs. OPP prisoners suffer serious harm from Defendant's failure to provide

treatment for their serious med ical needs.
J .....
44. Defendant is subjectively aware ofthe ongoing serious harm and risk of serious

harm from the United States' September 11,2009 findings letter and April 23, 2012 update
- - - --------· -- ·····
letter, yet fails to correct the known deficiencies.

45. Defendant is deliberately indif1erent to prisoners' serious medical needs by failing

to implement an adequate sick call process or medication administration system.

46. OPP's sick call process fails to adequately collect, process, and track prisoners'

sick call requ~sts. This fai~ure caus~~ pri~~ers har~ f~·o~n ~n~ces~~y_de~a_y~ before treatment,

and unanswered sick call requests that result in no treatment for the prisoner's serious medical

need. 4 7.

Defendant's medication administration process inappropriat~ly allows prisoners

to self-administer many of their own medications.

48. 'fhe inappropriate medication practice causes harm and risk of harm to prisoners

from under and over medication, including from powerful psychotropic drugs.

10

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 75-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 11 of 15
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 70 Filed 09/25/12 Page 11 of 17 .

D. OPP Subjects Prisoners to Unconstitutional Physical Plant Conditions 49. The Constitution requires Defendant to provide prisoners with a minimal civilized

measure of life's necessities, including protection from envirorunental and fire safety hazards.

Defendant has failed to take minimum reasonable measures to protect prisoners from

environmental and fire safety hazards, and is deliberately indifferent to the resulting harm and

risk of harm to prisoners.

50. OPP prisoners' suffel' harm and risk of harm from OPP's substandard

environmental health and sanitation conditions.

51. Defendant is subjectively aware of the ongoing serious harm and risk of serious
harm from the United States' Scptcn1bel' 1i, 2dosffinding·s ietter and Ap1:il 23, 201'2 update

letter, yet fails to correct the known deficiencies.

- -- -- - ------

--------------- - - - - - -- - - - - --

52. Defendant is deliberately indif·ferent to prisoners' safety by maintaining OPP in a

state of disrepair, causing illness and injury to prisoners. Broken f1oor tiles, toilets, sinks,

showers, water leaks, mold, and electrical hazards exist thl'oughout OPP. Poor ventilation

exacerbates harm from OPP's elevated prisoner cell temperatures.

53. Defend<mt is deliberately indifferent to prisoners' safety by serving prisoners

unsanitary food. Prisoners serve food, Vvith bacteria-prone temperatures, prepared in um;anitary

food service areas. This food service practice subjects prisoners to food-borne illnesses.

Defendant is deliberately indifferent to prisoners' health and safety by housing prisoners in tmits

without operational smoke or almm systems and without implementation of appropriate tire

watches.

r---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 75-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 12 of 15
Case 2:12-cv-00859-UvlA-SS Document 70 Filed 09/25/12 Page 12 of 17
E. OPP Unlawfully Discriminates Against Latino Limited English Proficient P risoners i. Unlawful Discrimination
54. Defendant is aware of OPP prisoners who are LEP and of what is necessary to provide meaningful LEP assistance and services in the cotTectional context.
55. Defendant is aware of the discriminatory treatment of Latino LEP prisoners al OPP, yet il allows OPP to continue to operate in a discriminatory manner and fails to take basic measures to address and correct this discrimination.
56. Defend<mt's fail ure to provide language assistance at OPP denies Latino LEP priso~ers the s~rvic~s, ~rogr~s, ~d activities t~at OPP make~ av.aila~le t.O. non-LEP prisoners.
57. For example, Defendant's failLu·e to provide LEP assistance prevents Latino LEP -- .. -- -- prisonc.rsJmiTLmeaningfuL.ac.c.ess_t.o._thc_int.ake,_processing, housing,_md_nHidical seryic~_,a..t..__ _ _ _ __
each of the OPP facilities. 58. Defendant lacks a sufficient number of LEP competent Spanish speaking staffat
OPP. 59. Defendant conducts OPP's intake process almost exclusively in English, le.wing
Latino LEP prisoners uninformed about the intake-<md classification process, and OPrs general rules.
60. Defendant fails to translate important OPP documents, including documents regarding prisoner rights and access to services, into Spanish for Latino LEP prisoners. OPP staff members regularly ask Latino LEP prisoners to sign important forms written in English without the aid of appropriate language assistance.
12

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 75-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 13 of 15
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 70 Filed 09/25/12 Page 14 o~ 17

67. Through 'm April23, 2012, letter and other means, the United States advised
Defendant that OPP's LEP services violate Title VI and its implementing regulations. 68. Since the April23, 2012, letter, the United States has made concerted efforts to
secure Defendant's voluntary compliance with Title VI and its imple:nenting reg1..llations. 69. The United States has determined that Defendant's compliance with Title VI and
its implementing regulations'cannot be secured by voluntary means without court ordered remedies.
V. VIOLATIONS

· FIRST CLAIM:..

DEFENDANT'S PATTER1~ AND PRACTICE OF VIOLATING PRISONERS'

... - ---- -·--·---...

CO.NS:OXullONAL.RlGllTS-.- -..· - · - --

70. The United Stales re-allcgcs and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-533, above.
71. The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997, authorizes the United St.'ltes to seek equitable and declru:atory relief to remedy a pattern or practice of Defendant depriving prisoners confined to OPP of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution.
72. Defendant is, has been, or should have been aware of the deficiencies alleged in paragraphs 1-533 , but has failed to take effective measures to remedy these deficiencies. These failures amounl lo ddiherate indifference to the safety and health of OPP prisoners, in violations
or the rights, privileges, and inununities of those prisoners that the Constitution secures and
protects. See U.S. Const. Amend. VIII & XIV. This deliberate indifference caused and continues to cause the violations of constitutional rights alleged.
14

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 75-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 14 of 15
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 70 ~Filed 09/25/12 Page 16 of 17

79. This treatment of Latino LEP prisoners by Defendant or Defendant's agents is unjustified and has an adverse disparate impact/discriminatory effect on Latinos.
80. Defendant's discrimination against LTIP prisoners violates Title VI and the DOJ's Title VI implementing regulations.

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

81. WHEREFORE, the United States prays that the Court will:

82. Declare that Defendant's acts and omissions constitute a pattern or practice of

j.._. _ .

conduct that deprives OPP prisoners of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the .C.Qns~itution;_ .
83. Enjoin Defendant and Defendant's agents from continuing these acts and

- - - - ·--·- omi·s&ions,.aaa-ordet=--De.fendant-te-tal~G-SuGh-remedi-al--aGtien-s-as--wiJ.l- ensure--la'v\'tul-Gonditit>ns-O.f-----­

confincmcnt at OPP;

84. Declare that Defendant has excluded persons from participation in, denied

persons the benefits of, or subjected persons to discrimination under programs or activities

receiving federal financial assistance, on the basis ofrace, color, or national origin, in violation

ofTitle VI; ·

85. Enjoin Defendant and Defendant's agents from engaging in any of the

discriminatory acts forming the Title VI violation, and order Defendant to take such remedial

action as will eliminate such discrimination; anu

86. Order such other relief as the interests ofjustice may require.

16

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 75-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 15 of 15
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 70 Filed 09/25/12 Page 17 of 17
Respectfully submitted this 2.1rd day ?f September, 2012.

RIC H. HOLDER, JR. Attorney General ofthe Unite

1 I
I
I ·- - ·

JAMES B. LETIEN (LA 8517) United States Attorney District ofNew Orleans

THOMAS E. PEREZ Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

ROY L. AUSTIN, JR. (DC 21 1491)
Deputy Assistant Attorney General ------- ----- ---·--· --·--·--·--------- - -- - - - · - - - - - -,eivi-1-Rights-Bivis'on-~1----------

/ 1,/J

-/p/·.' /;·~-

M. ' f' -I (DC 396578)

, 11Cf
tf AURA COON

Special Counsel

COREY SANDERS (DC 490940)

KERRY DEAN (DC 474260)

Trial Attorneys -

--- - -

United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530

Tel.: (202) 514-6255
Email: corey.sanders@usdoj.gov

~-------------------------------------------------17

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76 Filed 10/01/12 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

)

LASHAWN JONES, ET AL,

)

Plaintitis; and

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

Plaintiffs in Intervention

)

)

V.

)

)

)

MARLINN. GUSMAN, ET AL,

)

Defendants

)

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

MARLfN N. GUSMAN,

)

Third-Party Plaintiff

)

)

V.

)

)

THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS,

)

Third-Party Defendant

)

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

Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-00859 Section I, Division 1 Judge Lance M. Africk Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan

THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT BY ORLEANS PARISH SHERIFF MARLIN N. GUSMAN AGAINST THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS RE: LASHAWN JONES, ET AL NO'W INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes Defendant Marlin N. Gusman, in his capacity as the the Sheriff of Orleans Parish, who pursuant to Rule 14(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, files the following Third-Party Complaint against the City of New Orleans:
PARTIES TO THIS THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT 1. Third-Party Plaintiff, Marlin N. Gusman, is the presently acting, duly authorized and elected Sheriff of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. Pursuant to La. R.S. 15 :704, Sheriff Gusman is the keeper of the public jail in the Parish of Orleans and is responsible for the care and custody of its inmates.

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76 Filed 10/01/12 Page 2 of 4
2. Third-Party Defendant is the City of New Orleans, which is a political subdivision ofthe State ofLouisiana, organized and operating pursuant to a duly adopted Home Rule Charter.
OTHER PARTIES AND THEIR CLAIMS 3. Original Plaintiffs Lashawn Jones, et al. , arc present or former inmates ofjail faci lities operated by Sheriff Gusman. In their Complaint (Doc. 1), they allege that the conditions of confinement therein violate the United States Constitution. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy such alleged violations, and also seek certification of a class of present and future inmates in the custody of the Orleans Parish Sheriff. A copy of their Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 4. The United States of America has been granted leave by this Court to file a Complaint in Intervention in this action (Doc. 70). The Complaint is the subject ofa separate ThirdParty Complaint tendered by the Sheriff for filing contemporaneously herewith.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. Jurisdiction of the causes of action in the original Complaint is asserted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3), and also 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 6. As the Complaint asserts claims within this Court' s federal question jurisdiction, this Court also has jurisdiction ofthe claims asserted in this Third Party Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 7. Venue is proper in this District because all ofthe events or omissions recited herein arose in this District. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76 Filed 10/01/12 Page 3 of 4
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 8. The City ofNew Orleans is responsible for funding jail facilities of the Orleans Parish Sheriffs Office pursuant to various provisions of Louisiana law. The City of New Orleans has acknowledged its funding obligations and has provided funding with respect to the Sheriffs jail facilities in numerous consent decrees or settlement agreements executed and filed into the record in Hamilton. et al. v. Morial, et al., Case No. 69-2443, Section "A"(5). 9. To the extent that the Court should conclude that the Sheriff must provide prospective relief in the form of additional staffing, training, care, treatment or other services to Orleans Parish inmates which will necessitate funding over and above that currently provided by the City of New Orleans, judgment should also be entered in favor of the Sherifi ordering the City of New Orleans to pay the Sheriff the full cost, as determined by the Court, of providing such prospective relief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Third-party plaintiff, Marlin N. Gusman, the Sheriff of Orleans Parish, prays that: 1) Third-party defendant, the City ofNew Orleans, be required to appear and answer, all and singular, the allegations ofthis Third-Party Complaint; 2) After due proceedings had, should judgment be rendered granting any prospective relief against third-party plaintiff in favor of the plaintiffs on their Complaint, then, in that event, third-party plaintiff be awarded judgment herein against third-party defendant, ordering the City of New Orleans to pay the Orleans Parish Sheriff the full cost, as determined by the Court, ofproviding any prospective relief ordered by this Court pursuant to 18 U.S .C. § 3626; and 3) For all other general and equitable reliefto which third-party plaintiff may be entitled under the law.

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76 Filed 10/01/12 Page 4 of 4
Respectfully submitted,
USRY, WEEKS & MATTHE'WS
Bv: T. Allen Usry, (LSBN 1 ) Freeman R. Matthews, (LSBN 9050) Timothy R. Richardson, (LSBN 27625) Blake J. Arcuri, (LSBN 32322) 1615 Poydras Street, Suite 1250 New Orleans, LA 70112 Tel: (504) 592-4600; Fax: (504) 592-4641
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT AND THIRD PARTY PLAINTIFF

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I

do

hereby

certify

that

on

this

28

1
h

day

of

September,

2012,

a

copy

of

the

foregoing

was

filed

electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent

by operation of the court' s electronic filing system.

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 1 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 1 of 38

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT O.F LOUISIANA

LASHAWN JONES, KENT

)

ANDERSON, STEVEN DOMINICK, )

ANTHONY GIOUSTAVIA, JIMMIE )

.JENKINS, GREG JOURNEE,

)

RICHARD LANFORD, LEONARD )

LEWIS, EUELL SYLVESTER and

)

MARK WALKER, on behalf of

)

themselves and all others similarly

)

situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

MARLIN GUSMAN, Sheriff, Orleans )

Parish, CARLOS LOUQUE, Warden, )

House of Detention, KEVIN WINFIELD, )

Warden, Old Parish Prison, BONITA )

PITTMAN, Warden, Templeman

)

Phase V, CHARLES EZEB, Warden, )

Temporary Jails, J ERROD SPINNEY, )

Warden, Conchetta, JOHN DOE,

)

Warden, Temporary Detention Center, )

SAMUEL GORE, Medical Director, )

and CHARLES HIGGINS,

)

Psychiatric Director,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Civil Action No.
Class Action for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION l. This is a class action fi led on behalf of the men, women and youth imprisoned at the Orleans Parish Prison (''OPP"), to protect them from abusive and unconstitutional conditions of confinement. T he majority of people incarcerated in Orleans Parish Prison are pre-trial detainees; they are held at the jail w hile they await their court dates.
EXHIBIT
lA

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 2 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 2 of 38
2. Individuals housed at the jail arc at imminent risk of serious harm. Rapes, sexual assaults, and beatings are common place throughout the faciiity. Violence regularly occurs at the hands of sheriffs' deputies, as well as other prisoners. The facility is full of homemade knives, or '·shanks." People living with serious mental illnesses languish without treatment, left vulnerable to physical and sexual abuse. These conditions have created a public safety crisis that affects the entire City of New Orleans. The jail is oversized, understaffed, and Sheriff Gusman's classitication and security policies and practices are dangerously deficient. The men and women housed there are at constant risk of physical harm due to the presence of comraband and weapons in the facility, which, coupled with the absence of meaningful mental health services, places the Jives of people incarcerated there in immediate jeopardy.
3. Sheriff Gusman demonstrates deliberate indi fference to the basic rights of the people housed at OPP by implementing constitutionally deficient security, staffing, classification and mental health policies and practices. Defendants' inability or refusal to manage a facility of this size has become increasingly apparent in recent years, with violence and health crises steadily escalating within the facility.
4. Sheriff Gusman and the Defendant wardens knowingly allow their deputies to abandon their obligations to protect the people in their custody from harm. Deputies fai l to supervise the housing tiers-they do not perform cell checks or regular inspections of the living areas. As a result, a culture of brutal violence has flourished throughout the facility. Men, women and youth in Sheriff Gusman's cuswdy have endured brutal rapes and prolonged beatings-all a direct result of the policies and practices of the Orleans Parish Sherriff's Office..
5. Sheriff Gusman purports to run one protective custody floor for the entire complex. This floor is supposed to protect individuals who arc particularly vulnerable to
2

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 3 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 3 of 38
violence and abuse on the regular housing units. Yet many of the cell doors do not lock and the Sheriff's dangerously deficient staffing policies and practices extend onto this unit. As a result, violence is rampant even on this floor. The Sheriff punishes some individuals who seek protection by placing them in the "hole." On this disciplinary tier individuals often are subject to solitary confinement-locked alone in their cells for 24 hours a day-deprived of human contact and sensory stimulation.
6. According to data released by the federal government, up to 64% of people held in local jails live with a memal illness. Sheriff Gusman implements a number of policies and procedures that deprive people living with mental illness of constitutionally adequate care. Upon admission to OPP, Defendants have a policy of suspending medication for 30 days, and sometimes longer. This makes people living with mental illness particularl y susceptible to abuse, because symptoms of their mental illness begin to manifest acutely when they are denied medication. Unsurprisingly, this practice causes some individuals to experience suicidal ideation.
7. Suicidal prisoners with mental health needs are transferred to a direct ohservation cell, in which they arc held almost naked for days. Once they no longer express a desire to injure themselves, they then are transfared to the psychiatric tiers- where they are locked down in their cells for 23 hours a day and deprived or mental health interventions. People living there are not allowed to go outside or visit with their families. Overhead lights are on 24 hours per day, and the tier contains actively psychotic people living on the ground in overcrowded cells. Deputies do not walk the tiers. Rape is rampanr. The conditions lnave been well docurnemed, by the U.S. Department of .Justice, the federal Prison Rape El imination Act Commission, the U.S. Marshals, the media, by individual civil lawsuits and by motions in criminal cases. In spite of widespread public knowledge about the conditions within the facility, the Defendants have failed
3

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 4 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 4 of 38
to cotTect known deficiencies, and, indeed, recently opened an additional 400 bed temporary detention facil ity.
8. An expert hired by the City of New Orleans has recommended a jail with 1,438 beds, based upon ew Orleans' population and crime rates. OPP currenlly has 3,400 beds. The Defendants arc not adequately staffing or supervising a faci lity of this size. As additional beds are opened up, more lives arc placed in danger. The City of New Orleans has made some efforts to reduce the number of people incarcerated in OPP for low-level offenses, but over 35,000 people are processed through intake annually. This means that people are detained in the facility for non-violent and low-level crimes, as well as more serious crimes of rape and murder.
9. Additionally, Sheriff Gusman conrinues to house approximately 1,000 individuals who have been convicted of state offenses and have been sentenced to the State Department of Public Safety and Corrections (''DPSC"). Sheriff Gusman's decision to house I,000 convicted state prisoners makes the facility more dangerous for everyone, by unnecessarily significantly expanding the size of the jail. The larger population makes it harder for deputies to staff and maintain order.
I0. Individual lawsuits are unable to accomplish the sort of systemic overhaul necessary to creating a constitutionally acceptable faci lity. Therefore, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons imprisoned at the Orleans Parish Prison, the Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief ordering the Defendams to cease all unconstitutional and unlawful policies and practices at the prison and to provide class members with required care and living conditions.
4

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 5 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 5 of 38
JURISDI CTION ll. This cause of action arises under the United States Constitution, enforceable pursuant to 42 U.S .C. § 1983. Jurisdiction in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3). 12. This Court is aurhorized to grant declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 220 I and 2202, and injunctive relied pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rul es of Civil Procedure.
VENUF.
13. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 139l(b)(2) because a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claimLsJ occurred" in this district.
PARTIES 14. The Plaintiffs are all people who are currently or will be incarcerated at the Orleans Parish Prison ("OPP") and who are subject to conditions of confinement that violate their rights under the U.S. Constitution. 15. Plaintiff LaShawn Jones is a pretrial detainee currently incarcerated in OPP, Templeman Phase V. The Defendants have exhibited deliberate indifferenee to LaShawn's serious mental health needs. LaShawn also has been brutally assaulted by an OPCSO deputy, as a result of Defendants' deficient staffing and secu rity policies. LaShawn fears for her safety and is in despaate need of mental health services. 16. Plaintiff Kem Anderson is a pretrial detainee currently incarcerated in the psychiatric tier of OPP, House of Detention. Anderson filed multiple sick calls and grievances prior to heing given his required medication. He became suicidal and still was denied access to psychjatric care. Anderson is in immediate need of mental health care, and is suffering as a result of Defendants' deliberate indifference to his .serious mental health needs.
5

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 6 of 38 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 6 of 38
17. Plaintiff Steven Dominick is a DOC prisoner housed in Orleans Parish Prison, House of Detention. Dominick is on protective custody because he has been jumped, stabbed and threatened, as a result of Defendants' dangerously deficient security, staffing and classification policies and practices. Dominick fears for his safety.
18. Plaintiff Anthony Gioustavia is a pretrial detainee currently incarcerated in OPP, Old Parish Prison. Giousravia was attacked by another prisoner quickly after being booked into OPP, and has witnessed multiple tights and stabbings, as a result of Defendants' dangerously deficient policies and practices. Gioustavia fears for his safety.
19. Plaintiff Jimmie Jenkins is a pretrial detainee currently incarcerated in the psychiatric tier of OPP, House of Detention. Jenkins suffers from schizophrenia and has been denied access ro consti tutionally adequate mental health care. Jenkins is in immediate need of mental health care, and is suffering as a result of Defendants ' dangerously deficient mental health policies and practices.
20. Plaintiff Greg Journee is a pretrial detainee currently Incarcerated in OPP, House of Detention. Journl.!e was moved from Old Parish Prison to House of Detention because he was unsafe, but then was stabbed repeatedly in the House of Detention. Jou rnee fears for his safety, as a result of Defendants' dangerously deficient staffing, security and classification policies and practices.
21. Plaintiff Richard Lanford has been attacked severely multiple times in OPP. He was beaten so severely that he sustained broken facial bones and had to be transported to the hospital for injuries. He is currently injured and in extreme pain . He has experienced threats of sexual assault. Lanford has been attacked in various facilities throughout OPP, as a result of
6

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 7 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 7 of 38
Defendants' dangerously deficient classification, staffing and security policies and practices. Lanford fears for his safety.
22. Plaintiff Leonard Lewis is pretrial detainee currently incarcerated in OPP, House of Detention. l.ewis has repeatedly been stabbed and beaten in OPP, in various buildings and locations, including while in protective custody, as a result of Defendants' dangerously deficient classification, staffing and security policies and practices. Lewis fears for his safety.
23. Plaintiff Euell Sylvester is a pretrial detainee cLmently incarcerated 10 OPP, House of Detention. Since arriving m OPP, Sylvester has been beaten and sexually assaulted, as a result of Defendants' dangerously deficient classification, staffing and security policies and practic<.:s. Sylvester fears for his safety.
24. Plaintiff Mark Walker is a sentenced DOC prisoner currentl y incarcerated in OPP, Old Parish Prison. Walker is diagnosed with bipolar disorder and is legally blind. He has been raped, beaten up by guards, jumped by prisonas and denied mental healthcare while in OPP, as a result of Defendants' dangerously deficient policies and practices. Walker fears for his safety.
25. Defendant Marlin Gusman is th<.: dected Sheriff for Orleans Parish. He has overal l responsibi lity for the policies, procedures, operations and supervision of the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office, its employees, agents, and assigns, inc! uding all correctional facilities under the control of his office, including the Orleans Parish Prison (''OPP"). Orleans Parish Prison is compos<.:d of several correctional facilities including rhe House of Detention (''HOD"), Old Parish Prison, Temporary Jails ("rhe Tents"), Templeman V, Conchetta, and the new Temporary Detention Center ('"TDC"). There is additionally the Work Release center located on South Broad Street. Defendant Gusman is the fi nal policymaker for the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office and the Orleans Parish Prison. He is ultimately responsible for determining staffing,
7

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 8 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 8 of :38
classification, secu1ity and mental health policies at OPP. He is sued in his official capacity only. He is a resident of full age of majority of the Eastern District of Louisiana.
26. Defendant Carlos Louque is an employee of the Orleans Parish Sheriffs Office, acting under the direction and supervision of Defendant Gusman. He is the warden of the House of Detention (HOD), one of the facilities comprising the Orleans Parish Prison. HOD is also sometimes referred to as "CLU." He has responsibility for the policies, procedures, and operations of the HOD, its employees, agents and assigns, including determining staffing, security, classification and mental health policies. On information and belief he is a final policymaker for HOD regarding these policies and practices, and is also responsible for implementing policies promulgated by Sheriff Gusman. He is sued in his official capacity only. He is a resident of full age of majority of the Eastern District of Louisiana.
27. Defendant Kevin Winfield is an employee of the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office, acting under the direction and supervision of Defendant Gusman. He is the warden of the Old Parish Prison, one of the facilities comprising the Orleans Parish Prison. He has responsihility for the policies, procedures, and operations of the Old Parish Prison, its employees, agents and assigns, including determining staffing, security, classification and mental health policies. On information and belief he is a final policymaker for Old Parish Prison regarding these policies and practices, and is also responsible for implementing policies promulgated by Sheriff Gusman. He is sued in his official capacity only. He is a resident of full age of majority of the Eastern District of Louisiana.
2R. Defendant Bonita Pittman is an employee of the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office, acting under the direction and supervision of Defendant Gusman. She is the warden of Templeman Y, one of the facilities comprising the Orleans Parish Prison. She has responsibility
8

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 9 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 9 of 38
for the policies, procedures, and operations of T~mpleman V, its employees, agents and assigns, including determini ng staffing, security, classification and mental health policies. On information and belief she is a final policymaker for Templeman V regarding these policies and practices, and is also responsible for implementing policies promulgated by Sheriff Gusman. She is sued in her official capacity only. She is a resident of full age of majority of the Eastern District of Louisiana.
29. Defendant Charles Ezeb is an employee of the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Oftice, acting under the:: direction and supervision of Defendant Gusman. He is the warden of the Temporary Jails ('I c!nts"), one of the facilities comprising the Orleans Parish Prison. He has responsibility for the policies, procedures, and operations of the Tents, its employees, agents and assigns, including determining smffing, secUJ·ity, classification and mental health policies. On information and belief he is a final polieymaker for the Tents regarding these policies and practices, and is also responsible for implementing policies promulgated by Sheriff Gusman. He is sued in his official capacity only. He is a resident of full age of majority of the Eastern Disttict of Louisiana.
30. Defendant Jerr·od Spinney is an employee of the Orleans Parish Sheriffs Office, acting under the direction and supervision of Defendant Gusman. H<.: is the warden of Conchetta, one of the facilities comprising the Orleans Parish Prison. He has responsibility for the policies, procedures, and operations of Conchetta, its employees, agents and assigns, including determining staffing, security, classification and mental health policies. On information and helief he is a fi nal policymaker fo r Conchctta regarding these pol icies and practices, and is also responsible for implementing policies promulgated by Sheriff Gusman. He
9

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 10 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 10 of 38
is sued in his official capacity only. He is a resident of full age of majority of the Eastern District of Louisiana.
31. Defendant Doc is an employee of the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office, acting under the direction and supervision of Defendant Gusman. He or she is the warden of The Temporary Detention Center ("TDC"), one of the facilities comprising the Orleans Parish Prison. He or she has responsibility for the policies, procedures, and operations of TDC, its employees, agents and assigns, including determining staffing, security, classification and mental heallh policies. On information and belief he or she is a final policymaker for TDC regarding these policies and practices. and is also responsible for implementing policies promulgated by Sheriff Gusman. He or she is sued in his official capacity only. He or she is a resident of full age of majority of the Eastern District of I.ouisiana.
32. Defendant Gore is an employee of the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office, acting under the direcr.ion and supervision of Defendant Gusman. Dr. Gore has responsibility for the policies, procedures, and operations of OPP's medical department, its employees, agents and assigns, including mental health policies and procedures. On information and belief he is a final policymaker for OPP regarding these policies and practices. He is sued in his official capacity only. He is a residem of full age of majority of the Eastern District of Louisiana.
33. Defendant Higgins is an employee of the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office, acring under the direction and supervision of Defendants Gore and Gusman. He has responsibility for tht.: policies, procedures, and operations of psychiatric services at OPP, its employees, agents and assigns. On in formation and belief he is a final policymaker for OPP regarding mental health policies and practices. He is sued in his official capacity only. He is a resident of full age of majority of the Eastern District of Louisiana.
10

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 11 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859- LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 11 of 38
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
34. The named Plaintiffs bring this suit on their own behalf and on behalf of all people who are, or will in the future be, incarcerated at the OPP. Included in this class is a proposed subclass comprised of all individuals who now arc, or who will in the future be incarcerated at the OPP and who live with a serious mental illness ("mental health sub-class").
35. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. OPP currently houses approximately 3,400 people and is undergoing expansion. l The class also includes many future members whose names are not known, as the faci lity regularly admits new arrestees. lt is
believed that approximately 35,000 people cycle through OPP annually, and therefore the prospective class is 35,000 people per year.2 Jt is estimated that the mental health subclass is curremly comprised of approximately 2, 176 individuals and that during the course of one year, approximatc::ly 21,760 individual sub-class members will pass through the OPP. There are contentions that are common to all class members, including but nm limited to the following:
I) The Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to take reasonable measures to protect individuals from harm. The Defendants' dangerous deficient staffing policies and practices related to security (including policies and practices related to contrahand, classification and staffing) result in the Plaintiffs enduring brutal beatings, rapes, assaults and/or being exposed to an unacceptably high risk these injuries.
1 Sheriff Gusman rcccnlly openctl an additional400 bed facil ity culled TDC. This brings the total number of beds at OPP to 3800. ll is Plaintiffs' understanding that some of the Tents are untlcrgoing renovations as is the H0use of Detention, but until the closure of beds is announced. the Sheriff has expanded the jail size significantly, from 3,400 beds to 3.800 beds. 2 This number is down significantly fro m years past due to City arrest policy reforms, but a recent Metropolitan Crime Commission study found that still one third of arrests are for out of parish warrants. which generally are traffic violations, meaning that there are very low level offenders housed in OPP, as wdl as people accused of violent crimes. Metropolitan Crime Commission, Orlt!ans Parish Criminal Jus1ke Accounwbility Report, ovcmber 20 II. Available at: htto://www.metropolitancrimecommission.org/html/research.html, last checked March 31. 20 12.
II

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 12 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 12 of 38
2) The Defendants have a policy and practice of exhibiting deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs' serious mental health needs. The Defendants' deliberate indifference manifests in depriving individuals of necessary medication, evaluations, psychiatrist visits and other mental heallh inventions, of subjecting Plaintiffs seeking mental health treatment and suicide protections to degrading, humiliating and de-humanizing treatment- including forcing them to strip naked, holding them in large congruent cells, and locking them down for 23 hours a day, and
3) The Defendants havc been and are currently aware of the unconstitutional policies and practices that are in place throughout OPP, which function to expose prisoners to brutal violence and to deprive them of mental health services.
36. Because the policies, practices and customs challenged in this Complaint apply with equal force to the named Plaintiffs and the other members of the class, and because every class members seeks identical declaratory and injunctive relief that would require the Defendants to cure their unconstitutional policies and practices, the claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the class in general. 37. The named Plai nti ffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. They possess a strong personal interest in the subject matter of the lawsuit and are represented by experienced counsel with expertise in class action prison conditions litigation in federal court. Counsel have the legal knowledge and resources to fairly and adequately represent the interests of all class members in this action.
38. The Defendants have acted or refused to act on grou nds generally applicable to the class. Their policies, practices, acts, and omissions have affected all class members. Accordingly, final injunctive and declaratory relief is appropriate to the class as a whole.
STATEMENT OF FACTS 39. The people imprisoned at OPP live in unconstitutional and inhumane conditions and endure great risks to their safety and security. Because OPP is dangerously understaffed and because existing staff lack the training and supervision necessary to care for the people in their
12

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 13 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 13 of 38
custody, conuption and violence are rampant. The classification system is inadequate, and fails to screen for prisoners with enemies, as well as fails to sort pri soners into dorms according to propensity for violence or risk of harm. Prisoners face threats to their lives and safety on an almost daily basis, and struggle to secure even the most basic services at OPP. Mental health care is dangerously deficient, exacerbating-and in some instances causing-the violent crises within the facility.
40. New Orleans taxpayers pay Defendants over $22 per day per prisoner to house and care for City prisoners, plus additional millions of dollars for medical care and operating expenses. Louisiana taxpayers pay Defendants $27 per day per prisoner to house and care for State prisoners housed at OPP, plus additional funds for prisoners needing mental heallh services. Defendants also previously received a per diem fro m the Federal government, but last week the U.S. Marshals announced that they have pulled all of their prisoners from OPP due to concerns about conditions and safety.
41. A 2009 findings letter by the United States Department of Justice concluded that conditions in Orleans Parish Prison are unconstitutional. Violations found included inadequate protection from harm, including specifically inadequate classification and staffing. The DOJ also found inadequate mental health and medical care, including staffing and an express finding of a failure to follow-up on mental health issues at intake screening.
42. This Complaint describes conditions that currently exist and gives examples involving specific individuals who are or were incarcerated at OPP. Some of the individuals are named plaintiffs and some are not.
13

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 14 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 14 of 38
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment Violations: Inadequate Mental Health Treatment 84. New Orleans continues to experience a mental health crisis. Recent Department of Health and Hospital (DHI-{) budget cuts have made OPP the largest psychiatric unit in the City of New Orleans. National statistics indicate that 64% of incarcerated people suffer from mental illness, and Orleans Parish's numbers are higher. Defendant Gore recently estimated that 45% of the OPP population had some form of mental health need. In spite of this, OPP identifies only 6% of it~; population as receiving psychotropic medications, indicating a gross fai lure to identify and treat mental illness. OPP mental health policies, conditions and staffing are exacerbating the crisis. 85. Defendants maintain a policy of not prescribing psychiatric medications for the tirst thirty to sixty days of a person's incarceration. Upon incarceration, it is Defendants' pol icy to automatically deprive detainees of mental health medications, unless the individual can provide records verifying treatment. Defendants do not conduct a meaningful independent evaluation of the dcwinee. The policy fails to ensure the provision of adequate mental health care in no small part because it requires imprisoned individuals living with serious mental health issues to have the capacity and means to verify their medical records from behind the prison's walls. These individuals need immediate treatment, but arc denied under Defendants' currcnl policy. 86. Additionally, even where detainees identify as needing medication and identify outside providers, Defendant Higgins and his staff do not receive or veri fy those records for weeks or months. Moreover, if the acquired records show that the individual was non-complianr with rhe treatment regiment prior to incarceration, or if records refl ect that the person was also on drugs or alcohol, all medication is suspended. In this way, people who enter OPP experience a suspension or denial of needed medication.
14

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 15 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 15 of 38
87. This policy has disastrous consequences. Individuals who take psychiatric medications cannot be abruptly deprived of these medications without suffering serious harm. A significant number of the people incarcerated in OPP have untreated serious mental health needs. Under Defendant Riggin 's policy of only providing treatment to people whose outside records he can verify, OPP fails to ensure adequate psychological assessments of people incarcerated there. T his results in under-identification of, and inadequate treatment for, people with serious mental illnesses. As was noted in the DOJ findings letter, prisoners do not receive adequate mental health evaluations. The mental health evaluations they do receive are perfuncto.ry. 88. People who are suddenly removed from their medication, or who do not receive needed medication, understandably experience serious mental health crises and deteriorate. As a result, they are significantly more vul nerable to guard and prisoner abuse and violence. It also puts them at increased risk of suicide. There is no reliable way to get mental health services in case of emergencies, even for those at high risk of suicide. There are no panic call buttons in the cells or on the tiers and often no deputies are present in areas where prisont!rs are housed, pulling these indivictuals at great risk of harm. 89. Once an indi vidual is designated by a staff member as suicidal, he or she is moved to "direct observation" on rhe psychiatric t1oor, which is rhe 1Ot11 floor of the House of Detention. He must remain there until he is evaluated by a mental health professional who can determine whether the person remains a suicide risk. All suicidal prisoners are forced to strip naked and change int.o a suicide smock,3 and are housed in a large holding tank, together. They are forced to stay in this holding tank for 24 hours a day.
1The smock looks like a dress or wrap. It is a black vest that wraps around the body. and falls to aboUL mid-thigh. Other than the smock, suicidal prisoners are naked. except that they are often allowed to keep their shoes.
15

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 16 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 16 of 38
90. In the direct observation tank, there is nowhere to lie down or go to the bathroom. They are denied access to telephones, families and lawyers. People are housed in this tank until they sign a contract stating that they will not harm themselves or others. Once that contract is signed, they are moved elsewhere on the l01h floor. The floor contains three male psychiatric tiers and one tier for women, who arc not exclusively psychiatric patients. 91 . The psychiatric floor reeks of urine, and is extremely hot and loud. Most cells are two man cel ls, but many have three men in them, with people sleeping on the t1oor. Each of the three psychiatric tiers also has a six man cell, which routinely house between 10 and 15 prisoners, with men sleeping on the fl oor, sometimes without mats. 9:2. OPP has a policy and practice of hiri ng insufficient numbers of qualified medical and mental health professionals. In accordance with this policy and practice, OPP has not hired enough staff to properly care for the mental health needs of 3,400 men, women and youth. OPP currently employs one full-time psychiatrist, Defendant Higgins. Higgins does not conduct minimally adequate assessments or review necessary information before diagnosing (or dismissing) patients and making determinations about whether to prescribe medication. 93. Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to supervise its medical staff and of failing to implement effective systems to ensure that medications arc timely ordered and delivered and that prescribed care is provided. Medical staff commonly fail to provide prescribed treatment. Inconsistent prescri ption drug delivery and other lapses in treatment are customary. Staff repeatedly run out of medication prescribed, causing lengthy gaps in treatment. Additionally, individuals arc commonly given multiple doses of their medication at one time, which creates fights over additional medication, again creating a gap in treatment. Defendants
16

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 17 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 17 of 38
Gore and Higgins have a duty to ensure these lapses do not occur, but they do not correct these recurrent problems. 94. People who need mental health services are discouraged from seeking necessary care because they are charged a three-dollar copayment for submitting a sick call form. The prisoners' accounts arc charged as soon as the form is filled out, whether or not the individual is seen by medical personnel. If a condition worsens or becomes more severe, prisoners arc hesitant to submit additional forms, which will debit money from their account, without assurance that they will actually be treated. 95. Defendants also fail to ensure that OPP staff receive necessary training on managing mentally ill individuals and on suicide prevention training. The woefully deficient training, monitoring, and supervision of OPP staff has led to several tragic deaths in recent years. 96. In January 2009, Cayne Miceli died after spendi ng four hours in five poim restraints on OPP's psychiatric tier. 97. ln April 20 I 0, Michael Hitzman told deputies he felt suicidal , and deputies told htm to sit down. When he became "belligerent" Sherriff's deputies threw him into a holding cell. He was later found, having hung himself with his t-shirt. 98. In August 2011, Bill Goetzee was arrested after attempting to grab a federal security officer's gun from its holster, saying he wanted to kill himself. Goetzee was placed on the psychiatric tier at OPP but, upon information and hclicf was not placed on suicide watch. Prisoners have reported thar he attempted to hang himself, but was stopped. Days later he killed himself by ingesting toilet paper. 99. Defendants have a policy and practice of denying access to constitutionally adequate mental health services that demonstrates deliberate indifference to the serious mental health
17

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 18 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 18 of 38
needs of individuals in their custody. This deliberate indifference has disastrous and often fatal consequences for the men, women and youth housed in the facil ity. 100. The injuries suffered by the individuals described below illustrate how the Defendants' policies and practices of deliberate indifference to prisoners' serious mental health needs harm the Plaintiffs and the class members. LASHAWN JONES 10 I. LaShawn Jones is diagnosed Bipolar and Manic Schizophrenic. She is prescribed to receive Divalproex and Haloperidol. She was arrested and placed in OPP on March 21, 2012. Her charges are unknown to both her and her family. I02. LaShawn has struggled with her mt:ntal health issues for years. She knows when she hears voices that she needs ro go to the mental health center. She went there on March 21, 2012. It is unclear what happened, but somehow LaShawn was arrested. Her fami ly has been informed by the health service provider that LaShawn was arrested because the facility could not take care of her due to budget cuts. I03. LaShawn was brought to the psychiatric floor of OPP, in the Housc of Detention. Other prisoners on the tier saw her brought in. They heard the female deputy who brought her in, say "You wanna fu**in' fight me one on one? You wanna fu**in' play with me?" At this point the deputy proceeded to bc::at and auack LaShawn. LaShawn susrained lacerations and bruising to her face and body. Other women attest that the beating was severe and lasted awhile. LaShawn was seen immediately afterwards, bleeding all over h<:!rself from lacerations to her face and wearing nothing hut her underwear. LaShawn was left on the tier for days without medical care. Eventually she was transported to the hospital.
18

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 19 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 19 of 38
104. As of this filing, LaShawn has a bloody, blackened eye, from the attack that occurred over a week ago. !05. Defendants' policies of inadequately training staff to interact with persons living with mental illness, and failing to supervise and train staff generally, have resulted in serious injuries to LaShawn. She is need of immediate mental health services and is currently extremely fearful for her safety. KENT ANDERSON 106. Kent Anderson has a history of stress and anxiety disorders. He also is suffering from severe depression. Prior to incarceration, Kent was prescribed Abilify and Buspirone, amongst other medications. Kent was not provided with medication in OPP, and his disorders worsened. His fiance brought his medication to the jail in an attempt to verify his need for medication, but the deputies told her that they do not "deal with that." Kent therefore languished without his medication. J07. Kent became suicidal wh ile housed in the Old Parish Prison and is now on the psychiatric tloor of the House of Dctemion. He is in desperate need of mental health interventions and is currently experiencing a mental health crisis. He is receiving inadlequatc care. He says, "it's hard to keep waking up." JIMMIE JENKTNS I08. Plaintiff Jimmie Jenkins has a history of schizophrenia and depression. When he arrived at OPP on June 28111, 20 10 he was non-cooperative in his initial screening. On July 3, however, he reported a history of mental -illness, and identified the clinic at which he was treated.
19

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 20 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 20 of 38
109. Jimmie was seen by the psychiatric department on July 14, which noted a past history of schizophrenia, and also noted that he had prior inpatient treatment at two different mental health facilities. Still h~ was not prescribed medications. 110. Jimmie was seen again for a psychiatric appointment on July 28. At that point he again is not prescribed medications, but OPP requested his medical records from his outside providers. Il l. Jimmie is seen again by psychiatric services on August 19. Doctors determine not to prescribe him medications. 112. On January 18, 2012, Jimmie wrote a sick call saying that he needed mental health care. ('"I need to be seen by a mind doctor. Psychology.") He is seen by a nurse on January 23, 2012, who notes, "says he hasn't had psych meds in 19 months, says saw Dr. Higgins, nothing was ordered." 113. On January 30, 2012 Jimmie reported suicidal ideations and was transferred to the psychiatric tier, where he now remains. 114. Jimmie's records illustrate Dr. Higgins' policy of suspending medication for a period of time upon arrest. Jimmie was in OPP for almost two months before his outside medical records were even requested, in spite of the fact that the faci lity was on notice that he had a diagnosis of schizophrenia, and had two inpatient hospitalizations in mental health facilities. 115. Through implementing this policy, the Defendants manifest deliberate indifference to .Timmie's mental health needs, and the mental health needs of all individuals with serious mental health needs incarcerated in OPP. T.P. 11 6. T.P. is an individual1ivjng with mental illness who has been denied care in OPP.
20

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 21 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 21 of 38
117. One week after <mest, T.P. informed Sheriff' s deputies that he is bipolar and schizophrenic. This fact is also noted on his medical intake form . T.P. was receiving medications for these illness~s prior to being incarc~rated. He explained to the jail that he needed the medication to treat his serious mental health needs, and that it was urgent. Sheriffs deputies advised him that he would get a psych visit. 1U~. A week later, the Defendants still failed to provide T.P. with mental health services. During this time T.P. was auacked, which is directly related to his initial plea for care. He told the nurse he needs his medication, and that he was afraid for his safety. He also signed a release for his medication records to be sent to the facility. 119. Several days later, T.P. was placed on suicide watch, yet the Defendants still failed to provide him with adequate m(!ntal health services. For the next several clays, medical records indicate that T.P. was involved in altercations with other prisoners, which were directly related to his initial plea for mc::mal health tremment. He was taken to the hospital for a head laceration that requires stitches. He also was started on a daily regiment ofThorzine. 120. T.P. bounced between suicidc watch and protective custody over the course of three months, but sornchow there is a note in his fi le three months after his arrt:st: '·no psych meds at this time." In this tlme, T.P. consistently reported to medical staff that other inmates were threatening him. 121. Months lmer, T.P. is found hitting his head against a wall. At this point, Halidol is ordered. T.P. reports being "jumped by homosexuals" and nurses note facial swelling. bruising an<.! "passion marks." No rape kit is conducted. L22. T.P. .is transferred to suicide watch after being found with a shirt tied around his neck, and to a pole.
21

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 22 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 22 of 38
123. T.P. remains on suicide watch. 124. ln the first week he was in OPP, T.P. requested medical care. He advised the Defendants of exactly what his diagnosis is, and what medication he was on. He warned them that he would have serious problems if they did not give him his medication. He signed release forms for his records to be sent to Dcfendanrs. He did not receive any appointment or medication until after he sustained a lacerated skull. He has subsequently sustained multiple attacks. This is a direct failure of the Defendants fail ure to implement adequate mental health services. T.P., as a mentally ill prisoner, was particularly vulnerable to abuse and harm in OPP. Defendants' policies exhibit deliberate indifference to his serious medical need.
125. C.S. has a history of schizophrenia. but was diagnosed in jail as having major depression. Prior to his incarceration, he was taking Remeron, Tremodal, and Promethezinc. He also has a history of being prescribed Celexa, Haldol and Ativan. C.S. has previously been hospitalized to receive mental health services. 126. Upon his arrest on May 4, 2011 C.S. signed for a release of his medical records to OPP. His exam noted schizophrenia. He was not provided any medication. I 27. On May 21, 20 11 C.S. filed a sick call, explaining that he was hearing voices. He also reported hallucinations. On May 24, 20 I 1OPP determined "no psych meds necessary.'' 128. In July C.S. reports as s uicidal. 129. Tn early November, C.S. was prescribed Celexa. He advjsed the nurse that because his medication was not working he would take multiple doses at one time. 130. In mid-Novembcr he attempted suicide by taking II pills at once, and was brought by ambulance to the hospital. The hospital ordered anti-depressants and counseling.
22

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 23 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 23 of 38
131. Two weeks later, the jail provided him with Wellbutrin, an anti-depressant. 132. C.S. has continued to struggle with hallucinations and suicidal ideations at the jail. 133. Defendants' policies exhibit deliberate indifference to C.S.'s serious medical needs. He came in with a known mental health history, including two instances of inpatient care. Defendant<; still denied him care for the first several months of his incarceration, until he repo1ted as suicidal. Then the Defendants' policy of distributing multiple pil ls at one time exhibited deliberate indifference to C.S.'s mental health, and constituted a security risk. He did anempt suicide with those pills. As a result of the Defendants' deliberate indifference, C.S.'s life was in jeopardy.
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment Violations: Protection from Harm and Da ngerous and Violent Conditions of Confinement
134. OPP is an extremely dangerous prison. For years, violent fights have occurred at OPP seemingly every day. 135. Defendams Gusman has a longstanding policy of understaffing the prison. ln much of the prison, it appears that oflen only one officer is assigned to supervise each floor. This is consistent with the DOJ fi ndings letter, which noted that there often is one deputy per 88 man Tent, or one::
guard per floor in the HOD, which would be one individual deputy supervising 60 prisoners.
These conditions have continued unabated. Prisoners arc left unsupervised when the assigned ofticer leaves the area for other reasons, such as using the bathroom. eating lunch, etc. Moreover, it is believed that there is a policy at OPP that prohibits a lone guard from entering the tier in response to a crisis. Prisoners have to scream for guards and beat on the door or window to get attention in the event of a medical emergency or a fight. In the event of an emergency, prisoners generally have to administer first aid to one another, and often have to resort to calling 911 for
23

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 24 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 24 of 38
assistance. This understaffing and inability to respond to emergency situations creates violent conditions that subject prisoners to serious and sometimes permanent injury, including death. 136. Defendants have long been aware that the routine understaffing of OPP creates a risk of serious harm to the people incarcerated there. In addition to the DOJ letter referenced above, Sheriff Gusman has been the Defendant in over 200 lawsuits in the three years since that lett.er came out. Many of those suits involved excessive violence in the facility. Likewise, many criminal defense attorneys have filed motions in their clients' criminal cases that detai led the brutality their clients suffered while in Sheriff Gusman's custody. In many of these cases. the State court judges ordered transfer of vulnerable or victimized detainees. The media has widely reponed criminal defendants showing up for court with wounds from the prison. In January of this year, undersigned counsel placed Defendants on notice of violent. conditions in certain areas of the jail. Still, the conditions persist. A review of the routes from OPP to University Hospital for the month of February 2012 show 23 transports to the hospital from OPP for fractures, puncture wounds, lacerations, trauma and the like. This does nol include medical emergencies handled in-house at OPP. !37. The understaffing of the facil ity and the mini mal supervision that Defendants provide to deputies in the facility contributes to staff abuse and exploitation of the people incarcerated there. Because staffing is so thin and supervision so minimal, correctional officers who want to exploit prisoners have ample opportunity to do so. 138. Officers who enter the prison at night are not searched. This allows correctional officers to s muggle in drugs and contraband. Defendants are aware that the contraband-smuggling takes place, but lhey have not taken reasonably adequate measures to halt the practice, including
24

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 25 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 25 of 38
adequate measures to ensure that correctional officers are properly searched before entering the faci lity. The presence of contraband in the faci lity increases violence. 139. Cell doors on almost all units can easily be rigged to remain unlocked when shut, allowing prisoners to leave their cells and emer the cells of others at any time, resulting in many assaults. Defendants have received multiple reports of assaults stating that prisoners escaped or entered other cells through rigged doors, including on the protective custody tiers. Despite these reports, Defendants have failed to adequately supervise correctional ofticers to ensure that they routinely and effectively protect the individuals in their custody from harm. 1~0. Sheriffs deputies do not routinely conduct security checks to confirm that prisoners are safe inside their cells. In the House of Detention in particular, deputies cannot sec what is happening on the tiers without walking onto the tier, which they do not do. There are no emergency call buttons on the tier, so victimized or sick prisoners often cannot get help. As a result of these failures, several Plaintiffs were raped or beaten for prolonged pt:riods of time. Yet despite their knowledge of this and other assaults that frequently occur inside cells, Defendants have failed to enact adequate policies and procedures, adopt adequate staffing complements, or train and supervise officers to ensure that individuals are protected from harm. 141. Many officers knowingly instigate fights and attacks by purposefully opening cell doors ro allow prisoners who are in conflict to leave their cells at the same time. Some officers order or persuade prisoners to artack other prisoners. Many officers also facilitate attacks by intentionally leaving cell blocks unsupervised and cell doors unsecured. Defendants have received many complaints about. these problems from prisoners, but rarely conduct thorough investigations or take corrective action. Defendants have a policy and practice of not training and supervising
25

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 26 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 26 of 38
staff to ensure that the deputies employed there take their obligation to protect prisoners seriously. 142. Weapons arc readily available throughout the prison. The facilities arc full of homemade knives, or "shanks." Every prisoner reports knives on his tier. Defendants are aware of this grave problem. It is documented in their own incident reports and medical records, as well as prisoner grievances they review. Despite their knowledge, they have failed to take reasonable measures to protect prisoners from suffering weapon-induced injuries. 143. Prisoners in protective custody arc not safe. While in protective custody, prisoners have been attacked and stabbed. OPP staff fail to take reasonable measures to ensure the safety of these prisoners, who are particularly vulnerable to prison violence due to a variety of factors including size, disposition, nature of their offense, and mental illnesses. Even on the protective custody tiers, cells do not lock. A number of prisoners have complained to prison authorities about these practices, but Defendants have faikd to conduct an appropriate investigation into the
allegations or w take any other precautions to prOlcct the vulnerable people in their custody.
144. Inadequate classification is a significant contributor to the violence in OPP. As noted by the DOJ, the primary purpose of a classification sysrem is "to determine the degree of supervision required to control each inmate and to maintain safety and security...." A good classification system would use objective, behavior-based factors to determine appropriate custody level , such as: severity of offense, prior convictions, prior incarcerations, and personal characteristics such as age, residence and employment. It also would screen for known enemies, checking to ensure that prisoners arc not housed with persons against whom they are testifying, or family members of the victim of their crime.
26

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 27 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 27 of 38
145 . Defendants fai I to complete proper investigations before making housing determinations. Officials have repeatedly placed prisoners on tiers with other people from whom they had requested separation and protection-resulting in numerous attacks. Defendants are aware of these dangers, having received numerous complaints from prisoners about these issues, but have not taken adequate measures to protect people. Even on a tier supposedly reserved for vulnerable prisoners, Defendants expose those in their custody to the risk of serious harm. There is no area of protection for youth who endure threats of violence; they are simply held in a cell on the same tier as lheir attackers, where they are subjected to horrific abuse and prolonged cell confinement. Likewise, Defendants fail to screen for enemies in transporting people to court and holding them prior to court, which is when many attacks occur. 146. The injuries suffered by the individuals described below illustrate how the Defendants' dangerously deticient security practices put the Plaintiffs and other prisoners in danger. Jrav Tapp 147. ln late February 2012, Jray Tapp was arrested on municipal charges of disturbing the peace and public drunkenness. .Tray was in OPP for 28 days. until March 15.2012. 148. Upon arriving on the psychiatric tier, .fray was initially placed in the suicide tank. Once it was determined that he was no longer suicidal, Jray was moved to an overcrowded cell on the psychiatric tier, where people were sleeping on the noor. Rather than giving Jray a mat to sleep on, the guard sent another prisoner in with the mat. When Jray tried to get his mat, the other prisoner srabbed him in the back of the neck. 149. .Jray went in and out of consciousness as he was hit and stabbed by multiple prisoners. "Aitogethc.:r, they stabbed me once in the neck, multiple times in the hc.:ad and back. My hand
27

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 28 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 28 of 38
was sliced up when I tried to grab the knife. I also had two black eyes and my face was all swollen up." 150. It took the guards a long rime ro respond, and even longer for an ambulance to arrive, as Jray lay in his blood. The guards yelled at him- demanding that he stand up and asserting that he was not injured. He told them that he could not move his neck, at which time deputies grabbed his neck and twisted it. He was transported to the hospital, where he was treated. The OPP medical unit transport order says that he was sent for '·multiple puncture wounds." l5l. Upon return from the hospital Jray was placed on another psychiatric tier. His cellmate, who is seriously mentally ill, needed a colostomy bag but did not have one and was defecating on himself and in the cell. Jray slept on the floor without a mat for multiple nights. 152. Jray then was transferred to the Tents, where he again was jumped by another prisoner. That attack resulted in facial bruising, and reopened some of the wounds from his earlier stabbing. 153. As a low level offender without much of a criminal history, DefendantS sh(luld have taken cautionary measures to protect Jray. Instead, in the short time he was at OPP, Jray was housed in two locations where he was serious ly injured. Defendants' deficient classification, security and staffing policies directly caused him harm. EUELL SYI.VESTER 154. Eucll is particularly vulnerable to violence because he is a witness in a crime and is currently pressing charges against another prisoner. This is a matter of public record, yet Defendants failed to take reasonable measures to assure Euell 's safety. 155. Defendants placed Euell in the same building as the person he is pressing charges against, Old Parish Prison. That person "put a hit" on Eucll. Because of this, multiple men cornered
28

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 29 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 29 of 38
Euell. Some of them had knives. They restrained him and beat him. They hit him with their sl ippers and mop buckets. The beating tore skin off of his back. The men also sexually assaulted Eucll. 156. It is unclear where the deputies were while this auack was occurring, but Old Parish Prison has open donn-style housing, and had a guard looked into the dorm, they would have seen what was occurring. 157. Euell reported what happened to deputies. He did not get a rape kit. He hac! to file a request to get an HIV and STD test. I 58. Since the auack, Euell has been placed in proximity to his attackers multiple times, and, as his assault made clear, prisoners can "order hits" throughout the facility. He is in protective custody now, but continues to get threats. Cells pop open and knives are readily available to prisoners. Eucll does not feel safe in Orleans Parish Prison. LEONARD LEWIS 159. Plaintiff Leonard Lewis is in need of prOtection because he tS testifying against a man in a criminal case. Despite this known affiliation, Leonard has been threatened, beat up and stabbed in multiple buildings at OPP. Defendants have failed to take reasonable measure to provide him with adequate protection. 160. Leonard was first attacked in August of 20 lO, when a deputy put him in a cell with a person who knew the man Leonard is testifying against. The deputy knew Leonard was at risk, but placed him in the cell anyway. Leonard was stabbed multiple times. 16 1. Leonard fi led a grievance on that incident immediately after it happened, on August 20, 20 lO. He was informed that he was placed in that cell "by mistake."
29

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 30 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 30 of 38
l62. Leonard filed a second step grievance, saying he was dissatisfied with that response, and asking that he be protected. He received a response saying that the matter had been taken care of, but he still felt unsafe. Leonard filed a third step grievance in September 2010. Just this month, after undersigned counsel began investigating this matter, (and two years after the attack) Leonard received a response from Defendant Gusman himself that the deputy who placed him in jeopardy has been "counseled." 163. During the two year time period the Defendants waited to respond to Leonard's grievance. he was beaten, attacked and stabbed additional times, while on protective custody. He was jumped one day when he was brought to court with general population prisoners. 164. ln November, while on protective custody, Leonard was jumped again on his way back from court. Someone yelled at him that he was a "rat," because they knew that he was a witness in protective custody. Because the cells were open, men came into his cell and beat him. He yelled for help, but it took him hours to get the deputy' s attention. His face was swollen and his nose injured. He filed another grievance about the issue, and was informed that SOD ('"Special Operations Division") is investigating it. 165. On March 27, 20 12 he was brought to court with the man he is testifying against. He is not. supposed to be around the man. 166. Leonard does not feel safe because he has been seriously attacked multiple times. Defendants' policies and practices of inadequate staffing, security and classification have resulted in his being injured multiple times, and he remains vulnerable in the Defendants' custody.
30

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 31 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 31 of 38
MARK WALKER 167. Mark Walker is currently incarcerated in OPP on a medical tier in Old Parish Prison. He is diagnosed with bipolar disorder and is legally blind. After his arrest, Mark was forced to perform oral sex on another prisoner. He yelled for the guards but they did not come. After the assault, Mark was placed on suicide watch. 168. Mark reported the assault, but was not seen by SOD until 41 days after the attack. They interviewed him in front of other prisoners heightening his fear of retaliation. It also took a long time for Mark to get an HTV test. He still bas not received the results of that test. 169. Mark is particularly vulnerable to auack and abuse because he is legally blind. As a result, he was jumped multiple times in the Tents. Sheriff's deputies failed to protect him. 170. One night, Mark was packing up his items to move to another facility. When he grabbed his mat, the deputy said that Mark had hit him with it. The deputy took Mark to the back of Tent One and beat him. while he was handcuffed. A female deputy witnessed this incident and
initially laughed while Mark endured the beating, hut eventually, after the Deputy continued w
beat Mark for an extended pe1iod of time, she told him to stop. 171. Mark has asked multiple times to see a social worker. When he asks why he has not been seen, he is told that his complaints are not in the computer. 172. Mark says, "the guards do not patrol the tiers, they do not respond to verbal complaints or grievances. Like everyone else in here, T am constantly in fear for my well-being." Due to his heightened vulnerabilities, Mark has been consistently subjected to attacks in various facilities in OPP. The Defendants' deficient staffing, security and classification systems have failed to protect him from abuse.
31

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 32 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 32 of 38
ANTHONY GIOUSTAVIA 173. Anthony is 19 years old, and was attacked by a bigger, older man when he first anived in the House of Detention. The attack was prolonged because no deputies were present on his tier. Since then, Anthony has seen many other fights, including an attack on a very small prisoner, who was grabbed by other men while he was sleeping. He also witnessed a fight where one man was stabbed in the mouth and twice in the back. 174. Anthony is currently in OPP, and feels like his safety is immediately at risk. He is located on a violent tier and is aware of other prisoners tying people up and choking them until they pass om. Anthony says, "Guards are never around when fights break out, which is often. They usually come by for count time, and then kave again for hours." Defendants' policies and practices of fail ing to protect people in their custody are creating an imminent risk to Anthony's safety.
GREG JOURNEE
175. Greg was original ly housed in Old Patish Prison, bul asked to be moved because he was receiving threats. When he asked to be moved, the Warden said, "you know this is a jail facility. 1can't make sure nothing happens to you." 176. Right after being moved into the House of Detenti on, Journee was jumped by several men. Some of them held him, while one stabbed him over and over. He was bleeding and yelled for a deputy. No one came until the next day. Greg did not receive medical attention for the stab bing.
32

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 33 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 33 of 38
L77. Greg says, "all of the cells pop in all of the tiers and the guards leave us alone. People on my tier have shanks so big they look like kitchen knives. Guys can get out and come get you at any time. The guards aren't gotng to do anything to stop it. I don't think anyone is safe here." STEVEN DOMTNICK I 78. Steven Dominick is in protective custody in the House of Detention because he is a witness against someone accused of another crime. Steven has been threatened with knives, jumped and stabbed. He also has witnessed many stabbings in OPP. 179. Steven says, "guards do nothing to prevent violence. In fact, they often instigate it. When severe inj ury results from a fight, guards fail to respond with urgency. It can take hours for a deputy to come to a tier. Consequently, I have had to apply pressure to knife wounds and called fam ily members to call 91 1since the guards refuse to help. These faci lities arc not undermanned, they are unmanned. Deputies frequently leave their posts. Guards typically work two floors during one shift, which is about 94 people. It doesn't matter what facility you are in, you're going to be lucky to escape without some scars." RICHARD LANFORD 180. Plaintiff Richard Lanford is currently housed in the Conchetta faci lity at OPP. Richard is especially vulnerable to attack because he this is his first time in OPP. 18 I. Richard has sustained serious injuries in two facilities at OPP: Old Parish Prison and House of Detention. Since his arrest in the fall, Richard has been beaten multiple times, and had to be taken to the hospital for injuries sustained. 182. Richard was jumped soon after <miving in the House of Detention, probably because he is particularly vulnerable to attack. He suffered serious injury in that attack; his arm was injured, and he now cannot move it without extreme pain. He reported it to deputies, who refused to help
33

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 34 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 34 of 38
or move him away from the people who attacked him. Richard remains in significant pain fro m that attack, and deputies continue to deny him medical attention. 183. Richard was subsequently moved to the Old Parish Prison. He was jumped again and this time, his face was severely injured. He had to wait over an hour for medical attention, and ultimately required surgery as a result of the attack. Inexplicably, Richard was returned from the hospital to OPP. Other prisoners knew that he had reported the attack and received medical care for his injuries, so they labeled him a "rat." Immediately after returning to OPP, Richard was jumped aga.in, this time in the medical tier of Old Parish Prison. He was rcinjured in that attack. 184. Because of the severe abuse he was sustaining, and due to his appearing in criminal coun with bruises and lacerations, the two judges in Richard 's criminal case ordered that he be moved from Old Parish to Conchcrta for his safety. However, he was moved back to OPP, where he was threatened again. 185. Subsequent co undersigned counsel meeting with Richard, Defendanrs finally moved him to Concheua. He is now on a tier with one of the men who attacked him in Old Parish Prison. He does not feel safe. 186. Richard explains that guards parrol too many areas at once and arc absent for long periods of time. Medication is distributed in bulk, with multiple doses at once, called a "keep on person" medication distribution system. Richard is on pain medication because of his surgery. He has been threatened for his medication and is forced to give it away, in lieu of being attacked. 187. Defendants' classification and staffing deficiencies directly Jed to Richard's severe facial injuries, and the inj ury to his arm. Even after he was attacked in HOD, the Defendants failed to classify him as needing protection, allowing further victimization in OPP. After he was bruralized in OPP, he was returned there. only to be immediately attacked again. He was not
34

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 35 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 35 of 38
moved until undersigned counsel began visiting him. Richard says, "I am extremely depressed as a result of tht: violence and conditions of this place. I feel like I have aged ten years in the six momhs I have spenc here. We're treated like animals here."
188. J.J. was incarcerated at OPP at the age of 15, because he is being tried as an adult. He was booked onto the juvenile tier in Tempkman V. J.J. was jumped on the juvenile tier as soon as he entered; he was confronted by older, tougher youth with knives. 189. J.J. witnessed rape and violence on lhe j uvenile tier. He witnessed a youth being raped anally with toothbrush. J.J . reported the unconstitutional conditions. He requested protective custody, and was placed on 23 hour cell confinement, still on the same tier with the other youth. 190. J.J. continued robe tormented by some of the other youth on the tier, who called him a "rat" for being on protcctive custody. The one hour per day that JJ. was allowed out of his cell to use the telephone and shower meant that other youth had to be locked down during that rime. This created intense animosity between others on the tier and J.J. 191. Other youth threw icc water and urine on J.J . They obtained his educational records. which were left out by the guards and contai ned his home address, and threatened to kill his mother, because he was a "rat." 192. The conditions made J.J. suicidal. He reported to the guards that he wanted to kill himself. 193. J.J. was transported to the psychiatric tier in the House of Detention. Because he was a juvenile, they placed him in the shower- which was the only cell in which he could be kept separate from adults. The shower floor was covered in semen and urine. J.J. was naked, except for a suicide smock. He was afraid to sit down, so he stood up all night long.
35

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 36 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 36 of 38
194. While on the tier, he heard a prisoner being raped. The next morning, J.J. overheard the prisoner tel l the guard that he had been raped. The guard said that the prisoner was lying. 195. J.J. signed a contract to get off of the psychiatric tier. 196. J.J. was transferred back to protective custody on the juvenile unit. However, guards threatened to allow other youth to attack him, because he continued to report to outside sources the unconstitutional conditions on the tier. 197. J.J. was jumped twice, once on his way to court, and once in the visitation room, whi le visiting with his mother. 198. As a result of outside advocacy, J.J. was moved to another building. He is now housed in a special unit. That unit initially consisted of 23 hour lockdown and solitary cell confinement. For weeks, there was no television or books. The solitary cell confinement caused the people housed there to deteriorate mentally. J.J. and the other people on that tier have struggled significantly emotionally over the last several months. The cell confinement has been extremely damaging to them.
EXHAUSTION 199. The named Plaintiffs have exhausted all avaiIable administrative remedies, to the extent thm the ARP procedure is available.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF First Claim
Eighth Amendment Violations: Deliberate Indifference to Plaintiffs' Serious Mental Health Needs
By fai li ng to provide constitutionally adequate mental health care ro address the Plaintiffs' serious medical and mental health needs and by allowing the pol icies and practices of providing
36

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 37 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 37 of 38

grossly substandard healthcare to continue, Defendants violate the Plaintiffs' rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Second Claim Eighth Amendment Violations: Failure to Protect From Dangerously
Violent Conditions of Confinement Hy subjecting Plaintiffs to dangerously violent conditions of confinement and by exhibiting deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs' substantial risk of serious physical injury as a result of these conditions, Defendants violate the Plaintiffs' rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Ei ghth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray that this Honorable Court granL the following relief:

a.

Declare that the acts and omissions of the Defendants violate Plainti ffs' constirutional

rights and federal law;

b.

Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring the Defendants, their agents,

subordinates, employees and all others acting in concert with them to cease their unconstitutional

and unlawful practices and to remedy their violations of the Constitution and the laws;

c.

Award to the Plaintiffs reasonable costs and attorney's fees; and

d.

Grant the Plaintiff such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

37

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 76-1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 38 of 38
Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-SS Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 38 of 38 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this the 2nd day of April, 2012. Katie M. Schwartzmann
Katie M. Schwartzmann, T.A., La. Bar No. 30295 Sheila A. Bcdi, Miss. Bar No. 101652 (pro hac vice application forthcom ing)
The Southern Poverty r.aw Center
443 1 Canal Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70119 504-486-8982 (phone) 504-486-8947 (fax)
38

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 93 Filed 11/27/12 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LASHAWN JONES, ET AL. VERSUS MARLIN GUSMAN, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION
No. 12-859 c/w 12-138 REF: 12-859
SECTION I

ORDER Considering the motion1 for preliminary injunction, IT IS ORDERED that, without objection, the m otion is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in light of the fact that a full trial on the merits has been scheduled to take place on an expedited basis.2

New Orleans, Louisiana, November 27, 2012.
___________________________________ LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 R. Doc. No. 14. 2 The Court was advised that plaintiffs have no objection to the same.
1

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 131 Filed 01/22/13 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LASHAWN JONES, ET AL.
VERSUS
MARLIN GUSMAN, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION
No. 12-859 c/w 12-138 REF: 12-859
SECTION I

ORDER Before the Court is the joint m otion1 for prelim inary approval of the proposed consent judgment, filed on behalf of the proposed plain tiff class (“Plaint iffs”), the United States of America (“United States”), and the Sheriff of Orleans Parish (“Sheriff”). The Plaintiffs, United States, and Sheriff have agreed that the substantive provisions of the proposed consent judgment would resolve all of the claims in the above-captioned m atter as to alleged unc onstitutional conditions of confinem ent at Orleans Parish Prison (“OPP”). These parties have stipulated that the proposed consent judgment is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the alleged violations of federal rights at OPP, is the least intrusive means necessary to correct these violations, and will not have an adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system. See 18 U.S.C. 3626(a) & (c). The proposed consent judgm ent would function as a settlem ent of the putative class’s claims.2 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). Upon i nitial review, the proposed consent judgm ent appears to be fair, adequate, and reasonable, not the production of collusion between the Plaintiffs and

1R. Doc. No. 101. Although captioned “Joint Motion for Prelimi nary Approval of Consent Judgment,” the motion requests both preliminary and final approval.
2Plaintiffs’ initial motion for class certification defines the class as consis ting of all current and future inmates of OPP. R. Doc. No. 2. Plaintiffs and the Sheriff have committed to filing a motion to certify a settlement class consisting of all current and future inmates within one month. See R. Doc. No. 126. The fact that the class definition and settlement terms will remain constant suggests that a second form of notice should not be necessary, although the Court defers ruling on that issue pending consideration of the forthcoming motion.
1

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 131 Filed 01/22/13 Page 2 of 3

the Sheriff, and within the range of reasonableness that could support fina l approval. There are

no obvious deficiencies, and the proposed consent judgment does not grant preferential treatment

to the Plaintiffs’ nam ed class representatives. Th e Court finds that preliminary approval of the

class settlement is appropriate such that putative class m embers should be notified of a fairness

hearing and given the opportunity to object.

The Plaintiffs, United States, and Sheriff ha ve agreed that the revised proposed notice

procedure is acceptable as to class m embers and the general public. 3 After conducting its own

review, the Court finds that the revised procedur e is the best notice to class members that is

reasonably practicable under the circum stances. The Court a lso finds that public notice is

appropriate.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the m otion is GRANTED IN PART . The proposed consent

judgment is prelim inarily approved as between the Plaintiffs and Sheriff, subject to additional

briefing and a fairness hearing.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a fairness hearing shall be held before t

he

undersigned U.S. Distric t Judge on Monday, April 1, 2013, at 8:30 a.m. for consideration of

whether to grant final approva l to the proposed consent judgm ent as between the Plaintiffs,

United States, and She riff.4 The hearing will be held at the United States District Court f or the

3R. Doc. No. 129. The Court has been inform ed that the City of New Orleans (“City”) disagrees with the following statement in the abbreviated notice: “It is important to let the Court know if you are a class member because class members are entitled to rights not available to general public.”See R. Doc. No. 129-2, at pp. 1-2;see also Devlin v. Scardelletti, 536 U.S. 1, 14 (2002). Other than this sentence, the Plaintiffs, United States, Sheriff, and City all agree that the revised notice procedure and content are acceptable as to both members of the class and the general public.
4Although there will be a single hearing, diffe rent standards govern court approval of a class settlement and court approval of a consent decree. See, e.g., Overton v. Austin, 748 F.2d 941, 952
2

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 131 Filed 01/22/13 Page 3 of 3
Eastern District of Louisiana, 500 Poydras St ., New Orleans, Louisiana 70130. The Court will accept written submissions from class members and the general public acc ording to the revised procedures described in R. Doc. No. 129-2.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the revised notice procedures 5 are approved and that Plaintiffs’ counsel is authorized to begin implementing these procedures.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the dates, deadlines, and other requirem ents detailed in this Court’s prior Order6 continue to apply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will DEFER ruling on whether to grant final approval on the proposed consent judgment as between Plaintiffs, the United States, and the Sheriff until after the April 1, 2013 fairness hearing.
New Orleans, Louisiana, January 21, 2013.
___________________________________ LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
(5th Cir. 1984). 5R. Doc. No. 129. 6R. Doc. No. 126.
3

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183 Filed 03/18/13 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LASHAWN JONES, et al.

)

Plaintiffs, and

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

)

Plaintiffs in Intervention,

)

)

v.

)

)

MARLIN GUSMAN,

)

Sheriff, Orleans Parish,

)

Defendant, and

)

)

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS,

)

Third-Party Defendant.

)

)

___________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-00859 Section I Judge Lance M. Africk Magistrate Judge Chasez

JOINT STATEMENT AMENDING PROPOSED CONSENT JUDGMENT In accordance with the Court’s Order of March 5, 2013, ECF No. 163, the Plaintiff Class,

the United States of America (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), and Defendant Orleans Parish Sheriff

(“Sheriff”) hereby file this Joint Statement Amending the Proposed Consent Judgment, ECF No.

101-3, in this matter. The Amended Proposed Consent Judgment is attached as exhibit 1 to this

filing.

1. On December 11, 2012, Plaintiffs and the Sheriff respectfully requested that the

Court preliminarily approve a Proposed Consent Judgment to resolve Plaintiffs’ claims of

unlawful conditions of confinement at the Orleans Parish Prison (“OPP”). ECF No. 101.

2. On January 22, 2013, the Court preliminarily approved the Proposed Consent

Judgment, pending a fairness hearing set for April 1, 2013. ECF No. 131.

3. In order to resolve the stated concerns of Third-party Defendant City of New

Orleans (“City”), Plaintiffs and the Sheriff have executed the Amended Proposed Consent

Judgment to ensure (a) that the City can fully participate in all proceedings relating to the

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183 Filed 03/18/13 Page 2 of 5
funding and cost of implementing the Proposed Consent Judgment, and (b) that the City will receive complete information regarding compliance and conditions at OPP. See Ex. 1 at §§ V, IX.F.
4. The amendments do not alter the substance or effect of the Proposed Consent Judgment with regard to the Plaintiff Class or conditions at OPP. See Redline of Amended Sections of Proposed Consent Judgment (attached as exhibit 2). As such, the Amended Proposed Consent Judgment should not require updated notice to class members nor any change to the proposed schedule for the fairness hearing.
5. Plaintiffs, the Sheriff, and the City have engaged in extensive discussions to attempt to resolve the City’s concerns with the original Proposed Consent Judgment. Plaintiffs and the Sheriff believe the proposed amendments adequately address those concerns. Plaintiffs and the Sheriff hereby incorporate the previous briefing urging approval of the Proposed Consent Judgment to support approval of the Amended Proposed Consent Judgment. See ECF Nos. 101 & 101-1, Joint Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Approval of Consent Judgment; ECF No. 139, Plaintiffs’ Joint Memorandum of Law in Support of the Proposed Consent Judgment, ECF No. 140, Plaintiffs’ Joint Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; ECF No. 162, Plaintiffs’ Joint Reply to the City of New Orleans’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Briefing in Support of Class Certification and the Proposed Consent Judgment; ECF No. 179, Plaintiffs’ Joint Response to the City of New Orleans’ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
6. Plaintiffs and the Sheriff now request that the Court: (1) preliminarily enter the attached Amended Proposed Consent Judgment as an order of the Court; (2) proceed with the fairness hearing on April 1, 2013, to make a final determination regarding whether the Amended
2

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183 Filed 03/18/13 Page 3 of 5

Proposed Consent Judgment is fair, adequate, reasonable, not the product of collusion, and compliant with the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a) & (c); and (3) in the event all parties do not resolve the dispute as to the initial funding amount and the source(s) responsible for funding implementation of the Amended Proposed Consent Judgment, proceed with the May 28, 2013 funding trial to determine such issues.

FOR THE UNITED STATES:

Respectfully submitted,

THOMAS E. PEREZ Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

ROY L. AUSTIN, JR. Deputy Assistant Attorney General

/s Laura L. Coon JONATHAN M. SMITH, Chief (DC 396578) LAURA L. COON, Special Counsel (DC 481379) COREY M. SANDERS (DC 490940) KERRY DEAN (DC 474260) United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-6255 laura.coon@usdoj.gov

3

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183 Filed 03/18/13 Page 4 of 5
FOR THE PLAINTIFF CLASS:
s/ Katie Schwartzman (by consent given to United States’ counsel) KATIE SCHWARTZMANN ELIZABETH CUMMING Southern Poverty Law Center 4431 Canal Street New Orleans, LA 70119 (504) 486-8982 katie.schwartzmann@splcenter.org
FOR DEFENDANT SHERIFF:
s/ Blake J. Arcuri (by consent given to United States’ counsel) T. ALLEN USRY FREEMAN R. MATTHEWS BLAKE J. ARCURI TIMOTHY R. RICHARDSON Usry, Weeks & Matthews, APLC 1615 Poydras Street, Suite 1250 New Orleans, LA 70112 (504) 592-4600 barcuri@uwmlaw.com
DATED: March 18, 2013
4

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183 Filed 03/18/13 Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 18, 2013, I served the foregoing via the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will automatically provide notice to all counsel of record.

LAURA Attorney

/s Laura L. Coon L. COON, Special Counsel (DC 481379) for the United States
United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-6255 laura.coon@usdoj.gov

5

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 164 Filed 03/07/13 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LASHAWN JONES, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NUMBER: 12-0859

MARLIN GUSMAN, SHERIFF, ORLEANS PARISH, ET AL.

SECTION: "I"(5)

ORDER ON MOTION MARCH 6, 2013
APPEARANCES: MOTION: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (Rec. doc. 51). (2) DA’s Office’s Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena Pursuant to
Rule 45 (Rec. doc. 116). : Continued to
2 : No opposition. 1 : Opposition

2 : :

ORDERED Dismissed as moot. Dismissed for failure of counsel to appear.

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 164 Filed 03/07/13 Page 2 of 2

: : 1 :

Granted. Denied. Other. Dismissed without prejudice.

ALMA L. CHASEZ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 178 Filed 03/15/13 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LASHAWN JONES, ET AL.
VERSUS
MARLIN GUSMAN, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION
No. 12-859 c/w 12-138 REF: 12-859
SECTION I

ORDER Considering the unopposed motion1 for a protective order, IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. The unidentified sexual assault victim may be referred to by a pseudonym at the April 1, 2013 hearing. IT IS FURTHER ORDEREDthat any medical records submitted as exhibits at the hearing shall be FILED UNDER SEAL.

New Orleans, Louisiana, March 15, 2013.

_____________________________ LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1R. Doc. No. 176.

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 201 Filed 03/21/13 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LASHAWN JONES, et al., and

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

MARLIN GUSMAN,

)

Sheriff, Orleans Parish,

)

Defendant, and

)

)

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS,

)

Third-Party Defendant.

)

___________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-00859 Section I Judge Lance M. Africk Magistrate Judge Chasez

ORDER

Let a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum be issued to the Wardens of the Louisiana State

Penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana and Elayn Hunt Correctional Center in St. Gabriel, Louisiana or one of

their authorized Assistant Wardens. CARL FAGGIN is to be transported to the Elayn Hunt Correctional

Center in St. Gabriel, Louisiana from his current place of incarceration. CARL FAGGIN must be

transported from the Elayn Hunt Correctional Center to United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Louisiana on each day of the scheduled trial. At the end of each trial date, CARL FAGGIN

will be transported back to the Elayn Hunt Correctional Center. Upon arrival at United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, the United States Marshal for the Eastern District of

Louisiana, or her lawful deputy, or any other United States Marshal, will assist in transporting CARL

FAGGIN to Court. Upon completion of his testimony, CARL FAGGIN will be returned to the Wardens’

custody.
Hello This is a Test
New Orleans, Louisiana this___2_0_t_h___ day of ____M__a_r_c_h_____, 2013.

____________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 205 Filed 03/21/13 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LASHAWN JONES, et al., and

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

MARLIN GUSMAN,

)

Sheriff, Orleans Parish,

)

Defendant, and

)

)

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS,

)

Third-Party Defendant.

)

___________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-00859 Section I Judge Lance M. Africk Magistrate Judge Chasez

ORDER

Let a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum be issued to the Sheriff of the Orleans Parish

Prison, New Orleans, Louisiana or one of his authorized Wardens to deliver AARON STEEL to the

United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Louisiana, or his lawful deputy, or to any other United

States Marshal, to be brought by him before this Court at the time of trial to testify in the case and to be

promptly returned to the Sheriff’s custody when his testimony is completed. Hello This is a Test
New Orleans, Louisiana this__2__0_t_h___ day of ____M__a_r_c_h_____, 2013.

____________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 207 Filed 03/21/13 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LASHAWN JONES, et al., and

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

MARLIN GUSMAN,

)

Sheriff, Orleans Parish,

)

Defendant, and

)

)

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS,

)

Third-Party Defendant.

)

___________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-00859 Section I Judge Lance M. Africk Magistrate Judge Chasez

ORDER

Let a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum be issued to the Wardens of the Louisiana State

Penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana and Elayn Hunt Correctional Center in St. Gabriel, Louisiana or one of

their authorized Assistant Wardens. EUELL SYLVESTER is to be transported to the Elayn Hunt

Correctional Center in St. Gabriel, Louisiana from his current place of incarceration. EUELL

SYLVESTER must be transported from the Elayn Hunt Correctional Center to United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on each day of the scheduled trial. At the end of each trial

date, EUELL SYLVESTER will be transported back to the Elayn Hunt Correctional Center. Upon arrival

at United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, the United States Marshal for the

Eastern District of Louisiana, or her lawful deputy, or any other United States Marshal, will assist in

transporting EUELL SYLVESTER to Court. Upon completion of his testimony, EUELL SYLVESTER

will be returned to the Wardens’ custody.
Hello This is a Test
New Orleans, Louisiana this__2__0_th____ day of ____M__a_r_c_h_____, 2013.

____________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 209 Filed 03/21/13 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LASHAWN JONES, et al., and

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

MARLIN GUSMAN,

)

Sheriff, Orleans Parish,

)

Defendant, and

)

)

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS,

)

Third-Party Defendant.

)

___________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-00859 Section I Judge Lance M. Africk Magistrate Judge Chasez

ORDER

Let a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum be issued to the Wardens of the Madison Parish

Correctional Center in Tallulah, Louisiana and Elayn Hunt Correctional Center in St. Gabriel, Louisiana

or one of their authorized Assistant Wardens. DONALD WASHINGTON is to be transported to the

Elayn Hunt Correctional Center in St. Gabriel, Louisiana from his current place of incarceration.

DONALD WASHINGTON must be transported from the Elayn Hunt Correctional Center to United

States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on each day of the scheduled trial. At the end of

each trial date, DONALD WASHINGTON will be transported back to the Elayn Hunt Correctional

Center. Upon arrival at United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, the United

States Marshal for the Eastern District of Louisiana, or her lawful deputy, or any other United States

Marshal, will assist in transporting DONALD WASHINGTON to Court. Upon completion of his

testimony, DONALD WASHINGTON will be returned to the Wardens’ custody. Hello This is a Test
New Orleans, Louisiana this___2_0_t_h___ day of ____M__a_r_c_h_____, 2013.

____________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 211 Filed 03/21/13 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LASHAWN JONES, et al., and

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

MARLIN GUSMAN,

)

Sheriff, Orleans Parish,

)

Defendant, and

)

)

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS,

)

Third-Party Defendant.

)

___________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-00859 Section I Judge Lance M. Africk Magistrate Judge Chasez

ORDER

Let a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum be issued to the Wardens of the Louisiana State

Penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana and Elayn Hunt Correctional Center in St. Gabriel, Louisiana or one of

their authorized Assistant Wardens. DURRELL RICHARD is to be transported to the Elayn Hunt

Correctional Center in St. Gabriel, Louisiana from his current place of incarceration. DURRELL

RICHARD must be transported from the Elayn Hunt Correctional Center to United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana on each day of the scheduled trial. At the end of each trial date,

DURRELL RICHARD will be transported back to the Elayn Hunt Correctional Center. Upon arrival at

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, the United States Marshal for the

Eastern District of Louisiana, or her lawful deputy, or any other United States Marshal, will assist in

transporting DURRELL RICHARD to Court. Upon completion of his testimony, DURRELL RICHARD

will be returned to the Wardens’ custody. Hello This is a Test
New Orleans, Louisiana this__2__0_t_h___ day of ___M___a_r_c_h_____, 2013.

____________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 213 Filed 03/21/13 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LASHAWN JONES, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 12-859 c/w 12-138 REF: 12-859

MARLIN GUSMAN, ET AL.

SECTION I

ORDER

Before the Court is a joint statem ent1 filed by the putative plaintif f class, the United

States of Am erica, and the Sheriff of Orlean s Parish, requesting that the Court prelim inarily

approve the Am ended Proposed Consent Judgm ent and substitute it for the original Proposed

Consent Judgment. The Cour t has reviewed the Am ended Proposed Consent Judgm ent and

concludes that the amendments do not alter the original Proposed Consent Judgm ent’s substance

or effect in a manner that would require new briefing before the April 1, 2013 fairness hearing or

a revised class notice. The Court’s reasons for preliminarily approving the original version apply

with equal force to the amended version.

IT IS ORDERED that the Am ended Proposed Consent Judgm ent is prelim inarily

approved.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Am ended Proposed Consent Judgm ent is

substituted for the original Pr oposed Consent Judgment as the subject of the A pril 1, 2013

fairness hearing. The Court will consider all previous briefing when evaluat ing the Amended

Proposed Consent Judgment.

1 R. Doc. No. 183.

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 213 Filed 03/21/13 Page 2 of 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the City of New Orleans m ay file a m emorandum addressing the amendments on or before Monday, March 25, 2013 at 4:00 p.m . Any response shall be filed on or before Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 12:00 p.m.
New Orleans, Louisiana, March 20, 2013. ___________________________________ LANCE M. AFRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LASHAWN JONES ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 12-859 c/w 12-138 REF: BOTH CASES

MARLIN GUSMAN ET AL.

SECTION I

ORDER APPROVING CONSENT JUDGMENT AND CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASS
Before the Court is the joint motion1 for approval of the proposed consent judgment2 filed by plaintiffs, LaShawn Jones et al. (“Class Plain tiffs”), intervenor plaintiff, the United States of America (“United States”) (collectively, “Plainti ffs”), and defendant, the Orle ans Parish Sheriff (“Sheriff”). Also before the Court is the motion3 for certification of a settlement class filed by Class Plaintiffs, which the United States and the Sheriff do not oppose. Third-party defendant, the City of New Orleans (“City”), opposes approval of the proposed consent judgment and certification of a settlement class.4 For the following reasons, the motions are GRANTED.

1R. Doc. No. 101. Record citations are to Civil Action No. 12-859 unless otherwise noted.
2Consent Judgment. Record citations to “Consent Judgment” are to the document filed on this date, which incorporates the March 18, 2013 am endments discussed herei n and gram matical and typographical corrections listed in a separate filing.
3R. Doc. No. 145.
4E.g., R. Doc. No. 159.
-1-

FACTUAL BACKGROUND This lawsuit arises from the alleged unlawful conditions of confinement at Orleans Parish Prison (“OPP”). Among other things, the lawsuit seeksto address deficiencies in safety and security, medical and mental health care, environmental conditions, fire safety, andSpanish language services at OPP. Inmates are currently housed in seven physical facilities that collectively comprise OPP, namely, (1) the original OPP,5 (2) Conchetta, (3) Templeman Phase V, (4) the Temporary Detention Center, (5) the Tents, (6) the W arren McDaniels Tra nsitional Work Center, and (7) the Intake Processing Center.6 The 600-800 inm ates housed in the original OPP i nclude youth inm ates, maximum security inmates, and inmates with medical issues.7 Conchetta houses 300-400 inmates, including both youth and adult inmates, in six housing units.8 Templeman Phase V (“Templeman V”) houses approxim ately 240 fem ale inmates and inm ates with m ental health issues in nine different units.9 The Temporary Detention Center houses approximately 400-500 inmates in four units, each of which contains two dormitories.10 The Tents consist of eight windowless canvas tents, supplied by the Federal Em ergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) after Hurricane Katrina, 11
5This facility is also referred to as “Old Parish Prison.” E.g., Pl. Ex. 374, at 10; R. Doc. No. 405, at 26. The Court refers to this facility as the “original OPP” and to the seven f acilities generally as “OPP.” 6Pl. Ex. 3; Pl. Ex. 374, at 7; Pl. Ex. 380. 7Pl. Ex. 85; Pl. Ex. 370; Pl. Ex. 374, at 32; Pl. Ex. 380. 8Pl. Ex. 88; Pl. Ex. 368; Pl. Ex. 374, at 13; Pl. Ex. 380. 9Pl. Ex. 374, at 15; Pl. Ex. 380. 10Pl. Ex. 374, at 16; Pl. Ex. 380. 11R. Doc. No. 374, at 7.
-2-

which collectively house approximately 500-600 inmates in a dormitory setting.12 Approximately 150 inmates may be present at the Intake Processing Center on a given day.13 Approximately 115
inmates may be present at the Warren McDaniels Transitional Work Center, also referred to as the Broad Street work-release facility, on a given day.14
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Although the conditions at OPP have long been the subject of litigation, this par ticular lawsuit is the product of investigations and complaints arising in the past five years1.5 In early 2008,
the Sheriff requested technical assistance f rom the National Institute of Corrections, a f ederal agency, expressing particular concern as to OPP facilities’ staffing and emergency preparedness.16
After two outside consultants conducted a six-day site visit, they drafted a report exam ining operations at OPP facilities, and focusing on staffing and emergency preparedness.17 They noted
12Pl. Ex. 374, at 13-14; Pl. Ex. 380. 13Pl. Ex. 380. 14Pl. Ex. 380. 15The litigation before the Court is separate from that in Hamilton v. Morial, which was ongoing for approximately 40 years before that case was closed in 2008. See Hamilton Plaintiffs v. Williams Plaintiffs, 147 F.3d 367, 368 (5th Cir. 1998)(“In 1969 a class action,Hamilton v. Schiro, was filed in the Eastern District of Louisiana challenging conditions in the N ew Orleans Parish Prison. In April 1970, the trial court found that the prison conditions were unconstitutional and issued a remedial decree, including a prisoner population cap.”);see also Civil Action No. 69-2443, R. Doc. No. 2007 (August 23, 2007) (dism issing plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice), adopted by Civil Action No. 69-2443, R. Doc. No. 2041 (June 20, 2008) (“Magistrate Judge Chasez has done an outstanding job through the years and all parties to this litigation were fortunate to have her preside over this case. But this litigation has now run its natural course and the time has come to end it.”). 16Pl. Ex. 3, at 3. 17Pl. Ex. 3, at 6.
-3-

OPP’s “pervasive and long standing problems,” which date back many years.18 The October 2008 report discussed some of the deficiencies alleged in this case and proposed general solutions.19
In September 2009, the United States, through the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), conducted
a site visit at OPP and issued a letter to the Sheriff, describing findings of unlawful conditions related to inmate violence, staff use of force,mental health care, and environmental conditions.20 In
April 2012, DOJ issued a findings update letter to the Sheriff, reporting that unlawful conditions
persisted, notifying the Sheriff of discriminatory conditions not addressed in the previous letter, and requesting that the Sheriff take immediate action.21
On January 18, 2012, three youth inmates, through their next friends, filed a sealed complaint
for injunctive and declaratory relief, alleging that unconstitutional conditions at OPP facilities subjected them to substantial risks of bodily harm or death.22
On April 2, 2013, ten nam ed OPP inm ates (“Class Representatives”), seeking solely
injunctive relief, filed a complaint alleging that the Sheriff, the wardens of several OPP facilities,
OPP’s medical director, and its psychiatric dir ector were violating OPP inm ates’ Eighth and
18Pl. Ex. 3, at 6. 19E.g., Pl. Ex. 3, at 60-61 (“Current classification prac tices are inadequate and require substantial improvements. . . . The Sheriff should request asssi tance from the National Institute of Corrections to develop a comprehensive new approach to inmate behavior m anagement, including the development of a valid and effective system of inmate classification.”). 20Pl. Ex. 1. DOJ issued a copy of the letter to Mayor Ray Nagin; T. Allen Usry, counsel for the Sheriff; Penya Moses-Fields, City Attorney; andJim Letten, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana. 21Pl. Ex. 2. DOJ issued a copy of the letter to MayorMitch Landrieu; T. Allen Usry, counsel for the Sheriff; Richard Cortizas, Acting City Attorney ; and Jim Letten, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana. 22Civil Action No. 12-138, R. Doc. No. 2.
-4-

Fourteenth Amendment rights. Class Representatives specif ically alleged that def endants fail to provide constitutionally adequate m edical care and m ental health care. 23 Class Representatives further alleged that violent conditions of confinement subjected them to a substantial risk ofserious physical injury, to which defendants were deliberately indifferent2.4 On the same day they filed their complaint, Class Representatives filed a motion for certification of a class of plaintiffs consisting of all current and future OPP inmates.25 The April 2 complaint was consolidated with the January 18 complaint.26 The Court refers to the class, includingClass Representatives, as “Class Plaintiffs.” Class Plaintiffs are represented by the Southern Poverty Law Center (“SPLC”).
Class Plaintiffs m oved for a prelim inary injunction, but discovery disputes delayed the consideration of this motion.27 By September 21, 2012, however, the Court was advised that the Sheriff intended to file a third-party complaint against the City, after which Class Plaintiffs would file a motion for entry of a proposed consent judgment.28
On September 24, 2012, the United States moved to intervene in the April 2 lawsuit, stating that such intervention would provide the most efficient resolution of Class Plaintiffs’ and the United
23R. Doc. No. 1, at 36-37. 24R. Doc. No. 1, at 37. 25R. Doc. No. 2. 26R. Doc. No. 13. Subsequent litigation has focusedon the April 2 complaint. The named plaintiffs in Civil Action No. 12-138, however, are parties to this settlement pursuant to its express terms and implicitly as class members. See Consent Judgment, at 1. 27E.g., R. Doc. No. 56. 28R. Doc. No. 71.
-5-

States’ overlapping concerns.29 The Court granted the United States’ unopposed m otion.30 In its complaint in intervention, the United States alleged that the Sheriff violates inmates’ Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing to protectinmates from harm, providing insufficient mental health and medical care, and subjecting inmates to unconstitutional environmental conditions.31 The United States also alleged that the Sherif f violates Title VI by unlawf ully discriminating against Latino inmates with limited English proficiency.32
On October 1, 2012, with leave of Court, the Sheriff filed two, substantively similar, thirdparty complaints against the City, one based on Class Plaintiffs’ claims and one based on the United States’ claims.33 In each complaint, the Sheriff assertedthat, “should judgment be rendered granting any prospective relief against third-party plaintiff,” the Court should order the City of New Orleans to pay the Sheriff “the full cost, as determ ined by the Court, of providing any prospective rel ief ordered by this Court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626.”34
THE PROPOSED CONSENT JUDGMENT On December 11, 2012, Class Plaintiffs, the United States, and the Sheriff m oved for the Court to approve a proposed consent judgm ent, notwithstanding the City’s decision to rem ain a
29R. Doc. No. 68, at 3. 30R. Doc. No. 69. 31R. Doc. No. 70. 32R. Doc. No. 70. 33R. Doc. Nos. 75, 76. 34R. Doc. Nos. 75, 76.
-6-

nonparty to the agreement.35
The consent judgment is a 49-page agreement36 entered into by Class Plaintiffs, including
the named plaintiffs from each of the two consolidated cases, the United States, acting through DOJ,
and the Sheriff, in his official capacity.37 The consent judgment also functions as a settlem ent of
class members’ claims. According to the consent judgment:
The purpose of this Agreem ent is to address the constitutional violations alleged in this matter, as well as the violations alleged in the findings letter issued by the United States on September 11, 2009. [OPP] is an integral part ofthe public safety system in New Orleans, Louisiana. Through the provisions of ht is Agreement, the Parties seek to ensure that the conditions in OPP protect the constitutional rights of prisoners confined there. By ensuring that the conditions in OPP are constitutional, the Sheriff will also provide for the safety of staff and promote public safety in the community.38
The substantive provisions of t he consent judgm ent are organized by subject m atter:
protection from harm, mental health care, medical care, sanitation and environmental conditions,
fire safety, language assistance, and youthful pr isoners. Each subject is divided into several
components, which address certain policies and practcies. For example, mental health care is divided
into the following components: screening and assessment, treatment, counseling, suicide prevention
training program, suicide precautions, use of restraints, detoxification and t raining, medical and
mental health staffing, and risk management.39
35R. Doc. No. 101. 36This number does not include the cover page and table of contents, which constitute an additional 4 pages and are numbered separately. 37Consent Judgment, at 1. 38Consent Judgment, at 1. 39Consent Judgment, at ii-iii.
-7-

Within each subject and component, the substantive provisions are a mix of broad guidelines and specific benchmarks. For example, under “screening and assessment” for mental health issues, the consent judgment requires that the Orleans Pa rish Sheriff’s Office (“OPSO”) “[d]evelop and implement an appropriate screening inst rument that identifies m ental health needs, and ensures timely access to a mental health professional when presenting symptoms requiring such care.”40 In particular, the consent judgment requires that inmates “with urgent mental health needs” receive an assessment by a qualified mental health professional within 48 hours.41
With respect to oversight, the consent judgment provides that the parties to the agreement “will jointly select a Monitor to oversee implementation of the Agreement,” with the Court resolving selection disputes.42 Among other duties, the Monitor is responsible for providing the parties to the agreement, the City, and the Court with periodic reports on the Sheriff’s com pliance with the consent judgment.43 The consent judgm ent provides that the Moni tor will receive “full and complete” access to OPP facilities, records, staff, and inmates.44
Separate from the appointment of a Monitor, the consent judgment obligates OPSO to “hire and retain, or reassign a current OPSO employee for the duration of this Agreement, to serve as a
40Consent Judgment, at 20. 41Consent Judgment, at 20-21. 42Consent Judgment, at 40-41. Monitor is defined to include “an individual and his or her team of professionals.” Consent Judgment, at 3. 43Consent Judgment, at 42. The consent judgm ent also requires the Sheriff to provide periodic compliance reports to the Monitor, although the Monitor is “responsible for independently verifying representations from [the Sheriff] regarding progress toward compliance, and examining supporting documentation.” Consent Judgment, at 42. 44Consent Judgment, at 41.
-8-

full-time OPSO Compliance Coordinator.”45 According to the consent judgment:
At a minimum, the Compliance Coordinator will: coordinate OPSO’s compliance and implementation activities; facilitate the provision of data, documents, materials, and access to OPSO’s personnel to the Monitor, SPLC, DOJ, and the public, as needed; ensure that all documents and records are maintained as provided in this Agreement; and assist in assigning compl iance tasks to OPSO personnel, as directed by the Sheriff or his or her designee.46
In addition, the Compliance Coordinator is responsible for collecting the information the Monitor requires from OPSO.47
As to funding, the consent judgment sets forth a process by which the Court will “determine
the initial funding needed to ensure constitutional conditions of confinement at OPP, in accordance
with the terms of this Agreement, and the source(s) responsible for providing that funding at an
evidentiary hearing (‘funding trial’)” at which the patries to the agreement, as well as the City, shall have the right to participate. 48 After this time, the funding am ount “may be adjusted” through a process by which the Monitor attempts to resolve disagreements between the Sheriff and the City4.9 If the Monitor is unable to do so within 45 days, the dispute is submitted to the Court.50
The Consent Judgment provides specif ic procedures with respect to enf orcement. For
example, “if the Monitor, SPLC, or DOJ determines that Defendant has not made material progress
45Consent Judgment, at 39. 46Consent Judgment, at 39. 47Consent Judgment, at 39. 48Consent Judgment, at 38. 49Consent Judgment, at 38. 50Consent Judgment, at 38.
-9-

toward Substantial Compliance with a significant obligation under the Agreement, and such failure constitutes a violation of prisoners’ constitutional rights, SPLC or DOJ m ay initiate contempt or enforcement proceedings against Defendant . . . .”51 Before taking such action, however, “SPLC or DOJ shall give Defendant written notice of its intent to initiate such proceedings,” the parties shall work in good faith to resolve the dispute, and “Defendant shall have 30 days from the date of such notice to cure the failure . . . .”52 In the event of an emergency that poses “an immediate threat to the health or safety of any prisoner or staff member at OPP, however, DOJ or SPLC may omit the notice and cure requirements” and immediately pursue an enforcement proceeding.53
With respect to term ination, the consent judgm ent provides that it “shall term inate when Defendant has achieved Substantial Compliance with each provision of the Agreem ent and has maintained Substantial Com pliance with th e Agreement for a period of two years.” 54 As for severability, if any consent judgm ent provision “is declared invalid for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, said finding shall not affect the remaining provisions of the Agreement.”55
After Class Plaintiffs, the United States, and the Sheriff filed their motion for approval of the consent judgment, briefing and conferencesaddressed the need for a fairness hearing5.6 Ultimately, it became clear that the City of New Orleans must also be given the opportunity to litigate the issue
51Consent Judgment, at 43. 52Consent Judgment, at 43. 53Consent Judgment, at 43. 54Consent Judgment, at 43. 55Consent Judgment, at 44. 56E.g., R. Doc. Nos. 113, 126.
-10-

of whether the proposed consent judgm ent exceeds minimum constitutional standards, arguably
absolving the City of its funding obligation pursuant to state law and violating the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s narrow tailoring requirement.57 Accordingly, the City was given the opportunity to
participate in the fairness hearing not just as an affected third party, but also as a party pursuant to its status as a third-party defendant.58 In the interim, Class Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to
certify a settlement class, which superseded th e original, presumably opposed, motion for class certification.59
THE FAIRNESS HEARING
At a fairne ss hearing commencing on April 1, 2013, the Court considered whether the
proposed consent judgment was consistent with constitutional and statutory law and jurisprudence such that it should be approved as between Class Plaintiffs, the United States, and the Sheriff6.0 The fairness hearing lasted four full days, and the patries introduced nearly 400 exhibits into evidence6.1 Plaintiffs called four current and former OPP inmates, E.S., D.W., D.R., and A.S.62 Plaintiffs called
57E.g., R. Doc. Nos. 107, 113. 58E.g., R. Doc. No. 126. 59R. Doc. No. 145; see also R. Doc. No. 2. 60R. Doc. Nos. 384, 386, 389, 390. 61The Court has provided record citations for its fni dings, but these citations are not exhaustive lists of the evidence considered for a particular point. For example, the staggering level of violence at OPP is evidenced by the testimony of the experts and inmates, the number of investigated assaults, the high threshold required for such investigations, the records of hospital transports, and inmate grievances. 62These witnesses testified under their full nam es. As Katharine Schwartzmann, lead counsel for Class Plaintiffs, summarized: “It has taken enormous bravery for the plaintiffs to come forward and to tell the Court about their experiences. They hvae opened themselves up, their lives, their criminal histories up to review, to scrutiny, to cross-examination, and . . . none of themstand to make a dollar
-11-

four experts: Jeffrey Schwartz, an expert in “security and operations” of jails and prisons;63 Manuel Romero, an expert in “jail administration, with a particular em phasis on security, staffing, environmental conditions, food service and sanitation, fire conditions, and Lim ited English Proficiency (“LEP”) services”;64 Dr. Bruce Gage, an expert in “correctional mental health care”;65 and Dr. Daphne Glindmeyer, an expert in “mental health and psychiatry, as well as juvenile mental health in corrections.”66 Plaintiffs also called the twin sisterof an inmate who committed suicide at OPP while at the Intake Processing Center. 67 The City called Andrew Kopplin, the City’s First Deputy Mayor and Chief Administrative Officer.68 The Sheriff’s only witness was Sheriff Marlin Gusman.69
The parties provided extensivebriefing on the legal issues implicated by the pending motions prior to the hearing.70 They also provided supplemental briefing after the hearing.71 In addition to the evidence presented at the hearing, the Court considered approxim ately 150 public comments
out of this case.” R. Doc. No. 412, at 34. 63R. Doc. No. 405, at 66. 64R. Doc. No. 407, at 25. 65R. Doc. No. 408, at 82. 66R. Doc. No. 409, at 174-75. 67R. Doc. No. 410, at 57-58. 68R. Doc. No. 409, at 7. 69R. Doc. No. 411, at 6. 70E.g., R. Doc. Nos. 399, 416, 427. 71E.g., R. Doc. Nos. 149, 197, 226-374, 387.
-12-

submitted by both class m embers and non-class members.72 The Court addresses the m otion for approval of the consent judgment and the motion for certification of a settlement class in turn.
CONSENT JUDGMENT ANALYSIS I. Standard of Law
Generally, before entering a consent judgm ent, also called a consent decree, courts m ust decide whether it “represent s a reasonable factual and legal determ ination based on the facts of record, whether established by evidence, affidavit, or stipulation.”Williams v. City of New Orleans, 729 F.2d 1554, 1559 (5th Cir. 1984) (quotingUnited States v. City of Miam,i 664 F.2d 435, 441 (5th Cir. 1981)). Courts must also ascertain that the settlem ent is fair and that it does not violate the Constitution, statutes, or jurisprudence.Id. (citing City of Miami, 664 F.2d at 441). “In assessing the propriety of giving judicial imprimatur to the consent decree, the court must also consider the nature of the litigation and the purposes to be served by the decree.” City of Miami, 664 F.2d at 441.
If a consent judgment potentially affects third parties, courts must carefully scrutinize it to ensure that the effect “is neither unreasonable nor proscribed.” Williams, 729 F.2d at 1560 (quoting City of Miami, 664 F.2d at 441). Courts must “safeguard the interests of those individuals who [are] affected by the decree but were not represented in the negotiations.” Id.
Because the proposed consent judgment involves prospective relief with respect to prison conditions, an additional level of review applies. The Prison Litigation Ref orm Act (“PLRA”) provides:
Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not
72E.g., R. Doc. Nos. 138-40, 153-55, 159, 173, 177, 179, 219-23, 367. -13-

grant or approve any prospective reli ef unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the l east intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right. The court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a crim inal justice system caused by the relief.73
Through the PLRA, “Congress sought to curtail federal courts’ long-term involvement in prison
reform and halt federal courts from providing more than the constitutional minimum necessary to
remedy federal rights violations.” Frazar v. Ladd, 457 F.3d 432, 438 n. 19 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing
18 U.S.C. §§ 3626(a)(1)(A), (b)(3), (c)(1)).Compliance with the PLRA generally presents a higher
bar to approval of a consent judgment than that imposed by caselaw.74 The parties to the consent
judgment have stipulated that it complies with the PLRA,75 but the Court conducts an independent
inquiry.76
The U.S. Supreme Court addressed the PLRA’s narrow tailoring requirement in Brown v.
Plata, 131 S. Ct. 1910 (2011), a prisoner release order case. In that case, the Court explained:
“Narrow tailoring requires a fit between the rem edy’s ends and the m eans chosen to accomplish
those ends. The scope of the remedy must be proportional to the scope of the violation, and the order
must extend no further than necessary to rem edy the violation.” Plata, 131 S. Ct. at 1939-40
7318 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). 74The Court remains mindful of the different standards, but concurrently addresses the constitutional and statutory claims pursuant to both the jurisprudential standard and that set forth in the PLRA. 75Consent Judgment, at 44. 76The parties have not suggested the Court do otherwise. See R. Doc. No. 151, at 16 (arguing that such a stipulation is insufficient); R. Doc. No. 156-2, at 2 (noting that “Plaintiffs will provide a robust evidentiary record from which the Court can make the requisite findings under the [PLRA]. The Court need not rely on the PLRA stipulation . . . .”).
-14-

(internal quotations and modification omitted) (quoting Bd. of Trustees v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 480 (1989)). Narrow tailoring does not require perfection. See Fox, 492 U.S. at 480 (Narrow tailoring requires “a fit that is not necessairly perfect, but reasonable; that represents not necessarily the single best disposition but one whose scope is in proportion to the interest served.”) (internal quotations omitted). The Court must ensure that the relief provided in the proposed consent judgm ent is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of a federal right, and is the least intrusive means of doing so.
The Court must also “give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief,” although the PLRA “does not require the court to certify that its order has no possible adverse impact on the public.” § 3626(a)(1)(A); Plata, 131 S. Ct. at 1941. “W henever a court issues an order requiring the State to adjust its incarceration and criminal justice policy, there is arisk that the order will have some adverse impact on public safety in some sectors.” Plata, 131 S. Ct. at 1941. Accordingly, “[a] court is required to consider the public safety consequences of its orderand to structure, and monitor, its ruling in a way that mitigates those consequences while still achieving an ef fective remedy of the constitutional violation.” Id. at 1942. II. Analysis
In asserting that conditions at OPP are unconstitutional, Plaintif fs face a high bar. To demonstrate a violation of inmates’ constitutional rights, Plaintiffs must show a substantial risk of serious harm to which prison officials were deliberately indifferent. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Demonstrating deliberate indifference requires that prison officials must “both be aware of facts fromwhich the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harmexists,
-15-

and must also draw the inference.” Id. at 837. “[A] factfinder may conclude that a prison official knew of a substantial risk from the very fact that the risk was obvious.” Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 333 (5th Cir. 2004); see also Marsh v. Butler Cnty., 268 F.3d 1014, 1028 (11th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (“Plaintiffs’ allegations that the County received many reports of the conditions but took no remedial measures is sufficient to allege deliber ate indifference to the substantial risk of serious harm faced by inmates in the Jail.”).
Pretrial detainees and convicted prisoners “look to different constitutional provisions for their respective rights to basic needs such as medical care and safety.” Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633, 639 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc),rev’d on other grounds, 135 F.3d 320, 324 (5th Cir. 1998). However, “no constitutionally relevant diference exists between the rights ofpretrial detainees and convicted prisoners to be secure in their basic human needs.” Id. at 647. Plaintiffs rely on the Eighth Amendment standard for conditions of confinement.77 Because “a pretrial detainee’s due process rights are said to be ‘at least as great as theEighth Amendment protections available to a convicted prisoner,’” this standard sets the minimal constitutional protections afforded to all OPP inmates. Id. at 639 (quoting City of Revere v. Mass. Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 244 (1983)); see also Alberti v. Klevenhagen, 790 F.2d 1220, 1224 (5th Cir. 1986) (W“ here dealing with the constitutionally rooted duty of jailers to provide their prisoners reasonable protection from injury at the hands of fellow inmates, we need not dwell on the differences in rights enjoyed by pre-trial detainees and convicted persons or the maturation of prisoners’ rights in general.”) (quotation omitted).
The underlying constitutional violations alleged in this matter are systemic. As in Plata, “[P]laintiffs do not base their case on deficiencies” that occurred “on any one occasion,” and the
77E.g., R. Doc. No. 140, at 105. -16-

Court “has no occasion to consider” whether any individual deficiency would “violate the Constitution . . . if considered in isolation.” 131 S. Ct. at 1925 n. 3. R ather, “Plaintiffs rely on systemwide deficiencies” that allegedly subject inmates to a “substantial risk of serious harm” and cause conditions in OPP “to fall below the evolving standard of decency that would m ark the progress of a maturing society.” Id.; see also Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d at 333 (It is “important to note that the inmate need not show that death or serious illness has occurred.”).
Specific examples of dysfunction at OPP are representative of system ic deficiencies. The Court’s inquiry is not focused on whether any one of these examples demonstrates the violation of a constitutional right. See Plata, 131 S. Ct. at 1925 n. 3; see also Alberti, 790 F.2d at 1225 (“We need not determine whether any of these incidents individually constituted an Eighth Amendment violation, for the evidence established that the totality of the circum stances in the jails w ere condemnable.”). The Court must determine, however, whether the proposed c onsent judgment is consistent with the PLRA.
“The Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons, but neither does it permit inhumane ones.” Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d at 332. TheConstitution requires that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and mental health care, and that detention facilities “take reasonable measures to ensure the safety of the inmates.” Id. (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832).The Fifth Circuit has held that, with respect to conditions of confinement, even where “[e]ach factor separately, i.e., overcrowding dormitory barracks, lack of classification according to severity of offense, [] inmates with weapons, lack of supervision by [] guards, absence of a procedure forconfiscation of weapons, may not rise to constitutional dimensions [], the effect of the totality of these circumstances [may be] the infliction of punishment on inm ates violative of the Eighth Am endment . . . .” Gates v.
-17-

Collier, 501 F.2d 1291, 1309 (5th Cir. 1974). “Conditions ofconfinement may establish an Eighth Amendment violation ‘in combination . . . only whe n they have a mutually enforcing effect that produces the deprivation of a single, identifiablehuman need such as food, warmth, or exercise—for example, a low cell temperature at night combined with a failure to issue blankets.” Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d at 333 (quotation om itted). Remedying unconstitutional conditions of confinem ent is a “necessarily aggregate endeavor, com posed of mul tiple elements that work together to redress violations of the law.” Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d 1058, 1070 (9th Cir. 2010).
These principles indicate that it is appropriate to consider the proposed consent judgment’s provisions grouped according to subject m atter. This approach recognizes the m ultiple circumstances that have a “mutually enforcing effect” with respect to deficient conditions at OPP. Additionally, it permits the Court to consider in the aggregate the proposed remedies relevant to each underlying federal right. Accordingly, the Coutrwill analyze the proposed consent judgment’s provisions with respect to the following allege d deficiencies at OPP: (1) safety and security, (2) medical care and mental health care, (3) environmental conditions, and (4) fire safety.78
A. Safety and Security Manuel Romero, an expert in jail adm inistration, with a particular em phasis on security, staffing, and use of force, 79 concluded that OPP is “totally dysfunctional in term s of overall security,” and that it is an “unsafe facility for both staff and inmates.”80
78In many cases, there is considerable overlap in the evidence relevant to different categories. For example, OPP’s deficiencies in m edication administration are relevant to inm ate medical care, inmate suicide, contraband practices, and inmate-on-inmate violence. 79R. Doc. No. 407, at 25. Romero has evaluated and assessed “well over a hundred prisons and jails in the United States.” R. Doc. No. 407, at 22. 80R. Doc. No. 407, at 44.
-18-

Jeffrey Schwartz, an expert in security andoperations of jails and prisons, has worked with more than 40 of the 50 state departments of corrections and toured hundreds of prisons and jails.81 He concluded that, in over 35 years of working with and reviewing jails and prisons, “OPP is the worst jail I’ve ever seen,” and “it is likely the worst large city jail in the United States.”82 Schwartz described an “extraordinary and horrific situation,”83 in which OPP is “plagued” by “suicides and other in-custody deaths, rapes and other sexual assaults, stabbings, and severe beatings.”84
In 2012, OPP had over 600 transports to local emergency rooms for physical injuries, of which far more than halfwere related to violence8.5 A similarly sized jail in the Memphis, Tennessee area had 7 emergency room transports related to violence in a comparable period of time.86 OPP’s alarming levels of violence are directly attributable to num erous policies and practices t hat are gravely deficient,87 including policies and practices associated with staffing and supervision, contraband, classification, sexual assault, and training and accountability.
1. Staffing and Supervision
81Schwartz founded a non-profit criminal justice training and consulting organization in 1972. Since that time, he has worked with law enforcement and correctional agencies in the United States and Canada. Pl. Ex. 372, at 1. Schwartzhas evaluated and assessed approximately 300 prisons and jails. R. Doc. No. 405, at 61-62. 82R. Doc. No. 405, at 67-69; see also Pl. Ex. 372, at 5. 83Pl. Ex. 372, at 69. 84Pl. Ex. 372, at 11. 85R. Doc. No. 405, at 77. 86R. Doc. No. 405, at 78-77. 87Pl. Ex. 374, at 16-17.
-19-

Inadequate staffing is one of the most significant causes of the runaway violence at OPP.88 Schwartz concluded that OPP facilities “are the most poorly staffed correctional facilities I have ever encountered.”89 Schwartz testif ied that while m ost correctional agencies m ight use the term “understaffed” to indicate that perhaps 10% more staff are needed, OPP’s “realistic need” may be at least 75% or 100% m ore staff.90 The Court questioned Schwartz as to how he reached t hese estimates, and he replied that, after looking at a master roster and schedules, he tried to determine “just roughly how many staff would ittake just, not to fill all positions, but just to put a deputy every shift in every tier. And that was my very rough estimate.”91 The original OPP, for example, often operates with between 25-50% of its direct security posts unfilled.92 A single officer is sometimes left responsible for supervising m ultiple floors of inm ates.93 Shift after shift, across f acilities, security posts are left unstaffed.94
Even with an exceptionally low level of staffing, administrators prioritize staf fing nonsecurity posts before security posts, a practice opposite tha t used in m ost prisons and jails. 95 Certain nonsecurity assignments may be staffed and operating in a relatively normal fashion, while
88R. Doc. No. 412, at 38. 89Pl. Ex. 372, at 8. 90Pl. Ex. 372, at 8. 91R. Doc. No. 405, at 78-79. 92Pl. Ex. 85; Pl. Ex. 370. 93Pl. Ex. 85; Pl. Ex. 370; Pl. Ex. 372, at 15; Pl. Ex. 374, at 11. 94Pl. Ex. 372, at 16. 95Pl. Ex. 372, at 9.
-20-

staff are not present to pa trol living units and common areas or to perform escort or transport services.96
OPP does not m aintain any policy or procedur e with respect to m inimum staffing levels where, for example, staff may be requir ed to work overtim e to ensure that inm ates are at least minimally supervised.97 Watch commanders may be forced to schedule a shift with insufficient officers, and merely “hope that nothing terrible happens.”98
The absence of staff at security posts means that staff members may not physically enter housing units when doing routine security checks because OPP policy prohibits themfrom entering housing units alone. 99 It is a “rare occasion” for staff members conducting a security round to “actually go in . . . and view all the inmates and view the cells and into the showers and the activity areas.”100 The evidence indicates that security rounds are neither frequent enough nor thorough enough to even minimally deter or detect inmate violence.101 Inmates “kick on the cell” or “take something and ram it across the bars” with the hope that staff members will respond when assistance is needed.102 As one inm ate testified, this can take “30 m inutes, maybe an hour, 40 m inutes,
96Pl. Ex. 372, at 9. 97Pl. Ex. 372, at 15-16. 98Pl. Ex. 372, at 15. 99R. Doc. No. 407, at 71-73, 83; Pl. Ex. 374, at 11. 100R. Doc. No. 407, at 71; Pl. Ex. 374, at 11-13. 101Pl. Ex. 372, at 16-19; Pl. Ex. 374, at 10. 102R. Doc. No. 406, at 113.
-21-

whenever they get ready to come upstairs and see what’s going on.”103 The record is replete with examples of inmate-on-inmate violence that demonstrate the manner in which a lack ofsupervision permits such violence to flourish.
For instance, OPP records show t hat, on one particular evening, a deputy heard what he believed to be inmates fighting on a tier, as well asstatements like “stick your finger in his butt and piss on him .”104 The deputy could not see wha t was going on, but he reported that he did not investigate because OPP policy prohibits staff members from venturing onto the tiers alone. 105 A sergeant arrived “later in the night,” but there is no indication in t he record that any OPP staff member attempted to intervene at the time of the “altercation.”106
2. Contraband Although the Court recognizes that possession ofcontraband in a correctional facility isnot necessarily unusual, OPP is plagued to a marked degree with contraband, including phones, weapons, and drugs.107 Weapons, in particular, are “widespread and readily available to inmates.”108 Shanks are “rampant,” and the number of stabbings is “extremely high” and “very disturbing” for
103R. Doc. No. 406, at 113. 104Pl. Ex. 11; Pl. Ex. 374, at 11-12. 105Pl. Ex. 11; Pl. Ex. 374, at 11-12; see also R. Doc. No. 407, at 71-72. 106Pl. Ex. 11. 107See Pl. Ex. 374, at 20, 23-24; City Ex. 13; R. Doc. No. 406, at 63; see also R. Doc. No. 411, at 82. 108R. Doc. No. 405, at 86; see also R. Doc. No. 406, at 63, 161. The evidence shows that items like mops, brooms, buckets, and coolers are frequently used in assaults. There is no effective systemfor preventing inmates from using such items as weapons. See Pl. Ex. 372, at 21, 60.
-22-

a facility the size ofOPP.109 Inmates report having access to street drugs and contraband prescription drugs.110 Despite repetitive problems with assaults and weapons, OPSO does not conduct regular shakedowns in a manner that would minimize the presence of contraband. 111 Compare Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d at 1308 (“Although m any inmates possess weapons, there is no established procedure for discovering and confisc ating weapons, nor is possession of weapons reported or punished.”).
Three videos, apparently filmed by inmates around the calendar year 2009112 and unearthed the weekend before the fairness hearing, show inmates brandishing a loaded gun, using intravenous drugs, gambling with handfuls of cash, displayingcell phones, drinking cans of beer, and cavorting on Bourbon Street, having escaped OPP for an evening of leisure.113 These videos appear to have been filmed at the now-closed House of Detenti on (“HOD”), in part to highlight the absen ce of supervision and the poor environm ental conditions.114 Whatever the history behind the vide os, inmates were able to blatantly engage in crim inal conduct, which they literally announced was occurring,115 without showing any concern for staff intervention. There was no suggestion that the staff members responsible for supervising these inm ates were ever identified, much less
109Pl. Ex. 374, at 23-24, 24 n.6. 110R. Doc. No. 406, at 63, 132-33. 111Pl. Ex. 374, at 37. 112R. Doc. No. 407, at 5. 113City Ex. 13. 114City Ex. 13 (“CNN, y’all gonna get first bid on this tape . . . Orleans Parish Prison exposed.”). 115City Ex. 13 (“Pop me one of them beers open . . . Snort all that dope . . . .”).
-23-

disciplined.116 The conduc t in the video m ay have occurred several years ago, but the policies, practices, and culture that enabled the outrageous conduct remain relevant.117
3. Classification The failure to classify a substantial number of inmates risks “intermingling of inm ates convicted of aggravated violent crimes with those who are first offenders or convicted of nonviolent crimes.” Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d at 1308; see Stokes v. Delcambre, 710 F.2d 1120, 1124 (5th Cir. 1983) (“[F]ailure to control or separate prisoners who endanger the physical safety of other prisoners can constitute cruel and unusual punishm ent.”). A functioning classification system ensures that inmates are housed in a m anner that increases the safety of inm ates and staff by, for exam ple, identifying and separating inmates likely to be predators from inmates likely to be victim s.118 In conjunction with a lack of di rect supervision, OPP’s utterly ineffective classification system is a significant cause of the unprecedented levels of violence at OPP.119 On a sam ple date in Decem ber 2012, of the inm ates who had proceeded past intake, approximately 35% had not been classified in any m anner.120 The unclassif ied inmates were
116Romero testified that he would expect some staff involvement given the level of dysfunction. R. Doc. No. 407, at 39-40. Such involvem ent would not be without precede nt. In one documented instance, a female staff member, who was engaged in a “rom antic relationship” with an inm ate, warned the inmate to conceal a cell phone because of an upcoming shakedown. The staff member also sent text messages to the same inmate on his cell phone both while she was on and off duty. The staff member subsequently resigned. Pl. Ex. 58. 117R. Doc. No. 407, at 35-36. 118Pl. Ex. 372, at 12-14; Pl. Ex. 374, at 30-33; R. Doc. No. 407, at 46-47. 119Pl. Ex. 372, at 14; R. Doc. No. 407, at 46-50, 53, 57-62. 120Pl. Ex. 380; R. Doc. No. 406, at 82-85.
-24-

“scattered across all of the facilities and in just about all of the tiers.”121 Of the approximately 2,400
inmates at OPP on that date, only one inmate was classified as a known victimand only four inmates were classified as known predators, notwithstandni g the staggering frequency of violence at OPP1.22
Of the inmates who were classified, potential predators were mixed with potential victims, and high,
medium, and low security inm ates were housed together, underm ining the purpose of the classification system.123 A sample four-person cell on the same date held a high security potential
predator, a high s ecurity nonpredator, a m edium security nonpredator, and a low security nonpredator.124 Schwartz testified that such housing should “not ever happen” because “it could be
explosive” given the “obvious potential” that “the two high security inm ates, especially the one
that’s a potential predator, could be preying on theone that’s the lower security, or perhaps even on the medium security.”125 See also Marsh, 268 F.3d at 1025 (“[P]retrial detainees were housed with
convicted inmates, nonviolent offenders with violent offenders, juveniles with adults, and mentally
ill persons with those in good mental health.”). OPP also does not effectively separate youth and adult inmates.126
121Pl. Ex. 380; R. Doc. No. 406, at 82-85. 122Pl. Ex. 380; R. Doc. No. 405, at 83. 123E.g., Pl. Ex. 380; R. Doc. No. 407, at 46-50, 53, 57-62.Staff members acknowledged to Romero that correct placement of inmates was complicated by limitations associated with the number of beds available for certain types of inm ates. Accordingly, inmates may be placed where ther e is space available, even if this placement is inconsistent with their classification. E.g., R. Doc. No. 407, at 53-54; see also Pl. Ex. 372, at 33 (noting that a juvenilerequested a transfer because his roommate “gets aggressive,” but deputies responded that “there is nowhere for him to go”). 124R. Doc. No. 407, at 56-57. 125R. Doc. No. 407, at 56-58. 126Pl. Ex. 372, at 10; Pl. Ex. 378, at 41; see R. Doc. No. 1, at 35.
-25-

Because OPP does not have an effective system for reclassification, inmates who have

violently assaulted other inmates may remain classified as “nonpredators.”127 The risk related to such

inaccurate information is compounded by the fact that an inm ate’s disciplinary record does not

become part of his permanent record.128 Rather, an inmate receives a new disciplinary folder for each

OPP facility he stays in, and these folders do not follow the inmates during transfers.129 Facilities

do not always maintain an inmate’s disciplinary record once he leaves, and determining whether the

record was maintained requires a “time consuming search.”130 These practices indicate that staff

cannot rely on either an inmate’s classification or his disciplinary record when evaluating the

inmate’s risk of violence.131 The absence of such information plainly increases the risk of harm to

staff and to other inmates. Moreover, as discussed below, the classification process does not identify

or consider an inmate’s English proficiency.132

The importance of classification was illustrated by the following arc of one inmate’s violent

actions, which ultimately caused another inmate to suffer severe and permanent brain damage:

•

In August 2011, E.L., a 20-year-old male inmate, was observed repeatedly striking a 50-

year-old inmate in the face and back of the head in one of the Tents. The victim stated that

127R. Doc. No. 405, at 83.
128Pl. Ex. 372, at 49.
129Pl. Ex. 372, at 49.
130Pl. Ex. 372, at 49.
131See R. Doc. No. 405, at 108 (“The same inmates who are a danger to other inmates are typically the most dangerous inmates for staff.”); R. Doc. Nos. 228-29 (describing E.L.’s attacks on staff members). The Court is not f amiliar with E.L.’s classification status, as he was apparently not present at OPP on the date for which the classification census was sampled. See Pl. Ex. 380.
132See R. Doc. No. 407, at 109, 112.
-26-

E.L. “needed his medication.” E.L. was too “hostile and combative” to be interviewed about

the event, and he threw a large trash can at one deputy and spit on another deputy’s face. In

a separate incident, he threw a wet towel at a third deputy’s back, angry that she was moving

his belongings to another Tent in response to the assault.133

•

In September 2011, at HOD, E.L. began punching a 24-year-old inmate in the face because

the other inmate was using a toilet that E.L. wanted to use. He threw the inmate into the bars

of the cell hard enough to cause a head injury that required hospital treatment.134

•

In October 2011, another inmate requested to be moved to a different HOD tier because E.L.

was antagonizing him by throwing ice and water on him and attempting to fight him. The

grievance was denied because the inmate “had enemies” on the other side of the same tier,

and the record does not suggest the inmate was offered any relief.135

•

In December 2011, E.L. had been antagonizing a certain deputy at HOD. At some point, E.L.

was able to defeat the locking mechanism on his cell door, arm himself with a broken

broomstick, and attack the deputy, hitting him in the face with the broomstick and fracturing

his jaw. He also struck another deputy with the broomstick, possibly fracturing the deputy’s

hand.136

•

On June 18, 2012, K.M., a Templeman V inmate, reported via a sick call request that he had

133Pl. Ex. 223; Pl. Ex. 225; Pl. Ex. 227. 134Pl. Ex. 226. 135Pl. Ex. 224. 136Pl. Ex. 229.
-27-

his “two teeth knocked out in a physical altercation on m y tier.”137 On June 26, K.M.

reported the attack to the Special Operations Division (“SOD”) and identified E.L. as his

attacker.138 He stated that he had not come forward sooner because E.L. “bullies all the older

inmates,” and K.M. was scared for his life.139

•

On June 23, 2012, at Templeman V’s A-3 tier, a “step down psychiatric tier,” 140 E.L.

punched T.S., a 65-year-old man, several times in the face hard enough to knock him

backwards. T.S. struck his head on a metal bench as he fell. A detective conducting a routine

security check discovered T.S. lying on the ground with a pool of blood around his head. The

punches and the strike to the back of the head caused T.S.’s brain to hemorrhage, resulting

in a permanent, nearly “brain dead” state.141

E.L., an aggressive and predatory inmate with a penchant for administering blows to the head and

face and for preying upon older inmates, ultimately caused T.S.’s severe and permanent brain

damage.

E.L.’s attacks, which occurred across a variet y of prison facilities, illustrate that, in the

137Pl. Ex. 246.
138Pl. Ex. 230.
139Pl. Ex. 230. The Court notes that there is no suggestion in the record that anyone investigated the identity of K.M.’s assailant despite the fact that his sick call request expressly cited an altercation as the source of his injuries. OPP does not utilize the data recorded by medical services to identify acts of violence, and medical staff are not subject to any policy that would encourage themto report injuries resulting from violence. Pl. Ex. 259, at 57-62; Pl. Ex. 372, at 56.
140Pl. Ex. 371.
141Pl. Ex. 222. E.L. subsequently trapped a deputy at Templeman V by grabbing his hand through a cell door food slot, and punching him in the face. The deputy was routed to the hospital. Pl. Ex. 228.
-28-

absence of adequate staffing and supervisi on, “even a low security housing unit with an
unsophisticated inmate population will sink toward the lowest common denominator.”142A lack of
staff supervision and a lack of effective inm ate classification result in OPP’s m ost vulnerable
inmates, including the mentally ill and elderly, falling prey to OPP’s most dangerous inmates.143
4. Sexual Assault
OPP has an extraordinarily high level of rapes and sexual assaults, unprecedented in the
many facilities toured by Romero.144 However, the number of investigations into such conduct is
“minuscule.”145 A DOJ Review Panel (“Panel”) on prison ra pe selected OPP as a representative
high-incidence facility for discussion at a public hearing1.46 The Panel was “deeply disturbed by the
apparent culture of violence at OPP.”147
142Pl. Ex. 372, at 15. Staffing records for Tem pleman V were provided with respect to a period ranging from May 2012 to December 2012. These records reflect that, more often than not, there was no deputy even assigned to A-3, the tier on which T.S. was attacked. Pl. Ex. 371. 143See also R. Doc. No. 405, at 82-83 (describing mentally ill and developmentally disabled inmates as vulnerable); R. Doc. No. 406, at153 (describing mentally ill or developmentally disabled inmate forced to do “sexual dances”).“A substantial number of inmates on suicide watch” claimsuicidality to avoid disciplinary segregation.Pl. Ex. 372, at 50. “That produces a toxic stew of acute psychiatric inmates, acute suicidal inmates and disciplinary segregation inm ates. It is an accident waiting to occur.” Pl. Ex. 372, at 50; see also Pl. Ex. 260, at 106-07 (OPP’s medical director estimates that at least 90 percent of inmates who report being suicidal are not, in fact, suicidal). 144Pl. Ex. 374, at 38. 145R. Doc. No. 405, at 121. 146Pl. Ex. 4, at 4. Although the Panel began with afocus on the now-closed South White Street Jail, it shifted its focus to OPP operations as a whole.Pl. Ex. 4, at 73. The Panel acknowledged that the shift in focus was, in part, related to the United States’ allegations underlying this lawsuit. Pl. Ex. 4, at 73. The Court is mindful of the relationship between the Panel’s report, follow-up measures, and the United States’ complaint in intervention, and it has weighed the evidence accordingly. 147Pl. Ex. 4, at 82.
-29-

Calculating the incidence rate ofsexual assault at OPP is dificult.148 The grievance logs for July 20, 2012, through December 19, 2012, were missing entries.149 In October, the only full month for which data is available, there we re 30 grievances reporting sexual assault and no investigations.150 The most investigations occurred in November, when there were two investigations and 26 grievances reporting sexual assault, not including missing entries.151 OPP staff members have a pattern of tolerating sexual misconduct, as demonstrated by the lack of repercussions for inmates who engage in such misconduct in plain view of deputies.152
There is no consistent practice by which staff respond to inmate reports of sexual assault.153 While in some cases inmates are quickly assessed and treated, Schwartz testified that, in “far too many cases, none of the right things happen.”154 Most often, nothing happens.155 “The standard used by OPP investigators seems to be that, short of having forensic evidence in the form of DNA or documented injury to a body orifice, there was no sexual misconduct.”156 Staff sometimes publicly
148The Court does not rely on the sexual assault rate suggested by Plaintiffs, as its applicability to current OPP facilities has not been established. See R. Doc. No. 416, at 42. In any case, however, sexual assault at OPP is all too common, and in part directly attributable to the absence of inmate supervision. 149Pl. Ex. 353. 150Pl. Ex. 353. 151Pl. Ex. 353. 152Pl. Ex. 374, at 38-41. 153R. Doc. No. 405, at 112-13. 154R. Doc. No. 405, at 113; see also Pl. Ex. 60. 155Pl. Ex. 372, at 38. 156Pl. Ex. 374, at 38.
-30-

make derisive comments when an inmate reports a sexual assault, resulting in an announcement of the victim’s status and a strong display of tolerance for sexual assault.157
A video admitted into evidence portrays an interview with an inmate who reported a sexual assault.158 The inm ate is “Mirandized,” 159 repeatedly told that nothing happened, 160 and further
informed that the absence of detectable physicalinjury one week after the alleged assault proved it did not occur.161 Identifying false reports is a valid objective, but the testimony and other evidence
presented at the hearing suggest that the practicesused to investigate sexual assaults have the effect
of discouraging bona fide reports, embarrassing inmates who come forward, and instilling in staff and inmates the impression that such reports can be quickly discounted.162
E.S., a f ormer OPP inm ate, testified that, on a daily basis at the original OPP, he saw
violence, including “[f]ights, stabbings, people being sexually assaulted, just, you know, your
157R. Doc. No. 405, at 112-13. 158Pl. Ex. 5 (video and transcript). 159See Pl. Ex. 5, at 54. According to S chwartz, it is common for OPP inmates who report sexual assaults to be Mirandized. R. Doc. No. 405, at 115 (“Before hello or anything else, the first thing that the investigator does is to Mirandize the victim.”). 160Pl. Ex. 5, at 41-42, 51. 161Pl. Ex. 5, at 41-42, 51. 162See R. Doc. No. 406, at 89. Schwartz a sked staff members about inmates who report sexual assaults. According to Schwartz, “nobody said everyinmate is lying,” but staff suggested “most of these inmates are fabricating,” to som e extent. Schwartz also noted that “SOD staff continually violate the most crucial principle of m edical care and mental health care in jails[:] custody and security staff may not act as gatekeepers for healthor mental health services.” When SOD members determine a sexual assault r eport is unfounded, they refuse to provide the inm ate with even a “cursory medical assessment.” Pl. Ex. 372, at 39.
-31-

average violence on the streets taken to the jailhouse.”163 One night, after the lights were turned out at 10:30 p.m., E.S. was attacked by a group of 10-
14 inmates.164 They ripped off his clothes and attempted to tie him up with pieces of string, but he was able to break free.165 They then used a razor to cut strips of fabric from an inmate uniform.166 After they hog-tied E.S. with the fabric, they sexually assaulted him.167 E.S. testified that one inmate “stuck his finger into my anal area,” another inmate “stuck a toothbrush into m y anal area,” and another inmate “actually stuck his tongue in my anal area.”168 The attackers “took toothpaste and put it between my buttocks area.”169 Next, they tied a blanket around E.S.’s face and continued beating him.170 E.S.’s gasps for air were worrisome enough that one inmate retrieved an “asthma puffer” for him, although E.S. did not have asthma, but the beating continued.171 The inmates kicked E.S. in the stomach and ribs and struck the back of his head with a mop and bucket.172
At some point, the assailants picked up E.S. and carried him to a new location at the back of the dormitory, where they released him from the hog-tied position and tied him to a post, with his
163R. Doc. No. 405, at 26-27. 164R. Doc. No. 405, at 30. 165R. Doc. No. 405, at 31. 166R. Doc. No. 405, at 31. 167R. Doc. No. 405, at 31-32. 168R. Doc. No. 405, at 32. 169R. Doc. No. 405, at 32. 170R. Doc. No. 405, at 32. 171R. Doc. No. 405, at 32-33. 172R. Doc. No. 405, at 31, 33.
-32-

back to the post. 173 At this point, four to six inmates began punching him repeatedly.174 He was subsequently untied and repositioned to face the post.175 The attackers threw hot water and possibly urine on E.S., and beat him so severely with a mop stick that the skin was ripped from his back and buttocks.176 E.S. was still naked.177 At some point during this phase of the attack, a guard performed a routine check, but he did not walk far enough down the hall to notice E.S., naked, bound, and beaten.178 E.S. reported that he did not cry out because he was certain that he would be killed if he did so.179
In the final phase of the attack, the inmates fashioned “some type of thong, like a woman’s thong” from strips of uniform fabric.180 They forced E.S. to put it on and, E.S. testified, in an attempt to be “comical” or to “embarrass me or something in front of the dormitory . . . they made me dance. I don’t even know how to dance. So I just basically was just moving my hands . . . If I would do anything crazy I knew they were going to kill me for sure. There’s no doubt in my mind.”181 E.S.
173R. Doc. No. 405, at 33-34. 174R. Doc. No. 405, at 34. 175R. Doc. No. 405, at 34. 176R. Doc. No. 405, at 34-35. 177R. Doc. No. 405, at 35. 178R. Doc. No. 405, at 38-39. E.S. testified that he would have been “shocked” if the guard actually walked down the tier but, had the guard done so, “[it]would have probably saved me.” R. Doc. No. 405, at 41. 179R. Doc. No. 405, at 39. 180R. Doc. No. 405, at 36. 181R. Doc. No. 405, at 36.
-33-

reported that “90% of the crowd had knives in their hands visible.”182 After the episode in which the attackers made E.S. dance, they made him shower.183 They
forced him to sit in a mop bucket and “pushed it to the front of the shower, everybody laughing, ha, ha, ha . . . .”184 E.S. indicated the assault lasted hours.185 While E.S.’s assau lt resulted in an investigation, where OPP staff “brought the whole dorm down,” E.S. did not receive m edical treatment for nearly a year.186
E.S.’s testimony parallels a report by another inmate, A.A.,187 in which a group of inmates tied A.A. to a bunk using strips of inmate clothing and then sexually assaulted him.188 After A.A. reported the assault on January 4, 2012, SOD’s investigation included photographing A.A.’s wrist abrasions, which a nurse confirmed were “consistent with [] having been tied up1.”89 Another inmate, whom A.A. identified as a witness, confi rmed that he knew som ething was happening because
182R. Doc. No. 405, at 36. 183R. Doc. No. 405, at 36-37. 184R. Doc. No. 405, at 37. 185R. Doc. No. 405, at 37-38. 186Additional details from E.S.’s testimony reveal other troubling circum stances surrounding his assault, including that it may have been foreseeable and preventable as an act of retaliation against E.S., organized by someone against whom E.S. was a witness in a criminal trial. R. Doc. No. 405, at 47-48. 187These initials are used for convenience. The inm ate’s name has been obscured in the record, although other identifying information is available. 188The record suggests that this was one of two sexulaassaults A.A. experienced at OPP. Pl. Ex. 324. 189The abrasions were still visible on January 11, 2013. Pl. Ex. 324.
-34-

inmates were going in and out of the area where A.A. was restraine1d90.A.A. identified five attackers using photographs of other inmates in the tier.191 A.A. was transferred to a mental health hospital in Baton Rouge one week later, and the SOD investigation was closed.192
While the incident was referred to the office of the Orleans Parish Distri ct Attorney, that office determined that “based on the c ircumstances and statements given, we would not likely prosecute this case if an arrest was made.”193 Aside from this referral, there is no evidence that action was taken to protect other i nmates on the tier from the individuals who had forcibly bound and sexually assaulted A.A.194 OPP’s practice ofterminating a sexual assault investigation when avictim leaves a facility permits sexual predators to continue to prey on other inmates.195
The Court reiterates that the details of the described assaults are not discussed because they are brutal, although they are that, bubt ecause they are emblematic of systemic deficiencies in inmate safety and security. See Alberti, 790 F.2d at 1225 (“We recite the incidents of violence and sexual assault which follow not to exhaustively catalog conditions in the jails but to provide examples of the nature of evidence presented at the hearings.”). As far as the Court is aware, no staff members were identified, confronted, or otherwise held accountable for their absence during the night s in
190Pl. Ex. 324. Schwartz’s testimony suggested this witness was a deputy. R. Doc. No. 405, at 11718. The Court discounts this suggestion as a likely misstatement because it is inconsistent with the underlying evidence. 191Pl. Ex. 324. 192Pl. Ex. 324. 193Pl. Ex. 324. 194R. Doc. No. 405, at 118-19. 195E.g., Pl. Ex. 67; R. Doc. No. 405, at 119. Accordingto A.A., he was “not the only one being tied up” and subjected to such attacks. Pl. Ex. 324.
-35-

which E.S. and A.A. were assaulted. 5. Training and Accountability
Accountability systems are fundamental to prisoner and staff safety1.96 Such systems include use of force policies, investigations, incident reporting, and grievance procedures.197 Many, and perhaps even m ost, of OPP’s accountability system s are ignored or directly contravened on a “wholesale basis.”198The Court addresses in turn OPP’s grievance system, use of force policy and investigations, and reliance on tier reps.
a. Grievance System A grievance system permits inmates to make a written report to address anything from minor complaints to sexual assaults.199 Grievances alert administrators to individual problems as well as to potential patterns of problems.200 Grievances at OPP are sometimes effectively ignored because they are not addressed until an inmate leaves, at which time they are closed.201 For example, in a February 17, 2011 grievance, an inmate reported that he had been beaten and stabbed and that his fingers had been broken.202 The
196Pl. Ex. 374, at 33. 197Pl. Ex. 374, at 33. 198Pl. Ex. 372, at 11. 199R. Doc. No. 405, at 122-23. 200R. Doc. No. 405, at 123. 201R. Doc. No. 405, at 125-26. 202Pl. Ex. 302; R. Doc. No. 405, at 123.
-36-

inmate requested a transfer, stating that he feared for his life.203 The grievance was closed on March 1, when the inmate was discharged, but his transfer request and reports of assaults were never addressed.204 In another instance, an inmate reported being beaten by deputies on October 25, 2011.205 He described knots on his head related to the beating and a sick call request that wa s ignored.206 The grievance sought medical attention, and the inmate specifically requested x-rays of his head.207 Approximately three months later, the grievance was closed because the inmate left OPP.208 His sick call request—and allegations of staff m isconduct—were apparently never addressed.209 OPP staff suggested that, with respect to inmate-on-inmate violence, there is only an investigation when an inmate requires stitches.210
The failure of OPP to address even em ergency grievances in a tim ely manner is inexplicable.211 Grievance procedures have improved in the last year but they still fall far short, and the Court requires assurance that these improvements will continue.212
203Pl. Ex. 302; R. Doc. No. 405, at 123. 204Pl. Ex. 302; R. Doc. No. 405, at 123-24. 205Pl. Ex. 305. 206Pl. Ex. 305. 207Pl. Ex. 305. 208Pl. Ex. 305. 209Pl. Ex. 305; R. Doc. No. 405, at 124. 210Pl. Ex. 374, at 37. 211R. Doc. No. 405, at 125-26. 212Pl. Ex. 372, at 47.
-37-

b. Use of Force & Investigations OPP has deeply ingrained problems with respect to staff members’ uncontrolled use of force on inmates.213 OPP’s investigative process for staff and prisoner misconduct fails to address, and is itself part of, the many operational breakdowns in OPP’s accountability systems.214 As with any jail or prison, use of force is a legitimate and “necessary component” of maintaining order at OPP.215 A use of force policy ensures that staff are aware of the level of force that is appropriate in a given situation and provides guidance with respect to the use of for ce needed to avoid unnecessary injuries.216 While OPP staff members report efforts to implement change, these efforts are in their infancy.217 OPP’s use of force policy was rewritten som ewhat recently, but it remains ineffective because staff m embers are not fam iliar with it and supervisors do not hold staff m embers accountable to the policy. 218 In short, the policy is routinely ignored altogether. 219 For example, while the Internal Affairs Division (“IAD”) is charged with use of force investigations pursuant to the new policy, SOD continues to handle such investigation2s2.0 Similarly, while the new policy calls
213Pl. Ex. 372, at 11, 40; Pl. Ex. 374, at 34. 214Pl. Ex. 374, at 37. 215Pl. Ex. 374, at 33. 216R. Doc. No. 405, at 88. 217Pl. Ex. 372, at 40; Pl. Ex. 374, at 34. 218R. Doc. No. 405, at 87. 219Pl. Ex. 372, at 28. 220R. Doc. No. 405, at 92.
-38-

for a use of force “review board,” there is no suchboard, despite the fact that the policy is more than a year old.221
One of the most egregious allegations of use offorce suggested that an officer ordered “hits” on particular inmates, either by instructing a tier rep to arrange a hit or by placing the inmate in an area where known enem ies made violence likely. 222 The sam e officer was later arrested after punching an inmate, who additionally reported that the officer had threatened to have the inm ate assaulted.223 See Cantu v. Jones , 293 F.3d 839, 845 (5th Cir. 2002) (“The jury found t hat the appellants essentially orchestrated the attack. This is in no way reasonable behavior for a prison official.”). The same officer had previously been accused of punching a restrained inmate, but the investigator did not question any of the witnessse, including the officer, about whether it occurred22.4 Not surprisingly, given the absence of elicited evidence, the prior allegation had not been sustained.225
As noted above, SOD investigates use of force reports, including reports of force by SOD members.226 In at least one docum ented instance, the sam e officer who used force on an inm ate authored the report that determined such level of force was appropriate.227 Training records suggest
221R. Doc. No. 406, at 87. 222R. Doc. No. 405, at 101-02; Pl. Ex. 56. 223R. Doc. No. 405, at 101-02; Pl. Ex. 56. 224R. Doc. No. 405, at 102. 225R. Doc. No. 405, at 102. 226Pl. Ex. 372, at 40. Schwartz describes SOD as a tightly knit unit, which staff members perceive as elite. Pl. Ex. 372, at 40. 227R. Doc. No. 405, at 90-91; Pl. Ex. 275.
-39-

that SOD members do not receive any in depth or specialized training relative to investigations.228 The training that OPSO staff m embers generally receive includes materials focused on police investigations and car stops, but there is no indicatoin of regular or in-service training relative to the conduct of investigations in a jail or prison environment.229 OPP does not effectively track use of force or reports of staff misconduct.230
c. Tier Reps Tier representatives (“tier reps”) are inmates in charge of maintaining order on their tiers.231 OPP staff members report that tier reps help with com munication and represent their living uni ts when inmates are given a say in decisionmaking.232 OPP inmates report that tier reps control phone time, make decisions about inmate housing, and occasionally administer beatings to other inmates at the behest of staff2.33 Tier reps have the power to distribute food, including deterimning how much food to distribute per serving and whether to dole out “seconds.”234 As Schwartz stated, “food is one of the small number of ‘hot button’ items for almost all inmates,” so this kind of power can be “used
228Pl. Ex. 372, at 40. 229Pl. Ex. 372, at 40. 230Pl. Ex. 372, at 40. 231Pl. Ex 372, a t 43; Pl. Ex. 374, at 17; R. Doc. No. 406, at 136-37. Although discussed in this subsection, the use of tier reps is relevant to several aspects of inmate safety and security. 232Pl. Ex. 372, at 43. 233Pl. Ex. 372, at 43-44; Pl. Ex. 374, at 17. Public comments from inmates endorsing the proposed consent judgment also discuss such “hits.” See, e.g., R. Doc. No. 240. 234Pl. Ex. 372, at 43.
-40-

to extort other inmates and also be a source of confrontation or violence.”235
Given the fundamental flaws in OPP’s classification system, predatory or aggressive inmates may become tier reps.236 Testimony from D.R., an inmate sexually harassed and assaulted by a tier
rep, illustrates that tier reps have the opportunity taossault other inmates and to discourage reporting of such assaults.237 D.R. testified that his tier rep, C.C., would “sometimes, early in the morning, take
the television from Cell 1 and turn it towards the hsower and put the aerobics channel on so he could go into the shower and masturbate.”238 One morning, C.C. ordered D.R. to get in the shower2.39 C.C. followed him, carrying a shank, 240 and proceeded to sexually assault D.R. 241 D.R. waited for
approximately one week to report the assault, b ecause “I had to think of a wa y to get around the
immediate sergeants or officers that were in the building” so that the report would not reach C.C. before D.R. could be transferred.242 Ultimately, after reporting the assault, D.R. was successful in
235Pl. Ex. 372, at 43-44; Pl. Ex. 374, at 17; see also Pl. Exs. 43, 47, 55 (describing stabbings related to food distribution); R. Doc. No. 406, at 138 (noting fights resulted from tier rep’s manipulation of food distribution); R. Doc. No. 407, at 43. 236See, e.g., Pl. Ex. 32; see also Pl. Ex. 372, at 44. This statem ent assumes that OPP would not knowingly choose such inmates to be tier reps. But see Pl. Ex. 372, at 44 (“A male inmate casually referred to the fact that the staff usually pickedthe person they perceived to be the toughest inmate on the unit as the tier rep.”). 237R. Doc. No. 406, at 136-42. 238R. Doc. No. 406, at 138. 239R. Doc. No. 406, at 138. 240R. Doc. No. 406, at 138-39. 241R. Doc. No. 406, at 139. 242R. Doc. No. 406, at 141-42. In another instance, fmeale inmates reported tier reps openly engaging in sexual activities with other inmates, which an investigation confirmed. Pl. Ex. 374, at 18.
-41-

his request to be transferred to another tier, although while on the “at risk” tier at Conchetta he suffered an additional physical assault.243
At Conchetta, D.R. attempted to break up a fight because of a concern that another inmate “was about to get really beat up.”244 Before he could reach the fight,“I felt someone strike me in the back of the head . . . . I balled up on the ground and I felt blows to my forehead, to my back, and to my legs.”245 After he reported the assault, D.R. cooperated by descri bing his attacker’s physical appearance.246 SOD staff initially brought an individual to D.R. in order to determine if D.R. could identify that individual as his attacker. 247 D.R. testified that he believed that individual ha d been physically assaulted by SOD in retaliation for the attack on D.R2.48 The individual had blood around his teeth and blood was also trickling fromhis mouth.249 D.R. informed SOD that the individual was not his attacker, and D.R. was returned to the ti er, notwithstanding the fact that his true attacker remained on the tier.250 D.R. learned his assailant’s name at roll call the next morning, and reported that discovery in a grievance2.51 Although D.R. and the attacker wree both moved, they were “moved
243R. Doc. No. 406, at 142-43. 244R. Doc. No. 406, at 143. 245R. Doc. No. 406, at 143. 246R. Doc. No. 406, at 144. 247R. Doc. No. 406, at 145-46. 248R. Doc. No. 406, at 145. 249R. Doc. No. 406, at 145. 250R. Doc. No. 406, at 146. 251R. Doc. No. 406, at 146-47.
-42-

together at the sam e time” and left alone together in a holding cell. 252 D.R. reported “I was just sitting there kind of on pins and needles, hoping taht he didn’t realize exactly what was going on.2”53
According to Romero, OPP has established an informal culture in which tier reps “make up for deficient staffing realities to help supplement facility order, which is a dangerous and reckless practice.”254 As Schwartz stated, the “use oftier reps is a corrupt practice,” in which it is “inevitable that some of the tier repswill abuse their positions.”255 The risk of “arbitrary infliction” of “physical and economic injury” is present whenever an inmate has “unchecked authority” over other inmates. Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d at 1307.
One especially troubling situation illustrates deifciencies associated with the use oftier reps, but also broader deficiencies related to staff accountability. OPP records show that a high-ranking male security officer regularly observed a female tier rep showering and escorted her to a private office after hours for “prolonged periods of time.”256 His actions were reported and confirmed by two staff members.257 Inmates also witnessed the shower viewings, as well as the private office visits.258 Inmate witnesses reported that the tier rep would frequently engage in physical altercations
252R. Doc. No. 406, at 147. 253R. Doc. No. 406, at 147. 254Pl. Ex. 374, at 19. 255Pl. Ex. 372, at 44. 256Pl. Ex. 26. 257Pl. Ex. 26. 258Pl. Ex. 26.
-43-

with other inmates, but the tier rep was never included in the corresponding incident reports2.59 The inmate at issue reportedly said that the officer pormised to transfer money into her account once she left OPP for a new facility.260
Despite the witnessed sexual misconduct, the officer was permitted to resign, and there was never an investigation because of “insufficient evidence, the lack of witnesses and the statements taken.”261 The extent to which other staff m embers, including those tasked with supervising the female inmates, knew of the conduct is unclearbecause of the lack of an investigation2.62 This is not the only documented instance of a staff member engaging in sexual conduct with an inmate.263 The Court notes that, while not addressed in the sexual assault section of this opinion, sexual or romantic “relationships” between staff members and inmates are never acceptable and are, at best, implicitly coercive.
6. Conclusion “It is well established that prison officials have a constitutional dutyto protect prisoners from violence at the hands of their fellow inmates.” Longoria v. Texas, 473 F.3d 586, 592 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832-33). The proposed consent judgm ent addresses the proven deficiencies relative to inm ates’ safety and s ecurity. For exam ple, it requires OPSO to ensure adequate staffing, regular security rounds, and direct supervision in units designed for this type of
259Pl. Ex. 26. 260Pl. Ex. 26. 261Pl. Ex. 26. The same staff member was involved in analtercation with an inmate in which the staff member admitted to using shackles to choke the inmate. Pl. Ex. 7. 262Pl. Ex. 26. 263See Pl. Ex. 41; Pl. Ex. 61.
-44-

supervision.264 It also requires the de velopment of a classification system that takes into account factors including security needs, suicide risk, and risk of violence or self-harm .265 The proposed consent judgment also requires that the classification system be updated to reflect an inm ate’s history at OPP.266 These provisions directly address OPP’s deficiencies with respect to inmate-oninmate violence, including sexual assault.
With respect to training and accountability, the consent judgment provides that OPSO “shall develop, implement, and m aintain comprehensive policies and procedures (in accordance with generally accepted correctional standards) relati ng to the use of force” and shall “develop and implement a single, uniform reporting system.”267 An “Early Intervention System” will document and track staff members involved in use of force incidents2.68 The consent judgment requires “timely and thorough investigation of alleged staff m isconduct, sexual assaults, and physical assault s of prisoners resulting in serious injury.”269
OPP inmates are subject to an epidemic of violence.270 The operational and administrative dysfunction of OPP’s accountability systems put staff members and inmates at risk on a daily basis. Compare Marsh v. Butler Cnty., Ala,. 268 F.3d 1014, 1028 (11th Cir. 2001()en banc) (“[C]onditions
264Consent Judgment, at 12-13. 265Consent Judgment, at 17-18. 266Consent Judgment, at 18. 267Consent Judgment, at 5. 268Consent Judgment, at 10-11. 269Consent Judgment, at 16. 270Pl. Ex. 352, at 11.
-45-

in a jail facility that allow prisoners ready access toweapons, fail to provide an ability to lock down inmates, and fail to allow f or surveillance of inmates pose a substantial risk of serious harm to inmates.”). The Court concludes that with respect to safety and s ecurity, the proposed consent judgment “represents a reasonable factual and lega l determination based on the facts of record.” Williams, 729 F.2d at 1559. Considering the evidence presented, the Court further concludes that the consent judgment is narrowly drawn to remedy the violation of Plaintiffs’ federal rights, is the least intrusive means of doing so, and extends no further than necessary. See Plata, 131 S. Ct. at 1939-40 (discussing § 3626(a)(1)).
B. Medical and Mental Health Care During the course of the fairness hearing, thevidence, including credible witness testimony, exposed stark, sometimes shocking, deficiencies in OPP’s medical and mental health care system. Inmates with mental health issues are housed in deplorable conditions.271 Mental health units smell strongly of feces, urine, and rotting organic matter.272 Several inmates had floors and walls smeared with feces when Dr. Gage visited, and many cells had “evidence of the detritus of several days’ food and utensils.”273 Compare Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d at 338 (Living in “extremely filthy” cells with “crusted fecal matter, urine, dried ejaculate, peeling and chipping paint, and old food particles on the walls . . . would present a substantial risk of serious harm to inm ates.”). Such unsanitary
271R. Doc. No. 408, at 156-57. 272Pl. Ex. 376, at 27. 273R. Doc. No. 408, at 156;see Pl. Ex. 378, at 38 (describing individual with “psychotic symptoms” “with approximately ten plates of molded rotten food lying on the unoccupied upper bunk,” in a “dirty, malodorous” environment).
-46-

conditions can cause or exacerbate illness. 274 Moreover, “m ental health units, including those designed for suicide monitoring, were patently not suicide proof.”275
The consent judgm ent aims to rem edy broad areas of m edical and m ental health care,
including intake services, access to care, medication, staffing, suicide prevention, and records. The
Court addresses each in turn.
1. Intake
At intake, prisoners with clear histories ofself-harm, mental illness, or potential withdrawal
from prescribed or illicitly acquired substancesare cleared for placement in the general population without any medical or mental health consultation.276 Agitated inmates are shackled or chained to
an ordinary chair, which m ay permit them to manipulate their shackles or chains to cause selfharm.277
Dr. Bruce Gage, a correctionalmental health care expert,278 has been the Chief of Psychiatry for the Washington State Department of Corrections since 2008.279 He concluded that OPP’s mental
health services ar e largely inadequate “in all regards,” “from screening through assessm ent,
treatment, suicide policies and practices, restraint,medication, medical records, continuity of care,
274Pl. Ex. 376, at 28. 275Pl. Ex. 376, at 27. 276Pl. Ex. 376, at 35. 277Pl. Ex. 376, at 38; Pl. Ex. 378, at 31; R. Doc. No. 408, at 98-99. 278R. Doc. No. 408, at 82. 279Pl. Ex. 376. From 1993 to 2000, he was involved in a University of Washington/Department of Corrections collaboration project that established aninpatient residential mental health program at one of the prisons. R. Doc. No. 408, at 80. Between 1990 and 2008, Dr. Gage worked at Western State Hospital in Lakewood, Washington, setting up continuity of care between jails and the state hospital and consulting with jails on issues suchas involuntary medication. R. Doc. No. 408, at 79; see also Pl. Ex. 376.
-47-

and access to care.”280 In his report, Dr. Gage stated that in several cases, including instances of inmate suicide, an
initial referral to psychiatry could have changed the outcom e of the cases.281 For example, M.H. committed suicide while still in the Intake Processing Center, notwithstadning that he had previously reported ingesting crack cocaine and he hadrecently been hospitalized for suicidality.282 At intake, he was wandering around, and “gravitated toward the exit doors,” but he was “herded back to the seats” by staff members.283 Because he attempted to leave through an exit door, he was placed in an isolation cell.284 In the isolation cell, he hung him self with his t-shirt.285 Dr. Gage testif ied that M.H.’s death could have been prevented with proper m ental health assessment and treatment.286 When asked by the Court whether his testimony reflected a “medical certainty,” Dr. Gage responded affirmatively, testifying that an assessment would have, at a minimum, prevented the isolation that facilitated M.H.’s suicide.287
T.W. provides a r epresentative example with respect to the lack of intake screening and follow-up psychiatric services.288 T.W. set her house on fire.289 After she was treated for burns at
280R. Doc. No. 408, at 83. 281Pl. Ex. 376, at 35. 282R. Doc. No. 410, at 58-60; see also Pl. Ex. 80-2. 283Pl. Ex. 80-2. 284Pl. Ex. 80-2. 285Pl. Ex. 80-2. 286R. Doc. No. 408, at 110. 287R. Doc. No. 408, at 110. 288Pl. Ex. 376, at 20; see also Pl. Ex. 74. 289Pl. Ex. 376, at 20; see also Pl. Ex. 74.
-48-

Baton Rouge General Hos pital, she was sent to OPP on Septem ber 7, 2012. 290 At intake, she described depression that had occurred within the last year and three prior suicide attem pts.291 In
addition, her hospital records indicated that she carried a diagnosis of bipolar disorder and that she was currently prescribed lithiumand mirtazapine, an antidepressant.292 At intake, T.W. was ordered pain medication and referred to psychiatry for “eval. for meds.”293 Despite this referral, T.W. was apparently not given any access to psychiatric care until November 15, 2012.294 The events of that date are unclear.295
On November 16, 2012, T.W. received a psychiatric chronic care treatment plan from an OPP psychiatrist.296 While the plan notes T.W. felt suicidalbecause she missed her children, the plan
shows little awareness of her three previous suic ide attempts, her prior diagnosis, or her prior psychotropic medications.297 With respect to OPP’s psychiatryservices, T.W. received no diagnosis and no m edications.298 When Dr. Gage visited in Decem ber 2012, T.W . reported auditory hallucinations of “people out to get me,” to whom she sometimes talked back.299 She also spoke about “people being sent to hurt her.”300 Other inmates said that T.W. paces a lot, cries a lot, and
290Pl. Ex. 376, at 20. 291Pl. Ex. 376, at 20. 292Pl. Ex. 376, at 20. 293Pl. Ex. 376, at 20. 294Pl. Ex. 376, at 20. 295Pl. Ex. 376, at 20; see also Pl. Ex. 74. 296Pl. Ex. 376, at 20. 297Pl. Ex. 376, at 20-21. 298Pl. Ex. 376, at 21. 299Pl. Ex. 376, at 21. 300Pl. Ex. 376, at 21.
-49-

“sleeps all day.”301 The record is devoid of evidence thatT.W. received the mental health treatment
that was obviously needed while she was at OPP.
2. Access to Care & Treatment
After Dr. Gage reviewed the records provided, “[t]here was not one example of a thorough
psychiatric assessment by the OPP psychiatrist in any of the records and m ost were not even minimally adequate.”302 None of the records included an assessm ent of suicide risk, rather, “ this
portion of the assessment consisted in simply noting whether the person expressed suicidal ideation or not. The same was true of homicidal ideation and consideration of danger to others in general.”303
This is consistent with the testimony of an inm ate that the extent of psychiatric exams is often limited to: “Are you suicidal or homicidal?”304
OPP has one full-time psychiatrist who works 40 hours per week30.5 Inmates may wait weeks or months for ps ychiatric appointments.306 With respect to em ergency care during the day, the
psychiatrist is contacted and inm ates are tran sferred to the m ental health unit f or suicide monitoring.307 Accordingly, suicide tiers are the prim ary site of em ergency services during the day.308 After hours, the psychiatrist may sometimes be reached by telephone, but there is no mental
301Pl. Ex. 376, at 21. 302Pl. Ex. 376, at 37. 303Pl. Ex. 376, at 37. 304Pl. Ex. 376, at 32; R. Doc. No. 408, at 169.T.W. also told Dr. Gage, without being asked, that the OPP psychiatrist sometimes asks her, “‘Are you suicidal or homicidal?’ and that’s it.” Pl. Ex. 376, at 21. 305R. Doc. No. 408, at 122-23; see also Pl. Ex. 259, at 102-03. 306Pl. Ex. 312; Pl. Ex. 376, at 39-40; R. Doc. No. 405, at 124-25; R. Doc. No. 408, at 126-27. 307Pl. Ex. 376, at 38. 308Pl. Ex. 376, at 38.
-50-

health provider actually on call or present at OPP facilities.309 An inmate who needs mental health care after hours or on weekends will either be sentto the mental health unit for suicide watch or to the emergency room.310 Inmates who harm themselves or who are suicidal are typically not seen until the next working day, while those with less serious, but still urgent, complaints—including suicidal ideation without a plan—are not seen for several days.311
The experiences ofD.R. and R.S. illustrate compounding inadequacies in mental and medical health care. D.R. testified as to the abhorrent conditions experienced by H.T., an inamte whom D.R. testified “seemed partially handicapped and mentally handicapped also,” based on the “things he would say,” “the way he got around,” a nd his inability to care for him self.312 H.T. utilized a colostomy bag, and “[e]very morning his colostomy bag would come off and there would be feces all in his cell and all over his jumper.”313 H.T. would leave the soiled jumper on the ground, “[a]nd someone would have to go in [his cell] and get his jumper and bring it to the gate and set it down and help him clean himself and somehow reattach the bag.”314 Other inmates, not staff members, would assist H.T. by cleaning and reattaching his colostomy bag and carrying his soiled jumper to the gate, where staff members would retrieve it.315 While this daily routine seems inconsistent with basic care, perhaps m ore disturbing is that H.T. had to rely on other inm ates’ compassion and willingness to provide untrained nursing care to ensure he had an unsoiled jumper and an attached
309Pl. Ex. 376, at 38. 310Pl. Ex. 376, at 38; R. Doc. No. 408, at 114. 311Pl. Ex. 376, at 39. 312R. Doc. No. 405-06. 313R. Doc. No. 406, at 408. 314R. Doc. No. 406, at 148. 315R. Doc. No. 406, at 148-150.
-51-

colostomy bag.316According to D.R., who witnessed H.T.’s treatment for more than two months,
staff members who took roll call would, on a daily basis, see fecal matter that had spilled from the
colostomy bag into H.T.’s cell and som etimes see H.T., sitting i n his bed nude or wrapped in a
towel.317 Yet this offensive routine continued, and some staff members even joked about it.318
Another inmate’s slow suicidal decline similarly illustrates the deficiencies with respect to
both medical and mental health care. R.S. cam e to OPP after a standoff with the police. 319 R.S.
expressed “wanting the cops to kill him,” and anemergency room note describes suicidal ideation3.20
OPP staff notes reflect that R.S. stated: “I don’wt ant to kill myself. I just wish I would die.”321While
on suicide watch, R.S. refused treatment, food, and water.322 He became profoundly dehydrated, for
which he was taken to the emergency room several times.323
R.S.’s extreme depression caused a “ failure to thrive,” which Dr. Gage described as
occurring when people with severe depression or term inal illnesses stop eating and drinking,
resulting in dehydration complications, including urinary tract infections, and complications related
316D.R. testified that he was not sure how other inm ates reattached the bag. “I didn’t have the stomach for it.” R. Doc. No. 406, at 148. The Court notes that the inm ates who took it upon themselves to care for H.T. we re subject to the health risks potentially associated with direct exposure to fecal matter. “Frequent exposure to the waste of other persons can certainly present health hazards that constitute a serious risk of substantial harm.” Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d at 341. 317R. Doc. No. 406, at 150; see also Pl. Ex. 376, at 20 (describing instance in which a different inmate was “not given his antipsychotic m edication on at least one occasion because he was in a towel rather than jail clothing”). 318R. Doc. No. 406, at 150. 319R. Doc. No. 408, at 150; Pl. Ex. 76-1. 320Pl. Ex. 76-2. 321Pl. Ex. 76-1. 322Pl. Ex. 76-1. 323R. Doc. No. 408, at 150.
-52-

to inactivity, including pneumonia.324 Records document that medical staff observed R.S. refusing food, while “saturated in urine and feces stating he can’t get up.” 325 On another instance, staf f described him as “ unwilling or unable to get up of f of floor.”326 Records also show that R.S. “experienced an episode of incont inence, requiring his cell mate to clean him up.”327 Despite his
refusal of basic sustenance, documented suicidality, and repeated hospitalizations, the Court has
been provided with no evidence that OPP aut horities undertook efforts that would facilitate and permit them to involuntarily treat R.S.328
OPP staff observed and documented R.S.’s decline. He was seen daily by nurses and eight times by physicians.329 Nonetheless, R.S. died of urosepsis and pneumonia while still on suicide watch.330 It is egregious that R.S. died afterannouncing his passive suicidality331 and after spending
days refusing food and lying on the f loor, with no ef fort to provide involuntary treatm ent or otherwise actively intervene in R.S.’s slow suicide.332 However, the internal OPP mortality report concluded that the standard of care was met, emphasizing that R.S. refused treatment.333
Dr. Daphne Glindmeyer, an expert in m ental health and psychiatry and juvenile m ental
324R. Doc. No. 408, at 151. 325Pl. Ex. 76-1. 326Pl. Ex. 76-1. 327Pl. Ex. 76-2. 328R. Doc. No. 408, at 150-51. 329Pl. Ex. 76-2. 330R. Doc. No. 408, at 150-51. 331See Pl. Ex. 167 (defining, in OPP’s suicide lecture materials, “passive suicidality” as “wanting to be dead”). 332R. Doc. No. 408, at 151. 333Pl. Ex. 76-2.
-53-

health in corrections,334 is the medical director for Assertive Community Treatment, a program that
provides in-home care to individuals with “chronic persistent severe mental illness.”335
Dr. Glindmeyer conducted a site visit at the unit housing youth inmates.336 The population
of youth inmates at the time was approximately 24, and these inmates ranged from approximately
14 years old to 18 years old3.37 Just over half of the youth inmates were housed in protective custody
because of issues including prior sexual assault.338 Those in protective custody were confined for
23 hours per day.339 Youth inmates and staff advised Dr. Glindmeyer to see a youth inmate who had
symptoms including “bizarre behavior” and a history of suicidal ideation.340 Although the inmate
had been seen by a psychiatrist ten months earlier, he received no diagnosis for his apparent mood
disorder and he was not receivi ng any medication or treatment.341 Dr. Glindmeyer persuasively
opined that his treatm ent or lack thereof was wor sening his condition,342 and his isolation was
increasing his risk of suicide.343
334R. Doc. No. 409, at 174-75. 335R. Doc. No. 409, at 174. For approximately the last nine years, she has also served as a consent judgment compliance monitor with respect to m ental health care in Mississippi’s juvenile correctional facilities. Pl. Ex. 379, at 4-5. She has previously served as the Director of Psychiatry for Louisiana State University Health Science Center’s Juvenile Corrections Program. Pl. Ex. 379, at 5. 336R. Doc. No. 409, at 213. 337R. Doc. No. 409, at 213. 338R. Doc. No. 410, at 7; see also Pl. Ex. 378, at 41-42. 339Pl. Ex. 378, at 42, 45; R. Doc. No. 410, at 11-12. 340R. Doc. No. 410, at 13-14. 341R. Doc. No. 410, at 14. 342R. Doc. No. 410, at 15. 343R. Doc. No. 410, at 15.
-54-

3. Medication Even where records dem onstrated that m edications are provided by agencies such as hospitals, and even when that fact is documented through reputable sources of information in the record, psychotropic medications are frequently discontinued at OPP.344 At intake, psychotropic medications are stopped approximately 75-80% of the time, with some OPP treatm ent providers refusing to order them in any circum stance.345 While there are legitimate concerns associated with the potential abuse of such medications, the wholesale discontinuation of all medications creates a risk taht inmates will deteriorate psychiatrically, develop a discontinuation syndrome, or experience withdrawal, all of which can cause unnecessary pain and suffering.346 Moreover, the abrupt di scontinuation of psychotropic m edication can increase the likelihood of suicide and assault and worsen inmates’ long-term prognosis.347
a. Detoxification and Withdrawal OPP inmates who require a detoxification protoc ol are not consistently identified or effectively treated. For example, C.F.’s intake questionnaire indicates that she was taking 2 milligrams of a benzodiazepine, Xanax, four times daily, an am ount and frequency which Dr. Glindmeyer characterized as “a lot,” pursuant to a prescription to treat her m ental illness.348 At intake, C.F. specifically identified the pharmacy that filled her prescriptions and the hospital where
344R. Doc. No. 408, at 102. 345R. Doc. No. 408, at 101, 114-16. 346R. Doc. No. 408, at 101-02. 347R. Doc. No. 408, at 101-02; R. Doc. No. 408, at 102-03. As Schwartz noted, cessation of medication may be “logical if there was a reliable system for re assessing those inm ates at a predetermined time, and if inm ates could reliably get to sick call.” Pl. Ex. 372, at 25-26. The evidence demonstrates that there are no such reliable systems in place. 348R. Doc. No. 409, at 185; see also Pl. Ex. 180.
-55-

she received mental health treatment.349 OPP discontinued the benzodiazepine3.50 C.F. was monitored
for only five days, despite the fact that benzodi azepine withdrawal can occur up to ten days after cessation of use.351 During those five days, her vital signs would occasionally meet the criteria for
providing detoxification medication; sometimes such medication was provided, sometimes it was not.352
During Dr. Glindmeyer’s visit on December 20, 2012, she observed C.F. “screaming very
loudly” that she “needed to go to a wedding and that she had a baby in her tubes and they needed to come cut it out right away.”353 Staff and other inmates indicated C.F. had been in that state or a similar state for several days prior to Dr. Glindmeyer’s site visit.354 Dr. Glindmeyer spoke with C.F., who was “extremely paranoid,” “screaming, cursing,” and “very agitated.”355 Dr. Glindmeyer took C.F.’s pulse, and found it to be “over a hundred. And her skin was just wet. Clammy.”356 C.F. was
experiencing delirium tremens, which Dr. Glindm eyer testified, is “very, very dangerous with a relatively high risk of mortality.”357 Given the severity of the situation, Dr. Glindmeyer reported her concerns directly to nur sing staff, who then reportedly routed C.F. to the em ergency room.358 A
subsequent review of C.F.’s records showed that her deliriumor psychosis was never noted before
349R. Doc. No. 409, at 185-86; see also Pl. Ex. 180. 350Pl. Ex. 378, at 36-37. 351R. Doc. No. 409, at 189-90. 352R. Doc. No. 409, at 190; see also Pl. Ex. 378, at 37; Pl. Ex. 180. 353Pl. Ex. 378, at 37; R. Doc. No. 409, at 191. 354Pl. Ex. 378, at 37; R. Doc. No. 409, at 191. 355R. Doc. No. 409, at 191. 356R. Doc. No. 409, at 191. 357R. Doc. No. 409, at 192. 358R. Doc. No. 409, at 192.
-56-

Dr. Glindmeyer’s visit.359 She had received no medication, despite the fact that staff and inmates indicated she had been in this disturbing, “obviously acutely ill,” state for days.360 Dr. Glindmeyer persuasively attributed C.F.’s state to OPP’s detoxification protocol.361 Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d at
343 (noting “testimony that prisoners seldom see medical staff and that monitoring of medication
was sporadic, with prisoners potentially being prescribed the wrong medication or no medication
for long periods of tim e, potentially leading to extremely dangerous physical side effects or psychotic breakdowns”).362
b. Untreated Mental Illness
OPP does not provide appropriate treatment to mentally ill inmates, even when they pose a danger to themselves or others. For example, S.T.363 entered OPP in November 2012, but he was subsequently routed to the emergency room several times in a seven-day period3.64 The behavior that
led to these visits generally included “climbing on ceiling and pulling light fixtures, throwing tile, spreading feces on windows,” and “swinging from light fixtures.” 365 S.T. reported auditory hallucinations.366 At one point, S.T. was found “naked in his cell, with abrasions and signs of
359Pl. Ex. 378, at 22. 360Pl. Ex. 378, at 22. R. Doc. No. 409, at 191. 361R. Doc. No. 409, at 192. 362Dr. Gage’s r eport suggests that he witnesse d C.F. being rem oved for evaluation, but his subsequent review of her records showed no evidence of any such evaluation or hospitalization. Pl. Ex. 376, at 48. 363The initials of this inmate are actually T.S., but they are not used here so as to avoid conflation with the other T.S., who was attacked by E.L. 364Pl. Ex. 73. 365Pl. Ex. 73. 366Pl. Ex. 73.
-57-

trauma.”367 An emergency room physician noted that S.T. would be discharged and “can follow up
with psychiatry in jail, as it certainly appears that he will require m edication to decrease his disruptive behavior.”368 When Dr. Gage observed S.T. in December 2012, “[h]e was mute and hid himself under a blanket, refusing to speak to m e.”369 Dr. Glindmeyer also observed S.T. on two occasions in December 2012.370 “On the first observation, he declined to speak,” and he was lying on a mattress on the floor, with a “flat aff ect, slow movements, and poor eye contact.” 371 Staff members reported that he had a history of refusing to eat. 372 On the second observation, S.T. demonstrated psychomotor retardation, moving in slow motion.373 He spoke softly and slowly, and his affect remained flat.374 Despite S.T.’s persistently bizarre behavior, OPP records reflect that the
only psychotropic m edication OPP ever provided to S.T. was a single em ergency dose of an antipsychotic medication.375 In short, S.T. remained symptomatic and untreated.376
Another inmate, R.C., was transferred to the mental health unit on November 27, 2012, less than a week after arriving at OPP.377 The record indicates this transfer may have been related to a
prior history of schizophreni a and ongoing suic idal and hom icidal ideation, which included
367Pl. Ex. 73. 368Pl. Ex. 73. 369Pl. Ex. 376, at 19. 370Pl. Ex. 378, at 15. 371Pl. Ex. 378, at 15. 372Pl. Ex. 378, at 15. 373Pl. Ex. 378, at 15. 374Pl. Ex. 378, at 15. 375Pl. Ex. 376, at 19; Pl. Ex. 378, at 16. 376Pl. Ex. 376, at 19; Pl. Ex. 378, at 15-16. 377Pl. Ex. 91.
-58-

statements such as “I feel people are trying tokill me . . . I’ll hurt somebody [by] cutting their throat off.”378 An OPP medical doctor, who was not part of the mental health care team, documented R.C.
as “being extremely belligerent and bizarre, thinking that [the doctor] will harm him” and “soiled in stool.”379 The doctor noted that R.C. had a history ofpsychiatric issues and “defer[red] to psych. for further management of psychosis, before dealing w/ medical issues.”380 When Dr. Gage toured
the facility in m id-December, R.C. was “overtly responding to internal stim uli (indicative of hallucinations),” talking to people who were notthere, and otherwise acting “grossly psychotic.”381
Dr. Gage later saw R.C. “lying under the bed, lying inhis own excrement,” with “shards of tile . . . arrayed on the sill of th e window in plain sight.” 382 R.C. later ingested the shards of tile.383
According to Dr. Gage, R.C. was “simply allowed to languish in psychosis, untreated,” despite the fact that evidence of psychosis was documented in R.C.’s record by other physicians.384
4. Staffing
As with security and safety, OPP’s severe defciiencies in mental health and medical care are
378R. Doc. No. 376, at 16; R.Doc. No. 408, at 160-61;see also Pl. Ex. 91. R.C. submitted a sick call request on November 26, 2012, stating, “I would like toreceive my medicine that helps to keep my mind calm. I was being housed at Allen Correctional Facility. I was taking Haldol and Benadryl. Thank you & God Bless.” Pl. Ex. 91. The ti ming of this request suggests it m ay have been associated with his transfer. 379R. Doc. No. 408, at 160-61; see also Pl. Ex. 376, at 15; Pl. Ex. 91. 380Pl. Ex. 91. 381Pl. Ex. 376, at 15; R. Doc. No. 408, at 161. 382R. Doc. No. 408, at 161. 383R. Doc. No. 408, at 161. 384Pl. Ex. 376, at 43. Dr. Gage described R.C. as someone who “would have readily qualified for involuntary treatment with antipsychotics.” R. Doc. No. 408, at 161. In his report, Dr. Gage detailed numerous additional examples of inmates at OPP who were left untreated.See Pl. Ex. 376, at 9-27.
-59-

largely attributable to dramatically insufficient staffing.385 Dr. Glindmeyer concluded that OPP’s
mental health staffing is “woefully inadequate.”386 There is one psychiatrist and one social worker
for approximately 2,500 inm ates.387 According to Dr. Gage, OPP needs at least one additional
psychiatrist or psychiatric prescriber to meet minimum standards.388 Nurses report that there is no
time to provide any formal mental health treatment, and that they engage in minimal contact usually
only in the context of m andatory evaluations.389 Given the number of inmates and the number of
nurses, it is impossible for the nurses to adequa tely evaluate and chart patients, adm inister
medications, respond to emergencies, provide suicide monitoring, gather sick call information, and
provide basic nursing services.390
The Court questioned Dr. Gage as to certain statements in his report characterizing the
relationship between staff and inmates at OPP.
THE COURT: You have a statement in your report which states, “There’s a general pattern of reckless and callous disregard for the suffering and treatm ent needs of the m entally ill and chem ically dependent in OPP.” That’s a very strong statement. Do you want to explain that at all?
THE WITNESS: Well, I would stand by that. I guess that would be the first thing that I would say. I mean, I’ve seen a number of jails and I have not seen conditions as deplorable as I ha ve seen in this jail, and I have not seen such absence of mental health services in the
385Pl. Ex. 376, at 29. 386R. Doc. No. 409, at 196. Dr. Glindmeyer also testified that youth inmates seem to be controlled by another youth inmate, as opposed to by the deputies. This youth inmate was physically the largest inmate, and the other youth inmates appeared to wait for his acquiescence before responding to Dr. Glindmeyer’s questions. R. Doc. No. 410, at 8-9. 387Pl. Ex. 376, at 29. 388R. Doc. No. 408, at 132. 389Pl. Ex. 376, at 42. 390Pl. Ex. 376, at 29.
-60-

context of just abysmal physical environments and the kind of failure to monitor people and so on that I was speaking about . It was just more dramatic than I have ever seen in any other institution.391
While the Sheriff and City have suggested that an inmate population reduction may occur in just a
few months, the evidence suggests that OPP ha s inadequate staffing to treat even a reduced population.392
5. Suicide Prevention
According to Dr. Gage, “[OPP] records and interviews with staff and inmates demonstrate
a level of disregard and disrespect on the part of most staff towards the mentally and chemically
dependent” that is made plain by the conditions onthe residential mental health unit and “especially the approach to suicide monitoring.”393 The evidence supports this characterization.
Suicide assessments at OPP are cursory and repetitive. Psychiatric contact with inmates is extremely brief, generally lasting less than five minutes.394 OPP policy requires that staff members monitor inmates on suicide watch at all times.395 But the staffing deficiencies and physical structures
of OPP facilities make it nearly impossible to conduct adequate assessments and to directly observe inmates on suicide watch.396 Those written assessments that are actually completed are perfunctory, and some appear to have been filled out in advance.397 OPP does not have any suicide proof cells,
and records demonstrate that inmates on suicide watch have access to medications that can be used
391R. Doc. No. 408, at 186-187. 392R. Doc. No. 408, at 187. 393Pl. Ex. 376, at 50. 394Pl. Ex. 376, at 45. 395R. Doc. No. 408, at 171. 396Pl. Ex. 376, at 45. 397Pl. Ex. 376, at 46.
-61-

to overdose.398 Staff and inmates on the suicide watch unit could not recall the last time cells were searched for contraband, and there was no log of any such searches.399
On the suicide watch tier, records demonstrate that significant self-harm events were not listed as “sentinel events” that would trigger staff review.400 These events included “head banging
severe enough to require sutures,” swallowing pills, chemicals, and pieces of tile, and “countless episodes of tying cloth around necks, som etimes anchored to objects.” 401 Inmates who commit suicide are sometimes not discovered for quite some time.402 Compare Plata, 131 S. Ct. at 1934
(noting that “prison staff did not even learn of [an inmate’s death] for several hours”).
OPP staff members’ ignorance of cut-down tools is particularly alarming. A cut-down tool
is a type of knife “made to cut through layers ofsomething that has been fashioned as a rope,” such as the “thick m aterial that uniform s are m ade of.”403 Suicide is a leading cause of death i n correctional settings,404 and approximately 95% of suicides in jails and prisons are com mitted by hanging.405 Cutting someone down without a cut-down tool m ay take more time, decreasing the chance of survival.406 Virtually none of OPP’s staff, incl uding the staff members responsible for suicide watch, could locate cut-down tools when the experts visited.407
398See also Pl. Ex. 378, at 23. 399Pl. Ex. 376, at 45-46. 400Pl. Ex. 376, at 47. 401Pl. Ex. 376, at 47. 402Pl. Ex. 376, at 30; see e.g., Pl. Ex. 78; Pl. Ex. 81. 403R. Doc. No. 406, at 85. 404E.g., R. Doc. No. 410, at 46. 405R. Doc. No. 406, at 85-86. 406R. Doc. No. 406, at 85-86. 407R. Doc. No. 406, at 86; R. Doc. No. 408, at 159.
-62-

6. Records
Dr. Gage testified, and the Court has observedfirsthand in connection with its own review, that record keeping at OPP is very poor.408 For example, while medical forms may be reasonably
constructed, they are often left blank or incomplete or are simply not present in inmates’ medical records.409 These are not mere clerical oversights. In numerous instances, inmates are sent to the
emergency room, but there is no indication in the inmates’ medical records regarding the outcome of their visits.410
Notes are undated, m isdated, unsigned, and otherwise deficient. 411 There is a consistent pattern of incompletion.412 The serious deficiencies in record keeping m ake it difficult to comprehensively assess the quality of care at OPP and to render em ergency care to inm ates.413
Moreover, the absence of consistent m edication administration records contributes to the risk of overprescription, overdose, contraband trade, and inmate-on-inmate violence.414
7. Conclusion
The Court has reviewed the voluminous evidence regarding medical and mental health care
at OPP and the measures in the amended proposed consent judgment that the signatories agree are
408R. Doc. No. 408, at 89, 94. 409Pl. Ex. 376, at 30. 410Pl. Ex. 376, at 31. 411R. Doc. No. 409, at 100. 412R. Doc. No. 409, at 100. 413R. Doc. No. 408, at 179-80. 414R. Doc. No. 408, at 177-78; see Pl. Ex. 376, at 34-35; Pl. Ex. 378, at 23. An inmate on suicide watch showed Schwartz a large bag of pills and a cup full of pills, totaling approximately 75 pills, which he had been stockpiling. Pl. Ex. 372, at 24- 25. Schwartz reported the situat ion to OPP’s medical director. Pl. Ex. 372, at 25.
-63-

necessary to address deficiencies. The evidence persented was largely targeted towards deficiencies in mental health care, although the evidence also shows deficiencies in non-m ental health care treatment, in particular sick call requests, medication administration, and emergency room visits, that relate to the risk of suicide, violence, and contraband trade.415 The evidence presented shows that a lack of treatm ent altogether, rather th an inadequate treatment, contributes to severe deficiencies in medical and mental health care at OPP.416
The consent judgment directly addresses OPP’s deficiencies with respect to m edical and mental health care. For example, it requires that an inmate’s risk of suicide or other self-harm be evaluated within eight hours of ar riving at OPP and it prohibits placing inm ates in isolation who have not been screened.417 It requires that an inmate receive a mental health assessment no later than the next working day following an “adverse triggeri ng event,” such as a su icide attempt or selfinjury.418 It also requires that “psychotropic medications are administered in a clinically appropriate manner as to prevent misuse, overdose, theft, or violence related to the medication.”419
“Just as a prisoner may starve if not fed, he orshe may suffer or die if not provided adequate medical care. A prison that deprives inmates of basic sustenance, including adequate medical care, is incompatible with the concept of human dignity and has no place in civilized society.”Plata, 131 S. Ct. at 1928. OPP’s deficiencies with respect to medical and mental health care are widespread, and the deficiencies with respect to mental health care are particularly obvious and pervasive. Dr.
415R. Doc. No. 410, at 52-53. 416Pl. Ex. 376, at 50. 417Consent Judgment, at 20. 418Consent Judgment, at 21. 419Consent Judgment, at 22, 30.
-64-

Gage testified that OPP’s absence of mental health services is “dramatic” when compared to any other institution he has seen.420 Considering the allegations ofsystem-wide constitutional violations and the evidence presented of “complex and intractable” deficiencies, the Court concludes that the “scope of the remedy” presented in the proposed consent judgment is “proportional to the scope of the violation.” Id. at 1937, 1940. The consent judgment provisions on mental and medical health care are necessary to remedy the violation of federal rights, and they are the least intrusive means of doing so. See id.
C. Environmental Conditions OPP facilities are in a state of disrepair.421 Ventilation throughout OPP facilities is very poor, in part because inmates plug the vents.422 Rusted and poorly secured fixtures can be used to create and conceal weapons.423 Inmates, including inmates on suicide watch, have easy access to shards of broken tile, which may be ingested, thrown, or used as a weapon.424 Compare Marsh, 268 F.3d at 1027 (“The structure of the Jail was so dilpaidated that inmates could fashion weapons from pieces of the building.”). Old locksin disrepair allow inmates to lock and unlock their cells at wil4l2.5 Compare id. (“[L]ocks on the doors to cells did not work, preventing inm ates from being locked down.”). Many toilets, sinks, and showers are not functional.426 Sewage seeps into cells, including
420R. Doc. No. 408, at 187. 421R. Doc. No. 407, at 98. 422R. Doc. No. 407, at 100. 423R. Doc. No. 407, at 98, 101; see Pl. Ex. 374, at 45. 424E.g., Pl. Ex. 90; Pl. Ex. 374, at 46. 425Pl. Ex. 372, at 55. 426R. Doc. No. 407, at 98.
-65-

cells where inmates eat.427 Compare Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d at 341 (“[E]xposure to human waste ‘evokes both the health concerns emphasized in Farmer and the more general standards of dignity embodied in the Eighth Amendment.’”) (quoting DeSpain v. Uphoff, 264 F.3d 965, 974 (10th Cir. 2001)). The acute psychiatric unit’s showers havelarge amounts of black mold on the ceilings and walls.428 Clouds of gnats have resulted in an increased incidence of skin problems.429 Cells housing mentally ill inmates have feces spread on the walls. 430 Inmates, including inmates on the acute psychiatric unit, sometimes sleep on the floor or on bare steel bunks because they are not given mattresses.431
OPP’s environmental conditions pose a security riks, and this risk endangers the lives of staff members and inmates, while also endangering the community through potential escapes.432 OPP’s environmental conditions also create a health hazard for staff members and inmates. See Alberti v. Sheriff of Harris Cnty., 937 F.2d 984, 1000-01 (5th Cir. 1991) (observing that “problems with the jails’ plumbing, ventilation, fire safety, supplies, food service, and medical care” could “weigh in favor” of a finding of deliberate indifference). The consent judgm ent addresses these risks by requiring, for example, that O PP adequately install and m aintain fixtures and that OPP’s f ood service staff, including inmates, receive training on food safety.433 The Court has closely reviewed
427Pl. Ex. 372, at 54; R. Doc. No. 412, at 26-27; City Ex. 13; see also R. Doc. No. 407, at 45 (unsanitary conditions portrayed in City Ex. 13 persist). 428Pl. Ex. 372, at 54. 429Pl. Ex. 372, at 56; Several inm ate letters describe d showers with “leech like” or “slug like” creatures, which one inmate described as “gnats before they transform.” E.g., R. Doc. Nos. 274, 294. 430R. Doc. No. 409, at 103-04. 431Pl. Ex. 372, at 26-27. 432Pl. Ex. 372, at 56; Pl. Ex. 374, at 47. 433Consent Judgment at 31-32.
-66-

the measures in the proposed consent judgm ent, and fi nds them narrowly drawn and no m ore
intrusive than necessary to remedy the violation of inmates’ constitutional rights.
D. Fire Safety
With respect to fire safety, Romero observed fire hazards, including electrical sockets that
had been “burnt out, perhaps by inmates tampering with them . . . to ignite something.”434 Romero
reported that staff members were unable to locate em ergency exit keys in a tim ely manner, if at
all.435 A key control programis “foundational to jail security,”436 but there is no reliable key control
program at OPP.437 According to Romero, “[s]taff and prisoners reported that emergency doors are
frequently locked with shackles becauseduring power outages, these doors pop open.4”38 At the time
of Romero’s visit, the fire alarm system for the last three months at several facilities had consisted
of a “fire watch,” in which a person walked throughunits looking for fire hazards or signs of fire4.39
In September 2012, the Louisiana State Fire Marshal’s office and the New Orleans Fire Department
conducted a joint surprise inspection.440 The OPP staff member assigned to the fire watch had, by
10:30 a.m., filled out the fire watch check log for the entire day.441
434R. Doc. No. 407, at 102-03. 435Romero requested that staff members locate an emergency key for one of the housing units. Staff members located a key within about ten minutes, but it was the wrong key. A key located after an hour worked for one door but not for another. Ultimately, Romero concluded that the keys were kept in the warden’s office, but the warden is only there during the day and the keys are not otherwise available to staff. Romero suspected the locks had been sabotaged by inmates. R. Doc. No. 407, at 104-07. 436Pl. Ex. 374, at 21. 437Pl. Ex. 372, at 21, 45. 438Pl. Ex. 374, at 46. 439R. Doc. No. 407, at 103-04. 440Pl. Ex. 62. 441Pl. Ex. 62. The staff member was suspended for 5 days.
-67-

The inability of staff to operate emergency exits is deeply worrisome and poses the type of
problem that could result in a large-scale catastrophic fire event with many fatalities.442 While the
Sheriff’s testimony suggested that improvements have been made in recent months, the proposed
consent judgment will ensure that such improvements remain consistent.443 For example, the consent
judgment requires that fire equipment be maintained and inspected quarterly and that staff be trained
in the use of emergency keys.444 In conjunction with the presence of contraband, including lighte4r4s5
and “stingers,”446 the dysfunctional emergency exit system, and the inadequate supervision at OPP,
fire related issues pose a risk to the security and safety of inmates and staff. The remedies in the
proposed consent judgment with respect to fire safety are narrowly drawn to remedy the violation
of the federal rights addressed herein, and they are no more intrusive than necessary to do so.
III. Statutory Rights
The United States alleges that OPP discrim inates against Lim ited English Prof iciency
(“LEP”)447 inmates by failing to provide LEP inm ates with meaningful access to OPP’s intake,
processing, housing, medical, and other services.448
442E.g., R. Doc. No. 405, at 137; see also Pl. Ex. 372, at 44-46. 443R. Doc. No. 441, at 87-88. 444Consent Judgment, at 34. 445R. Doc. No. 405, at 86. 446Stingers are constructed by cutting a live electrical wire with a shank and attaching a washer to the end of the wire. Inmates use stingers to heat up food. R. Doc. No. 406, at 101-02. 447Limited English Proficiency (“LEP”) character izes individuals who cannot speak, write, or understand the English language such that their ability to communicate is limited. R. Doc. No. 407, at 108. 448R. Doc. No. 70, at 12. While conditions at OPP appear obviously inconsistent with the Prison Rape Elimination Act (“PREA”), PREA is not one of Plaintiffs’ underlying causes of action. See, e.g., Ball v. Beckworth, No. 11-37, 2011 WL 4375806, at *4 (D. Mont. Aug. 31, 2011). Nonetheless, the parties appear to agree that the consent judgment should be tailored to remedy PREA violations.
-68-

Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that “No person i n the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, ornational origin, be excluded fromparticipation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrim ination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”See also N.Y. Urban League, Inc. v. New Yor,k71 F.3d 1031, 1036 (2d Cir. 1995); United States v. Maricopa Cnty., Ariz., No. 12-00981, 2012 WL 6742314 (D. Ariz. Dec. 12, 2012). “[L]ongstanding case l aw, federal regulations and agency interpretation of those regulations hold language-based discrim ination constitutes a form of national origin discrimination under Title VI.” Maricopa Cnty., 2012 WL 6742314, at *4.
A policy guidance document issued by DOJ states that an entity’s obligation with respect to a particular service can be evaluated through an “individualized assessm ent that balances the following four factors: (1) [t]he number or proportion of LEP persons eligible to be served or likely to be encountered by the program or grantee; (2) the frequency with which LEP individuals come in contact with the program ; (3) the nature and im portance of the program , activity, or service provided by the program to people’s lives; and (4) the resources available to the grantee/recipient and costs.” Dep’t of Justice, Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discri mination Affecting Lim ited English Proficient Persons, 67 Fed. Reg. 4145501, 41459 (June 18, 2002); see also Maricopa Cnty. , 2012 W L 6742314, at *4 (“DOJ coordinates government-wide compliance with Title VI and its interpretation
Compare R. Doc. No. 416, at 48 (filing by Plaintiffs, asserting: “The proposed Consent Judgment’s remedies regarding sexual abuse and sexual assault are the minimum necessary to correct OPP’s PREA-related deficiencies.”); R. Doc. No. 154, at 8 (suggesting that the consent judgm ent is not narrowly tailored to remedy PREA violations). The Court concludes that the consent judgment is narrowly drawn with respect to constitutional standards. To the extent PREA standards are relevant, the consent judgment is PLRA compliant with respect to those standards as well. In any case, the only statutory right before the Court arises under Title VI.
-69-

of Title VI is entitled to special deference.”) (citations omitted). While OPP has LEP inm ates,449 OPP has vi rtually no services for LEP inm ates.450 This
creates problems with respect to classification, medical treatment, and emergency situations.451 See
67 Fed. Reg. at 41469-70. At intake, LEP inmates sign forms and other documents without knowing their contents.452 Staff members informed Romero that they have a “catch phrase type book,” but they were unable to locate it after searching for 20 m inutes.453 The num ber of LEP inm ates is
unknown because OPP does not keep a record, whet her through intake classification or through some other process, of inmates that do not speak English.454
OPP also does not keep a record or otherwise identify staff members who are bilingual.455 Romero was informed that only one staff member at intake speaks Spanish.456 Accordingly, when that officer is not on duty, there is no oneto communicate with Spanish-speaking inmates.457 While
other inmates may provide translation services in some circumstances, in “many circumstances”
such an arrangement fails to co mply with Title VI and its im plementing regulations because of
issues relative to confidentiality and physical safety. See 67 Fed. Reg. 4145501 at 41462 (“[O]ther
inmates . . . are not competent to provide quality and accurate interpretations.”).
449R. Doc. No. 407, at 109. 450R. Doc. No. 407, at 112-13. 451R. Doc. No. 407, at 108-11. 452R. Doc. No. 407, at 110; see also R. Doc. No. 81-1, at 11 (English translation of declaration describing inability to obtain medical care because of language barrier). 453R. Doc. No. 407, at 111. 454R. Doc. No. 407, at 109, 112. 455R. Doc. No. 407, at 113. 456R. Doc. No. 407, at 113. 457R. Doc. No. 407, at 113.
-70-

The proposed consent judgment provides for language assistance policies and procedures that will ensure com pliance with Title VI. It requires, f or example, that OPP provide Spanish translations of vital docum ents, including s ick call form s and inm ate handbooks, and that an appropriate number of bilingual staff members be available for translation or interpretation4.58 There is little doubt that the proposed consent judgment’s provisions addressing LEP inmates are narrowly drawn to remedy the violation ofinmates’ rights pursuant to Title VI, and the provisions are no more intrusive than necessary.459 IV. Objections to Approval
The City has raised several objections to tehproposed consent judgment. “A party potentially prejudiced by a decree has a right to a judicialdetermination of the merits of its objection.” City of Miami, 664 F.2d at 447. However, “[c]omplete accord on all issues []is not indispensable to the entry of [a consent judgment].” Id. at 440. In “multiparty litigation, two parties may resolve all of the issues that do not affect a third party, ask the court to include only this settlement in a consent decree, and submit to the court for adjudication the remaining issues, disputed between them and the third party.” Id.
Although its legal arguments have been elusive at times, the City’s overarching objection is that the consent judgment has an unreasonable and proscribed effect on third parties as a result of the consent judgment’s funding provision, its unknowncosts, its indirect effect on public safety, and its allegedly collusive history. The City alsocontends that the consent judgment extends further than necessary, in violation of the PLRA and st ate law. Finally, t he City challenges particular
458Consent Judgment, at 36-37. 459E.g., Pl. Ex. 374, at 49-50.
-71-

provisions that require the Sheriffto “continue to” take certain actions and, relatedly, contends that the consent judgment cannot be approved absent aplainly worded concession of liability on the part of the Sheriff.
A. Provision-by-Provision Approach The City asserts that the Court must examine the proposed consent judgment “provision by provision,” making particularized findings that a federal right has been violated and injunctive relief is narrowly drawn and necessary with respect to each and every provision. In support of this argument, the City c ites cases addressing the term ination of consent judgm ents.460 But the Fif th Circuit has rejected such reliance on “provisi on-by-provision” cases as “misplaced” because the statutory subsection addressing termination of a consent decree, § 3626(b)(3), “on its face requires such written findings. Conversely, [§ 3626(a)(1)], wh ich applies to the approval of prospective relief, does not.”Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d at 336 n.8 (distinguishingCastillo v. Cameron Cnty., 238 F.3d 339, 351 ( 5th Cir. 2001)). Because this cas e involves § 3626(a)(1), no such approach is required here. Nonetheless, the Court has taken great care tocompare the evidence in support of the alleged violations of federal rights to the remedial provisions proposed in the consent judgment. Moreover, the City received the opportunity to challenge specfiic provisions of the consent judgment, ensuring they received even greater scrutiny. 461 Although not required to do so, the Court ha s carefully combed through the consent judgm ent and concludes that its provisions are na rrowly drawn to remedy the violation of inm ates’ federal rights in light of the evidence presented at the fairness
460R. Doc. No. 427, at 11 (citing Cason v. Seckinger, 231 F.3d 777, 785 (11th Cir. 2000)). 461E.g., R. Doc. No. 126, at 3.
-72-

hearing. B. Effect on Third Parties 1. Funding Provision The City argues that the proposed consent judgment’s funding provision, Section V, has an
impermissible effect on third parties. The City initially contended that Section V “impermissibly infringes on the City’s rights as a non-party,” by permitting “the Sheriff, the Plaintiff Inmates, and the Civil Rights Division [to] decide what is theappropriate level for funding for the Sheriff’s office without affording the City an opportunity to be heard or a m eans to even have an evidentiary hearing.”462 In response, the parties to the consent judgment amended it “to ensure (a) that the City can fully participate in all proceedings relatingto the funding and cost of implementing the Proposed Consent Judgment, and (b) that the City will receive complete information regarding compliance and conditions at OPP.” 463 The City now contends that th e Sheriff and Plaintiffs “took it upon themselves to ‘resolve the concerns of . . . the City’” through the am endments.464 In doing so, the City argues, they inserted amendments which impermissibly “obligate the City to certain actions to which the City does not consent.”465 The City additionally argues that he amendments interfere with the City’s preparation of a balanced budget.466
For the sake of clarity, all ofthe amendments to the proposed consent judgment are set forth below. Deletions are indicated through stricken text and insertions are underlined.
462R. Doc. No. 153, at 7; see also R. Doc. No. 427, at 9-10. 463See R. Doc. No. 183, at 1-2. 464R. Doc. No. 219, at 1 (quoting R. Doc. No. 183). 465R. Doc. No. 219, at 2. 466R. Doc. No. 219, at 3-4.
-73-

V. FUNDING

A. The Court shall de termine the initial funding needed to ensure constitutional conditions of confinement at OPP, in accordance with the terms of this Agreem ent, and the source(s) responsible for providing that funding at an evidentiary hearing (“fundi ng trial”). Defendant, third-party Defendant City of New Orleans (“City”), and Plaintiffs shall have the right to participate fully in the funding trial, including producing expert testimony and analysis regarding the cost of implementing this Agreement.

A.B. Defendant shall be responsible for im plementation of this Agreement upon a definitive judgm ent with regar d to such initial funding for this Agreement.

B.C. Once the funding is determ ined pursuant to Paragraph A, the funding amount thereafter m ay be adjusted on an annual basis to account for changes in the size of the prisoner population, inflation, or other operating costs. If the Parties Defendant and t he City are unable to agree upon su ch adjustments to the annual budget, the Monitor will intervene and resolvethe dispute. If the Monitor cannot resolve the dispute within 45 days, the dispute will be subm itted to the district judge for resolution. Defendant, the City, and Plaintiffs The Parties agree to work in good faith to determ ine available cost savings measures that may result from the ongoing implementation of this Agreement or otherwise.

C.D. Defendant will provide an annual budget for the expenditure of the funds for operation of OPP a nd an annual audited financial statement to the Monitor, the City, and the PartiesPlaintiffs. The Monitor will assist in conducting oversight to ensure that funds for implementing this Agreement are allocated to achieve compliance with this Agreement.

IX. MONITORING

F. Monitor Distribution of OPSO Docum ents, Reports, and

Assessments: Within seven days of rec eipt, the Monitor shall

distribute all OPSO assessments and reports to SPLC, and DOJ, and

the City. The Monitor also shall provide any O

PSO

compliance-related documents within seven days to DOJ,and SPLC,

-74-

and the City upon request.467 The City specifically objects to the amendments because they “require the City to subject itself to the ‘assistance’ of the Monitor to set funding levels for the Sheriff’s office.” 468 But if the City does not want to participate in a process inwhich the Monitor resolves disputes, it need not do so. While the funding provision now expressly includes the City, the Sheriff, and the Plaintiffs in the funding decisionmaking process, this modification merely provides the City with “the right,” rather than the obligation, “to participate” in the Monitor’s dispute resolution. Ultimately, “[i]f the Monitor cannot resolve the dispute within 45 dayst,he dispute will be submitted to the district judge for resolution.”469 Nothing in the cited provision perm its the Sheriff and Plaintiffs to impose any obligation upon the City without a hearing. The City also objects on the basis that it cannot be required to app ear in Court to settle funding disputes. There is a pending third-party complaint against the City. This claim and the law defining the relationship between the City and the Sheriff, including any funding obligations, are the source of any such requirement.
2. Effect on Public Safety Funding The City next contends that the proposed consent judgment requires a “diversion of funds”
467R. Doc. No. 183-2. Although the City did not object to the am endment of the m onitoring provision, the Court includes it because it is relevant to the Court’s determination that additional notice to the class m embers was not required. Th e City has also not object ed to the provision requiring that it “work in good faith to determ ine available cost savi ng measures.” See City of Miami, 664 F.2d at 442-44 (noting which provisions had been objected to by a third party); id. at 444 (The district court’s “approval of the decree, insofar as it affected [the parties] and, patently, insofar as it is not objected to by the [third party] must be affirmed.”). 468R. Doc. No. 219, at 3. 469R. Doc. No. 183-2, at 1.
-75-

that will adversely affect public safety and the welfare of the citizens of New Orleans who are not inmates at OPP.470
First Deputy Mayor Andrew Kopplin te stified relative to the effects that the proposed consent judgment could have on the City’s budget.Because the cost of implementing the proposed consent judgment and the party responsi ble for paying any additional costs have not yet been determined, the Court permitted the City to offer testimony regarding the effect that a price tag of $22.5 million would have on the City’s budget, should the City be required to pay such costs in full. Kopplin stated that the $22.5 million figure was based on a request from the Sheriff.471
It is important to emphasize that, at this stage of the proceedings, the Court does not know whether any additional revenue is needed to ensure that OPP inm ates are af forded the f ull protections of the Constitution and Title VI. Th e Court has not yet hear d argument on the City’s state law funding obligation or heard evidence relative to the funds available to the Sheriff and the Sheriff’s spending of any such f unds. Determining whether the City has an additional funding obligation and the amount of any such obligation isimpossible at this stage. Accordingly, the Court will assume, for the sake of argument, that the City could be obligated to spend an additional $22.5 million on implementation of the consent judgment.
Kopplin testified that either significant layoffs and furloughs or a drastic reduction in the number of police officers and fire department employees available to respond to public emergencies would be necessary if the Cit y was forced to spend an additional $22.5 m illion to rem edy the
470R. Doc. No. 153, at 4. 471R. Doc. No. 409, at 15.
-76-

conditions at OPP.472 Such measures, Kopplin concluded “would put all of the citizens of the City at risk.”473
The PLRA requires courts to “give s ubstantial weight to any adverse im pact on public safety” caused by the entry of a consent judgm ent. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1). Plaintiffs assert that legislative history and caselaw demonstrate that thisrequirement is oriented towards the more direct effects on public safety associated with prisoner release orders and population caps. 474 See, e.g., Plata, 131 S. Ct. at 1941-42. The Court has considered the “difficult and sensitive” question of the proposed consent judgment’s effect on public safety, especially insofar as it may indirectly lead to decreased services in other areas. Id. at 1942.
The Court is well aware ofNew Orleans’ high homicide rate475 and budgetary constraints,476 but the evidence shows that violent crim e is endemic within OPP as well. See id. at 1942. OPP inmates, and particularly inmates with mental health issues, leave the facility more damaged, and perhaps more dangerous, than when they arrived. 477 Compare id. Experts opined that OPP poses “clear and present dangers” of “life and death proportions” with respect to suicide and inm ate
472R. Doc. No. 409, at 17-19. 473R. Doc. No. 409, at 19. 474R. Doc. No. 179, at 6. 475R. Doc. No. 412, at 62. 476E.g., R. Doc. No. 409, at 17-18. 477As counsel for the Sheriff articulated, “it’s meant to be a jail. It’s not a hospital, it’s not a mental health ward, but that’s what’s coming into the jailmore and more because all the health services are being cut everywhere else. So they are dumping them at the Sheriff’s doorstep.” R. Doc. No. 412, at 45; see also 42 U.S.C.A. § 15601(3) (“ America’s jails and prisons house m ore mentally ill individuals than all of the Na tion’s psychiatric hospitals com bined. As m any as 16 percent of inmates in State prisons and jails, and 7 percent of Federal inmates, suffer from mental illness.”).
-77-

violence, and the risk of a tragic fire is unacceptable4.78 Inmate escapes are not uncommon, and the prospect of armed inmates, whether outside or inside prison walls, is alarm ing.479 The evidence shows that OPP itself presents a public safety crisis, which endangers inm ates, staff, and the community at large.480
The Court concludes that, even were it to givesubstantial weight to the public safety issues outside OPP, ignore the public safety issues insideOPP, and assume that the consent judgment will cost the City an additional $22.5 million, the proposed consent judgment complies with the PLRA.
Notwithstanding this conclusion, the Sheriff’s funding claim will be subject to a rigorous examination through two hearings, and a ny future funding claim s will be addressed through a process that includes the participation of the City and, potentially, the Court. The consent judgment, and the Court’s approach to its approval, are structured in a m anner designed to m inimize any indirect adverse effects on public safety. See § 3626(a)(1).
3. Cost & Taxes Related to its argument that the proposed consent judgment’s implementation costs will draw resources from other areas of public safety, the City argues that it cannot afford the cons ent judgment. In particular, the City argues, “any incerase in funding to the Sheriff[’s] Office inevitably
478R. Doc. No. 405, at 135-37. 479Schwartz testified that, while the videos portraying inmates armed with a loaded gun, gambling, using intravenous drugs, and freely exiting and entering OPP to wander Bourbon Street are several years old, “my concern is that some of that could reoccur or is reoccurring” such that inmates could be endangering the non-incarcerated residents of New Orleans. R. Doc. No. 412, at 32. 480R. Doc. No. 412, at 42; R. Doc. No. 407, at 44 (“ The security failures of the jail extend to the community.”); Pl. Ex. 372, at 5 (OPP facilities are “isgnificantly more dangerous for staff than most jails, and for no good reason.”).
-78-

will require the City to increase taxes imposed against the citizens of the City of New Orleans.”481 Even assuming that the City will have to provide additional revenue in the future to implement the consent judgment, a finding that the Court does not make at this juncture, “[i]t is well established that inadequate funding wil l not excuse the perpetuation of unconstitutional conditions of confinement, nor will an allegedly contrary duty at state law.” Smith v. Sullivan, 611 F.2d 1039, 1043-44 (5th Cir. 1980) (internal citations omitted). “That it may be inconvenient or more expensive for the [local government] to run its prison in a constitutional fashion is neither a defense to this action or a ground for modification of the judgment rendered in this case.”Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d at 1322.
The City has had the opportunity to put fort h evidence that the conditions at OPP meet constitutional muster or that the proposed consent judgm ent extends farther than constitutionally necessary. The City has not presented any evidence, including expert testim ony, showing that conditions at OPP do not violate the Constitution or Title VI. The Cityhas also not offered evidence with respect to an alternative,less costly or less intrusive, approach to remedying conditions at OPP. See Armstrong, 622 F.3d at 1071.
The Court anticipates that staf fing will be one of the greatest costs associated with the proposed consent judgment. When it comes to staffing levels, the consent judgm ent provides the City with continuing opportunities to put forth evidence regarding the staffing and salaries needed to run a f acility that meets constitutional and statutory requirements, including the PLRA. The uncontroverted evidence, however, is that some increase in staffing is necessary to ensure that
481R. Doc. No. 153, at 5. -79-

conditions at OPP meet constitutional minimum requirements.482

The City’s proposed finding of law that “[t]he Court may not approve a proposed consent

decree that results in the raising of taxes” is di

singenuous.483 The City cites 18 U.S.C.

§ 3626(a)(1)(C), but that statute provides: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize

the courts, in exercising their remedial powers, to order the construction of prisons or the raising of

taxes.” The Court has no intention ofordering the City, the Sheriff, or any other political entity, for

that matter, to raise taxes or to construct yet anothe r facility. To the extent our elected political

leaders intend to house inmates at OPP facilities, however, these facilities must meet constitutional

and statutory minimum requirements.

4. Negotiating History

The City argues that the parties have colluded in drafting a consent judgment that fails to

recognize the Sheriff’s revenue streams and that treats the City as “an unlimited bank account for

the benefit of the inmates and the Sherif f.”484 The City appears to suggest that the Sheriff and

Plaintiffs colluded by leaving the City out of the process while drafting a consent judgment that is

broader and more expensive than necessary to remedy the conditions at OPP.485

The City describes as “unorthodox” the legislative landscape in which the City must finance

482See, e.g., R. Doc. No. 412, at 38. 483R. Doc. No. 153, at 6; R. Doc. No. 427, at 11. 484R. Doc. No. 151, at 14-15. 485In Williams, the Fifth Circuit observed that “the district court had to bear the full responsibility in this case to safeguard the interests of those individuals who were affected by the decree but were not represented in the negotiations.” 729 F.2d at 1560. The Court has not interpreted Williams to indicate that the City’s participation in negotiations excuses the Court fromits “full responsibility” to safeguard the City’s interests as a third party.
-80-

a jail which is run by the Sherif f.486 The literature suggests that such arrange ments are not uncommon. E.g., Margo Schlanger, Civil Rights Injunctions Over Time: A Case Study of Jail and Prison Court Orders, 81 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 550, 562-63 (2006). Whether or not common, however, this financial relationship could incentivize sheriffs to seek out broad, expensive consent judgments.487 The Court has been vigilant about ensuring compliance with the PLRA, however, and the City has assisted through its vigorous adversarial participation inthis process. Nonetheless, at this stage, the City has not ident ified ways in which the proposed consent judgm ent’s objectives—namely, compliance with the Constitution—could be obtained for a lesser cost, and the expert testiomny was persuasive that the remedies included in the consent judgment are the minimum necessary to remedy conditions at OPP.
The City also objects to the Plaintiffs’ characetrization of its role in negotiating the proposed consent judgment. Plaintiffs have asserted: “Since November 2011, t he Sheriff and the City participated in negotiations to formulate a comprehensive remedy to [] unlawful conditions.”488 The City responds that it “ did not participate in negotiations to form ulate what is term ed a comprehensive remedy for alleged unlawful conditions .”489 However, the record shows that attorneys for the City actively participated in the negotiations.
After the Sheriff filed his two third-party complaints, the Court was advised that all parties, including the City, were prepared to enter into an interimconsent judgment, subject to a dispute over
486R. Doc. No. 159, at 2. 487See Schlanger, 81 N.Y.U. L. Rev. at 562-63, 623 ( noting “not so very hard fought” litigation involving sheriffs). 488R. Doc. No. 140, at 2. 489R. Doc. No. 154, at 6.
-81-

the cost and funding of the interim consent judgment’s reforms.490 An October 12 filing by Plaintiffs
shows that the parties, including the City, had been successful in reaching “agreement on all of the
substantive provisions in the proposed Settlem ent Agreement,” with the exception of an interim
funding amount to “be in effect untilcompletion of a staffing analysis.”491 The accuracy ofthis filing
was confirmed at an October 15 status conference, in which the City Attorney at the time, Richard
Cortizas, and the current City Attorney, Sharonda Williams, participated.492 The Court was advised
by counsel for all parties that:
[T]here is no dispute with respect to those portions of the proposed consent judgment detailing unconstitutional conditions at Orleans Parish prison facilities as well as efforts that need to be undertaken to ensure that prison facilities satisfy constitutional standards. There is also no dispute that the City of New Orleans is responsible for funding those efforts that m ust be undertaken, pursuant to the proposed consent judgment, to remedy existing conditions. The only remaining issue bef ore the Court is the level of interim and permanent funding requi red to rem edy the unconstitutional conditions.493
The Court specifically confirm ed the subst ance of this paragraph with counsel at the status
conference. The confirmation was obtained through querying counsel for each party and receiving
individual verbal affirmation that the parties were ready to sign the agreement.
Counsel were ordered to appear in person at the next status conference, ostensibly to provide
490See R. Doc. Nos. 77, 81. 491R. Doc. No. 81; see also R. Doc. No. 156-6 (May 31, 2012 email from the City’s then-Chief of Litigation, Sharonda Williams, to counsel for the United States and the Sherif f) (“I made some proposed edits to the last version that was circulated. Please see attached.”); R. Doc. No. 156-7 (July 11, 2012 email from the City’s th en-Chief of Litigation, Sharonda W illiams, to counsel f or the United States and Sheriff) (“See [] my redline of the most recent draft.”). 492R. Doc. No. 82 (listing participants). 493R. Doc. No. 82.
-82-

the Court with the signed consent judgment, which would permit future development of the interim funding amount, and to discuss the a ppointment of a special m aster.494 At the conference,
notwithstanding numerous express assertions to thecontrary by the City’s counsel, the Mayor of the City of New Orleans announced that he was unwilling to sign any such agreement.495 The Mayor
advised the Court that when he signed the Ne w Orleans Police Departm ent (“NOPD”) consent
decree, the City was unaware that it was facing daditional, significant revenue requests in connection with the OPP litigation. 496 Despite the persistent and skilled efforts of retired Judge Terry Q.
Alarcon, who put in countless hours free of charge to facilitate negotiations, the parties could not reach an agreement.497
To be clear, the City’s negotiations with respect to the consent judgment carry no weight
whatsoever in the Court’s analysis of the pr oposed consent judgm ent outside of its collusion
analysis. The City had the right to refuse to sign the proposed consent judgm ent at any point,
notwithstanding its prior apparent willingness to agree to the proposed reforms subject to a future
resolution of t he cost and funding dispute. The point of recounting this litigation history is to
identify the persuasive evidence, including the procedural history of the case, that contradicts the
City’s argument that it was left out of the negotiations process.
494R. Doc. No. 82. 495R. Doc. No. 86; see also R. Doc. No. 92. 496Another section of the Court has rejected this assertion.See United States v. City of New Orleans, No. 12-1924, 2013 W L 2351266, at *10 (E.D. La. May 23, 2013) (Morgan, J.) (“The City’s argument that it had no knowledge of the potential cost ramifications for the OPP Consent Decree at the time it signed the NOPD Consent Decree is patently false. At least as early as July 19, 2012, several days before the City signed the NOPD Consent Decree on July 24, 2012, the City was on notice that the Sheriff intended to request ‘$22.5 million of “new” estimated costs’ that would ‘bring the total budget for OPP to $45 million’ for 2013.”) (modifications omitted). 497See R. Doc. No. 86.
-83-

C. Louisiana Rev. Stat. Ann. § 15:738
The City argues that the proposed consent judgment is inconsistent with La. Rev. Stat. Ann.
§ 15:738, which provides:
No incarcerated state prisoner, whether before trial, during trial or on appeal, or after final conviction, who is housed in any jail, prison, correctional facility, juvenile institution, temporary holding center, or detention facility within the state shall have a standard of living above that required by the constitutions of the United States and the state of Louisiana, as ordered orinterpreted by the appropriate courts of last resort, or by the standards set by the Am erican Correctional Association. It is the intention of this legislature that, to the extent permitted by law, no inm ate shall have a standard of living better than the state poverty level. C itizens should not be w orse off economically and living in conditions that are below those granted to inmates whose living standards are being paid for and subsidized by the hard-working and law-abiding people of the state of Louisiana.
At the fairness hearing and in its briefing, theCity makes much of the fact that the proposed
consent judgment would provide inm ates with medical and mental health care to an e xtent that
exceeds that provided to certain non-incarcerated citizens.498
No one disputes t hat La. Rev. Stat. § 15:738 does not negate constitutional m inimum
standards. Moreover, the parties are well aware that governments carry a special responsibility for
those in their custody. “To incarcerate, society takes from prisoners the means to provide for their
own needs. Prisoners are dependent on the State for food, clothing, and necessary medical care. A
prison’s failure to provide sustenance for inm ates may actually produce physical torture or a
lingering death.” Plata, 131 S. Ct. at 1928 (quotation om itted). The Court notes that the statute’s
reliance on American Correctional Association standards implicates a higher level of care in some
498E.g., R. Doc. No. 412, at 53-54; R. Doc. No. 427, at 16. -84-

situations than that required by the Constitution.499 The City argues, however, that in evaluating what the Constitution requires,ethCourt should
take into account the unfortunate living conditions experienced by som e impoverished nonincarcerated citizens of Louisiana.500 While constitutional standards reflect “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society,” Plata, 131 S. Ct. at 1925 n. 3 (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834), the Court has never before heard it argued that constitutional standards vary depending on the poverty level existing in the state or com munity in which one l ives. As counsel for Class Plaintiffs highlighted during cl osing statements, such an interpretation has the effect of affording lessened constitutional protections to citizens of Louisiana.501 The law does not support this argument. A state’s inability or unw illingness to provide certain services to its nonincarcerated citizens does not excuse it from the constitutional obligation to provide basic care to those in its custody.
D. Specific Provisions Because the nature of the City’s objections to the proposed consent judgm ent remained amorphous even as the f airness hearing was imminent, the Court ordered the C ity to clarify its position: “The City shall identify with particularity the provisions of the proposed consent decree that it is challenging.”502
499R. Doc. No. 407, at 32 (“In terms of the American Correctional Association, it does take it up to a little bit higher level because they have other tihngs in those standards that go beyond the minimal required to operate a safe jail.”). 500R. Doc. No. 412, at 54. 501R. Doc. No. 412, at 39-40. 502R. Doc. No. 126, at 3 (emphasis in original). In the same order, the Court ensured the City was on notice of its obligation to argue at the fairness hearing any state-law funding defenses related to the overbreadth of the proposed consent judgment or the constitutionality of the conditions at OPP.
-85-

In response, the City identified the funding provisions and fourteen substantive provisions beginning with the phrase “continue to.” 503 The City did not argue that these fourteen provisions extended further than constitutionally required, butrather argued that theywere unnecessary because they “obligate the Sheriff merely to ‘continue’ tofollow policies and procedures that he has already implemented according to the languageof the proposed Consent Decree.”504 “It cannot bereasonably argued,” the City contends, that these provisions are “‘narrowly drawn,’ if they simply order the Sheriff to continue to do what he already does.”505 Plaintiffs respond that the “continue to” language is “the product of extensive negotiations, during wihch the Sheriff represented, without verification, that improvements had been made in certain areas.”506
The Court has carefully examined the “continue to” provisions to which the City objects. These provisions address dir ect supervision and rounds; detection of contraband; inm ate classification; grievances; training for special populations, including inmates with mental health issues; and building m aintenance. The evidence was compelling that OPP suffers from s erious deficiencies in these areas such that the consent judgm ent’s provisions are narrowly drawn, are necessary to remedy the violation of a federal right, and are the least intrusive means of doing so.
Moreover, even if the Sheriff’s good faith efforts have resulted in recent changes, the proposed consent judgment remains necessary. The Fifth Circuit observed in Gates v. Cook, with respect to a state correctional department: “It is well settled that a defendant’s voluntary cessation
The purpose of this approach was to avoid having to call the sam e expert witnesses and hear the same testimony at the funding hearing. 503R. Doc. No. 153, at 8-11. 504R. Doc. No. 153, at 8. 505R. Doc. No. 159, at 19. 506R. Doc. No. 156-2, at 6.
-86-

of a challenged practice does not deprive a efderal court of its power to determine the legality ofthe practice. . . . The fact that m any of these conditions have persisted for years despite MDOC’s purported efforts leads us to likewise conclude taht MDOC has not met the heavy burden of showing that its voluntary conduct has mooted any of the issues presented here.” 376 F.3d at 337; see also Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d at 1321 (“Changes made by defendants after suit is filed do not remove the necessity f or injunctive relief , for practices m ay be reinstated as swif tly as they were suspended.”). A de fendant’s assurance that it is “already on the path towards com pliance is insufficient to moot the issue.” Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d at 343-42. According to Schwartz, “almost all of [the] problems given to OPSO in writing” in the 2008 NationalInstitute of Corrections report “remain unmitigated today.”507
The Court permitted the parties to add record citations to their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law after the hearing5.08 The City did so, but it alsoattempted to “revise” its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to introduce arguments that were not raised when the City responded to the Court’s order to“identify with particularity theprovisions of the proposed consent decree that it is challenging.”509 In the same paragraph, the Court expressly stated that “[d]efenses related to the constitutionality of existing conditi ons or the overbreadt h of the proposed consent decree that are not raised shall be deem ed waived.”510 While not expressly invited, the Court welcomes the City’s additional citations to legal authority5.11 The Court mentions only briefly those
507Pl. Ex. 372, at 20. 508R. Doc. No. 391. 509R. Doc. No. 126, at 3; R. Doc. No. 395. 510R. Doc. No. 126, at 3. 511See, e.g., R. Doc. No. 427, at 14.
-87-

arguments that were not raised until weeks after the hearing and that are, accordingly, waived. For example, in its proposed conclusions of law, the City challenges as overbroa d the
provision stating that th e consent judgment shall “terminate when the [Sheriff] has achieved substantial compliance with eac h provision of th e Agreement and [has] maintained Substantial Compliance with the Agreement for a period of two years.”512 Because the City did not raise this argument until several weeks after the hearing, opposing counsel did not ha ve an opportunity to address it. Nonetheless, in light of the evidenceof longstanding deficiencies at OPP facilities arising from deep-rooted and systemic weaknesses, the Court finds the two-year provision narrowly drawn and otherwise compliant with the PLRA.
The City additionally raises a new challenge tothe failure to define “substantial compliance” with objective, quantif iable targets.513 The consent judgm ent defines substantial com pliance as “compliance with most or all components of the relevant provision of the Agreement.”514 In light of the components of the proposed consent judgment, which include both general guidelines a nd specific baseline requirements, and the evidence admitted at the hearing, the Court concludes that this objection is without merit. See also M.D. ex rel. Stukenberg v. Perry, 675 F.3d 832, 848 (5th Cir. 2012) (“Named Plaintiffs must make an effort to give content to what it would mean to provide adequate or appropriate levels of services, so that final injunctive relief may be crafted to describe in reasonable detail the acts required.”) (quotation and modification omitted).
512R. Doc. No. 427, at 14 (citing R. Doc. No. 101-3, at 43). 513R. Doc. No. 427, at 14-15. 514Consent Judgment, at 9.
-88-

E. Admission of Liability The City contends that “[u]nless [the Sheriff] admits to operating an unconstitutional facility, [] the decree is overly broad.”515 In particular, the City demands that the Sheriff provide a “plainlyworded and straightforward admission of ‘deliberate indifference.’”516 Some inmates, including one of the Class Representatives, similarly contend that the proposed consent judgment is inadequate because it does not require an admission of liability from the Sheriff or a finding to that effect.517 While the Court is aware ofthe fact that the City and certaininmates may be dissatisfied with a ruling that does not require a plain admission of liability, this is an inherent part of a settlement, as opposed to a matter litigated through a full trial. By choosing to enter into a consent judgment, the parties may “avoid the collateral effects of adjudicated guilt. United States v. City of Jackson, 519 F.2d 1147, 1152 n. 9 (5th Cir. 1979) (quoted in City of Miami, 664 F.2d at 441-42). In the consent judgment, Class Plaintiffs, the United States, and the Sheriff stipulate that the consent judgment “complies in all respects with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)” and, specifically, “that the prospective reliefin this Agreement is narrowly drawn, extends noufrther than necessary to correct the violations of the federal rights as alleged by Plaintiffs in the Complaints, is the least intrusive means necessary to correct these violations, and will not have an adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system. . . . Any admission made for purposes of this Agreement is not admissible if presented by Third Parties in another proceeding.”518 “The requirements for the entry of relief in 18 U. S.C. § 3626(a)(1) may appear in some
515R. Doc. No. 405, at 21. 516R. Doc. No. 159, at 23. 517E.g., R. Doc. No. 229, at 4-7; R. Doc. No. 237, at 2. 518Consent Judgment, at 44.
-89-

tension with any attempt by defendants to continue to deny legal liability while agreeing to the entry of the relief sought by plaintiffs.” Elizabeth Alexander, Getting to Yes in a PLRA World, 30 Pace L. Rev. 1672, 1684 (2010). Neither the PLRA nor caselaw requires a plainly worded concession of liability, and the Sheriff’s stipulation with respect tothe consent judgment parallels the language in the PLRA. The Court must focus on whether the proposed relief complies with the Constitution, statutory law, including the PLRA, and jurisprudence. Whether the Sheriff’s stipulation amounts to a “cryptic” concession is not the Court’s concern. See Margo Schlanger, Plata v. Brown and Realignment: Jails, Prisons, Courts, and Politics, 48 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 165, 173-74 (2013); see also H.R. Rep. No. 104-21, at 24 n.2 (1995). IV. Public Comments
The Court invited the general public, as well asOPP inmate class members, to comment on the proposed consent judgment. The Court received numerous public comments from individuals who are not incarcerated. Virtually every comment endorsed the proposed consent judgment.
The Court heard from a broad cross section of the community.519 Community groups, law professors, and religious leaders similarly described the necessity and urgency of injunctive relie5f2.0 The public comments consistently expressed that conditions at OPP have been deficient, to say the least, for a very long time. The Chief District Defender for Orleans Parish and the Louisiana Public Defender Board wrote to express support f or the proposed consent judgm ent and express their concern for the saf ety of OPP staf f members and inm ates.521 Family members of incarcerated
519R. Doc. Nos. 327, 329. 520R. Doc. Nos. 264, 320, 325. 521R. Doc. Nos. 256, 319, 322.
-90-

individuals, including individuals who died in OPP,implored the Court to enter an order approving
the consent judgm ent,522 describing as “shocking a nd offensive” the City’s characterization of
Plaintiffs’ suit as seeking “steaks and cognac” for inmates.523 The public comments also expressed
the opinion that politicians, including the Sheriff of Orleans Parish and the Mayor of New Orleans,
have failed and will continue to fail to take action absent court approval of the consent judgment.524
The consent judgment represents a reasonable factual and legal determination based on the
extensive factual record. It is fair and consistnet with the Constitution, statutes, including the PLRA,
and jurisprudence. Its effect on third parties is not unreasonable or proscribed. Having concluded
that the consent judgment is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence, including OPP records and
persuasive trial testimony, the Court turns to the determination of whether the consent judgment is
additionally a fair, adequate, and reasonable class settlement.
CLASS SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS
Class Plaintiffs have filed an unopposed m otion525 for certification of a settlement class
consisting of all people who are currently or will be incarcerated at the Orleans Parish Prison.” 526
522E.g., R. Doc. Nos. 238, 251-54, 373. 523See R. Doc. No. 159, at 14 (“While the City does not question that constitutional standards must be satisfied, the federal Courts, like the Legislatuer, have recognized that serving steaks and cognac to inmates is not a constitutional entitlem ent.”); R. Doc. No. 250, at 2 (“W e are not asking for ‘steaks and cognac.’ We are asking that the over 2,000 people who continue to be held in the Orleans Parish jail be held in a saef, secure, and humane environment, with appropriate medical and mental health services and conditions fit for human habitation.”). 524E.g., R. Doc. No. 241; R. Doc. No. 250, at 2-3; R. Doc. No. 260; R. Doc. No. 331. 525R. Doc. No. 145. 526R. Doc. No. 145-1, at 6- 7; see also R. Doc. No. 1, at 11; Consent Judgm ent, at 1. The City contends that the other parties have “marginalized” the City, such that “the City is not in a position to address” the certification issue.The City contends, however, that “it is inordinate, and tantaomunt to overkill, to certify a class in this case.” R. Doc. No. 159, at 8-9.
-91-

The terms of the proposed settlement, which is the same document as the consent judgment, have already been discussed. I. Standard of Law
When determining whether to certify a settlement class, courts must determine whether the requirements for certification are met and whether the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, especially insofar as it affects inmates who are not named plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits certification of a plaintiff class only if four requirem ents are met: (1) the class is so num erous that joinder of all m embers is impracticable (“numerosity”); (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class (“commonality”); (3) the claims or defenses of the representative plaintiffs are typical ofthe claims or defenses of the class (“typicality”); and (4) therepresentative plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class (“representation”). Although courts need not consider the l ikely difficulties in managing a class action when considering a settlement class, courts must be cognizant when considering the other factors that there will not be a “later opportunity for class adjustments.” In re OCA, No. 05-265, 2008 WL 4681369, at *6 (E.D . La. Oct. 17, 2008) (Vance, J.) (citing Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997)). “The existence of a settlement class may even ‘warrant more, not less, caution on the question of certification.’” Id. (quoting Amchem, 521 U.S. at 620).
Class certification is appropriate when a “rigorous analysis” confirms that the requirements of Rule 23(a) are met. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551 (2011). Courts must “look beyond the pleadings to ‘understand the claim s, defenses, rel evant facts, and applicable substantive law in order to make a meaningful determination of certification issues.’” M.D. ex rel.
-92-

Stukenberg v. Perry, 675 F.3d 832, 837 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting McManus v. Fleetwood Enters., Inc., 320 F.3d 545, 548 (5th Cir. 2003)). Certification also requires that a class m eets the requirements of one of the subsections in Rule 23(b).
Plaintiffs seek certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), which applies where a defendant has “acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the cla ss” such that injunctive or declaratory relief is appropriate. “Rule 23(b)(2) was created to facilitate civil rights class actions.” Thorn v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 445 F.3d 311, 330 (4th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). “The key to the (b)(2) class is ‘the indivisible nature of the injunctive or declaratory remedy warranted—the notion that the conduct is such that it can beenjoined or declared unlawful only as toall of the class members or as to none of them.’” Dukes, 131 S. Ct. at 2557 (quoting Richard Nagareda, Class Certification in the Age of Aggregate Proof, 84 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 97, 132 (2009)). The claims at issue present a paradigmatic case for Rule 23(b)(2) relief. If an individual plaintiff successfully brought a lawsuit raising the systemic claims at issue here, the injunctive relief sought, “as a practical amtter, would be dispositive ofthe interests ofthe other members not parties to the individual adjudications or would substantially im pair or impede their ability to protect their interests.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).
If certification requirements are met, the Court must still determine whether to approve the settlement. As a threshold matter, the Court looks to whether notice was provided “in a reasonable manner to all class m embers who would be bound by the proposal.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). With respect to the substance of the settlement, the Court inquires whether the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable pursuant to Rule 23(e). The Fifth Circuit has advised courts to consider six factors in making this assessment: “(1) the existence of fraud or collusion behind the settlem ent; (2) the
-93-

complexity, expense, and likely duration of the litigation; (3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed; (4) the probabilityof plaintiffs’ success on the merits; (5) the range of possible recovery; and (6) the opinions of class counsel, class representatives, and absent class members.” Ayers v. Thompson, 358 F.3d 356, 369 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Parker v. Anderson, 667 F.2d 1204, 1209 (5th Cir. 1982)). II. Certification Analysis
A. Numerosity “To satisfy the numerosity prong, ‘a plaintiff must ordinarily demonstrate some evidence or reasonable estimate of the number of purported class members.’” Pederson v. La. State Univ., 213 F.3d 858, 868 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Zeidman v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., 651 F.2d 1030, 1038 (5th Cir. 1981)). OPP has approximately 2,500 inmates,527 and joinder of these inmates would be impracticable, weighing in favor of certification. Moreover, the population i s constantly in flux. “[T]he fact that the class includes unknown, unnam ed future members also weighs in favor of certification.” Id. at 868 n. 11. B. Commonality The common questions of law or fact required by Rule 23(a)(2) must be able to “generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.” Dukes, 131 S. Ct. at 2551 (quoting Nagareda, 84 N.Y.U. L. Rev. at 132. “Before and after Wal-Mart, courts have certified classes of incarcerated persons challenging specific, written, acknowledged, official policies.” Mathis v. GEO Grp., No. 08-CT-21, 2012 WL 600865, at *6 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 23, 2012) (citing cases). In M.D. ex rel. Stukenberg, the Fifth Circuit expressly disagreed with the proposition that a policy must injure
527Pl. Ex. 380. -94-

each class member to provide the foundation for class wide relief. 675 F.3d at 847-48. “Rather, the class claims could conceivably be based on an allegation that the [defendant] engages in a pattern or practice of agency action or inaction—including afailure to correct a structural deficiency within the agency, such as insufficient staffing—‘with respect to the class,’ so long as the declaratory or injunctive relief ‘settling the legality of the [defendant’s] behavior with respect to the class as a whole is appropriate.’”Id. (quoting R. 23(b)(2)(1966 Amendments advisory committee note)). The Court considers each of the Plaintiff Class’s claim s to determ ine whether the com monality requirement is met.528
The mere incantation of the words “systemic violation” does not justify class certification. See id. at 844. For example, in M.D. ex rel. Stukenberg, plaintiffs alleged systemic violations of substantive due process, which defendants contended were not capable of resolution because they required an individualized “shocks the conscience” inquiry. Id. at 843. Here, however, Class Plaintiffs present claim s that are susceptible to com mon answers. See Logory v. Cnty. of Susquehanna, 277 F.R.D. 135, 143 (M.D. Pa. 2011) (“Unlike Dukes, where commonality was destroyed where there was no ‘com mon mode of exercising discretion that pervade[d] the entir e company,’ here there is a solid [prison] policy that applied directly to all potential class members.”) (quoting Dukes, 131 S. Ct. at 2554).
The claims, defenses, relevant facts, and applicable substantive law demonstrate that certification is warranted with respect to Class Plaintiffs’ Eighth and Fourteenth Am endment protection from harm claims. Whether certain conditions at OPP either by themselves, or through
528The Court need not a ddress the Title VI claim brought by the United States because Class Plaintiffs alleged only constitutional claims.
-95-

a “mutually enforcing effect,” put inmates at a substantial risk of harm is amenable to a common answer. See Gates v. Cook , 376 F.3d at 333. Plaintiffs have id entified practices with respect to staffing, contraband, supervision, and classification, for example, that uniformly create a substantial risk of harm for all class m embers.529 See M.D. ex rel. Stukenberg, 675 F.3d at 848 & n. 7 (suggesting that staffing levels are the type of condition that is generally applicable to a class of plaintiffs); see also Gates, 376 F.3d at 333. Similarly, whether OPP officials have been deliberately indifferent to any such risk can be demonstrated in a manner that is applicable to all class members.
The facts and law also demonstrate that Class Plaintiffs’ Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment medical and m ental health care claim s warrant certification.530 These claims do not allege “amorphous” systemic deficiencies. Compare M.D. ex rel. Stukenberg, 675 F.3d at 844. Class Plaintiffs have identified “discrete and particual rized practices” including, for example, medication and suicide prevention practices, as well as staffinginadequacies, that are mutually enforcing causes of OPP’s deficient conditions.531 Compare id. at 844. Accordingly, a class action is an appropriate vehicle for these claims.
C. Typicality The typicality inquiry “focuses on the sim ilarity between the named plaintiffs’ legal and remedial theories and the theories ofthose whom they purport to represent.”Stirman v. Exxon Corp., 280 F.3d 554, 562 (5th Cir. 2002). Typicality is established where “the class representative’s claism
529The Court notes that this case involves a singl e administrative entity responsible for m ultiple facilities. The evidence shows that the proposed consent judgment’s relief is appropriately applied to all seven facilities. 530As discussed above, the details relevant to Plaintiffs’ medical and mental health care claims, and the associated remedies, largely overlap. Accordingly, the Court considers the two claims together. 531R. Doc. No. 1, at 2-3.
-96-

have the sam e essential characteristi cs of t hose of the putative class.” Id. Here, Class Representatives consist of both pre- and post-trial detainees, and they present legal and rem edial theories common to the class members. Compare Hawkins v. Comparet-Cassani, 251 F.3d 1230, 1238 (9th Cir. 2001). While class members’ experiences at OPP may differ, “the claims arise from a similar course of conduct and share the same legal theory” and, therefore,“factual differences will not defeat typicality” in this case. Stirman, 280 F.3d at 562 (quotation omitted).
D. Adequacy of Representation “Rule 23(a)’s adequacy requirement encompasses class representatives, their counsel, and the relationship between the two.” Id. at 563 (quotation omitted). Class Representatives and class counsel have demonstrated that they will fairly andadequately protect the interests of the class. The Court is satisfied with the “zeal and competence” of class counsel and “the willingness and ability of the representatives to take an active role in and control the litigation.”532 Id. (quotation omitted). III. Settlement Analysis A. Notice Rule 23(e) requires that class m embers be notified of a settlement, but notice “need only satisfy the broad reasonableness standards imposed by due process.” In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 628 F.3d 185, 197 (5th Cir. 2010) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Due process is satisfied if the notice provides class members with the “information reasonably necessary for them to make a decision whether to object to the settlement.” Id. The Court approved a procedure in whi ch a notice docum ent and copy of the consent
532E.g., R. Doc. Nos. 229, 235-37. -97-

judgment were distributed to all inm ates at OPP on a given date. 533 In addition, 50 copies of the notice were posted in common areas in the sevenOPP facilities, indicating how inmates could obtain a full copy of the consent judgment.534 An abbreviated notice also ran inThe Times-Picayune on two different days and it was also posted on the newspaper’s website, NOLA.com.535 The abbreviated notice was posted by the Court on its website, as well as on class counsel’s website, DOJ’s website, and the Sheriff’s website.536 The City was also invited to post a copy on its website. The Court finds these procedures easily satisfy Rule 23(e)’s requirements by providing class members with more than enough information to determine whether the settlement is objectionable.
The Court previously determined that the amendments to the proposed consent judgment did not require new notice. The Court ruled, “the amendments do not alter the original Proposed Consent Judgment’s substance or effect in a manner that would require new briefing before the April 1, 2013 fairness hearing or a revised class notice.”537 After reviewing the parties’ supplemental briefing,538 the Court remains convinced that no additional notice was necessary. The minor modifications with respect to the City, described supra, did not impair class members’ rights even indirectly, and the modifications certainly did not constitute a material change with respect to the class members. See, e.g., In re Baby Products Antitrust Litig,. 708 F.3d 163, 175 n. 10, 182 (3d Cir. 2013) (supplemental notice required only if settlement is “materially altered”); In re Integra Realty Res., Inc., 262 F.3d
533See R. Doc. No. 129; 131. 534See R. Doc. No. 129. 535See R. Doc. No. 129. 536See R. Doc. No. 129. 537R. Doc. No. 213. 538E.g., R. Doc. Nos. 395, 399.
-98-

1089, 1111 (10th Cir. 2001) (no additional notice needed where amendment “merely expanded the rights of class members”).
B. Fraud or Collusion The consent judgm ent is the produc t of a protracted period of litigation between Class Plaintiffs, DOJ, the Sheriff, and the City.539 The relief offered in the consent judgment demonstrates that SPLC has been unwavering in fulfilling its obligations to Class Plaintiffs. For these reasons, as well as those discussed above with respect to t he City’s participation in the process, the Court is satisfied that the consent judgment is not tainted by fraud or collusion. C. Complexity, Expense, and Duration of Litigation Class Plaintiffs observe that the expenses associated with this case are high because demonstrating deliberate indifference would require “significant statistical, anecdotal, and expert evidence.”540 While Class Plaintiffs further believe that they have obtained such evidence, they accurately acknowledge that a failure to settle the case would require a protracted motions practice and potential appeals that would delay the relief requested. 541 Such delays would prolong Class Plaintiffs’ exposure to the safety risks at OPP, weighing in favor of settlement. D. Stage of the Proceedings With respect to the stage of the proceedings, including the deposit ions and expert reports completed, this case hasprogressed to a marked degree. Class counsel notes that four staff paralegal investigators, as well as m ultiple law cle rks and interns, have spent “thousands of hours
539See R. Doc. No. 138, at 8; R. Doc. No. 411, at 22-23. 540R. Doc. No. 138, at 9. 541R. Doc. No. 138, at 9.
-99-

documenting conditions in the jail by interviewing people housed there.”542 “There has not been a single point, in the last year and a half of this litigation, that Plaintiffs stopped doing client intake, responding to calls from the jail, and gathering evidence.”543
The City asserts that an absence of evidence at the fairness hearing supporti ng class certification and settlement prohibits the Court from certifying the settlement class and approving the settlement.544 This argument is flawed because the Court never indicated that it required an evidentiary hearing for class certification and because the evidence presented at the fairness hearing was directly relevant to the certif ication and class settlement inquiry. Moreover, the evidence presented at the hearing was consistent with the evidence presented prior to the hearing, including the declarations submitted by class counsel.545
E. Plaintiffs’ Probability of Success & Possible Recovery The Court concludes that Class Plaintiffs’ probability of success and the possible recovery associated with success supports approval of the conesnt judgment. As discussed with respect to the PLRA’s narrow tailoring inquiry, the Court concludes that the rem edies set forth in the consent judgment address the allegations in Class Plaintiffs’ complaint. Moreover, class counsel notes that the injunctive relief addressed in areas relevant tothe United States’ complaint in intervention will provide an additional benefit to many class members.546 The City contends that the Court should consider “a defendant’s financial condition when
542R. Doc. No. 138, at 11 (citing R. Doc. No. 138-1). 543R. Doc. No. 138, at 11 (citing R. Doc. No. 138-1). 544R. Doc. No. 427, at 8. 545E.g., R. Doc. No. 137-4. 546R. Doc. No. 138, at 11.
-100-

deciding whether to approve a class action settlement.”547 In light of the evidence presented at trial,
neither the City’s nor the Sheriff’s financial condition defeats the class settlement. Moreover, the
cases cited by the City are not persuasive in the context of a class action solely f or injunctive relief.548
F. Opinions of Class Counsel, Class Representatives, and Absent Class Members The opinions of class counsel strongly support entry of the proposed consent judgment.549
The Court has received many comments from class members in support of the proposed consent
judgment. Inmates’ comments describe num erous deficiencies, including poor environm ental
conditions, inadequate staffing and absent staff members, classification and housing problems, illicit
drug use, sexual assault and other violence, staff use of excessive force, and inadequate medical and mental health care, including inadequate suicide prevention.550 Although many inmates wrote solely about the current conditions at OPP,551 those inmates that commented on the proposed settlement were generally positive.552 Some inmates objected to the lack of financial compensation,553 but the
proposed consent judgment does not limit the ability of inmates to bring claims for damages and the complaint never sought such damages.554
547R. Doc. No. 427, at 8. 548See Cody v. Hillard, 88 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1059 (D.S.D. 2000) (“Th is factor is not particularly important in the present case because the action is not for monetary damages.”). 549E.g., R. Doc. No. 138. 550E.g., R. Doc. Nos. 227, 229, 269,270, 274, 275-76, 334, 353. 551E.g., R. Doc. No. 235. 552E.g., R. Doc. No. 227 (generally approving of proposed consent judgment, but noting concerns about noncompliance). 553E.g., R. Doc. No. 228. 554R. Doc. No. 1, at 37.
-101-

One recurrent objection is that the propos ed consent judgm ent does not go far enough because the Sheriff’s compliance will be in appearance only, while the deficient conditions at OPP will persist or worsen. 555 Some class m embers assert that the Sherif f will present a f acade of compliance during visits by experts or the Cour t, but not engage in substantive change.556 These objectors ask for the Monitor to be “in hous e” or “on hand at all tim es within the jail” to ensure compliance.557 One of the Class Representatives objects on the basis that the proposed consent judgment “reads like a Standard Policy []Book issued by the Fed. Bureau of Prisons, La. Dept. of Corrections, and American Correctional Association(ACA),” and fails to set forth “specific details” on correcting the underlying problems.558
The Fifth Circuit’s “jurisprudence [] makes clear that a settlement can be approved despite opposition from class members, including named plaintiffs.” Ayers, 358 F.3d at 373. The proposed consent judgment “gives OPP officials discretion in establishing the details of facility-specific policies designed to address c onstitutional infirmities,” but it al so creates “concrete, baseline requirements.”559 Freeman v. Berge, 68 F. App’x 738, 742-43 (7th Cri. 2003) (“[I]f defendants have not lived up to their end of the bargain, [] inmates’ remedy is to enforce the agreement, not attack it.”). The Court is aware that in other cases, wehther because of inability or unwillingness to comply, prison administrators have failed to implement consent judgments. Should this happen, appropriate
555E.g., R. Doc. Nos. 227, 229. While some inmates appear to no longer reside atOPP, the Court will address their contentions as objections without ruling on class standing. 556R. Doc. No. 229. 557E.g., R. Doc. No. 227. 558R. Doc. No. 229, at 10. 559R. Doc. No. 140, at 123.
-102-

measures will be considered.560 At this point, however, these objections do not preclude approval of the class settlement.
The Court finds that the proposed class satifsies the numerosity, typicality, commonality, and adequacy of representation r equirements set forth in Rule 23(a) and additionally m eets the requirements for certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2). Moreover, the proposed settlement fulfills the requirements associated with Rule 23(e). Accordingly, the Court certifies the class, defined as “all people who are currently or will be incarceratedat the Orleans Parish Prison,” and approves the class settlement.
CONCLUSION Whether “budget shortfalls, a lack of political will in favor of reform,” and/or other factors are responsible for OPP’s deficiencies, these deficiencies m ust be remedied. Plata, 131 S. Ct. at 1936. Such conditions “are r arely susceptible of si mple or straightforward solutions,” but the consent judgment presents a narrowly drawn yet comprehensive means of ensuring the protection of inmates’ federal rights. Id. The federal rights at issue her e, particularly with respect to the Constitution, establish minimum standards rather than ideals to which a correctional institution may aspire. These minimum standards are nonnegotiable. The Constitution guaranet es that inmates, including convicted inmates and pretrial detainees who are presumed innocent, receive certain minimum levels of medical care and mental health care. It also guarantees that inm ates will not be subject to a substantial risk of physical injury, sexual assault, or death to whic h officials are deliberately indifferent. The Court finds that the proposed consent judgment is the only way to overcome the years of stagnation that

560See, e.g., R. Doc. No. 392.

-103-

have permitted OPP to rem ain an indelible stai n on the com munity, and it will ensure that OPP inmates are treated in a manner that does not offend contemporary notions of human decency. After carefully considering the trem endous amount of evidence, the parties’ argum ents, including the City’s objections, and the law, the Court concludes that the consent judgment should be approved.
IT IS ORDERED that the motions are GRANTED.

New Orleans, Louisiana, June 6, 2013.

_____________________________ LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-104-

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392 Filed 04/09/13 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LASHAWN JONES, et al.
VERSUS
MARLIN N. GUSMAN, Orleans Parish Sheriff, et al.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-859
JUDGE LANCE M. AFRICK
MAGISTRATE JUDGE ALMA CHASEZ

THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT CITY OF NEW ORLEANS’ MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER
NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes third-party defendant, the City of New Orleans (the “City”), and hereby moves this Honorable Court to appoint a receiver to control all of the operational and financial aspects of the operations of Orleans Parish Prison (“OPP”) and related facilities—starting immediately.1 As set forth in more detail in the accompanying memorandum of law and facts, the evidentiary hearing during the week of April 1, 2013, established that “effective principled leadership” by Sheriff Gusman, not a lack of resources, is lacking and the overriding concern. Under these circumstances and recent revelations, the City is duty-bound to seek the remedy of appointing a receiver. The City does
1 To note, the City is not asking the Court to remove Sheriff Gusman from office; that is a decision that only the voters of Orleans Parish can make.
1
PD.8545007.1

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392 Filed 04/09/13 Page 2 of 4
not make this request lightly and fully understands the gravity and import of such a request. If as the expert witnesses testified, OPP is in their view, the worst jail in the United States and needs leadership, a receiver is essential. Although Sheriff Gusman signed the proposed consent decree, he pointedly disagreed when testifying with virtually every document offered in support of the proposed consent decree. Should the Court conclude that a consent decree is warranted, albeit a more narrowly drafted consent decree to conform to federal and state laws, as well as Constitutional principles, the City respectfully requests the appointment of a receiver.
WHEREFORE, third-party defendant, the City of New Orleans, respectfully requests that, after due proceedings are had, that this Honorable Court grant its Motion for Appointment of Receiver and appoint an independent receiver to take control of all of the operational and financial aspects of the operations of Orleans Parish Prison for the reasons set forth in greater detail in the memorandum supporting this motion.
Respectfully submitted, PHELPS DUNBAR LLP BY: /s/ Harry Rosenberg
Harry Rosenberg (Bar #11465) Bryan Edward Bowdler (Bar #32097) Canal Place | 365 Canal Street, Suite 2000 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-6534 Telephone: 504-566-1311 Telecopier: 504-568-9130 Email: harry.rosenberg@phelps.com
bryan.bowdler@phelps.com
2
PD.8545007.1

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392 Filed 04/09/13 Page 3 of 4
Richard F. Cortizas (Bar #28890) Sharonda R. Williams (Bar #28809) Chief of Litigation City Attorney’s Office 1300 Perdido Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Telephone: 504-658-9800 Ralph Capitelli (Bar #3858) Brian Capitelli (Bar #27398) CAPITELLI & WICKER LLP 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 2950 New Orleans, Louisiana 70163 Telephone: 504-582-2425 ATTORNEYS FOR THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT, CITY OF NEW ORLEANS
3
PD.8545007.1

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392 Filed 04/09/13 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was filed on this 9th day of April 2013, with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to all participating counsel of record.
/s/ Harry Rosenberg Harry Rosenberg
4
PD.8545007.1

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-1 Filed 04/09/13 Page 1 of 18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LASHAWN JONES, et al.
VERSUS
MARLIN N. GUSMAN, Orleans Parish Sheriff, et al.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-859
JUDGE LANCE M. AFRICK
MAGISTRATE JUDGE ALMA CHASEZ

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT CITY OF NEW ORLEANS’ MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT: Third-Party Defendant, the City of New Orleans (the “City”), hereby submits its
Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Appointment of a Receiver. Specifically, the City moves the Court to appoint a receiver to control all of the administrative, correctional and financial aspects of the operations of Orleans Parish Prison (“OPP”) and related facilities— starting immediately.1
INTRODUCTION Sadly, the City comes before the Court in another chapter of a long history regarding asserted conditions at OPP and the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s failure to resolve them despite being
1 To note, the City is not asking the Court to remove Sheriff Gusman from office; the decision whether to retain Sheriff Gusman is one that only the voters of Orleans Parish can make.

1
PD.8536784.1

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-1 Filed 04/09/13 Page 2 of 18
aware of these conditions after a span of forty-four (44) years of litigation. With this history in mind, it has become increasingly clear that if problems still exist at OPP, it is because the conditions at OPP have not been addressed by Sheriff Gusman for the last nine (9) years. Equally important, the conditions at OPP are attributed to lack of management; although the Court has scheduled separate evidentiary hearings to determine if the City must contribute more tax dollars to the Sheriff, it is apparent that poor management, and not money, have caused and permitted such conditions to exist.
Despite operating under a series of consent decrees from the Hamilton v. Morial litigation, the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office (“OPSO”) faces a new lawsuit involving similar contentions by inmates within OPP, as well as the Department of Justice, alleging that nothing has changed at OPP under Sheriff Gusman and, based upon his latest testimony and press conferences, it is highly unlikely, if not a certitude, that anything will improve while he manages OPP. Sheriff Gusman’s longstanding failure to comply with the consent decrees in Hamilton, as well as address arguably constitutional minimums that Plaintiffs contend are lacking, now requires extraordinary action by this Court. The City respectfully asserts that the form of this remedial action should consist of placing OPP in receivership and appointing a qualified and seasoned correctional expert as receiver to operate OPP and sections of the OPSO.
A. Appointment of a Receiver is Called for When, Like Here, There is a History of Non-Compliance with Constitutional Mandates.
“A district court’s power to fashion and effectuate its decrees of constitutional import is broad and flexible.”2 A receivership is “an intrusive remedy which should only be resorted to in
2 Shaw v. Allen, 771 F. Supp. 760, 762 (S.D. W. Va. 1990)(quoting Morgan v. McDonough, 540 F.2d 527, 533 (1st Cir. 1976)) (alteration omitted).
2
PD.8536784.1

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-1 Filed 04/09/13 Page 3 of 18
extreme cases.”3 In those cases, such as here, where “traditional remedies … are inadequate under the circumstances a court acting within its equitable powers is justified [ ] in implementing less common remedies, such as a receivership, so as to achieve compliance with a constitutional mandate.”4 While extraordinary, “[r]eceiverships [are] far from unknown in prison litigation” both before and after the Prison Litigation Reform Act.5 Federal courts have appointed receivers to manage all or a part of severely troubled prison systems.6 Indeed, this has occurred as recently as 2006.7 Not only do federal courts appoint receivers to oversee failing jail systems, but receivership is also a tool utilized when addressing other government agencies that cannot or would not comply with the law.8 Unfortunately, the situation and alleged constitutional violations occurring at OPP as well as the Sheriff’s abject failure to resolve them despite being acutely aware of consent decrees authorized by other courts warrants the immediate appointment of a receiver to operate OPP – unless this Court accepts Sheriff Gusman’s testimony that neither the inmates, the deputies, nor the members of the public are at risk.
3 Id. 4 Id. 5 Plata v. Schwarzenegger, 603 F.3d 1088, 1093 (9th Cir. 2010). 6 See, Plata, 603 F.3d at 1093; Inmates of D.C. Jail v. Jackson, 158 F.3d 1357, 1359 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (receiver appointed over jail’s medical and mental health services); Newman v. Alabama, 466 F. Supp. 628, 635 (M.D. Ala. 1979) (receiver appointed to oversee entire prison system); Shaw v. Allen, 771 F. Supp. 760, 763-64 (S.D. W. Va. 1990) (receiver appointed over county jail). Cf., Wayne County Jail Inmates v. Wayne County Chief Executive Officer, 444 N.W.2d 549, 560-61 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). 7 Plata, 603 F.3d at 1093. 8 See, Morgan v. McDonough, 540 F.2d 527, 532-34 (1st Cir. 1976) (school system); Gary W. v. Louisiana, Civ. A. No. 74-2412, 1990 WL 17537, at *30-33 (E.D. La. Feb. 26, 1990) (state children’s services agencies); Turner v. Goolsby, 255 F. Supp. 724, 730 (N.D. Ga. 1966) (county school system). Cf. Judge Rotenberg Educ. Ctr., Inc. v. Comm’r of Dep’t of Mental Retardation, 677 N.E. 2d 127, 150 (Mass. 1997), abrogated on other grounds In re Birchell, 913 N.E.2d 799, 813 (Mass. 2009).
3
PD.8536784.1

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-1 Filed 04/09/13 Page 4 of 18
B. According to the Inmates and the Department of Justice, the Sheriff Has Continued a Long Standing History of Denying Prisoners Their Constitutional Rights.
Despite being subject to the various consent decrees in Hamilton – none of which have been terminated (at Sheriff Gusman’s request as recently as last month) – the Sheriff, according to the Plaintiffs and DOJ, continued his office’s woeful tradition for nearly a decade of providing unacceptable conditions at OPP and for the general public. From 2008 through the present, Sheriff Gusman, either at his request or involuntarily, has been the subject of two (2) different reports issued by divisions of the Department of Justice and the Sheriff has received two (2) distinct letters from the Department of Justice alleging that the conditions at OPP – including medical, mental health, security, sexual abuse, excessive force, and environmental conditions – are not acceptable and appear to violate federal rights. Notably, the issues raised in both Reports and again in both of DOJ’s Findings Letters in 2009 and 2012 were the subject of the consent decrees in Hamilton. Both the inmates and the Civil Rights Division of DOJ have stated repeatedly that OPP conditions fall below constitutional minimums. Despite these Reports and the Findings Letters, the Sheriff did nothing to ameliorate the conditions at OPP, and, in April 2012, a group of inmates represented by the Southern Poverty Law Center filed a class action lawsuit against the Sheriff. Six months later, the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division (the “Civil Rights Division”) intervened in the Plaintiff Inmates’ lawsuit.
In December 2012, the Sheriff, the Plaintiff Inmates, and the Civil Rights Division moved this Court to approve a consent decree they entered into without the City. Following this request, the Court held a fairness hearing on April 1st through 4th, 2013, to take evidence as to whether or not the proposed consent decree complies with the narrow restraints and the statutory
4
PD.8536784.1

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-1 Filed 04/09/13 Page 5 of 18
need to assess the impact upon third parties (the members of the public) required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act as well as whether the proposed consent decree, as a purported class action settlement, is fair and reasonable. Based on the testimony and evidence elicited during that hearing, it is clear that, if the Court accepts the testimony offered by the fact and expert witnesses presented by the Plaintiffs, then the traditional remedies are inadequate and additional action by the Court is needed to resolve the problems at OPP. Relying upon the recent disclosures during the hearing, coupled with the history of Hamilton, the City respectfully submits that the appointment of a receiver to operate OPP is essential and needed.
Even based on a cursory review of the testimony of the various expert and fact witnesses presented by the Civil Rights Division and the putative class of Plaintiff Inmates, represented by the Southern Poverty Law Center, at the April 1, 2013, hearing in Jones, the need for a receiver to manage OPP’s daily operations is apparent, unless the Court rejects the credibility of their witnesses and accepts the diametrically opposed testimony of Sheriff Gusman.
1. The Department of Justice’s Findings Letters In 2009 and again in 2012, the United States’ Department of Justice sent a “findings letter” (collectively, the “Findings Letters”) to Sheriff Gusman and his attorneys detailing the DOJ’s concerns regarding the conditions at OPP. In its first Findings Letter, the DOJ concluded, based on three (3) visits to OPP throughout 2008, that the Sheriff failed to adequately protect inmates from harm from other inmates and staff, to provide adequate mental health needs, to
5
PD.8536784.1

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-1 Filed 04/09/13 Page 6 of 18
provide adequate suicide prevention, to provide adequate medical management, to provide safe and sanitary conditions, and to provide adequate fire safety.9
Considering the fact that the Sheriff failed to substantively respond to the DOJ’s allegations, the DOJ sent a second Findings Letter to the Sheriff on April 23, 2012.10 In addition to detailing the Sheriff’s lack of communications with the DOJ in response to its first Findings Letter as well as the conditions in OPP, the DOJ noted that not only had there been no improvements as to the conditions at OPP but conditions worsened.11 Despite this series of grave criticisms by the DOJ, Sheriff Gusman took no action and allowed the situation at OPP to continue and apparently worsen as Plaintiffs’ experts testified.12
2. Prison Rape Elimination Act Report Although these facts, expert testimony, expert reports and documentary evidence provide compelling reasons to appoint a receiver, there are even more facts to support such a decision. Among the many reports and findings regarding the conditions deteriorating at OPP was a report published by a DOJ sponsored agency to assess compliance with the Prison Rape Elimination Act.13 Though the report was intended to focus on sexual assaults in jails, the authors of the report decided to expand their assessment when they considered the operations at OPP. In short, these individuals concluded that, for a jail its size, OPP was the worst in the country.
9 A copy of the DOJ’s September 11, 2009, Findings Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit “A;” it was marked as trial exhibit 1.
10 A copy of the DOJ’s April 23, 2013, Findings Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit “B;” it was marked as trial exhibit 2.
11 Id. 12 It is also noteworthy that, besides writing letters, the Civil Rights Division took no affirmative action during the intervening four years. 13 A copy of the PREA Report is attached hereto as Exhibit “C,” and was marked as trial exhibit 4.
6
PD.8536784.1

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-1 Filed 04/09/13 Page 7 of 18
3. Testimony of the Plaintiff Inmates During the fairness hearing for the consent decree proposed in the Jones litigation, three former inmates from OPP testified regarding the conditions that exist at the jail.14 This testimony revealed the depth of the problems regarding the conditions at OPP including the prevalence of inmate-on-inmate violence, sexual assaults, Sheriff’s deputies’ failure to perform their assigned tasks, and deficiencies in both general medical and mental health treatment. Many, if not all, of these alleged deficiencies were items that should have been resolved pursuant to the currently binding consent decrees in Hamilton. Unlike many other critical documents he chose not to read describing conditions at OPP today, Sheriff Gusman has first-hand knowledge of the consent decrees in the Hamilton case. The fact these conditions continue to exist shows that control of OPP must be removed from the hands of the current Orleans Parish Sheriff and placed in the hands of an independent Court-appointed receiver.
4. The Reports and Testimony of Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz. The Plaintiff Inmates retained and presented the expert report and testimony of Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz regarding the conditions and alarming lack of safety within OPP. Prior to his retention in Jones, Dr. Schwartz had previous involvement with OPP. In 2008, Dr. Schwartz and another correctional consultant, Mr. Rod Miller, toured OPP and prepared a detailed report about the operations and conditions at OPP.15 This study and report by Dr. Schwartz and his colleague were undertaken through the National Institute of Corrections – an agency that operates under the aegis of the Department of Justice – that the Sheriff himself requested provide assistance regarding the conditions at OPP.
14 At the fairness hearing testimony was provided by Euell Sylvester, Donald Washington, and Aaron Steel. 15 A copy of the 2008 Report entitled “An Operational Review of the Orleans Parish Jails,” dated October 10, 2008, is attached hereto as Exhibit “D,” and was marked as trial exhibit 3.
7
PD.8536784.1

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-1 Filed 04/09/13 Page 8 of 18
In their 2008 report, Dr. Schwartz and Mr. Miller identified numerous concerns and expressed a broad range of criticism, specifically including the Sheriff’s lack of leadership; they also chronicled virtually every issue that ultimately became a basis for the Jones lawsuit filed four years later against the Sheriff and his senior management. At the outset of their preliminary observations, these two consultants concluded that there were many areas and problems that could be fixed quickly, easily, or cheaply. They also expressed their view that if Sheriff Gusman wanted to address the issues identified in their 2008 report, he needed to prioritize his efforts. Nothing happened. Not in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, or 2012. Indeed as of April 2013, the Sheriff counters and contradicts every opinion expressed by Dr. Schwartz in 2008 as well as takes issue with Dr. Schwartz’s opinions that were reaffirmed following Dr. Schwartz’s recent inspections of the OPP facility last year.
Five years after his initial Report, Dr. Schwartz’ views did not change – and the Sheriff did not change either. Concluding his 62 page expert report in Jones, Dr. Schwartz’s first conclusion is that “OPP lacks effective, principled leadership.”16 Once again, Dr. Schwartz notes in his report that his investigative efforts were “compromised to an unusual degree by Defendant’s [Sheriff Gusman’s] lack of cooperation and lack of production of relevant documents.”17 Sheriff Gusman’s refusal to cooperate with jail correctional consultants retained to support the proposed consent decree Sheriff Gusman signed provides additional support for the City’s position that the Sheriff should not be “at the wheel” for OPP.
Besides disagreeing with the contents of DOJ Findings Letters delivered to the Sheriff in 2009 and 2012, the Sheriff contravened the contents of every pleading offered in support of the
16 A copy of Dr. Schwartz’ Expert Report, dated March 4, 2013, is attached hereto as Exhibit “E.” 17 Id.
8
PD.8536784.1

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-1 Filed 04/09/13 Page 9 of 18
proposed consent decree in Jones he supposedly endorsed by his signature. His signature to the proposed consent decree proved to be a hollow gesture. Despite the fact that Sheriff Gusman testified under oath that he did not bother to read the expert reports, including the lengthy narratives prepared by Dr. Schwartz and Manuel Romero (discussed in more detail below), he repeatedly “took issue” with their conclusions. It is peculiar, to the say the least, that the Sheriff has the audacity to sign a proposed consent decree but disagree with the need for it and its contents.
In his March 2, 2013, report, Dr. Schwartz states that OPP is one of the worst jail systems he has seen in his 35 years of working with and inspecting jails. If that were not enough, Dr. Schwartz commented that OPP may be the worst run jail he has ever seen. These statements were made before Dr. Schwartz viewed the extraordinary tapes of incarcerated inmates prancing down Bourbon Street, using illegal drugs, brandishing a Glock .45 firearm, partying with beer, and flagrant gambling while incarcerated in OPP. Prior to viewing these remarkable events, in and out of the jail, Dr. Schwartz recognized the basic problems at OPP stemmed from lack of leadership and management.
Given the long and tortured history involving OPP, no consent decree, even as appropriately modified and tailored, will be effective unless the leadership changes. Without doubt, that is the consensus of the experts. The Sheriff did not just “take issue” with Dr. Schwartz’s expert opinions and observations; Sheriff Gusman unflinchingly stated that he disagrees with each and every allegation asserted in pleadings offered to support the proposed Consent Decree and correspondingly disagrees with all of the expert opinions. Simply put, the Sheriff does not believe there is a problem at OPP despite being under numerous consent decrees
9
PD.8536784.1

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-1 Filed 04/09/13 Page 10 of 18
in Hamilton and having yet another consent decree proposed in Jones which, quizzically, he signed. Given this history, it is clear that the “traditional remedies” are woefully insufficient considering that the Sheriff has subscribed to another consent decree when he rejects the facts offered to justify the proposed consent decree and when he has not heeded for years the consent decrees already affecting OPP.
5. The Report and Testimony of Manuel Romero. In addition to Dr. Schwartz, the Civil Rights Division presented its own expert regarding the conditions at OPP, Mr. Manuel Romero, the former deputy of operations for the State of New Mexico’s prison system. Among other conclusions, Mr. Romero’s expert report found “alarming conditions” at OPP.18 Mr. Romero based his opinions, in part, on two (2) separate visits to OPP in April and December of 2012. Tellingly, Mr. Romero expressed his opinion that conditions at OPP worsened from his visit in April 2012 to his visit in December 2012; once more Sheriff Gusman begged to differ when Sheriff Gusman testified. Further, Mr. Romero testified that “prisoner-on-prisoner” violence flourishes in the dysfunctional OPP, as he chronicled from his inspections at OPP and review of prison documents. Significantly, Mr. Romero testified that a fundamental security component in a jail setting is contraband control. This basic jail practice is required not only to protect inmates and deputies in OPP but to ensure that the safety of the members of the public is likewise a top priority. Under Sheriff Gusman’s watch, this was not done. On April 2, 2013, the Court permitted disclosure of three video tapes that had been requested by the City a month ago but not revealed by the Sheriff until April 1, 2013—less than 24 hours earlier. The April 1st production
18 A copy of Mr. Romero’s Expert Report, dated March 4, 2013, is attached hereto as Exhibit “F.”
10
PD.8536784.1

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-1 Filed 04/09/13 Page 11 of 18
by Sheriff Gusman was untimely – under any standard. To be clear, it is apparent from the Court’s comments and the City’s numerous statements, both in court pleadings and to the public, that the Court and Mayor Landrieu were deeply disturbed upon hearing the evidence presented last week. These tapes, to put it mildly, shock the conscious. The resulting public outcry has proven that the images these tapes show go beyond mere sensationalism; they graphically reveal deep flaws within the daily operations of OPP and the Sheriff’s Office. It is safe to assume that neither the Court in Jones nor the public were apathetic about this series of blatant prisoner misconduct, escapes and the proliferation of contraband in the jail. These tapes were offered into evidence as City Exhibit 13 without any objection by the Sheriff.
Immediately after these tapes were shown in court, Mr. Romero testified. To say he was mildly stunned after viewing the footage would be an understatement. Not surprisingly, Mr. Romero testified that he has never seen anything like what he watched on those tapes. He told the Court he has never seen such an inordinately high level of dysfunction at a jail facility. Compounding these issues, Mr. Romero believed that the inmates pictured were using an array of illegal drugs and a gun in one video and walking the streets of the City when they were supposed to be incarcerated.
Correspondingly, Mr. Romero corroborated Dr. Schwartz’ views that allocation of resources by Sheriff Gusman was “upside down;” in other words, Sheriff Gusman chose not to properly prioritize his resources to manage OPP. He also testified that these events established a lack of leadership and a lack of accountability by the Sheriff. Even if the Court in Jones approves some version of a tailored, non-intrusive consent decree, the mere fact that the Court finds that such a document is necessary, despite the fact that the various consent decrees in
11
PD.8536784.1

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-1 Filed 04/09/13 Page 12 of 18
Hamilton are still in effect, only underscores the void of leadership and accountability that these corrections experts believe are the touchstones required by a keeper of the jail. Both experts agreed with the well-known maxim that the “buck stops” with the head of an organization. As their testimony indicates, no one was at the “top” when it came to OPP. Indeed, they observed, among other things, that Sheriff Gusman used a “hands-off” management style, which either allowed or exacerbated falsified records, unacceptable jail practices, and rampant misconduct by the Sheriff’s deputies.
The conclusions of Mr. Romero coupled with Dr. Schwartz’s opinions lead to the inescapable conclusion that drastic remedies are needed to correct the problems within the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office and the resulting deplorable conditions at OPP – unless the Court finds the testimony of Sheriff Gusman to be more credible than the Plaintiffs’ witnesses.
6. Recent Federal Indictments of the Sheriff’s Key Senior Staff. Two senior deputies at the Sheriff’s office recently plead guilty to bid-rigging, conspiracy, and bribery. Not only did these deputies admit they committed federal felonies but their illegal conduct drained an untold amount of revenue from the operations at OPP. Moreover, even Sheriff Gusman acknowledged that this federal criminal investigation involving his office was not concluded and that the vendors and businessmen who had contracts with his office are likely under criminal investigation.
7. The Recently Disclosed Videos from Within OPP and the Sheriff’s Response Further Support the Need for a Receiver.
Perhaps the most irregular and illegal activities presented during the hearing involved the disclosure of the videos reluctantly produced by Sheriff Gusman. Equally disquieting was Sheriff Gusman’s attempt to explain away graphic recordings of inmate misconduct and
12
PD.8536784.1

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-1 Filed 04/09/13 Page 13 of 18
endangerment of the public. Initially the Sheriff testified that he did not recall the videos. Specifically, when asked if he was aware of any such videos, he responded “[n]ot really, no.”19 Further, Sheriff Gusman referred to the existence of these videos as “one of those rumors you hear,” and explicitly stated he did not view the videos.20 On March 14th, the City requested production of any tapes evidencing inmates’ use of contraband or inmate escapes. It was not until March 28th when the Court enforced the City’s request for videos that the Sheriff advised the City that the tapes were turned over to agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, presumably in response to a federal grand jury subpoena; the Sheriff represented that he did not retain a copy of the tapes though the City’s request for these tapes preceded delivery of the tapes to the FBI. According to his attorneys, agents from the FBI delivered to him a copy of the tapes the next day (March 29, 2013, which was Good Friday). The tapes were then produced on April 1st pursuant to a protective order preventing disclosure to anyone except attorneys and experts, at the request of the Sheriff. On April 2nd, in response to the City’s efforts, the Court lifted the protective order and permitted disclosure of these tapes to the public.
The City will not recount in detail the aberrant and unacceptable behavior flaunted in the tapes by certain inmates. Needless to say, these tapes show disturbing images of inmates while in OPP engaging in explicit drug use, gambling, consuming alcohol, and, most shockingly, brandishing a firearm within a cell. These tapes also show inmates cavorting on Bourbon Street at a time when they admit they are supposed to be incarcerated in OPP. In addition to the contents of the tapes, the City requests that the Court take notice of the Sheriff’s response, both
19 Transcript of Deposition of M. Gusman, at p. 156:13 – 18. A copy of the relevant portions of the transcript of Sheriff Gusman’s deposition is attached hereto as Exhibit “G.”
20 Id. at pp. 156:19 – 157:26.
13
PD.8536784.1

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-1 Filed 04/09/13 Page 14 of 18
on and off the witness stand, and his effort to spin the facts instead of accepting responsibility for the gross breaches of jail security.
After testifying that he did not recall ever seeing the tapes, Sheriff Gusman then testified that he saw them in 2009. He offered even more implausible testimony that the tapes were in a safe for more than three years and neither he nor his senior staff knew how to open the safe. As part of an effort to blunt the import of these tapes, the Sheriff suggested that tapes had been doctored, though he was unable to offer any support for this implausible notion. Building upon his incredulous suggestions, the Sheriff publicly said he could not detect contraband in the videos because he was using a small screen to watch them. Yet, there was no audio or visual difficulty in ascertaining every event on these tapes (including the disturbingly broad array of contraband) when Sheriff Gusman’s attorneys produced the tapes to the Court and the City. After these revelations that startled the public and correctional professionals alike, it was reported that contraband and escapes were almost a daily activity for OPP inmates.21 The Sheriff ventured to say that he found disclosures provided by these additional inmates regarding jail security transgressions skeptical and sought to denigrate these first-hand admissions by calling the inmates “unnamed persons who claim they recall incidents from four years ago.” In contrast, it seems that Sheriff Gusman is the one person that recalls very little. The ever changing explanations offered by Sheriff Gusman only reinforce the experts’ conclusions that the Sheriff lacks “principled leadership” and has not been accountable for the operations of OPP.
21 Claire Galofaro, 2 Inmates Came and Went As They Pleased from OPP, Bringing Drugs and Gun With Them, Fellow Prisoners Say, available at http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/04/2_inmates_came_and_went_as_the.html#incart_m-rpt-1 (last visited April 8, 2013).
14
PD.8536784.1

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-1 Filed 04/09/13 Page 15 of 18
8. The Public’s Response to the Recent Disclosures Corroborates the Appointment of a Receiver.
The City is now not alone in suggesting that a receiver is necessary and warranted. A cross-section of reports and publications have created a chorus of voices agreeing with the City and imploring the appointment of a receiver to operate OPP. A lengthy editorial published on April 6, 2013, in the Times-Picayune and on nola.com, concluded that “the Sheriff himself clinches the argument that he is unfit to oversee reforms at the prison.”22 Observing that the Sheriff did not even read the expert reports produced in the Jones litigation relating to conditions at OPP, the newspaper’s editors observed that the Sheriff nonetheless steadfastly refused to agree with any of the conclusions reached by these experts who were retained to support the very consent decree Sheriff Gusman signed several months ago. The strongly-worded editorial states that the Sheriff should be made to account for the funds he receives from the City and others. The City is no longer the only party calling for an accounting, notably, the editors of the TimesPicayune now concur with the City that the safety of the inmates, deputies and the public are paramount. Achieving these goals, as the editors correctly express, is essential for the viability of New Orleans and its national reputation. The editors of the Times-Picayune conclude by asking the Court to “find someone other than Sheriff Gusman to do the job.”
In addition to the Times-Picayune, the well-known columnist Jarvis DeBerry recognized the Sheriff’s incongruous positions of subscribing to the consent decree in Jones yet disputing
22 The Case for Change at Orleans Parish Prison: Editorial, available at http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2013/04/the_case_for_change_at_orleans.html (last visited April 8, 2013), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “H.”
15
PD.8536784.1

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-1 Filed 04/09/13 Page 16 of 18
that the conditions at OPP fall below accepted minimum standards.23 Concluding his column, Mr. DeBerry pointedly poses the question: “How can he be trusted to fix the jail if he isn’t convinced it’s broke?”24 Mr. DeBerry now joins the City in finding that Sheriff Gusman cannot be trusted to reform OPP.
In addition to these publications, the Gambit Weekly has also called for the appointment of a receiver as well as the resignation of Sheriff Gusman.25 Based on the Sheriff’s recent “disingenuous testimony” as well as other factors, “at a minimum he [Sheriff Gusman] should be out of the picture.”26 Indeed, according to this publication, “Gusman has failed the citizens of New Orleans and owes them his resignation. If he chooses to stay, [the Court] should appoint a receiver to clean up OPP.”27
CONCLUSION The Court alluded to the multiple references by the City that a receiver may be demanded. Recognizing that a receiver is appointed under extraordinary circumstances, the City deferred filing a motion for the appointment of a receiver to manage the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office. The City now respectfully submits its motion for a receiver based upon these facts, days of testimony, and public safety concerns. While the Court deferred ruling on the Sheriff’s funding claim until July 1st, the additional money he seeks from the City’s limited funds is not the panacea; instead, it is a change in management. Stated simply, the person at the top is neither
23 Jarvis DeBerry, You Won’t Believe Sheriff Marlin Gusman’s Testimony, available at http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2013/04/you_wont_believe_sheriff_marli.html (last visited April 8, 2013), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “I.”
24 Id. 25 Guns, Drugs, and Videotape, available at http://www.bestofneworleans.com/blogofneworleans/archives/2013/04/05/editorial-guns-drugs-and-videotape (last visited April 8, 2013), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “J.” 26 Id. 27 Id.
16
PD.8536784.1

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-1 Filed 04/09/13 Page 17 of 18
accountable nor capable of exercising leadership skills, as the testimony last week regrettably revealed. If the current situation does not justify the appointment of a receiver, nothing does.
Respectfully submitted, PHELPS DUNBAR LLP
BY: /s/Harry Rosenberg Harry Rosenberg (Bar #11465) Bryan Edward Bowdler (Bar #32097) Canal Place | 365 Canal Street, Suite 2000 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-6534 Telephone: 504-566-1311 Telecopier: 504-568-9130 Email: harry.rosenberg@phelps.com bryan.bowdler@phelps.com Richard F. Cortizas (Bar #28890) Sharonda R. Williams (Bar #28809) Chief of Litigation City Attorney’s Office 1300 Perdido Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Telephone: 504-658-9800 Ralph Capitelli (Bar #3858) Brian Capitelli (Bar #27398) CAPITELLI & WICKER LLP 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 2950 New Orleans, Louisiana 70163 Telephone: 504-582-2425
ATTORNEYS FOR THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT, CITY OF NEW ORLEANS
17
PD.8536784.1

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-1 Filed 04/09/13 Page 18 of 18
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was filed on this 9th day of April 2013, with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to all participating counsel of record.
/s/ Harry Rosenberg Harry Rosenberg
18
PD.8536784.1

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-12 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 1 of 32
EXHIBIT "A"
1

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-12 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 2 of 32

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-12 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 3 of 32

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-12 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 4 of 32

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-12 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 5 of 32

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-12 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 6 of 32

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-12 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 7 of 32

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-12 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 8 of 32

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-12 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 9 of 32

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-12 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 10 of 32

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-12 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 11 of 32

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-12 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 12 of 32

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-12 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 13 of 32

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-12 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 14 of 32

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-12 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 15 of 32

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-12 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 16 of 32

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-12 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 17 of 32

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-12 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 18 of 32

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-12 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 19 of 32

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-12 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 20 of 32

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-12 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 21 of 32

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-12 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 22 of 32

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-12 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 23 of 32

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-12 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 24 of 32

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-12 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 25 of 32

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-12 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 26 of 32

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-12 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 27 of 32

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-12 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 28 of 32

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-12 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 29 of 32

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-12 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 30 of 32

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-12 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 31 of 32

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-12 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 32 of 32

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-23 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 1 of 21
EXHIBIT "B"
2

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-23 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 2 of 21

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-23 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 3 of 21

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-23 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 4 of 21

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-23 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 5 of 21

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-23 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 6 of 21

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-23 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 7 of 21

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-23 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 8 of 21

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-23 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 9 of 21

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-23 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 10 of 21

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-23 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 11 of 21

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-23 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 12 of 21

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-23 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 13 of 21

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-23 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 14 of 21

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-23 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 15 of 21

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-23 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 16 of 21

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-23 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 17 of 21

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-23 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 18 of 21

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-23 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 19 of 21

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-23 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 20 of 21

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-23 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 21 of 21

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 1 of 97
EXHIBIT "C"
4

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 2 of 97
PropFOF000113

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 3 of 97
PropFOF000114

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 4 of 97
PropFOF000115

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 5 of 97
PropFOF000116

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 6 of 97
PropFOF000117

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 7 of 97
PropFOF000118

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 8 of 97
PropFOF000119

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 9 of 97
PropFOF000120

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 10 of 97
PropFOF000121

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 11 of 97
PropFOF000122

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 12 of 97
PropFOF000123

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 13 of 97
PropFOF000124

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 14 of 97
PropFOF000125

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 15 of 97
PropFOF000126

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 16 of 97
PropFOF000127

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 17 of 97
PropFOF000128

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 18 of 97
PropFOF000129

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 19 of 97
PropFOF000130

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 20 of 97
PropFOF000131

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 21 of 97
PropFOF000132

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 22 of 97
PropFOF000133

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 23 of 97
PropFOF000134

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 24 of 97
PropFOF000135

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 25 of 97
PropFOF000136

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 26 of 97
PropFOF000137

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 27 of 97
PropFOF000138

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 28 of 97
PropFOF000139

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 29 of 97
PropFOF000140

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 30 of 97
PropFOF000141

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 31 of 97
PropFOF000142

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 32 of 97
PropFOF000143

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 33 of 97
PropFOF000144

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 34 of 97
PropFOF000145

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 35 of 97
PropFOF000146

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 36 of 97
PropFOF000147

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 37 of 97
PropFOF000148

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 38 of 97
PropFOF000149

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 39 of 97
PropFOF000150

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 40 of 97
PropFOF000151

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 41 of 97
PropFOF000152

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 42 of 97
PropFOF000153

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 43 of 97
PropFOF000154

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 44 of 97
PropFOF000155

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 45 of 97
PropFOF000156

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 46 of 97
PropFOF000157

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 47 of 97
PropFOF000158

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 48 of 97
PropFOF000159

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 49 of 97
PropFOF000160

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 50 of 97
PropFOF000161

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 51 of 97
PropFOF000162

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 52 of 97
PropFOF000163

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 53 of 97
PropFOF000164

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 54 of 97
PropFOF000165

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 55 of 97
PropFOF000166

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 56 of 97
PropFOF000167

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 57 of 97
PropFOF000168

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 58 of 97
PropFOF000169

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 59 of 97
PropFOF000170

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 60 of 97
PropFOF000171

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 61 of 97
PropFOF000172

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 62 of 97
PropFOF000173

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 63 of 97
PropFOF000174

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 64 of 97
PropFOF000175

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 65 of 97
PropFOF000176

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 66 of 97
PropFOF000177

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 67 of 97
PropFOF000178

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 68 of 97
PropFOF000179

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 69 of 97
PropFOF000180

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 70 of 97
PropFOF000181

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 71 of 97
PropFOF000182

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 72 of 97
PropFOF000183

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 73 of 97
PropFOF000184

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 74 of 97
PropFOF000185

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 75 of 97
PropFOF000186

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 76 of 97
PropFOF000187

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 77 of 97
PropFOF000188

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 78 of 97
PropFOF000189

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 79 of 97
PropFOF000190

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 80 of 97
PropFOF000191

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 81 of 97
PropFOF000192

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 82 of 97
PropFOF000193

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 83 of 97
PropFOF000194

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 84 of 97
PropFOF000195

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 85 of 97
PropFOF000196

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 86 of 97
PropFOF000197

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 87 of 97
PropFOF000198

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 88 of 97
PropFOF000199

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 89 of 97
PropFOF000200

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 90 of 97
PropFOF000201

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 91 of 97
PropFOF000202

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 92 of 97
PropFOF000203

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 93 of 97
PropFOF000204

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 94 of 97
PropFOF000205

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 95 of 97
PropFOF000206

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 96 of 97
PropFOF000207

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 134902-34 Filed 024/1049/13 Page 97 of 97
PropFOF000208

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 1 of 94
EXHIBIT "D" 3

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 2 of 94
PropFOF000002

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 3 of 94
PropFOF000003

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 4 of 94
PropFOF000004

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 5 of 94
PropFOF000005

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 6 of 94
PropFOF000006

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 7 of 94
PropFOF000007

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 8 of 94
PropFOF000008

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 9 of 94
PropFOF000009

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 10 of 94
PropFOF000010

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 11 of 94
PropFOF000011

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 12 of 94
PropFOF000012

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 13 of 94
PropFOF000013

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 14 of 94
PropFOF000014

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 15 of 94
PropFOF000015

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 16 of 94
PropFOF000016

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 17 of 94
PropFOF000017

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 18 of 94
PropFOF000018

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 19 of 94
PropFOF000019

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 20 of 94
PropFOF000020

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 21 of 94
PropFOF000021

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 22 of 94
PropFOF000022

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 23 of 94
PropFOF000023

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 24 of 94
PropFOF000024

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 25 of 94
PropFOF000025

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 26 of 94
PropFOF000026

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 27 of 94
PropFOF000027

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 28 of 94
PropFOF000028

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 29 of 94
PropFOF000029

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 30 of 94
PropFOF000030

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 31 of 94
PropFOF000031

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 32 of 94
PropFOF000032

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 33 of 94
PropFOF000033

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 34 of 94
PropFOF000034

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 35 of 94
PropFOF000035

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 36 of 94
PropFOF000036

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 37 of 94
PropFOF000037

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 38 of 94
PropFOF000038

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 39 of 94
PropFOF000039

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 40 of 94
PropFOF000040

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 41 of 94
PropFOF000041

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 42 of 94
PropFOF000042

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 43 of 94
PropFOF000043

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 44 of 94
PropFOF000044

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 45 of 94
PropFOF000045

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 46 of 94
PropFOF000046

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 47 of 94
PropFOF000047

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 48 of 94
PropFOF000048

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 49 of 94
PropFOF000049

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 50 of 94
PropFOF000050

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 51 of 94
PropFOF000051

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 52 of 94
PropFOF000052

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 53 of 94
PropFOF000053

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 54 of 94
PropFOF000054

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 55 of 94
PropFOF000055

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 56 of 94
PropFOF000056

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 57 of 94
PropFOF000057

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 58 of 94
PropFOF000058

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 59 of 94
PropFOF000059

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 60 of 94
PropFOF000060

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 61 of 94
PropFOF000061

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 62 of 94
PropFOF000062

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 63 of 94
PropFOF000063

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 64 of 94
PropFOF000064

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 65 of 94
PropFOF000065

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 66 of 94
PropFOF000066

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 67 of 94
PropFOF000067

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 68 of 94
PropFOF000068

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 69 of 94
PropFOF000069

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 70 of 94
PropFOF000070

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 71 of 94
PropFOF000071

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 72 of 94
PropFOF000072

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 73 of 94
PropFOF000073

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 74 of 94
PropFOF000074

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 75 of 94
PropFOF000075

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 76 of 94
PropFOF000076

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 77 of 94
PropFOF000077

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 78 of 94
PropFOF000078

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 79 of 94
PropFOF000079

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 80 of 94
PropFOF000080

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 81 of 94
PropFOF000081

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 82 of 94
PropFOF000082

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 83 of 94
PropFOF000083

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 84 of 94
PropFOF000084

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 85 of 94
PropFOF000085

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 86 of 94
PropFOF000086

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 87 of 94
PropFOF000087

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 88 of 94
PropFOF000088

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 89 of 94
PropFOF000089

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 90 of 94
PropFOF000090

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 91 of 94
PropFOF000091

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 92 of 94
PropFOF000092

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 93 of 94
PropFOF000093

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-5 Filed 04/09/13 Page 94 of 94
PropFOF000094

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 1 of 64
EXHIBIT "E"

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 2 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 3 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 4 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 5 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 6 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 7 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 8 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 9 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 10 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 11 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 12 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 13 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 14 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 15 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 16 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 17 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 18 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 19 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 20 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 21 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 22 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 23 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 24 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 25 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 26 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 27 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 28 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 29 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 30 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 31 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 32 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 33 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 34 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 35 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 36 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 37 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 38 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 39 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 40 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 41 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 42 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 43 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 44 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 45 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 46 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 47 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 48 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 49 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 50 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 51 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 52 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 53 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 54 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 55 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 56 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 57 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 58 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 59 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 60 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 61 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 62 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 63 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-6 Filed 04/09/13 Page 64 of 64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 1 of 74
EXHIBIT "F"

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 2 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 3 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 4 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 5 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 6 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 7 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 8 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 9 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 10 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 11 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 12 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 13 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 14 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 15 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 16 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 17 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 18 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 19 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 20 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 21 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 22 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 23 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 24 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 25 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 26 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 27 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 28 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 29 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 30 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 31 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 32 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 33 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 34 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 35 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 36 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 37 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 38 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 39 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 40 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 41 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 42 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 43 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 44 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 45 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 46 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 47 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 48 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 49 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 50 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 51 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 52 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 53 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 54 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 55 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 56 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 57 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 58 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 59 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 60 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 61 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 62 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 63 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 64 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 65 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 66 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 67 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 68 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 69 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 70 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 71 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 72 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 73 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-7 Filed 04/09/13 Page 74 of 74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-8 Filed 04/09/13 Page 1 of 10
EXHIBIT "G"

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-8 Filed 04/09/13 Page 2 of 10

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-8 Filed 04/09/13 Page 3 of 10

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-8 Filed 04/09/13 Page 4 of 10

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-8 Filed 04/09/13 Page 5 of 10

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-8 Filed 04/09/13 Page 6 of 10

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-8 Filed 04/09/13 Page 7 of 10

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-8 Filed 04/09/13 Page 8 of 10

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-8 Filed 04/09/13 Page 9 of 10

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-8 Filed 04/09/13 Page 10 of 10

Page 1 of 3 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-9 Filed 04/09/13 Page 1 of 3
The case for change at Orleans Parish Prison: Editorial
By The Editorial Board, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune Follow on Twitter on April 06, 2013 at 7:40 AM, updated April 08, 2013 at 2:07 PM The evidence was stunning: Orleans Parish Prison inmates snorting cocaine and showing off a handgun during a videotaped cellblock party, a former inmate's graphic details of being sexually assaulted while guards dallied elsewhere, an expert's testimony that OPP is the worst jail he's ever seen. It was an unforgettable case made against Sheriff Marlin Gusman's management, presented in federal court over the past week.
But it is the sheriff himself who clinches the argument that he is unfit to oversee reforms at the prison. Faced with evidence that his jail has been out of control for years, he still denies that anything is wrong. On the witness stand in U.S. District Judge Lance Africk's courtroom, he said: "I think we're doing pretty good without the consent decree." Expert witnesses, Sheriff Gusman said at a press conference afterward, are "getting paid to come up with a statement. I'm here, I'm elected and I'm doing the job."
He clearly is not doing the job. What's more, the job doesn't even seem to interest him.
He couldn't recall reading experts' reports detailing horrific conditions at the jail, he testified. As for the Justice Department documents that led to his signing a consent decree that would govern reforms at the jail, he said he merely scanned them. He signed the agreement in December because he wanted more money and thought it would "be a great step towards improving public confidence." So, his commitment to change is an illusion.
On the inmate-made videos, he testified that he only vaguely recalled seeing the 2009 footage of prisoners downing beers, throwing dice, snorting cocaine and shooting heroin. He said he never noticed the images of an inmate unloading what appears to be a Glock handgun during the party. He claimed that he only learned last month of the existence of another video showing an inmate roaming around Bourbon Street when he should've been locked up.
EXHIBIT "H"
http://blog.nola.com/opinions_impact/print.html?entry=/2013/04/the_case_for_change_at_o... 4/8/2013

Page 2 of 3 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-9 Filed 04/09/13 Page 2 of 3
At his press conference Thursday afternoon, he claimed that the video image that an inmate dubbed "Orleans Parish Prison gone wild" was fuzzy and shown to him on a tiny screen. To a community transfixed and horrified by the video images, that simply isn't plausible.
Sheriff Gusman may be in denial, may be numb to the misbehavior that shocks the rest of us or may simply not care about the conditions at Orleans Parish Prison. Regardless, Judge Africk should not allow him to oversee the implementation of the consent decree.
The judge has not yet ruled on whether he will approve the consent decree, but he seems inclined to do so. And he must, despite the city's efforts to persuade him that it will be too expensive and will cause tax increases or cuts to other essential services. Judge Africk should ensure that the decree's provisions are sensible and are likely to improve jail conditions. When he reviews the estimated cost of implementing reforms next month, he should make sure it is as low as possible.
He should also make the sheriff account for how he is spending the public's money now. The city already gives Sheriff Gusman $30 million a year to care for inmates. The money is vanishing while inmates exist in hellish conditions. And although it wasn't part of the case presented to Judge Africk, two former high-ranking deputies in the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office pleaded guilty recently to federal charges connected with an alleged bid-rigging and kickback scheme. The investigation is expected to produce more charges.
The sheriff claims that criticisms of the jail are outdated and exaggerated, but evidence presented to Judge Africk argues otherwise. While the videos are from 2009, evidence showed that 32 inmates were stabbed in the jail last year. There also were 698 prisoner assaults in the jail, which houses 2,400 inmates. "I have not seen numbers this large," Manuel David Romero, former deputy secretary of the New Mexico prison system, testified. Mr. Romero also said that during two visits to the jail last year he saw inmates engaging in "sexual misconduct" in view of deputies who did nothing.
On the witness stand, Jeffrey Schwartz, of the nonprofit criminal justice research and training firm LETRA, was blunt: "OPP is the worst jail I've ever seen." The jail is worse than others, he said, because of "runaway inmate-on-inmate violence."
The jail also has been criticized for lacking mental health services and for improperly handling inmates' medication. Forty prisoners have died at the sheriff's facilities since 2006, two of them in recent weeks. Again, Sheriff Gusman downplays the problem. "There's only been one death attributable to violence in this
http://blog.nola.com/opinions_impact/print.html?entry=/2013/04/the_case_for_change_at_o... 4/8/2013

Page 3 of 3 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-9 Filed 04/09/13 Page 3 of 3
facility," he said a few days before Judge Africk's hearing began. As if suicides or overdoses are not worth worrying about?
On top of all of that, escapes are common occurrences. The sheriff has blamed the temporary tents used to house some inmates, but other wardens with similar challenges manage to keep their charges locked up.
Sheriff Gusman's press conference Thursday was all bluster and blame: Any problems at OPP were due to the age of jail buildings and the city's stinginess. He argued that he should get credit for closing the House of Detention, where the videos were shot and where the inmate slipped out to Bourbon Street. But the sheriff closed the facility only last year, three years after the videos were made.
Nothing the sheriff says indicates that he is the person to reform the jail. As it stands now, the consent decree would include a monitor to keep an eye on the changes that would be implemented by Sheriff Gusman and his staff. But when it comes to implementing changes, the sheriff has already demonstrated that he's not up to the job. Given that, Judge Africk should appoint a receiver to run the jail under the court's supervision, a move that would usurp the sheriff's authority. That is a serious step, but a necessary one.
Sheriff Gusman was elected by Orleans Parish voters, and we value their judgment. He is one of only a few remaining African-Americans holding citywide office in New Orleans. That's an important consideration as well, given the diversity of our community. It is vital to remember, though, that the vast majority of inmates being held under awful conditions in the sheriff's jail are young African-American men. The truth cannot be avoided. Repairing the jail so that inmates are safe and so that the community is safe must be the paramount consideration. New Orleans is struggling to control violence. Doing so is essential to our community's long-term health and viability - not to mention national reputation. The sheriff should long ago have acknowledged and addressed the violence and lack of order at Orleans Parish Prison. It is feeding the city's crime problem.
The jail must be reformed - for the sake of safety and decency -- and Judge Africk must find someone other than Sheriff Gusman to do the job.
© NOLA.com. All rights reserved.
http://blog.nola.com/opinions_impact/print.html?entry=/2013/04/the_case_for_change_at_o... 4/8/2013

Page 1 of 3 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-9 Filed 04/09/13 Page 1 of 3
The case for change at Orleans Parish Prison: Editorial
By The Editorial Board, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune Follow on Twitter on April 06, 2013 at 7:40 AM, updated April 08, 2013 at 2:07 PM The evidence was stunning: Orleans Parish Prison inmates snorting cocaine and showing off a handgun during a videotaped cellblock party, a former inmate's graphic details of being sexually assaulted while guards dallied elsewhere, an expert's testimony that OPP is the worst jail he's ever seen. It was an unforgettable case made against Sheriff Marlin Gusman's management, presented in federal court over the past week.
But it is the sheriff himself who clinches the argument that he is unfit to oversee reforms at the prison. Faced with evidence that his jail has been out of control for years, he still denies that anything is wrong. On the witness stand in U.S. District Judge Lance Africk's courtroom, he said: "I think we're doing pretty good without the consent decree." Expert witnesses, Sheriff Gusman said at a press conference afterward, are "getting paid to come up with a statement. I'm here, I'm elected and I'm doing the job."
He clearly is not doing the job. What's more, the job doesn't even seem to interest him.
He couldn't recall reading experts' reports detailing horrific conditions at the jail, he testified. As for the Justice Department documents that led to his signing a consent decree that would govern reforms at the jail, he said he merely scanned them. He signed the agreement in December because he wanted more money and thought it would "be a great step towards improving public confidence." So, his commitment to change is an illusion.
On the inmate-made videos, he testified that he only vaguely recalled seeing the 2009 footage of prisoners downing beers, throwing dice, snorting cocaine and shooting heroin. He said he never noticed the images of an inmate unloading what appears to be a Glock handgun during the party. He claimed that he only learned last month of the existence of another video showing an inmate roaming around Bourbon Street when he should've been locked up.
EXHIBIT "H"
http://blog.nola.com/opinions_impact/print.html?entry=/2013/04/the_case_for_change_at_o... 4/8/2013

Page 2 of 3 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-9 Filed 04/09/13 Page 2 of 3
At his press conference Thursday afternoon, he claimed that the video image that an inmate dubbed "Orleans Parish Prison gone wild" was fuzzy and shown to him on a tiny screen. To a community transfixed and horrified by the video images, that simply isn't plausible.
Sheriff Gusman may be in denial, may be numb to the misbehavior that shocks the rest of us or may simply not care about the conditions at Orleans Parish Prison. Regardless, Judge Africk should not allow him to oversee the implementation of the consent decree.
The judge has not yet ruled on whether he will approve the consent decree, but he seems inclined to do so. And he must, despite the city's efforts to persuade him that it will be too expensive and will cause tax increases or cuts to other essential services. Judge Africk should ensure that the decree's provisions are sensible and are likely to improve jail conditions. When he reviews the estimated cost of implementing reforms next month, he should make sure it is as low as possible.
He should also make the sheriff account for how he is spending the public's money now. The city already gives Sheriff Gusman $30 million a year to care for inmates. The money is vanishing while inmates exist in hellish conditions. And although it wasn't part of the case presented to Judge Africk, two former high-ranking deputies in the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office pleaded guilty recently to federal charges connected with an alleged bid-rigging and kickback scheme. The investigation is expected to produce more charges.
The sheriff claims that criticisms of the jail are outdated and exaggerated, but evidence presented to Judge Africk argues otherwise. While the videos are from 2009, evidence showed that 32 inmates were stabbed in the jail last year. There also were 698 prisoner assaults in the jail, which houses 2,400 inmates. "I have not seen numbers this large," Manuel David Romero, former deputy secretary of the New Mexico prison system, testified. Mr. Romero also said that during two visits to the jail last year he saw inmates engaging in "sexual misconduct" in view of deputies who did nothing.
On the witness stand, Jeffrey Schwartz, of the nonprofit criminal justice research and training firm LETRA, was blunt: "OPP is the worst jail I've ever seen." The jail is worse than others, he said, because of "runaway inmate-on-inmate violence."
The jail also has been criticized for lacking mental health services and for improperly handling inmates' medication. Forty prisoners have died at the sheriff's facilities since 2006, two of them in recent weeks. Again, Sheriff Gusman downplays the problem. "There's only been one death attributable to violence in this
http://blog.nola.com/opinions_impact/print.html?entry=/2013/04/the_case_for_change_at_o... 4/8/2013

Page 3 of 3 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-9 Filed 04/09/13 Page 3 of 3
facility," he said a few days before Judge Africk's hearing began. As if suicides or overdoses are not worth worrying about?
On top of all of that, escapes are common occurrences. The sheriff has blamed the temporary tents used to house some inmates, but other wardens with similar challenges manage to keep their charges locked up.
Sheriff Gusman's press conference Thursday was all bluster and blame: Any problems at OPP were due to the age of jail buildings and the city's stinginess. He argued that he should get credit for closing the House of Detention, where the videos were shot and where the inmate slipped out to Bourbon Street. But the sheriff closed the facility only last year, three years after the videos were made.
Nothing the sheriff says indicates that he is the person to reform the jail. As it stands now, the consent decree would include a monitor to keep an eye on the changes that would be implemented by Sheriff Gusman and his staff. But when it comes to implementing changes, the sheriff has already demonstrated that he's not up to the job. Given that, Judge Africk should appoint a receiver to run the jail under the court's supervision, a move that would usurp the sheriff's authority. That is a serious step, but a necessary one.
Sheriff Gusman was elected by Orleans Parish voters, and we value their judgment. He is one of only a few remaining African-Americans holding citywide office in New Orleans. That's an important consideration as well, given the diversity of our community. It is vital to remember, though, that the vast majority of inmates being held under awful conditions in the sheriff's jail are young African-American men. The truth cannot be avoided. Repairing the jail so that inmates are safe and so that the community is safe must be the paramount consideration. New Orleans is struggling to control violence. Doing so is essential to our community's long-term health and viability - not to mention national reputation. The sheriff should long ago have acknowledged and addressed the violence and lack of order at Orleans Parish Prison. It is feeding the city's crime problem.
The jail must be reformed - for the sake of safety and decency -- and Judge Africk must find someone other than Sheriff Gusman to do the job.
© NOLA.com. All rights reserved.
http://blog.nola.com/opinions_impact/print.html?entry=/2013/04/the_case_for_change_at_o... 4/8/2013

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-10 Filed 04/09/13 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT "I"

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-10 Filed 04/09/13 Page 2 of 2

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-11 Filed 04/09/13 Page 1 of 1

EXHIBIT "J"

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-12 Filed 04/09/13 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LASHAWN JONES, et al.
VERSUS
MARLIN N. GUSMAN, Orleans Parish Sheriff, et al.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-859
JUDGE LANCE M. AFRICK
MAGISTRATE JUDGE ALMA CHASEZ

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that undersigned counsel for Third-Party Defendant the City of New Orleans will submit for consideration the accompanying Motion for Appointment of Receiver before the Honorable Lance M. Africk, United States District Judge, Eastern District of Louisiana, 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, on the 1st day of May 2013, at 9:00 a.m.
Respectfully submitted, PHELPS DUNBAR LLP

BY: /s/ Harry Rosenberg Harry Rosenberg (Bar #11465) Bryan Edward Bowdler (Bar #32097) Canal Place | 365 Canal Street, Suite 2000 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-6534 Telephone: 504-566-1311 Telecopier: 504-568-9130 Email: harry.rosenberg@phelps.com bryan.bowdler@phelps.com

1
PD.8561854.1

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-12 Filed 04/09/13 Page 2 of 3
Richard F. Cortizas (Bar #28890) Sharonda R. Williams (Bar #28809) Chief of Litigation City Attorney’s Office 1300 Perdido Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Telephone: 504-658-9800 Ralph Capitelli (Bar #3858) Brian Capitelli (Bar #27398) CAPITELLI & WICKER LLP 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 2950 New Orleans, Louisiana 70163 Telephone: 504-582-2425 ATTORNEYS FOR THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT, CITY OF NEW ORLEANS
2
PD.8561854.1

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 392-12 Filed 04/09/13 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was filed on this 9th day of April 2013, with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to all participating counsel of record.
/s/ Harry Rosenberg Harry Rosenberg
3
PD.8561854.1

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 558 Filed 09/03/13 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LASHAWN JONES, ET AL.
VERSUS
MARLIN GUSMAN, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION
No. 12-859 c/w 12-138 REF: 12-859
SECTION I

ORDER Before the Court is the motion1 for appointment of a receiverfiled by third-party defendant, the City ofNew Orleans (“City”). Third-party plaintiff, the Sheriff ofOrleans Parish (“Sheriff”), has filed an opposition, 2 to which the City has replied. 3 Class Plaintiffs and intervenor plaintiff, the United States of Am erica (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), have filed a m emorandum4 opposing the motion on limited grounds. The City largely relies on the evidence and leglaargument presented at the fairness hearing, and comingles arguments that would support entry of the Cons ent Judgment with arguments that would support appointment of a receiver5. Appointment of a receiver, which the parties acknowledge is an extraordinary and drastic remedy,6 requires separate argument and consideration.

1R. Doc. No. 392. 2R. Doc. No. 402. 3R. Doc. No. 418. 4R. Doc. No. 403. 5R. Doc. No. 392-1. 6E.g., R. Doc. No. 392-1, at 2-3; R. Doc. No. 402, at 11; R. Doc. No. 403, at 4.
-1-

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 558 Filed 09/03/13 Page 2 of 2 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the City’s
right to re-urge its motion at a later date. New Orleans, Louisiana, September 3, 2013. ___________________________________ LANCE M. AFRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-2-

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

)

LASHAWN JONES, ET AL,

)

Plaintiffs; and

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

Plaintiffs in Intervention

)

)

v.

)

)

)

MARLIN N. GUSMAN, ET AL,

)

Defendants

)

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

MARLINN. GUSMAN,

)

Third-Party Plaintiff

)

)

v.

)

)

THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS,

)

_Th_i_rd_-P_a_rt_y _D_ef_en_d_an_t____________

)
)

Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-00859 Section I, Division 1 Judge Lance M. Africk Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan

CONSENT JUDGMENT
L PARTIES This Consent Judgment is executed and jointly submitted to the Court by SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER ("SPLC") and ORLEANS PARISH SHERIFF MARLIN N. GUSMAN, in his official capacity (the "Sheriff' or "OPSO").
II. INTRODUCTION A. SPLC is counsel for the Plaintiff Class in the above captioned case, which alleges unconstitutional conditions of confinement in detention facilities operated by OPSO (the "Case"). B. The Sheriff is an original defendant in the Case. C. Fallowing extensive discovery in the Case, the Plaintiff Class, the Sheriff and the co-

plaintiff United States of America, acting through the United States Department of Justice, entered into a Consent Judgment to address the constitutional violations alleged in this Case, which was signed by District Judge Lance M. Africk and entered as a judgment of the Court on June 6, 2013 (Rec. Doc. 466).
D. On September 4, 2013, the Plaintiff Class filed an Interim Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs (Rec. Doc. 563).
E. OPSO acknowledges that as a result of entry of the Consent Judgment, the Plaintiff Class are "prevailing" parties under 42 USC §1988(b) and, as such, entitled to an award of fees and costs in some amount, but OPSO disputes the amount sought by SPLC.
F. In order to avoid the time, expense and uncertainty of litigation, SPLC and OPSO desire to fully and finally compromise and settle their dispute on the terms and conditions herein fully set forth, and to have that compromise entered as a Consent Judgment enforceable (if required) by the Court in this Case.
NOW THEREFORE, subject to approval hereof by the Court in the above captioned Case, SPLC and OPSO do hereby agree as follows:
III. SETTLEMENT AMOUNT; TERMS OF PAYMENT
A. OPSO agrees to pay, and SPLC agrees to accept, the sum of NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND AND N0/100 ($900,000.00) in full and final settlement of all fees and costs sought by the SPLC in its Motion for Interim Attorney's Fees and Costs (Rec. Doc. 563).
B. The settlement amount shall be paid by OPSO to SPLC, without interest, in sixty (60) equal monthly installments of $15,000.00 each, commencing January 15, 2014, and continuing on the same day of each subsequent month until paid in full. In the event that the 15th day of a month falls on a weekend or on a day that banks are required or permitted by law to remain closed, then the payment shall be due on the next business day when banks are open.
C. Each installment shall be paid by an automatic debit or other electronic funds transfer from OPSO to an account to be designated in writing by SPLC to OPSO. SPLC may, upon fifteen (15) days prior written notice to OPSO, direct that future payments be made instead to a different account and/or bank designated by it.
IV. PENALTIES FOR NONPAYMENT; ENFORCEMENT
A. Should OPSO fail to timely fund and authorize an automatic debit or other electronic transfer of any installment payment on or before the date required hereunder, OPSO shall owe to SPLC judicial interest at the rate provided for federal judgments so long as any installment payment remains unpaid, which shall be payable on demand. Anything herein to the contrary herein notwithstanding, OPSO shall not be responsible for any penalty if

the cause of the delinquency is any reason other than OPSO's failure to timely fund and authorize a payment.
In the event two or more monthly installments are delinquent at the same time, this penalty sum shall apply separately to each delinquent monthly installment. All subsequent payments by OPSO shall be first applied to delinquent monthly installments in the order of their maturity until all such delinquencies are corrected.
B. In the event that all delinquencies and any associated penalties are not fully and finally cured within 90 days after the first delinquency arose, the penalties provided herein shall cease to accrue. In that event, SPLC, at its sole option and as its sole remedy, may declare all unpaid installments of the agreed settlement amount set forth herein immediately due and payable and seek a judgment or order of the Court in this Case directing the payment of all unpaid installments and all penalties due thereon by OPSO, together with interest on the unpaid installments of the agreed settlement amount (but not on the penalties) from the date of judicial demand at the rate provided for federal judgments, reasonable attorneys' fees as fixed by the Court, and all costs of such proceedings.
V. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
A. SPLC and OPSO each warrant to the other that they have full power and authority to enter into this Consent Judgment and to perform their obligations hereunder, and that they have each executed it through their undersigned duly authorized attorneys or other representative(s).
B. This Consent Judgment shall constitute the entire integrated agreement of the parties concerning the matters covered hereby, and can only be amended, notified or waived by a written instrument signed by both parties. No prior or contemporaneous communications, oral or written, will be relevant or admissible for purposes of
determining the meaning of any provisions herein in this Case, or in any other
proceeding.
C. This Consent Judgment shall be applicable to, and binding upon, both parties, their officers, agents, employees and assigns, and their successors in office.
D. Failure by either party to enforce this Consent Judgment or any provision hereof with respect to any due date or any other provisions herein shall not be construed as a waiver of the party's right to enforce other due dates or provisions hereof.
E. Any notice which either party may be required or desire to provide the party shall be sufficient and effective when delivered to the other party either in person, by certified mail, by telephone facsimile or by electronic transmission addressed as follows:

10th

October

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 582-1 Filed 10/21/13 Page 1 of 5
RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This Release and Settlement Agreement (hereinafter, the "Agreement") is made on this 21st day of October, 2013, by and between Marlin N. Gusman, Sheriff of Orleans Parish (the "Sheriff'), on behalf of the Orleans Parish Sheriffs Office (the "OPSO") and the City of New Orleans (the "City") (the aforementioned parties being sometimes referred to as the "Parties"). The Parties hereby agree as follows:
WHEREAS, the Sheriff filed a third-party complaint naming the City as a third-party defendant as part of the litigation captioned Lashawn Jones, et al. v. Marlin N. Gusman, et al., Case No. 12-859 (the "Third-Party Complaint"); and
WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to resolve and compromise all differences and claims between them with respect to funding for fiscal year 2013 in the Third-Party Complaint; and
NOW THEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, and in consideration of the payments and obligations set forth below, the Sheriff and the City give the following releases, and promise, represent, and acknowledge the following:
I. The following definitions shall apply to the Agreement:
a. The "Sheriff Released Parties" shall mean Marlin N. Gusman, the Sheriff of Orleans Parish, the Orleans Parish Sheriffs' Office, and all of their respective present, former, and future elected officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants, servants, representatives, attorneys, insurers, successors, and assigns.
b. The "City Released Parties" shall mean the City of New Orleans and all of its present, former, and future elected officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants, servants, representatives, attorneys, insurers, successors, and assigns.
c. The "Third-Party Complaint" shall mean the third-party litigation commenced by the Sheriff against the City, as part of the lawsuit captioned Jones, et al. v. Gusman, et al., Case No. 12-859.
d. "Subject Matter" shall mean (I) all current and future claims by the Sheriff and/or the OPSO against the City, in their entirety, arising out of the claims alleged in the Third-Party Complaint related to the funding for the OPSO for fiscal year 2013, (2) all claims by the Sheriff and/or the OPSO against the City relating to the funding of the OPSO for fiscal year 2013, in their entirety, asserted or that could have been asserted in the Third-Party Complaint, and (3) ali current and future claims by the City against the Sheriff and/or the OPSO, in their entirety, that could have been asserted by the City regarding funding for the OPSO for fiscal year 2013 and/or those that could have been asserted by the City in connection with the Third-Party Complaint.
PD.l0586509.2

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 582-1 Filed 10/21/13 Page 2 of 5
2. The Sheriff, for himself and on behalf of the OPSO, agrees to dismiss all claims asserted against the City with respect to funding for fiscal year 2013 in the ThirdParty Complaint with prejudice.
3. In consideration of the agreements, promises, and representations contained in this Agreement, the Parties agree as follows:
a. The City shall pay the sum of ONE MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED EIGHTYEIGHT THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FIFTY-TWO U.S. DOLLARS AND SEVEN CENTS ($1,888,652.07) in interim funding for fiscal year 2013 to the OPSO.
b. It is expected that the funds provided by the City pursuant to this Agreement shall be expended by the Sheriff in accordance with the following allocation:
i. FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND U.S. DOLLARS ($500,000.00) for the hiring and of and contracting for additional medical staff;
n. FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY-FOUR U.S. DOLLARS ($425,974.00) for increasing the minimum salary for individuals employed by the OPSO at the ranks of Recruit, Depnty I, and Deputy 2 that are performing jail security functions at the Conchetta, House of Detention, Old Parish Prison, Templeman V, Temporary Detention Center, the "Tents," and the Female facilities.
iii. THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED THREE U.S. DOLLARS AND NINETY-EIGHT CENTS ($370,903.98) for overtime directly related to jail personnel shortages at the jail facilities.
1v. TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED THIRTY-EIGHT U.S. DOLLARS AND TWENTY-SEVEN CENTS ($250,838.27) for the hiring of forty-two (42) individuals to perform jail security functions.
v. ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-EIGHT THOUSAND U.S. DOLLARS ($138,000.00) for the purchase of medical supplies.
vi. SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND U.S. DOLLARS ($75,000.00) for the purchase of the "Watch Tour" software system.
vii. FORTY THOUSAND U.S. DOLLARS ($40,000.00) for additional personnel issues at the discretion of the Sheriff.
viii. TWENTY-FOUR THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIXTY-NINE U.S. DOLLARS AND THIRTY-NINE CENTS ($24, 969.39) for uniforms for new recruits.
-2PD.10586509.2

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 582-1 Filed 10/21/13 Page 3 of 5
1x. TWENTY-THOUSAND U.S. DOLLARS ($20,000.00) for an increase of the minimum salary of fourteen (14) previously identified individuals currently taking part in the OPSO's training academy, or employed in the OPSO's transportation division and medical transportation division.
x. TWENTY THOUSAND U.S. DOLLARS ($20,000.00) for the OPSO's recruiting budget.
xi. SEVENTEEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIXTY-SIX U.S. DOLLARS AND FORTY-THREE CENTS ($17,966.43) in connection with the cost of OPSO's hiring of a qualified Jail Administrator as required by the Consent Decree.
xii. FIVE THOUSAND U.S. DOLLARS ($5,000.00) for increasing the salary for five (5) individuals previously identified and employed by the OPSO at the rank of Lieutenant.
c. The Sheriff and the OPSO shall strictly adhere to this Allocation.
d. The Sheriff and the OPSO shall provide to the City an accounting within the last ten (1 0) days of the month for the remainder of 2013 detailing (i) all amounts expended by the Sheriff of the funds provided pursuant to this Agreement, (ii) the category from which the Sheriff drew such funds, and (iii) the remaining balance for each category. All supporting documentation for the Sheriffs expenditures of funds provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be made available to the City at its request.
e. In connection with the Sheriff's accounting for the month of December 2013, the Sheriff shall return to the City all of the funds provided under this Agreement that have not otherwise been spent for the above described expenses and/or needed to pay those obligations incurred during 2013.
4. The Sheriff and the City agree that nothing in this Agreement obligates the City to provide specific levels of funding for 2014 and beyond.
5. The Sheriff and the OPSO have agreed that they shall refrain from making any claim
or demand or commencing or causing any action in law or equity regarding the funding of the OPSO by the City for fiscal year 2013 against any City Released Party.
6. The Parties agree that this Agreement does not constitute an admission of liability or the validity of any claim by the Sheriff but has been reached by the Parties to conserve resources, to amicably resolve differences, to avoid the risks and uncertainty inherent in litigation, and to allow for the process of needed reforms regarding the conditions of confinement at Orleans Parish Prison to begin as soon as possible.
7. No change or modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless it is made in writing and signed by the Parties.
- 3PD.l 0586509.2

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 582-1 Filed 10/21/13 Page 4 of 5 8. The Parties agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in the event of any dispute requiring the interpretation and/or enforcement of this Agreement.
- 4PD.l0586509.2

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 582-1 Filed 10/21/13 Page 5 of 5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Release and Settlement Agreement as of the first date written above.
BLAKE ARCURI, on behalf of MARLIN N. GUSMAN, Sheriff of Orleans Parish
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS
SHARONDA R. WiLLIAMS City Attorney on behalf of The City ofNew Orleans and The Hon. Mitchell J. Landrieu Mayor ofthe City ofNew Orleans
[Signature Page to Release and Settlement Agreement]
-5 PD.10586509.2

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LASHAWN JONES ET AL.
VERSUS
MARLIN GUSMAN ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION
No. 12-859 c/w 12-138 REF: 12-859
SECTION I

ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is the joint motion for entry of settlement agreement filed by the Sheriff of Orleans Parish (“Sheriff”) and the City of New Orleans (“City”). The com plaint in this case was filed on April 2, 2012. 1 Subsequent legal procee dings brought to light longstanding and grave deficiencies at Orleans Parish Prison. The Court entered a Consent Judgment on June 6, 2013, recognizing that “years of stagnation . . . have permitted OPP to remain an indelible stain on the community.”2 Since that date, the focus of the legal proceedings has been on the Sheriff’s third-party claims against the City. In these claims, the Sheriff asserted that additional funding is required to ensure constitutional conditions at Orleans Parish Prison. After voluminous briefing, nearly 30 hours of testimony in open court, and the submission of many highly technical and detailed exhibits, teh Court took these claims under advisement. While the Court weighed the evidence and drafted an opinoin, the parties continued settlement efforts. The Court was gratified that the parties were able to agree on a lead monitor, Ms. Susan McCampbell, and that the Sheriff and the Mayor agreed to split the cost of the monitoring team through the end of the year. However, notwithstanding the tirele ss and diligent efforts of Judge Martin L.C.

1R. Doc. No. 1. 2R. Doc. No. 465, at 104.

Feldman, who volunteered to act as a settlement coordinator over the last several months, the parties were unable to reach any type of broader settlement.
At the end of Septem ber, however, the Court was notified that the Sheriff and the Mayor believed that a settlement was still possible. The parties requested to meet with this Court in a final settlement ef fort.3 On October 16, 2013, the parties inform ed the Court that they ha d r eached substantive agreement as to funding for the remainder of the fiscal year and expected to be able to formally enter into an agreement today.
The Court commends the efforts of counsel for the United States of Am erica and for the Plaintiff Class, which consists of all current and f uture Orleans Parish Prison inm ates, for their diligent ef forts to ensure that the settlem ent does not comprom ise th e goals of the Consent Judgment. These efforts assured the Court that today’s settlement adequately protects the rights of Orleans Parish Prison inmates.
Both the Sheriff and the Mayor had to make difficult decisions in this case that will inlfuence the citizens of this community on a daily basis. These decisions, which required working together to reconcile sometimes-divergent interests, are the type of challenge that citizens entrust to their elected leaders. The governm ent has an obligation to provide inm ates with a safe and secure institution as well as adequate medical and mental health care. Of course,if the government fails to fulfill this obligation, the Court must act to remedy the resulting constitutional violations. The Court was prepared to act imminently in this case ifa settlement was not reached, and it will be prepared to do so in the future if necessary. The Court commends the Sheriff and the Mayor, however, for rising to the challenge and reaching a compromise on this matter. Focusing on remedying conditions at Orleans Parish Prison, rather than on pointi ng fingers, is the only way to begin im mediate
3See R. Doc. No. 569.

implementation of the Consent Judgment. While today marks an important milestone, the hard work is only now beginning. Entry of
the settlem ent today triggers the Consent Judgm ent’s effective dat e. The Consent Judgm ent’s provisions are narrowly tailored to remedy violations of inmates’ federal rights, but they require a great deal of effort by the parties. Many of the changes address conditions at Orleans Parish Prison that have been present for generations. The Court is optimistic, however, that the parties and their attorneys are committed to working with the Monitorand the Court to make certain that the Consent Judgment effects meaningful change.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDEREDthat the release and settlement agreement, which is attached to the joint motion, is acknowledged and made a part of the record in this case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that with the agreement of all of the parties and as a result of the consensual resolution of these issues by the Sheriff and the City, this Order authorizing the entry of the release and settlement agreement shall satisfy the condition precedent set forth in the definition of “Effective Date” in the Consent Judgment.
New Orleans, Louisiana, October 21, 2013.
____________________________________ LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 650 Filed 04/17/14 Page 1 of 6
u.s. DISTRICT COURT
;.:IAST~ER~N~,_II,'.@.:)§~ )

PARTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

CI.BI(

This Partial Settlement Agreement (hereinafter, the "Agreement") is made on this _ day of April, 2014, by and between Marlin N. Gusman, Sheriff of Orleans Parish (the "Sheriff"), on behalf of the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office (the "OPSO") and the City of New Orleans (the "City") (the aforementioned parties being sometimes referred to as the "Parties"). The Parties hereby agree as follows:

WHEREAS, the Sheriff filed a third-party complaint naming the City as a third-party defendant as part of the litigation captioned Lashawn Jones, et al. v. Marlin N Gusman, et at., Case No. 12-859 (the "Third-Party Complaint"); and

WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to resolve and compromise those differences cited herein regarding funding with respect to certain issues related to compliance with the Consent Judgment entered into as part of the litigation captioned Lashawn Jones, et al. v. Marlin N Gusman, et al. (the "Tier 1 Issues") including but not limited to the issues involved in the forthcoming April 21, 2014 hearing after receiving input from the Lead Monitor through multiple meetings and telephonic conferences; and

NOW THEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, and in consideration of the payments and obligations set forth below, the Sheriff and the City give the following releases, and promise, represent, and acknowledge the following:

1. The following definitions shall apply to the Agreement:

a. The "City Released Parties" shall mean the City of New Orleans and all of its present, former, and future elected officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants, servants, representatives, attorneys, insurers, successors, and assigns.

b. The "Third-Party Complaint" shall mean the third-party litigation commenced by the Sheriff against the City, as part of the lawsuit captioned Jones. et at. v. Gusman, et ai., Case No. 12-859.

2. The Sheriff, for himself and on behalf of the OPSO, agrees to dismiss all claims asserted against the City with respect to funding for the Tier 1 Issues (which are described in Paragraph 3, below) for fiscal year 2014, as well as the Sheriff's request for additional funding for the purchase of computer equipment for use in the new jail facility.

3. In consideration of the agreements, promises, and representations contained in this Agreement, the Parties agree as follows:

a. The OPSO shall hire and/or contract for certain senior management positions, focusing on operational issues related to the transition to the new jail facility and management/leadership functions in support of and at the direction of the Jail Administrator as soon as practicable. Such positions may include individuals hired or deployed to assist with and improve fire and life safety,

PD.1135361S.1

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 650 Filed 04/17/14 Page 2 of 6
sanitation, and a corrections management specialist. The City shall provide reasonable interim funding not to exceed ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND U.S. DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($100,000.00) for the remainder of fiscal year 2014 to pay for the costs incurred by the OPSO for the hiring of and/or contracting for these 2014 positions. The obligations of the parties pursuant to this sub-paragraph (a) are in addition to and are not affected by the hiring of any individual or expenditure of funds by the OPSO pursuant to any other sub-paragraph of Paragraph 3 of the Agreement.
b. The OPSO shall take the following actions with respect to its human resources department:
I. The OPSO shall retain a consultant to develop pay structures, develop and/or refine job descriptions, organize the OPSO's human resources functions, and assist in hiring a human resources director for the OPSO. The OPSO shall retain this consultant no later than May 16, 2014.
ii. A consultant retained by the OPSO, either the consultant retained by the OPSO pursuant to Paragraph 3(b)(i) or an additional consultant retained by the OPSO if necessary, shall review the operations of the OPSO and the City and, as a human resources infrastructure is developed for the OPSO, recommend opportunities for the sharing of human resources/personnel services between the OPSO and the City to reduce duplication and expense. The consultant shall prepare a written report regarding such areas of potential partnership between the OPSO and the City no later than June 15,2014.
iii. With respect to any consultant(s) retained by the OPSO pursuant to this paragraph, the OPSO shall immediately notify the City of the identity of the consultant and provide the City with a copy of the consultant's written scope of work and/or contract.
IV. The City shall provide reasonable interim funding not to exceed ONEHUNDRED THOUSAND U.S. DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($100,000.00) for the remainder of fiscal year 2014 to pay for the cost of the human resources consultant(s) retained by the OPSO.
c. The OPSO shall hire, with the assistance of the human resources consultant(s) retained by the OPSO pursuant to paragraph 3(b), an individual in a civilian position with the title of Human Resources Director no later than July 1,2014. The City shall provide reasonable interim funding not to exceed FORTY THOUSAND U.S. DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($40,000.00) for the remainder of fiscal year 2014 to pay for the cost of OPSO hiring and maintaining this position.

PD.1l353615.1

-2-

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 650 Filed 04/17/14 Page 3 of 6

d. The OPSO shall establish a new civilian position with the title "Compliance Coordinator," and shall fill that position no later than June 1, 2014. The City shall provide reasonable interim funding not to exceed TWENTY-FIVE TIIOUSAND U.S. DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($25,000.00) for the remainder of fiscal year 2014 to pay for the cost of OPSO hiring and maintaining this position.
e. The OPSO shall hire an individual in a civilian position with the title of "Classification Manager" no later than June 1, 2014. The City shall provide reasonable interim funding not to exceed THIRTY THOUSAND U.S. DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($30,000.00) for the remainder of for fiscal year 2014 to pay for the cost of OPSO hiring and maintaining this position.
f. The OPSO shall hire an individual in a civilian position with the title of "Grievance Coordinator" no later than August 1, 2014. The City shall provide reasonable interim funding not to exceed NINETEEN THOUSAND FOURHUNDRED U.S. DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($19,400.00) for the remainder of fiscal year 2014 to the OPSO for the hiring and maintaining of this position.
g. The OPSO shall hire an individual to serve in a civilian position as a policy and procedure developer no later than july 1, 2014. The City shall provide reasonable interim funding not to exceed TWENTY-THREE THOUSAND U.S. DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($23,000.00) for the remainder of fiscal year 2014 to pay for the cost of OPSO hiring and maintaining this position.
h. Chief Tidwell, on behalf of the OPSO, shall provide a recommendation to the monitor, Susan McCampbell, and the City no later than April 30, 2014, regarding the options available to the OPSO regarding the use of a "language line." The City shall provide reasonable interim funding not to exceed FIFTY THOUSAND U.S. DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($50,000.00) for the remainder of fiscal year 2014 to the OPSO for implementing and maintaining Chief Tidwell's recommendation.
I. The Sheriff and the OPSO shall provide to the City and Susan McCampbell a report within the last ten (10) days of each month for the remainder of 2014 that (I) details the OPSO's progress, including a description of the specific tasks undertaken by the OPSO to comply with its obligations set forth in Paragraph 3, (2) provides copies of all signed contracts executed as part of the OPSO's compliance with its obligations set forth in this Paragraph 3, (3) provides all information regarding all individuals hired by the OPSO from the date of this Agreement through the end of 2014, including name, salary, and position for each newly hired employee and/or consultant, (4) provides the date by which the OPSO expects to complete compliance with the obligations set forth in this Paragraph 3 and any other undertaking in this Agreement, (5) provides an accounting of all amounts expended by the Sheriff pursuant to this Agreement, including the remaining balance for each category and all

PD.1J3S36IS.1

-3 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 650 Filed 04/17/14 Page 4 of 6
supporting docwnentation requested by the City that relates to such spending, and (6) provides the reasons for employee separations to the extent they are given, as well as reasons for withdrawn job applications and refused job offers. The parties further agree to schedule and participate in monthly meetings to review outstanding budget, hwnan resources, and population Issues.
J. In addition to the above Tier I issues, the City agrees to provide reasonable interim funding not to exceed SEVENTY THOUSAND U.S. DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($70,000.00) in funding to pay for the cost of OPSO purchasing computer equipment for use in the new jail facility.
4. The Sheriff and the City agree that as of the date of this Agreement, the Sheriff has approximately NINE-HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND U.S. DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($950,000.00) in unspent funds remaining from the approximately ONE MILLION EIGHT-HUNDRED EIGHTY THOUSAND U.S. DOLLARS ($1,880,000.00) provided by the City pursuant to the Release and Settlement Agreement, dated October 21,2013. The Parties agree that the Sheriff may expend a maximum of FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY SEVEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED U.S. DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($457,400.00) to comply with his obligations set forth in paragraph 3 of this Agreement. The Parties further agree that the Sheriff, after complying with the obligations set forth in Paragraph 3 above, will place all of the unspent portion of the NINE-HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND U.S. DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($950,000.00) in a segregated bank account and such funds will be available to the Sheriff to address other Tier 2 and/or Tier 3 issues, including the immediate hiring of deputies assigned to Orleans Parish Prison as security staff, and which expenditures will be included in the monthly reports provided by the Sheriff and the OPSO to the City and Lead Monitor as described in Paragraph 3 above.
5. The OPSO shall continue to hire deputies to serve as security staff at Orleans Parish Prison and it anticipates hiring an additional ninety-three (93) deputies in fiscal year 2014. The City and OPSO shall analyze and determine which deputies are paid $27,000.00 per year, and the parties shall determine a process for ensuring that OPSO maintains funding for 4 pay periods. The parties shall meet and confer within two (2) weeks of signing this Agreement to initiate the analysis of deputy compensation.
6. The Sheriff and the City agree that they will continue to discuss and attempt to amicably resolve the Tier 2 and Tier 3 Issues, as identified in the Addendum to this Agreement and delineated by Susan McCampbell on April 9, 2014 following meeting with all parties, and in conformity with the timeframes identified by Susan McCampbell.
7. The Sheriff and the City agree that nothing in this Agreement obligates the City to provide additional funding for 2014 over the amounts already allocated in the City of New Orleans' Budget for 2014 and this Agreement, except as stated herein.

PD.l!353615.1

-4-

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 650 Filed 04/17/14 Page 5 of 6
8. The Sheriff and the City agree that nothing in this Agreement obligates the City to provide specific levels of funding for 20 IS and beyond.
9. The Sheriff and the OPSO have agreed that they shall refrain from making any claim or demand or commencing or causing any action in law or equity against the City regarding the funding of the OPSO by the City for the specific items set forth in Paragraph 3 for fiscal year 2014.
10. The Parties agree that this Agreement does not constitute an admission ofliability or the validity of any claim by the Sheriff and/or OPSO but has been reached by the Parties to conserve resources, to amicably resolve differences, to avoid the risks and uncertainty inherent in litigation, and to foster the process of reforms such that adherence to the OPSO's undertakings in the June 6, 2013, Consent Judgment regarding the conditions of confinement at Orleans Parish Prison will begin as soon as possible.
11. No change or modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless it is made in writing and signed by the Parties.
12. The Parties agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in the event of any dispute requiring the interpretation and/or enforcement of this Agreement.
13. The Parties agree to work together to maximize the benefits realized from the expenditure of tax and other public revenue.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Partial Settlement Agreement as of the first date written above.
MARLIN N. GUSMAN, Sheriff of Orleans Parish
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS

PD.11353615.1

-5-

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 650 Filed 04/17/14 Page 6 of 6

ADDENDUM TO PARTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Tier 2 Issues:

•

Review of Options Regarding Use of the Temporary Detention Center or

Templeman V for Medical and Mental Health;

•

Review of Options Regarding Inmate Laundry;

•

Review ofIssues Regarding Needs With Respect to Jail Management Information

Systems;

•

Review of Issues Regarding Assisting OPSO with Procurement Functions;

•

Review ofIssues Related to the "Docks";

•

Develop Plan of Action Related to Demolition of House of Detention and CCC;

•

Review of Issues Related to Opening of New Jail Facility;

•

Form a Working Group with an Accountant Chair to Evaluate Cost Saving

Proposals, Collaborations, Budgetary, and Procurement issues;

•

Review of Issues Related to any Necessary Equipment for the New Jail Facility;

•

Review of Option of Retaining Contract Trainers and Costs Related to Such

Trainers;

•

Examine Funding to Maintain the Pay Increase for Deputies at $27,000.

Tier 3 Issues:

•

Review of the Staffing Analysis Prepared by the OPSO.

PD. 11353615.1

-6-

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1082 Filed 06/21/16 Page 1 of 21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

)

LASHAWN JONES, et al.,

)

Plaintiffs, and

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

Plaintiff in intervention

)

)

v.

)

)

MARLIN GUSMAN, et al.,

)

Defendants.

)

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

MARLIN GUSMAN,

)

Third-Party Plaintiff

)

)

v.

)

)

THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS,

)

Third-Party Defendant.

)

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

Civil Action No.2: 12-cv-00859 Section I, Division 5 Judge Lance M. Africk Magistrate Judge Michael B. North

STIPULATED ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF INDEPENDENT JAIL COMPLIANCE DIRECTOR
This litigation was filed by prisoners housed in the Orleans Parish Prison in April 2012. ECF No.1. In December 2012, Defendant Sheriff Marlin Gusman ("the Sheriff") and the Plaintiff Class and the Plaintiff in Intervention United States (collectively, "Plaintiffs") agreed to a Consent Judgment, seeking to address deficiencies in safety and security, medical and mental health care, environmental conditions, fire safety, and limited English proficiency services at the Orleans Parishjail facilities ("the Jail"). ECF No. 101-3. In June 2013, this Court approved the Consent Judgment, which requires the Sheriffto implement systemic and durable reforms to address pervasive and longstanding problems at the Jail. ECF No. 466 ("Consent Judgment").

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1082 Filed 06/21/16 Page 2 of 21
This Court eventually approved the selection ofthe lead monitor and six sub-monitors ("Monitors") to ensure swift and effective implementation of the Consent Judgment. ECF No. 565. On October 21, 2013, the Court entered a settlement agreement between the Sheriff and the City of New Orleans ("City") related to funding for the Jail. ECF No. 583.
Since that time, the Monitors have conducted five official monitoring tours and numerous additional visits to the Jail, provided extensive technical assistance, and filed five repOlis documenting the Sheriffs level of compliance with the Consent Judgment. Monitors' RepOli No.1, at 3, Feb. 13,2014, ECF No. 609; Monitors' Report No.2, at 10, Aug. 26, 2014, ECF No. 744; Monitors' Report No.3, at 8, Feb. 25, 2015, ECF No. 790; and Monitors' Report No.4, at 6, Sept. 9,2015, ECF No. 881; Monitors' Report No.5, at 21, Mar. 17,2016, ECF No. 996.
On April 25, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Defendant Sheriff Marlin Gusman Should Not be Held in Contempt and for Appointment of a Receiver to Implement the Consent Judgment. ECF No.1 009. Sheriff Gusman has opposed and defended against this motion. ECF No. 1020. The parties presented evidence at a six-day evidentiary hearing, which had not been concluded. The parties enter into this agreement order to avoid continued litigation and appeals.
It is AGREED by the parties and ORDERED by the Court that the aforementioned additional remedial relief will consist of the following: A. Appointment by the Sheriff of an Independent Jail Compliance Director to
Implement the Consent Judgment 1. The Independent Jail Compliance Director ("Compliance Director") will have final authority to operate the Orleans Parish Jail ("OJC") and all jail facilities, including authority over the entire prisoner population in the custody of the Orleans Parish Sheriffs Office ("OPSO"), housed inside or outside of Orleans Parish, and is charged with doing so in a manner
2

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1082 Filed 06/21/16 Page 3 of 21
to achieve substantial compliance with each provision ofthe Consent Judgment on a timely basis, as further described in the remedial action plan to be drafted by the Compliance Director. The Compliance Director shall seek advice andlor approval from the Sheriff regarding all decisions that materially impact compliance with the Consent Judgment, unless doing so would cause unreasonable delay, and otherwise regularly inform the Sheriff regarding jail operations.
2. The Compliance Director's authority will continue until the Court determines that sustained and sustainable material progress with substantial compliance with the Consent Judgment is achieved, as described in more detail below. At a minimum, this shall mean that required policies have been developed and implemented per the Consent Judgment, staff have been adequately trained on those policies, and OPSO has developed a quality assurance/audit system that effectively evaluates whether staff are implementing the policies in practice and corrects their conduct when they do not. The Compliance Director will be answerable only to the Court.
3. Subject to final approval by the Court, the Sheriff shall appoint the Compliance Director from three candidates jointly nominated by the Plaintiff Class, the Plaintiff in Intervention, and the City of New Orleans, unless only two acceptable candidates can be agreed upon by the Plaintiff Class, the Plaintiff in Intervention, and the City ofNew Orleans, in which case two candidates will be provided. The Parties may enlist the assistance of the U.S. Magistrate Judge assigned to the case to assist in this process if necessary. The Plaintiffs, City, and the Sheriff may agree on a single candidate to propose to the Court. The COUlt retains the authority to reject any proposed appointment and to direct the parties to propose an additional candidate(s).
3

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1082 Filed 06/21/16 Page 4 of 21
4. The Compliance Director will be a full-time position based in New Orleans until the Jail has achieved sustained and sustainable material progress with substantial compliance, as defined in Section A.2. and as determined by the Court.
5. The Compliance Director's salary will be established by the Court upon appointment, and the salary and benefits will be commensurate with comparable high-level local governmental officials. The Compliance Director will be an independent contmctor. The costs of the Compliance Director and all costs related to the Compliance Director's work will be presented by the Compliance Director as part of the Jail's budget. The Compliance Director's office space will be established in the OJC and suppOli services shall be part of the Jail's bUdget. The Compliance Director will be responsible for submitting the Jail budget to the New Orleans City Council for approval and appropriation subject to the provisions of Paragraph D.S. below.
6. The records ofthe Compliance Director, other than communications with the COUli, are public records and subject to public inspection. The Compliance Director shall not be retained by any current or future litigant or claimant in a claim or lawsuit against the City, Sheriff, or their employees in a Jail conditions-related claim or any litigation by or against the Sheriff, but shall be required to testify in this matter if called by any Party or the Court.
7. Issues regarding the interpretation or implementation of this agreement shall be referred to the United States Magistrate Judge assigned to the case for resolution. Any Party or the Compliance Director may seek review of the Magistrate Judge's determination by the District Judge. B. Public Information and Transparency
Within six months of appointment, the Compliance Director and the Sheriff will establish regular quatierly public meetings, to allow access to the Compliance Director and the Sheriff by
4

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1082 Filed 06/21/16 Page 5 of 21
stakeholders and interested members of the New Orleans community. At the quarterly meetings the Compliance Director and the Sheriff will update the public on events, accomplishments and setbacks in the preceding quarter, as well as afford the public the opportunity to ask questions. C. Role of the Monitors Upon Appointment of the Compliance Director
1. Unless otherwise ordered or indicated below, subject to the Consent Judgment, the Monitors' duties and responsibilities will remain unchanged, and will stay in effect until substantial compliance is achieved and maintained for two (2) years. It will remain the Monitors' obligation to evaluate progress toward compliance with the requirements of the Consent Judgment, independent of any Party including the Compliance Director. These duties include the continuation of the Monitors' semi-annual reports, drafts of which will be provided simultaneously to the Compliance Director and the Parties. With the appointment of the Compliance Director, less technical assistance will be expected and required of the Monitors.
2. The Compliance Director and the Monitor will be independent positions that report to the Court and are not answerable to each other, beyond the Compliance Director's directing the Jail's periodic compliance and status reporting pursuant to the Consent Judgment. D. Duties and Authority of the Compliance Director
The Compliance Director shall have the following duties and authority: 1. Within 90 days of his or her appointment, the Compliance Director will file into the Court record an initial remedial action plan ("Plan"), to be approved by the Sheriff, that both addresses the deficiencies that led to noncompliance and explains how the Plan will facilitate sustainable compliance with the Consent Judgment within one year of the appointment ofthe Compliance Director. The Sheriffs approval ofthe initial Plan shall not be unreasonably withheld. The Court shall adjudicate any disputes regarding the Plan following the Compliance
5

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1082 Filed 06/21/16 Page 6 of 21
Director's filing ofthe Plan, and the Plan will become final thereafter. Two weeks before the 90-day filing deadline, a draft will be provided to the Parties. Ifthe Sheriff does not approve the Plan by the 90-day deadline, the Compliance Director shall file the Plan and the Sheriff may file a dispute with the Court.
2. The Plan will include concrete deadlines for steps toward substantial compliance with the Consent Judgment provisions. The presumption and expectation of the Compliance Director shall be that substantial compliance can be obtained for the majority of all provisions within one year of the Compliance Director's appointment.
3. If a Consent Judgment provision cannot be brought into substantial compliance with concrete steps in one year, the Plan will provide specific deadlines for compliance as soon as is practicable thereafter.
4. As noted above, in developing the Plan, the Compliance Director will consult directly with the Sheriff and relevant Jail staff. The Compliance Director will also seek the input of Plaintiffs, the City, the Monitors, and the Budgetary Working Group Chairperson.
5. The Compliance Director will work closely and communicate regularly with the Sheriff, OPSO Jail staff, Plaintiffs, City personnel and the Monitors to develop and implement the Plan. The Plan will include:
a. Strategies to decrease the number of prisoner-on-prisoner and prisoner-on-staff assaults at the Jail.
b. Strategies to accomplish sustainable hiring measures, including emergency measures if necessary.
c. Strategies for maintaining a positive, professionalized culture among all Jail staff.
6

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1082 Filed 06/21/16 Page 7 of 21
d. Strategies to ensure adequate and effective staff presence and deployment throughout the Jail, including systems of oversight for oveliime, leave, off-duty details and reserve deputies.
e. Strategies to ensure timely completion of critical policies and procedures that remain outstanding.
f. Strategies to ensure that staff members receive adequate training on policies. g. Strategies to ensure that direct supervision is consistently enforced throughout the
Jail, making certain that there are staff physically present on every tier in the Jail. h. Strategies to prevent undue reliance on cell confinement/lockdown throughout the
Jail for all populations. 1. Strategies to timely return prisoners housed out of parish to Orleans Parish. J. Strategies to ensure that prisoners placed on suicide precautions are adequately
monitored, evaluated, and treated. k. Strategies to reduce incidents of suicide and self-harm. I. Strategies to ensure that prisoner-filed grievances and incidents of harm to
prisoners and staff are thoroughly and fairly investigated in a timely manner. m. Strategies to ensure that any staff use of force is appropriate and all uses of force
are accurately recorded. n. A plan for ensuring the Early Intervention System is effective. o. Strategies for maintaining acceptable sanitation and environmental conditions
throughout the Jail. p. Strategies for ensuring the disciplinary system is effective and affords prisoners
due process.
7

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1082 Filed 06/21/16 Page 8 of 21
q. Strategies to ensure the implementation of budget control measures and competition in procurements, including but not limited to a process to ensure regular communication between the Chief Financial Officer for the Jail and the Financial Liaison for the City.
r. A framework for comprehensive analysis of all individuals on OPSO's payroll and strategies to address the staffing deficiencies outlined by the Monitors' reports.
s. Maintaining an organizational chart and job descriptions that reflect an organizational stlUcture that adequately supports the Jail.
6. The above list of requirements is not exhaustive but is intended to prioritize critical areas. Tasks and reforms related to the following areas are key to ensuring the sustained, durable change required by the Consent Judgment: use of force, supervision, staffing, intemal accountability systems, services for and protection of youthful prisoners, medical and mental health care, and the quality of investigations completed by the Investigative Services Bureau and Intemal Affairs Division. Although the identified areas are of utmost importance, unless otherwise ordered, the Court nonetheless expects sustainable compliance with all Consent Judgment requirements.
7. Sixty days after the filing of the Plan and every 60 days thereafter, the Compliance Director will file with the Court a bi-monthly status report that will include any substantive changes to the Plan, including changes to persons responsible for specific tasks or action items, and the reasons for those changes. The bi-monthly status report will also discuss progress toward implementing the Plan. It also will include outcome data on the numbers of (1) incidents involving prisoner-on-prisoner and prisoner-on-staff violence; (2) opened PREA
8

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1082 Filed 06/21/16 Page 9 of 21
investigations; (3) excessive and/or inappropriate force by staff; (4) incidents of suicide attempts and self-harm; (5) prisoners located in outside parish j ail facilities; (6) improper custodial placement; and (7) staff hired, resigned or terminated in the preceding month. The report will also describe any barriers to progress, any corrective action taken by the Compliance Director to address inadequate progress, and any other matters deemed relevant by the Compliance Director. In addition to these written repOlts filed with the Court, the Compliance Director will report on his or her efforts, progress and challenges in open court at each COUIt status conference.
8. Within 120 days of his or her appointment, ifthe Compliance Director deems it necessary and after consultation with the City Financial Liaison, the Budgetary Working Group Chairperson and the Chief Financial Officer for the Jail, he or she will submit to the City Chief Administrative Officer a revised Jail Operations budget ("Jail Budget") for the current fiscal year that includes funds to implement the Plan requirements for the remainder of the year and that considers cost savings measures and input from all parties. The Jail Budget for each fiscal year will be comprised of line items that clearly specifY the purpose for each request. The Jail Budget for each fiscal year will be presented with sufficient supporting docmnentation to determine the amounts and purpose for the funding amounts requested and will be presented in the format requested by the City and City Council. The Jail Budget for each fiscal year will reflect functions and all staff positions set forth in the "Criminal Division" section of the 2016 proposed budget for OPSO, unless the Compliance Director determines such functions and/or positions are not necessary. All staff positions and functions ofthe "Criminal Division" for OPSO will be under the authority of the Compliance Director. In developing the Jail Budget and to maximize funding available for jail operations, the Compliance Director shall have exclusive control over all funding sources available to OPSO for jail operations, including, but not limited to, grant
9

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1082 Filed 06/21/16 Page 10 of 21

funding and Law Enforcement District millage funding. The Compliance Director, the Sheriff,

the City Financial Liaison and OPSO bond counsel shall meet each year prior to final allocation

of Law Enforcement District millage funding to confilm appropriate allocation of millage

funding to jail operations.

9. The Compliance Director will appear with the Sheriff at all City Council Budget

Committee meetings requested by the City Council Budget Committee and/or the full City

Council and respond to reasonable requests for information from the City Council about the Jail

budget. The Jail budget must be considered and approved by the City Council.

10.

The Compliance Director and the Chief Financial Officer for the Jail shall work

directly with the City Financial Liaison to implement financial measures to ensure that money

allocated for Jail expenditures is spent accordingly and to maximize cost savings, if any, iliat can

be realized through collaboration with the City. In doing so, the Compliance Director and the

Chief Financial Officer for the Jail shall work with the City to implement a plan for regular and

detailed financial reporting, to review and, if necessary, revise and/or implement policies

regarding vehicle use and to review and, if necessary, revise and/or implement policies regarding

off-duty details for deputies. The Compliance Director, the Chief Financial Officer for the Jail,

and the City Financial Liaison will meet no less frequently than quarterly.

11. Until the Compliance Director submits the Jail budget to the Court, the

Compliance Director will administer payments fi·om the current Jail budget. If at any point the

Compliance Director needs funds for Consent Judgment compliance that are not budgeted for

that fiscal year and cannot be covered through cost savings, the Compliance Director will

immediately notify the City of the specific purpose and amount of funds needed and the cost

savings considered and will meet with the City's Financial Liaison. If the issue is not timely

10

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1082 Filed 06/21/16 Page 11 of 21
resolved, the Compliance Director or any Party may request an expedited hearing before the Court.
12. The Compliance Director also shall facilitate Plaintiff Class and the Plaintiff in Intervention's unrestricted access to prisoners, staff, and documents related to the Jail pursuant to the Consent Judgment. The Compliance Director is a representative of the COUlt and is not an employee of OPSO and thus is expected to communicate directly with any Patty, including Plaintiffs and the City, as well as the Monitors. In addition, Plaintiffs shall:
a. be provided with any requested Jailor case related documents within 14 days of a request, including specifically but not limited to all incident reports, investigation files, medical files, intake documents, staff rosters for all Jail employees, staff schedules, salary and payroll infOlmation, and overtime files. Plaintiffs will be provided with documents contained within open and closed investigation files. In the extraordinary circumstance where the production of a particularized document within an open investigation file would jeopardize the integrity of a criminal investigation, the Plaintiffs will be provided a log identifying the withheld document. The withheld document will be produced to the United States Magistrate Judge assigned to the case for in camera inspection. The court will determine whether the document should be produced, withheld, or produced subject to a protective order;
b. have regulat· access to the AS400 at the public defenders level (or other system if AS400 is replaced);
c. be provided with monthly summaries of incident reports provided to the Monitors;
11

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1082 Filed 06/21/16 Page 12 of 21
d. have full access to any documents related to the Compliance Director's duties that are in his or her possession, other than communications with the Court; and
e. be afforded the opportunity to have OPSO post information about the Consent Judgment, including contact information for both Plaintiffs' counsel and the Monitors, in visible locations on tiers in the Jail. 13. The Compliance Director shall, at his or her discretion or at the request of the Court, the Monitors, or the Plaintiffs, develop a con-ective action plan for any task for which the Monitors find the Jail to be out of compliance. As part of any such plan, the Compliance Director will determine the nature and frequency of future internal compliance testing for that task. 14. The Compliance Director will have the final authority to review, investigate, and take corrective action regarding OPSO policies, procedures, and practices that are related to the Consent Judgment. 15. The Compliance Director will have final authority to create, modify, abolish or transfer employee and contractor positions; to recruit, hire, discipline, terminate, promote, demote, transfer, and evaluate employees and contractors and will recommend increased compensation for staff to the extent necessary to obtain compliance with this Court's orders, the cost of such activity to be included in the Compliance Director's Jail budget. 16. Notwithstanding the authority described in Paragraph D.15 above, with regard to (1) individual employees who have attained the rank of Captain or higher, and (2) contractors, termination of employment will be for misconduct, failing to satisfy job expectations, financial prudence, operational efficiency, or inhibiting progress toward Consent Judgment compliance.
12

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1082 Filed 06/21/16 Page 13 of 21
17. The Compliance Director shall have the final authority to competitively procure and contract for such supplies, equipment or services as are necessary to obtain compliance with this Court's orders. The costs of such procurement and contracts are to be included in the Compliance Director's Jail budget. The Compliance Director shall have the final authority to negotiate andlor renegotiate and finalize all resulting contracts and the Sheriff and the Compliance Director shall jointly execute contracts.
18. The Compliance Director shall have the final authority to hire consultants through competitive process and selection, or to obtain such technical assistance as he or she deems neceSSalY to perform his or her functions, the cost of such contracts to be included and specifically identified in the Compliance Director's Jail budget.
19. The Compliance Director shall have the final authority to direct specific actions to attain or improve compliance levels, or remedy compliance errors, regarding all portions of the Consent Judgment, including but not limited to: (a) changes to Jail policies or standal'd operating procedures or practices; (b) personnel decisions, including but not limited to engagement of consultants (as set forth above), assignments, findings and disciplinary actions in misconduct cases and use-of-force reviews, and the discipline or demotion of staff; and (c) maintaining or eliminating OPSO programs or initiatives related to or affecting Consent Judgment tasks or objectives. The Compliance Director will have the final authority to direct OPSO staff on all outstanding tasks and issues related to Consent Judgment compliance and the overall Consent Judgment objectives.
20. Unless otherwise ordered, the Compliance Director's exercise of authority will be limited by the following:
13

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1082 Filed 06/21/16 Page 14 of 21
a. If changes to a Jail policy are required to implement a change in Jail operations, the Compliance Director shall follow the Consent Judgment requirements for policy development and implementation, Section VILA. If doing so would significantly delay progress with Consent Judgment compliance, the Compliance Director shall follow the process for resolving compliance impediments in Section [21.b.], infra.
b. If the Compliance Director is unable to resolve an impediment to compliance through operation of this Order, the Compliance Director will consult with the Parties to try to address the impediment. If, after such consultation, the impediment persists, the Compliance Director will propose a resolution to the Parties in writing. Within 7 calendar days of the Compliance Director's written notice, the Compliance Director or any Party may file a motion seeking Court intervention regarding the Compliance Director's proposed resolution. Ifthe impediment involves a non-party to this case or a state or local law or regulation, the Court shall hold a hearing and order any appropriate action. 21. No Party shall interfere with or impair the Compliance Director's authority granted by this Order. 22. Within 60 days of appointment, the City, the Sheriff, and the Compliance Director shall develop and finalize a plan for (1) appropriate housing for prisoners with mental health issues and medical needs, (2) addressing the housing needs of youthful offenders and (3) addressing the current conditions of the "Docks" facility, consistent with the telms of the Consent Judgment. The City of New Orleans shall maintain final authority and approval over capital expenditures associated with that plan, including use of Templeman II FEMA funding exclusively for implementation of the plan. The City and the Compliance Director shall consult
14

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1082 Filed 06/21/16 Page 15 of 21
with the Monitors and the Plaintiffs to ensure that the proposed resolutions meet the standards required by the Consent Judgment. The City, the Sheriff and the Compliance Director may enlist the assistance ofthe United States Magistrate Judge assigned to the case if necessary in developing and finalizing the plan.
23. As it is the intent of the Parties that this agreement will address the pending claims concerning Jail funding, OPSO and the City agree to dismiss without prejudice any and all pending state or federal claims and appeals related to Jail and FEMA funding, other than the third party claim initially brought by the Sheriff against the City in this case. Plaintiffs also agree to dismiss without prejudice the pending motion for contempt and for appointment of a receiver. E. Termination of the Compliance Director's Authority
1. The Compliance Director's authority shall extend as defined in Paragraph A.2. above, or until otherwise ordered by the Court.
2. No sooner than nine months after the appointment of the Compliance Director, the Sheriff may file a motion to terminate the Compliance Directorship on the basis that the Compliance Director has enabled the Orleans Parish Jail to achieve material progress with substantial compliance with all provisions of the Consent Judgment, as defined in Paragraph A.2. Prior to filing such a motion, the moving Party shall request a status conference with the Court. The other Patiies shall have an 0ppoliunity to respond to or oppose that motion. The Court will order an evidentiary heat·ing and permit all reasonable discovery associated with the Motion.
3. Once the Compliance Director's appointment is terminated by the COUli and authority for Jail administration and operations reverts to the Sheriff, OPSO and the Sheriff will continue to be subject to the requirement that compliance be sustained for the two-year period
15

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1082 Filed 06/21/16 Page 16 of 21
required by § XI.C. of the Consent Judgment. Any Patty may Petition the Court for the Compliance Director's removal for good cause and the other Parties will have the opportunity to respond. "Good cause" for these purposes shall include, but not be limited to: neglect of duties; willful misconduct; inappropriate personal relationship with any Party or Monitor; conflict(s) of interest; or any criminal conduct during the pendency of the appointment. G. Amendment of Agreement
This agreement may be amended by Court order or by consent of all parties, subject to Court approval.
H. Compliance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) The Court fulther finds that: I. OPSO is in non-compliance with Consent Judgment Sections IV.A.1-8, 10-11, IV.B.S, IVD.I-4, and IV.G, which were entered as all Order of this COUlt on June 6, 2013; 2. As a result, more specific remedial relief is necessary, as set forth below; and 3. Based on a robust case record including over 80 status conferences and the evidence presented in these proceedings, the Court finds that the additional relief set fOlth above complies in all respects with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). The relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct violations of federal rights affected by the Consent Judgment, is the least intrusive means necessary to correct these violations, and will not have an adverse impact on public safety or the operation of the criminal justice system.
16

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1082 Filed 06/21/16 Page 17 of 21

FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

KENNETH A. POLITE, JR. U.S. Attorney Eastern District of Louisiana
THEODORE CARTER III Assistant United States Attorney U. S. Attorney's Office Eastern District of Louisiana 650 Poydras Street, Suite 1600 New Orleans, LA 70130

VANITA GUPTA Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division
~f~
STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM Chief U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section

LAURAL. COON Special Counsel U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section

KERRYK.DEAN Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division
ecial Litigation Section

Trial Attar y U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530
17

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1082 Filed 06/21/16 Page 18 of 21

FOR THE PLAINTIFF CLASS:

~(~.~~~~~==~~
KAT! SCHWARTZM , Bar No. 30295 ELIZABETH CUMMING, arNo.31685 EMILY WASHINGTON, Bar No. 34143 ERIC FOLEY, Bar No. 34199 Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center 4400 S. Carrollton Avenue New Orleans, LA 70119 (504) 620-2259 Katie.Schwartzmann@macarthurjustice.org Emily. Washington@macarthurjustice.org

18

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1082 Filed 06/21/16 Page 19 of 21 FOR SHERIFF MARLIN GUSMAN:

. WILLIAM,

.26141

ESIT U. O'BOYLE, BAR NO. 30007

YAN P. MONSOUR, BAR NO. 33286

PATRICK R. FOLLETTE, BAR NO. 34547

One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100

Metairie, Louisiana 70001

Telephone: (504) 833-5600

Facsimile: (504) 833-8080

-AND-

USRY, WEEKS, AND MATTHEWS FREEMAN MATTHEWS, BAR NO. 9050 BLAKE J. ARCURI, BAR NO. 32322 1615 Poydras Street, Suite 1250 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Telephone: (504) 592-6400 Facsimile: (504) 592-4641

19

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1082 Filed 06/21/16 Page 20 of 21

FOR THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS:

City Attorney 1300 Perdido Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 (504) 658-9920

20

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1082 Filed 06/21/16 Page 21 of 21 SO ORDERED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this the 1.1 day of _ _J~C.=-:IIJ",t.:...,-____, 2016.
LANCE M AFRICK UNITED ATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21

 
 JOB TITLE:
Independent Jail Compliance Director, Orleans Parish Jail Facilities

SALARY RANGE:
$150,000-$200,000. To be finalized by the U.S. District Court.

SUPERVISION RECEIVED FROM: U.S. District Court

SUPERVISION EXERCISED OVER: All jail personnel and staff, food service, medical, and facility staff.

WORK SCHEDULE: FT Varies depending upon workload, typically M-F

APPLICATION PROCESS: By July 8, 2016, Send Resume/curriculum vitae and cover letter to opso.compliancedirector@usdoj.gov

MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: Applicants for this position must possess a Bachelor's degree in Criminal Justice, Public Administration or a related field and seven (7) years of experience in an urban correctional environment with at least five (5) years at a management level, or significant corrections experience that the Candidate can justify as comparable to the stated qualifications. Candidate should have excellent management and leadership skills, cutting edge knowledge of modern corrections methods, facilities and technology, and excellent written and verbal skills, including community and media relations.

PREFERRED QUALIFICATIONS: Master’s degree or certification as one or more of the following: Certified Corrections Executive (CCE), Certified Jail Manager (CJM), or Certified Correctional Trainer (CCT). Experience in direct supervision jail management and/or experience in a jail with an average daily population of more than 1000 inmates. Supervisory experience of management teams. Experience implementing jail reform measures. Experience with formulating and presenting jail budgets to local governmental entities.

SUMMARY: The Independent Jail Compliance Director is responsible for implementing the requirements of the attached Stipulated Order for Appointment of Independent Jail Compliance Director, to make progress toward bringing the Orleans jail into compliance with an existing federal court Consent Judgment. The Independent Jail Compliance Director shall provide the direction, control and guidance necessary for the safe and effective operation of the Orleans Parish jail facility within accepted professional standards and in accordance with the existing Consent Judgment. This includes directing and monitoring staffing, classification, disciplinary procedures, grievance procedures, detainee housing, visitation, sanitation, and medical, dental and mental health services. It further includes selecting, terminating and directing human resources assigned to the facility; monitoring building maintenance to include general upkeep of the property; formulating and managing the jail budget; and maintaining proper records.

The Independent Jail Compliance Director must exercise consistently sound judgment and initiative, be familiar with current best practices, national standards and regulatory mandates and remain current in law enforcement and jail administration philosophy, concepts and procedures.

1

REQUIRED KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, and ABILITIES: Knowledge of the principles and practices of jail management and direct supervision, pertinent laws, modern correctional practices and procedures, and computer hardware and software regarding jail operations. Ability to communicate technical information and ideas clearly and effectively both orally and in writing. Ability to train, mentor, and oversee training of subordinates, manage multiple priorities and demands, prepare concise reports and make appropriate recommendations, understand and interpret laws, policies and procedures related to jail operation, delegate duties and assignments to achieve objectives, and establish and maintain effective working relationships with co-workers, vendors, consultants, contractors , government officials, and community stakeholders.
Essential Duties: Job duties are ultimately defined and governed by the Stipulated Order for Appointment of Independent Jail Compliance Director and Consent Judgment, but will include:
 Develop and implement strategies for compliance and improvement consistent with the requirements of the Consent Judgment and Stipulated Order for Appointment of Independent Jail Compliance Director.
 Direct long-term and short-term strategic planning and policy development. Evaluate policies, procedures and practices to ensure compliance with the objectives and goals of the Orleans Parish Jail Consent Judgment.
 Provide clear and concise instruction to staff for achievement of goals and objectives.
 Establish and manage periodic internal compliance audit processes for operational and program areas.
 Review and evaluate overall workforce effectiveness and individual performance of staff members.
 Oversee the organizing and managing of work. Ensure employee performance issues are addressed. Administer employee disciplinary action as necessary. Interview candidates for positions and implement selections, reassignments, and other personnel actions.
 Direct the development and implementation of training programs to ensure all employees receive the amount and type of training necessary to competently perform their duties and to bring the facility into compliance with the Consent Judgment.
 Project and formulate budget requirements based on Consent Judgment objectives and future needs and plans. Present budget to City Council. Efficiently manage facility resources, including staff, equipment and supplies.
2

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LASHAWN JONES ET AL.
VERSUS
MARLIN GUSMAN ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION
No. 12-859 c/w 12-138 REF: 12-859
SECTION I

ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is a motion1 by third-party plaintiff, the Sheriff of Orleans Parish (“Sheriff”), for approval of the implementation of the Sheriff’s proposal for the short-term housing of acute and subacute mental health populations and for an order directing third-party defendant, the City of New Orleans (“City”), to pay all costs and expenses associated with the proposal. The City has filed a response,2 as have the Plaintiff Class and the United States of America (collectively “Plaintiffs”).3
BACKGROUND Before the Court approved the Consent Judgment, the Sheriff filed two nearly identical thirdparty claims against the City, one premised on the Plaintiff Class’s complaint and the other premised on the United States’ complaint in intervention. Each complaint asserts: The City of New Orleans is responsible for funding jail facilities of the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office pursuant to various provisions of Louisiana law. . . . To the extent that the Court should conclude that the Sheriff must provide prospective relief in the form of additional staffing, training, care, treatment or other services to

1R. Doc. No. 697. 2R. Doc. No. 698. 3R. Doc. No. 700.
-1-

Orleans Parish inmates which will necessitate funding over and above that currently provided by the City of New Orleans, judgment should also be entered in favor of the Sheriff ordering the City of New Orleans to pay the Sheriff the full cost, as determined by the Court, of providing such prospective relief.4
On June 6, 2013, after considering extensive briefing and a comprehensive fairness hearing,
the Court entered the Consent Judgment.5 The Consent Judgment is narrowly drawn, extends no
further than necessary to correct the violation of the Plaintiff Class’s federal rights, and is the least
intrusive means necessary to do so. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). The Consent Judgment
“contemplates that the dispute between the Parties will be resolved by the continued development
and implementation of [] measures” addressed in that document.6 The Consent Judgment’s effective
date was October 21, 2013.7
The conditions experienced by inmates with mental health issues have long been at the
forefront of the case.
During the course of the fairness hearing, the evidence, including credible witness testimony, exposed stark, sometimes shocking, deficiencies in [Orleans Parish Prison]’s medical and mental health care system. Inmates with mental health issues are housed in deplorable conditions. Mental health units smell strongly of feces, urine, and rotting organic matter. Several inmates had floors and walls smeared with feces when Dr. Gage visited, and many cells had “evidence of the detritus of several days’ food and utensils.” Compare Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d at 338 (Living in “extremely filthy” cells with “crusted fecal matter, urine, dried ejaculate, peeling and chipping paint, and old food particles on the walls . . . would present a substantial risk of serious harm to inmates.”). Such unsanitary conditions can cause or exacerbate illness. Moreover, “mental health units, including those designed for suicide monitoring, were patently not suicide proof.”
4R. Doc. No. 75, at 3 (referring to the complaint in intervention); R. Doc. No. 76, at 3 (referring to the Plaintiff Class’s complaint).
5R. Doc. No. 466. 6R. Doc. No. 466, at 5. The City is not a party to the Consent Judgment. For a more detailed procedural history of the case, see Jones v. Gusman, 296 F.R.D. 415, 424-28 (E.D. La. 2013). 7R. Doc. No. 583, at 3.
-2-

. . . . The acute psychiatric unit’s showers have large amounts of black mold on
the ceilings and walls. Clouds of gnats have resulted in an increased incidence of skin problems. Cells housing mentally ill inmates have feces spread on the walls. Inmates, including inmates on the acute psychiatric unit, sometimes sleep on the floor or on bare steel bunks because they are not given mattresses. ... .
As with security and safety, OPP’s severe deficiencies in mental health and medical care are largely attributable to dramatically insufficient staffing. . . . Nurses report that there is no time to provide any formal mental health treatment, and that they engage in minimal contact usually only in the context of mandatory evaluations. Given the number of inmates and the number of nurses, it is impossible for the nurses to adequately evaluate and chart patients, administer medications, respond to emergencies, provide suicide monitoring, gather sick call information, and provide basic nursing services.
Jones, 296 F.R.D. at 443, 452, 449 (footnotes omitted).
The Consent Judgment requires constitutionally adequate mental health care8 and that
“prisoners are provided with constitutionally adequate sanitation and environmental conditions.”9
But the conditions described at the fairness hearing continue to plague Orleans Parish Prison
(“OPP”).10 Such conditions are “incompatible with the concept of human dignity and [have] no place
in civilized society.” Id. at 451 (quoting Brown v. Plata, 131 S. Ct. 1910, 1928 (2011)). Dr.
Raymond Patterson testified that “human pain and suffering, right now at this moment, is happening
for anyone, in my opinion, who is being handled as an acute mental health person in Templeman
V.”11
In the months following the entry of the Consent Judgment, it became apparent that there was
8R. Doc. No. 466, at 24. 9R. Doc. No. 466, at 35. 10E.g., Court Ex. 1; R. Doc. 713, at 32-39. 11R. Doc. No. 713, at 73. Dr. Patterson is the mental health sub-monitor. See R. Doc. No. 552-3 (summarizing Dr. Patterson’s extensive experience in correctional mental health care).
-3-

no credible plan for complying with the Consent Judgment’s provisions relative to treating and
housing inmates with mental health issues. For example, in May of 2013, Plaintiffs asserted that
“[t]he new jail does not have any space dedicated for the provision of mental health services, a mental health tier, or even any suicide resistant cells.”12 Over a period of months, the Court
reiterated the need for cooperation between the City and the Sheriff to formulate an appropriate plan, and the parties attempted to amicably resolve mental health housing issues among themselves.13
However, despite the fact that the Sheriff and the City had more than a year to resolve such issues, no agreement was reached.14
The motion before the Court addresses the costs associated with a short-term solution for
housing inmates with acute and subacute mental health issues. The motion essentially requests that
the Court determine whether the Sheriff’s proposed solution is compliant with the Consent Judgment and whether the City is obligated to pay for the solution.15 Accordingly, the purpose of the July 14,
2014 hearing was to address “solutions for short-term housing (including mental health care) for
male and female inmates with acute or sub-acute mental health issues” and to “address the costs
associated with such arrangements and whether the [Sheriff] is entitled to additional funding from the [City] for such costs.”16
12R. Doc. No. 439, at 6; see also R. Doc. No. 732, at 2 (citing R. Doc. No. 722). 13R. Doc. No. 545. 14R. Doc. No. 685. 15See also Jones, 296 F.R.D. at 459 (“The Court has no intention of ordering the City, the Sheriff, or any other political entity, for that matter, to raise taxes or to construct yet another facility. To the extent our elected political leaders intend to house inmates at OPP facilities, however, these facilities must meet constitutional and statutory minimum requirements.”). 16R. Doc. No. 689, at 1. Individuals with acute mental illness have “active symptoms of mental illness [that] affect their behavior and their ability to function.” R. Doc. No. 713, at 7. Such symptoms include suicidal ideation, hallucinations, and delusions. R. Doc. No. 713, at 7-8. With
-4-

Of note, the issue of long-term care for such inmates remains contested by the City and
Sheriff, who disagree as to whether a Phase III facility should be constructed17 and as to whether the
Phase II facility should be retrofitted.18 The parties previously agreed that long-term solutions
require additional discussion by the parties and the assistance of the mental health working group.19
Although the City acknowledges the unconstitutional conditions at OPP,20 the City argued
in its pre-hearing brief that the Sheriff’s proposal lacks specific information justifying the proposed
costs associated with implementing his plan.21 For example, the City described its concerns as “not
so much about the relocation of these inmates at Hunt for up to three years but the costs and logistics
of such a proposal.”22 At the evidentiary hearing, however, the City’s arguments included rhetoric
more befitting a press conference than a judicial proceeding.23 Counsel for the City of New Orleans
compared the proposed costs associated with the treatment of mentally ill inmates, including
providing a secure and safe environment, to “the cost of staying at a suite at the Windsor Court.”24
Such arguments by the City trivialize the plight of vulnerable inmates in dire need of mental
respect to individuals with subacute mental illness, those same symptoms have been addressed or reduced, but the individuals are not yet ready to be in a general population in a correctional environment. R. Doc. No. 713, at 9.
17R. Doc. No. 688, at 2. 18R. Doc. No. 688, at 7-8. 19R. Doc. No. 689, at 2. 20R. Doc. No. 680; see also R. Doc. No. 715, at 3-4. 21R. Doc. No. 698, at 8. 22R. Doc. No. 698, at 3. 23Such rhetoric was reminiscent of that used at the fairness hearing, where the City suggested that inmates at OPP are “seeking ‘steaks and cognac,’” Jones, 296 F.R.D. at 464 & n.523, a position that was characterized as “shocking and offensive” by family members of inmates who had died while at OPP. R. Doc. No. 250, at 1-2. 24R. Doc. No. 713, at 25.
-5-

health care. Comparing the cost of a hotel room with the cost of providing severely mentally ill inmates with constitutionally mandated mental health treatment in a secure correctional environment is misguided.
This Court will enforce the Consent Judgment, the appeal of which the City did not pursue, in accordance with well-established legal principles. When confronted with the City’s ill-advised attempt to politicize a non-political issue and a lack of management by the Sheriff,25 one begins to understand the glacial pace at which the Consent Judgment has been implemented thus far and the growing frustration of this Court. This is a matter that should have been resolved by the parties without incurring legal fees associated with the instant motion.
LAW AND ANALYSIS As noted above, for purposes of the instant motion, the sole issues are: (1) whether the Sheriff’s proposed plan for acute and subacute mental health populations complies with the Consent Judgment; and (2) whether the City is obligated to provide funding for this plan, notwithstanding the reservation of the City’s right to assert a claim for reimbursement, a set-off, or any other appropriate relief at a later date.26 Insofar as the City contests specific costs associated with the Sheriff’s proposal, these challenges will be considered with the substance of that proposal. Insofar as the City raises broader challenges, they will be considered separately.27 I. Compliance with the Consent Judgment
25E.g., R. Doc. No. 710. 26While Plaintiffs had initially indicated that they would move for an expedited hearing relative to compliance with the Consent Judgment’s mental health care provisions, the parties’ stipulation as to such noncompliance obviated the need for any such motion. See R. Doc. No. 680. 27The City has elected to withdraw its contentions relative to the Sheriff’s finances for purposes of the instant motion and July 14 hearing. R. Doc. No. 727.
-6-

Both male and female inmates with acute and subacute mental health conditions are generally housed in Templeman Phase V (“Templeman V”).28 All parties agree that, pursuant to this
arrangement, OPP is not in compliance with the Consent Judgment’s provisions related to mental healthcare.29 More specifically, Templeman V’s lines of sight are inadequate, as are cell sizes and the condition of the physical plant.30 As Dr. Patterson testified, housing inmates with acute and
subacute mental health issues at Templeman V is simply not consistent with the Consent Judgment, and it is “absolutely not a viable option” going forward.31
A. Female Population
The Sheriff has transferred the female acute and subacute mental health population to an area of the Temporary Detention Center (“TDC”) that has been retrofitted for that purpose.32 Chief Michael Tidwell (“Tidwell”), OPP’s Chief Corrections Officer,33 testified that physical alterations
were made to TDC based on information provided by Lead Monitor Susan McCampbell (“McCampbell”),34 and that such “minimal changes . . . offered maximum effect.”35 For example,
28R. Doc. No. 713, at 159; see also Jones, 296 F.R.D. at 424. 29R. Doc. No. 680. 30R. Doc. No. 713, at 63, 159-60. 31R. Doc. No. 713, at 66-67. Chief Deputy Jerry Ursin testified that Templeman V is not sufficient to accommodate acute or subacute populations, “but it was the best building I thought we had, and we put our best effort into trying to house them there,” notwithstanding the difficulties inherent in the physical plant. R. Doc. No. 713, at 159-60. 32R. Doc. No. 713, at 39-40. 33R. Doc. No. 713, at 110; see also R. Doc. No. 466, at 17. 34McCampbell, who has worked in corrections since 1980, is an expert in corrections administration and corrections budgeting. See R. Doc. No. 552-1 (summarizing McCampbell’s extensive background in corrections). 35R. Doc. No. 713, at 127-28.
-7-

OPP’s plant control staff removed beds and tables and converted a cell to a medical office and exam room.36 The Sheriff also ordered a suicide resistant bed and mattress and the installation of bathroom stalls.37 Chief Tidwell further testified that the female acute and subacute population has already been transferred to TDC and that “to this point we think it’s proven to be very successful.”38 Plaintiffs concur that “[t]he women are now in a much safer environment free of the physical plant challenges” associated with Templeman V.39 The Sheriff’s plan with respect to these inmates did not require any additional staffing.40
The costs of the retrofits for TDC amounted to $8,568, according to the Sheriff’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.41 Similarly, at the hearing, Sheriff’s counsel represented that the costs were approximately $8,200.42 The Sheriff contends in his proposed findings that an invoice for $8,568.00 was previously provided to the City, but this document is not in the record.43 Nonetheless, the City agrees in its proposed findings of fact that $8,568 was spent on retrofitting TDC.44 Accordingly, the Court finds that the parties have stipulated as to the accuracy of this number.
With respect to female inmates, the City has “acquiesced” to the expenses associated with
36R. Doc. No. 713, at 175. 37R. Doc. No. 713, at 175. 38R. Doc. No. 713, at 128. 39R. Doc. No. 714, at 4. 40R. Doc. No. 713, at 128. 41R. Doc. No. 716, at 7. 42R. Doc. No. 713, at 23. 43R. Doc. No. 716, at 7. 44R. Doc. No. 715, at 16.
-8-

renovating TDC.45 Although the City characterizes the expense as “inordinate,” the City cites no evidence to support this characterization.46 In sum, the Court finds that the City is responsible for
reimbursing the Sheriff for the $8,568 used to renovate TDC to house acute and subacute female
mental health populations.
B. Male Population
The Sheriff proposes that the male acute and subacute mental health populations be housed
at Elayn Hunt Correctional Center (“Hunt”), a facility owned by the Louisiana Department of Corrections (“DOC”) and located in St. Gabriel, Louisiana.47 DOC has agreed to lease the facility to the Sheriff for the nominal sum of $1 per year.48 The Sheriff, however, will pay for the costs of necessary improvements to Hunt.49 Presumably, when OPP’s use of Hunt ceases, DOC will benefit from these improvements.50
1. Staffing The Sheriff proposes using DOC security staff at Hunt,51 and the evidence supports this
proposal. McCampbell testified that she would not recommend attempting to staff Hunt with OPP
deputies because “[t]here’s insufficient staff currently to provide security at the facilities here in the
45R. Doc. No. 715, at 16. Likewise, the City acknowledged in a post-hearing brief on a separate subject that the “City agreed to the temporary use of TDC for female inmates with acute and sub-acute mental health conditions.” R. Doc. No. 722, at 8.
46R. Doc. No. 715, at 16. 47R. Doc. No. 697-1, at 3-4; R. Doc. No. 713, at 18, 112, 161. Of note, the Sheriff’s position in his motion initially reflected that only the male acute mental health population, and not the male subacute population, would be housed at Hunt. R. Doc. No 697-1, at 3. 48R. Doc. No. 713, at 113. 49See, e.g., R. Doc. No. 713, at 114. 50See e.g., R. Doc. No. 715, at 131-32. 51R. Doc. No. 716, at 5; R. Doc. No. 713, at 19.
-9-

parish, and the staff the [S]heriff has has not been given mental health training” comparable to that received by DOC staff.52 In short, there are simply “not enough deputies at OPP to supervise” OPP’s current population.53 Moreover, as McCampbell testified, the distance between St. Gabriel and New Orleans would further burden OPP’s existing staff.54
DOC security staff initially will need to be paid overtime at Hunt to maintain adequate
staffing, but the Sheriff anticipates that, going forward, more DOC staff will be employed such that the overtime rate is no longer necessary.55 The length of time needed to employ such additional officers is necessarily unknown.56 At the overtime rate, the cost of employing DOC security staff is estimated to be approximately $144,000 per month for five guards and a supervisor.57 Once the overtime rate is eliminated, the monthly cost is estimated to be approximately $90,000.58
The City criticizes the Sheriff’s plan on the basis that DOC deputies are paid at a rate that
is nearly twice that of OPP deputies and on the basis that the overtime payment of DOC deputies will increase the monthly costs associated with the use of Hunt.59 McCampbell’s testimony is
extremely persuasive, however, that there is simply insufficient OPP security staff to permit the
52R. Doc. No. 713, at 43. 53R. Doc. No. 713, at 46. 54R. Doc. No. 713, at 43. 55R. Doc. No. 713, at 169. 56See R. Doc. No. 713, at 137. Chief Deputy Jerry Ursin testified that an approximate estimate would be 90 days, but there is no guarantee that such a time period will be sufficient. R. Doc. No. 713, at 169-71, 182. Even if it takes longer to hire additional DOC staff and reduce the payment of overtime, the Hunt proposal remains fiscally justifiable in light of the conditions at Templeman V. 57R. Doc. No. 713, at 137, 169. 58R. Doc. No. 713, at 171. 59R. Doc. No. 715, at 7.
-10-

transfer of OPP staff to Hunt, even assuming such a transfer were otherwise feasible.60 That
testimony is uncontroverted. In short, the City has failed to offer any means by which adequate staff
could be provided by OPP to Hunt without further endangering the staff and inmates remaining at OPP.61
Dr. Patterson testified that more mental health professionals will be required to adequately staff Hunt,62 and that mental health staffing at OPP is “[a]bsolutely not . . . sufficient to provide adequate mental health treatment for the people that are going to remain at OPP.”63 The Sheriff proposes using a mixture of CorrectHealth staff and currently employed OPP staff.64 Although Dr.
Patterson found the initial staffing plan submitted to him by the Sheriff insufficient, the second plan, which was discussed at the hearing, increases staffing to “acceptable levels.”65
Dr. Patterson and Chief Tidwell worked together to negotiate a plan that would result in reduced mental health and medical staffing costs.66 Chief Tidwell testified that, based on this plan, he estimates that CorrectHealth salaries will total $56,000 per month.67
The City criticizes the Sheriff for not considering alternatives to CorrectHealth for mental
60See R. Doc. No. 713, at 43. 61While the City suggests that OPP deputies should receive additional training in mental health care, a suggestion with which all parties would likely agree, such training would not do anything to address the fact that the number of staff available is insufficient. See R. Doc. No. 715, at 7. 62R. Doc. No. 713, at 60. 63R. Doc. No. 713, at 80. 64R. Doc. No. 713, at 120-21. CorrectHealth is the company hired by the Sheriff to assist with medical staffing. R. Doc. No. 713, at 120. 65R. Doc. No. 713, at 68. 66R. Doc. No. 713, at 124. 67R. Doc. No. 713, at 121-23.
-11-

health staffing.68 However, whether the Sheriff complied with public bid laws is not before the Court. Moreover, the City has not identified any evidence that CorrectHealth comes at an unreasonable cost. Once again, the City has failed to offer an alternative solution, and the Court finds the criticism of CorrectHealth unpersuasive.
In sum, mental health and security staffing costs at Hunt are projected to total $200,000 per month.
2. Physical Renovations Gerald D. Hebert (“Hebert”), the managing partner of GraceHebert Architects, testified regarding the assistance he provided to the Sheriff in estimating the costs to retrofit the Hunt facility.69 Hebert is the chair of the facilities design committee of the American Correctional Association.70 He has done most of the corrections-related architecture work for the State of Louisiana for the last 18 years, and he assisted the State when it originally established the Hunt facility.71 As highlighted by Dr. Patterson, none of the cells at Hunt are currently suicide-resistant, especially insofar as they have ligature points—namely, bars and vents.72 Dr. Patterson testified that, based on his review to date, Hunt requires four suicide-resistant cells.73 Rendering the cells suicideresistant will require replacing the cell grating with Lexan glass and ensuring that cell vents are
68R. Doc. No. 715, at 13; see also R. Doc. No. 713, at 145. 69R. Doc. No. 713, at 211-12. 70R. Doc. No. 713, at 212. 71R. Doc. No. 713, at 212. 72R. Doc. No. 713, at 61-62. 73R. Doc. No. 713, at 62.
-12-

suicide resistant.74 Hebert estimated that adding Lexan glass, installing new doors and vents, and
installing video recording capabilities for existing cameras will cost $140,000.75
Hebert further estimated $20,000 in mechanical ventilation costs for the four cells that will
have Lexan glass installed.76 He explained that the building is not air conditioned and that, once
installed, the Lexan glass will cut off the ventilation to these cells.77
The Sheriff intends to use videoconferencing as one means for inmates to contact their
attorneys and, potentially, their families, consistent with any recommendations from mental health
professionals.78 The cost of such equipment, combined with the cost of purchasing furniture for
multi-use conference and group therapy rooms, is $23,000.79
Hebert applied a 10% expense for “general conditions,” totaling $18,700.80 Hebert testified
that general conditions costs are “basically your superintendent, you have project management costs,
if you have a job trailer. You are working inside a secure facility, so you have some costs associated
with tool tracking, all the stuff that goes into generally operating a construction project.”81
74R. Doc. No. 713, at 62, 114-15. 75Sheriff Ex. 3. This estimate was at least partially based on conversations with the electronics and detention contractor who did the original Hunt building. R. Doc. No. 713, at 222. 76Sheriff Ex. 3. 77R. Doc. No. 713, at 220. 78R. Doc. No. 713, at 136. 79Sheriff Ex. 3. 80Sheriff Ex. 3. 81R. Doc. No. 713, at 221. Hebert’s initial estimate included $4,000 for the purchase and installation of two televisions, which was ultimately subtracted from his final estimate. See Sheriff Ex. 3; R. Doc. No. 713, at 214-15. This subtraction will render subsequent calculations slightly inaccurate. Given that this is merely an estimate, however, and that the City will only need to pay for expenses actually incurred, the Court, like the parties, will not expressly take into account the $4,000 subtraction’s effect on the percentage calculations.
-13-

Hebert testified that his estimate also included an expense of $11,827.75 for “soft costs,” which he defined as costs for unanticipated issues, such as well testing.82 His estimate also included a contingency expense of $26,719.60.83 Both his soft costs and contingency expenses were based on a percentage calculation.84
Vincent Smith (“Smith”), the director of capital projects for the City, testified that he believed Hebert’s soft costs estimate was high because Smith did not foresee costs associated with geotechnical material testing or additional construction.85 With respect to this argument, the Court notes that Hebert’s estimate is for work that his firm will not be performing, and there is a possibility that the Sheriff can find a lower estimate. In any case, however, while not denigrating Smith’s experience and dedication to fiscal responsibility,86 the Court found Hebert’s testimony more persuasive, largely because Smith’s experience does not include any involvement in jail construction for special needs inmates,87 and his experience relative to corrections is very limited.88 In contrast, Hebert’s long-term practice in corrections architecture gives him a valuable specialized reference point from which to project estimates.
Hebert estimated architecture and engineering costs of $30,641, based on a state fee curve that reflects a logarithm for construction costs.89 He testified that the total amount charged will not
82Sheriff Ex. 3; R. Doc. No. 713, at 217. 83Sheriff Ex. 3. 84R. Doc. No. 713, at 218. 85R. Doc. No. 713, at 238. 86R. Doc. No. 713, at 233-35. 87R. Doc. No. 713, at 235. 88R. Doc. No. 713, at 233-34. 89R. Doc. No. 713, at 217; Sheriff Ex. 3.
-14-

be more than in his estimate, and it could be less than that.90 Hebert used a 1.25 fee factor, while Smith suggested that a 1.0 factor would be more appropriate in light of the complexity of the project.91 The Court finds Hebert’s fee factor reasonable in light of the testimony presented and the qualifications of the witnesses.
Hebert further testified that he included a 15% overhead and profit cost of $30,855, which would go to a contractor, and that such a percentage is not “unreasonable” for a contractor such as a detention electronics contractor.92 The City did not present any evidence challenging the overhead and profit cost associated with the Sheriff’s proposal, and the Court accepts it as a reasonable estimate.
According to the Sheriff, Hebert’s total estimated construction costs total $289,915.60.93 The Court finds that an award of the requested $289,915.60 is appropriate, subject to a request for extra funds if additional appropriate expenses are properly documented and, conversely, subject to a claim for a credit or reimbursement by the City if that sum is not actually needed to perform the renovations described above. Of note, Hebert testified that, with respect to facilities such as Hunt, “[w]e don’t build them. We just draw them. So if it’s done for less, yeah, obviously [there will be a lower bill].”94
Finally, Chief Ursin testified that walkways are needed to connect the recreation yard to the
90R. Doc. No. 713, at 218. 91R. Doc. No. 713, at 237. 92R. Doc. No. 713, at 228. 93 This sum appears to not include the soft cost figure of $11,827.75, which would lead to a total of $301,743.35, a discrepancy not noted by any of the parties or acknowledged in their briefing. See Sheriff Ex. 3, R. Doc. No. 713, at 20, 214-15; R. Doc. No. 716, at 5; see also R. Doc. No. 715, at 6. 94R. Doc. No. 713, at 221.
-15-

physical facility, and that the recreation yard additionally requires the installation of cameras.95 The costs associated with the walkways ($1,500), fencing of the walkways ($14,500), cameras for the recreational yard ($25,000), and an electric gate lock ($3,000) total $44,000.96 This number reflects the cost associated with using offender labor and Hunt staff contractors.97
In sum, the evidence supports the Sheriff’s contention that the Hunt proposal requires approximately $333,915.60 in renovation costs.
3. Supplies As noted above, four suicide resistant cells are needed for the Hunt facility that will be used to house OPP inmates.98 The cost to purchase four suicide resistant beds is estimated to be $5,400.99 Chow carts, pill carts, hot food tables, and general (as opposed to suicide-resistant) mattresses must be obtained for Hunt.100 There was no evidence presented that the Sheriff’s request for funds for these items is unreasonably high or unnecessary, and the Court finds that such expenditures are appropriate. Accordingly, $10,000 is needed to purchase two chow carts, and $3,378 is needed to purchase two hot food tables.101 Two pill carts must be purchased for a total of $4,024.00.102 Thirty units of general mattresses and bedding must be purchased for a total of $1,345 for the mattresses
95R. Doc. No. 713, at 162. 96R. Doc. No. 713, at 162-63; Sheriff Ex. 7. 97R. Doc. No. 713, at 163; Sheriff Ex. 7. 98R. Doc. No. 713, at 62, 164. 99Sheriff Ex. 8; see also R. Doc. No. 713, at 164. 100R. Doc. No. 713, at 164; Sheriff Ex. 8. 101Sheriff Ex. 8. 102R. Doc. No. 713, at 164-65; Sheriff Ex. 7.
-16-

and $650 for the bedding.103 Moreover, as the Hunt offices currently do not contain any furniture, office furniture must be purchased at a cost of $1,000.104
Consistent with Hebert’s estimate, the Sheriff seeks to purchase 24 televisions, one for every two cells at Hunt, at a rate of $329.99 per television and a total purchase and installation cost of $7,896.105 The City specifically challenges whether televisions are required by the Consent Judgment.106 Hebert testified that his estimate for one television per two cells was “pretty normal” for “most state facilities,” and that he was further surprised that there was no allocation for day room televisions.107 Common sense suggests that access to televisions may be important where inmates with serious mental health issues are housed with little alternative means of stimulation or distraction. Nonetheless, there was no evidence to that effect, and Dr. Patterson was never asked about the issue. Accordingly, the Court will not order the City to finance the purchase and installation of the televisions at this time.
As Chief Tidwell testified, it is anticipated that inmates are going to be routinely coming and going from Hunt.108 A vehicle is needed for such transportation.109 Chief Tidwell was able to locate a suitable van at a cost of $45,000, with the price reflecting that the van had been used as a demonstration vehicle.110 The van is specially designed to carry inmates in a “sheltered pod,” and
103Sheriff Ex. 8; see also R. Doc. No. 713, at 165-67. 104R. Doc. No. 713, at 165; Sheriff Ex. 8. 105Sheriff Ex. 8. 106R. Doc. No. 715, at 17. 107R. Doc. No. 713, at 216. 108R. Doc. No. 713, at 157. 109R. Doc. No. 713, at 116. 110R. Doc. No. 713, at 116-17.
-17-

it would be strictly dedicated to the transportation of the mental health population.111 The City contends that the Sheriff has not established that he needs a new van at a cost of
$45,000.112 The Court disagrees. The straightforward and credible testimony of Chief Tidwell established that the Sheriff has “one or two” vehicles that could make the trip to St. Gabriel, but these vehicles will shortly reach the end of their “operational lifespan” if used for frequent trips.”113 Similarly, Chief Ursin testified that OPP’s existing vans “are old, high mileage,” and “really not made to transport people,” insofar as they are “16-passenger vans” that were made into transport vans through the placement of “wire mesh on the outside.”114
The evidence supports the Sheriff’s contention that $70,797 is needed for supplies, furniture, and a van, although no funds will be awarded at this time for the purchase of televisions.
4. Additional Monthly Costs Chief Ursin testified that estimated fuel costs for the van are $2,000 per month.115 DOC will charge OPP $3.50 per inmate per day for food, including any special diets for diabetic inmates.116 Chief Tidwell testified that he negotiated this rate with DOC and that it is the same rate used across DOC facilities.117 The monthly cost of food will be approximately $1,500, depending on the precise number of inmates housed at Hunt.118 Chief Ursin testified that the Sheriff
111R. Doc. No. 713, at 118, 206. 112R. Doc. No. 715, at 14. 113R. Doc. No. 713, at 116. 114R. Doc. No. 713, at 206. 115R. Doc. No. 713, at 173-74. 116R. Doc. No. 713, at 172-73. 117R. Doc. No. 713, at 172. 118R. Doc. No. 713, at 173.
-18-

would “[a]bsolutely not” charge the City the full $1,500 if the monthly amount turned out to be less.119
In sum, the monthly costs associated with fuel and food are projected to total $3,500. Should such costs fall short of this amount, the Sheriff shall promptly notify the City, who will be entitled to a credit in accordance with the transparent accounting requirements set forth below.
C. Plaintiffs’ Concerns 1. Housing Determinations
Plaintiffs emphasize that it is “unclear what clinical criteria will be used to determine which prisoners should be transported to Hunt[, which prisoners should remain there,] and who will make that determination.”120 Dr. Patterson testified that the determination as to who goes to Hunt and who remains there must be a clinical one.121 Chief Tidwell estimated that formulating such guidelines should take approximately two weeks.122
Similarly, Plaintiffs raised valid concerns regarding how to stabilize individuals, if necessary, prior to transportation to Hunt.123 As Chief Tidwell acknowledged, efforts associated with such stabilization need to be developed by mental health professionals.124
Finally, the development of a staffing schedule will ensure that adequate security and mental health personnel are assigned to Hunt.125 Chief Tidwell estimated that the development of a schedule
119R. Doc. No. 713, at 173. 120R. Doc. No. 714, at 5-6. 121R. Doc. No. 713, at 69-70. 122R. Doc. No. 713, at 147. 123R. Doc. No. 714, at 5-6. 124R. Doc. No. 713, at 149-50. 125R. Doc. No. 713, at 154-55.
-19-

should proceed relatively quickly, possibly within one day, once the Hunt plant is finalized.126 In any
event, it may take approximately 30 days for CorrectHealth to organize its staff and for the completion of renovations to Hunt.127
2. Step-Down Care
Plaintiffs continue to highlight that the successful housing of inmates with acute and
subacute mental health needs is intertwined with the ability to successfully house inmates who require step-down care.128 As Plaintiffs emphasize, the Hunt population “will largely be cycling back to OPP, and if housed in Templeman V, will decompensate and have to return to Hunt.”129 The Court
has encouraged the parties to work together and with the Mental Health Committee to address the problems associated with step-down care,130 and such problems may be addressed at a subsequent hearing if necessary.131
Plaintiffs persuasively conclude that, “[t]o avoid a repeat of past conduct in this case that has
led to tragic and wasteful results, the Sheriff must create detailed operational plans that address the
concerns by the Plaintiffs, and have those plans reviewed by the Monitor, the Plaintiffs and the
126R. Doc. No. 713, at 155. 127R. Doc. No. 713, at 207. When questioned about people who may have a low tolerance for excessive heat because of their use of certain medications, Hebert testified that it is possible to add some kind of air-conditioning to the cells if the mechanical ventilation does not work. R. Doc. No. 713, at 231; see also R. Doc. No. 714, at 6. 128R. Doc. No. 714, at 7. A step-down unit houses inmates who are ready to leave the subacute unit but are not yet ready to function in general population. R. Doc. No. 713, at 69. 129R. Doc. No. 714, at 7; see also R. Doc. No. 713, at 76 (“You can’t just drop [a subacute inmate] in [general] population and say, ‘Okay. We’ll come and see you once every couple of months.’”). 130R. Doc. No. 713, at 104. 131See also R. Doc. No. 725; R. Doc. Nos. 729-31.
-20-

City.”132 The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ concerns are well-founded but not an obstacle to the initial
approval of the Hunt plan. Such concerns are best served by monitoring the implementation of the plan and setting deadlines relative to the issues discussed above. Of note, Plaintiffs themselves acknowledge that Hunt “appears to be the only proposed immediate solution for men with severe mental health needs at this time.”133 II. City’s Funding Obligation
Louisiana law obligates the City to provide a “good and sufficient jail.” La. Rev. Stat. § 33:4715; see also id. §§ 15:702, 704. Generally speaking, “the legislative scheme dictates that the City of New Orleans bears the obligation of satisfying the expenses of housing prisoners, while the sheriff has the duty of operating the facility.” Broussard v. Foti, No. 00-2318, 2001 WL 258055, at *2 (E.D. La. Mar. 14, 2001) (Vance, J.); see also Fairley v. Stalder, 294 F. App’x 805, 812 (5th Cir. 2008) (“ [W]e agree that day-to-day operation of the parish prison is the responsibility of the local sheriff, and that financing and maintenance are the responsibility of the local governing authority.”).134 Accordingly, Louisiana law provides that “the City-Parish is responsible for the expenses of establishing, maintaining and operating the jail and for all the expenses of feeding, clothing, and providing medical treatment to the prisoners while the sheriff has the duty of operating the jail and seeing to it that the prisoners are properly cared for, fed and clothed.” Amiss v. Dumas,
132R. Doc. No. 714, at 8. 133R. Doc. No. 714, at 4. 134The nuances of this relationship are beyond the scope of the July 14 hearing. See, e.g., Prator v. Caddo Parish, 900 So. 2d 350, 356 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2005) (noting that the presence of outof-parish inmates could potentially increase fixed costs); see also R. Doc. No. 727.
-21-

411 So. 2d 1137, 1141 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1982); see also La. Rev. Stat. § 15:704 (“Each sheriff shall be the keeper of the public jail of his parish, and shall by all lawful means preserve the peace and apprehend all disturbers thereof, and other public offenders.”).
As the City acknowledges, the Sheriff suggests that the projected costs associated with Hunt would require funding additional to that already provided by the City to the Sheriff to operate OPP.135 This issue was not addressed in detail at the hearing, however, and the City is reserving its right to present it at a later date.136
A. Absence of Alternatives Hunt has been the only viable short-term solution proposed to the Court. As noted above, with respect to the substance of the Sheriff’s proposal, the City initially described its contentions as “not so much about the relocation of these inmates at Hunt for up to three years but the costs and logistics of such a proposal.”137 The City now recommends, however, that male inmates with acute and subacute psychiatric conditions remain housed at Templeman V.138 While the City suggested for the first time at the hearing that it may have an idea that would involve renovating Templeman V, the City admitted that it had not “been able to put pencil to paper” with respect to that idea.139 The City further admitted that it has never presented anyone with a “formal plan” with respect to Templeman V.140 Dr. Patterson testified that he had not been presented with options that were
135R. Doc. No. 715, at 15. 136R. Doc. No. 727. 137R. Doc. No. 698, at 3. 138R. Doc. No. 715, at 11. 139R. Doc. No. 713, at 89. 140R. Doc. No. 713, at 90.
-22-

acceptable or viable, other than Hunt.141 Similarly, Chief Tidwell testified that he had not been presented with an alternative solution by the City.142
The Court finds that the evidence presented at the hearing, including Dr. Patterson’s thoughtful and credible testimony, overwhelmingly supports proceeding with the Sheriff’s plan to use Hunt, subject to certain safeguards associated with some of the concerns raised by Plaintiffs. Moreover, insofar as the City failed to present any specific plan regarding the use of Templeman V prior to the hearing, or even any evidence supporting such a plan at the hearing, the Court finds that the City’s vague Templeman V proposal has been waived.
This is not to deny the legitimate criticisms raised by the City relative to the maintenance failures that contributed to the unacceptable conditions at Templeman V.143 The Court acknowledges that a lack of maintenance was a contributing factor to the decay of Templeman V.144 McCampbell testified that a cell had been flooded many times, for example, leading to the detachment of the linoleum from the floor, and that “years of neglect” were represented by the “appalling” condition of the showers at Templeman V.145 Nonetheless, the City has not cited to any evidence to support its bald assertion that, if properly maintained, Templeman V could be used as a short-term solution.146 The Court’s present focus is on remedying non-compliance with the Consent Judgment.
141R. Doc. No. 713, at 72. Dr. Patterson noted that the City may have asked him something to the effect of, “‘Would there be any number of staff that could be put on Templeman V that would make it an adequate acute mental health unit?’ And my answer was no.” R. Doc. No. 713, at 90.
142R. Doc. No. 713, at 129. 143See, e.g., R. Doc. No. 715, at 12. 144See R. Doc. No. 713, at 33-34. 145R. Doc. No. 713, at 33-34. 146See R. Doc. No. 715, at 16.
-23-

The evidence is exceptionally clear that Templeman V is unsuitable regardless of whether a proper
maintenance program were implemented prospectively.147 In short, there has been no alternative to
Hunt formally presented that would satisfactorily house male acute and subacute inmates.148
B. Narrow Tailoring
The City broadly contends that the relief proposed by the Sheriff is not narrowly tailored as
required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626149 and that its own proposal “is the
least intrusive interim means” to correct the conditions at OPP.150 Given that the City has not come
forward with any “pen to paper” proposal, this approach is baffling, in addition to being waived, as
stated previously. Regardless of any such waiver, in light of the strong, uncontroverted evidence at
the hearing that the continued use of Templeman V is “absolutely not” a viable means of complying
with the Consent Judgment,151 the City’s approach falls short.
Insofar as the City contends that its financial resources could be used elsewhere to promote
public safety, the Court has considered the circumstances specific to the July 14 hearing. Previously,
the Court observed:
The Court is well aware of New Orleans’ high homicide rate and budgetary constraints, but the evidence shows that violent crime is endemic within OPP as well. OPP inmates, and particularly inmates with mental health issues, leave the facility
147R. Doc. No. 713, at 67. 148E.g., R. Doc. No. 713, at 44. Of note, there were discussions at some point about renovating TDC. R. Doc. No. 713, at 64-66. Chief Ursin testified that the plan was “killed” because the City objected to it. R. Doc. No. 713, at 160-61, 179-80. The Court does not know the specifics of why the TDC plan was terminated, although the City did not present any evidence to counter the suggestion that it was the party responsible for terminating that plan. In any event, a TDC plan was not presented to the Court on July 14, 2014. 149R. Doc. No. 715, at 27-28. 150R. Doc. No. 715, at 29. 151R. Doc. No. 713, at 66-67.
-24-

more damaged, and perhaps more dangerous, than when they arrived. Experts opined that OPP poses “clear and present dangers” of “life and death proportions” with respect to suicide . . . . The evidence shows that OPP itself presents a public safety crisis, which endangers inmates, staff, and the community at large.
Jones, 296 F.R.D. at 457-58 (citations and footnotes omitted). The Court has carefully considered
the City’s arguments and will “structure, and monitor, its ruling in a way that mitigates [adverse
public safety] consequences while still achieving an effective remedy of the constitutional violation”
at issue. Id. at 429-30 (quoting Plata, 131 S. Ct. at 1942).
C. Other Arguments
1. Daily Cost
The City has repeatedly attacked the daily cost per inmate associated with the Sheriff’s
plan.152 The City implies, although it is too savvy to overtly state, that 10 or 20 inmates with acute
mental health issues can continue to languish in barbaric conditions because remedying such
conditions is costly. This is unacceptable. As the City knows:
“It is well established that inadequate funding will not excuse the perpetuation of unconstitutional conditions of confinement . . . .” Smith v. Sullivan, 611 F.2d 1039, 1043-44 (5th Cir. 1980) (internal citations omitted). “That it may be inconvenient or more expensive for the [local government] to run its prison in a constitutional fashion is neither a defense to this action or a ground for modification of the judgment rendered in this case.” Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291, 1309 (5th Cir. 1974).
Jones, 296 F.R.D. at 458 (modification omitted).
Although the City has devoted considerable resources to protesting the costs associated with
Hunt, it has not identified any feasible alternative, much less a lower-cost alternative.153
152R. Doc. No. 713, at 47-48; see also R. Doc. No. 715, at 9-10. 153The City put forth no evidence to support its implication that the costs associated with care elsewhere are lower, R. Doc. No. 713, at 47, and even if that is the case, the City has not identified any location other than Hunt that would feasibly house the population currently housed at OPP.
-25-

The City also argues that some of these inmates are subject to relatively mild charges.154 This argument is irrelevant for purposes of the July 14 hearing. There is no authority by which the Sheriff can unilaterally decide to release such inmates.155
2. Deference to Settlement Efforts The City contends that the Sheriff’s proposal is excessively expensive, “particularly while the parties, with the members of the mental health committee, are actively exploring a long-term solution.”156 The Court has incessantly encouraged the parties to cooperate in developing such a long-term solution,157 but no such agreement has been forthcoming.158 In addition, by focusing solely on a short-term solution at the July 14 hearing, the Court has permitted the parties even more time to work towards an agreement. Moreover, Dr. Patterson, the chair of the mental health committee that includes representatives for both the City and the Sheriff, testified that a court-ordered shortterm solution “would be supportive” of the committee’s efforts.159
3. Public Bid Process The City emphasizes that the Sheriff has not elicited public bids for certain costs associated with the Hunt plan.160 To the extent that this argument implicates state public bidding law, this issue is not presently before the Court, and it would be inappropriate for the Court to render an advisory opinion on the matter.
154R. Doc. No. 713, at 189. 155See R. Doc. No. 713, at 190-91. 156R. Doc. No. 715, at 15-16. 157E.g., R. Doc. No. 668. 158E.g., R. Doc. Nos. 722-23. 159R. Doc. No. 713, at 101. 160R. Doc. No. 715, at 13.
-26-

4. LCLE Grant
The City suggests that the Sheriff should implement his proposal using a $2 million grant from the Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement (“LCLE”).161 The City argues that the Sheriff previously testified that such grant money could be used to comply with the Consent Judgment.162 Chief Ursin’s uncontroverted testimony, however, is that there is no remaining portion of the LCLE grant that can be used for the renovations, staffing, or other expenses needed to house the acute and subacute mental health populations.163
Insofar as the Sheriff arguably has other funds that he could use to implement his proposal, or insofar as the City may be entitled to reimbursement or some other form of relief relative to the expended grant money, such issues are not encompassed by the July 14 hearing.164
5. Distance The Court, like the parties, is cognizant that Hunt is not optimal insofar as it requires the transport of inmates with acute and subacute mental health conditions away from their families and lawyers, and it increases operational costs.165 However, as Plaintiffs acknowledge, there are no OPP facilities currently suitable for these inmates, and Hunt reflects a “marked improvement.”166 The City criticizes the Sheriff for selecting a facility that is approximately 60 miles from
161R. Doc. No. 715, at 19-20; R. Doc. No. 713, at 191-92. Chief Ursin testified that this grant was intended to reimburse the Sheriff for DOC costs. R. Doc. No. 713, at 192.
162R. Doc. No. 715, at 19; see also R. Doc. No. 546, at 182-84. 163R. Doc. No. 713, at 193. Chief Ursin testified that the grant was used to pay down a loan and to meet payroll. R. Doc. No. 713, at 194. 164R. Doc. No. 727. 165R. Doc. No. 714, at 4; R. Doc. No. 715, at 13. The use of videoconferencing may help alleviate some of these concerns. 166R. Doc. No. 714, at 4-5.
-27-

OPP167 but, yet again, the City has not identified any viable alternative. While the Court is cognizant of the concerns expressed by Dr. Patterson relative to the difficulties raised by such a distance,168 the Court agrees with Dr. Patterson that the Hunt proposal is the sole viable option before the Court.169
6. Partial Settlement Agreement Pursuant to their partial settlement agreement, the City and the Sheriff agreed upon certain transparency requirements that the City contends have not been fulfilled.170 The Court is very concerned about the apparent failure of the Sheriff to move forward with the substantive measures associated with the partial settlement agreement entered into by the City and the Sheriff.171 Nonetheless, these measures are outside the scope of the July 14 hearing, and neither the City nor Plaintiffs brought an action to enforce the partial settlement agreement or the corresponding Consent Judgment provisions prior to that hearing. Accordingly, the Court will not address such issues at this time. As the Court has advised the parties, it will not order the Sheriff to direct unspent funds associated with the partial settlement agreement to costs associated with the Hunt plan.172 Both sets of obligations are critical components of compliance with the Consent Judgment. III. Conclusion
167R. Doc. No. 715, at 13. 168R. Doc. No. 713, at 84. 169R. Doc. No. 713, at 72. 170R. Doc. No. 713, at 199-200. 171See R. Doc. No. 715, at 20-25; see R. Doc. No. 710. 172Separately, however, the Court ordered that the “Sheriff shall disclose any documents that have not yet been disclosed pursuant to the April 17 partial settlement agreement no later than Monday, August 4, 2014.” R. Doc. No. 721 (emphasis omitted).
-28-

The Court remains steadfastly committed to financial transparency and cost-savings measures. Such measures will ensure that the sums discussed in this opinion, which are necessarily speculative insofar as they are estimates, are refined based on the actual implementation of the Sheriff’s plan such that the parties are satisfied that compliance with the Consent Judgment has been achieved in an expedient and fiscally sound manner. However, the evidence conclusively shows that inmates with acute and subacute mental health problems “cannot wait” any longer for meaningful change.173
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Sheriff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART. The Court finds that the Sheriff’s proposed solution is potentially compliant with the Consent Judgment, although correct and careful implementation of that plan is necessary to ensure compliance. The Court additionally finds that the City of New Orleans is responsible for paying the costs of implementing the Hunt plan set forth above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the City is responsible for providing the initial sum of $413,280.60, which reflects $333,915.60 in renovation costs and $70,797 in supply costs for Hunt, as well as $8,568 for the renovation of TDC. The City shall provide the Sheriff with these funds no later than September 1, 2014. Moreover, the City will be responsible on a monthly basis for $203,500, which reflects $200,000 for security and mental health staffing and $3,500 for food and fuel. The City shall provide the Sheriff with two months’ payments, or $407,000, no later than September 30, 2014, and shall provide the Sheriff with additional monthly payments of $203,500 no later than the thirtieth day of each subsequent month.
173R. Doc. No. 713, at 73. -29-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all such funds described above shall be segregated in a single account, established and maintained by the Sheriff, that will be used solely for expenses and reimbursements related to the issues discussed herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Sheriff shall immediately inform the City in writing if the expenses associated with such funds are reduced, including any reductions associated with contract negotiation, a decrease in the need for overtime payments for security staff, a decrease in the number of inmates requiring food, or a decrease in the number of trips needed to and from Hunt. If the parties cannot agree among themselves on a means of adjusting the City’s payments, they shall immediately schedule a status conference with the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court reserves ruling on the City’s entitlement to any credit or reimbursement.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each of the parties, the Monitor, and the Court shall have the ability to review any account activity. If the parties would like to suggest any additional accounting requirements, they shall agree among themselves to follow such requirements or, failing that, submit such proposals to the Court no later than September 1, 2014. Failure to comply with the accounting requirements set forth above may result in the suspension of the City’s installment payments.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before September 1, 2014, the Sheriff shall provide the other parties and the monitoring team with OPP’s guidelines as to the determination of which inmates will be transferred to and from Hunt, as well as the identities of the relevant decisionmakers.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before September 1, 2014, the Sheriff shall
-30-

provide the other parties and the monitoring team with OPP’s guidelines as to how individuals will be stabilized before transport to Hunt.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before September 1, 2014, the Sheriff shall provide the other parties and the monitoring team with a copy of the security and mental health staffing schedule for Hunt.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion is DENIED in all other respects. New Orleans, Louisiana, August 13, 2014.
___________________________________ LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-31-

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 787 Filed 02/11/15 Page 1 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

)

LASHAWN JONES, et al.,

)

Plaintiffs, and

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

Plaintiffs in intervention

)

)

v.

)

)

MARLIN GUSMAN, et al.,

)

Defendants.

)

_________________________________________ )

)

MARLIN GUSMAN,

)

Third-Party Plaintiff

)

)

v.

)

)

THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS,

)

Third-Party Defendant.

)

)

Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-00859 Section I, Mag. 5 Judge Lance M. Africk Magistrate Judge North

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the parties’ “Joint Motion for Entry of

Stipulated Order” (ECF No. 785), filed February 6, 2015. In the interest of moving Defendants

toward compliance with the Consent Judgment (ECF No. 466), which was entered as an Order of

the Court on June 6, 2013 (ECF No. 465), it is hereby

ORDERED that the parties’ “Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated Order” (ECF No. 785)

is GRANTED, and it is further

ORDERED that, in granting the parties’ Joint Motion, the Court finds, as agreed by the

parties, that:

1. Defendants have not yet reached compliance with the Consent Judgment, entered

as an Order this Court on June 6, 2013 (ECF No. 465);

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 787 Filed 02/11/15 Page 2 of 12
2. As a result, more specific remedial relief is necessary, as set forth below; and 3. The additional relief set forth below complies in all respects with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). The relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct violations of federal rights agreed by the parties with the entry of the Consent Judgment, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct these violations, and will not have an adverse impact on public safety or the operation of the criminal justice system. As stipulated by the parties, it is further ORDERED that the additional relief will consist of the following: 1. OPSO Reporting on Compliance Status with the Consent Judgment:
a. At each of the scheduled Court status conferences, the Sheriff or his designee shall report to the Court regarding OPSO’s compliance status with each section (e.g. Section IV.A, IV.B.) of the Consent Judgment. This report shall include a summary of OPSO’s progress since the immediate previously scheduled status conference, and will include in the reporting OPSO’s planned actions in the next 60 days to come into compliance.
b. OPSO shall comply with the Consent Judgment’s requirement for periodic compliance reports as set forth in Consent Judgment Section VIII.A. The reports shall describe the steps OPSO has taken in furtherance of compliance, and the activities planned during the next reporting period. The first report is due by April 1, 2015, and periodic reports shall be due in accordance with Section VIII.A, and/or on dates mutually agreed to by the parties and the Monitors, and approved by the Court, as necessary.
c. Within 24 hours of the occurrence of any of the following incidents, OSPO shall notify the Monitor via email:
2

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 787 Filed 02/11/15 Page 3 of 12
 Death of an inmate/arrestee while held in custody (or housed in a hospital to which the inmate has been committed for care and remains in the custody of OPSO; or whose injury occurred while in custody and was subsequently released from custody);
 An inmate’s/arrestee’s suicide, suicide attempt, aborted suicide attempt, suicidal intent, and/or deliberate suicide self-harm gesture as defined by the American Psychiatric Association1;
 An inmate’s allegation of sexual abuse, sexual assault, sexual harassment, or voyeurism whether the incident is between or among inmates, or between or among inmates and a staff/contractor or volunteer;
 an inmate’s report, or a report by a staff/contractor or volunteer, of any inmate/inmate allegation of assault; or other inmate allegations of felonies occurring to them while in custody;
 an inmate’s report, or a report by a staff/contractor or volunteer, of any allegation of use of excessive force by an employee, volunteer or contractor;
 suspension or arrest of any OPSO employee, volunteer, or contractor for alleged criminal activities while on-duty and/or in a facility under the control of OPSO; and
 recovery of significant contraband, specifically weapons.
1 The following definitions shall apply: Suicide: self-inflicted death with evidence that the person intended to die; Suicide attempt -self-injurious behavior with a nonfatal outcome and evidence that the person intended to die. Aborted suicide attempt: potentially self-injurious behavior with evidence that the person intended to die but stopped before physical damage occurred Suicide ideation: thoughts of serving as the agent of one’s own death Suicidal intent: subjective expectation and desire for self-destructive act to end in death Deliberate self-harm/ (gesture): willful self-infliction of painful, destructive or injurious acts without intent to die
(Reference: APA Practice Guidelines)
3

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 787 Filed 02/11/15 Page 4 of 12

2. Policies and Procedures (All Relevant Sections):

a.

By March 31, 2015, OPSO shall provide a schedule for the drafting and

finalizing of all policies and procedures required under the Consent Judgment. This schedule

shall include deadlines to simultaneously submit drafts to, and receive comments, from the

Monitor(s), and from the Plaintiffs and USDOJ (“Plaintiffs”). The Plaintiffs will also provide a

copy of their comments to the Monitor. In the event that the Monitor or the OPSO disagree with

any comments or recommendations by the Plaintiffs, the Monitor will convene a conference call

for the purpose of resolving issues.

b. The schedule shall identify the policies and procedures that are considered to be a

priority including: use of force, incidents and referrals, the early intervention system, inmate

grievance process, and inmate classification. The drafts of these policies shall be submitted to

the Monitor(s) for initial review on or before March 31, 2015. Following receipt of the

Monitors’ comments, OPSO will make any necessary revisions, consult with the Monitor(s) as

needed, and provide a final draft to the Plaintiffs to provide substantive comments to both OPSO

and the Monitor(s). In the event that the Monitor and/or the OPSO disagree with any comments

or recommendations by the Plaintiffs, the Monitor will convene a conference call for the purpose

of resolving issues.

3. Memoranda to Implement Substantive Provisions of the Consent Judgment:

Pending implementation of policies that implement the Consent Judgment, OPSO shall prepare

memoranda2 to all OPSO staff, contractors, and volunteers, as outlined in various provisions

2 The memorandum shall include the date of issue, date of expiration, subject, title of issuing authority, to whom the memorandum is directed, the dates for reading at roll call, the dates to be posted, and location of posting.
4

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 787 Filed 02/11/15 Page 5 of 12
below. For each provision, the memoranda shall delineate the responsibilities of staff, contractors and/or volunteers under the terms of the Consent Judgment as well as the required procedures for notification/action. OPSO shall submit each draft memoranda to Plaintiffs and the Monitor no later than March 1, 2015. Plaintiffs and the Monitor will have three business days to comment on the draft memoranda. In the event that the Monitor and/or the OPSO disagree with any comments or recommendations by the Plaintiffs, the Monitor will immediately convene a conference call for the purpose of resolving issues. Within seven business days of finalizing the memoranda based on the comments of the Monitor(s) and Plaintiffs, OPSO will assure that the memoranda are read at roll call on all shifts, in all facilities, and in all locations (e.g. medical) for three consecutive days. Discrete memoranda regarding similar topics noted in this Stipulated Order may be combined into a single memorandum. OPSO will maintain a written list of staff, contractors and volunteers present during the reading of the memoranda and will produce that list on request. OPSO will also post any memoranda in places where roll calls are held, locker rooms, and other non-inmate areas where staff may view the information.
4. Use of Force Reporting (§ IV.A.3): a. Disciplinary Action for Failure to Report (§ IV.A.3.a): OPSO shall
issue a memorandum to OPSO staff and contractors regarding their obligation to report uses of force for inmates under the legal care, custody and control of OPSO and in any facility operated by OPSO, and including in vehicles, hospitals, during transports, and in court holding areas. The memoranda will outline the requirements and timelines for reporting.
b. Use of Force (UOF) Reports (§ IV.A.3.b): OPSO shall issue a memorandum to staff and contractors that all incident reports regarding a use of force will contain all Consent Judgment-required elements as outlined in § IV.A.3.b-c, e. The
5

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 787 Filed 02/11/15 Page 6 of 12
memorandum will be issued in accordance with the terms specified in Item 3 of this Stipulated Order.
c. Watch Commanders’ and Wardens’ Responsibilities (§IV.A.3.d): OPSO shall issue a memorandum to Watch Commanders and to Wardens to ensure that Watch Commanders and Wardens’ reports contain all elements required under the Consent Judgment, as outlined in § IV.A.3.d.,f. The memorandum will be issued in accordance with the terms specified in Item 3 of this Stipulated Order.
5. Early Intervention System (EIS) (§ IV.A.4): a. By February 15, 2015, OPSO shall identify the names of the members of
the Use of Force Review Board to the Monitor and the Plaintiffs/USDOJ. b. Commencing March 1, 2015, OPSO will make available to Monitors, at
the Monitors’ request, the quarterly reviews conducted by ISB and the command staff regarding the operation of the EIS system, including supporting documentation reviewed, as delineated by Section IV.A. 4.b., c., d., and e. of the Consent Judgment.
6. Safety and Supervision (§ IV.A.5): a. By February 15, 2015, in order that the housing for youthful offenders is
continually staffed by a deputy, OPSO will assure that a deputy is working on every shift, on every day on the unit housing youthful offenders. This deputy may not be assigned to other tiers or other responsibilities, and shall be periodically relieved by another deputy and/or supervisor. The evidence of compliance with this document will be the staffing assignments each day, each shift for the facility in which youthful offenders are held, and samples of the log books from that unit.
6

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 787 Filed 02/11/15 Page 7 of 12
b. OPSO shall ensure by May 15, 2015, that all staff assigned to the housing for inmates with acute and chronic mental health (in Templeman V, TDC, or other housing in which this population is held) attend training regarding working this population. The lesson plans/curricula for this training shall be reviewed and approved by the Monitors. The draft of the training curriculum and training plan is due to the Monitors by April 15, 2015 and should include participation by subject matter experts employed by the medical contractor.
7. Staffing, Staffing Plans, and Recruitment (§ IV.A.6.a): a. OPSO shall provide a monthly report to the Monitors, identifying the
number of deputies hired the previous month; the number of deputies who resigned, if known, the reason for resignation, and the date the deputy entered service; and the number of deputies who were terminated, the reason for termination, and the date the deputy entered service. The same report shall be provided for non-sworn (civilian staff). A cumulative annual total will also be included as part of this report.
b. By March 15, 2015, OPSO shall provide a recruitment plan for sworn (e.g. deputy sheriffs) and non-sworn/civilian staff that addresses current and anticipated vacancies for the next 18 months and based on the staffing plan. The plan will be provided to the Monitors for comment and recommendations by March 1, 2015.
c. At the scheduled status conferences with the Court, OPSO shall report regarding progress to achieving hiring based on the plan, as well as any modifications and update to the plan, in accordance with Item 1 of this Stipulated Order.
d. By April 30, 2015, OPSO will evaluate all posts to determine if use of contractors is feasible for non-inmate contact positions (e.g., perimeter security, security
7

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 787 Filed 02/11/15 Page 8 of 12
screening of staff and visitors). The report will be provided to the Monitors and Plaintiffs for their review.
8. Incidents and Referrals (§IV.A.7): OPSO shall issue a memorandum to all staff and contractors regarding their responsibilities and the process to document all reportable incidents within 24 hours, identified in § IV.A.7 of the Consent Judgment. The memorandum will be issued in accordance with the terms specified in Item 3 of this Stipulated Order.
9. Investigations (§ IV.A.8): a. By March 31, 2014, OPSO shall develop policies and procedures
governing the operations of the Investigative Services Bureau (ISB) including post orders for all positions within OPSO that have investigative responsibilities, criminal and/or administrative. This draft will be provided to the Monitors. Following receipt of the Monitors’ comments, OPSO will make any necessary revisions, consult with the Monitor(s) as needed, and provide a final draft to the Plaintiffs to provide substantive comments to both OPSO and the Monitor(s). In the event that the Monitor and/or the OPSO disagree with any comments or recommendations by the Plaintiffs, the Monitor will convene a conference call for the purpose of resolving issues.
b. By March 15, 2015 OPSO shall make available a laptop computer to investigative staff assigned full-time to ISB for use in the employees’ official capacities. Supervisors shall have the ability access all files. To the extent possible the laptop computers will be linked to a mainframe/cloud to facilitate the supervisor’s remote access to the files.
10. Grievances (§ IV.A. 11): By March 1, 2015, OPSO shall develop a job description for the Grievance Officer and revise OPSO’s organizational chart to identify the chain-of-command for this position.
8

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 787 Filed 02/11/15 Page 9 of 12
11. PREA (§ IV.A.12): By March 15, 2015, OPSO shall produce to the Monitors the outline and production schedule for the video and orientation materials advising prisoners of the Prison Rape Elimination Act. Following receipt of the Monitors’ comments, OPSO will make any necessary revisions, consult with the Monitor(s) as needed, and provide a final draft to the Plaintiffs to provide substantive comments to both OPSO and the Monitor(s). In the event that the Monitor and/or the OPSO disagree with any comments or recommendations by the Plaintiffs, the Monitor will convene a conference call for the purpose of resolving issues.
12. Access to Information (§IV.A.13): By April 1, 2015, OPSO shall produce to the Monitors the outlines and production schedule for the inmate orientation video and materials, including the revised inmate handbook. OPSO shall also include the strategy for orienting inmates, and maintenance of inmate handbooks throughout OPSO facilities, including language access requirements, Section IV.F. of the Consent Judgment. Following receipt of the Monitors’ comments, OPSO will make any necessary revisions, consult with the Monitor(s) as needed, and provide a final draft to the Plaintiffs to provide substantive comments to both OPSO and the Monitor(s). In the event that the Monitor and/or the OPSO disagree with any comments or recommendations by the Plaintiffs, the Monitor will convene a conference call for the purpose of resolving issues.
9

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 787 Filed 02/11/15 Page 10 of 12
13. Medical Care (§ IV.C): By March 15, 2015, OPSO shall provide the Monitor with the medical and mental health care contractor’s action plan for compliance with all the medical and mental health provisions of the Consent Judgment. The action plan shall include the due dates for compliance with the paragraphs of the Consent Judgment, the individual(s) responsible for the activities, and the specific activities to be undertaken. Following receipt of the Monitors’ comments, OPSO will make any necessary revisions, consult with the Monitor(s) as needed, and provide a final draft to the Plaintiffs to provide substantive comments to both OPSO and the Monitor(s). In the event that the Monitor and/or the OPSO disagree with any comments or recommendations by the Plaintiffs, the Monitor will convene a conference call for the purpose of resolving issues.
14. Mental Health (§IV.B) a. OPSO shall issue a memorandum requiring that inmates with mental
illness housed in the mental health housing have access to non-contact family visitation and family telephone calls. The decision as to visiting and telephone calls will be determined in consultation with the mental health staff assigned to that inmate’s care. If an inmate is denied visiting and telephone calls the reasons are to be specifically included in the inmate’s chart.
b. By April 1, 2015, OPSO, in collaboration with CCS, will produce a management plan for inmates on the mental health caseload (Levels 1–4), whether these inmates are housed in the step-down unit, or in general population.
15. The New Jail Facility (§ VI.): By April 30, 2015, OPSO shall submit to the Monitors the plan for opening the new jail, including the schedule for movement of inmates into the facility, and closing of existing facilities. The schedule shall be predicated on the potential opening dates known at that time, including alternative scenarios.
10

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 787 Filed 02/11/15 Page 11 of 12

16. Sanitation and Environmental Conditions (§IV.D.1): OPSO shall issue a

memorandum to all staff that that inmates and staff assigned to clean biohazards spills/incidents

must be trained on doing so, outfitted with proper equipment, and properly supervised in

accordance with § IV.D.1.f of the Consent Judgment. The directive will be issued in accordance

with the terms specified in Item 3 of this Stipulated Order.

17. Youthful Offenders (§IV.G)

a. By March 1, 2015, OPSO shall contact the school board and community

groups to solicit proposals for programming in the youthful offender unit.

b. At the scheduled Court status conferences, OPSO shall report on progress

in securing such programming, and/or the responses from the school board and stakeholders.

c.

By May 1, 2015, OPSO shall provide a programming plan, based on the

resources it has been able to secure, to include education, for all eligible youth in its custody, to

the Monitors for review. Following receipt of the Monitors’ comments, OPSO will make any

necessary revisions, consult with the Monitor(s) as needed, and provide a final draft to the

Plaintiffs to provide substantive comments to both OPSO and the Monitor(s). In the event that

the Monitor and/or the OPSO disagree with any comments or recommendations by the Plaintiffs,

the Monitor will convene a conference call for the purpose of resolving issues.

18. Notice and Cure a. Before taking judicial action to initiate contempt or other enforcement
proceedings, Plaintiffs shall give OPSO written notice of its intent to initiate such proceedings,

11

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 787 Filed 02/11/15 Page 12 of 12
and the Parties shall engage in good-faith discussions to resolve the dispute and may petition the Court for a status conference to assist in resolution.
b. OPSO shall have 30 days from the date of such notice to cure the failure (or such additional time as is reasonable due to the nature of the issue and agreed upon by the Parties) and provide the complaining party with sufficient proof of its cure. At the end of the 30day period (or such additional time as is reasonable due to the nature of the issue and agreed upon by the Parties), in the event that the complaining party determines that the failure has not been cured, that party may initiate contempt proceedings without further notice. The Parties commit to work in good faith with Defendant to avoid enforcement actions.
c. In case of an emergency posing an immediate threat to the health or safety of any prisoner or staff member at OPP, however, Plaintiffs may omit the notice and cure requirements herein and seek enforcement of this Agreement.
SO ORDERED. New Orleans, Louisiana, February __, 2015.
_______________________________ LANCE M. AFRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 1 of 169

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

___________________________________

)

LASHAWN JONES, ET AL,

)

Plaintiffs; and

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

Plaintiffs in Intervention

)

)

v.

)

)

)

MARLIN N. GUSMAN, ET AL,

)

Defendants

)

Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-00859

___________________________________ )

Section I, Division 1

)

Judge Lance M. Africk

MARLIN N. GUSMAN,

)

Magistrate Judge Michael North

Third-Party Plaintiff

)

)

v.

)

)

THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS,

)

Third-Party Defendant

)

___________________________________ )

INITIAL REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN

NOW INTO COURT comes Orleans Parish Jail’s Independent Compliance Director Gary D. Maynard, and Sheriff Marlin N. Gusman, who respectfully submit the following Supplemental Compliance Action Plan in accordance with the provisions of the Stipulated Order for Appointment of Independent Jail Compliance Director (R. Doc. 1082).

Introduction

On December 15, 2016, a draft of the initial remedial action plan was submitted to the Court in accordance with the Stipulated Order for Appointment of Independent Jail Compliance Director. After further review from the Parties and additional research performed by the Compliance Director, this submission represents a completed version of the initial remedial action plan that will bring Orleans Parish OPSO into compliance with the Consent Judgement by October 1, 2017. This initial remedial action plan contains strategies and frameworks to achieve sustainable compliance with all Consent Judgment requirements. Pursuant to the Stipulated Order, this plan will be updated every 60 days to incorporate any substantive changes that the Compliance Director determines are appropriate. The following items respond to the various components outlined in the Stipulated Order.

1|Page

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 2 of 169
A.) Strategies to decrease the number of inmate-on-inmate and inmate-on-staff assaults
Intensive Data Analysis and Corrective Actions: A full listing of all assaults that have taken place in the jail in the last 18 months will be generated with data points that identify the time of day, day of week, location in the jail, the demographic information for the assailant(a) and victim(s), whether the assailant (or deputy/staff member) has been involved in incidents before, the deputy or staff member involved in the incident (if applicable),the floor supervisor on duty when the incident occurred, shift supervisor on duty, the nature of the assault, and any item that may have been used as a weapon during the assault. The Compliance Director has had extensive experience in reducing serious inmate-on-inmate assaults and serious inmate-on-staff assaults. On a previous assignment, in a state whose prison and jail was considered to be one of the more violent in the country, using this data analysis and corrective action technique, he was able to reduce serious inmate-on inmate assaults by 46% and serious inmate on staff assaults by over 50% in a period of 3 years. We are currently analyzing this data and making staff and operational adjustments, and a full analysis of this data will be performed prior to March 1, 2017. For example in the 4th quarter of 2016, the number of inmate on inmate assaults at OPSO has decreased by 24% compared to the number of assaults in the 3rd quarter of 2016. The full analysis will be used to determine patterns of behavior or frequency of incidents and what factors they may be based on. After March 1, 2017, staff resources will then be redeployed to address any areas of concern that are identified by this analysis and ensure proper training for deputies, staff members, and supervisory staff involved in all incidents.
Review and Strengthening of the Classification System: While staffing shortages at OJC result in a high incidence of assaults and violent behavior, continued incidents of violence in the jail may also be a product of errors in the application of the inmate risk level instrument. Lieutenant Michael Holliday will continue to work with Dr. Patricia Hardyman in the continuous review of the Classification system used by the intake and processing staff and make adjustments as needed to determine the proper factors for considering the appropriate risk level of inmates are being considered. Lt. Holliday will also continue to review the information from the security level separation audits on a weekly basis. With proper classification being applied on the front end, inmates who at higher risk to be involved in assaults can be better supervised so that incidents of violence and be better prevented.
Coordinate with Outside Stakeholders to Process High Risk Cases Faster: Although the Compliance Director has had preliminary meetings with stakeholders, he will continue to meet with the District Attorney, Public Defender, and the Judges of the Criminal District Court & Municipal & Traffic Court to identify those inmates who have been involved in multiple incidents of assault on other inmates. This is to determine if such cases in all categories can be expeditiously adjudicated through the Orleans Parish Court system. A Jail Population Facilitator (which is discussed later in this plan) will also be hired in the coming months that will report regularly to the Compliance Director on the status of such high risk cases.
Coordinate with Parole and Probation to Expedite Revocations: Similarly with high risk cases, those who violate parole or probation conditions being held in the Jail awaiting their revocation hearings should be expedited. The Compliance Director and Jail Population Facilitator will work continuously with the Parole and Probation Office to ensure that
2|Page

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 3 of 169
revocations are being processed as expeditiously as possible. Current population figures of the jail show that this represents between 40-60 inmates at any given time that are only awaiting revocation hearings and not awaiting other charges in Orleans Parish.
B.) Strategies to accomplish sustainable hiring measures, including emergency measures if necessary
Hiring of an HR Professional to Manage Recruitment: The Director of Human Resources (HR) position, which had been vacant, has now been filled as of January 3, 2017. The position requires at least 6 years of experience in HR management, a bachelor’s degree in Human Resources or related field, and an active membership in the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). The HR Director will be under the supervision of the Compliance Director and the Sheriff, and the person’s main focus will be to plan, direct, and manage the jail personnel program and hiring strategy for the jail, while also handling agency wide administrative functions. The HR Director will be responsible for development and implementation of recruiting and retention strategies and programs and will work with the current public relations firm that is under contract to promote recruitment, develop branding strategies, and improve the image of the agency. The HR Director will also be responsible for updating policies, procedures, and rules; as well as initiate corrective advice and/or disciplinary measures when required. The HR Director will meet with other HR Directors in other Sheriffs’ offices to become acclimated to the HR Systems used by those jurisdictions, leverage completed job descriptions, and research successful recruitment strategies. OPSO also has only one recruiter on its administrative staff, and the goal will be to add one additional recruiter by April 1, 2017.
New Orleans Business Council Support: The New Orleans Business Council has agreed to assist the Compliance Director with developing recruitment strategies that will be effective in the Greater New Orleans area. They have been helpful to this point, of acquainting the Director with resources and organizations in the City that have led to the utilization of the New Orleans Police Department rosters of applicants for OJC recruitment of deputies and civilians, as well as making available recruiting and personnel strategies that have been effective in their industries in the Greater New Orleans area..
Recruitment from Civil Service Registry of NOPD Applicants: The New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) has a registry of hundreds of applicants that have, at some point in the process, indicated interest in being NOPD Recruits. The New Orleans Civil Service staff has agreed to provide this list to the Compliance Director so that OPSO can reach out to those applicants and determine if any would be interested in becoming deputies or civilian staff that can work in the Jail. The HR Director and Compliance Director will work with the City to reach to the appropriate applicants and maximize the available register by February 1, 2017.
Improved Use of Media Communication for Recruitment: Previously when job fairs were organized by OPSO, there would be between 5-7 applicants who respond with interest. Recently, a new strategy of using free television and radio public service announcements, combined with a greater online presence, has resulted in more than 50 applicants from the most recent job fair that was held. OPSO will continue to use this increased media profile throughout 2017 to generate greater interest in filling deputy and civilian staff posts. In addition, the content and navigability
3|Page

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 4 of 169
of the OPSO website (www.opso.us) will be reviewed and by April 1, 2017, the website will have web-based forms that can be filled out online to apply to become a deputy, rather than the print out version that is currently being used. Finally, OPSO is currently under contract with public relations firms whose scope of services will be re-tasked to become exclusively used for promoting recruitment for the Jail. The new HR Director has been briefed on this strategy and will begin work on this in the coming weeks.
Updated Pay Plans and Career Progression: Currently, hourly pay rates can vary across individuals who share the same duties, tenure, and job title. Any proposed change to the pay plan will impact not only new recruits to OPSO, but also current staff. Creating clear expectations for job duties and career progression opportunities is essential to fostering a professional working environment. Under the leadership of the HR Director, and in coordination with the Financial Liaison from the City on jail budget matters, the pay plans for all staff will be updated by April 2017.
C.) Maintaining a positive, professionalized culture among all Jail staff
Change of the Mission Statement: The official mission for those working at the jail has been changed to: protect the public, protect the employees, and protect the inmates. The key component for the creation and maintenance of a positive, professional culture among all jail staff is for all employees to fully understand what the mission is and how their role in the organization helps to fulfill that mission. The employees and deputies that work in the Jail must know that their safety is important, and rests in the middle of the mission statement. When the deputies feel safe, they are in a position to provide more professional care and custody of the inmate population. This mission statement will become socialized throughout the jail staff beginning January 2017, and will become the cornerstone of all training efforts for new staff that are recruited for the Jail.
Development of a new Vision Statement: Another main component of establishing a positive culture is for those on the front lines to know what their leaders’ vision is for the future of the organization. While obtaining compliance with the Consent Judgment is paramount, the vision for where the OPSO can and should be in the coming years needs to be focused on more than simple compliance. The Vision Statement of an organization is the sole responsibility of the leader. It is not a statement that is staffed and must be agreed upon by the employees. It is the Vision of the Director, in this case and must be formulated over time considering the history, current status of the Jail, and what is determined to be possible by the Compliance Director. By February 2017, the Compliance Director will have developed a new Vision Statement that will also be socialized across the agency that will describe what high level of functioning is possible for the organization.
Recruiting Goals Directed Above the Level of Minimally Required Positions: While there will be many working for OPSO who will respond positively to the changes in culture that will be introduced to the Jail, it should also be expected that there may be those who will not be able to perform to the heightened professional standard that will be required of them. For this reason, our recruitment goals will not be limited to simply filling vacant positions, but to hire above that minimally required staff level, with the expectation that those who underperform will be
4|Page

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 5 of 169
terminated if they are not cooperative or effective, and replacement of staff will be needed. One of the strategies that the HR Director will be responsible for developing by May 1, 2017, will be to develop a performance assessment policy and implementation plan.
Emphasis on Community College Enrollment and Completion: A key strategy of improving professionalism is increasing the educational attainment among the staff. The Compliance Director has experience partnering with local community colleges and universities to encourage staff to obtain their associates, bachelors, or masters degree in criminal justice. In addition to the pay plan adjustment proposed above, tuition reimbursement programs and a pay incentive program similar to what NOPD currently uses will also be explored. The Compliance Director will make initial contact with the various educational entities by January 15, 2017, with the HR Director following up to establish formal arrangement with those willing to participate.
D.) Ensure adequate and effective staff presence and deployment throughout the jail, including systems of oversight for overtime, leave, off-duty details and reserve deputies
Fill Vacant Chief of Corrections Position: Currently, the Chief of Corrections position is vacant and that role has been temporarily handled by Colonel Scott Colvin. However, that position will be filled before the middle of February 2017. Once that position has been filled, Col. Colvin will have the ability to develop improving training procedures for supervisors as it relates to effective staff deployment throughout the Jail. The Compliance Director has met with the newly selected HR Director to emphasize that hiring a Chief of Corrections is the top priority and has established the goal for HR Director to have a candidate selected by February 1, 2017. OPSO currently has multiple different shift schedules for various Jail operations, and the incoming Chief of Corrections will research best practices to determine if changes to shift schedules are needed by March 1, 2017.
Recruit to Staffing Levels Consistent with Best Practices: Staff levels that follow the guidelines for determining shift relief factors as published by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) in Staffing Analysis – Workbook for Jail (2nd Edition) will be included in the revised 2017 Jail Budget. Proper staffing will alleviate the need for excessive overtime hours, which in addition to the financial cost, is an intangible cost of worker morale for continuously have to work overtime each week. The appendix of this document outlines, for the first time, the full time staff profiles for the various components of OPSO jail operations. This information has been developed using NIC calculations and will be used to manage recruitment, staffing, and training needs going forward. These analyses will be used for the purposes of determining staffing for direct supervision facilities as well as all other facilities and operations that may be applicable, including courts, transportation, etc. The staff numbers in the appendix are a preliminary projection of staff requirement pending Rod Miller’s analysis, who is the OPSO’s jail staffing consultant. This analysis began in September 2016 and Compliance Director has be awaiting a report from the consultant to make comparisons and determine final staffing figures.
Systematic Review of Overtime Hours: By April 2017, the HR Manager of the OPSO will complete a full review of all overtime hours incurred in 2016 and make recommendations to the Compliance Director on how overtime hours can be reduced overall and to ensure that annual
5|Page

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 6 of 169
and sick leave are being used properly and that employees are not engaging in any “swap” activities where employees collude to call in sick so that their co-worker can earn overtime time. The Early Intervention System will be utilized to track, by individual deputy, the excessive use and abuse of overtime hours.
Revision of Policy for Off Duty Details and Reserve Deputies: Previously, the policy was that a reserve deputy who works an 8 hour shift during a month in the Jail made a reserve deputy eligible for up to 4, 8 hour shifts during the same month. This was effectively a 1 to 4 ratio, and a time when manpower is short, this policy is no longer acceptable. Effective November 2016, the policy for reserve deputies who wish to continue working off-duty details must work an equal number of volunteer hours in the OJC facility to the number off-duty detail hours that are worked. Failure to adhere to this policy will result in reserve deputies losing eligibility in the offduty detail program. In addition to this policy change, a full review of the OPSO detail policy will be conducted to determine if changes need to be made to improve the fairness of the system.
E.) Timely completion of critical policies and procedures
Originally, there were 119 policies that were identified for revision or development at OPSO in order to comply with the Consent Judgment. The work to complete revisions of these policies will be led by Captain Bryan Peters, the primary point of contact for managing Policy & Compliance documentation at OPSO. The graph below demonstrates the rate of past progress for the completion or revision of policies and procedures at OPSO since 2014:
OPSO Policy Development Progress (2014 - 2016)
140 120 100
80 60 40 20
0
Total Number of Policies to Revise/Complete Cumulative Policies Approved or Under Revision Total Drafts Under Review or Awaiting Approval Total Policy Revisions Completed & Approved
As of December 2016, there have been 60 critical policies revised and approved, while 51 critical policies revisions are still in draft form either pending review or approval. There are 8 critical policies that have not begun the revision process. Over the next 3 months, all 8 of these
6|Page

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 7 of 169
remaining policies will begin the revision process. Over the next 9 months, OPSO staff and contracted support staff will complete the revision process for all remaining critical policies based on the projected plan below:
OPSO Policy Development Plan (2017)
140 120 100
80 60 40 20
0
Total Number of Policies to Revise/Complete Total Drafts Under Review or Awaiting Approval Total Policy Revisions Completed & Approved
All critical policies identified for the Consent Judgment will be developed, revised, and fully completed by October 1, 2017. The number of days to complete or revise a policy once its development has been authorized by the Compliance Director will be no more than 60 days so that all policies can be developed and approved according to schedule above.
In addition to these critical policies, OPSO has also identified an additional 45 non-critical policies that have also been identified for revision. Of these, 4 have been completed, 26 are currently under revision, and 15 have not begun the revision process. Over the next 3 months, all 15 of these remaining policies will begin the revision process. Over the next 9 months, OPSO staff and contracted support staff will complete the revision process for all remaining policies that have been identified.
F.) Ensure staff receive adequate training on policies
Training Curriculum Development: Capt. Peters will review each policy or procedure that is approved. Capt. Peters will work with Col. Colvin and Lt. Navarro to determine whether the training required would take place in a classroom, during roll call, or if it can be part of required annual online training. Training curriculum will developed by Lt. Navarro as policies are being developed so that when policies are approved the training on those policies can be implemented. By March 2017, an official policy will be implemented that sets the process for creating new curriculum and will also achieve a 100% staff training rate in a timely fashion.
7|Page

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 8 of 169
Achieving POST Certifications for All Eligible Deputies: Deputies that serve in the Jail for more than 1 year and receive Peace Officer Standards & Training (POST) certification are eligible to receive a $6,000 annual supplement to his/her salary funded by the State of Louisiana. There are 97 recruits who have been working in the jail for more than a year, but have yet to complete POST certification and do not receive state supplemental pay. In addition to training on policies and procedures of the Orleans Parish Jail, by July 2017, all deputies will receive POST certification so that all will become eligible to receive state supplemental pay upon completing 1 year of service at OPSO. Once all deputies are certified, the hiring, academy process, and POST certification will take place automatically in the proper time and sequence so that every deputy hired will be certified at the end of the first year and be eligible for the state supplemental pay.
G.) Ensure that direct supervision is consistently enforced throughout the jail, making certain that there are staff physically present on every tier in the jail;
Incremental Implementation of Direct Supervision Procedures: Currently, compliance with direct supervision model is not possible in all units due to inadequate number of trained staff at OJC. Training of staff on the appropriate methods of direct supervision must take place before deputies can be expected to adhere to direct supervision standards. Before the end of July 2017, all staff will be appropriately training on direct supervision procedures. As sufficient level of staff become adequately trained enough to fill a given tier of the facility, that direct supervision method will be applied for that tier, and inmates will be returned from out of parish. As more staff is trained in direct supervision, the remaining tiers will come online, and the remaining inmates will be returned, until the full force compliment of OPSO has been fully trained.
H.) Prevent undue reliance on cell confinement/lockdown throughout the jail for all populations;
Enforcement of ACA Standards: OPSO follows the American Correctional Association (ACA) defined standards on the number of hours per day that inmates are allowed to circulate outside of cell confinement. Given space requirements and the security risk level of the inmates, however, for medium-high and high security units allowing more than 30 inmates to circulate when there is capacity for 60 inmates poses a risk to staff. Given the behavior of inmates and the “keepseparate inmates” it may not be safe for all inmates of a given pod to circulate together. In units of lower security it is possible for all inmates of a pod to circulate together. Use of the exercise yards for additional circulation capacity has been a normal practice, however, inclement weather can prevent the use of the exercise yards, which can result in populations in some tiers who were originally scheduled for circulation not being released from confinement. The number of inmates out at any given time is contingent on the unit and the situation; however, ACA standards on confinement and recreation are being followed currently and will continued to be followed and enforced going forward. OPSO will review its policies and procedures by March 2017 to ensure all populations are circulated for equal amounts of time per ACA standards.
Appropriate Use of Lockdown Procedures: While lockdown procedures may be appropriate to manage incidents of violence or disturbances in the Jail, OPSO Jail Management will use lockdown procedures only when necessary, and will work to return to normal operations as soon as possible so that inmate morale is not negatively impacted or inmate/staff relationships are not
8|Page

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 9 of 169
impaired by long or continuous periods of confinement. In addition, OPSO will not use lockdown procedures as a punitive measure of class punishment for entire tiers or the entire OJC facility.
I.) Strategies to return inmates housed outside of Orleans Parish in a timely fashion
Hiring of a Jail Population Facilitator: The MacArthur Foundation has awarded a Safety & Justice Challenge Grant for the City of New Orleans so that the OPSO can hire a Jail Facilitator to assist with the management of the jail population. The Jail Population Facilitator will be hired by the end of February 2017. The position will be responsible for reporting to the Compliance Director the status of all inmates under the custody of the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office, whether they are housed inside or outside of Orleans Parish. Among other responsibilities, the Facilitator will ensure that inmates whose court dates are imminent are returned to Orleans Parish promptly to be adjudicated.
Activation of TDC Facilities: The Temporary Detention Center (TDC) facilities can be activated to house any overflow needs that may arise from insufficient space at OJC. Upon review of the jail population projections provided by JFA Institute, approximately 200 beds within the TDC facilities can be activated to house overflow of low and low-medium risk inmates as an alternative to housing them out-of-parish. City engineers have assessed the facility and agree that two of the four buildings can be brought online for this purpose, and are evaluating the schedule and cost of completing such a project. As the population continues to decrease over time, use of the TDC facilities will be incrementally discontinued; one building at a time, until all TDC facilities are closed. If population trends continue on their current direction, it will be possible to house all inmates under the custody of OPSO at facilities in Orleans Parish and eliminate the need for out-of-parish facilities.
Youthful Inmates Moved out of OJC: At any given time, there are between 10-20 youthful inmates that are being housed at OJC awaiting adjudication in the adult court system. These youth are placed into a single pod with capacity for sixty 60 inmates, resulting in a loss of capacity of between 40-50 beds. The long term plan for youthful inmates will be to move them all to the Youth Study Center (YSC) after its expansion is completed. However, in the interim, OPSO is coordinating with other jurisdictions in the immediate region to determine if they can be moved to juvenile facilities instead of having them remain at OJC. If they are moved to other parishes, it is imperative that an expert in youth housing, security and programs be retained by February 1, 2017 who will follow and monitor the youth, ensure proper classification and segregation within OJC, as well as maintain contact with them if they are housed in OJC or in other facilities while awaiting the completion of the Youth Study Center modifications. This expert will also coordinate with the Youth Study Center staff relative to determining which programs that are provided to youth at YSC can be provided at OJC. If sufficient space for the youthful inmates can be identified in out-of-parish juvenile facilities, it can free up the capacity that is being lost due to housing the youth at OJC, and allow for more inmates who are being housed out of parish to be returned to Orleans Parish.
Data Sharing and Adherence to Jail Population Reduction Strategies: OPSO will continue to actively participate in the Criminal Justice Council and its Jail Population Management
9|Page

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 10 of 169
Subcommittee’s efforts to reduce the overall population of the Jail, which will free up capacity at OJC and allow for out-of-parish inmates to return to Orleans Parish. The new Jail Management System (JMS) that will be procured by OPSO will also have the ability to track the daily populations and classifications of inmates. Data reporting from the JMS will be provided to the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council to assist in their effort.
J.) Ensure inmates placed on suicide precautions are adequately monitored, evaluated, and treated;
Oversight of Medical Contract: By the end of February 2017, OPSO will hire a professional staff member with specialized experience as a medical professional to serve as a full time performance and compliance monitor for the medical and mental health services provider. This individual will report to the Compliance Director and ensure that performance of the vendor can be adequately supervised and managed. Among the primary responsibilities of this individual will be to establish and enforce and audit process to ensure inmates are being provided adequate treatment to prevent suicides.
Implementation of a New JMS: OPSO is currently in the process of finalizing a contract for procurement of a new jail management system (JMS) that will replace the current system that was built on an antiquated AS/400 architecture. The current system is costly to maintain and extracting data from it is labor intensive. Migrating over to a new JMS will give the OPSO a much greater ability to manage the mental health and medical needs of the inmate population and determine proper deployment of staff resources to monitor, evaluate and treat inmates. The JMS will facilitate the medical contract monitor’s ability to perform medical audits with the goal of ensuring inmates placed on suicide precautions are adequately monitored, evaluated, and treated. OPSO will retain a project coordinator familiar with jail and prison operations to supervise the installation and migration of historical data to the new JMS.
K.) Strategies to reduce incidents of suicide and self-harm
Engagement of Expertise: There are experts in the country who work specifically with suicide prevention and staff training relative to identifying potential inmates. The Compliance Director has had experience with such experts and has been personally involved in reducing the number of suicides in several jurisdictions. An expert will be retained no later than March 15, 2017 to evaluate the current procedures and practices, and will recommend possible policy changes and related training. Subsequent to the expert’s assessment and report, policy will be developed, approved and trained to deal with this important issue.
Implementation of a New JMS: The new JMS will have the ability to track and follow up on grievances filed by inmates on a current basis. Data reporting from the JMS can be generated that will meet the criteria of the Consent Judgement and provide operational information that can be acted upon by Jail Management.
L.) Strategies to ensure that inmate grievances and incidents of harm to inmates and staff are thoroughly and fairly investigated in a timely manner
10 | P a g e

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 11 of 169
Grievance Coordinator: OPSO currently has in place a grievance coordinator that uses an electronic system of monitoring and tracking grievances that are filed by inmates. Data is reported out to management staff and the Court Monitors on a regular, sometime daily, basis and so that critical issues can be identified, thoroughly investigated, and oversight over the process can be enforced.
M.) Strategies to ensure that any staff use of force is appropriate and all uses of force are accurately recorded
Complete Training on Use of Force Policy: Over 95% of deputies and supervisors have completed training in the updated use of force policy and procedures. Deputies are required to report incidents to their supervisor, which are then reduced to writing to the Administrative Warden of the facility for review. The Warden then gathers all required documentation and submits it to the Force Investigative Team for Review. Training on this process will be completed for all remaining staff by the end of January 2017. For all new staff that will be recruited in 2017, the updated use of force policy will be part of their in-service curriculum for initial training.
Use of Force Investigative Team (FIT) Review & Review Board: As part of the updated policy on the use of force, OPSO has created a Review Board who meets on a monthly basis to review all incidents and recommend actions to be taken. The Chair of the Board is the Asst. Chief of Corrections (Col. Colvin). Additional voting members of the board are the Supervisor for Policy (Capt. Peters), the Administrative Warden (Major Carlos Louque), Director of Classification (Lt. Holliday), Director of Field Operations (Colonel Melvin Howard), and the Director of Training (Lt. Navarro). In attendance, but not voting members are the Director of Investigations, the ISB Commander, the IAD Supervisors and the Use of Force Supervisor. Meetings of the Board are recorded and submitted to the Court Monitors for review on a monthly basis. In addition, the incoming Chief of Corrections would also participate in Board proceedings. The Compliance Director will review the membership of the Board to determine if additional members may be needed.
N.) A plan to ensure the Early Intervention System is effective
Development of Additional Metrics for Measurement: Currently the Early Intervention System (EIS) only tracks a single metric, instances of use of force in a given time period. In comparison, the NOPD recently launched its Insight program to monitor officer performance that includes 18 different metrics for evaluation. By the end of May 2017, the OPSO will develop an expanded use of the EIS to include additional metrics to track deputy performance in the Jail beyond use of force instances, such as overtime use, detail hours worked, leave hours taken, etc. The Administrative Warden of the Jail will review EIS data on a daily basis and provide summary reports to the FIT Review Board, HR Director, and Compliance Director of any critical issues as necessary.
11 | P a g e

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 12 of 169
O.) Strategies for maintaining acceptable sanitation and environmental conditions
Increase the Number of Trained Sanitation Deputies: Due to the shortage in available security staff, the number of deputies assigned to Sanitation duties has been reduced substantially. With a renewed focus on recruitment for the Jail, the number of deputies will increase and more deputies will be trained to handle sanitation duties to maintain acceptable sanitation and environmental conditions in the Jail. Emphasis in the training program will be placed on using the correct chemical and or materials to maintain acceptable conditions and preserve the useful life of the facilities, as well as the importance of securing chemicals so that inmates do not have access to them.
Renovation of the Docks: The Docks represents a transfer and holding facility for inmates awaiting court appearances. Given the current deteriorated conditions of the Docks, it is neither safe nor does it allow for timely processing of inmates for their court appearances. A contract for design of the Docks Renovation is now moving forward. Once the construction is complete, the use of the Docks facility will be restored, with all life safety, security, and environmental problems resolved. Design services for this project have been procured by the City design and construction documents are expected to be delivered in the second quarter of 2017. The Compliance Director is scheduled to meet with the City Facilities Manager to review project requirements.
P.) Strategies for ensuring the disciplinary system is effective and affords inmates due process
Updated Policies and Procedures on Discipline Have Been Implemented: OPSO now has a full time Disciplinary Officer to handle all investigations and hearings involving inmate misconduct in the Jail. Hearings are held and disciplinary actions are resolved within 72 hours of incidents occurring. Inmate advocates or witness are available for the inmates to assist in preparing a defense if requested. Data on hearings and disciplinary actions is used to reclassify inmates as necessary, and to identify inmates with multiple disciplinary actions. Dr. Patricia Hardyman and Lt. Holliday review classification summaries on a monthly basis to ensure that time frames are being met and follow up on reclassification is completed.
Implementation of a New JMS: The new JMS will have the ability to track and follow up on inmate disciplinary actions and proceedings. Data reporting from the JMS can be generated that will meet the criteria of the Consent Judgement and provide operational information that can be acted upon by Jail Management.
Q.) Strategies to ensure the implementation of budget control measures and competition in procurement, including but not limited to a process to ensure regular communication between the CFO for the Jail and financial liaison for the City
Development of a Five Year Budget Model: The City has contracted with Public Financial Management (PFM) to assist the Compliance Director, the Sheriff, and the CFO of the Jail with the development of a 5 year budget model that will be used to develop future appropriation requests from the City. The Financial Liaison for the City is directing the efforts of PFM and is
12 | P a g e

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 13 of 169
in direct coordination with the CFO for the Jail and the Compliance Director to gather all financial, operational, and personnel data that is required to develop realistic assumptions and program goals so that future budget requests will be predictable, steady, and sufficient to provide for all operations of the Jail without the need for mid-year supplemental appropriations.
City Attorney Review of Cases Requiring Legal Settlement: Beginning January 2017, all legal counsel for OPSO will be required to either include the City Attorney’s office and the Compliance Director in negotiations for legal settlements or submit all negotiated settlements to the City Attorney for review and Compliance Director for approval prior to any settlement being authorized.
Budget Working Group Quarterly Meetings: The Budget Working Group, chaired by Tommie Vassel, will continue to meet every quarter during 2017 to ensure regular communication on all budget issues among the members. The Budget Working Group which consists of three representatives from OPSO, three representatives of the City, and the Chair. The current Group Members that attend are Councilmember Jason Williams, CFO of the Jail Sean Bruno; Comptroller of the Jail, Elizabeth Boyer; the Chief Administrative Officer of the City, Jeffery Hebert; the Financial Liaison of the City, Eric Melancon, and the Compliance Director. As part of these meetings, OPSO will provide to the Group detailed accounts of personnel costs and spending on materials, supplies, professional services, etc. that have been incurred throughout the year.
Review of Procurement Practices: By the end of April 2017, a full review of OPSO’s procurement practices for all professional services will be completed by the Compliance Director and recommendations on improved policies will be developed and implemented. In the latter half of 2016, there have been two high value Requests for Proposals (RFPs) (for food services and for a new Jail Management System) that have involved selection committees that bring together stakeholders from within the user departments of OPSO and representatives from the City of New Orleans. These procurements have been successful in providing transparency in the procurement process and represent a sound policy that can be implemented for future procurements above a certain dollar threshold. The current policy at OPSO for all purchasing of goods and non-professional services is to conduct an Invitation for Bid Process to determine technical compliance and assurance that the lowest price is awarded. OPSO follows both state and federal law and regulations on purchasing, and when state and federal requirements conflict, OPSO adheres to the more stringent policy.
Implementation of New Accounting System and Financial Audit of the Agency: By February 2017, a solicitation will be issued for a new accounting system for OPSO. During that migration process, which will take 12-18 months, the agency will also undergo a full financial audit of all revenues and expenditures to ensure proper accounting practices are being upheld and that proper financial controls are put into practice under the new accounting system that will be adopted. The audit will also include a review of the inventory of all materials, assets, equipment, and vehicles, which are owned by OPSO and all policies surrounding their management. An auditor will be put under contract for this work no later than April 1, 2017.
13 | P a g e

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 14 of 169
Full Review and Cost Analysis of all Legal & Professional Services Contracts: By May 2017, the Compliance Director will have reviewed all legal and professional services agreements at OPSO and make determinations on whether services are cost effective and provide appropriate services for the agency.
R.) A framework for comprehensive analysis of all individuals on OPSO's payroll and strategies to address the staffing deficiencies outlines by the Monitors' reports
Review and Update of Current Rates of Pay: By the end of February 2017, the Compliance Director, in partnership with the CFO of the Jail, Financial Liaison of the City, and the team from PFM developing the budget framework, will conduct a full review of all rates of pay for current personnel. As previously mentioned, hourly pay rates can vary across individuals who share the same duties, tenure, and job title. The recommendation will create clear expectations for job duties and career progression opportunity which are essential to fostering a professional working environment that is better able to retain staff. The Compliance Director will have completed a full review of the current pay structure for deputies and recommend a feasible update of the pay plan. Given budgetary constraints, it is most likely that any update of the pay plan would need to be phased in over a 3 year period. In addition to the pay plan, a full review over the operational shift schedules of the Jail will also be completed by March 1, 2017 by the Chief of Corrections.
Achieving POST Certifications for All Eligible Deputies: As previously mentioned, there are currently 97 recruit who have been working in the jail for more than a year, but have yet to complete POST certification and do not receive State supplemental pay. Once certified, these deputies will earn an additional $6,000 per year.
S.) Maintaining an organization chart and job descriptions that reflect an organization structure that adequately support the jail.
Update of All Job Descriptions: By the end of May 2017, the HR Director will have completed a full review and update of all job descriptions to coordinate with the updated pay plan for the staff. Descriptions will be developed for general job titles and separate descriptions will be developed for specific postings in various departments in Jail (such as OJC Security, Intake & Processing, Transportation, Perimeter Security, etc.).
Maintenance of Organizational Chart during Service of the Compliance Director: While the position of the Compliance Director is active at OPSO, the organizational structure of jail operations will be as outlined in the appendix of this document.
Review of all Administrative Functions at OPSO: A full review of all positions that support agency-wide administrative functions within OPSO will be conducted and completed by the HR Manager no later than April 1, 2017, in order for the Compliance Director to make determinations on whether certain administrative functions need to be consolidated.
14 | P a g e

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 15 of 169

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 16 of 169
Appendix: Organizational Chart of the OPSO Criminal Division During Compliance Director Tenure

Orleans Parish Sheriff

Compliance Director

Administrative Functions

Security Functions

Chief Administrative Officer/Chief Financial Officer

Director of Human
Resources

General Counsel

Comptroller
Accounting
Planning and Grants
Purchasing & Procurement
Admin Services

Payroll
Admin Support Services

Legal Services
Public Information
Risk Management

Chief of Corrections

Chief of Security
Administrative Warden
Inmate Services
Transportation
Operational Warden
Orleans Justice Center (OJC)
Laundry Services
Training Academy

Greviances
Environmental Health Services
Reserves
Kitchen
Intake & Processing McDaniels
Center
Temporary Detention Center

Chief of Investigations

Court Security & Field
Operations

Director of Facility
Management

Internal Affairs Divisions Investigations Division
Force Investigation Team (FIT)
Intelligence
Support Units

Docks
Subpoenas & Capias
Criminal District Court
Municipal & Traffic Court
Mechanic Shop

Central Maintenance

Warehouse

16 | P a g e

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 17 of 169 Summary of Current Staffing Levels by Facility:

Facility

Colonel

Major

Captain Lieutenant Sergeant

Corporal

Deputy / Recruit

Orleans Justice Center (OJC)

1

2

3

9

12

1

165

In-Take and Processing Center (IPC)

0

2

1

2

5

2

32

Classifications

0

0

0

0

2

0

1

Transportation Division

0

0

0

0

1

1

21

Training Division

0

0

3

3

7

0

66

Kitchen & Warehouse / Outside Security

0

0

0

1

0

0

26

Investigative Services Bureau (ISB)

0

1

0

5

4

0

37

Warren McDaniels (MCD)

0

1

1

0

3

1

14

Temporary Detention Center (TDC)

Closed

Totals

2

6

9

23

36

6

404

**Figures above do not account for staffing for administration, court security, subpoenas & capias, and the civil division

Civilian
42 42 7 0 0 1 2 0
95

Totals
235 86 10 23 79 28 49 20
581

Summary of Proposed Staffing Levels by Facility:

Facility

Colonel

Major

Captain Lieutenant Sergeant

Orleans Justice Center (OJC)

1

2

4

5

20

In-Take and Processing Center (IPC)

0

1

0

5

3

Classifications

0

0

1

0

1

Transportation Division

0

0

0

0

1

Training Division

0

0

1

0

1

Kitchen & Warehouse / Outside Security

0

0

0

2

0

Investigative Services Bureau (ISB)

0

1

0

6

6

Warren McDaniels (MCD)

0

0

0

1

3

Temporary Detention Center (TDC)

0

0

0

3

3

Totals

1

4

6

22

38

**Proposed Staffing levels are based on NIC standards **Figures above do not account staffing for administration, court security, subpoenas & capias, and the civil division

Corporal
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Deputy / Recruit
184 30 1 23 8 17 38 17 46 364

Civilian
72 64 18 0 1 13 2 0 0 170

Totals
288 103 21 24 11 32 53 21 52 605

17 | P a g e

Post Assistant Chief of Corrections Warden Administrative Warden Administrative Assistant Shift Commander Shift Lieutenant Floor Supervisor
Pod 1-A Pod 1-B Pod 1-C Pod 1-D Pod 1-E Pod 1-F 1st floor Rover Pod 2-A Pod 2-B Pod 2-C Pod 2-D Pod 2-E Pod 2-F 2nd floor Rover Pod 3-A Pod 3-B Pod 3-C Pod 3-D Pod 3-E Pod 3-F 3rd floor Rover Pod 4-A Pod 4-B Pod 4-C Pod 4-D Pod 4-E Pod 4-F 4th floor Rover Sanitation Officer Medical Clinic Disciplinary Officer Jail Entrance Transport/Holding Area Laundry Programming Attorney Visitation Liaison Total Staff:

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 18 of 169 Proposed Deputy & Officer Staff Levels at Orleans Justice Center (OJC)

Job Class Colonel Major Major Civilian Captain Lieutenant Sergeant
Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy

Meal Relief
No No No No No Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

# of Post for Days
1 1 1 3 1 1 4

Total Hours on Days
8 8 8 24 12 12 48

#. of Post for Nights
0 0 0 0 1 1 4

1

12

1

1

12

1

1

12

1

1

12

1

1

12

1

1

12

1

1

12

1

2

24

2

2

24

2

1

12

1

1

12

1

1

12

1

1

12

1

1

12

1

1

12

1

1

12

1

1

12

1

1

12

1

1

12

1

1

12

1

1

12

1

1

12

1

1

12

1

1

12

1

1

12

1

1

12

1

1

12

1

1

12

1

2

24

2

2

24

0

1

12

0

2

24

2

2

24

1

2

24

0

1

12

0

1

12

0

1

12

0

44

35

Total Hours
on Nights
0 0 0 0 12 12 48
12 12 12 12 12 12 12 24 24 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 24 0 0 24 12 0 0 0 0

#. of Days per
Week 5 5 5 5 7 7 7
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 5 7 7 5 5 7 5

#. of Hours
per Week
40 40 40 120 168 168 672
168 168 168 168 168 168 168 336 336 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 336 144 60 336 252 120 60 84 60

#. of Hours of Coverage per
Year 2,086 2,086 2,086 6,257 8,760 8,760 35,038

Is Relief Needed?
No No No No Yes Yes Yes

8,760

Yes

8,760

Yes

8,760

Yes

8,760

Yes

8,760

Yes

8,760

Yes

8,760

Yes

17,519

Yes

17,519

Yes

8,760

Yes

8,760

Yes

8,760

Yes

8,760

Yes

8,760

Yes

8,760

Yes

8,760

Yes

8,760

Yes

8,760

Yes

8,760

Yes

8,760

Yes

8,760

Yes

8,760

Yes

8,760

Yes

8,760

Yes

8,760

Yes

8,760

Yes

8,760

Yes

8,760

Yes

17,519

Yes

7,508

Yes

3,128

No

17,519

Yes

13,139

Yes

6,257

Yes

3,128

Yes

4,380

Yes

3,128

No

Net Annual Work Hours 1,722 1,722 1,722 1,916 1,952 1,749 1,716

Total No. of FTEs Needed
1 1 1 3 4 5.01 20.42

Rounded No. of FTEs 1 1 1 3 4 5 20

1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822

4.81 4.81 4.81 4.81 4.81 4.81 4.81 9.62 9.62 4.81 4.81 4.81

4.81

4.81

4.81

4.81

4.81

4.81

4.81

4.81

4.81

4.81

4.81

4.81

4.81

4.81

4.81

4.81

9.62

4.12

1

9.62

7.21

3.27

1.72

2.4

1

184

219

18 | P a g e

Post
Central Control 1st floor Pod Control 1 1st floor Pod Control 2 1st floor Pod Control 3 2nd floor Pod Control 1 2nd floor Pod Control 2 2nd floor Pod Control 3 3th floor Pod Control 1 3th floor Pod Control 2 3th floor Pod Control 3 4th floor Pod Control 1 4th floor Pod Control 2 4th floor Pod Control 3 Totals:

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 19 of 169 Proposed Civilian/Correctional Monitoring Technicians (CMTs) for OJC

Job Class
Civilian Civilian Civilian Civilian Civilian Civilian Civilian Civilian Civilian Civilian Civilian Civilian Civilian

Meal Relief
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

# of Post for 1st. Shift

Total Hours
for 1st. Shift

#. of Post for 2nd. Shift

Total Hours
for 2nd. Shift

# of Post for 3rd. Shift

Total Hours
for 3rd. Shift

Days per Week

Hours per Week

Hours of Coverage per
Year

Is Relief Needed ?

3

24

3

24

3

24

7

504

26,279

Yes

1

8

1

8

1

8

7

168

8,760

Yes

1

8

1

8

1

8

7

168

8,760

Yes

1

8

1

8

1

8

7

168

8,760

Yes

1

8

1

8

1

8

7

168

8,760

Yes

1

8

1

8

1

8

7

168

8,760

Yes

1

8

1

8

1

8

7

168

8,760

Yes

1

8

1

8

1

8

7

168

8,760

Yes

1

8

1

8

1

8

7

168

8,760

Yes

1

8

1

8

1

8

7

168

8,760

Yes

1

8

1

8

1

8

7

168

8,760

Yes

1

8

1

8

1

8

7

168

8,760

Yes

1

8

1

8

1

8

7

168

8,760

Yes

15

15

15

Net Annual Work Hours
1,890 1,890 1,890 1,890 1,890 1,890 1,890 1,890 1,890 1,890 1,890 1,890 1,890

Total No. of FTEs Needed

Rounded No. of FTEs

13.9

4.63

4.63

4.63

4.63

4.63

4.63

4.63

4.63

4.63

4.63

4.63

4.63

69.46

69

19 | P a g e

Post Director Shift Commander Shift Supervisor Record Room
Deputy Post: Acceptance Area B of I Area DOC Classifications Floor Warrants Release Area Security Municipal Court Security Sanitation Officer
Civilian Post: Lobby Control Record Room Release Window CINTAP Booking Property Room Bond Window
Total Staff
Post Director Supervisor Auditor Specialist Total Staff

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 20 of 169 Proposed Staffing of Intake and Processing Center (IPC)

Job Class Major
Lieutenant Sergeant Lieutenant

Meal Relief
No Yes Yes Yes

No. of Post for
Days 1 1 1 1

Total Hours on
Days 8 12 12 12

No. of Post for Nights
0 1 1 0

Total Hours on
Nights 0 12 12 0

Days per Week 5 7 7 7

Hours per Week 40 168 168 84

Hours of Coverage per Year
2,086 8,760 8,760 4,380

Is Relief Needed?
No Yes Yes Yes

Net Annual Work Hours 1,722 2,685 2,652 2,685

Total No. of FTEs Needed
1 3.26 3.3 1.63

Rounded No. of FTEs 1 3 3 2

Deputy

Yes

2

24

1

12

Deputy

Yes

1

12

0

0

Deputy

Yes

1

12

0

0

Deputy

Yes

2

24

2

24

Deputy

Yes

1

12

0

0

Deputy

Yes

2

24

2

24

Deputy

Yes

4

48

0

0

Deputy

No

1

12

1

12

Civilian

Yes

1

14

0

0

Civilian

Yes

1

12

1

12

Civilian

Yes

5

60

0

0

Civilian

Yes

1

12

1

12

Civilian

Yes

1

12

2

24

Civilian

Yes

3

36

3

36

Civilian

Yes

3

36

3

36

Civilian

Yes

2

24

2

24

35

20

7

252

13,139

Yes

2,757

4.77

7

84

4,380

Yes

2,757

1.59

7

84

4,380

Yes

2,757

1.59

7

336

17,519

Yes

2,757

6.35

7

84

4,380

Yes

2,757

1.59

7

336

17,519

Yes

2,757

6.35

5

240

12,314

Yes

2,757

4.47

7

168

8,760

Yes

2,757

3.18

29.89

30

7

98

5,110

Yes

1,988

2.57

7

168

8,760

Yes

1,988

4.41

7

420

21,899

Yes

1,988

11.02

7

168

8,760

Yes

1,988

4.41

7

252

13,139

Yes

1,988

6.61

7

504

26,279

Yes

1,988

13.22

7

504

26,279

Yes

1,988

13.22

7

336

17,519

Yes

1,988

8.81

64.27

64

103

Proposed Staffing of Classification Division

Job Class Captain Sergeant. Deputy Civilian

Meal Relief
No Yes No Yes

No. of Post for Days
1 1 1 3 6

Total Hours on Days
8 12 12 36

No. of Post for Nights
0 0 0 3 3

Total Hours
on Nights
0 0 0 36

Days per Week 5 5 5 7

Hours per Week 40 60 60 672

Hours of Coverage per
Year 2,086 3,128 3,128 35,038

Is Relief Needed?
No No No Yes

Net Annual Work Hours 1,722 2,652 2,757 1,988

Total No. of FTEs Needed
1 1 1 17.62 20.62

Rounded No. of FTEs 1 1 1 18 21

20 | P a g e

Supervisor Medical Transportation Total Staff
Director Admin. Assistant Training Coordinator Pre-Service Range POST Academy Annual In-Service Total Staff:
Warehouse:
Kitchen: Supervior
Outside Security: Central Control Scanner Gate House Visitation Total Staff

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 21 of 169 Proposed Staffing for Transportation

Job Class Sergeant Deputy Deputy

Meal Relief
No Yes Yes

No. of Post for
Days 1 6 6

Total Hours on
Days 12 72 72

No. of Post for Nights
0 0 4

Total Hours on
Nights 0 0 48

Days per Week 5 5 7

13

4

Hours per Week 60 360 840

Hours of Coverage per Year
3,128 18,770 43,798

Is Relief Needed?
No Yes Yes

Net Annual Work Hours 2,652 2,757 2,757

Total No. of FTEs Needed
1 6.81 15.89
22.7

Rounded No. of FTEs 1
23 24

Proposed Staffing for Training Division

Job Class Captain Civilian
Sergeant Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy

Meal Relief
No No
No No No No No

No. of Post for
Days 1 1

Total Hours on
Days 10 8

No. of Post for Nights
0 0

Total Hours on
Nights 0 0

Days per Week 5 5

1

10

0

0

5

2

20

0

0

5

2

20

0

0

5

2

20

0

0

5

2

20

0

0

5

11

0

Hours per Week 50 40
50 100 100 100 100

Hours of Coverage per Year
2,607 2,086

Is Relief Needed?
No No

2,607

No

5,214

No

5,214

No

5,214

No

5,214

No

Net Annual Work Hours 2,396 1,890
2,259 2,365 2,365 2,365 2,365

Total No. of FTEs Needed
1 1

Rounded No. of FTEs 1 1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

11

11

Proposed Staffing of Kitchen/Warehouse & Outside Security

Job Class
Sergeant. Deputy Civilian
Lieutenant Deputy

Meal Relief
No No No
Yes Yes

No. of Post for
Days

Total Hours on Days

No. of Post for Nights

1

10

0

3

10

0

1

10

0

1

12

0

8

96

0

Total Hours
on Nights
0 0 0
0 0

Days per Week
5 5 5
7 7

Hours per Week
50 150 50
84 672

Hours of Coverage per
Year

Is Relief Needed?

2,607

No

7,821

No

2,607

No

4,380

Yes

35,038

Yes

Net Annual Work Hours
2,339 2,757 1,988
2,685 2,757

Total No. of FTEs Needed

Rounded No. of FTEs

1

1

3

3

1

1

1.63

2

12.71

13

Civilian

Yes

2

24

2

24

7

336

17,519

Yes

1,988

8.81

9

Deputy

Yes

1

12

1

12

7

168

8,760

Yes

2,757

3.18

3

Civilian

Yes

1

12

1

12

7

168

8,760

Yes

1,988

4.41

4

Deputy

Yes

1

10

0

0

5

50

2,607

No

2,757

1

1

19

4

36.74

37

21 | P a g e

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 22 of 169

Commander Administrative Assistant
Support Units: Lieutenant K-9 Sergeant K-9 Mounted Westbank Major Crimes Task Force Multi-Agency Intelligence Unit A-case Officer Admin. Supervisor PREA Coordinator Investigations: Lieutenant Investigators Force Investigation Team: Lieutenant Investigators IAD Criminal: Lieutenant Investigators IAD - Admin. Division: Lieutenant Administrative Assistant Investigators Intelligence Division: Sergeant Investigators Total Staff:

Proposed Staffing of Investigations and Support Bureau (ISB)

Job Class Major Civilian

Meal Relief No No

No. of Post for Days 1 1

Total Hours on
Days 8 8

No. of Post for Nights
0 0

Total Hours on
Nights 0 0

Days per Week 5 5

Hours per Week 40 40

Hours of Coverage per Year
2,086 2,086

Is Relief Needed?
No No

Net Annual Total No. of

Work

FTEs Rounded

Hours Needed No. of FTEs

1,722

1

1

1,890

1

1

Lieutenant

No

Sergeant

No

Deputy

No

Deputy

No

Sergeant

No

Sergeant

No

Sergeant

No

Sergeant

No

Lieutenant.

No

Deputy

No

Lieutenant

No

Deputy

No

Lieutenant

No

Agents

No

Lieutenant

No

Civilian

No

Agents

No

Sergeant

No

Agents

No

1

12

0

0

5

60

3,128

No

2,685

1

1

12

0

0

5

60

3,128

No

2,652

1

1

12

0

0

5

60

3,128

No

2,757

1

1

8

0

0

5

40

2,086

No

1,822

1

1

8

0

0

5

40

2,086

No

1,716

1

1

12

0

0

5

60

3,128

No

2,860

1

1

12

0

0

5

60

3,128

No

2,652

1

1

8

0

0

5

40

2,086

No

2,652

1

2

24

0

0

5

120

6,257

No

2,685

2

10

120

4

48

5

840

43,798

No

2,757

14

1

8

0

0

5

40

2,086

No

1,722

1

6

48

0

0

5

240

12,514

No

1,818

6

1

8

0

0

5

40

2,086

No

1,722

1

4

32

0

0

5

160

8,342

No

1,818

4

1

8

0

0

5

40

2,086

No

1,722

1

1

8

0

0

5

40

2,086

No

1,890

1

6

48

0

0

5

240

12,514

No

2,757

6

1

12

0

0

5

60

3,128

No

2,652

1

4

48

2

24

5

360

18,770

No

2,757

6

47

6

53

53

22 | P a g e

Post Director Watch Commander
First Floor Second Floor Job Delivery and Pick-Up Community Service
Total Staff
Post Watch Commander Assistant Watch Commander Bldg. 1 East Pod Bldg. 1 West Pod Bldg. 1 East & West Pod Control Bldg. 2 East Pod Bldg. 2 West Pod Bldg. 2 East & West Pod Control Sanitation Officer Rover Control Deputy Front Desk
Totals

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 23 of 169 Proposed Staffing of Warren McDaniels Center

Job Class Lieutenant Sergeant
Dep. CLOSED
Deputy Deputy

Meal Relief
No Yes
Yes
Yes Yes

No. of Post for
Days 1 1

Total Hours on
Days 8 12

No. of Post for Nights
0 1

Total Hours on
Nights 0 12

Days per Week 5 7

1

12

1

12

7

3

36

2

24

7

6

72

0

0

5

12

4

Hours per Week 40 168
168
420 360

Hours of Coverage per Year
2,086 8,760

Is Relief Needed?
No Yes

8,760

Yes

21,899

Yes

18,770

No

Net Annual Work Hours 2,685 2,652
2,757
2,757 2,757

Total No. of FTEs Needed
1 3.3

Rounded No. of FTEs 1 3

3.18

7.94

6

17.12

17

21

Proposed Staffing of Temporary Detention Center (TDC)

Job Class Lieutenant Sergeant
Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy

Meal Relief Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No. of Post for
Days 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Total Hours on
Days 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

No. of Post for Nights
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0

Total Hours on
Nights 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 0

Days per Week 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

12

12

Hours per Week 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 84

Hours of Coverage per Year
8,760 8,760 8,760 8,760 8,760 8,760 8,760 8,760 8,760 8,760 8,760 4,380

Is Relief Needed?
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Net Annual Work Hours 2,685 2,652 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822 1,822

Total No. of FTEs Needed
3.26 3.3 4.81 4.81 4.81 4.81 4.81 4.81 4.81 4.81 4.81 2.4
45.69

Rounded No. of FTEs 3 3
46 52

23 | P a g e

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 24 of 169

REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN – (12/15/2016)

Section

C

P

N

Measures

IV. A. Protection from Harm - Consistent with constitutional standards, Defendant shall provide prisoners with a safe and secure environment and

ensure their reasonable safety from harm. OPSO shall take all reasonable measures to ensure that during the course of incarceration, prisoners are not

subjected to unnecessary or excessive force by OPSO staff and are protected from violence by other prisoners.

IV.A. 1. Use of Force Policies and Procedures

IV. A. 1.a. OPSO shall develop, implement, and maintain

✔

comprehensive policies and procedures (in accordance

with generally accepted correctional standards) relating to

the use of force with particular emphasis regarding

permissible and impermissible uses of force.

1. Written policies and procedures; table of contents developed in collaboration with monitors governing use of force/response to resistance, training, data collection and analysis, reporting, supervisory and leadership review of uses of force. See also IV.A.5.a,IV.A.2., IV.A.3. Summary page from use of force reports.

OPSO Compliance Plan
Responsible Party: Captain Peters
General Information:
All use of force policies have been completed and approved by all parties to the Consent Judgment. The only issue we are currently facing in reference to the training process is low staffing levels. This should be alleviated by Director Maynard’s plan to temporarily close several housing units so that OPSO can focus on training for several months.

Compliance Tasks to be Completed:

Task #1: Complete policy training.

Necessary Resources:

No additional resources required.

Benchmark Dates:

We are already well over halfway through the training process.

Substantial Compliance Date:

We expect to complete the training and dissemination

1

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 25 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan process by 12/31/2016.

IV. A. 1.b. OPSO shall develop and implement a single,

✔

uniform reporting system under a Use of Force Reporting

policy. OPSO reportable force shall be divided into two

levels, as further specified in policy: Level 1 uses of

force will include all serious uses of force (i.e., the use of

force leads to injuries that are extensive, serious or visible

in nature, including black eyes, lacerations, injuries to the

mouth or head, multiple bruises, injuries to the genitals,

etc.), injuries requiring hospitalization, staff misconduct,

and occasions when use of force reports are inconsistent,

conflicting, or otherwise suspicious. Level 2 uses of force

will include all escort or control holds used to overcome

resistance that are not covered by the definition of Level 1

uses of force.

1. See IV.A.1.a. and IV.A.7.a. Written
policy/procedure governing uses of force/response
to resistance Level 1 and Level 2. 2. Medical/mental health corresponding written
policy/procedure. 3. Review of use of force reports; review of incident
reports; review of inmate medical files. 4. Review of hospital transports. 5. Inmate interviews. 6. Review of use of force investigations (IAD or
SOD); referrals for prosecution.

Responsible Party: Captain Peters
General Information:
All use of force policies have been completed and approved by all parties to the Consent Judgment. The only issue we are currently facing in reference to the training process is low staffing levels. This should be alleviated by Director Maynard’s plan to temporarily close several housing units so that OPSO can focus on training for several months.

Compliance Tasks to be Completed:

Task #1: Complete policy training.

Necessary Resources:

No additional resources required.

Benchmark Dates:

We are already well over halfway through the training process.

Substantial Compliance Date:

We expect to complete the training and dissemination process by 12/31/2016.

IV. A. 1.c. OPSO shall assess, annually, all data collected regarding uses of force and make any necessary changes to use of force policies or procedures to ensure that

✔ 1. See also IV.A.1.a.

Responsible Party: Chief Laughlin

2. Annual report; recommendations, plans of action.

EIS data.

2

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 26 of 169

Section

C

P

N

unnecessary or excessive use of force is not used in OPP.

The review and recommendations will be documented

and provided to the Monitor, DOJ, and SPLC.

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan General Information: Ensuring the initial use of force incidents are documented and investigated in the timeframe set by OPSO policy. Completed use of force investigations are reviewed and approved by OPSO Division commanders. The completed/approved investigations are forwarded to the Force Investigation Team for review. The Force Investigation Team receives the completed UOF report, conducts the review to ensure all required information is contained, and forwards the final report to the FIT Commander for approval. The approved use of force investigation is then forwarded to the Use of Force review board (UFRB). The UFRB decides if the case is justified, if additional training is needed, or policy changes are required.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: Provide all deputies with use of force training and ensure that every deputy understands what constitutes a use of force. Ensure that first line supervisors understand what information is needed to complete
3

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 27 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan a use of force investigation.
Completion date of 12/31/2016.

Necessary Resources: N/A

Substantial Compliance Date:

12/31/2016

IV.A.2. Use of Force Training

IV. A. 2. a. OPSO shall ensure that all correctional officers are knowledgeable of and have the knowledge,

✔

1. See also IV.A.1.a

Responsible Party: Lt. Navarro

2. Lesson plans, training materials, evidence of

skills, and abilities to comply with use of force policies and procedures. At a minimum, OPSO shall provide

knowledge gained. Qualification of instructors. 3. Training schedule. List of attendees.

General Information:

correctional officers with pre-service and annual inservice training in use of force, defensive tactics, and use of force policies and procedures. The training will include the following: (1) instruction on what constitutes excessive force; (2) de-escalation tactics; and (3) management of prisoners with mental illness to limit
the need for using force.

4. Observation of training. 5. Interviews with trainers. 6. Interviews with trainees. 7. Review of use of force incident reports.
Schedule of pre-service, in-service and specialized
training for two year forward, including topics, dates,
instructors.

All use of force policies have been completed and approved by all parties to the Consent Judgment. The only issue we are currently facing in reference to the training process is low staffing levels. This should be alleviated by Director

Maynard’s plan to temporarily

close several housing units so that

OPSO can focus on training for

several months.

Compliance Tasks to be Completed:

Task #1: Complete policy training.

Necessary Resources:

No additional resources required.

Benchmark Dates:

4

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 28 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan We are already well over halfway through the training process.

Substantial Compliance Date:

We expect to complete the training and dissemination process by 12/31/2016.

IV. A. 2. b. OPSO shall ensure that officers are aware of any change to policies and practices throughout their employment with OPP. At a minimum, OPSO shall provide pre-service and annual in-service use of force training that prohibits: (1) use of force as a response to verbal insults or
prisoner threats where there is no immediate threat to the safety or security of the institution, prisoners, staff, or visitors; (2) use of force as a response to prisoners’ failure to follow instructions where there is no immediate threat to the safety or security of the institution, prisoners, staff, or visitors; (3) use of force against a prisoner after the prisoner has ceased to offer resistance and is under control; (4) use of force as punishment or retaliation; and (5) use of force involving kicking, striking, hitting, or punching a non-combative prisoner.

✔ 1. Written policies/procedures governing: written

Responsible Party: Captain Peters

directive system development and maintenance;

notification of changes to agency policy; training – General Information: annual, pre-service, specialized, remedial.

2. Review of incident reports. 3. Review of IAD/SOD investigations; referrals for
prosecution 4. Interviews with inmates. 5. Review of inmate medical records.
EIS data.

All use of force policies have been completed and approved by all parties to the Consent Judgment. The only issue we are currently facing in reference to the training process is low staffing levels. This

should be alleviated by Director

Maynard’s plan to temporarily

close several housing units so that

OPSO can focus on training for

several months.

Compliance Tasks to be Completed:

Task #1: Complete policy training.

Necessary Resources:

No additional resources required.

Benchmark Dates:

We are already well over halfway through the training process.

Substantial Compliance Date:

5

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 29 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan We expect to complete the training and dissemination process by 12/31/2016.

IV. A. 2. c. OPSO shall randomly test five percent of the correctional officer staff on an annual basis to determine their knowledge of the use of force policies and procedures. The testing instrument and policies shall be approved by the Monitor. The results of these assessments shall be evaluated to determine the need for changes in training practices. The review and conclusions will be documented and provided to the Monitor.

✔ 1. See also IV.A.1., 2., 3 2. Review of testing instrument; review of testing

Responsible Party: Lt. Navarro

procedures; report of testing.

General Information:

Report of outcome of annual testing, recommendations,

plans of action.

Currently do not have an

instrument to test the retention of

5 % of the personnel on the

knowledge they received from the

Use of Force policy class.

Desired Outcome: Create a testing instrument to test the retention level of 5 % of the OJC personnel on an annual basis.

Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: Create testing Instrument and submit for approval to the monitors.

Task #2: Test 5 % of the OJC personnel on the retention of the Use of Force Policy.

Necessary Resources:

No additional resources required. Benchmark Dates:

Development of testing instrument by 01/15/2017 for submission to Monitors.
Substantial Compliance Date:
Complete 5% testing by 02/15/2017.

6

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 30 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan

IV.A.3. Use of Force Reporting

IV. A.3 a. Failure to report a use of force incident by any staff member engaging in the use of force or witnessing the use of force shall be grounds for discipline, up to and including termination.

✔ 1. See also IV.A.7.b., e.

Responsible Party: Chief Laughlin

2. Review of IAD/SOD investigations; referrals for

prosecution; inmate and employee interviews, as

General Information:

necessary.

Review of employee discipline.

Ensuring that all use of force data

is collected within the timelines

set forth by OPSO policy.

Holding staff members who fail to report any use of force incident accountable for their actions.

Desired Outcome: Continue to ensure that all use of force incidents are documented, reviewed by a supervisor, and forwarded through the chain of command.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
OJC command staff and ISB personnel monitor the Vantos reporting system, reviewing all incident reports and checking for any discrepancies. Any reports listed as a non-use of force with use of force overtones are sent to FIT for investigation.
Necessary Resources:
No additional resources required.
Benchmark Dates:

7

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 31 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan

This provision is already in partial compliance.
Substantial Compliance Date:
OJC staff and FIT must continue to communicate together and work well when submitting reports and identifying any issues. The anticipated full compliance date is August 2017.

IV. A.3 b. OPSO shall ensure that sufficient information is collected on uses of force to assess whether staff members complied with policy; whether corrective action is necessary including training or discipline; the effectiveness of training and policies; and whether the conditions in OPP comply with this Agreement. At a minimum, OPSO will ensure that officers using or observing a Level 1 use of force shall complete a use of force report that will: (1) include the names of all staff, prisoner(s), or other
visual or oral witness(es); (2) contain an accurate and specific account of the
events leading to the use of force; (3) describe the level of resistance and the type and level
of force used, consistent with OPP use of force policy and procedure, as well as the precise actions taken by OPSO staff in response to the incident; (4) describe the weapon or instrument(s) of restraint, if any, and the manner of such use; (5) be accompanied by a prisoner disciplinary report, if it exists, pertaining to the events or prisoner activity

A good measurement would be to see a steady decline in use of force incidents. Also, for FIT to see a continual submission of detailed completed reports. Lastly, a decline in the number of days it takes FIT to review a case.

✔ 1. See also IV.A.7. 2. Review of use of force reports.

Responsible Party: Chief Laughlin

3. Review of inmate medical records; review of

General Information:

transport and hospital log.

4. Review of IAD/SOD investigations; referrals for
prosecution. 5. Review staff disciplinary records.

Ensuring the initial use of force incidents are documented and

6. Review workers’ compensation.

investigated in the timeframe set

7. Review inmate disciplinary reports. 8. Interviews with medical staff 9. Interviews with employees 10. Interviews with inmates.

by OPSO policy. Provide deputies with use of force training; explain what constitutes a use of force,

Review of inmate classification pre-and-post incident and what information is needed

to properly document a UOF

incident.

Completed use of force investigations are reviewed and

8

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 32 of 169

Section

C

P

N

that prompted the use of force incident;

(6) describe the nature and extent of injuries sustained

by anyone involved in the incident;

(7) contain the date and time when medical attention, if

any, was requested and actually provided;

(8) describe any attempts the staff took to de-escalate

prior to the use of force;

(9) include an individual written account of the use of

force from every staff member who witnessed the

use of force;

(10) include photographs taken promptly, but no later

than two hours after a use of force incident, of all

injuries sustained, or as evidence that no injuries

were sustained, by prisoners and staff involved in the

use of force incident;

(11) document whether the use of force was digitally or

otherwise recorded. If the use of force is not

digitally or otherwise recorded, the reporting officer

and/or watch commander will provide an explanation

as to why it was not recorded; and

(12) include a statement about the incident from the

prisoner(s) against whom force was used.

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan approved by OPSO Division commanders. The Force Investigation Team receives the completed/approved use of force from the originating division. The FIT Commander forwards the completed investigations to the UFRB for review, dissemination, and recommendation of each investigation.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: The required information pertaining to level 1 use of force investigations are provided and contained in the Force Investigation Team use of force quarterly spreadsheets. All completed investigations along with video recorded statements are available for review. By March 2017, all OPSO staff will have been trained in the UoF policy. Upon the completion of the policy training coupled with the Administrative Warden review all UoF reports, FIT should be receiving completed report with less “boiler point” language.
Necessary Resources:
N/A
Substantial Compliance Date:
9

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 33 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

IV. A.3 c. All officers using a Level 2 use of force shall complete a use of force report that will: (1) include the names of staff, prisoner(s), or other
visual or oral witness(es); (2) contain an accurate and specific account of the
events leading to the use of force; (3) describe the level of resistance and the type and level
of force used, consistent with OPP use of force policy and procedure, as well as the precise actions taken by OPSO staff in response to the incident; (4) describe the weapon or instrument(s) of restraint, if any, and the manner of such use; (5) be accompanied by a prisoner disciplinary report, if it exists, pertaining to the events or prisoner activity that prompted the use of force incident; (6) describe the nature and extent of injuries sustained by anyone involved in the incident; (7) contain the date and time when medical attention, if any, was requested and actually provided; and (8) describe any attempts the staff took to de-escalate prior to the use of force.

✔ 1. See IV.A.3.b. (1) – (12) – all measures of compliance.

OPSO Compliance Plan 09/2017
Responsible Party: Chief Laughlin
General Information:
Ensuring the initial use of force incidents are documented and investigated in the timeframe set by OPSO policy. Provide deputies with use of force training; explain what constitutes a use of force, and what information is needed to properly document a UOF incident.
Completed use of force investigations are reviewed and approved by OPSO Division commanders. The Force Investigation Team receives the completed/approved use of force from the originating division. The FIT Commander forwards the completed investigations to the UFRB for review, dissemination, and recommendation of each investigation.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: The required information pertaining to level 2 use of force investigations are provided and contained in the
10

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 34 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

IV. A.3 d. OPSO shall require correctional officers to notify the watch commander as soon as practical of any use of force incident or allegation of use of force. When notified, the watch commander will respond to the scene of all Level 1 uses of force. When arriving on the scene, the watch commander shall: (1) ensure the safety of everyone involved in or
proximate to the incident; (2) determine if any prisoner or correctional officer is
injured and ensure that necessary medical care is

✔ 1. See IV.A.1.a. 2. See A.IV.A.3.b. (1) – (12) – all measures of
compliance.

OPSO Compliance Plan Force Investigation Team use of force quarterly spreadsheets. All completed investigations along with video recorded statements are available for review.
Necessary Resources:
The only funding would be through overtime for the staff that still needed to complete the UoF training curriculum.
Benchmark Dates:
By March 2017, all OPSO staff will have been trained in the UoF policy. Upon the completion of the policy training coupled with the Administrative Warden review all UoF reports, FIT should be receiving completed report with less “boiler point” language.
Substantial Compliance Date:
September 2017, FIT should be receiving completed reports with all required information within.
Responsible Party: Colonel Colvin
General Information:
To accomplish the immediate and accurate reporting and review of all use of force incidents that occur at the Orleans Parish Justice Center, to include any and all
11

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 35 of 169

Section

C

P

N

provided;

(3) ensure that personnel and witnesses are identified,

separated, and advised that communications with

other witnesses or correctional officers regarding the

incident are prohibited;

(4) ensure that witness and subject statements are taken

from both staff and prisoner(s) outside of the

presence of other prisoners and staff;

(5) ensure that the supervisor’s use of force report is

forwarded to IAD for investigation if, upon the

supervisor’s review, a violation of law or policy is

suspected. The determination of what type of

investigation is needed will be based on the degree

of the force used consistent with the terms of this

Agreement;

(6) If the watch commander is not involved in the use of

force incident, the watch commander shall review all

submitted use of force reports within 36 hours of the

end of the incident, and shall specify his findings as

to completeness and procedural errors. If the watch

commander believes that the use of force may have

been unnecessary or excessive, he shall immediately

contact IAD for investigation consideration and shall

notify the warden or assistant warden; and

(7) All Level 1 use of force reports, whether or not the

force is believed by any party to be unnecessary or

excessive, shall be sent to IAD for review. IAD shall

develop and submit to the Monitor within 90 days of

the Effective Date clear criteria to identify use of

force incidents that warrant a full investigation,

including injuries that are extensive or serious,

visible in nature (including black eyes, injuries to the

mouth, injuries to the genitals, etc.), injuries

requiring hospitalization, staff misconduct (including

inappropriate relationships with prisoners), and

occasions when use of force reports are inconsistent,

conflicting, or otherwise suspicious.

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan allegations of use of force.
All OJC emergency alarms must be responded to immediately and effectively. On duty Watch Commanders and assigned floor supervisors must understand their operational priorities when responding to areas of the jail where force is being used, has been used or an allegation of force has been reported. At the scene Commanders Control and direct the staff response and their use of force, becoming personally involved in the incident as a last resort.
Desired Outcome: OJC Commanders and deputies demonstrate competency and compliance with all aspects of this subject matter.
This objective is best realized by the promulgation of policy and procedure(s) focused specifically on the force subject matter contained in paragraphs 1-8 of 3.1.7 IV.A.3.d, comprehensive competency training is designed and delivered to (3) work groups: a.) OJC Watch Commanders (commanding officers holding the rank of sergeant, lieutenant, captain or major) b.) OJC Corrections Deputies’ c.) Correctional Monitoring
12

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 36 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan Technicians (Civilian)
Policy 701.09 Emergencies AssaultInmate meets the training requirements. Correctional Monitoring Technicians (CMT) only require specific instruction on their actions relative to any institutional emergency. CMT’s are taught their role during an emergency, (i.e. Radio traffic, Ingress/Egress) through the course of their Basic Training that covers all 701 Chapter Emergency plans.
Therefore we are substantially complete with this training as of this date and see no complications with achieving 100% compliance by February 2017.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: Promulgation or Revision of existing Policy/Procedure(s) related to: Emergency Response, Use of Force, Incident Reporting and Investigation.
Task #2: The Design, Development and Delivery of policy based staff training to the above listed groups on the Subjects of: Emergency Response, Use of Force, and Incident Reporting. Policy 701.09 deals effectively with Instructing OPSO
13

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 37 of 169

Section
IV. A.3 e. Ensure that a first-line supervisor is present during all pre-planned uses of force, such as cell extractions.

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan Commanders and Deputies on the subject(s) of their role in the response to an emergency, As well as post incident requirements. CMT Basic Training curriculum teaches these civilian staff members their responsibilities in Emergency Incidents. These two subjects are currently being taught here at OPSO, an audit of training records will show the progression to compliance and number of staff members yet to receive this training.

Necessary Resources:
This task will generate staff overtime at OJC.

Benchmark Dates: 50% completion by 10/15/2016.

Substantial Compliance Date:
02/28/2017 for substantial completion.

1. See IV.A.1.a

Responsible Party: Colonel Colvin

✔

2. Review of use of planned use of force; view of

digital recordings.

General Information:

Lesson plans, curriculum, evidence of knowledge gained

for supervisory training.

To ensure that Planned Use of

Force Incidents are personally

supervised by a Commander.

Staffing patterns can be low and require that a supervisor become

14

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 38 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan involved in the actual application of the force to the subject inmate(s).

Desired Outcome: All OJC Commanders are trained in the supervision and reporting of Planned Uses of Force according to policy: 1501.01 “Use of Force”.

Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: Comply with components of Policy 1501.01.

Necessary Resources:

No additional resources required.

Benchmark Dates: Already completed.

Substantial Compliance Date: 12/30/2016

IV. A.3 f. Within 36 hours, exclusive of weekends and holidays, of receiving the report and review from the shift commander, in order to determine the appropriateness of the force used and whether policy was followed, the Warden or Assistant Warden shall review all use of force reports and supervisory reviews including: (1) the incident report associated with the use of force; (2) any medical documentation of injuries and any
further medical care; (3) the prisoner disciplinary report associated with the
use of force; and (4) the Warden or Assistant Warden shall complete a
written report or written statement of specific findings and determinations of the appropriateness of force.

✔ 1. See IV.A.1., IV.A.7.a. 2. Evidence of review of reports by Warden or
Assistant Warden (e.g. checklist, dated/timed
signatures). Written report with findings. 3. Review of reports.
Referrals to IAD/SOD. Review of investigations.

Responsible Party: Colonel Colvin
General Information:
Reporting of Force from Watch Commanders to OJC Administrative Warden.
Desired Outcome: OJC Administrative Warden continues to receive and review all reportable Use of Force incidents.

15

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 39 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan

Compliance Tasks to be Completed:

Continue to train and comply with all Section 1501 Policy and Procedures. OJC is currently in substantial compliance with this standard.

Necessary Resources:

No additional resources required.

Benchmark Dates:

Already completed.

Substantial Compliance Date:

12/30/2016

IV. A.3 g. Provide the Monitor a periodic report detailing

✔

1. See IV.A.1.

Responsible Party: Chief Laughlin

use of force by staff. These periodic reports shall be

Report to Monitor; recommendations; plans of action

provided to the Monitor within four months of the

General Information:

Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until

termination of this Agreement. Each report will include

Ensuring that all use of force

the following information: (1) a brief summary of all uses of force, by type; (2) date that force was used;

incidents are reported, investigated, and approved by a

(3) identity of staff members involved in using force;

supervisor.

(4) identity of prisoners against whom force was used;

(5) a brief summary of all uses of force resulting in injuries;
(6) number of planned and unplanned uses of force;

Desired Outcome: All use of force incidents are documented,

(7) a summary of all in-custody deaths related to use of

reviewed, and processed in a

force, including the identity of the decedent and the

timely manner.

circumstances of the death; and

(8) a listing of serious injuries requiring hospitalization.

Compliance Tasks to be Completed:

Task #1: ISB reviews all incident reports entered into the Vantos

16

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 40 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan system including reports that have not been labeled as a use of force incident and/or do not include a separate Use of Force report.
Task #2: OJC Staff review documented use of force reports and complete the investigation. Once completed the investigation is sent to ISB/FIT for review.
Task #3: Continue to provide the monitors with the use of force spreadsheets and completed investigations containing information 1 through 8 listed above.
Necessary Resources:
No additional resources required.
Benchmark Dates:
This provision is currently in partial compliance.
Substantial Compliance Date:
In order to come into full compliance, the OPSO must show on a consistent basis detailed use of force reports highlighting the eight requirements listed above. The report should also detail disciplinary action, referrals,
17

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 41 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan additional training requirements, and any corrective action(s) taken. The anticipated full compliance date is third quarter 2017.

A good indication as a form of measurement would be a consistent reduction in use of force incidents in OJC. Furthermore, the ability for the OPSO to learn strategies or possible policy changes for this report in reducing use of force incidents in the OPSO.

IV. A.3 h. OPSO shall conduct, annually, a review of the use of force reporting system to ensure that it has been effective in reducing unnecessary or excessive uses of force. OPSO will document its review and conclusions and provide them to the Monitor, SPLC, and DOJ.

✔ 1. See IV.A.1.

Responsible Party: Chief Laughlin

Annual report; conclusions, action plan to address any

identified deficiencies.

General Information:

OPSO has a formal Use of Force Review Board. The board was established to review all completed Use of Force investigations to ensure that they were lawful, appropriate, and consistent with our training and policies.

Any cases the UFRB determines to be suspicious in nature are returned for additional investigation. The UFRB also sends notification to the academy when additional training is needed to address specific problems. The board looks for any developing patterns.

18

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 42 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Video recording are available of monthly UFRB meetings and outcomes.

Necessary Resources:
No additional funding needed to complete this task.
Benchmark Dates:
March 2017, will complete one year for the Use of Force Review Board. Therefore, an annual report can be formulated for review and evaluation.
Substantial Compliance Date:
In March 2018, the OPSO will have completed two years which will give a clear indication if the board has been effective in reducing unnecessary or excessive uses of force.

IV.A.4. Early Intervention System (“EIS”)

IV.A.4.a. OPSO shall develop, within 120 days of the

✔

1. Written policy/procedure governing the

Responsible Party: Chief Laughlin

Effective Date, a computerized relational database

implementation and oversight of the employee

(“EIS”) that will document and track staff members who

early warning system, that includes, but is not

General Information:

are involved in use of force incidents and any complaints

limited to: interface of incident reporting and data

related to the inappropriate or excessive use of force, in

collection, by name, thresholds requiring leadership Providing accurate Early

order to alert OPSO management to any potential problematic policies or supervision lapses or need for

review, criteria governing what triggers an intervention, employee referrals for

Intervention System data.

retraining or discipline. The Chief of Operations Deputy,

assistance/evaluation, remedial training, what

supervisors, and investigative staff shall have access to

interventions are envisioned, how the intervention’s Desired Outcome: OPSO deputies

this information and shall review on a regular basis, but

impact is measured, reporting of data and access to continue to complete the initial

not less than quarterly, system reports to evaluate

the data, and evaluation of the early warning

use of force report. The names of

individual staff, supervisor, and housing area activity. OPSO will use the EIS as a tool for correcting inappropriate staff behavior before it escalates to more

system. See also IV.A.4.d., e.
2. See also PREA standard 115.76.
Review of OPSO actions regarding employees identified

all parties involved in the incident are entered correctly into the report which triggers the EIS

19

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 43 of 169

serious misconduct.

Section

C

P

N

Measures by EIS.

OPSO Compliance Plan alerts.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Continue to investigate all EIS alerts involving OPSO employees. All completed investigations are forwarded to the Use of Force Review Board for final review.
Necessary Resources:
There is no need for any additional funding; however, a new JMS would greatly enhance our ability to track and establish the validity of the EIS system. Currently, the Vantos system is not being supported. The only barrier would be working with the staff to properly enter a use of force report into the Vantos system. If any part of the process is entered incorrectly, the incident will not alert the EIS as we have recently learned.
Benchmark Dates:
This provision is currently in partial compliance.
Substantial Compliance Date:
To constantly evaluate the logs to ensure the use of force reports are being entered properly in the Vantos system. Furthermore, another process in place is when
20

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 44 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan these incidents are reviewed by the Use of Force Review Board which is conducted monthly. The anticipated date of full compliance is August 2017.

A measuring method would be a report detailing outcomes of EIS alerts. These outcomes should discuss any policy recommendations / changes, retraining of staff, and any disciplinary action(s). At the completion of the report, a presentation should be made to the OJC command staff discussing the report’s findings and recommendations.

IV.A.4.b. Within 120 days of the Effective Date, OPSO

✔

senior management shall use EIS information to improve

quality management practices, identify patterns and

trends, and take necessary corrective action both on an

individual and systemic level. IAD will manage and

administer EIS systems. The Special Operations Division

(“SOD”) will have access to the EIS. IAD will conduct

quarterly audits of the EIS to ensure that analysis and

intervention is taken according to the process described

below. Command staff shall review the data collected by

the EIS on at least a quarterly basis to identify potential

patterns or trends resulting in harm to prisoners. The Use

of Force Review Board will periodically review

information collected regarding uses of force in order to

identify the need for corrective action, including changes

to training protocols and policy or retraining or

disciplining individual staff or staff members. Through

comparison of the operation of this system to changes in

the conditions in OPP, OPSO will assess whether the

mechanism is effective at addressing the requirements of

this Agreement

1. SOD/IAD report identifying patterns, trends, etc.. 2. Written quarterly audits. 3. Evidence of command staff review. Determination
by OPSO that the mechanism is effective at addressing the requirements of this Agreement.
4. Minutes of Use of Force Review Board, including
identification of need for corrective action.
5. Changes to policy, training curriculum, etc.
resulting for these reviews. Monitors’ review of quarterly reports.

Responsible Party: Chief Laughlin
General Information:
Ensuring collected EIS data is accurate.
Desired Outcome: Continue to investigate all EIS alerts ensuring the corresponding use of force incident has been documented.

There will be dependency on the OPSO staff to properly enter the use of force report into the Vantos system. If entered incorrectly, the EIS will not alert. It will be incumbent upon the OJC administration to examine all use

21

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 45 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan of force reports to ensure it was entered correctly.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: The EIS spreadsheet provided by the FIT Commander summarizes each alert incident and if any patterns or trends have been discovered.
Task #2: All completed EIS alerts are investigated and upon completion are forwarded to the UFRB for review.
Necessary Resources:
No additional resources required.
Benchmark Dates:
This provision is currently in partial compliance.
Substantial Compliance Date:
The anticipated date of compliance is August 2017. Currently, FIT and OJC are communicating well together regarding use of force incidents. The chairman of the Use of Force Review Board is Major Louque, and Colonel Colvin attends all the hearings. This continual support will result in a positive outcome.
22

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 46 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan The measurement for compliance will be taking a pro-active approach with regards to the EIS alerts. The OPSO must take a hard stance when it comes to “zero tolerance” in the area of use of force. The OPSO must counsel, discipline, or refer those employees that violate the policies governing EIS and use of force incidents.

IV.A.4.c. OPSO shall provide, within 180 days of the

✔

List of staff members identified by the EIS and

Responsible Party: Chief Laughlin

implementation date of its EIS, to SPLC, DOJ, and the

correction action taken, or if corrective action not taken,

Monitor, a list of all staff members identified through the

the reasons.

General Information:

EIS and corrective action taken.

Continue to investigate all EIS

alerts.

Desired Outcome: Continue to provide the monitors with the FIT/EIS spreadsheet which contains the employees name, incident, and summary of investigation.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task#1: All EIS alerts are investigated by agents assigned to the Force Investigation Team (FIT). Each alert requires a written report explaining how the use of force triggered the alert.

Task #2: ISB IAD Administrative

23

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 47 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan Division spreadsheet contains a list of staff names, violations, and corrective action.
Task #3: Completed EIS investigations are forwarded to the UFRB for review.
Necessary Resources:
No additional resources required.
Benchmark Dates:
This provision is currently in partial compliance.
Substantial Compliance Date:
The anticipated date for full compliance is June 2017. In March 2017, the Use of Force Review Board would have completed one full year of monthly hearings. This – along with the current spreadsheets that are supplied to the monitors – should give enough data on staff issues along with what corrective actions were taken.
The measurement would be showing the identified staffing issues, the recommendations of the Use of Force Review Board, and the follow through of those recommendations. Secondly, to evaluate and determine if those corrective actions worked in the
24

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 48 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan form of any reoccurrences by those same identified staff.

IV.A.4.d. The EIS protocol shall include the following

✔

components: data storage, data retrieval, reporting, data

analysis, pattern identification, supervisory assessment,

supervisory intervention, documentation, and audit.

See IV.A.4.a. written policy/procedure.

Responsible Party: Captain Peters
General Information:
The EIS policy has been completed and approved by all parties to the Consent Judgment. The Chief of Investigations and his staff were integrally involved in the policy writing process. The FIT Team currently operates under the provisions of this policy.

Compliance Tasks to be Completed:

None. We are currently compliant with this provision.

Necessary Resources:

No additional resources required.

Benchmark Dates:

None. We are currently compliant with this provision.

Substantial Compliance Date:

12/15/2016

IV.A.4.e. On an annual basis, OPSO shall review the EIS to ensure that it has been effective in identifying concerns regarding policy, training, or the need for discipline. This assessment will be based in part on the number and severity of harm and injury identified through data collected pursuant to this Agreement. OPSO will

✔ Written annual review of EIS, conclusions,

Responsible Party: Chief Laughlin

recommendations for changes and action plans, if any.

General Information:

The Early Intervention System

25

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 49 of 169

Section

C

P

N

document its review and conclusions and provide them to

the Monitor, who shall forward this document to DOJ and

SPLC.

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan (EIS) while working as designed has had some problems with how the data is imputed into the system. The EIS works by collecting names in use of force investigations. If the name is entered correctly then the EIS will alert when it discovers the same name within a 90 day period. Due to other checks that OPSO has in place we were able to discover the problem and correctly enter the data, which in turn set of the required EIS alerts.
Ensure training is provided to OPSO staff on what information is needed for the use of force investigations and the proper format.
The EIS continues to work as designed and provides alerts on multiple uses of force incidents.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
All completed EIS reports will be presented before the Use of Force Review Board for any recommended changes or comments to the current procedure.
The quarterly and annual EIS
26

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 50 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan spreadsheet which contains the required incident information along with the summary of each alert is provided to the monitors for review.

Necessary Resources:
No additional staff or funding needed to complete this task.

Benchmark Dates:
January 2017, will be when the next annual report is due. This will offer the OPSO an opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of the EIS system.

Substantial Compliance Date:
January 2018, when the third annual report is due, should give a clear indication of the EIS system.

IV.A.5. Safety and Supervision Recognizing that some danger is inherent in a jail setting, OPSO shall take all reasonable measures to ensure that

prisoners are not subjected to harm or the risk of harm. At a minimum, OPSO shall do the following:

IV.A.5.a. Maintain security policies, procedures, and

✔ 1. Written policies and procedures; table of contents

practices to provide a reasonably safe and secure

developed in collaboration with monitors. Policies

environment for prisoners and staff in accordance with

and procedures are consistent with accepted

this Agreement.

correctional practice, providing sufficient direction

to line employees, supervisors, and managers, as

well as provide the basis for training curriculum,

and staff accountability. Policies and procedures

available to all employees, volunteers, contractors

as necessary.

Table of contents

Responsible Party: Captain Peters
General Information:
According to the Monitor’s Report #6, OPSO, in conjunction with VRJS, has drafted a large number of policies, and that the Consent Judgment requires the development and implementation of procedures and practices that provide for adequate safety and supervision. However, the level of harm and risk of harm in the

27

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 51 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan Orleans Parish Jail system continues to be extremely high despite the Consent Judgment having been in place for since October 21, 2013.
Desired Outcome: Policies, procedures and practices regarding inmate supervision, rounds, inspections, shakedowns and communication need to be finalized. Training materials need to developed and training completed.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: Complete training on policies that have already been approved. Lesson plans/training materials have been completed for the following policies: 801.01 – Inmate counts, 801.02 – Contraband Control, 801.03 – Inmate and Inmate Area Searches and 801.24 – Security Screening (materials prepared by VRJS for these policies – 4 hour block of instruction includes all policies listed above). Training sessions have begun for these policies in September 2016. Additionally, training materials have been completed for 801.05 – Inmate Observation Rounds (prepared by OPSO Compliance – 1 hour block of instruction). Completion by 02/28/2016.
28

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 52 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan Task #2: Develop training materials for the following policies and complete the necessary training: 801.05 – Pod Operations/Administrative Segregation and 801.22 – Cell Inspections during Admission and Release. Completion by 02/28/2016.

Task #3: Complete policies; develop training materials and complete necessary training for the following policies: 801.04 – Pod Operations/General Population, 801.11 – Inspections/Security and Cleanliness, 801.18 – Radio and Phone Communications, 801.33 – Direct Supervision, 801.35 – Key Control, 801.37 – Pod Operations/Youthful Offenders and 801.38 – Pod Operations/Medical & Mental Health. Completion by 04/30/2017.

Necessary Resources: No additional resources required.

Substantial Compliance Date: 04/30/2017

IV.A.5.b. Maintain policies, procedures, and practices to ensure the adequate supervision of prisoner work areas and trustees.

✔ 1. Written policy and procedure regarding oversight Responsible Party: Captain Peters

of inmate workers and trustees.

2. Written housekeeping plan.

General Information:

3. Lesson plans/curriculum for employee training

OPSO does not currently have an

29

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 53 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

4. Orientation of inmate workers.

5. Post orders for inmate worker supervisors

6. Incident reports

7. Assignments of inmate workers.

8. Observation

Interview with inmates; interviews with staff.

OPSO Compliance Plan acceptable inmate worker policy, nor post orders.Develop and implement an adequate inmate worker policy, training materials, post orders and complete necessary training.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: Draft an inmate worker policy (OPSO Policy # 801.32). Completion by 01/31/2017.

Task #2: Develop Post Orders for Inmate Worker Posts. Completion by 01/31/2017.

Task #3: Develop policy training materials and complete staff/inmate training. Completion by 04/30/2017.

Necessary Resources:

No additional resources required.

Substantial Compliance Date:

04/30/2017

IV.A.5.c. Maintain policies and procedures regarding care for and housing of protective custody prisoners and prisoners requesting protection from harm.

✔

1. Written policies/procedures

Responsible Party: Captain Peters

2. Classification Plan 3. Housing Plan

General Information:

4. Review of incident reports.

OPSO Policy 801.05 (Pod

5. Review of access to mental health care, medical

Operations – Administrative

care.

Segregation) has been completed

Interview with employees; interviews with inmates and was signed in September

2016. OPSO needs to develop

training materials for the

30

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 54 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan following policy and complete the necessary training: 801.05 – Pod Operations/Administrative Segregation. Complete training materials and staff training.

Compliance Tasks to be Completed:

Task #1: Develop training materials for the following policy and complete the necessary training: 801.05 – Pod Operations/Administrative Segregation. Completion date of 02/28/2016.

Necessary Resources:

No additional resources required.

Substantial Compliance Date:

02/28/2016

IV.A.5.d. Continue to ensure that correctional officers conduct appropriate rounds at least once during every 30minute period, at irregular times, inside each general population housing unit and at least once during every 15minute period of special management prisoners, or more often if necessary. All security rounds shall be documented on forms or logs that do not contain preprinted rounding times. In the alternative, OPSO may provide direct supervision of prisoners by posting a correctional officer inside the day room area of a housing unit to conduct surveillance.

✔

1. Written policy/procedures governing rounds,

Responsible Party: Colonel Colvin

logging.
2. Review of housing unit logs/records,

General Information:

3. Post orders. 4. Observations 5. Interview with inmates; interviews with staff.

To ensure that the appropriate 30 or 15 minute security checks are being performed by OJC

Review of documentation of the ‘watchman’ system.’ Corrections Deputies.

Desired Outcome: The Assistant Chief of Corrections through subordinate Wardens and Commanders shall ensure that OJC is being properly toured by the assigned Commanders, and

31

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 55 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan documented. During their Security/Wellness tours Commanders will observe deputies and their interactions with inmates; address any infractions but also to teach, advise, counsel their staff on the benefits of Direct Supervision generally and the benefit of good inter-personal communications with their assigned inmates specifically. OJC Commanders will read each unit’s computer activity log to ensure that appropriate rounds are being completed. Additionally, the Commander will speak to the unit deputy about their rounds and what’s been learned from them about their inmates. The Commander shall also interact with the inmates of that unit and form an opinion as to the level of contact the inmates are receiving from assigned deputies and address it with that Corrections Deputy.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: Assistant Chief of Corrections issues directives to OJC Wardens that outline in detail the expectation of Commander Interaction in Units under their command, and the degree of deputy/inmate contact in all direct supervision units.
Necessary Resources:
32

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 56 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan No additional resources required.

Substantial Compliance Date:
04/01/2017 - Every (90) days: Review of “Intercom Button” report, Review of “Watch Tour” System, Audit of Unit Activity Logs looking for rounds completed.

IV.A.5.e. Staff shall provide direct supervision in housing units that are designed for this type of supervision. Video surveillance may be used to supplement, but must not be used to replace, rounds by correctional officers.

✔

1. Written policy/procedures for management of

direct supervision housing units

2. Lesson plans/curriculum, training materials.

3. Written policy/procedures governing video

surveillance, including installation, maintenance

and repair.

4. Observation

5. Interview with inmates; interviews with staff.

Post orders.

Responsible Party: Colonel Colvin
General Information:
The consistent practice of Direct Supervision style prisoner management shall be adhered to by all OJC Commanders and subordinate Corrections Deputies; and to ensure that the mandatory Security/Wellness checks are being completed and appropriately recorded as required by policy 801.06.

Policy 801.06 is a well crafted, comprehensive directive addressing both fundamental and contingency requirements of assigned OJC deputies and their commanders related to inmate observations. Knowing that all training is primarily based on inforce policies and procedures related to the subject matter- but augmented by professional standards provided by some other qualified agency such as the Department of Justice’s

33

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 57 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan National Institute of Corrections, the American Jail Association, the National Sheriff’s Association etc. 801.06 could be revised to include the core competencies of Direct Supervision to balance and underscore this policy’s observation requirements, we do not conduct rounds only to observe inmates. In a direct supervision facility we conduct rounds to interact and communicate with our inmates.
Desired Outcome: To achieve a state of jail operations where direct supervision core objectives are practiced throughout the facility.
Achieving this operational goal can be assisted by the revision of policy 801.06 for the purpose of adding the core competencies of Direct Supervision to the document so that all staff referencing this directive review and understand that the purpose of Security Observation Rounds is to ensure unit safety and stability and that this is achieved to a greater degree by taking the time to interact with all inmates assigned to their custody while engaged in rounds.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: Revise Policy 801.06.
34

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 58 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan

Task #2: Complete Training on the added Direct Supervision language-requirements. This will be achieved in a 1 to 1.5 hour block of instruction delivered at OJC prior to assuming duty. This period of instruction will be scheduled on a weekly basis until all staff have received the training and passed a Pre/Post competency test on the subject matter.

Necessary Resources:
A minimum amount of staff Overtime will be generated by this task.

Benchmark Dates:
Task #1 50% completion by 12/15/2016 and substantial completion by 01/02/2017.

Task #2 50% completion by 02/20/2017 and substantial completion by 04/01/2017.

Substantial Compliance Date: 04/01/2017

IV.A.5.f. Increase the use of overhead video surveillance

✔

1. Written policy/procedures governing video

Responsible Party: Colonel Colvin

and recording cameras to provide adequate coverage

surveillance, including installation, maintenance

throughout the common areas of the Jail, including the

and repair.

General Information:

Intake Processing Center, all divisions’ intake areas, mental health units, special management units, prisoner housing units, and in the divisions’ common areas.

2. Written confirmation of the location of cameras,
termination of cameras.
3. Post orders

To ensure 24/7 Video Surveillance through the

35

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 59 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan

4. Observation of operations, cameras.
5. Interview with inmates; interviews with staff.
Records of installation, repair contracts, records of

continued monitoring and recording of OJC’s (857) Digital Monitors/Recorders.

repairs.

Desired Outcome: Continue to

provide required coverage of

OJC’s Surveillance Array.

Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: Continue to maintain current Video Surveillance Array totaling 857 cameras.

Necessary Resources: No additional resources required.

Benchmark Dates: Already completed.

Substantial Compliance Date: 12/30/2016

IV.A.5.g. Continue to ensure that correctional officers, who are transferred from one division to another, are required to attend training on division-specific post orders before working on the unit.

✔

1. Written policies/procedures governing each

Responsible Party: Colonel Colvin

division’s post responsibilities. Divisional SOP, if

relevant.

General Information:

2. Lesson plans, training materials, evidence of
training, evidence of knowledge gained.
3. Post orders. 4. Observation
Interview with inmates; interviews with staff.

To ensure that Deputies transferring between divisions are trained on all post orders of their assignment in the new division.

Desired Outcome: Deputies transferred between divisions are to first be trained on all applicable Post Orders of their new

36

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 60 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan assignments. This Training may be Computer Based training.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: The Training Policy reflects this requirement.
Task #2: Training of Transferred Deputies on the rules, regulations and Post Orders of their new assignment. OJC Executive Commanders shall ensure that when a Deputy is transferred to them that they are Trained and can demonstrate competency on all post orders relating to their new assignment through computer based training and Pre/Post testing of subject matter.
Necessary Resources:
No additional resources required.
Benchmark Dates:
Task #1 50% completion date by 01/02/2017 and substantial completion by 04/01/2017.
Task #2 50% completion date by 01/02/2017 and substantial completion by 04/01/2017.
Substantial Compliance Date:
04/01/2017
37

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 61 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan

IV.A.5.h. Continue to ensure that correctional officers assigned to special management units, which include

✔

1. Written policies/procedures governing the

operation of special management units.

Responsible Party: Colonel Colvin

youth tiers, mental health tiers, disciplinary segregation, and protective custody, receive eight hours of specialized training regarding such units on prisoner safety and security on at least an annual basis.

2. Specialized training lesson plans, documentation of
training conducted; evidence of knowledge gained. Evidence of annual training. Evidence training completed before assignment.

General Information:
Ensure that Corrections Deputies assigned to work in Special

3. Instructor qualifications/training.

Housing Units receive at a

Documentation/matrix of assignments noting specialized minimum (8) Hours of Special

training completed/date.

Population Management training

annually.

Desired Outcome: OJC Deputies assigned to work any of the Special Population Units are provided with at a minimum (8) Hours of Training where the subject matter is specific to the deputy’s assigned unit (Youth Offender, Disciplinary Segregation, Protective Custody or Mental Health.)

The Chief of Corrections shall ensure that the Commander of the Training Unit has programmed the required Subject matter into the annual training plan. Youth Offender and Mental Health Subjects will be delivered by Subject matter experts from those disciplines.

Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: Ensure that this requirement is codified in the training policy of OPSO.

Task #2: Department Training

38

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 62 of 169

Section

C

P

N

IV.A.5.i. Continue to ensure that supervisors conduct

✔

daily rounds on each shift in the prisoner housing units,

and document the results of their rounds.

Measures See IV.A.5.d.

OPSO Compliance Plan Commander Incorporates (8) Hours of Specialized Training for those OJC Corrections Deputies assigned to units housing: Youth Offenders, Mental Health, Disciplinary Segregation and Protective Custody. This Training may be Computer based.
Necessary Resources:
No additional resources required.
Benchmark Dates:
Task #1 50% completion date by 01/15/2017 and substantial completion by 04/01/2017.
Task #2 50% completion date by 01/15/2017 and substantial completion by 04/01/2017.
Substantial Compliance Date:
04/01/2017
Responsible Party: Colonel Colvin
General Information:
Continue to Comply with all 800 series Policy and Procedures, specifically policy 801.06 Observation Rounds.
Desired Outcome: Continued compliance with this standard.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
39

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 63 of 169

Section
IV.A.5.j. Continue to ensure that staff conduct daily inspections of cells and common areas of the housing units to protect prisoners from unreasonable harm or unreasonable risk of harm.

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan
Task #1: Ensure that assigned Commanders are conducting and documenting the required Security Rounds on all shifts of OJC.

Necessary Resources: No additional resources required.

Benchmark Dates: Already completed.

Substantial Compliance Date: 12/31/2016

✔

1. Written policies/procedures governing condition of Responsible Party: Colonel Colvin

cells and common areas, inspection process, documentation, etc.

General Information:

2. Written housekeeping plan. 3. Lesson plans, training, for staff. 4. Post orders. 5. Orientation, training for inmate workers.

Supervise and monitor inmate activities and behavior to ensure a safe and controlled environment.

6. Inspection reports

Desired Outcome: OJC Deputies

7. Observation

and Commanders effectively

Interview with inmates; interviews with staff.

practice a Direct Supervision

Model and do so with a working

knowledge of applicable rules,

regulations, procedures and

applicable laws.

If these requirements are complied with a Direct Supervision Deputy shall always be in the unit, accessible to all Inmates housed there, ensuring a

40

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 64 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan high degree of safety and stability.
Deputies will annotate in their shift activity reports of the completion of at a minimum 30 minute unit tours, cell searches and search of common areas.
OJC Watch and Line Commanders lead by example with regard to constant and unfettered communication with the Prisoner Population of the Orleans Justice Center. These Commanders ensure that assigned Deputies Understand and utilize effective Inter-Personal Communications at every opportunity when speaking to inmates.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: The Assistant Chief of Corrections through subordinate Wardens and Commanders shall ensure that OJC is being properly toured by the assigned Commanders, and documented. During their Security/Wellness tours Commanders will observe deputies and their interactions with inmates; address any infractions but also to teach, advise, counsel their staff on the benefits of Direct Supervision generally and the benefit of good inter-personal communications with their assigned inmate specifically.
41

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 65 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan

Ensure that Policy 801.06 “Observation Rounds” is taught with a Pre/Post test administered to all OJC Deputies and Commanders within 90 days of this report.

Audit by Administrative Warden of the documented completion of required Commander rounds on all shifts at 60 day intervals.

Task #2: Administrative Warden Audits Records.

Necessary Resources: No additional resources required.

Benchmark Dates:

Task #1 50% completion date by 12/15/2016 with substantial completion by 02/15/2017.

Task #2 50% completion date by 12/15/2016 with substantial completion by 02/15/2017.

Substantial Compliance Date: 02/15/2017

IV.A.5.k. Continue to ensure that staff conduct random monthly shakedowns of cells and common areas so that prisoners do not possess or have access to dangerous contraband.

✔

1. Written policy/procedures governing contraband, Responsible Party: Colonel Colvin

searches, seizure, inventory, security and analysis

of contraband.

General Information:

2. Lesson plans, employees. 3. Post orders

Search Prisoner Population for Contraband.

42

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 66 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

4. Inmate orientation/handbook

5. Incident reports

6. Review of contraband log

7. Observation

8. Interview with inmates; interviews with staff

See also IV.A.5.b., IV.A.5.l. (1)(2)

IV.A.5.l. Provide the Monitor a periodic report of safety

✔

and supervision at the Facility. These periodic reports

shall be provided to the monitor within four months of the

Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until

termination of this Agreement. Each report will provide

the following information:

(1) a listing of special management prisoners, their

housing assignments, the basis for them being placed

in the specialized housing unit, and the date placed in

the unit; and

(2) a listing of all contraband, including weapons seized,

the type of contraband, date of seizure, location, and

shift of seizure.

1. Written policy/procedure governing reports. 2. Report.

OPSO Compliance Plan
Desired Outcome: Methodical Prisoner Search plan.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: Warden of OJC to envision, design and develop a Search/Shakedown Plan for all of OJC in compliance with OPSO policies.
Necessary Resources:
No additional resources required.
Benchmark Dates:
March 15, 2017
Substantial Compliance Date:
October 15, 2017
Responsible Party: Colonel Colvin
General Information:
Provide Reports as Standard requires.
Desired Outcome: Provide Monitors with Bi-annual reports on Special Management Prisoners and Contraband.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: Author and file required reports.

43

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 67 of 169

Section

C

P

IV.A.6. Security Staffing

IV.A.6.a. OPSO shall ensure that correctional staffing and ✔

supervision is sufficient to adequately supervise prisoners,

fulfill the terms of this Agreement, and allow for the safe

operation of the Facility, consistent with constitutional

standards. OPSO shall achieve adequate correctional

officer staffing in the following manner:

(1) Within 90 days of the Effective Date, develop a

staffing plan that will identify all posts and positions,

the adequate number and qualification of staff to

cover each post and position, adequate shift relief,

and coverage for vacations. The staffing plan will

ensure that there is adequate coverage inside each

housing and specialized housing areas and to

accompany prisoners for court, visits and legal visits,

and other operations of OPP and to comply with all

provisions of this Agreement. OPSO will provide its

plan to the Monitor, SPLC, and DOJ for approval.

The Monitor, SPLC, or DOJ will have 60 days to

raise any objections and recommend revisions to the

staffing plan.

(2) Within 120 days before the opening of any new

✔

facility, submit a staffing plan consistent with

subsection (1) above.

(3) Within 90 days after completion of the staffing

✔

study, OPSO shall recruit and hire a full-time

professional corrections administrator to analyze and

review OPP operations. The professional

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan

Necessary Resources:

No additional resources required.

Substantial Compliance Date:

12/31/2016

1. Written policy/procedure governing staffing, and
reporting as required by consent agreement. 2. Completion of a staffing analysis per
http://static.nicic.gov/Library/016827.pdf 3. Staffing plan (existing and new facilities);
recruiting plan. 4. Daily rosters 5. Overtime records. 6. Housing unit logs. 7. Hiring of professional corrections administrators
(CV). Post order/job description/organizational
chart.
Staffing report containing required information;
conclusions; action plans, if any.

Responsible Party: N/A
Substantial Compliance Date:
Already in compliance (02/19/2016).

Responsible Party: N/A
Substantial Compliance Date:
We have been in compliance. The staffing plan was submitted to the Monitors prior to the opening of the OJC jail facility.
Responsible Party: N/A
Substantial Compliance Date:

44

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 68 of 169

Section

C

P

N

corrections administrator shall report directly to the

Sheriff and shall have responsibilities to be

determined by the Sheriff. The professional

corrections administrator shall have at least the

following qualifications: (a) a bachelor’s degree in

criminal justice or other closely related field; (b) five

years of experience in supervising a large

correctional facility; and (c) knowledge of and

experience in applying modern correctional

standards, maintained through regular participation

in corrections-related conferences or other

continuing education.

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan In compliance as of May 2, 2016.

(4) Provide the Monitor a periodic report on staffing

✔

levels at the Facility. These periodic reports shall be

provided to the Monitor within four months of the

Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until

termination of this Agreement Each report will

include the following information:

i. a listing of each post and position needed;

ii. the number of hours needed for each post

and position;

iii. a listing of staff hired and positions filled;

iv. a listing of staff working overtime and the

amount of overtime worked by each staff

member;

v. a listing of supervisors working overtime;

and

vi. a listing of and types of critical incidents

reported.

Responsible Party: Mr. Bruno
General Information:
OPSO currently provides the monitors monthly staffing reports. I will review the submitted reports to ensure that it contains all of the requested information.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: Develop a reasonable method to produce the requested overtime figures.

Necessary Resources:

No additional resources required.

Substantial Compliance Date:

03/31/2017

IV.A.6.b. Review the periodic report to determine whether staffing is adequate to meet the requirements of this Agreement. OPSO shall make recommendations regarding staffing based on this review. The review and

✔ 1. See IV.A.6.a

Responsible Party: Mr. Bruno

2. Updated of staffing plans, and shift relief factors

(every four years)

General Information:

3. OPSO written recommendations regarding staffing;

45

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 69 of 169

Section

C

P

N

recommendations will be documented and provided to the

Monitor.

Measures requests for funding.

OPSO Compliance Plan OPSO is currently understaffed. OPSO has engaged the services of a consultant to determine the staffing needs based on the population and setup of the facilities. Mr. Rod Miller is heading up this project and expects to be complete in the first quarter of 2017. The evaluation will include OJC as well as the courts.
In the meantime OPSO is making every effort to get every noncommissioned officer their commission. This will provide them with a $6,000 increase in pay and also allow them to do details on their own time. OPSO is also putting in place an aggressive training plan to properly train the deputies in working in a direct supervision jail. OPSO believes that these measures will decrease increase the retention rate of our employees at OJC.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: Complete and submit staffing report.
Necessary Resources:
No additional resources required.
Benchmark Dates:
First quarter of 2017.
46

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 70 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan Substantial Compliance Date:

To be determined.

IV.A.7 Incidents and Referrals
IV.A.7.a. OPSO shall develop and implement policies that ensure that Facility watch commanders have knowledge of reportable incidents in OPP to take action in a timely manner to prevent harm to prisoners or take other corrective action. At a minimum, OPSO shall do the following:

✔

1. Written policy/procedures governing an incident

Responsible Party: Captain Peters

reporting system; including responsibilities for

reporting and documentation, time limits,

General Information:

reviewers, etc.

2. Lesson plans, curriculum, training for employees, The OPSO Incident Reporting

list of attendees, regarding the incident reporting Policy has been completed and

system, evidence of knowledge gained. Incident reports; actions taken by watch commanders to
prevent harm.

approved by all parties to the Consent Judgment. Policy-specific training is currently underway at

the OPSO Training Academy. As

mentioned above, Director

Maynard is working on a plan to

temporarily close down several

housing units to focus on staff

training.

Compliance Tasks to be Completed:

Task #1: Complete staff training.

Necessary Resources:

No additional resources required.

Benchmark Dates:

12/30/2016 for 50% completion.

Substantial Compliance Date:

02/17/2017 for substantial completion of training.

IV.A.7.b. Continue to ensure that Facility watch

✔

1. Review of incident reports

Responsible Party: Colonel Colvin

commanders document all reportable incidents by the end

2. Interviews of inmates; interviews of employees.

of their shift, but no later than 24 hours after the incident,

3. Comparison on medical emergent reports and

General Information:

47

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 71 of 169

Section

C

P

including prisoner fights, rule violations, prisoner injuries,

suicide attempts, cell extractions, medical emergencies,

found contraband, vandalism, escapes and escape

attempts, and fires.

N

Measures

incident reports.

4. Review of inmate disciplinary reports.

5. Review of cell extractions.

Summaries of reportable incidents.

IV.A.7.c. Continue to ensure that Facility watch commanders report all suicides and deaths no later than one hour after the incident, to a supervisor, IAD, the Special Operations Division, and medical and mental health staff.

✔

1. See IV.A.7.a. and IV.A.3.b. (1) – (12)

2. Review of suicides and/or deaths.

Review of incident reports.

OPSO Compliance Plan
Maintain instrument to ensure reportable incidents are documented within appropriate time constraints.
Desired Outcome: Procedure for Supervisors to follow to ensure consistent and accurate reporting of the events listed above.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: Remain compliant with all 801 Series Policies and Procedures, with added focus on 801.16 and 801.21.
Necessary Resources:
No additional resources required.
Substantial Compliance Date:
12/31/2016
Responsible Party: Colonel Colvin
General Information:
Comply with Policy 1201.07 “Inmate Suicide Risk Reduction”.
Desired Outcome: A professional and factual investigation is completed under policy 801.16.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: Ensure that policy
48

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 72 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan 1201.07 and policy 801.16 are fully complied with.

Necessary Resources:

No additional resources required.

Substantial Compliance Date: 12/31/2016

IV.A.7.d. Provide formal pre-service and annual inservice training on proper incident reporting policies and procedures.

✔ 1. See IV.A.7.a. 2. Lesson plans, training materials, evidence of

Responsible Party: Lt. Navarro

knowledge gained. Evidence of remedial training. General Information: 3. Review of incident reports.

Schedule of pre-service, in-service and specialized Schedule OJC personnel to attend

training for two years forward, including topics, dates, in-service incident reporting

instructors.

training. Dates have been

provided and scheduling needs to

be done to assure attendance.

Desired Outcome: To complete training on the incident reporting policy.

Compliance Tasks to be Completed:

Task #1: To coordinate with OJC supervisors and schedule personnel to attend the incident reporting policy training.

Necessary Resources:

No additional resources required.

Benchmark Dates:

12/16/2016 for 50% completion.

Substantial Compliance Date:

49

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 73 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

IV.A.7.e. Implement a policy providing that it is a disciplinary infraction for staff to fail to report any reportable incident that occurred on his or her shift. Failure to formally report any observed prisoner injury may result in staff discipline, up to and including termination.

✔

1. See IV.A.7.a.

2. Written policy/procedure, employee rules of

conduct; employee disciplinary procedures.

3. Review of staff disciplinary actions.

4. Review of incident reports.

Interviews with employees.

IV.A.7.f. Maintain a system to track all reportable incidents that, at a minimum, includes the following information: (1) tracking number; (2) the prisoner(s) name; (3) housing classification and location; (4) date and time; (5) type of incident; (6) injuries to staff or prisoner;

✔

1. See IV.A.7.a., IV.A.7.d.

2. Identification of incident reporting system,

elements, formats.

Review of incident reports.

OPSO Compliance Plan 01/13/2017 Responsible Party: Captain Peters General Information: The OPSO employee rules and regulations provide for this. We are currently in the final stages of revision of the employee disciplinary policy.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed: Task #1: Complete the revisions to the employee disciplinary policy and disseminate to staff.
Necessary Resources: No additional resources required.
Benchmark Dates: We are already partially compliant.
Substantial Compliance Date: February 15, 2017.
Responsible Party: Colonel Colvin General Information: Maintain incident tracking system.
Desired Outcome: Ability to
50

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 74 of 169

Section (7) medical care; (8) primary and secondary staff involved; (9) reviewing supervisor; (10) external reviews and results; (11) corrective action taken; and (12) administrative sign-off.

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan capture and track the above listed data.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: Purchase of New JMS System.

Necessary Resources:

Funding for new JMAS system.

Benchmark Dates:

Completed.

Substantial Compliance Date:

March 15, 2016

IV.A.7.g. Ensure that incident reports and prisoner

✔

1. See IV.A.7.a.

Responsible Party: Sgt. Verret

grievances are screened for allegations of staff misconduct, and, if the incident or allegation meets established criteria in accordance with this Agreement, it is referred for investigation.

2. Written policy/procedure inmate grievance
procedures
3. Review of investigations.

General Information: The Grievance department will

4. Record of referrals for investigation; investigative continue to screen all grievances

reports.

for allegations of staff misconduct

Interviews with inmates.

daily and assign these grievances

to the Internal Affairs Department

/the Warden of the facility.

Grievance clerks also maintain an

electronic log of grievances

assigned to I.A.D and I.S.B. which

is provided to the Chief of

Investigations weekly.

Necessary Resources:

One (1) additional staff member needed.

51

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 75 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan Benchmark Dates:
Already in partial compliance.

Substantial Compliance Date:
Pending the selection and implementation of a new JMAS System at OPSO.

IV.A.7.h. Provide the Monitor a periodic data report of incidents at the Facility. These periodic reports shall be provided to the Monitor within four months of the Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until termination of this Agreement.

✔

1. See IV.A.7.a.

Responsible Party: Chief Laughlin

Periodic written reports regarding incidents; analysis;

recommendations from OPSO.

General Information:

The current Vantos system does not offer the ability to create this report. Therefore, Major Louque creates a report through his log sheets.

Create a report that meets the expectations of the Monitors.

Desired Outcome: Create a report that meets the requirements of this provision. Currently working with Major Louque to create a template that can be used. A new JMS that captures all the data and formats it into a useable report.

The barrier would be our current JMS system. Currently, the OPSO is in the final stages of selecting a new vendor.

Compliance Tasks to be Completed:

Task #1: Creating a template that meets all the requirements of this

52

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 76 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan provision.

Task #2: Evaluating the collected data for its accuracy.

Necessary Resources: No additional resources required.

Benchmark Dates:
This provision is currently in partial compliance.

Substantial Compliance Date:
The anticipated date of full compliance is the last quarter of 2017. Major Louque is currently working on a detailed report that would meet this requirement. There will be some back and forth between OPSO and the monitors until a report can be established.

The measurement would be a report that can useful for the OPSO. The report should have specific data such as, but not limited to, date, time, day of the week, location, type of injury, type of incident, name of inmate(s) involved, and staff involved.

IV.A.7.i. The report will include the following information: (1) a brief summary of all reportable incidents, by type
and date; (2) a description of all suicides and in-custody deaths,
including the date, name of prisoner, and housing

✔

1. See IV.A.7.a., IV.A.7.h.

2. Written report.

3. Review of IAD and SOD records/investigations

Summary of grievances.

Responsible Party: Chief Laughlin
General Information:
Training the staff on the policy of reporting incidents as well as the

53

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 77 of 169

Section

C

P

N

unit;

(3) number of prisoner grievances screened for

allegations of misconduct; and

(4) number of grievances referred to IAD or SOD for

investigation.

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan importance of reporting all incidents.
Ensure that all reportable incidents are properly investigated.
Ensure failure to report any incident will result in discipline or remedial training.
Submitting a detailed report regarding all reportable incidents.
Accountability that all employees are trained on the proper procedures regarding incident reporting.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Meet with the Administrative Warden to develop a reporting mechanism similar to the one used by ISB.
Continue to receive the referral report from the Grievance Department, and ensure all referrals are investigated thoroughly.
Ensure the Training Division collaborates with the facilities to ensure the training is completed in a timely manner.
Necessary Resources:
54

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 78 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan
No additional staffing or funding is required.

Benchmark Dates:
This should be in place by the end of the first quarter of 2017. More specific, we should have a report evaluating all incidents of the first quarter 2017 for review.

Substantial Compliance Date:
January 2018, we should be in full compliance because by then the monitors would have evaluated four quarters, and an annual report.

IV.A.7.j. Conduct internal reviews of the periodic reports to determine whether the incident reporting system is ensuring that the constitutional rights of prisoners are respected. Review the quarterly report to determine whether the incident reporting system is meeting the requirements of this Agreement. OPSO shall make recommendations regarding the reporting system or other necessary changes in policy or staffing based on this review. The review and recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor.

✔

1. Written directive governing reporting.

2. Written analysis of incident reporting system;

OPSO recommendations.

Submission of quarterly reports.

Responsible Party: Chief Laughlin
General Information:
Develop a report that will measure the performance of the incident reporting system to ensure it meets the Constitutional Rights of prisoners.

Create and identify stakeholders for a board that will evaluate the periodic reports.

Have in place a board that will effectively evaluate the periodic reports on the incident reporting system. The board will identify strengths and weaknesses of the system, and make recommendations to the

55

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 79 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan Compliance Director for his review.

Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Develop the criteria needed for the internal review of the incident reporting system.

Identify key stakeholders to be appointed to the review board.

Necessary Resources:
No additional staffing or funding is needed to complete this task.

Benchmark Dates:
This should be in place by the end of the first quarter of 2017. Within the quarterly report, we can add section discussing the performance of the incident reporting system.

Substantial Compliance Date:
January 2018, we should be in full compliance because by then the monitors would have evaluated four quarters, and an annual report which will contain a section on the performance of the incident reporting system.

IV.A.8. Investigations OPSO shall ensure that it has sufficient staff to identify, investigate, and make recommendations correcting misconduct that

has or may lead to a violation of the Constitution. At a minimum, OPSO shall:

IV.A.8.a. Maintain implementation of comprehensive

✔

1. Written policy/procedures governing investigations

policies, procedures, and practices for the timely and

(SOD and IAD) in accordance with generally

thorough investigation of alleged staff misconduct, sexual

accepted correctional practice and Louisiana

assaults, and physical assaults of prisoners resulting in

statute; reporting requirements, and training

Responsible Party: Chief Laughlin General Information:

56

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 80 of 169

Section

C

P

serious injury, in accordance with this Agreement.

Investigations shall:

(1) be conducted by persons who do not have conflicts

of interest that bear on the partiality of the

investigation;

(2) include timely, thorough, and documented interviews

of all relevant staff and prisoners who were involved

in or who witnessed the incident in question, to the

extent practicable; and

(3) include all supporting evidence, including logs,

witness and participant statements, references to

policies and procedures relevant to the incident,

physical evidence, and video or audio recordings.

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan

requirements for those newly assigned to the units, OPSO has already completed and

annual training and specialized training. 2. Memorandum of agreement, prosecutor, sexual
assault treatment center. 3. List of employees assigned to IAD/SOD. 4. Post orders/job descriptions. 5. Lesson plans, curriculum, training materials, list of

submitted the ISB SOP’s which address all of these provisions. The SOP’s have been approved by all parties to the Consent Judgment.

those trained; evidence of knowledge gained. 6. Review of IAD and SOD investigations.

Compliance Tasks to be Completed:

7. See also PREA standards 115.371-.373. 8. Inmate interviews.

No additional task necessary. ISB

Inmate grievances re: retaliation. Third party

is to continue to operate under

complaints re: retaliation.

the approved SOP’s.

Necessary Resources: No additional resources required.

Benchmark Dates:
OPSO believes they are currently in compliance with these provisions.

Substantial Compliance Date: 12/15/2016

IV.A.8.b. Continue to provide SOD and IAD staff with pre-service and annual in-service training on appropriate investigation policies and procedures, the investigation tracking process, investigatory interviewing techniques, and confidentiality requirements

✔

1. See IV.A.8.a. (1)-(3)

Responsible Party: Chief Laughlin

2. See also PREA standard 115.334 3. Note: monitors will review all policies,

General Information:

procedures, lesson plans/curriculum prior to implementation.
Inmate interviews

All ISB agents are required to attend all OPSO annual in-service training. ISB agents receive an

additional 8 hours of PREA

Training.

ISB/SOP have been approved and put in place to assist with investigations.

57

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 81 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan

ISB agents will continue to receive annual in-service training as well as additional training when available.

Substantial Compliance Date: Currently in compliance.

IV.A.8.c. Ensure that any investigative report indicating

✔

possible criminal behavior will be referred to IAD/SOD

and then referred to the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s

Office, if appropriate.

1. See IV.A.8. (1)-(3) 2. Memorandum of agreement with prosecutor.
Evidence of case review meetings; record of declinations of prosecution.
3. Interview with prosecutor.
Review of employee disciplinary/terminations.

Responsible Party: Chief Laughlin General Information: This provision is currently being adhered to.
Substantial Compliance Date: Currently in compliance.

IV.A.8.d. Provide the Monitor a periodic report of investigations conducted at the Facility. These periodic reports shall be provided to the Monitor within four months of the Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until termination of this Agreement.

✔

1. See IV.A.8. (1)-(3)

Responsible Party:

Report to Monitor; recommendations; plans of action.

Colonel Colvin/Chief Laughlin

General Information:

The Investigative Services Bureau currently submits spreadsheets of all investigations conducted by the sub-units within the division.

Major Louque, the OJC Administrative Warden, has developed detailed statistical reports of all incidents and investigations conducted within the facility.

Compliance Tasks to be Completed:

58

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 82 of 169

Section

C

P

N

IV.A.8.e. The report will include the following

✔

information:

(1) a brief summary of all completed investigations, by

type and date;

(2) a listing of investigations referred for administrative

investigation;

(3) a listing of all investigations referred to an

appropriate law enforcement agency and the name of

the agency; and

(4) a listing of all staff suspended, terminated, arrested,

or reassigned because of misconduct or violations of

policy and procedures. This list must also contain

the specific misconduct and/or violation.

Measures See IV.A.8.c, d.

OPSO Compliance Plan Task #1: Begin submitting new OJC reports.
Necessary Resources:
No additional resources needed.
Substantial Compliance Date:
Compliance after next official reporting period.
Responsible Party: Chief Laughlin
General Information:
Continue to conduct all investigations assigned to ISB.
Desired Outcome: Ensure that ISB agents are conducting investigations in a timely manner.
Ensure that all investigations resulting in an arrest are forwarded to the District Attorney’s office within the allotted timeframe.
The only possible barrier would be if any of the facilities failed to notify ISB of an incident that needed to be investigated.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Continue to provide the monitors accurate spreadsheets containing
59

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 83 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan 1 through 4 listed above.

Necessary Resources: No additional resources required.

Benchmark Dates: Already in partial compliance.

Substantial Compliance Date:
The anticipated date of full compliance is March 2017. ISB investigates any and all complaints to its fullest. There is excellent communication between FIT, IAD Admin, IAD Criminal, Intel, and Investigations. ISB continues to close its caseload with arrest, and referrals to the District Attorney’s Office. ISB has recently arrested – after consultation with the District Attorney’s Office – two employees.

IV.A.8.f. OPSO shall review the periodic report to

✔

determine whether the investigation system is meeting the

requirements of this Agreement and make

recommendations regarding the investigation system or

The measurement would be to continue our collaboration with the District Attorney’s Office regarding arrest and referrals. Furthermore, to investigate each complaint or incident to the fullest both criminally and administratively.

1. Record of OPSO’s review; recommendations; plans of action.
Evidence of implemented change based on findings, recommendations, plans of action.

Responsible Party: Chief Laughlin General Information:

60

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 84 of 169

Section

C

P

N

other necessary changes in policy based on this review.

The review and recommendations will be documented

and provided to the Monitor.

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan Ensure required reports pertaining to investigations are provided to the monitors for review.
Desired Outcome: Ensure that all information provided in the ISB spreadsheets is accurate.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: Continue to review our agent’s reports to ensure they are conducting quality, accurate, and complete investigations.
Task #2: Continue to make changes to our spreadsheets to provide additional analysis of the data provided.
Necessary Resources:
No additional resources required.
Benchmark Dates:
Already in partial compliance with this provision.
Substantial Compliance Date:
The anticipated date of full compliance is June 2017.
A measurement of compliance will be verification and confirmation of the ISB
61

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 85 of 169

Section

C

P

IV.A.9. Pretrial Placement in Alternative Settings IV.A.9.a. OPSO shall maintain its role of providing space and security to facilitate interviews conducted pursuant to ✔ the City’s pretrial release program, which is intended to ensure placement in the least restrictive appropriate placement consistent with public safety.
IV.A.9.b. OPSO shall create a system to ensure that it does not unlawfully confine prisoners whose sole detainer ✔ is by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), where the detainer has expired.

IV.A.10. Custodial Placement within OPP

IV.A.10.a. OPP shall implement an objective and

✔

validated classification system that assigns prisoners to

housing units by security levels, among other valid

factors, in order to protect prisoners from unreasonable

risk of harm. The system shall include: consideration of a

prisoner’s security needs, severity of the current charge,

types of prior commitments, suicide risk, history of

escape attempts, history of violence, gang affiliations, and

special needs, including mental illness, gender identity,

age, and education requirements. OPSO shall anticipate

periods of unusual intake volume and schedule sufficient

classification staff to classify prisoners within 24 hours of

booking and perform prisoner reclassifications, assist

eligible DOC prisoners with re-entry assistance (release

preparation), among other duties related to case

management.

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan

investigations as it relates to

OPSO policies and procedures.

1. Memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Pre-
Trial Services.
2. Observation 3. Interview with pre-trial services staff 4. Review of files
Review of data regarding pre-trial diversion
1. Written policy/procedures regarding inmate record
keeping, and release.
2. List of inmates with ICE detainees and length of
time in custody.
3. Classification plan/policies/procedures
Review of inmate release record.

Responsible Party: N/A
Substantial Compliance Date:
Already in compliance with this provision as of 02/19/2016.
Responsible Party: N/A
Substantial Compliance Date:
Already in compliance with this provision as of 02/19/2016.

1. Written policy/procedure governing the intake,
booking, classification and re-classification process, including how updates to the system required to provide for a reliable and valid classification system for OPSO current inmate populations are implemented, and who is accountable for the process
2. Report including a statistical validation of the
OPSO current custody classification system that includes statistical assessment of the risk and need factors of the inmate populations by gender and race.
3. Implementation of the identified updates to the
classification system as measured by an electronic file with the completed custody assessments based on the revised custody assessment instruments and housing assignment for OPSO population as if date specified by Monitor
4. Report documenting staffing needs required to
ensure integrity of the updated classification and case management systems. Implementation of viable classification/case

Responsible Party: Lt. Holliday
Substantial Compliance Date:
Already in compliance with this provision as of 02/19/2016.

62

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 86 of 169

Section

C

P

IV.A.10.b. Prohibit classifications based solely on race,

✔

color, national origin, or ethnicity.

IV.A.10.c. Ensure that the classification staff has

✔

sufficient access to current information regarding cell

availability in each division.

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan

management staffing plans. (Staffing plan to be

approved by Monitor prior to implementation.)

1. Implementation of a valid classification system

Responsible Party: Lt. Holliday

based on the objective and reliable risk and need factors of the OPSO inmate populations as

Substantial Compliance Date:

documented by a written report on the design/validation of the revised classification system and electronic file of custody assessments

Already in compliance with this provision as of 02/19/2016.

(see a.3).

Provide a quarterly report that tracks custody

distributions by housing unit race, and gender to the

Monitor.

1. Develop and implement a housing unit assignment Responsible Party: Lt. Holliday

plan that outlines the mission, number of beds and

custody level(s) for each OPSO housing unit.

General Information:

Provide a report of the daily counts to the classification housing staff as to the number of occupied, vacancy, and When a cell goes into a state of

out-of-order beds per pod per housing unit with

disrepair, whether from an act of

electronic copies of the daily reports report shall be provided to the Monitor.

vandalism (ex. -broken glass) or from something malfunctioning

(ex. broken toilet) Classification

was previously not always

notified to close the cell and/or

reopen after repair.

Desired Outcome: Classification Division will immediately be notified of any physical plant issues that would be cause for the closure of a cell or the reopening of a cell, post repair.

Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Continue to work the newly implemented system of tracking any issue that does or could affect a cell’s occupancy in the housing units. - There is a feature within the JMS called the Closed Cell

63

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 87 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan Program Report. It allows the end user to turn a cell on or off relative to the cell’s availability for assignment by the Objective Classification Instrument. Classification’s Shift Leaders have been trained and given access to the JMS program. I also created a spreadsheet Cell Report in which we do an audit of the units once a week to check the status of all of the cells in the building, including the cells that are pending repairs. Any relative discoveries or information that affects a cell within the housing units is also communicated between Plant Control / Maintenance Division and Classification Division.

Necessary Resources:

None as the tools (JMS program and documents) are already created. No additional staffing needed to complete this task.

Substantial Compliance Date:

Complete / ongoing.

IV.A.10.d. Continue to update the classification system to

✔

include information on each prisoner’s history at OPSO.

1. Any automated management information system
will include accurate data and within 8 hours of the custody assessment or status change, data regarding the inmates’ custody level, medical, mental health, disciplinary infractions, and custody assessment (date, risk factor scoring, override reason (if applicable), and custody level). Monitor will conduct audit of random sample of cases to determine accuracy and timely entry of data.

Responsible Party: Lt. Holliday
General Information:
Any automated management information system will include accurate data and within 8 hours of the custody assessment or status change, data regarding the

64

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 88 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan

Compliance standard will be 90% accurate and

inmates’ custody level, medical,

reliable. The custody assessments shall be updated/reviewed following every 120 days, a hearing for a disciplinary infraction for major infraction, legal status change, new information from the court, and a major jail incident to include PREA or other major incident/ investigation. ). Monitor will conduct audit of random sample of cases to

mental health, disciplinary infractions, and custody assessment (date, risk factor scoring, override reason (if applicable), and custody level). Monitor will conduct audit of

determine accuracy and timely entry of data.

random sample of cases to

Compliance standard will be 90% accurate and reliable. determine accuracy and timely

entry of data. Compliance

standard will be 90% accurate

and reliable.

Desired Outcome: To have 100% of assessments effected in under 8 hours and have audit tested compliance standard of 90% or better.

Compliance Tasks to be Completed:

Lieutenant Holliday has recently (October, 2016) initiated a “Random Inmate Sample” internal auditing / quality control program, where he can generate a completely random list of O.P.S.O. inmates that have already been assessed, and review those assessments. Prior to this implementation, the audits were only conducted / documented when placement errors were noticed. Also, Lt. Holliday has worked extensively with the JMS Programmer to create multiple, additional user features within the instrument that not only allows (and mandates) the end

65

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 89 of 169

Section
IV.A.10.e. Continue competency-based training and access to all supervisors on the full capabilities of the OPSO classification and prisoner tracking system.

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan user enter comments about the inmate and / or their classification, these comments are visible by date and entry to facilitate a classification history review every time a classification specialist opens up his classification file, whereas before a second JMS session had to be opened up to view a separate database that may or may not have relative comments about that inmates classification. This allows us to continuously add and review new information about that inmate giving us the big picture of that inmate’s history of their incarceration.

Necessary Resources:

No additional staffing or resources needed to complete this task.

Substantial Compliance Date:

Complete / ongoing.

✔

1. Written directive governing training of staff

Responsible Party: Lt. Holliday

assigned to classification.

2. Curriculum for competency-based training

General Information:

regarding the custody classification system, housing assignment process, work/community assignments, and case management. Evidence of knowledge gained.

1. Written directive governing training of staff assigned to classification.

3. Staff training roster(s) and competency tests

2. Curriculum for competency-

following completion of competency-based training based training regarding the

by current classification/case management staff.

custody classification system,

4. Staff training roster(s) and competency tests

housing assignment process,

66

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 90 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan

following completion of competency-based training work/community assignments,

by all new or re-assigned staff on assignment to classification/case management duties.
5. Curriculum for classification module within the
basic academy training curriculum for OPSO staff. Evidence of knowledge gained. Staff training roster(s) and competency tests documenting completion of the basic classification module by current OPSO non-classification/case management staff.

and case management. Evidence of knowledge gained. 3. Staff training roster(s) and competency tests following completion of competency-based training by current classification/case management staff.

4. Staff training roster(s) and

competency tests following

completion of competency-based

training by all new or re-assigned

staff on assignment to

classification/case management

duties.

5. Curriculum for classification

module within the basic academy

training curriculum for OPSO

staff. Evidence of knowledge

gained. Staff training roster(s)

and competency tests

documenting completion of the

basic classification module by

current OPSO non-

classification/case management

staff.

Desired Outcome: Continue monthly training and testing for all Classification Staff, line staff and supervisors as well as continue pre-service and academy training to facilitate department wide understanding of the critical concept of Classification and that it can actually help the operations staff by knowing and

67

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 91 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan understanding where and why certain inmates are assigned to a particular unit or area.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
The Classification Division staff receives training on new procedures and programs, as well as “refresher training” on some of the fundamental training they may have had when they first came to the division. This ensures that important components of being a classification specialist that were learned in the beginning are not forgotten or taken for granted.
Also, last month we conducted some critical, refresher training relative to Classification Staff interpreting NCIC reports and the recognition of the different variations of guilty dispositions as these are a major factor affecting an inmate’s classification. Different states and jurisdictions utilize different wording / verbiage relative to describing adjudicated dispositions and it is crucial that our training enables the specialist to recognize any variant of a guilty or not guilty disposition within the national database so that the nonautomated data can be “attached” within an inmate’s classification record, making it accurate as to
68

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 92 of 169

Section
IV.A.10.f. Conduct internal and external review and validation of the classification and prisoner tracking system on at least an annual basis.

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan the inmate’s calculated custody level and / or PREA designation.

The last two months also consisted of in depth training of a feature component within the objective classification system known as the “Mandatory Restrictor”. This component refers to the mandatory criteria for certain offenses and criminal histories so that inmates that meet the criteria do not progress below a certain custody level. There were some recent modifications to the Mandatory Restrictor screens and further training and testing on knowledge learned was conducted and documented.

Necessary Resources:

No additional resources required.

Substantial Compliance Date:

Complete / ongoing.

✔

1. Quarterly and annual tracking reports within the

Responsible Party: Lt. Holliday

OPSO information system to monitor:

a. Custody distributions by gender, race and General Information:

special populations;

b. Override rates;

Objective classification system /

c. Housing by custody level/special needs, instrument requires annual

race;

revalidation.

d. PREA separations;

Custody re-assessments (regular and for-cause, # overdue, et al.) Electronic copies of the quarterly and annual reports shall be provided to the Monitor with

Desired Outcome: The successful internal and external review and revalidation of the objective

69

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 93 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan

documentation of steps (tasks and dates) taken to

classification system.

address any noted inconsistencies with OPSO policies.

Compliance Tasks to be Completed:

Dr. Hardyman will complete the statistical review and revalidation of the objective classification system in early 2017. Since the disciplinary system was not previously maintained prior to Lt. Holliday’s appointment to Classification Manager, and after implementing several controls and new staffing, the O.P.S.O. disciplinary process has recently achieved significant accountability and methods of capturing and recording for classification purposes, all disciplinary data from incidents here as well as other locations where O.P.S.O. inmates may be temporarily housed, such as East Carol Parish.

Necessary Resources:

Contract with Dr. Hardyman for her instrument maintenance / testing. No additional staffing needed to complete this task.

Substantial Compliance Date:

“Early 2017” according to Dr. Hardyman.

IV.A.10.g. Provide the Monitor a periodic report on

✔

1. Annual and bi-annual tracking reports within the

Responsible Party: Lt. Holliday

classification at the Facility. These periodic reports shall

OPSO information system to monitor number/rates

be provided to the Monitor within four months of the

during the last 12 months and for the stock

General Information:

70

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 94 of 169

Section

C

P

Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until

termination of this Agreement. Each report will include

the following information:

(1) number of prisoner-on-prisoner assaults;

(2) number of assaults against prisoners with mental

illness;

(3) number of prisoners who report having gang

affiliations;

(4) most serious offense leading to incarceration;

(5) number of prisoners classified in each security level;

(6) number of prisoners placed in protective custody;

and

(7) number of misconduct complaints.

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan

population

2. number of prisoner-on-prisoner assaults/custody
level by gender;

All of the required reports including the last major tracking

3. number of assaults against prisoners with mental
illness by gender;

goal (inmate assaults – victim tracking) have been completed.

4. number of prisoners who report having gang
affiliations by gang affiliation;

Desired Outcome: Success with

5. most serious current offense leading to
incarceration by gender;
6. number of prisoners currently classified in each
security level;

the newest addition to the objective classification instrument, the Security Threat Group / Gang Database.

7. number of prisoners placed in protective custody; 8. number of prisoners in administrative segregation;
and number of major and minor misconduct complaints.

In New Orleans, the gang affiliations are not as defined or formal, making them harder to identify because of the dynamic

nature of the faction, often

assimilating with multiple other

factions, only during periods of

incarceration, allowing them to

create a stronghold within a

particular inmate housing unit,

and then returning to previous

factional separations once they

are no longer incarcerated.

Compliance Tasks to be Completed:

Our last major hurdle that is under construction and testing is the full implementation of our known STG / gang database for classification use by automating the necessary separations of the gang members within the objective classification system.

Necessary Resources:

71

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 95 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan No additional staffing needed to complete this task.

Benchmark Dates:
50% completion date by 12/15/2016.

Substantial Compliance Date: Completion date of 12/31/2016.

IV.A.10.h. OPSO shall review the periodic data report

✔

and make recommendations regarding proper placement

consistent with this Agreement or other necessary

changes in policy based on this review. The review and

recommendations will be documented and provided to the

Monitor.

Report to the Monitor with recommended change and rational/data regarding any policy changes.

Responsible Party: Lt. Holliday
General Information:
Report to the Monitor with recommended change and rational/data regarding any policy changes.

Desired Outcome: All relative policies to Classification are now approved and we are in an “implementation” phase of the recently approved policies, assessing where and what changes need to be made, or in the case of the Classification Policy, addendums such as the STG / Gang separations that were not previously mentioned in the Classification Policy.

Recent reconciliation of multiple data reports, correcting captured data that was previously inaccurate will ensure our most recent assessments are based on accurate statistical data from the

72

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 96 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan JMS.

Compliance Tasks to be Completed:

Continue to distribute and train Classification staff, as well as any operational affiliated staff on the new policies, as well as document any recommendations, changes, or additions that may need to be made, so as to submit them up the chain of command for assessment and decision to amend.

Also, continue to submit the monthly population reports and analysis / summary to the Compliance Director, Chief of Corrections and Dr. Hardyman for review of any trends or outcomes not previously identified.

Necessary Resources:

No additional resources required.

Substantial Compliance Date:

Complete / ongoing.

IV.A.11. Prisoner Grievance Process

IVA.11.a. OPSO shall ensure that prisoners have a

✔

1. Written policy and procedures governing inmate

Responsible Party: Sgt. Verret

mechanism to express their grievances, resolve disputes,

grievances, and grievance appeals. Directive shall

and ensure that concerns regarding their constitutional

include but not be limited to availability of

General Information:

rights are addressed. OPSO shall, at a minimum, do the

grievance forms in required language, ability of

following:

inmates to secure forms upon request and deposit (1) Continue to maintain policies and

(1) Continue to maintain policies and procedures to

into secured boxes, prohibition against retaliation procedures to ensure that prisoners

ensure that prisoners have access to an adequate

against inmates who file grievances, time deadlines have access to an adequate grievance

grievance process and to ensure that grievances may

on responses, assistance to inmates to file

process and to ensure that grievances

be reported and filed confidentially, without

grievances (including assistance to inmates with

may be reported and filed

requiring the intervention of a correctional officer.

mental illness, low functioning, non-English

confidentially, without requiring the

73

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 97 of 169

Section

C

P

The policies and procedures should be applicable

and standardized across all the Facility divisions.

(2) Ensure that each grievance receives appropriate

follow-up, including providing a timely written

response and tracking implementation of resolutions.

(3) Ensure that grievance forms are available on all units

and are available in Spanish and Vietnamese and that

there is adequate opportunity for illiterate prisoners

and prisoners who have physical or cognitive

disabilities or language barriers to access the

grievance system.

(4) Separate the process of “requests to staff” from the

grievance process and prioritize grievances that raise

issues regarding prisoner safety or health.

(5) Ensure that prisoner grievances are screened for

allegations of staff misconduct and, if an incident or

allegation warrants per this Agreement, that it is

referred for investigation.

(6) A member of the management staff shall review the

grievance tracking system quarterly to identify areas

of concerns. These reviews and any

recommendations will be documented and provided

to the Monitor.

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan

speaking).

intervention of a correctional officer.

2. Written policies and procedures that designates a
position/post responsible for assuring the collection and response to grievances, including maintenance

The policies and procedures should be applicable and standardized across all the Facility divisions.

3. of records, trends, and analysis of grievance data. 4. An electronic tracking system. 5. Written orientation to inmates regarding the

(Policies were finalized and implemented in March 2016.)

grievance process.

(2) Ensure that each grievance

6. Inmate handbook. 7. Curriculum/lesson plans to train staff (pre-service
and in-service) regarding their roles and responsibilities regarding the inmate grievance

receives appropriate follow-up, including providing a timely written response and tracking implementation of resolutions.

process.
8. Observation of inmate grievance boxes. 9. Interviews with inmates.

(The Grievance Coordinator conducts a Monthly Audit of grievances.)

10. Interviews with employees. 11. Observation of staff training. 12. Observation of inmate orientation. 13. Written policies/procedures governing the inmate

(3) Ensure that grievance forms are available on all units and are available in Spanish and Vietnamese and that there is adequate opportunity for

request process.

illiterate prisoners and prisoners who

14. Inmate request forms. 15. Review of referrals for investigation resulting from
inmate grievances.

have physical or cognitive disabilities or language barriers to access the grievance system.(Task #1)

16. Review of original inmate grievances and

(4) Separate the process of “requests to

responses.

staff” from the grievance process and

Monitors’ review of grievance logs, grievances, analysis prioritize grievances that raise issues

of grievances conducted by OPSO.

regarding prisoner safety or health.

(Task #2)

(5) Ensure that prisoner grievances are screened for allegations of staff misconduct and, if an incident or allegation warrants per this Agreement, that it is referred for investigation.

(Grievance Clerks screen these grievances daily. An electronic log is sent to the Chief of Investigations on

74

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 98 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan a weekly basis.)
(6) A member of the management staff shall review the grievance tracking system quarterly to identify areas of concerns. These reviews and any recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor.
(The Grievance Coordinator provides a quarterly grievance report which is included in the quarterly Summary Report provided to monitors.)
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Ensure that grievance forms are available on all units and are available in Spanish and Vietnamese and that there is adequate opportunity for illiterate prisoners and prisoners who have physical or cognitive disabilities or language barriers to access the grievance system.
Task #1: Forms need to be translated in to Spanish. I have spoken with CFO Sean Bruno on 11/29/16 who is in the process of contacting a previously used vendor to translate and print grievance/ request/appeal forms.
Task #2: The current grievance system does not have the ability to separate the process of “request to staff” from the
75

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 99 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan grievance process. Grievance clerks separate these grievances by relying on the current tag type list.

Desired Outcome: To obtain a vendor that can provide the necessary software to separate the process of “request to staff” from the grievance process.

Necessary Resources:
There is a fee associated with translating documents. The need for additional staff will be determined by the functions of the new JMAS system. Grievance Clerks are in need of computers with 22 in. screens. Primary function is continuous reading of grievances/requests.

Benchmark Dates:
Already in partial compliance with this provision.

Substantial Compliance Date:
03/01/2017 for form translation. Substantial compliance is pending integration of new JMAS system.

IV.A.12. Sexual Abuse

IV.A.12. OPSO will develop and implement policies,

✔

1. Checklist of policies and procedures

Responsible Party: Chief Laughlin

protocols, trainings, and audits, consistent with the

http://www.prearesourcecenter.org/sites/default/file

requirements of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, 42 U.S.C. § 15601, et seq., and its implementation of

s/library/checklistofdocumentationfinal2.pdf 2. Auditor Compliance Tool

General Information:

regulations, including but not limited to, preventing,

http://www.prearesourcecenter.org/sites/default/file Policies regarding PREA have

76

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 100 of 169

Section

C

P

detecting, reporting, investigating, and collecting sexual

abuse data, including prisoner-on-prisoner and staff-on-

prisoner sexual abuse, sexual harassment, and sexual

touching.

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan

s/library/auditorcompliancetoolfinal2.pdf

recently returned from the plaintiffs.

3. Completion of Jail Toolkit

4.

http://static.nicic.gov/Library/026880.pdf Written policies and procedures, protocols, memorandum of agreement/understanding, training

On the list of PREA audit from the Department of Corrections (DOC).

curriculum required by the standards. 5. Memorandum of agreement, sexual assault

Identify staff to assume the role of

treatment center

PREA Compliance Manager. Per

6. Review of investigations. 7. Interviews with employees and inmates. 8. Referrals for prosecution

PREA standards OPSO needs one for each facility; therefore, we need

Qualifications of instructors.

two managers.

Desired Outcome: Become PREA compliant.

The only barrier identified is the current housing situation of the female youth population. This population is housed on the same pod with adults due to space issues.

Compliance Tasks to be Completed:

Task #1: Continue to train new hires and contractors on the PREA standards.

Task #2: Continue to post PREA statistics on the OPSO website through the report card.

Task #3: Develop a notification process to inform offenders of the investigation outcomes.

Task #4: Re-institute monthly SHARP meetings to discuss PREA

77

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 101 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan cases.

Task #5: Will need to train the PREA Compliance Managers once in their new roles.

Necessary Resources:
There will be a need to hire / transfer two (2) individuals for the role of PREA Compliance Manager. The only funding will be the salaries of the two PREA Compliance Managers.

Benchmark Dates:
This provision is currently in partial compliance.

Substantial Compliance Date:
The anticipated date of full compliance will be the fourth quarter in 2017.

The measurement would be to come in full compliance with a PREA audit.

IV.A.13. Access to Information

IV.A.13. OPSO will ensure that all newly admitted

✔

1. Written policy/procedure governing inmate

Responsible Party: Colonel Colvin

prisoners receive information, through an inmate

orientation, including but not limited to inmates

handbook and, at the discretion of the Jail, an orientation

with LEP, developmental disabilities, mental

General Information:

video, regarding the following topics: understanding

illness, etc.

Facility disciplinary process and rules and regulations;

2. Inmate handbook; orientation video. In Spanish, Video is played on a “Loop” on the

reporting misconduct; reporting sexual abuse or assault; accessing medical and mental health care; emergency procedures; and sending and receiving mail; understanding the visitation process; and accessing the

Vietnamese. 3. Observation of inmate orientation. 4. Inmate interviews. 5. Lesson plans, employee training, evidence of

TV’s in Lockup, video is played again on TV’s in OJC Direct Supervision Units and Handbooks are issued (in Spanish and

78

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 102 of 169

grievance process.

Section

C

P

N

Measures

knowledge gained.

6. Review of grievances.

7. Post orders.

OPSO Compliance Plan English) explaining the processes.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:

Task #1: Continue current level of staff cooperation and compliance. Leadership should periodically audit this task for completeness and attention to detail.

Necessary Resources:

No additional resources required.

Benchmark Dates:

Already completed.

Substantial Compliance Date:

12/31/2016

IV.D. Sanitation and Environmental Conditions Defendant shall ensure that prisoners are provided with constitutionally adequate sanitation and

environmental conditions. To provide prisoners safe living conditions, OPSO, at a minimum, shall:

IV. D. 1. Sanitation and Environmental Conditions

IV.D. 1.a. OPSO shall provide oversight and supervision

✔ 1. Written policies and procedures for cleaning and

of routine cleaning of housing units, showers, and medical

disinfecting, monitoring process with responsibility

areas. Such oversight and supervision will include

and accountability assigned developed in

meaningful inspection processes and documentation, as

collaboration with monitor.

well as establish routine cleaning requirements for toilets,

2. List of controlled inventory of acceptable cleaning

showers, and housing units to be documented at least once

and disinfecting chemicals.

a week but to occur more frequently.

3. Development and implementation of an effective

weekly [or more frequently] auditing process with

assigned responsibility and accountability and

documentation.

4. Monitor’s onsite verification of implementation of

both the policy(s) and the auditing process and

report, along with corrective action when non-

conformities to the policy/procedures are

documented.

Observation of conditions along with interviews with

Responsible Party: Mr. Green
General Information:
Issue/Problem: Cleaning Inconsistencies for dorms, housing units, showers and living units. Lack of oversight and supervision from OPSO Rank. Deputy shift inspections are not detailed and incomplete. Inconsistency in the deliverance of cleaning supplies, pod deputies inability to access cleaning supplies because of lack of keys.

79

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 103 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures inmates and staff.

OPSO Compliance Plan
Desired Outcome: Consistent cleaning times – Supervisor inspections to assure cleaning standards – Detailed inspections from pod deputies – inspections would identify plumbing and other deficiencies work orders submitted. Standard times to allow cleaning. Pod keys available to allow deputies to access cleaning supplies and laundry services.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: Complete Comprehensive Cleaning Policy for the OPSO.
Task #2: Activation of comprehensive cleaning plan for OPSO.
Task #3: Establish agreeable cleaning times for dorm and pod areas for 1st and 2nd shifts.
Task #4: Train Pod Deputies, Rank and Sanitation Deputies on the OPSO comprehensive cleaning plan, the current inspection form that is currently being used by pod deputies to identify and document sanitation and plumbing issues.
Task #5: Establish agreeable consistent times to clean cells, showers and general areas .Agree
80

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 104 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan on daily consistent times when fully stocked cleaning carts will be delivered to the dorm areas to clean.

Task #5: Ensure that pod deputies have access to cleaning supply / chemical storage rooms / and laundry rooms at all times.

Necessary Resources:
(4) Sanitation Deputies per shift, one assigned to each floor. Enough Inmate workers to assist in the cleaning process. (1) Additional environmental staff person to assist in training and inspections.

Benchmark Dates:
50% completion date by March of 2017.

Substantial Compliance Date:
Substantial completion by September 2017.

IV. D. 1.b. Continue the preventive maintenance plan to

✔

respond to routine and emergency maintenance needs,

including ensuring that showers, toilets, and sink units are

adequately installed and maintained. Work orders will be

submitted within 48 hours of identified deficiencies, or

within 24 hours in the case of emergency maintenance

needs.

1. Review of the preventative maintenance plan to
determine who has responsibility to file work orders. 2. Evidence of meeting the timelines for submission of work orders. 3. Evidence of training of those assigned the responsibility to file work orders. 4. Observation of practice and conditions.
Work orders, invoices, purchases in support of the preventive maintenance plan.

Responsible Party:
Mr. Martin/Mr. Reed
General Information:
All showers, toilets, and sinks are repaired per the Computerize maintenance management system as they are reported.

Desired Outcome: All work orders

81

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 105 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan that are submitted within the 24 hour period are address within that 8 hour period. The desired outcome is to make the repairs as soon as they are reported in to the work order specialist.

As the work orders are reported in to the dispatcher, they are being dispatched out to the designated craft for repair.

Compliance Tasks to be Completed: None. Currently compliant.

Necessary Resources:
No additional resources required at this time.

Substantial Compliance Date: Currently compliant.

IV. D. 1.c. Maintain adequate ventilation throughout OPSO facilities to ensure that prisoners receive adequate air flow and reasonable levels of heating and cooling. Maintenance staff shall review and assess compliance with this requirement, as necessary, but no less than twice annually.

✔ 1. Written policy and procedure specifying the

Responsible Party: Mr. Martin/Mr. Reed

process of how adequacy of ventilation will be

measured in accordance with the mechanical code General Information:

adopted by the applicable state or local jurisdiction.

2. Evidence of a contract with a qualified/licensed

Currently there are no issues at

mechanical contractor to demonstrate that the ventilation system complies with the International Mechanical Code in effect in Louisiana.
Reports from vendor.

this time with air filtration at the facility. Additionally, there are no issues with the heating and cooling equipment, nor are there

any issues with the BMS (Building

Management System).

The desired outcome is to always keep a reserve supply/stock of filters for the entire facility on

82

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 106 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan hand at all times. Additionally, provide service agreement for equipment. (BMS, Chillers & Heating equipment.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: Air Flirtation - All air handler units are pm every quarter for bad belts, dirty filters, functioning control valves, and other task related issues that requires servicing for proper ventilation.
Task #2: Controls, heating and cooling equipment.
Necessary Resources:
No Additional resources required at this time.
Benchmark Dates:
Task #1: April 24, 2016 is the 50% mark of the quarterlies. October 24, 2016 is the annual completion date for annuals on AHUs.
Task #2: Annually and completion date is based on the agreement with the vendors, Siemens and Johnson Controls.
Substantial Compliance Date:
OPSO is currently compliant.
83

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 107 of 169

Section

C

P

IV. D. 1.d. Ensure adequate lighting in all prisoner

✔

housing units and prompt replacement and repair of

malfunctioning lighting fixtures in living areas within five

days, unless the item must be specially ordered.

IV. D. 1.e. Ensure adequate pest control throughout the

✔

housing units, including routine pest control spraying on

at least a quarterly basis and additional spraying as

needed.

IV. D. 1.f. Ensure that any prisoner or staff assigned to

✔

clean a biohazardous area is properly trained in universal

precautions, outfitted with protective materials, and

properly supervised.

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan

1. Written policy and procedures. Assurance that

Responsible Party: Mr. Martin

facility policy complies with the provision.

2. Maintenance of pending work order list showing

Substantial Compliance Date:

the purchase order for pending work order

regarding lighting fixtures. Review of work order Already in compliance with this

lists. Visual observation conditions.

provision as of 02/19/2016.

1. Written policy and procedures. 2. Copy of valid contract for integrated pest control
services with a licensed pest control contractor. 3. Map showing the location of all bait and trap
stations both internally and externally. 4. Copies of pest control reports provided by the
licensed pest control operator showing areas of concern, recommendations for corrective actions
needed to be taken by sanitation and maintenance. 5. Evidence of corrective action taken for
recommendations provided by the licensed pest
control contractor. 6. Evidence of a pest control log where officers can
log sighting of pest showing date, time, location,
and type of pest. 7. Visual observation of pest activity and inmate
interviews.
Inmate grievances.

Responsible Party: Mr. Green
General Information:
Mr. Green states that there are no outstanding pest control issues.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
No additional tasks to be completed. Continue with current practices with pest control contractor.
Necessary Resources:
No additional resources required. Pest control contract is budgeted annually.

Benchmark Dates:

None.

Substantial Compliance Date:

Compliant as of 12/01/2016.

1. Written policy and procedures. 2. Development and implementation of a training
syllabus for blood borne pathogens. Qualifications of the trainer(s).
3. Documented list of officers and inmates trained in
blood borne pathogens.

Responsible Party: Mr. Green
General Information:
1. Lack of staff prohibits training and

84

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 108 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan

4. Development and implementation of a

implementation of

biohazardous waste policy and procedures for

current Biohazard Policy.

effective and safe clean-up of any spills.
5. Maintenance of a supply of biohazardous spill kits
including personal protection items including, but limited to eye shield, mask, gloves, gown with cap,

2. High Staff turnover/ continuous retraining of policy.

CPR barrier, towelettes, absorbent powder, scraper,

3. Not receiving Incident

scoop bag, and biohazard bag.
6. Observation and demonstration of knowledge by
staff and trained prisoners.

reports on bio hazardous spills.

7. Inmate interviews, inmate grievances.
Medical policy and procedures.

Desired Outcome:

1. Documented list of deputies and inmates trained on blood borne pathogens.
2. Maintenance of a supply of bio hazardous spill kits including personal protective items.
3. System to electronically provide environmental staff on written incident reports so proper follow up can be done per policy.

Compliance Tasks to be Completed: Task #1: Hire sufficient staff.

Task #2: Work with assigned OPSO Quartermaster and OPSO Warehouse to ensure maintenance of Bio Spill kits.

Task #3: Ensure that copy of all

85

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 109 of 169

Section
IV. D. 1.g. Ensure the use of cleaning chemicals that sufficiently destroy the pathogens and organisms in biohazard spills.

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan biohazard spill incident reports are forwarded to the Environmental Staff for follow up as per Bio Hazardous Policy

Task #4: Provide evidence of use of the bio hazardous waste spill kits including, but not limited to: incident reports, spill response and inspection reports, number of spill kits used and where on the semi annual report.

Necessary Resources:
Funding to ensure spill kits are sufficient in number to replace at all times. Staff salaries.

Benchmark Dates: March 2017.

Substantial Compliance Date: September 2017.

✔

1. Written policy and procedures.

Responsible Party: Mr. Green

2. Inventory of cleaning and disinfecting chemicals. 3. Lesson plans/curriculum - evidence of effective

General Information:

training of officers and inmates responsible for cleaning and disinfecting surfaces in housing and common areas.
4. Policy and procedures an effective cleaning and
disinfection policy and procedures for all facilities.
5. Observation of effective implementation and
demonstration of knowledge. Inmate interviews, inmate grievances.

No lesson plans/ curriculum to show evidence of deputies and inmates responsible for cleaning and disinfecting surfaces in housing and common areas. Policy and Procedure for cleaning and disinfecting not complete.

Desired Outcome: Develop OPSO

86

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 110 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan Lesson Plan and Curriculum on cleaning and disinfecting housing and common areas. Complete policy for comprehensive cleaning.

Compliance Tasks to be Completed:

Task #1: Development of Lesson Plan to show evidence of deputies and inmates responsible for the cleaning and disinfecting of surfaces in housing and common areas.

Necessary Resources:

No additional resources required.

Benchmark Dates:

50% completion date by March of 2017.

Substantial Compliance Date:

Substantial completion by September 2017.

IV. D. 1.h. Maintain an infection control plan that

✔

1. Written policy and procedures for an infection

Responsible Party: Mr. Green

addresses contact, blood borne, and airborne hazards and

control plan and policy following Center for

infections. The plan shall include provisions for the identification, treatment, and control of Methicillin-

Disease Control’s recommendations. 2. Lesson plans/curriculum - evidence of training of

General Information:

Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (“MRSA”) at the Facility.

all officers, staff and inmates responsible for
cleaning and disinfecting all medical and dental
areas within OPSO. 3. Demonstration of knowledge of the policy and
plan. 4. Observation 5. Inmate interview, inmate grievances.

Confirmation that CCS Policy addresses the requirements of Policy B-01 Infection Control. Lack of evidence to show that OPSO housing unit deputies, supervisors, and sanitation officers have been trained on

Infection Control Policy.

87

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 111 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan

Desired Outcome: Confirmation that current CCS Policy covers all areas of infection control for OPSO. Ensure training of unit deputies, supervisors, and sanitation officers on the Infection Control Policy.

Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: Review CCS Infection Control Policy to ensure that all OPSO infection control matters are included as per the current CCS Policy. Sanitarian continues to be a member of the infection control committee.

Task #2: Train housing unit deputies, supervisors and sanitation officers on the current Infection Control Plan.

Necessary Resources:

No additional resources required.

Benchmark Dates:
50% completion date by March of 2017.

Substantial Compliance Date:
Substantial completion by September 2017.

IV. D. 2. Environmental Control IV. D. 2.a. OPSO shall ensure that broken or missing electrical panels are repaired within 30 days of identified

✔

1. Written policy and procedure.

Responsible Party:

2. Evidence of implementation of the Provision in

88

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 112 of 169

Section

C

P

deficiencies, unless the item needs to be specially ordered

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan

accordance with the National Electrical Code.

Mr. Martin/Mr. Reed

3. Maintenance of pending work order list showing

the purchase order for pending work order

General Information:

regarding electrical panels.

4. Observation of practice.

Currently in compliance.

Observation of facilities’ conditions.

Substantial Compliance Date:

Currently in compliance.

IV. D. 2.b. Develop and implement a system for maintenance and timely repair of electrical panels, devices, and exposed electrical wires.

✔

1. Written policy and procedure for preventative

Responsible Party:

maintenance and repairs for electrical issues.

2. Evidence that all repairs are completed in

Mr. Martin/Mr. Reed

accordance with the National Electrical Code. 3. Evidence that all repairs are completed within a
reasonable time to assure that inmates and staff are not exposed to hazards that could cause injury.
Observation of conditions.

General Information: Currently in compliance.

Substantial Compliance Date:

Currently in compliance.

IV. D. 3. Food Service IV. D. 3.a. OPSO shall ensure that food service staff, including prisoner staff, continues to receive in-service annual training in the areas of food safety, safe food handling procedures, and proper hygiene, to reduce the risk of food contamination and food-borne illnesses.

✔

1. Written policy and procedure.

Responsible Party:

2. Development of a training syllabus for annual

training for food safety and hygiene.²

Major Watzke/Aramark

3. Evidence of Food Service Manager Certification in

accordance with Louisiana Retail Food

General Information:

Regulations.

4. Evidence of training of food service staff and

The Food Contractor is

prisoner workers. 5. Demonstration of knowledge by the food service
staff and inmates.

responsible for all Food related training.

6. Observation. 7. Inmate interviews, inmate grievances.
Health Department inspection reports.

Desired Outcome: That all Inmates, Deputies and food contractors receive training on a

regular basis.

Compliance Tasks to be Completed:

None. Major Watzke contends

89

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 113 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan that ARAMARK already provides the required training to ARAMARK staff, OPSO security staff and inmate workers.

Necessary Resources:

No additional resources required.

Benchmark Dates:
Watzke states compliant on 12/15/2016.

Substantial Compliance Date:
Watzke states compliant on 12/15/2016.

IV. D. 3.b. Ensure that dishes and utensils, food

✔

preparation and storage areas, and vehicles and containers

used to transport food are appropriately cleaned and

sanitized on a daily basis.

1. Written policy and procedure for the cleaning and Responsible Party:

sanitization of all food service equipment following

the equipment manufacturer’s specified cleaning Major Watzke/Aramark

instructions.

2. Maintenance of a documented cleaning schedule

General Information:

for equipment and areas including kitchens, storage

areas, ware washing, refrigerators and freezers with Food Service Contractor is

assigned responsibility for oversight. 3. Visual evidence of effective cleaning and
interviews with staff and inmates on cleaning
procedures 4. Evidence of a cleaning log for all equipment and

responsible for all dishes and utensils food preparation and storage areas along with containers to be cleaned on a

observation of practice meeting the

daily basis.

policy/procedures.

5. Inmate worker interviews.

OPSO Security is responsible to

Health Department inspection reports.

clean delivery vehicle on daily

basis.

Desired Outcome: That all above-referenced tasks are completed daily.

90

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 114 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan Compliance Tasks to be Completed:

OPSO Supervisor makes daily walk through to ensure that the items above are being completed and at the end of the shift a kitchen inspection is completed by OPSO Supervisor.

Necessary Resources:

No additional resources required.

Benchmark Dates:

Already in partial compliance as stated in Monitor’s Report #6.

Substantial Compliance Date:

Major Watzke believes that OPSO is in compliance as of 12/01/2016 and has supporting documentation attesting to this (available upon request or next site-visit).

IV. D. 3.c. Check and record on a daily basis the temperatures in the refrigerators, coolers, walk-in refrigerators, the dishwasher water, and all other kitchen equipment with a temperature monitor, to ensure proper maintenance of food service equipment.

✔ 1. Written policy and procedures for measuring and Responsible Party:

recording temperatures of all refrigerators, freezers,

hot food holding equipment, wash and rinse

Major Watzke/Aramark

temperatures of ware washing equipment, in

accordance with the Louisiana Food Regulations. General Information:

2. Development and implementation of temperature

logs demonstrating effective measurements as

Under the Consent Decree, The

required in this provision and/or the Louisiana Food Regulations. 3. Review of logs and direct observations of measurements being taken and recorded.
Observation of conditions.

Contractor (Aramark) is responsible for checking and recording Temperatures in the Kitchen. The non compliance was that no records were shown that

the temperature for the

91

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 115 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan dishwashing machine was not available. OPSO has continuously checked and recorded the Temperatures on all refrigerators, walk in coolers, the dishwashing machine and any other equipment that applies. The monitor did not request the temperature sheets on the dishwasher machine.

Desired Outcome: To continue checking and recording all necessary temperatures.

Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
To continue checking and recording all necessary temperatures.

Necessary Resources:

No additional resources required.

Benchmark Dates:

Already in compliance.

Substantial Compliance Date:

Already in compliance.

IV. D. 4. Sanitation and Environmental Conditions Reporting

IV. D. 4.a. 1-7 Provide the Monitor a periodic report on

✔

sanitation and environmental conditions in the Facility.

These periodic reports shall be provided to the Monitor

within four months of the Effective Date; and every six

months thereafter until termination of this Agreement.

The report will include:

(1) number and type of violations reported by health and

1. Written policy and procedure governing reporting. Evidence of written report provided as specified in the provision.

Responsible Party: Mr. Green/Mr. Martin

General Information:

Reporting Mechanism needs to be

92

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 116 of 169

Section

C

P

N

sanitation inspectors;

(2) number and type of violations of state standards;

(3) number of prisoner grievances filed regarding the

environmental conditions at the Facility;

(4) number of inoperative plumbing fixtures, light

fixtures, HVAC systems, fire protection systems, and

security systems that have not been repaired within

30 days of discovery

(5) number of prisoner-occupied areas with significant

vandalism, broken furnishings, or excessive clutter;

(6) occurrences of insects and rodents in the housing

units and dining halls; and

(7) occurrences of poor air circulation in housing units.

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan updated to include data for the Kitchen Warehouse/ OJC and Health Department Violations.
Desired Outcome: Work with Director of Maintenance or Maintenance Staff to develop tracking mechanisms to include but not limited to health department reports, pest control reports, inmate grievance logs, and maintenance reports.

Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: Obtain and copy of the current tracking mechanism to review and revise to assure the inclusion of the new categories as expressed by the Federal Monitor.

Task #2: Develop Semi Annual Report on time for the Federal Monitor

Necessary Resources: No additional resources required.

Benchmark Dates: Already in partial compliance.

Substantial Compliance Date: September 2017.

IV. D. 4.b. Review the periodic sanitation and

✔

1. Written policy and procedure governing reporting Responsible Party: Mr. Green

environmental conditions reports to determine whether

on environmental conditions.

the prisoner grievances and violations reported by health,

2. Evidence of formal review of the sanitation and

General Information:

93

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 117 of 169

Section

C

P

sanitation, or state inspectors are addressed, ensuring that

the requirements of this Agreement are met. OPSO shall

make recommendations regarding the sanitation and

environmental conditions, or other necessary changes in

policy, based on this review. The review and

recommendations will be documented and provided to the

Monitor.

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan

environmental conditions report by staff

responsible for implementing policies and

Issue/Problem: No established

procedures for food service, blood borne

times set to meet and review

pathogens, chemical control, sanitation, and

inspection / maintenance reports to

preventive maintenance. 3. Evidence of written audits of the facilities. 4. Evidence of command staff review. Determination

determine if inmate grievances are legitimate or the requirement per this provision are being met.

by OPSO that the implemented policies and

Recommendations and policy changes

procedures are effective to address the provisions of this Agreement. 5. Evidence of effective Corrective Actions are taken to address non-conformities identified during the review process.

regarding sanitation and environmental conditions are not being done because of inconsistencies of meetings.

6. Changes to policy, training curriculum, etc. resulting from these reviews. Health Department inspection reports.

Desired Outcome: Established predetermined weekly meetings to discuss weekly sanitation inspections,

weekly maintenance assessment from

the environmental staff and review

any new inmate grievances submitted

via the Tiger system.

Compliance Tasks to be Completed:

Task #1: Establish a weekly date and time to discuss Sanitation/ Maintenance and Inmate grievances.

Task #2: Review and investigate Environmental Grievances submitted via the Tiger System within 48 hrs of submittal unless received on a weekend. Document response and work to resolve issue if legitimate.

Necessary Resources:

No additional resources needed.

Benchmark Dates:

94

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 118 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan March 2017.

Substantial Compliance Date:

September 2017.

IV.E. Fire and Life Safety OPSO shall ensure that the Facility’s emergency preparedness and fire and life safety equipment are consistent with

constitutional standards. To protect prisoners from fires and related hazards, OPSO, at a minimum, shall:

IV. E. 1. Fire and Life Safety

IV. E. 1.a. Ensure that necessary fire and life safety

✔

1. Written policy and procedure governing the

equipment is properly maintained and inspected at least

procedures and staff responsibility and

quarterly. These inspections must be documented.

accountability assigned for a minimum of quarterly

inspections, repair and/or replacement of all fire

and life safety equipment, included in the

controlled document inventory. 2. Inspections shall be completed by competent fire

inspector having at a minimum successfully passed

“Fire Inspector II” training and examination in

accordance with NFPA 1031, Professional

Inspector Level II Qualifications and all

requirements of the Office of the Louisiana State

Fire Marshall.

3. Development and maintenance of a complete

inventory of all fire and life safety equipment for

each facility. The list needs to include, but not

limited to sprinkler heads, fire alarm pull boxes,

smoke detectors, fire suppression systems, fire

extinguishers, defibrillators, SCBA equipment and

etc. 4. Annual master calendar for all internal and external

inspection of all fire and life safety system

equipment. 5. Development of a facility specific audit form that

demonstrates the date of completion of inspection,

identification of all non-conforming equipment,

along with a corrective action report form that can

demonstrate that effective corrective action was

taken for all non-conformities.

6. Lesson plans/curriculum for staff assigned as

auditors/inspectors. 7. Execution of contract with a qualified contractor to

perform the inspections specified in this provision. 8. Evidence of a completed, signed, and supervisory

Responsible Party:
Fire Chief Lampard
General Information:
OPSO life safety equipment is already being properly maintained and inspected on a quarterly schedule. Documentation of these inspections are already being provided via controlled documents to the monitors as per document request. The problem is that OPSO did not have a written policy and procedure covering this sub-paragraph of the agreement.
Desired Outcome: To have the completed policy and procedure (701.01 Emergency Equipment Testing and Inspections) in effect for the next monitor’s report # 7.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: The final draft of policy 701.01 has completed and forwarded to the monitors for

95

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 119 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan

review of all inspection and testing reports, along approval. The OPSO Fire safety

with documented corrective actions taken to resolve identify issue on non-conformance. 9. Fire Department inspection reports.
Interview with Fire Department officials.

Officer (Chief Lampard) has been working with the VJRS group to develop the 701.01 policy. Integrate the life safety

inspections with the Facility Dude

maintenance tracking program.

Necessary Resources: No additional resources required.

Substantial Compliance Date: 12/31/2016

IV. E. 1.b. Ensure that a qualified fire safety officer conducts a monthly inspection of the facilities for compliance with fire and life safety standards (e.g., fire escapes, sprinkler heads, smoke detectors, etc.).

✔

1. Job description/post orders, including qualifications Responsible Party:

for a fire safety officer in accordance with NFPA

requirements for a “Certified Fire Inspector Level Fire Chief Lampard

II”

2. Written policy and procedures including evidence General Information:

of attendance at any and all 3-year certification

seminars for certification renewal or current license Monthly inspections by a qualified

from the Office of the State Fire Marshall 3. Also include measures 3, 4, 5, 7 of IV.E.1.a. 4. Review and observation of completed reports and
corrective actions taken.
Interview with fire safety officer.

Fire safety Officer and documentation are already being provided to the monitors via controlled documents as per

document request. Presently

OPSO does not have a policy and

procedure covering this sub-

paragraph of the agreement.

Desired Outcome: To have the completed policy and procedure (701.01 Emergency Equipment Testing and Inspections) in effect for the next monitor’s report # 7.

Compliance Tasks to be Completed:

96

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 120 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan Task #1: The final draft of policy 701.01 has completed and forwarded to the monitors for approval. The OPSO Fire safety Officer (Chief Lampard) has been working with the VJRS group to develop the 701.01 policy. Integrate the life safety inspections with the Facility Dude maintenance tracking program.

Necessary Resources:

No additional resources required.

Substantial Compliance Date:

12/31/2016

IV. E. 1.c. Ensure that comprehensive fire drills are conducted every six months. OPSO shall document these drills, including start and stop times and the number and location of prisoners who were moved as part of the drills.

✔

1. Written policy and procedures governing staff

Responsible Party:

responsibilities and accountability for conducting fire drills within each facility in accordance with

Fire Chief Lampard

the provision. The policy shall include applicable drill reports that outline at a minimum start and

General Information:

stop times of the drills and the number and location of inmates who were moved as part of the drills, a Fire drills are already being

formal review process for each drill that identifies conducted on the required

the root cause and verification of effective

frequency and documentation

corrective actions as necessary for nonconformities with the fire safety and evacuation plan(s)
2. Development and implementation of fire drill audit

provided to the monitors via controlled documents as per the document request.

form(s)
3. Annual schedule of drills for each facility.
demonstrating rotating drills to assure each areas are drilled at a required frequency.
4. Observation of drills and/or drill reports. 5. Evidence of collaboration with the NOFD;

Desired Outcome: Policy and procedure (401.05 Fire Safety and Evacuations) has already been approved by all involved parties and has been signed into effect.

interview with NOFD. Interviews with inmates.

Compliance Tasks to be Completed:

97

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 121 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan Task #1: OPSO Training Division along with OPSO Fire Safety Officer have already begun training of staff members to Policy 401.05.

Task #2: Fire Drills (Level2) will be conducted by the OPSO Fire Safety Officer during the staff training on Policy 401.05 to ensure that personnel on all shifts will be included.

Necessary Resources: No additional resources required.

Substantial Compliance Date: 12/31/2016

IV. E. 1.d. Provide competency-based training to staff on proper fire and emergency practices and procedures at least annually.

✔ 1. Development and implementation of a

Responsible Party: Fire Chief Lampard

competency-based training policy for all correction

staff on safe and effective use of all fire and

General Information:

emergency equipment, firefighting, safe

evacuation.

OPSO received non-compliance

2. Development and implementation of a fire and

status for sub-paragraph I.V.E.1.d

emergency practices and procedures training course in the monitor# 6 final report.

syllabus/outline, along with a written exam that measures the competency of the corrections staff for the fire safety and evacuation plan and

Sub-monitor Grenawitzke issued this status report sighting a lack

establishes an acceptable passing score.

of policy and procedures, training,

3. Written directive regarding how OPP will identify and implementation.

each officer and staff that is required to receive

training, the training date, name of officer/staff

Compliance Tasks to be Completed:

trained, competency measurement score, and the

training provider.

Task #1: Schedule and initiate

4. Documented verification by sign-in logs of

training ASAP.

participants, and validation of successful

completion of the training. 5. Observation of implementation
Interviews.

Task #2: Provide training to 75% of required personnel by

98

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 122 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan 12/31/16.

Task #3: Implement policy procedures to staff after proper training.

Task #4: Assure that all new employees receive proper training and that previously trained personnel receive required annual refresher classes to maintain compliance.

Necessary Resources: No additional resources needed.
Benchmark Dates:
50% completion date 12/15/2016.

Substantial Compliance Date: 12/31/2016

IV. E. 1.e. Within 120 days of the Effective Date, ensure

✔

that emergency keys are appropriately marked and

identifiable by touch and consistently stored in a quickly

accessible location, and that staff are adequately trained in

use of the emergency keys.

1. Written policy and procedures regarding staff responsibility and accountability for the systematic marking of all emergency keys, including sight and touch identification and designated locations for quick access for all keys. All policies and procedures are to be reviewed and updated as necessary and at least annually on a schedule.
2. Implementation of the policy and procedure 3. Documented evidence of officer and staff training
on the policy and procedure. 4. Observation of keys. Observation of staff utilizing
keys.

Responsible Party:
Fire Chief Lampard
General Information:
Emergency Key sets have been completed, properly marked and stored in OPSO jail facilities since the inception of this agreement. The issue was that OPSO did not have a written policy and procedure covering this subparagraph.

99

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 123 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

IV. E. 2. Fire and Life Safety Reporting
IV. E. 2.a.1-3 Provide the Monitor a periodic report on fire and life safety conditions at the Facility. These periodic reports shall be provided to the Monitor within four months of the Effective Date and every six months thereafter until termination of this Agreement. Each report shall include: (1) number and type of violations reported by fire and life safety inspectors; (2) fire code violations during annual fire inspections; and (3) occurrences of hazardous clutter in housing units that could lead to a fire.

✔

1. Written policy and procedure

governing required reporting.

OPSO Compliance Plan
Desired Outcome: To have all OPSO jail staff properly trained to Policy (801.35 Key Control).
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: Proper Storage and usage of the facility emergency key set is being taught during the Fire Safety classes conducted by the OPSO Training Division and OPSO Fire Safety Officer.
Provide training to all required OPSO staff members as required by this sub-paragraph.
Necessary Resources:
No additional resources required.
Substantial Compliance Date:
12/31/2016
Responsible Party:
Fire Chief Lampard
General Information:
In lieu of facility fire safety officers being in service, the OPSO Fire safety Officer has provided the reports referenced in this subparagraph.
Desired Outcome: To have facility
100

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 124 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan fire safety officers (staff members) trained and placed in service in all OPSO jail facilities.

Compliance Tasks to be Completed:

Task #1: Provide advanced training to the facility fire safety officers in addition to the fire safety curriculum.

Necessary Resources:

No additional resources required.

Substantial Compliance Date:

To be determined.

IV. E. 2.b. Review the periodic fire and life safety reports to determine whether the violations reported by fire and life safety inspectors are addressed, ensuring the requirements of this Agreement are being met. OPSO shall make recommendations regarding the fire and life safety conditions, or other necessary changes in policy, based on this review. The review and recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor.

✔ 1. Written policy and procedure governing required Responsible Party:

reporting.

2. Evidence of formal reviews of the fire and life

Fire Chief Lampard

safety conditions report by staff responsible for

implementing policies and procedures for food service, blood borne pathogens, chemical control,

General Information:

sanitation, and preventive maintenance. 3. Evidence of written audits of the facilities. 4. Evidence of command staff review. Determination
by OPSO that the policies and procedures are effective to address the requirements of this Agreement. 5. Documentation of Corrective Actions taken to

OPSO at this time does not have board to review and address violations. OPSO also at this time does not have designated staff member safety officers to provide the above mentioned

address non-conformities identified during the

violation reports.

review process.

6. Changes to policy, training curriculum, etc. resulting from these reviews. Review of Fire Department reports/inspections; interviews with NOFD.

Desired Outcome: Have OPSO designate and provide facility safety officers to assist the OPSO Fire Safety Officer in performance

of duties to achieve substantial

compliance status.

101

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 125 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

IV.F. Language Assistance

IV.F.1. Timely and Meaningful Access to Services/Timely and Meaningful Access to Services

IV.F.1.a. OPP shall ensure effective communication with,

✔

2. Written policy/procedure governing effective

OPSO Compliance Plan Presently, OPSO Fire Safety Officer ( Chief Lampard ) conducts monthly and quarterly inspections and fire drills in all OPSO jail facilities and provides documentation to the Monitors
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: Continue providing required inspection reports and conducting fire drills. Documenting results and providing these reports to the monitors relevant to their document request.
Task #2: Continue to advocate the initiation of facility staff member safety officers to meet the requirements of this subparagraph.
Task #3: Establish an OPSO review board to meet the requirements of this subparagraph
Necessary Resources:
Facility staff member Safety Officers (2 per shift)- Review Board.
Substantial Compliance Date:
To be determined.
Responsible Party: Captain Peters
102

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 126 of 169

Section

C

P

and provide timely and meaningful access to services at

OPP to all prisoners at OPP, regardless of their national

origin or limited ability to speak, read, write, or

understand English. To achieve this outcome, OPP shall:

(1) Develop and implement a comprehensive language

assistance plan and policy that complies, at a

minimum, with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, as amended, (42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.) and

other applicable law;

(2) Ensure that all OPP personnel take reasonable steps

to provide timely, meaningful language assistance

services to Limited English Proficient (“LEP”)

prisoners;

(3) At intake and classification, identify and assess

demographic data, specifically including the number

of LEP individuals at OPP on a monthly basis, and

the language(s) they speak;

(4) Use collected demographic information to develop

and implement hiring goals for bilingual staff that

meet the needs of the current monthly average

population of LEP prisoners;

(5) Regularly assess the proficiency and qualifications of

bilingual staff to become an OPP Authorized

Interpreter (“OPPAI”);

(6) Create and maintain an OPPAI list and provide that

list to the classification and intake staff; and

(7) Ensure that while at OPP, LEP prisoners are not

asked to sign or initial documents in English without

the benefit of a written translation from an OPPAI.

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan

communication. See also IV.F.2.b. (1)-(9)

3. Review of materials.

General Information:

4. Lesson plans, training materials, evidence of

knowledge gained.

The OPSO language assistance

5. Inmate interviews.

policies have been approved.

6. Certification process for OPPAI; documentation

Training materials are currently

7. 8.

Observation Language line (or similar) contract; evidence of use

being drafted.

9. Report identifying inmate demographics, set hiring goals, identification and deployment of bi-lingual staff. Hiring of bi-lingual staff.

OPSO needs to locate and certify employees wishing to function as interpreters within the jail

system, with a primary emphasis

on Spanish and Vietnamese. The

certification process is critical as

knowledge of another language is

not enough to function as an

interpreter. Interpretation is not

the same as speaking and

understanding another language.

Deputies successfully completing

a certification program should

receive some incentive. Having

certified deputies on all shifts to

provide interpretation will be a

challenge with staffing shortages.

Have deputies on each shift who

are certified interpreters. Provide

these deputies with an incentive.

Inmate forms and documents need to be translated into Spanish and Vietnamese.

Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: Complete policy training materials. Complete abbreviated inmate training materials. Completion by 03/31/2017.

103

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 127 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan
Task #2: Train staff on language assistance policies. Completion by 07/01/2017.
Task #3: Create and send out a survey to all staff to see if there is any interest in functioning as an interpreter. Completion by 01/15/2017.
Task #4: Develop an incentive plan for deputies successfully completing certification program. Completion by 02/01/2017.
Task #5: Identify a certification provider/vendor. Completion by 03/01/2017.
Task #6: Begin testing and certifying interpreters. Ongoing process but initiation will begin on 04/15/2017.
Task #7: Translate inmate forms into Spanish and Vietnamese. Completion date of 05/01/2017.
Necessary Resources:
Financial. The certification services and the employee incentives are going to require funding. Funding will be required to translate inmate forms into Spanish and Vietnamese.
Substantial Compliance Date:
104

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 128 of 169

Section

C

P

IV.F.2. Language Assistance Policies and Procedures

IV.F.2.a. OPP shall develop and implement written

✔

policies, procedures and protocols for documenting,

processing, and tracking of individuals held for up to 48

hours for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

(“DHS”);

IV.F.2.b. Policies, procedures, and protocols for

✔

processing 48-hour holds for DHS will:

(1) Clearly delineate when a 48-hour hold is deemed to

begin and end;

(2) Ensure that, if necessary, an OPPAI communicates

verbally with the OPP prisoner about when the 48-

hour period begins and is expected to end;

(3) Provide a mechanism for the prisoner’s family

member and attorney to be informed of the 48-hour

hold time period, using, as needed, an OPPAI or

telephonic interpretation service;

(4) Create an automated tracking method, not reliant on

human memory or paper documentation, to trigger

notification to DHS and to ensure that the 48-hour

time period is not exceeded.

(5) Ensure that telephone services have recorded

instructions in English and Spanish;

(6) Ensure that signs providing instructions to OPP

prisoners or their families are translated into Spanish

and posted;

(7) Provide Spanish translations of vital documents that

are subject to dissemination to OPP prisoners or their

family members. Such vital documents include, but

are not limited to:

i. grievance forms;

ii. sick call forms;

iii. OPP inmate handbooks;

iv. Prisoner Notifications (e.g., rule violations,

transfers, and grievance responses) and

v. “Request for Services” forms.

(8) Ensure that Spanish-speaking LEP prisoners obtain

the Spanish language translations of forms provided

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan

07/01/2017

1. Written policy/procedures for intake, tracking, care
of inmates on 48 hour holds for DHS. See
IV.F.2.b.(1)-(9) 2. Review of inmate files. 3. Inmate interviews. Observation.

Responsible Party: Captain Peters
Substantial Compliance Date:
OPSO is currently compliant with this provision.

1. See IV.F.2.a. See also IV.F.1.a. (1)-(7) 2. Review of logs. 3. Interviews of OPPAIs 4. Review of inmate files. 5. Review of signs, inmate handbooks, other
instructional materials. 6. Memorandum of agreement/contract DHS
regarding DHS materials.
Language Assistance Plan

Responsible Party: Captain Peters
Substantial Compliance Date:
OPSO is currently compliant with this provision.

105

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 129 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan

by DHS; and

(9) Provide its language assistance plan and related

policies to all staff within 180 days of the Effective

Date of this Agreement.

IV.F.3. Language Assistance Training

IV.F.3.a. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, OPP

✔

1. See IV.F.2.a. and IV.F.1.a. (1)-(7)

Responsible Party: Captain Peters

shall provide at least eight hours of LEP training to all

2. Lesson plans, training materials, evidence of

corrections and medical and mental health staff who may

knowledge gained. Review of qualification of

General Information:

regularly interact with LEP prisoners.

instructors.

(1) LEP training to OPP staff shall include:

3. List of employees needing training.

The OPSO language assistance

i. OPP’s LEP plan and policies, and the requirements of Title VI and this Agreement;
ii. how to access OPP-authorized, telephonic and in-person OPPAIs; and

4. Interviews with employees; interviews with
inmates 5. Observation Language Assistance Plan, translated into Spanish and

policies have been approved. Training materials are currently being drafted.

iii. basic commands and statements in Spanish for OPP staff. (2) OPP shall translate the language assistance plan and
policy into Spanish, and other languages as

other languages. Posted in public areas and online.

OPSO needs to locate and certify employees wishing to function as interpreters within the jail

appropriate, and post the English and translated

system, with a primary emphasis

versions in a public area of the OPP facilities, as well as online. (3) OPP shall make its language assistance plan available to the public.

on Spanish and Vietnamese. The certification process is critical as knowledge of another language is not enough to function as an

interpreter. Interpretation is not

the same as speaking and

understanding another language.

Deputies successfully completing

a certification program should

receive some incentive. Having

certified deputies on all shifts to

provide interpretation will be a

challenge with staffing shortages.

Have deputies on each shift who

are certified interpreters. Provide

these deputies with an incentive.

Inmate forms and documents need to be translated into Spanish and Vietnamese. The language assistance policies and plan need

106

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 130 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan to be translated.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: Complete policy training materials. Complete abbreviated inmate training materials. Completion by 03/31/2017.
Task #2: Train staff on language assistance policies. Completion by 07/01/2017.
Task #3: Create and send out a survey to all staff to see if there is any interest in functioning as an interpreter. Completion by 01/15/2017.
Task #4: Develop an incentive plan for deputies successfully completing certification program. Completion by 02/01/2017.
Task #5: Identify a certification provider/vendor. Completion by 03/01/2017.
Task #6: Begin testing and certifying interpreters. Ongoing process but initiation will begin on 04/15/2017.
Task #7: Translate inmate forms into Spanish and Vietnamese. Translate language assistance policies and plans. Completion by 05/01/2017.
107

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 131 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan Task #8: Locate LEP Spanish training method for staff (basic Spanish). Begin training staff. Expected completion date of 12/31/2017.

Necessary Resources:

Financial. The certification services and the employee incentives are going to require funding. Funding will be required to translate inmate forms and the language assistance policies into Spanish and Vietnamese. There may be a cost associated with LEP training for officers/staff (whether it is online or instructorled).

Substantial Compliance Date:

12/31/2017

IV.F.4. Bilingual Staff
IV.F.4. (1) OPP shall ensure that adequate bilingual staff are
posted in housing units where DHS detainees and other LEP prisoners may be housed. (2) OPP shall ensure that an appropriate number of bilingual staff are available to translate or interpret for prisoners and other OPP staff. The appropriate number of bilingual staff will be determined based on a staffing assessment by OPP.

✔ 1. See IV.F.2.a. and IV.F.1.a. (1)-(7),

Responsible Party: Captain Peters

2. Staff deployment plan with DHS detainees and

LEP inmates.

General Information:

3. Recruiting/hiring of bi-lingual employees.

4. Review of staff deployment.

OPSO needs to locate and certify

5. Review of housing units logs 6. Interviews with inmates. 7. Identification of process by which OPSO confirms
that the staff are proficient in their identified
language.

employees wishing to function as interpreters within the jail system, with a primary emphasis on Spanish and Vietnamese. The certification process is critical as

knowledge of another language is

not enough to function as an

interpreter. Interpretation is not

the same as speaking and

understanding another language.

108

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 132 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan Deputies successfully completing a certification program should receive some incentive. Having certified deputies on all shifts to provide interpretation will be a challenge with staffing shortages. Have deputies on each shift who are certified interpreters. Provide these deputies with an incentive.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: Create and send out a survey to all staff to see if there is any interest in functioning as an interpreter. Completion by 01/15/2017.
Task #2: Develop an incentive plan for deputies successfully completing certification program. Completion by 02/01/2017.
Task #3: Identify a certification provider/vendor. Completion by 03/01/2017.
Task #4: Begin testing and certifying interpreters. Ongoing process but initiation will begin on 04/15/2017.
Necessary Resources:
Financial. The certification services and the employee incentives are going to require funding.
Substantial Compliance Date:
109

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 133 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan

05/15/2017

IV.G. Youthful Prisoners

IV.G. Consistent with the Prison Rape Elimination Act of

✔

1. Written policy/procedures governing classification Responsible Party:

2003, 42 U.S.C. § 15601, et seq., and its implementation

and housing of youthful inmates, including but not

of regulations, a youthful prisoner shall not be placed in a

to sight/sound separation, provision of services,

Colonel Colvin/Mr. Carroll

housing unit in which the youthful prisoner will have

protective custody, education and other services,

sight, sound, or physical contact with any adult prisoner

services for youthful inmates with mental illness or General Information:

through use of a shared dayroom or other common space,

who are developmentally disabled, access to

shower area, or sleeping quarters. In areas outside of housing units, OPSO shall either: maintain sight and sound separation between youthful prisoners and adult prisoners, or provide direct staff supervision when

medical and mental health services. 2. Housing plan; classification plan. 3. Observation 4. Interview with youthful inmates.

Ensure that Youth Offenders have no Physical or Visual Contact with Adult Offenders.

youthful prisoners and adult prisoners have sight, sound, or physical contact. OPP shall ensure that youthful prisoners in protective custody status shall have no contact with, or access to or from, non-protective custody

5. Review of recreation and program schedules. 6. Review of inmate files (developmentally disabled,
mental illness) 7. Review of housing unit logs, program schedules.

Desired Outcome: Remove Youth Offenders to city owned/run “Youth Studies Center”.

prisoners. OPP will develop policies for the provision of

developmentally appropriate mental health and programming services.

While juvenile detainees are still in our custody:

Define, develop and implement Programs and Policies for the provision of developmentally appropriate OPSO Youthful Prisoners. Identify what the programming will entail. Identify stakeholders, volunteers and support groups who will support and facilitate programming. Identify who will recruit, and train volunteers? Will any resources be allocated for programming? Who will train Officers working with Youthful prisoners? Ensure that the structure and daily schedules for Youthful prisoners are made and operate as scheduled.

110

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 134 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan
Desired Outcome OPSO Programming Department will define develop and implement programs and policies for the provision of developmentally appropriate programming services. OPSO Programming Department (along with support from Administration) will identify what programming will entail, identify and reach out to volunteers, and support organizations that will support and facilitate. OPSO will hire a Volunteer Coordinator who will recruit and train volunteers. Because of budget constraints very little resources (other than employees) have been allocated for programming. The OPSO Training Department will train Officers that work with Youthful prisoners. The Program Coordinator/Director will ensure the structure and daily schedule for Youthful prisoners are developed and operate as scheduled.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: Agreement to remove Youth Offenders from OJC and place them in City “Youth Studies Center”.
While juvenile inmates are still in custody:
111

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 135 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan
Task #1: Program Development and Implementation The Youthful prisoners Program elements have been developed and implementation started which consists of the following: (1) Programming- Cognitive Behavior therapy (CBT), Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT) and the THINK Program. (2) Religious Programming – OPSO Volunteer Chaplains, New Orleans Archdiocese, Baptist, Islamic and other religious organizations. (3) Educational Programs – New Orleans School Board, Alternative Learning Institute (A.L.I.) Life skills and other educational programs will be taught by other NOLA Volunteers groups (4) Rehabilitative/Resource Programming - with such organization like Planned Parenthood, Urban League, Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse (CADA) and Additional and additional stakeholders and Volunteers. A Volunteer Coordinator has been hired to recruit and train Volunteers of the program. The OPSO programming structure is in place and the daily schedule in place. Additional Volunteers, Resources, and other aforementioned program types will be added to advance the overall OPSO Youthful prisoners
112

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 136 of 169

Section

C

P

N

VI. The New Jail Facility

VI. A. The Parties anticipate that Defendant will build a

✔

new jail facility or facilities that will replace or

supplement the current facility located at 2800 Gravier

Street, New Orleans, Louisiana. This Agreement shall

apply to any new jail facility.

VI. B. Defendant shall obtain the services of a qualified

✔

professional to evaluate, design, plan, oversee, and

implement the construction of any new facility. At each

major stage of the facility construction, Defendant shall

provide the Monitor with copies of design documents.

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan program and ensure compliance by the Program Coordinator/Director. Expected completion date of 12/01/2016.
Task #2: Written policies for the youthful prisoners. Expected completion date of 01/30/2017.
Necessary Resources:
To be determined.
Benchmark Dates:
To be determined for transfer of juveniles.
Substantial Compliance Date:
To be determined. To be determined for transfer of juveniles.
Responsible Party: N/A
Substantial Compliance Date:
Already in compliance with this provision of the Consent Judgment as of 02/19/2016.
Responsible Party: N/A
Substantial Compliance Date:
Already in compliance with this provision of the Consent Judgment as of 02/19/2016.
113

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 137 of 169

Section

C

P

N

VI. C. Defendant shall consult with a qualified corrections

✔

expert as to the required services and staffing levels

needed for any replacement facility. OPSO shall

complete a staffing study to ensure that any new facility is

adequately staffed to provide prisoners with reasonable

safety.

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan Responsible Party: Mr. Bruno
General Information:
OPSO is currently understaffed. OPSO has engaged the services of a consultant to determine the staffing needs based on the population and setup of the facilities. Mr. Rod Miller is heading up this project and expects to be complete in the first quarter of 2017. The evaluation will include OJC as well as the courts.
In the meantime OPSO is making every effort to get every noncommissioned officer their commission. This will provide them with a $6,000 increase in pay and also allow them to do details on their own time. OPSO is also putting in place an aggressive training plan to properly train the deputies in working in a direct supervision jail. OPSO believes that these measures will decrease increase the retention rate of our employees at OJC.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: Complete and submit staffing report.
Necessary Resources:
No additional resources required.
114

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 138 of 169

Section

C

P

VI. D. Defendant will ensure that the new jail facility will ✔

be built in accordance with: (1) the American

Correctional Association’s standards in effect at the time

of construction; (2) the American with Disabilities Act of

1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, including

changes made by the ADA Amendments of 2008 (P.L.

110-325) and 47 U.S.C. §§ 225-661, and the regulations

thereunder; and (3) all applicable fire codes and

regulations.

VII. Compliance and Quality Improvement

VII. A. Within 120 days of the Effective Date, OPSO

✔

shall revise and/or develop its policies, procedures,

protocols, training curricula, and practices to ensure that

they are consistent with, incorporate, address, and

implement all provisions of this Agreement. OPSO shall

revise and/or develop, as necessary, other written

documents, such as screening tools, logs, handbooks,

manuals, and forms, to effectuate the provisions of this

Agreement. OPSO shall send pertinent newly-drafted and

revised policies and procedures to the Monitor as they are

promulgated. The Monitor will provide comments on the

policies to OPSO, SPLC, and DOJ within 30 days.

OPSO, SPLC, and DOJ may provide comments on the

Monitor’s comments within 15 days. At that point, the

Monitor will consider the Parties’ comments, mediate any

disputes, and approve the policies with any changes

within 30 days. If either party disagrees with the Monitor,

they may bring the dispute to the Court. OPSO shall

provide initial and in-service training to all Facility staff

with respect to newly implemented or revised policies and

procedures. OPSO shall document employee review and

training in new or revised policies and procedures.

N

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan

Benchmark Dates:

First quarter of 2017.

Substantial Compliance Date:

To be determined.

Responsible Party: Director Maynard

Substantial Compliance Date:

OPSO is compliant with this provision.

1. Policies and procedures manual. Process/spreadsheet to identify all existing and planned written directives, dates when expected to be submitted
for monitors’ review.

Responsible Party: Captain Peters
General Information:
We have already completed well over half of the CJ-related policies.

Compliance Tasks to be Completed:

Task #1: Complete the remaining CJ-related policies.

Necessary Resources:

No additional resources required. We will continue utilizing VRJS which is already budgeted.

Benchmark Dates:

We are currently well over halfway through revising the CJspecific policies.

115

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 139 of 169

Section

C

P

N

Measures

VI. B. (H.) Within 180 days of the Effective Date, Defendant shall develop and implement written quality improvement policies and procedures adequate to identify serious deficiencies in protection from harm, prisoner suicide prevention, detoxification, mental health care, environmental health, and fire and life safety in order to assess and ensure compliance with the terms of this Agreement on an ongoing basis. Within 90 days after identifying serious deficiencies, OPSO shall develop and implement policies and procedures to address problems that are uncovered during the course of quality improvement activities. These policies and procedures shall include the development and implementation of corrective action plans, as necessary, within 30 days of each biannual review.

✔ 1. Written policy/procedure governing quality improvement.
2. Written report.
Results of action plan from written report.

OPSO Compliance Plan Substantial Compliance Date:
We are projecting having all of the remaining CJ-related policies completed by 07/30/2017. This is a conservative estimate as the review process involves the transmission/review by multiple parties to the Consent Judgment, which is a time-consuming process.
Responsible Party: Captain Peters
General Information:
OPSO has developed Policy 101.04, Administrative Reporting Requirements, which has been approved by the Monitors. OPSO has to develop and submit the necessary quality improvement reports as specified in the policy. At present, OPSO does submit the requested reports, however, more analysis is needed as well as corrective action plans and management reviews. Finalize OPSOPolicy 101.04, Administrative Reporting Requirements and disseminate to responsible parties at OPSO. Produce more meaningful reports with detailed analysis and trending of data of time. Schedule regular management reviews of reports and complete corrective action plans, where needed.

116

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 140 of 169

Section

C

P

N

VI. C. (I.) The Parties agree that OPSO will hire and

✔

retain, or reassign a current OPSO employee for the

duration of this Agreement, to serve as a full-time OPSO

Compliance Coordinator. The Compliance Coordinator

will serve as a liaison between the Parties and the Monitor

and will assist with OPSO’s compliance with this

Agreement. At a minimum, the Compliance Coordinator

will: coordinate OPSO’s compliance and implementation

activities; facilitate the provision of data, documents,

materials, and access to OPSO’s personnel to the Monitor,

SPLC, DOJ, and the public, as needed; ensure that all

documents and records are maintained as provided in this

Agreement; and assist in assigning compliance tasks to

OPSO personnel, as directed by the Sheriff or his or her

designee. The Compliance Coordinator will take primary

responsibility for collecting information the Monitor

requires to carry out the duties assigned to the Monitor.

VI. D. (J.) On a bi-annual basis, OPSO will provide the

✔

public with a self-assessment in which areas of significant

improvement or areas still undergoing improvement are

presented either through use of the OPSO website or

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: Finalize OPSO Policy 101.04, Administrative Reporting Requirements, and disseminate to all responsible parties at OPSO and medical provider. Completion by 12/31/2016.
Task #2: Meet to discuss enhanced reporting with more detailed analysis. Completion by 04/15/2017.
Necessary Resources: N/A
Substantial Compliance Date:
04/15/2017.
Responsible Party: Captain Peters
Substantial Compliance Date:
OPSO is already compliant with this provision.

Responsible Party: Captain Peters General Information:
117

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 141 of 169

Section through issuance of a public statement or report.

C

P

N

VIII. Reporting Requirements and Right of Access

VIII.A. OPSO shall submit periodic compliance reports to

✔

the Monitor. These periodic reports shall be provided to

the Monitor within four months from the date of a

definitive judgment on funding; and every six months

thereafter until termination of this Agreement. Each

compliance report shall describe the actions Defendant

has taken during the reporting period to implement this

Agreement and shall make specific reference to the

Agreement provisions being implemented. The report

shall also summarize audits and continuous improvement

and quality assurance activities, and contain findings and

recommendations that would be used to track and trend

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan Director Maynard and Sheriff Gusman are working on a plan to provide a bi-annual public selfassessment. Director Maynard has already met with various public and community organizations to discuss compliance plans with members of the community.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: Conduct bi-annual public self-assessments on the status of compliance and operations at OPSO.
Necessary Resources:
No additional resources required for this.
Substantial Compliance Date:
We expect to be compliant after the second bi-annual selfassessment in 2017.
Responsible Party: Captain Peters
General Information:
OPSO currently submits a quarterly compliance matrix to the Monitors as well as semiannual and annual reports.
The OJC Facility (Major Louque) now tracks all incidents in the
118

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 142 of 169

Section

C

P

N

data compiled at the Facility. The report shall also

capture data that is tracked and monitored under the

reporting provisions of the following provisions: Use of

Force; Suicide Prevention; Health Care Delivered;

Sanitation and Environmental Conditions; and Fire and

Life Safety.

VIII.B. OPSO shall, within 24 hours, notify the Monitor

✔

upon the death of any prisoner. The Monitor shall

forward any such notifications to SPLC and DOJ upon

receipt. OPSO shall forward to the Monitor incident

reports and medical and/or mental health reports related to

deaths, autopsies, and/or death summaries of prisoners, as

well as all final SOD and IAD reports that involve

prisoners. The Monitor shall forward any such reports to

SPLC and DOJ upon receipt.

VIII.C. Defendant shall maintain sufficient records to

✔

document that the requirements of this Agreement are

being properly implemented and shall make such records

available to the Monitor within seven days of request for

inspection and copying. In addition, Defendant shall

maintain and provide, upon request, all records or other

documents to verify that they have taken the actions

described in their compliance reports (e.g., census

summaries, policies, procedures, protocols, training

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan facility. Major Louque produces monthly analytical reports based on this data.
Chief Laughlin now produces FIT, ISB and Shakedown analytical reports. Some have already been seen by the Monitors.
Compliance Tasks to be Completed:
Task #1: Begin submitting new analytical reports, described above.
Necessary Resources:
No additional resources required.
Substantial Compliance Date:
06/30/2017 pending Monitor’s review and acceptance of reports.
Responsible Party: N/A
Substantial Compliance Date:
OPSO is already in compliance with this provision of the Consent Judgment as of 02/19/2016.
Responsible Party: N/A
Substantial Compliance Date:
OPSO is already in compliance with this provision of the Consent Judgment as of 02/19/2016.
119

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 143 of 169

Section

C

P

N

materials, investigations, incident reports, tier logs, or use

of force reports).

Measures

OPSO Compliance Plan

120

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 144 of 169
This plan was developed by CCS and has not been validated by the Compliance Director. It is subject to further revision and refinement.

CCS Medical/Mental Health Remedial Action Plan – 12/15/2016

Section

C

P

N

Measures

IV.B. Mental Health Care OPSO shall ensure constitutionally adequate intake, assessment, treatment, and monitoring of prisoners’ mental health

needs, including but not limited to, protecting the safety of and giving priority access to prisoners at risk for self-injurious behavior or suicide. OPSO

shall assess, on an annual or more frequent basis, whether the mental health services at OPP comply with the Constitution. In order to provide mental

health services to prisoners, OPSO, at a minimum, shall:

IV.B.1. Screening and Assessment

IV.B.1.a. Develop and maintain comprehensive policies

✔

Attachments:

and procedures for appropriate screening and assessment

of prisoners with mental illness. These policies should

Revised Staff Referral Form

include definitions of emergent, urgent, and routine

mental health needs, as well as timeframes for the

Revised Intake SOP

provision of services for each category of mental health

needs.

OPSO Notes/Updates
Responsible Party: Dr. Arceneaux Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16): Currently in compliance Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)

On-going monitoring of CQI process for compliance

Expected Date of Compliance: Request Compliance

IV.B.1.b. Develop and implement an appropriate

✔

screening instrument that identifies mental health needs,

and ensures timely access to a mental health professional

when presenting symptoms require such care. The

screening instrument should include the factors described

in Appendix B. The screening instrument will be

validated by a qualified professional approved by the

Monitor within 180 days of the Effective Date and every

12 months thereafter, if necessary.

IV.B.1.c. Ensure that all prisoners are screened by

✔

Qualified Medical Staff upon arrival to OPP, but no later

than within eight hours, to identify a prisoner’s risk for

suicide or self-injurious behavior. No prisoner shall be

held in isolation prior to an evaluation by medical staff.

Attachment: Initial Behavioral Health Assessment Form
Attachment: Staff Referral Form
Intake SOP

Responsible Party: Dr. Arceneaux Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16): Currently in Compliance Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17) On-going monitoring of CQI process for compliance Expected Date of Compliance: Request compliance Responsible Party: Dr. Arceneaux Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16): Currently in Compliance
1

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 145 of 169
This plan was developed by CCS and has not been validated by the Compliance Director. It is subject to further revision and refinement.

Section

C

P

IV.B.1.d. Implement a triage policy that utilizes the

✔

screening and assessment procedures to ensure that

prisoners with emergent and urgent mental health needs

are prioritized for services.

IV.B.1.e. Develop and implement protocols,

✔

commensurate with the level of risk of suicide or self-

harm, to ensure that prisoners are protected from

identified risks for suicide or self-injurious behavior. The

protocols shall also require that a Qualified Mental Health

Professional perform a mental health assessment, based

on the prisoner’s risk.

IV.B.1.f. For prisoners with emergent or urgent mental

✔

health needs, search the prisoner and monitor with

constant supervision until the prisoner is transferred to a

Qualified Mental Health Professional for assessment.

N

Measures

OPSO Notes/Updates

Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)

On-going monitoring of process for continued compliance

Expected Date of Compliance: Request Compliance

Attachment:

Responsible Party: Dr. Arceneaux

Staff Referral Form

Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16):

Currently in Compliance

Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)

On-going monitoring of CQI process for compliance

Expected Date of Compliance: Request Compliance

Attachment

Responsible Party: Dr. Arceneaux

Initial Behavioral Health Assessment Form (includes the prisoner’s risk level)
MHP staff notification SOP

Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16): Currently in Compliance Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)

On-going monitoring of CQI process for compliance

Expected Date of Compliance: Request Compliance

Attachment

Responsible Party: Dr. Arceneaux

Tracking Tool (tracks custody compliance with directive of constant supervision)

Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16):
Continue to reinforce with OPSO and ongoing monitoring of process

2

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 146 of 169
This plan was developed by CCS and has not been validated by the Compliance Director. It is subject to further revision and refinement.

Section

C

P

N

IV.B.1.g. Ensure that a Qualified Mental Health

✔

Professional conducts appropriate mental health

assessments within the following periods from the initial

screen or other identification of need:

(1) 14 days, or sooner, if medically necessary, for

prisoners with routine mental health needs;

(2) 48 hours, or sooner, if medically necessary, for

prisoners with urgent mental health needs; and

(3) immediately, but no later than two hours, for

prisoners with emergent mental health needs.

IV.B.1.h. Ensure that a Qualified Mental Health

✔

Professional performs a mental health assessment no later

than the next working day following any adverse

triggering event (i.e., any suicide attempt, any suicide

ideation, or any aggression to self resulting in serious

injury).

IV.B.1.i. Ensure that a Qualified Mental Health

✔

Professional, as part of the prisoner’s interdisciplinary

treatment team, maintains a risk profile for each prisoner

on the mental health case load based on the Assessment

Factors identified in Appendix B, and develops and

implements a treatment plan to minimize the risk of harm

Measures
Attachment: Staff Referral Form
Attachment: Suicide Prevention Policy Suicide Watch Treatment Plan form
Attachment Suicide Watch Risk Profile form

OPSO Notes/Updates
Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)
Continue to monitor compliance trough tracking tool
CQI of effectiveness
Expected Date of Compliance: 3/31/17 Responsible Party: Dr. Arceneaux
Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16):
Currently in Compliance
Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)
On-going monitoring of CQI process for compliance
Expected Date of Compliance: Request Compliance Responsible Party: Dr. Arceneaux
Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16):
Currently in Compliance
Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)
On-going monitoring of CQI process for compliance
Expected Date of Compliance: Request Compliance Responsible Party: Dr. Arceneaux
Compliance Actions ((10/16 – 12/16):
Newly implemented form with Risk Profile added
3

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 147 of 169
This plan was developed by CCS and has not been validated by the Compliance Director. It is subject to further revision and refinement.

Section to each of these prisoners.

C

P

IV.B.1.j. Ensure adequate and timely treatment for

✔

prisoners, whose assessments reveal mental illness and/or

suicidal ideation, including timely and appropriate

referrals for specialty care and visits with Qualified

Mental Health Professionals, as clinically appropriate.

V.B.1.k. Ensure crisis services are available to manage

✔

psychiatric emergencies. Such services include licensed

in-patient psychiatric care, when clinically appropriate.

IV.B.1.l. On an annual basis, assess the process for

✔

screening prisoners for mental health needs to determine

whether prisoners are being appropriately identified for

care. Based on this assessment, OPSO shall recommend

changes to the screening system. The assessment and

recommendations will be documented and provided to the

Monitor.

N

Measures

OPSO Notes/Updates

Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)

CQI to monitor for form effectiveness

Attachment

Expected Date of Compliance: 3/31/17 Responsible Party: Dr. Arceneaux

Basic Mental Health Services Policy Intake Process SOP

Compliance Actions ((10/16 – 12/16):
Continue to implement more enhanced appointment tracking measures

Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)

Scheduling in ERMA

Continue to track treatment timeliness through CQI

Attachment

Expected Date of Compliance: 3/31/17 Responsible Party: Dr. Arceneaux

Mental Health Unit Policy

Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16):

Immediate Assessment and medical clearance to HSU2 Acute care unit

Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)

Continue to evaluate patient meeting criteria for HSU2 transfer

Attachment

Expected Date of Compliance: 3/31/17 Responsible Party: Dr. Arceneaux

See Meeting Minutes (full minutes are available on site) Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16):

Currently in Compliance

Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)

4

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 148 of 169
This plan was developed by CCS and has not been validated by the Compliance Director. It is subject to further revision and refinement.

Section

C

P

N

IV.B.2. Treatment

IV.B.2.a. Review, revise, and supplement its existing

✔

policies in order to implement a policy for the delivery of

mental health services that includes a continuum of

services, provides for necessary and appropriate mental

health staff, includes a treatment plan for prisoners with

serious mental illness, and collects data and contains

mechanisms sufficient to measure whether care is being

provided in a manner consistent with the Constitution.

IV.B.2.b. Ensure that treatment plans adequately address

✔

prisoners’ serious mental health needs and that the

treatment plans contain interventions specifically tailored

to the prisoner’s diagnoses and problems.

IV.B.2.c. Provide group or individual therapy services by ✔ an appropriately licensed provider where necessary for prisoners with mental health needs.

Measures Attachment Mental Health Services Treatment Plan
Attachment Mental Health Services Treatment Plan
Attachment Attach Groups Schedule

OPSO Notes/Updates Review Annually Expected Date of Compliance: Request compliance Responsible Party: Dr. Arceneaux Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16): Currently in Compliance Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17) Perform Treatment Planning CQI ongoing Expected Date of Compliance: Request compliance
Responsible Party: Dr. Arceneaux Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16): Currently in Compliance Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17) Perform Treatment Planning CQI ongoing Expected Date of Compliance: Request compliance
Responsible Party: Dr. Arceneaux Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16): Currently in Compliance Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)
5

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 149 of 169
This plan was developed by CCS and has not been validated by the Compliance Director. It is subject to further revision and refinement.

Section

C

P

N

IV.B.2.d. Ensure that mental health evaluations that are

✔

done as part of the disciplinary process include

recommendations based on the prisoner's mental health

status.

IV.B.2.e. Ensure that prisoners receive psychotropic

✔

medications in a timely manner and that prisoners have

proper diagnoses and/or indications for each psychotropic

medication they receive.

IV.B.2.f. Ensure that psychotropic medications are

✔

administered in a clinically appropriate manner as to

prevent misuse, overdose, theft, or violence related to the

medication.

Measures
Attachment Altercation/Disciplinary SOP Disciplinary Notification Form
Attachment Medication Verification SOP
Attachment Medication Administration SOP

OPSO Notes/Updates
Will continue to add groups as staff and space becomes available.
Expected Date of Compliance:
Requested Compliance Responsible Party: Dr. Arceneaux
Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16):
A list is being provided daily to OPSO with mental health cases load
Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)
CQI to monitor for effectiveness of process
Expected Date of Compliance: 3/31/17 Responsible Party: Dr. Arceneaux/Parker
Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16):
Added an additional staff resource to obtain ROI for medication verification
Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)
On-going CQI monitoring of continuity of medication screen
Expected Date of Compliance: 3/31/17 Responsible Party: Dr. Arceneaux/Parker
Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16):
Currently in Compliance

6

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 150 of 169
This plan was developed by CCS and has not been validated by the Compliance Director. It is subject to further revision and refinement.

Section

C

P

N

IV.B.2.g. Ensure that prescriptions for psychotropic

✔

medications are reviewed by a Qualified Mental Health

Professional on a regular, timely basis and prisoners are

properly monitored.

IV.B.2.h. Ensure that standards are established for the

✔

frequency of review and associated charting of

psychotropic medication monitoring, including

monitoring for metabolic effects of second generation

psychotropic medications

IV.B.3. Counseling

IV.B.3.a. OPSO shall develop and implement policies and

✔

procedures for prisoner counseling in the areas of general

mental health/therapy, sexual-abuse counseling, and

alcohol and drug counseling. This should, at a minimum,

include some provision for individual services.

Measures
Attachment Sapphire Renewal/Refill queue
Attachment CQI Screen
Attachment Basic Mental Health Services Policy OPSO Volunteer Programing Services

OPSO Notes/Updates Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17) On-going monitoring of CQI process for compliance Expected Date of Compliance: Request Compliance Responsible Party: Dr. Arceneaux/Parker Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16): Currently in Compliance Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17) On-going monitoring of CQI process for compliance Expected Date of Compliance: Request Compliance
Responsible Party: Dr. Arceneaux Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16): Currently in Compliance Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17) On-going monitoring of CQI process for compliance Expected Date of Compliance: Request Compliance
Responsible Party: Dr. Arceneaux Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16): Identified four (4) perspective
7

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 151 of 169
This plan was developed by CCS and has not been validated by the Compliance Director. It is subject to further revision and refinement.

Section

C

P

IV.B.3.b. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, and

✔

quarterly thereafter, report all prisoner counseling

services to the Monitor, which should include:

(1) the number of prisoners who report having

participated in general mental health/therapy

counseling at OPP;

(2) the number of prisoners who report having

participated in alcohol and drug counseling services

at OPP;

(3) the number of prisoners who report having

participated in sexual-abuse counseling at OPP; and

(4) the number of cases with an appropriately licensed

practitioner and related one-to-one counseling at

OPP.

IV.B.4. Suicide Prevention Training Program

IV.B.4.a. OPSO shall ensure that all staff who supervise

✔

prisoners have the adequate knowledge, skill, and ability

to address the needs of prisoners at risk for suicide.

Within 180 days of the Effective Date, OPSO shall review

and revise its current suicide prevention training

curriculum to include the following topics:

(1) suicide prevention policies and procedures (as

revised consistent with this Agreement);

(2) analysis of facility environments and why they may

contribute to suicidal behavior;

(3) potential predisposing factors to suicide;

(4) high-risk suicide periods;

(5) warning signs and symptoms of suicidal behavior;

(6) case studies of recent suicides and serious suicide

attempts;

(7) mock demonstrations regarding the proper response

N

Measures

OPSO Notes/Updates

community service type agencies that

Women’s Program

provide long term services post

incarceration

Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)

Collaboration with OPSO Volunteer Programming Services

Expected Date of Compliance: 3/31/17

Attachment

Responsible Party: Dr. Arceneaux

Monthly HRIS Report

Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16):

Currently in Compliance

Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)

On-going monitoring of CQI process for compliance

Expected Date of Compliance: Request Compliance

Attachment Observing The Suicidal Offender handout Sample Observation/Restraint Checklist & Worksheet

Responsible Party: Dr. Arceneaux/Parker Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16): Suicide Video- presented in Orientation Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17) Ongoing and at New Hire Expected Date of Compliance: 3/31/17

8

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 152 of 169
This plan was developed by CCS and has not been validated by the Compliance Director. It is subject to further revision and refinement.

Section

C

P

N

to a suicide attempt;

(8) differentiating suicidal and self-injurious behavior;

and

(9) the proper use of emergency equipment.

IV.B.4.b. Ensure that all correctional, medical, and mental ✔

health staff are trained on the suicide screening instrument

and the medical intake tool.

Measures

OPSO Notes/Updates

Attachment 7 Minute to Save – Suicide Risk Reduction
Staff Referral Form Medical Intake Tool

Responsible Party: Dr. Arceneaux/Parker
Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16):
CCS suggests eliminating correctional staff from this specific training as they do not need to be trained in the use of the tool.
Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)
On-going training
Expected Date of Compliance: Request Compliance

IV.B.4.c. Ensure that multi-disciplinary in-service

✔

training is completed annually by all correctional,

medical, and mental health staff, to include training on

updated policies, procedures, and techniques. The

training will be reviewed and approved by the Monitor.

IV.B.4.d. Ensure that staff are trained in observing

✔

prisoners on suicide watch and step-down unit status.

Currently Implemented - Ongoing
Attachment Observing The Suicidal Offender handout Sample Observation/Restraint Checklist & Worksheet

Responsible Party: Dr. Arceneaux/Parker
Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16):
Currently in compliance
Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17) On-going training
Expected Date of Compliance:
Request Compliance Responsible Party: Dr. Arceneaux/Parker
Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16):

9

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 153 of 169
This plan was developed by CCS and has not been validated by the Compliance Director. It is subject to further revision and refinement.

Section

C

P

N

IV.B.4.e. Ensure that all staff that have contact with

✔

prisoners are certified in cardiopulmonary resuscitation

(“CPR”).

IV.B.4.f. Ensure that an emergency response bag, which

✔

includes a first aid kit and emergency rescue tool, is in

close proximity to all housing units. All staff that has

contact with prisoners shall know the location of this

emergency response bag and be trained to use its contents.

Measures
Attachment Site Credentialing Logs
CPR Calendar
Attachment Emergency Response Training

OPSO Notes/Updates Suicide Video- presented in Orientation
Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)
Ongoing at least annually, quarterly, and as needed
Expected Date of Compliance: 3/31/17
Responsible Party: Walker/Navarro
Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16):
Currently in compliance CPR Calendar
Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)
Update of staff credentialing monthly
Expected Date of Compliance:
Request Compliance Responsible Party: Walker/Parker/Lampard
Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16):
Emergency Response Bag with emergency equipment –Completed during Annual “Skills Competency Training 12/16
OPSO – first aid kits and cut down kits on tiers
Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)
OPSO has six (6) AED’s to be mounted by each housing area, IPC and Transport holding area
10

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 154 of 169
This plan was developed by CCS and has not been validated by the Compliance Director. It is subject to further revision and refinement.

Section

C

P

N

IV.B.4.g. Randomly test five percent of relevant staff on

✔

an annual basis to determine their knowledge of suicide

prevention policies. The testing instrument and policies

shall be approved by the Monitor. The results of these

assessments shall be evaluated to determine the need for

changes in training practices. The review and conclusions

will be documented and provided to the Monitor.

Measures Currently Implemented - Ongoing

OPSO Notes/Updates
Expected Date of Compliance: 1/31/17
Responsible Party: Walker Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16): Currently compliant Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17) Ongoing monitoring and annual review Expected Date of Compliance: Request compliance

IV.B.5. Suicide Precautions

IV.B.5.a. OPSO shall implement a policy to ensure that

✔

prisoners at risk of self-harm are identified, protected, and

treated in a manner consistent with the Constitution.

IV.B.5.b. Ensure that suicide prevention procedures

✔

include provisions for constant direct supervision of

current suicidal prisoners and close supervision of special

needs prisoners with lower levels of risk (at a minimum,

15 minute checks). Correctional officers/CNA shall

document their checks in a format that does not have pre-

printed times.

Attachment OPSO Policy Suicide Precautions Policy
Attachment Suicide Prevention Program Policy Observing The Suicidal Offender handout Sample Observation/Restraint Checklist & Worksheet

Responsible Party: Dr. Arceneaux
Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16):
Currently in compliance
Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17) On-going training
Expected Date of Compliance:
Request Compliance Responsible Party: Dr. Arceneaux
Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16): : Re-education on Blank CNA sheet sample of staggered times
SW/DO Handout on documentation process

11

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 155 of 169
This plan was developed by CCS and has not been validated by the Compliance Director. It is subject to further revision and refinement.

Section

C

P

IV.B.5.c. Ensure that prisoners on suicide watch are

✔

immediately searched and monitored with constant direct

supervision until a Qualified Mental Health Professional

conducts a suicide risk assessment, determines the degree

of risk, and specifies the appropriate degree of

supervision.

IV.B.5.d. Ensure that all prisoners discharged from

✔

suicide precautions receive a follow-up assessment within

three to eight working days after discharge, as clinically

appropriate, in accordance with a treatment plan

developed by a Qualified Mental Health Care

Professional. Upon discharge, the Qualified Mental

Health Care Professional shall conduct a documented in-

person assessment regarding the clinically appropriate

follow-up intervals.

IV.B.5.e. Implement a step-down program providing

✔

clinically appropriate transition for prisoners discharged

from suicide precautions.

N

Measures

OPSO Notes/Updates

Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)

CNA Skills Competency Training 12/16

Expected Date of Compliance:

Attachment
Tracking Tool (tracks custody compliance with directive of constant supervision)

1/31/17 Responsible Party: Colvin/Arceneaux
Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16):

OPSO Policy

OPSO Policy

Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)

Continue to monitor compliance trough tracking tool

CQI of effectiveness Expected Date of Compliance: 3/31/17

Currently Implemented - Ongoing

Responsible Party: Arceneaux

Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16): Currently compliant Excel Tracking EOM Stats

Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)

CQI to validate monthly compliance

Expected Date of Compliance:

Attachment

Request Compliance Responsible Party: Arceneaux

Transfer form

Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16):
New for implemented for Secondary Gain identification

12

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 156 of 169
This plan was developed by CCS and has not been validated by the Compliance Director. It is subject to further revision and refinement.

Section

C

P

N

IV.B.5.f. Develop and implement policies and procedures ✔ for suicide precautions that set forth the conditions of the watch, incorporating a requirement of an individualized clinical determination of allowable clothing, property, and utensils. These conditions shall be altered only on the written instruction of a Qualified Mental Health Professional, except under emergency circumstances or when security considerations require

IV.B.5.g. Ensure that cells designated by OPSO for

✔

housing suicidal prisoners are retrofitted to render them

suicide-resistant (e.g., eliminating bed frames/holes,

sprinkler heads, water faucet lips, and unshielded lighting

or electrical sockets).

IV.B.5.h. Ensure that every suicide or serious suicide

✔

attempt is investigated by appropriate mental health and

Measures
Attachment Suicide Prevention Program Behavioral Health Precautions Sheet
Attachment OPSO Policy
Currently Implemented – Ongoing

OPSO Notes/Updates
Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)
Develop a Rubric scale based on risk profile to determine appropriateness of step down unit referral
CQI to determine form effectiveness
CQI to assess appropriateness of Mental Health Step Down Referrals
Expected Date of Compliance: 3/31/17
Responsible Party: Dr. Arceneaux
Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16):
Currently in compliance
Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17) On-going training
Expected Date of Compliance:
Request Compliance Responsible Party: Colvin/Arceneaux
Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16): 4 cells have been completed on 2A and 3D; 2 still needing retrofit
Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)
Consult with OPSO on timeline for completion
Expected Date of Compliance:
3/31/17 Responsible Party: Walker/Arceneaux
13

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 157 of 169
This plan was developed by CCS and has not been validated by the Compliance Director. It is subject to further revision and refinement.

Section

C

P

correctional staff, and that the results of the investigation

are provided to the Sheriff and the Monitor.

IV.B.5.i. Direct observation orders for inmates placed on

✔

suicide watch shall be individualized by the ordering

clinician based upon the clinical needs of each inmate,

and shall not be more restrictive than is deemed necessary

by the ordering clinician to ensure the safety and well-

being of the inmate.

IV.B.5.j. Provide the Monitor a periodic report on suicide ✔ and self-harm at the Facility. These periodic reports shall be provided to the monitor within four months of the Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until termination of this Agreement. The report will include the following: (1) all suicides; (2) all serious suicide or self-harm attempts; and (3) all uses of restraints to respond to or prevent a
suicide attempt.
IV.B.5.k. Assess the periodic report to determine whether ✔ prisoners are being appropriately identified for risk of self-harm, protected, and treated. Based on this assessment, OPSO shall document recommended changes to policies and procedures and provide these to the Monitor.

N

Measures

OPSO Notes/Updates

Documents are available on site for review

Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16):

M&M’s are conducted and reviewed as events occur

CCE reports are conducted Currently in compliance

Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)

On-going as appropriate

Expected Date of Compliance: Request compliance

Currently Implemented - Ongoing

Responsible Party: Dr. Arceneaux

Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16):

Currently in compliance

Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17) On-going training

Expected Date of Compliance:

Currently Implemented - Ongoing

Request Compliance Responsible Party: Dr. Arceneaux

Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16):

Currently compliant

Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)

On-going and updated daily

Attachment

Expected Date of Compliance: Request compliance Responsible Party: Dr.Arceneaux

Initial Behavioral Health Assessment Form (includes the prisoner’s risk level)

Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16):
OPSO receives a list of all patients on SW/DO daily.

14

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 158 of 169
This plan was developed by CCS and has not been validated by the Compliance Director. It is subject to further revision and refinement.

Section

C

P

N

IV.B.6. Use of Restraints

IV.B.6.a. OPSO shall prevent the unnecessary or

✔

excessive use of physical or chemical restraints on

prisoners with mental illness.

IV.B.6.b. Maintain comprehensive policies and

✔

procedures for the use of restraints for prisoners with

mental illness consistent with the Constitution.

IV.B.6.c. Ensure that approval by a Qualified Medical or

✔

Mental Health Professional is received and documented

prior to the use of restraints on prisoners living with

mental illness or requiring suicide precautions.

Measures
Attachment CCS Restraint Policy Pending Approval
Attachment CCS Restraint Policy Pending Approval
Attachment CCS Restraint Policy Pending Approval

OPSO Notes/Updates A representative from OPSO attends MDT where suicide patients are discussed weekly
Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)
Graph monthly true SI versus Secondary gain to be submitted to OPSO to review for recommendation
Expected Date of Compliance:
Request compliance
Responsible Party: Arceneaux/Walker
Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16):
CCS Restraint Policy Pending Approval
Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)
Contingent of Policy Approval Expected Date of Compliance:
3/31/17 Responsible Party: Arceneaux/Walker
Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16):
CCS Restraint Policy Pending Approval
Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)
Contingent of Policy Approval Expected Date of Compliance:
3/31/17 Responsible Party: Arceneaux/Walker
Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16):
CCS Restraint Policy Pending Approval

15

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 159 of 169
This plan was developed by CCS and has not been validated by the Compliance Director. It is subject to further revision and refinement.

Section

C

P

N

IV.B.6.d. Ensure that restrained prisoners with mental

✔

illnesses are monitored at least every 15 minutes by

Custody Staff to assess their physical condition.

IV.B.6.e. Ensure that Qualified Medical or Mental Health

✔

Staff document the use of restraints, including the basis

for and duration of the use of restraints and the

performance and results of welfare checks on restrained

prisoners.

IV.B.6.f. Provide the Monitor a periodic report of restraint

✔

use at the Facility. These periodic reports shall be

provided to the monitor within four months of the

Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until

termination of this Agreement. Each report shall include:

(1) A list of prisoners whom were restrained;

(2) A list of any self-injurious behavior observed or

discovered while restrained; and

(3) A list of any prisoners whom were placed in

restraints on three or more occasions in a thirty (30)

day period or whom were kept in restraints for a

period exceeding twenty-four (24) hours.

Measures
Attachment CCS Restraint Policy Pending Approval
OPSO Policy Pending Approval
Attachment CCS Restraint Policy Pending Approval
OPSO Policy Pending Approval
Attachment CCS Restraint Policy Pending Approval
OPSO Policy Pending

OPSO Notes/Updates Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)
Contingent of Policy Approval Expected Date of Compliance:
3/31/17 Responsible Party: Arceneaux/Walker/Colvin
Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16):
CCS Restraint Policy Pending Approval
Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)
Contingent of Policy Approval Expected Date of Compliance:
3/31/17 Responsible Party: Arceneaux/Walker/Colvin
Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16):
CCS Restraint Policy Pending Approval
Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)
Contingent of Policy Approval Expected Date of Compliance:
3/31/17 Responsible Party: Arceneaux/Walker/Colvin
Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16):
CCS Restraint Policy Pending Approval
Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)
Contingent of Policy Approval Expected Date of Compliance:

16

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 160 of 169
This plan was developed by CCS and has not been validated by the Compliance Director. It is subject to further revision and refinement.

Section

C

P

N

IV.B.6.g. Assess the periodic report to determine whether

✔

restraints are being used appropriately on prisoners with

mental illness. Based on this assessment, OPSO shall

document recommended changes to policies and

procedures and provide these to the Monitor.

IV.B.7. Detoxification and Training

IV.B.7.a. OPSO shall ensure that all staff who supervise

✔

prisoners have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to

identify and respond to detoxifying prisoners. Within 180

days of the Effective Date, OPSO shall institute an annual

in-service detoxification training program for Qualified

Medical and Mental Health Staff and for correctional

staff. The detoxification training program shall include:

(1) annual staff training on alcohol and drug abuse

withdrawal;

(2) training of Qualified Medical and Mental Health

Staff on treatment of alcohol and drug abuse

conducted by the Chief Medical Officer or his or her

delegate;

(3) oversight of the training of correctional staff,

including booking and housing unit officers, on the

policies and procedures of the detoxification unit, by

the Chief Medical Officer or his or her delegate;

(4) training on drug and alcohol withdrawal by Qualified

Medical and Mental Health Staff;

(5) training of Qualified Medical and Mental Health

Staff in providing prisoners with timely access to a

Qualified Mental Health Professional, including

psychiatrists, as clinically appropriate; and

(6) training of Qualified Medical and Mental Health

Staff on the use and treatment of withdrawals, where

medically appropriate.

IV.B.7.b. Provide medical screenings to determine the

✔

degree of risk for potentially life-threatening withdrawal

from alcohol, benzodiazepines, and other substances, in

Measures Attachment CCS Restraint Policy Pending Approval OPSO Policy Pending
Attachment Currently Implemented – Ongoing
Intoxication/ Withdrawal NDP

OPSO Notes/Updates 3/31/17 Responsible Party: Arceneaux/Walker/Colvin Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16): CCS Restraint Policy Pending Approval Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17) Contingent of Policy Approval Expected Date of Compliance: 3/31/17 Responsible Party: Walker/Parker
Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16): Deputy Training occurs at hire and annually Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)
Currently implementing and monitoring Expected Date of Compliance: Request Compliance

Attachment Currently Implemented – Ongoing

Responsible Party: Parker/Penn Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16):
17

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 161 of 169
This plan was developed by CCS and has not been validated by the Compliance Director. It is subject to further revision and refinement.

Section accordance with Appendix B.

C

P

N

IV.B.7.c. Ensure that the nursing staff complete

✔

assessments of prisoners in detoxification on an

individualized schedule, ordered by a Qualified Medical

or Mental Health Professional, as clinically appropriate,

to include observations and vital signs, including blood

pressure.

IV.B.7.d. Annually, conduct a review of whether the

✔

detoxification training program has been effective in

identifying concerns regarding policy, training, or the

proper identification of and response to detoxifying

prisoners. OPSO will document this review and provide

its conclusions to the Monitor.

IV.B.8. Medical and Mental Health Staffing

Measures Intoxication/ Withdrawal NDP Intake Screen
Attachment Currently Implemented – Ongoing
Intoxication /Withdrawal NDP Intake Screen
Attachment MAC Meeting Minutes

OPSO Notes/Updates Currently in compliance (1/17 - 3/17)
Proposed Activities On-going monitoring Expected Date of Compliance: Request Compliance
Responsible Party: Parker/Penn Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16): Currently in compliance (1/17 - 3/17) Proposed Activities On-going monitoring Expected Date of Compliance: Request Compliance
Responsible Party: Walker Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16): Currently in compliance (1/17 - 3/17) Proposed Activities On-going monitoring Expected Date of Compliance: Request Compliance

18

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 162 of 169
This plan was developed by CCS and has not been validated by the Compliance Director. It is subject to further revision and refinement.

Section

C

P

N

IV.B.8.a. OPSO shall ensure that medical and mental

✔

health staffing is sufficient to provide adequate care for

prisoners’ serious medical and mental health needs, fulfill

constitutional mandates and the terms of this Agreement,

and allow for the adequate operation of the Facility,

consistent with constitutional standards.

IV.B.8.b. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, OPSO

✔

shall conduct a comprehensive staffing plan and/or

analysis to determine the medical and mental health

staffing levels necessary to provide adequate care for

prisoners’ mental health needs and to carry out the

requirements of this Agreement. Upon completion of the

staffing plan and/or analysis, OPSO shall provide its

findings to the Monitor, SPLC, and DOJ for review. The

Monitor, SPLC, and DOJ will have 60 days to raise any

objections and recommend revisions to the staffing plan

IV.B.9. Risk Management/Robert Greifinger IV.B.9.a. OPSO shall develop, implement, and maintain a ✔ system to ensure that trends and incidents involving avoidable suicides and self-injurious behavior are identified and corrected in a timely manner. Within 90

Measures Key Positions Vacant
Vacancy Report
Attachment Vacancy Report
Attachment: Initial Behavioral Health Assessment Form

OPSO Notes/Updates Responsible Party: Walker/Parker/Arceneaux
Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16):
Psych NP - Hired 11/21/16
Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)
Site Medical Director – Hired (start date 2/17)
Recruit hire MHP’s, MH Coordinator
Continue to recruit as vacancies become available Expected Date of Compliance: 3/31/17
Responsible Party: Walker/Parker/Arceneaux
Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16):
Psych NP - Hired 11/21/16
Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)
Site Medical Director – Hired (start date 2/17)
Recruit hire MHP’s, MH Coordinator
Continue to recruit as vacancies become available Expected Date of Compliance: 3/31/17
Responsible Party: Arceneaux
Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16):

19

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 163 of 169
This plan was developed by CCS and has not been validated by the Compliance Director. It is subject to further revision and refinement.

Section

C

P

N

days of the Effective Date, OPSO shall develop and

implement a risk management system that identifies

levels of risk for suicide and self-injurious behavior and

requires intervention at the individual and system levels to

prevent or minimize harm to prisoners, based on the

triggers and thresholds set forth in Appendix B.

IV.B.9.b. The risk management system shall include the

✔

following processes to supplement the mental health

screening and assessment processes: incident reporting,

data collection, and data aggregation to capture sufficient

information to formulate a reliable risk assessment at the

individual and system levels; identification of at-risk

prisoners in need of clinical treatment or assessment by

the Interdisciplinary Team or the Mental Health

Committee; and development and implementation of

interventions that minimize and prevent harm in response

to identified patterns and trends.

IV.B.9.c. OPSO shall develop and implement an

✔

Interdisciplinary Team, which utilizes intake screening,

health assessment, and triggering event information for

formulating treatment plans. The Interdisciplinary Team

shall:

(1) include the Medical and Nursing directors, one or

more members of the psychiatry staff, counseling

staff, social services staff, and security staff, and

other members as clinical circumstances dictate;

(2) conduct interdisciplinary treatment rounds, on a

weekly basis, during which targeted patients are

reviewed based upon screening and assessment

factors, as well as triggering events; and

(3) provide individualized treatment plans based, in part,

on screening and assessment factors, to all mental

health patients seen by various providers.

IV.B.9.d. OPSO shall develop and implement a Mental

✔

Health Review Committee that will, on a monthly basis,

review mental health statistics including, but not limited

to, risk management triggers and trends at both the

individual and system levels. The Mental Health Review

Committee shall:

Measures
Attachment: Initial Behavioral Health Assessment Form
Currently Implemented – Ongoing

OPSO Notes/Updates Currently in compliance
Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)
Ongoing CQI
Expected Date of Compliance: Request Compliance Responsible Party: Arceneaux
Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16):
Currently in compliance
Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)
Ongoing CQI
Expected Date of Compliance: Request Compliance
Responsible Party: Arceneaux
Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16):
Currently in compliance
Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)
Ongoing CQI
Expected Date of Compliance: Request Compliance

Attachment: MH MAC Meeting Minutes

Responsible Party: Arceneaux Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16): Currently in compliance

20

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 164 of 169
This plan was developed by CCS and has not been validated by the Compliance Director. It is subject to further revision and refinement.

Section

C

P

N

(1) include the Medical and Nursing Director, one or

more members of the psychiatry staff and social

services staff, the Health Services Administrator, the

Warden of the facility housing the Acute Psychiatric

Unit, and the Risk Manager.

(2) identify at-risk patients in need of mental health case

management who may require intervention from and

referral to the Interdisciplinary Team, the OPSO

administration, or other providers.

(3) conduct department-wide analyses and validation of

both the mental health and self-harm screening and

assessment processes and tools, review the quality of

screenings and assessments and the timeliness and

appropriateness of care provided, and make

recommendations on changes and corrective actions;

(4) analyze individual and aggregate mental health data

and identify trends and triggers that indicate risk of

harm;

(5) review data on mental health appointments,

including the number of appointments and wait times

before care is received; and

(6) review policies, training, and staffing and

recommend changes, supplemental training, or

corrective actions.

IV.B.9.e. OPSO shall develop and implement a Quality

✔

Improvement and Morbidity and Mortality Review

Committee that will review, on at least a quarterly basis,

risk management triggers and trends and quality

improvement reports in order to improve care on a Jail-

wide basis.

(1)

The Quality Improvement Committee shall

include the Medical Director, the Director of

Psychiatry, the Chief Deputy, the Risk

Manager, and the Director of Training. The

Quality Improvement Committee shall review

and analyze activities and conclusions of the

Mental Health Review Committee and pursue

Jail-wide corrective actions.

(2)

The Quality Improvement Committee shall:

i. monitor all risk management activities of

the facilities through the review of risk

data, identification of individual and

systemic trends, and recommendation and

monitored implementation of investigation

Measures

OPSO Notes/Updates Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)
Ongoing CQI
Expected Date of Compliance: Request Compliance

Currently Implemented – Ongoing

Responsible Party: Walker Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16): Currently in compliance Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17) Ongoing Training Expected Date of Compliance: Request Compliance

21

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 165 of 169
This plan was developed by CCS and has not been validated by the Compliance Director. It is subject to further revision and refinement.

Section

C

P

N

or corrective action; and

ii. generate reports of risk data analyzed and

corrective actions taken.

IV.B.9.f. OPSO shall review mortality and morbidity

✔

reports quarterly to determine whether the risk

management system is ensuring compliance with the

terms of this Agreement. OPSO shall make

recommendations regarding the risk management system

or other necessary changes in policy based on this review.

The review and recommendations will be documented

and provided to the Monitor.

Measures Currently Implemented – Ongoing

OPSO Notes/Updates
Responsible Party: Walker Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16): Currently in compliance Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17) Ongoing

Expected Date of Compliance:

Request Compliance

IV.C. Medical Care OPSO shall ensure constitutionally adequate treatment of prisoners’ medical needs. OPSO shall prevent unnecessary risks to

prisoners and ensure proper medication administration practices. OPSO shall assess on an annual or more frequent basis whether the medical services

at OPP comply with the Constitution. At a minimum, OPSO shall:

IV.C.1. Quality Management and Medication Administration

IV.C.1.a. Within 120 days of the Effective Date, ensure

✔

Currently Implemented – Ongoing

that medical and mental health staff are trained on proper

medication administration practices, including

appropriately labeling containers and contemporaneously

Medication Training Modules

recording medication administration;

Responsible Party: Parker Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16): Currently in compliance

Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)

Ongoing Training

Expected Date of Compliance:

Request Compliance

IV.C.1.b. Ensure that physicians provide a systematic

✔

review of the use of medication to ensure that each

prisoner’s prescribed regimen continues to be appropriate

and effective for his or her condition;

Currently Implemented – Ongoing

Responsible Party: Parker/Penn Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16): Currently in compliance

Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)

22

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 166 of 169
This plan was developed by CCS and has not been validated by the Compliance Director. It is subject to further revision and refinement.

Section

C

P

N

IV.C.1.c. Maintain medication administration protocols

✔

that provide adequate direction on how to take

medications, describe the names of the medications, how

frequently to take medications, and identify how prisoners

taking such medications are monitored; and

IV.C.1.d. Maintain medication administration protocols

✔

that prevent misuse, overdose, theft, or violence related to

medication.

IV.C.2. Health Care Delivered

IV.C.2.a. Provide the Monitor a periodic report on health

✔

care at the Facility. These periodic reports shall be

provided to the Monitor within four months of the

Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until

termination of this Agreement. Each report will include:

Measures Currently Implemented – Ongoing
Attachment: Medication Training Modules
Currently Implemented – Ongoing Monthly Route Log

OPSO Notes/Updates On-going Provider documentation on the acute care provider visit sheet Monitoring per CQI screens Expected Date of Compliance: Request Compliance Responsible Party: Parker Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16): Currently in compliance Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17) On-going education on documentation; MAR Review, and Adherence to meds Expected Date of Compliance: Request Compliance Responsible Party: Parker Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16): Currently in compliance Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17) On-going education on documentation; MAR Review, and Adherence to meds Expected Date of Compliance: Request Compliance Responsible Party: Parker Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16): Currently in compliance
23

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 167 of 169
This plan was developed by CCS and has not been validated by the Compliance Director. It is subject to further revision and refinement.

Section

C

P

N

(1) number of prisoners transferred to the emergency

room for medical treatment related to medication

errors;

(2) number of prisoners taken to the infirmary for non-

emergency treatment related to medication errors;

(3) number of prisoners prescribed psychotropic

medications;

(4) number of prisoners prescribed “keep on person”

medications; and

(5) occurrences of medication variances.

IV.C.2.b. Review the periodic health care delivery reports

✔

to determine whether the medication administration

protocols and requirements of this Agreement are

followed. OPSO shall make recommendations regarding

the medication administration process, or other necessary

changes in policy, based on this review. The review and

recommendations will be documented and provided to the

Monitor.

IV.C.3. Release and Transfer IV.C.3.a. OPSO shall notify Qualified Medical or Mental ✔ Health staff regarding the release of prisoners with serious medical and/or mental health needs from OPSO custody, as soon as such information is available.

IV.C.3.b. When Qualified Medical or Mental Health staff ✔ are notified of the release of prisoners with serious medical and/or mental health needs from OPSO custody, OPSO shall provide these prisoners with at least a sevenday supply of appropriate prescription medication, unless

Measures
Currently Implemented – Ongoing OPSO POST ORDER
Attachment: AS 400 Tag
Attachment: AS 400 Tag Release Med Police Release Med Form

OPSO Notes/Updates Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17) Continue to track monthly and analyze Expected Date of Compliance: Request Compliance
Responsible Party: Walker Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16): OPSO Documentation – POST Orders Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17) Ongoing monitoring and tracking Expected Date of Compliance: 3/31/17 Responsible Party: Parker/Arceneaux Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16): Currently in compliance Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17) Continue to track monthly and analyze Ongoing CQI Expected Date of Compliance: Request compliance Responsible Party: Parker/Arceneaux Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16): Currently in compliance
24

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 168 of 169
This plan was developed by CCS and has not been validated by the Compliance Director. It is subject to further revision and refinement.

Section

C

P

a different amount is necessary and medically appropriate

to serve as a bridge until prisoners can reasonably arrange

for continuity of care in the community.

IV.C.3.c. For all other prisoners with serious medical

✔

and/or mental health needs who are released from OPSO

custody without advance notice, OPSO shall provide the

prisoner a prescription for his or her medications, printed

instructions regarding prescription medications, and

resources indicating where prescriptions may be filled in

the community.

IV.C.3.d. For prisoners who are being transferred to

✔

another facility, OPSO shall prepare and send with a

transferring prisoner, a transition summary detailing

major health problems and listing current medications and

dosages, as well as medication history while at the

Facility. OPSO shall also supply sufficient medication for

the period of transit for prisoners who are being

transferred to another correctional facility or other

institution, in the amount required by the receiving

agency.

IV. D. 1.h. Maintain an infection control plan that

✔

addresses contact, blood borne, and airborne hazards and

infections. The plan shall include provisions for the

identification, treatment, and control of Methicillin-

Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (“MRSA”) at the

Facility.

N

Measures

OPSO Notes/Updates

Release Med IP

Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)

Continue to track monthly and analyze

Ongoing CQI

Attachment:

Expected Date of Compliance: Request compliance Responsible Party: Parker/Arceneaux

AS 400 Tag Release Med Police Release Med Form
Release Med IP

Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16): Currently in compliance Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)

Continue to track monthly and analyze

Ongoing CQI

Currently Implemented – Ongoing

Expected Date of Compliance: Request compliance Responsible Party: Walker/Parker

Out of Parish: Attach Criteria and form (Transfer form)

Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16): Currently in compliance

Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)

Ongoing process

1. Written policy and procedures for an infection control plan and policy following Center for Disease Control’s recommendations.
2. Lesson plans/curriculum - evidence of training of all officers, staff and inmates responsible for cleaning and disinfecting all medical and dental areas within OPSO.
3. Demonstration of knowledge of the policy and

Expected Date of Compliance: Request compliance Responsible Party: Penn/Parker/Green
Compliance Actions (10/16 – 12/16):
CCS provided Inmate Training on Infection Control
OPSO Sanitarium attending CCS

25

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1105 Filed 01/04/17 Page 169 of 169
This plan was developed by CCS and has not been validated by the Compliance Director. It is subject to further revision and refinement.

Section

C

P

N

Measures

plan.

4. Observation

5. Inmate interview, inmate grievances.

OPSO Notes/Updates CQI/Infection Control monthly meetings
Proposed Activities (1/17 - 3/17)
Continue to provide Training as new inmate workers are identified
Expected Date of Compliance:
3/31/17

26

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1106 Filed 01/04/17 Page 1 of 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

___________________________________

)

LASHAWN JONES, ET AL,

)

Plaintiffs; and

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

Plaintiffs in Intervention

)

)

v.

)

)

)

MARLIN N. GUSMAN, ET AL,

)

Defendants

)

Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-00859

___________________________________ )

Section I, Division 1

)

Judge Lance M. Africk

MARLIN N. GUSMAN,

)

Magistrate Judge Michael North

Third-Party Plaintiff

)

)

v.

)

)

THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS,

)

Third-Party Defendant

)

___________________________________ )

SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLIANCE ACTION PLAN

NOW INTO COURT comes Orleans Parish Jail’s Independent Compliance Director Gary D. Maynard and Sheriff Marlin N. Gusman, who respectfully submit the following Supplemental Compliance Action Plan in accordance with the provisions of the Stipulated Order for Appointment of Independent Jail Compliance Director (R. Doc. 1082). This supplement is intended to be read and considered in conjunction with the Compliance Action Plan previously entered into record of this matter by the Court on December 2, 2016 (R. Doc. 1104):

A. Introduction

On Tuesday, June 21, 2016, the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office (OPSO), Department of Justice, and Plaintiffs signed a Stipulated Order creating the position of Independent Jail Compliance Director. The Compliance Director has final authority to operate the Orleans Parish Jail (OJC) and all jail facilities), including authority over the entire prisoner population in the custody of OPSO, housed inside or outside of Orleans Parish, and is charged with doing so in a manner to achieve substantial compliance with each provision of the Consent Judgment on a timely basis, as further described in the remedial action plan to be drafted by the Compliance Director. The Compliance Director shall seek advice and/or approval from the Sheriff regarding all decisions that materially impact compliance with the Consent Judgment, unless doing so would cause unreasonable delay, and otherwise regularly inform the Sheriff regarding jail operations.

1|Page

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1106 Filed 01/04/17 Page 2 of 16
Furthermore, the Stipulated Order requires the Compliance Director to make a recommendation to the Court by December 1, 2016 on three major topics that will have a lasting effect on the OPSO and City of New Orleans. The three topics are the youthful inmate population currently being housed in OJC, the "Docks" - which is a holding area for the inmate population going to and from Criminal District Court - and a decision on a long-term solution for the inmate population affected by acute and sub-acute mental health and medical needs. On December 2, 2016, the conceptual plans for housing youthful inmates and the renovation of the Docks was submitted to the court, but due to the complexity of the issues surrounding acute and sub-acute mental health and medical services, the Court granted the Compliance Director’s request for a 30 day extension for the submission of the plan.
B. Acute and Sub-Acute Mental Health and Medical Services
1. Review of Findings from Previous Efforts
In order to provide a proper context of the recommendation for providing compliant acute and sub-acute mental health and medical services for the Orleans Parish Jail, it is important to acknowledge the substantial work that has been done by the parties in the past three years. This section provides background into those efforts:
a. Mental Health Working Group (MHWG) (2014)
Beginning on June 24, 2014, the Mental Health Working Group, created by Judge Africk, was charged with assisting the parties to obtain compliance with the Consent Judgment as it relates to providing adequate mental health services to the inmates of the Orleans Parish Jail. The MHWG consisted of OPSO, the City of New Orleans, as well Dr. John Thompson, chairman of Tulane’s Department of Psychiatry, Dr. Robert Greifinger, the Medical Monitor, and Dr. Raymond Patterson, Mental Health Monitor, who served as Chair of the Working Group. The group had rigorous discussions over the course of 2014 and considered the following matters:
1. The unsuitability of continuing to use the Templeman V facilities for the treatment and management of inmates who are mentally ill or suicidal
2. Concerns over long term housing of inmates in need of mental health services at the Elayn Hunt Correctional Facility (Hunt), specifically the concerns centered around: o The distance to Orleans Parish o Logistical problems of inmate transport o Inmates’ limited access to counsel o Living conditions at the facility o Overall annual per-diem cost of housing o Health Care and security staffing requirements
3. Discussion over the need for better diversion programs at the Court(s) to reduce the number of inmates with municipal charges and mental health needs that are awaiting adjudication at the jail
4. Review of the overall projected bed needs for inmates and those inmates with mental health needs in the Orleans Parish Jail
2|Page

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1106 Filed 01/04/17 Page 3 of 16
5. Use of the Temporary Detention Facility (TDC), located directly adjacent to OJC, for housing of the female population with mental health needs
6. Review of two capital program options to provide on-site facilities for mental health and medical services: o The Phase III expansion plan as proposed by OPSO o The renovation of the Fourth Floor of the Phase II facility as proposed by the City
In September 2014, the MHWG issued its third report which considered all of these issues and made the following recommendations:
1. Use of Hunt Correctional to house inmates with mental health needs would be a suitable short-term solution for up to three years (as ordered by the Court) but not a long term or permanent solution.
2. Use TDC for the provision of acute and sub-acute mental health services to female inmates and convert more space at TDC for the provision of step down facilities for male inmates who are returning from Hunt after being stabilized
3. Complete the Phase III facility as proposed by OPSO, given that limited progress had been made to develop other viable alternatives to provide adequate services at OPSO
The MHWG also assumed that OJC would have an average daily population (ADP) that would range between 1,400 to 2,100 total inmates for whom it would be responsible for the provision of constitutionally adequate mental health and medical care.
b. Special Care Populations Working Group (SCPWG) (2015)
The Special Care Populations Working Group chaired by Councilmember Susan Guidry, who also chairs the City Council’s Criminal Justice Committee, was created independently of the Court in 2015. The nine other members of the working group included Katie Schwartzmann, attorney for the Plaintiff class; Laura Coon, attorney for the United States Department of Justice; Inemesit O'Boyle, attorney for OPSO, Sharonda Williams, City Attorney; Charles West, Director of the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice Coordination; Jon Wool, Director of the Vera Institute’s New Orleans Office, which oversees New Orleans Pre-Trial Services; Derwyn Bunton, Chief Public Defender for Orleans Parish; Allen Patrick, FAIA architect; and Dr. James Austin of the JFA Institute. Significant contributions were also made by Sarah Schirmer, from the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice Coordination, and Tyler Lee Gibson, Legislative Director of Councilmember Guidry’s Office. While Monitors Susan McCampbell and Dr. Patricia Harydman contributed to the SCPWG, given their status as independent court monitors, they are precluded from making any endorsement of the findings or recommendations of the group.
The mission statement adopted by the SCWPG was as follows:
The mission of the Special Care Populations Working Group is as expeditiously as possible to identify the current and future bed-space requirements of special populations in the care, custody and control of the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office. The SCPWG’s work will be in accordance with federal, state and local laws, and the requirements of the Consent Judgment. The SCPWG will identify short and long-term options and realistic opportunities for the housing of the special populations, including recommendations for alternatives to incarceration, and/or community-based
3|Page

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1106 Filed 01/04/17 Page 4 of 16
care, taking into account the fiscal implications of alternatives, and assuring the use of the least intrusive means necessary.
The SCPWG conducted an analysis of the populations that require special care or separate housing in the Orleans Parish Jail, including those with mental health or medical needs, youthful inmates, female inmates, inmates with disabilities, inmates under protective custody, and inmates under administrative or disciplinary segregation.
In its report issued in November 2015, the SCPWG concluded the following:
1. The number of inmates requiring mental health or medical housing can be reduced if OPSO discontinues housing prisoners of the Louisiana Department of Corrections (DOC) system that are not awaiting trials or hearings in the Orleans Parish system.
2. Expand the Youth Study Center (YSC) so that youthful inmates can be moved out of OJC permanently, which would provide a safer environment for the youth while freeing up capacity in the Jail for adult inmates.
3. Complete the renovations of the fourth floor of the OJC facility as proposed by the City for the following reasons: o The scope of the Phase III expansion plan included space for youthful inmates, which should be housed at an expanded YSC facility. o The scope of the Phase III expansion plan included space for an additional 300700 inmates which is not required if DOC prisoners are transferred out of OPSO and proper jail reduction strategies are put into place. o The scope of the Phase III expansion plan was expected to require a construction timeline of 3 to 4 years, whereas the renovation plan was expected to only require 10 to 11 months to complete. o The scope of the Phase III expansion plan was significantly more costly than the Phase II retrofit plan in both capital costs and long term operational costs.
The SCPWG also assumed that the jail population would reach 1,700 by January 2016, 1,500 by January 2017, and 1,250 by January 2018. These projections were based on trends at the time and policies that can be put into place to reduce the jail population.
c. JFA Institute Review of Jail Population Trends (2016)
The following graph shows the reduction in the jail population since 2014 and the projections in the future population that have been provided by Dr. James Austin from the JFA Institute:
4|Page

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1106 Filed 01/04/17 Page 5 of 16

Since 2014, the ADP of the jail has, in fact, experienced a significant downward trend in its population. This is due in part to the New Orleans Criminal Justice Council and its Jail Population Management Subcommittee who has been working with the various stakeholders across the criminal justice system in Orleans Parish who have been following through on recent commitments to jail population management, such as increases in the number of pre-trial releases, reductions in the time required to dispose of criminal cases.

It was also due in large part to the significant reduction in the number of Department of Corrections (DOC) prisoners who were being held in the Orleans Parish Jail in early 2016 who were in the Re-Entry Program and Community Service Program. This represented approximately 350-400 inmates that were subtracted from the population. The projection also assumes there will be a steady number of DOC prisoners in the future, but it will only be those DOC prisoners awaiting trial on other charges in Orleans Parish that will be housed in OJC.

The Baseline forecast is based on the JFA Institute’s review of historical data, status quo trends and current policy factors that are expected to remain consistent over the next two years. The Projected Total assumes that new initiatives being implemented under the MacArthur Foundation’s Safety and Justice Challenge Grant are successful in further reducing the population of the Jail. Taken together, the forecasted ADP of the Jail is expected to range between 1,300 – 1,500 ADP.

Estimates for the male population provided below are consistent with the Baseline projection above, that is the status quo policies and trends are maintained with no new initiatives:

Year
2016 2017 2018 2019

Total Avg. Daily Male Population
1,349 1,345 1.303 1,294

General Population
1,164 1,160 1,120 1,112

Acute Medical
66 66 64 63

Acute Mental Health
46 46 46 46

Direct Observation/ Suicide Watch
15 15 15 15

Step Down Segregation

20

32

20

32

20

32

20

32

Protective Custody
6 6 6 6

5|Page

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1106 Filed 01/04/17 Page 6 of 16

Estimates for the female population provided below are consistent with the Baseline projection above, that is the status quo policies and trends are maintained with no new initiatives:

Year
2016 2017 2018 2019

Total Avg. Daily Female
Population 124 123 120 118

General Population
94 93 90 89

Acute Medical
16 16 16 15

Acute Mental Health

Direct Observation/ Suicide Watch

Step Down Segregation

Protective Custody

7

1

7

1

7

1

7

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

These baseline projections, provided by the JFA Institute, are serving as the basis for Compliance Director’s decision making on how future facilities should be programmed to house inmates with medical and mental health needs.

It should be noted that recent findings of the Department of Justice point out the fact that community mental health services are lacking in Louisiana. In a letter to Governor John Bell Edwards dated December 21, 2016, the DOJ stated that the State has approximately 4,000 individuals suffering from mental illness who are housed in nursing homes. The DOJ encouraged the Governor to develop community resources to treat this population prior to admission to nursing homes and treat them in their homes. The same lack of community mental health services has similar impact on the inmates either being confined in the OJC or transitioning to the community.

2. Compliance Director Meetings with Stakeholders and Observations

Since his appointment, the Compliance Director has been in numerous meetings and discussions with advocacy groups, community groups, OPSO employees, Correct Care Solutions (CCS), architects, City administration, City Council Members, the Federal Monitors, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and citizens of New Orleans. From the onset, it was apparent each segment had their own vision and solutions, and was able to articulate their reasoning on how to proceed on this issue, which is important to many people in the community, not to mention the inmates themselves who suffer from medical and mental health illnesses. Options derived from these discussions were wide-ranging and included a Phase III Facility with approximately 380 beds, a smaller Phase III Facility with approximately 119 beds, retrofitting the fourth floor of OJC Facility, or not moving forward with any new facilities.

It is important to note that while different groups have divergent views on how to proceed, the Independent Compliance Director’s role is to consider all alternatives and to recommend the best course of action using all the information available. After reviewing the findings asserted from prior Working Groups, evaluating the operational profile of the current jail facilities, and the overall cost of management of the status quo, the following observations are made:

1) The DOC authorized OPSO to house the acute mentally ill male inmate population at Hunt under a 3 year agreement in 2014, and that lease is set to expire in July 2017. The lease with DOC will need to be extended; however, DOC will require that we have a plan

6|Page

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1106 Filed 01/04/17 Page 7 of 16
in place to demonstrate we are moving forward on a long term solution to this critical issue. OJC, in its current configuration, would find it difficult and very labor intensive to house inmates with acute mental illness without major changes to the current OJC facilities. In the long run, to achieve compliance with the Consent Judgment, OPSO must provide housing for mental health and medical services for its inmate population and a permanent arrangement with DOC at Hunt is not feasible. For this reason, the option of not moving forward on any new facilities is not a feasible option to achieve compliance.
2) Initial projections on jail population that were developed in 2014 that assumed an ADP of 1,400 - 2,100 are no longer appropriate. The elimination of the Re-Entry Program and jail reduction strategies proposed by the Criminal Justice Council have been implemented successfully and stakeholders are continuing to uphold their agreement to implement these measures.
3) While there are a number of inmates with mental health issues, the inmates that require special housing needs is a subset of that population. The use of national trends on mental health needs of inmates is a useful benchmark, but based on the Compliance Director’s experience, not only as a jail and prison administrator but as a trained psychologist, not every inmate requiring mental health care will require specialized housing in the Jail.
4) Step down facilities, which are designed to act as a transition between isolated acute and sub-acute mental health housing and the housing of general populations do not have to be included in acute/sub-acute mental health facilities. Instead, space within the current OJC facility can be used to provide a safe place for inmates to return to the general population once they have completed treatment. Medication can be maintained and counseling can be provided to manage their cases without the need for additional bed space to be built to provide this service. In addition, while pods in the OJC facility are designed to hold 60 inmates, additional partitions can be built within pods if needed to accommodate the separation of special populations without the need for constructing new housing facilities.
5) Many discussions were held and several options discussed by the MHWG regarding the physical housing of inmates with mental illness. Several options were explored and discussed at length. The discussion of how to provide sufficient housing for the acute and sub acute mental health and medical services ended up been primarily a choice between two options (Phase II renovation vs. Phase III expansion). Only in the latter part of 2016 has there been consideration for other alternatives, such as a Phase III facility concept with a significantly reduced scope and construction timeline. Consequently, reevaluations of the Phase III options by the Compliance Director began in October 2016. Many of the plans were consistent – the major difference noted was the size of the facility. Gaps noted in the current operations of the jail are the laundry service, food delivery service, and attorney / family visiting area. These areas are crucial as each one has a significant impact on the operation of the jail.
6) While retrofitting the fourth floor of OJC could provide mental health and medical facilities, it would also come at the cost of reducing the capacity of OJC from between 100 to 292 beds, depending on the design concept. At best, the retrofitting model would
7|Page

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1106 Filed 01/04/17 Page 8 of 16
reduce the construction/renovation costs and time; however, the final resulting facilities would be less desirable, both in the functional end result, as well as the significant loss of bed space. As a result, even more inmates would need to be housed out of parish. Furthermore during the construction phase, the renovation would cause a strain on the daily operation inside OJC. While the concept plans appeared to address the issue of acute mental health needs, there was no clear vision for inmates with acute medical issues. Finally, upon further evaluation of the structural and program requirements involved in the renovation of the fourth floor, it appeared that the timeline for construction would take between 12 to 18 months to complete.
7) Continued reliance on out-of-parish facilities is not only a substantial cost for jail operations, but it results in inmates having limited access to legal counsel & family visitation, as well as presenting logistical issues for inmates to making timely appearances in Court. The most recent report of December 7, 2016 indicates OPSO has a total of 434 inmates out of parish. These inmates are spread across five different parishes, and these numbers change daily. Of those inmates housed out of parish, the majority (378) are housed at East Carroll Parish, which is approximately five and a half hours from Orleans Parish. This issue is a heavy burden on the taxpayers of the city, the budget, the Criminal Justice System, the inmate population and their families, and the operation of OPSO and CCS. Over the past two years, over $4.5 million has been spent on out of parish per diem costs. Until we reach a solution, the costs will continue to rise. It would be preferable to house all inmates under the jurisdiction of OPSO in facilities located in Orleans Parish.
3. Compliance Director Recommendations
The extension of time from the Court requested and granted on December 2, 2016 was needed to evaluate the alternatives and to determine what was best for the OPSO, the inmates and families concerned, and citizens of New Orleans. It is imperative to act quickly and responsibly.
a. Mental Health Housing Recommendation:
The recommendation of the Compliance Director is to address the acute and sub-acute mental health needs of the Jail by constructing housing in a Phase III Facility with a significantly reduced scope from what was originally proposed in 2014, by Sheriff Gusman and his team. That proposal suggested that 388 beds were needed in the Phase III facility to accommodate mental health and medical beds, as well as youthful and female inmates. The proposed facility by the Compliance Director would house male and female acute/sub-acute populations separately, and not include space for youthful inmates, which should be housed in a proposed YSC expansion which will have an additional 28 beds for youth. It would also not include general population beds for female offenders or bed space for step-down from acute or sub-acute mental health housing. Given OJC’s current population and the population projections anticipated in the coming years as addressed in the section above, the Phase III Facility would require 77 beds to house the male population with acute and sub-acute mental health needs, and 12 beds to house the female population with acute and sub-acute mental health needs. An additional bed for female inmates with acute and sub-acute mental health needs was added above the population
8|Page

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1106 Filed 01/04/17 Page 9 of 16

projection to align with concerns from medical and mental health staff on the needed capacity. This would result in a total design plan to add 89 beds to the OJC facilities for acute and subacute needs. This plan would accommodate sufficient space for all inmates with acute and subacute mental health needs in the jail based on the population projections provided by JFA Institute and an additional peaking factor of 25%. The chart below outlines the mental health population assumptions by gender:

Category
Male Acute Mental Health Male Sub-Acute Mental Health (Direct Observation) Total Male Mental Health Beds Needed Female Acute Mental Health Female Sub-Acute Mental Health (Direct Observation) Total Female Mental Health Beds Needed Total Male and Female Mental Health Beds Needed

Population Projection
46 15 61
7 2 9
70

Peaking Factor (25%)
12 4 16
2 1 3
19

Total Bed Space Need
58 19 77
9 3 12
89

Step-down units are defined as those beds available to inmates that are in treatment in either acute or sub-acute mental health status that are transitioning to a living situation a step closer to the general population. They still remain in a treatment category, may be on medication, and are may be involved in individual or group treatment. Those beds that were originally planned for the Phase III facility for step-down should instead be designated from within the current operational footprint of the Phase II facilities as needed, rather than constructing new facilities. Space for individual and group mental health counseling and treatment will also be part of the design of the Phase III facility for both male and female inmates. A conceptual design of the male mental health facilities, developed by Grace Hebert Architects, is based on facilities currently used by inmates housed at Hunt and has been included as an appendix. This design is a concept only and is subject to refinement as more information is made available in the formal design development process.

b. Medical Services Recommendation:

The recommendation of the Compliance Director to address the medical services needs of the Jail would be to construct an infirmary, clinic, and administrative medical/mental health space directly adjacent to the proposed mental health housing units described above as part of the Phase III plan. The infirmary would have approximately 10,000 sq. ft. of space with capacity to care for between 10-16 patients at once, with a mix of single occupancy and double occupancy units, and the inclusion of 2 negative pressure rooms. The clinic would have approximately 16,000 sq. ft. of space and would have 4-6 exam rooms, and space for dental services, phlebotomy, and storage. The administrative medical/mental health space would have approximately 13,000 sq. ft. of area with secure storage for medications, offices for medical staff, and sufficient storage for all inmate medical records. Consolidating the mental health inmate population with the providers – coupled with the infirmary and medical clinic – into one area would prove effective for better service delivery and supervision. The conceptual design for these facilities (developed by Grace Hebert Architects and included as an appendix) are subject to refinement as more information is made available in the formal design development process.

9|Page

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1106 Filed 01/04/17 Page 10 of 16
c. Additional Facilities in Phase III Plan:
Currently, the OPSO uses the House of Detention (HOD) laundry area. This building is to be demolished and FEMA funds are available to achieve this, although the schedule for demolition has not been defined. It is also located outside of the secure perimeter of the OJC. It is expected that the square footage necessary for the laundry would be approximately 9,000 sq. ft., and require 8-10 commercial washers, and 8-10 commercial dryers. Some of the equipment in the current laundry may be reused, or repurposed for the new facility if feasible.
As it relates to the attorney visits, the OJC facility currently has only three face-to-face visiting rooms and two contact rooms. The face-to-face rooms serve a need, but they are located near the release area and require constant supervision. The OPSO also offers video conferencing visits; however, few attorneys use this option. At times, the line can be long even when visits are scheduled in advance. Even though there is a trend nationally to encourage video visitation, for both family and attorney visits, there are still strong preferences for personal visits, and consideration needs to be given to both. Given the need for additional attorney / client rooms, the Phase III addition should also include approximately 12,000 sq. ft. to accommodate additional family and attorney visitation space. The concept design would provide for at least 7 additional face-to-face attorney-visiting rooms, a waiting area, a contact family visitation area and an outdoor visitation area.
Food service delivery is another concern to both the leadership of the Jail and federal monitors. Currently, the food is non-refrigerated when it is delivered to the buildings. Vehicles used to transport the food are in poor condition. Therefore, the Phase III facility design should also include a connecting bridge to OJC and the Kitchen/Warehouse which will facilitate food delivery and connect the overall complex.
Designs provided in the appendix are a concept only and are subject to refinement as more information is made available in the formal design development process. The procurement of design and construction services to complete all recommended Phase III facilities modifications and additions will be managed by the City of New Orleans.
d. Renovation of Temporary Detention Center (TDC):
The current capacity of OJC is 1,438 beds; however, in the past 15% of the jail capacity was set aside for classification and peaking factor purposes. Based on national norms and best practices, jail facilities can be properly managed that use up to 90% of its capacity, while leaving 10% available for classification and peaking factors. The resulting operational capacity of the jail is 144 fewer beds, or 1,294. While future jail population projections (based on JFA Institute & SCPWG data) indicate that capacity would be sufficient, given the special populations described above there would be a short term need to accommodate the anticipated population in facilities out of parish. As mentioned previously, the cost of out of parish housing has been substantial and a plan of action to mitigate that cost should begin with overall jail population reduction strategies. However, it may be required to hold additional inmates above the current effective capacity of 1,294 in the mid-term while these strategies are being adopted.
10 | P a g e

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1106 Filed 01/04/17 Page 11 of 16
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Compliance Director that the option of using TDC to house the overflow general population capacity be explored, so that out of parish inmates could be returned to Orleans Parish. At the request of the Compliance Director, City engineers this past month have evaluated the current condition of TDC and concur that it can be renovated to achieve this purpose. Reopening four units, and a limited number of beds in TDC (to increase temporary capacity by approximately 200) in the short term would alleviate the per diem costs on the City and greatly improve the inmates’ access to counsel and family visitation. Inmates held in TDC would be those that are classified as low-medium risk. The four housing units at TDC each have 60 bunks in an open dorm setting, as well as four cells in each 60-man unit. These individual cells could be used for intake/classification housing as new inmates are received into the unit. Obviously, the recruiting and training of deputies to staff the TDC is something that will be taken into account. As the population continues to decrease over time, use of the TDC facilities will be incrementally discontinued, one building at a time, until the TDC facility is closed. Based on the preliminary assessment of the City’s engineers, it will not be difficult to bring the TDC on line, and it is expected it will be ready to occupy in 90 days. The expense of renovation to bring the TDC facilities back online is expected to be minimal, and the City will fund the costs.
e. Housing of Youthful Inmates
As was stated in the Compliance Action Plan submitted to the Court on December 2, 2016, youthful inmate populations should no longer be housed at OJC. Instead, the Youth Study Center should be expanded to add 28 additional beds to accommodate all youthful inmates in the Orleans Parish criminal justice system as recommended by the SCPWG and approved by the City. Construction is expected to begin in the second or third quarter of 2017 and will take approximately 10 months to complete, with the expansion opening in 2018. A conceptual design has been included in an appendix to this document. It has been requested by the City that the Compliance Director work with the design committee for the addition to the Youth Study Center to ensure that the security level is sufficient to hold the highest security classification of youth. Of course, it is possible that exceptional cases will arise where the YSC cannot handle the disruptive or violent behavior of a youthful offender. In those unusual cases, the OJC is obligated to provide safe housing for those youth.
Currently there are between 10-20 youthful inmates that are being housed at OJC awaiting adjudication in the adult court system. These youth are placed into a single pod with capacity for 60 inmates, resulting in a loss of capacity of between 40-50 beds. While the long term plan for youthful inmates will be to move them all to YSC, in the interim, OPSO will coordinate with other jurisdictions in the immediate region to determine if these youth can be moved to juvenile facilities instead of having them remain at OJC. If sufficient space for the youthful inmates can be identified in out-of-parish juvenile facilities in the Greater New Orleans Area, it would also free up the capacity that is being lost due to classification standards being applied to house the youth at OJC, and allow for approximately 50 more inmates who are being housed out of parish to be returned to Orleans Parish.
During the interim between the current housing of the youthful offender in OJC, and the eventual movement to the increased capacity YSC in 2018, OPSO is still obligated to continue providing
11 | P a g e

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1106 Filed 01/04/17 Page 12 of 16
responsible housing for the youthful offenders. Either housing will be provided in the current OJC, or youth will be moved to other parishes that accommodate juveniles under constitutional conditions. Conversations have been initiated with other parishes that have juvenile beds and are accustomed to housing out of parish juveniles. Contracts will be developed with one or more parish options and executed when needed. It is expected that those contingent contracts will be developed by February 1, 2017. Whether the youth are moved to other parishes, or kept in the OJC, it is imperative to keep close contact with them. For this reason, it is imperative that an expert in youth housing, security and programs be retained, as well as the continued contact with the youth relative to court dates and other needs to return to Orleans Parish.
f. Condition of the Docks
There has been extensive work done by the Docks Committee chaired by Sheriff Margo Frasier, a Compliance Monitor of the federal court. This group, which has relied upon the expertise of architects, judges, legal counsel and Jail leadership, has been studying the solution to the safe and efficient transporting of inmates to the Courts, and has developed a working document that will be made available to the contractor. It is hoped that this early work will not only speed up the design process, but will provide them with historical and current information from jail experts, which will enhance their recommendations.
As was stated in the Compliance Action Plan submitted to the Court on December 2, 2016, it is recommended to move forward with the development and design of a renovated Docks facility that is safe, secure, efficient, and above all, constitutional. The City has completed its award for design and construction documents are expected to be delivered in the second quarter of 2017. The budget for this project is estimated to be $3.325 million. As the primary users of the Docks, OPSO through the Sheriff and Compliance Director as well as the Judges of the Criminal District Court will coordinate with the City so they are involved in the final design of the renovation of the Docks, and will continuously work with the team through its bid and construction. Vincent Smith, Director of Capital Projects, has indicated that he would keep OPSO advised of meetings and progress. The staffing consultant, Rod Miller, is developing the staffing plan for the Docks operations. The Docks renovation is expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2018.
12 | P a g e

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1106 Filed 01/04/17 Page 13 of 16

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1106 Filed 01/04/17 Page 14 of 16 C. Appendix 1. Concept for Phase III - Mental Health Housing
First Floor

Second Floor

14 | P a g e

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1106 Filed 01/04/17 Page 15 of 16 2. Concept for Phase III - Medical Services
Second Floor 3. Concept for Phase III – Laundry and Attorney/Family Visitation

First Floor

15 | P a g e

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 1106 Filed 01/04/17 Page 16 of 16 4. Concept for Youth Study Center Expansion
16 | P a g e

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 824 Filed 04/22/15 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

)

LASHAWN JONES, et al.,

)

Plaintiffs, and

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

Plaintiffs in intervention

)

)

v.

)

)

MARLIN GUSMAN, et al.,

)

Defendants.

)

_________________________________________ )

)

MARLIN GUSMAN,

)

Third-Party Plaintiff

)

)

v.

)

)

THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS,

)

Third-Party Defendant.

)

)

Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-00859 Section I, Division 5 Judge Lance M. Africk Magistrate Judge North

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Parties’ “Joint Motion for Entry of

Stipulated Order” (ECF No. 818), filed April 20, 2015. The Consent Judgment (ECF No. 465)

governing reforms of the Orleans Parish Prison system was entered as an Order of this Court on

June 6, 2013 (ECF No. 465). In the interest of moving Defendants toward compliance with the

Consent Judgment’s provisions regarding suicide risk reduction, it is hereby,

ORDERED that the Parties’ “Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated Order” is

GRANTED, and it is further

ORDERED that, in granting the Parties’ Joint Motion, the Court finds, as agreed by the

parties, that:

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 824 Filed 04/22/15 Page 2 of 3
1. Defendants have not yet reached compliance with the Consent Judgment’s provisions regarding suicide risk reduction, enumerated in Sections IV.B.4-5;
2. As a result, specific remedial relief is necessary, as set forth below; and 3. The additional relief set forth below complies in all respects with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). The relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct violations of federal rights agreed by the Parties with the entry of the Consent Judgment, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct these violations, and will not have an adverse impact on public safety or the operation of the criminal justice system. As stipulated by the parties, it is further, ORDERED that the additional relief will consist of the following: 1. By no later than April 24, 2015, the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office (“OPSO”) shall draft a memorandum to all staff members,1 including supervisors, outlining the specific actions staff will take to respond if they observe a prisoner exhibiting signs or symptoms of a) suicidality or b) alcohol or drug intoxication or withdrawal. This memorandum will be drafted by OPSO staff in collaboration with staff from Correct Care Solutions (“CCS”). This memorandum will be provided for review in draft form to the Lead Monitor and sub-monitors for Medical Care and Mental Health Care (“the Monitors”). Within three days of receiving any edits or revisions from the Monitors, OPSO shall incorporate those edits and/or revisions and issue the memorandum to all staff members, including supervisors. The memorandum shall be read at daily staff briefings for three consecutive days and posted in locations where staff are likely to view it.
1 “Staff members” is defined in the Consent Judgment as “all employees, including correctional officers, who have contact with prisoners.” See Consent Judgment, ECF No. 466, at 8.
2

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-MBN Document 824 Filed 04/22/15 Page 3 of 3
2. By no later than April 30, 2015, OPSO shall conduct a one-hour training for all clinical and custody staff (including supervisors) who have not been trained in the past 12 months regarding the signs or symptoms of a) suicidality or b) alcohol or drug intoxication or withdrawal, and the specific actions staff will take to respond if a prisoner exhibits such symptoms. This training shall be developed and delivered in collaboration with staff from CCS and incorporate the specific language of the Consent Judgment.This interim training does not supplant any pre-service or annual training required by the Consent Judgment, which will be provided at a later date.
3. By no later than April 30, 2015, OPSO shall submit all custodial and site-specific medical polic(ies) regarding a) suicide risk reduction and b) alcohol or drug intoxication and withdrawal required pursuant to Section IV.B.5 of the Consent Judgment. The policies shall integrate and cross-reference all relevant CCS policies governing housing and custody decisions for individuals expressing suicidality or alcohol or drug withdrawal. All OPSO policies and any updated CCS policies shall be submitted to the Monitor and Plaintiffs for review pursuant to Section VII.A of the Consent Judgment.
SO ORDERED. New Orleans, Louisiana, April 22, 2015.
_______________________________ LANCE M. AFRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3

 
 TRIBUNAL DEL DISTRITO DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS DISTRITO ESTE DE LOUISIANA

_________________________________________

LASHAWN JONES, et al., y

)

LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS DE AMERICA,

)

)

DEMANDANTES,

)

)

v.

)

)

MARLIN GUSMAN, Alguacil

)

)

)

DEMANDADO.

)

_________________________________________ )

Acción Civil No. 2:12-cv-00859 Sección I Juez Lance M. Africk Juez Magistrado Chasez

FALLO POR CONSENTIMIENTO

i

INDICE
I. PARTES .................................................................................................................................. 1 II. INTRODUCCIÓN ............................................................................................................... 1 III. DEFINICIONES .................................................................................................................. 2 IV. DISPOSICIONES SUSTANTIVAS.................................................................................... 5
A. PROTECCIÓN CONTRA EL PERJUICIO .................................................................... 5 1. Políticas y Procedimientos del Uso de Fuerza ................................................................. 6 2. Capacitación sobre el Uso de Fuerza. .............................................................................. 6 3. Informando sobre el Uso de Fuerza. ................................................................................ 7 4. Sistema de Intervención Temprana ("EIS") ................................................................... 11 5. Seguridad y Supervisión................................................................................................. 12 6. Personal de Seguridad .................................................................................................... 14 7. Incidentes y Remisiones................................................................................................. 15 8. Investigaciones ............................................................................................................... 17 9. Colocación en Antelación al Juicio en Entornos Alternativos ....................................... 18 10. Colocación de Custodia dentro de OPP...................................................................... 18 11. Procedimiento de Agravio del Prisionero................................................................... 19 12. Abuso Sexual .............................................................................................................. 20 13. Acceso a la Información ............................................................................................. 20
B. SALUD MENTAL ......................................................................................................... 21 1. Detección y Asesoramiento............................................................................................ 21 2. Tratamiento .................................................................................................................... 22 3. Consejería....................................................................................................................... 23 4. Programa de Capacitación para la Prevención del Suicidio........................................... 24
ii

5. Precauciones para evitar el suicidio ............................................................................... 25 6. Uso de instrumentos de inmovilización ......................................................................... 26 7. Desintoxicación y capacitación ...................................................................................... 27 8. Personal Médico y en Salud Mental............................................................................... 28 9. Manejo de Riesgos ......................................................................................................... 29 C. ATENCIÓN MÉDICA................................................................................................... 31 1. Manejo de calidad de administración de medicamentos ................................................ 32 2. Prestación de atención de salud...................................................................................... 32 3. Liberación y transferencia .............................................................................................. 33 D. SANIDAD Y CONDICIONES AMBIENTALES......................................................... 33 1. Sanidad y condiciones ambientales................................................................................ 33 2. Control ambiental ........................................................................................................... 34 3. Servicio de alimentos ..................................................................................................... 35 4. Informes sobre sanidad y condiciones ambientales ....................................................... 35 E. PROTECCIÓN CONTRA INCENDIOS Y PROTECCIÓN DE LA VIDA..................... 36 1. Incendios y Seguridad .................................................................................................... 36 2. Informes sobre protección contra incendios y protección de la vida ............................. 36 F. AYUDA CON EL IDIOMA .............................................................................................. 37 1. Acceso oportuno y significativo a los servicios ............................................................. 37 2. Políticas y procedimientos sobre la asistencia con el idioma......................................... 38 3. Capacitación sobre conocimientos limitados del inglés................................................. 39 4. Personal bilingüe ............................................................................................................ 40 G. PRISIONEROS JÓVENES............................................................................................ 40 V. FONDOS............................................................................................................................ 40 VI. LA NUEVA CÁRCEL ...................................................................................................... 41
iii

VII. CUMPLIMIENTO Y MEJORAMIENTO DE CALIDAD ............................................... 41 VIII. REQUISITOS DE NOTIFICACIÓN Y DERECHO A ACCESO ................................ 42 IX. MONITOREO.................................................................................................................... 43 X. CUMPLIMIENTO ............................................................................................................. 46 XI. INTERPRETACIÓN, IMPLEMENTACIÓN Y RESCISIÓN ......................................... 46 XII. ESTIPULACIÓN CONFORME A LA LEY DE REFORMAS A LITIGIOS DE
PRISIONES, 18 U.S.C. § 3626.......................................................................................... 47
iv

I. PARTES
Este Fallo por Consentimiento ("Acuerdo") es consignado en y entre el grupo Demandante; los Estados Unidos de América, actuando por medio del Departamento de Justicia de los Estados Unidos; y el Alguacil de la Parroquia de Orleans (en su cargo oficial).
II. INTRODUCCIÓN
1. El propósito de este Acuerdo es abordar las violaciones constitucionales alegadas en este caso, así como las violaciones alegadas en la comunicación de conclusiones adversas emitida por los Estados Unidos el 11 de septiembre de 2009. La Prisión de Orleans Parish ("OPP") es una parte integral del sistema de seguridad pública en Nueva Orleans. Por medio de las disposiciones de este Acuerdo, las Partes buscan garantizar que las condiciones en OPP protejan los derechos constitucionales de los prisioneros que están recluidos ahí. Al garantizar que las condiciones en OPP son constitucionales, el Sheriff también va a velar por la seguridad del personal y promover la seguridad pública en la comunidad.
2. Los Demandantes en la demanda colectiva (Jones y JJ Plaintiffs) y los Estados Unidos. Las Partes llegan a un acuerdo de liquidación colectiva integrada de todas las personas que actualmente están o serán recluidos en OPP.
3. El demandado es el Alguacil de la municipalidad de Orleans (en su cargo oficial) y cada uno de sus sucesores en el puesto (el "Demandado"). El Demandado va a garantizar que la Oficina del Alguacil de la municipalidad de Orleans ("OPSO") vaya a tomar todas las acciones necesarias para cumplir con las disposiciones de este Acuerdo.
4. Como se indica en la Sección XII de este Acuerdo, las Partes consienten con la decisión de que este Acuerdo cumple con las disposiciones de la Ley de Reforma de Litigios Penitenciarios, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a) en todos los respectos.
5. OPP es un centro penitenciario para toda la municipalidad de Nueva Orleans, Louisiana. OPSO es responsable de ofrecer cuidado, custodia y control de los prisioneros. Las Partes reconocen que las condiciones en OPP y el trato de los prisioneros recluidos ahí tiene un impacto en los prisioneros van a tener éxito al reintegrarse al ser puestos en libertad, si los prisioneros puestos en libertad van a volver a delinquir, y en la confianza del público en el sistema de justicia penal.
6. OPSO ha tomado medidas para abordar las inquietudes en OPP. OPSO tiene aplicadas ciertas políticas, prácticas y procedimientos y tiene planeado adoptar ciertas otras políticas, prácticas y procedimientos. Este Fallo por Consentimiento se basa en esas políticas, prácticas y procedimientos, y contempla que la disputa entre las Partes va a resolverse por medio de un continuo desarrollo e implementación de estas medidas.
- 1 -

III. DEFINICIONES
1. "OPSO" se refiere a la Oficina del Sheriff de Orleans Parish, que es responsable por todas las correcciones y funciones de seguridad de la instalación.
2. "OPP" o "Instalación" o "Prisión" se refiere a la Prisión de la municipalidad de Orleans, y esta incluye el Centro de Detención Temporal ("TDC" por sus siglas en inglés), Templeman V, Conchetta, las tiendas de lona sin ventanillas proporcionadas por FEMA, la Cárcel original de la Prisión de Orleans Parish, y la instalación de libertad condicional para trabajar de Broad Street, así como cualquier instalación que se haya construido, arrendado, o de otra manera, se utilice para reemplazar o suplementar la OPP actual o cualquier parte de OPP.
3. "DOJ" se refiere al Departamento de Justicia de los Estados Unidos, que representa a los Estados Unidos en este asunto.
4. "SLPC" se refiere al Southern Poverty Law Center que representa al grupo Demandante en este caso. Si el SPLC dejara de representar al grupo Demandante , "los abogados del grupo Demandante" van a ser sustituido por "SPLC".
5. Los "Factores de Asesoramiento" se refiere a la evaluación o estimación de los niveles de riesgo de suicidio o conductas de auto-lesión que requieran intervención.
6. "Personal Bilingüe" se refiere a un miembro del personal que ha demostrado y verificado dominio, en cumplimiento con los criterios objetivos generalmente aceptados, tanto en el inglés hablado y por lo menos otro idioma según lo autorice la OPP. El personal bilingüe debe ser asesorado periódicamente y servir como empleados bilingües en representación del OPP.
7. Coherente con, o de acuerdo con, el término "normas correccionales generalmente aceptadas" significa que estas normas de la industria son aceptadas por los profesionales del sistema correccional u organizaciones en el área del tema relevante como se acuerda por las Partes (por ejemplo; el NCCHC o ACA).
8. Los "Días" se miden por días de calendario, los fines de semana están incluidos.
9. "Describir" significa proporcionar una descripción clara y detallada de cualquier hecho, visto o escuchado.
10. "Fiscal del Distrito" o "Oficina del Fiscal" se refiere a la Oficina del Fiscal del Distrito de Orleans Parish.
11. "Documentar" cuando se utiliza como verbo en este Acuerdo significa completar un informe, ya sea en copia impresa o en formato electrónico.
- 2 -

12. "Fecha de Entrada en Vigor" significa la fecha en que el Tribunal entra un fallo definitivo de la cantidad de fondos necesarios para garantizar el cumplimiento con el Acuerdo firmado que ha sido registrado como orden del tribunal por el Tribunal.
13. "EIS" significa Sistema de Intervención Temprana, que es un sistema para recopilar y analizar datos sobre los usos de fuerza y se usa para identificar la necesidad de acción correctiva, incluyendo cambios a los protocolos de entrenamiento y la política o perfeccionamiento o sancionar a oficiales individuales o grupos de oficiales.
14. "Necesidades de mantenimiento de emergencia" se refiere a los elementos que afectan la seguridad del edificio o que puedan causar peligro inminente a la vida, la seguridad, o la salud de los prisioneros.
15. "Buena causa" significa razones imparciales y honestas, reglamentadas por la buena fe de ambas partes, que no son arbitrarias, caprichosas, triviales o con pretextos.
16. "IAD" se refiere a la División de Asuntos Internos.
17. "Incluye", “incluyen” o “incluso” significa “incluye pero no se limita a” o “incluso pero no se limita a”.
18. "Equipo Interdisciplinario" se refiere al equipo que consiste del personal de tratamientos de varias disciplinas que incluyen médicos, enfermeros, y salud mental y uno o varios miembros de seguridad.
19. "Dominio Limitado del Inglés" o "LEP" se refiere a una persona que no habla inglés como su idioma principal y tiene capacidad limitada para leer, escribir, hablar o comprender inglés. Individuos con LEP pueden ser competentes en ciertos tipos de comunicación (por ejemplo, hablando o comprendiendo) pero sigue LEP para otros propósitos (por ejemplo, lectura o la escritura).
20. "Vigilar" significa una persona y su equipo de profesionales, todos aquellos que han sido seleccionados por las Partes para vigilar la implementación del Acuerdo.
21. "NOPRS" se refiere a los Servicios de Libertad Provisional de la Ciudad de Nueva Orleans.
22. "Prisioneros" o "Prisionero" se interpreta en su sentido más amplio para referirse a uno o más personas detenidas en, o de lo contrario alojado, detenido, en la custodia de, o recluido en OPP basado en detenciones, documento jurídico, cargos criminales, cargos de desacato civil, o condenas.
23. "Medicamento psicotrópico" significa cualquier medicamento utilizado para afectar la actividad mental, percepción, conducta, o estado de ánimo.
- 3 -

24. "Profesional de Cuidado Médico Capacitado" significa una persona que ha recibido orientación y supervisión para identificar e interactuar con personas que necesitan servicios de cuidado médico.
25. "Profesional Medico Capacitado" significa un médico licenciado, un asistente de médico licenciado o un enfermero especializado licenciado, que actualmente tiene licencia en el Estado de Louisiana para brindar los servicios de cuidado médico que él o ella se ha comprometido a proporcionar
26. "Personal Médico Capacitado" se refiere a Profesionales Médicos Capacitados y Personal de Enfermería Capacitado.
27. "Profesional de Salud Mental Capacitado" se refiere a una persona con una educación mínima al nivel de la Maestría y orientación en psiquiatría, psicología, consejería, trabajo social, o enfermería psiquiátrica que actualmente está licenciado por el Estado de Louisiana para ofrecer los servicios de salud mental que él o ella se ha comprometido a proporcionar.
28. "Profesional Médico Capacitado" significa un médico licenciado, un asistente médico licenciado o un enfermero especializado licenciado, que actualmente tiene licencia en el Estado de Louisiana para brindar los servicios de cuidado médico que él o ella se ha comprometido a proporcionar.
29. "Incidentes Reportables" se refiere a cualquier incidente que incluya violaciones de reglas de Escala 1 o 2, la muerte o graves heridas, intentos suicidas graves, amenaza sexual, una expulsión de la celda, uso de fuerza o de sujeción, una emergencia médica, escapes e intentos de escape, e incendios.
30. "Herida Grave" significa cualquier herida que requiera hospitalización y/o seguimiento de cuidado médico.
31. "Intento Suicida Grave" significa un intento de suicidio que se considere potencialmente mortal o que requiere hospitalización. Aun cuando se alcance en las primeras etapas del intento, si la herida que resulta del intento llegara a ser mortal, el intento suicida es "grave" y es reportable según lo dispuesto en este Acuerdo.
32. "Unidades de Administración Especial" se refiere a esas unidades de viviendas en la Instalación para los prisioneros bajo segregación disciplinaria o administrativa, en custodia protectora , bajo precaución suicida, con enfermedades mentales, o que son adolescentes menores de 17 años.
33. "Miembros del Personal" incluye a todos los empleados, incluyendo oficiales correccionales, que tienen contacto con los prisioneros.
34. "Intento Suicida" significa cualquier esfuerzo grave para cometer un acto de autolesión que puede resultar en la muerte y es un riesgo definitivo.
- 4 -

35. "Precauciones Suicidas" significa cualquier nivel de supervisión, observación o medidas para prevenir el suicidio o autolesión.
36. "Entrenar" significa instruir en capacidades a tal nivel que el practicante demustre dominio por medio de exámenes para implementar esas habilidades cuando sean necesarias. "Entrenado" significa dominio en esas habilidades.
37. "Umbral" o "Umbral de Intervención" significa que se requiere un cierto nivel de intervención debido a un evento grave o una serie de eventos graves. Esta definición se explica más detalladamente en Apéndice A.
38. "Desencadenantes" o "Evento Desencadenante" significa un evento o eventos, como un suicidio o un intento grave de suicidio que cause que la Instalación se asesore a sí misma. Esta definición se explica más detalladamente en Apéndice A.
39. El "uso de fuerza" significa la aplicación de medidas físicas o mecánicas para imponer el cumplimiento. El "uso de fuerza" incluye toda fuerza para imponer el cumplimiento con la excepción de quejas por molestias menores al esposar a una persona que no está resistiendo o el encadenamiento pasivo de prisioneros con el propósito de trasladarlos.
40. "Documentos Importantes" significa material impreso o electrónico que contiene información que es crítica para el acceso a los programas, servicios, o actividades de OPP, o son requeridos por ley. Los documentos importantes pueden incluir formularios de agravio, notificación a los prisioneros (tales como quebrantamiento de las reglas, traslados, y respuestas a los agravios), manuales para los prisioneros, formularios de faltas por enfermedad, y formularios pidiendo servicio.
41. "Adolescentes" y "prisioneros adolescentes" se refiere a cualquier persona menor de 18 años que está bajo custodia en OPSO, o que está alojado en OPP como "traslado", un adolescente que está siendo juzgado como adulto.
42. A través de este Acuerdo, las siguientes cláusulas se van a utilizar cuando se mencione el cumplimiento: cumplimiento sustancial, cumplimiento parcial, e incumplimiento. "Cumplimiento Sustancial" indica que el Demandado ha cumplido con la mayoría o todos los elementos de la disposición relevante del Acuerdo. "Cumplimiento Parcial" indica que el Demandado ha cumplido con algunos de los elementos de la disposición relevante del Acuerdo, pero aún le faltan bastantes elementos. "Incumplimiento" indica que el Demandado no ha cumplido con la mayoría o todos los elementos del Acuerdo.
IV. DISPOSICIONES SUSTANTIVAS
A. PROTECCION CONTRA EL PERJUICIO
De acuerdo con las normas constitucionales, el Demandado va a proporcionar a los prisioneros un entorno seguro y protegido que les asegure una protección razonable contra el perjuicio. OPSO va a tomar todas las medidas razonables para garantizar que durante el curso de
- 5 -

su encarcelamiento los prisioneros no sean sujetos a fuerza excesiva o innecesaria por el personal de OPSO y estén protegidos contra la violencia por otros prisioneros.
1. Políticas y Procedimientos del Uso de Fuerza
a. OPSO va a desarrollar, implementar y mantener extensas políticas y procedimientos (de conformidad con las normas penitenciarias que son aceptadas en general) relacionadas al uso de fuerza con énfasis particular en el uso de fuerza admisible e inadmisible.
b. OPSO va a desarrollar e implementar un sistema de informe único y uniforme conforme a una política de Informar el Uso de Fuerza. La información de fuerza de OPSO será dividida en dos escalas, como se detalla a continuación: La escala de fuerza 1 va a incluir todos los usos de fuerza graves (por ejemplo, el uso de fuerza que resulta en lesiones que son extensas, graves o visibles, incluyendo los ojos morados, desgarres, heridas en la boca o la cabeza, múltiples moretones, lesiones a los genitales, etc.), heridas que requieran hospitalización, la conducta dolosa del personal, y ocasiones cuando los informes de uso de fuerza son incongruentes, contradictorios o de otra manera sospechosos. La escala de fuerza 2 va a incluir todas las llaves de escolta y de control para vencer la resistencia que no están detallados en la definición de la Escala de fuerza 1.
c. Cada año, OPSO va a analizar todos los datos recopilados de los usos de fuerza, y va a hacer los cambios necesarios a las políticas o procedimientos del uso de fuerza para garantizar que el uso de fuerza innecesaria o excesiva no se utiliza en OPP. Las revisiones y recomendaciones serán documentadas y entregadas al Monitor, a DOJ, y a SPLC.
2. Capacitación sobre el Uso de Fuerza.
a. OPSO va a garantizar que todos los oficiales correccionales estén capacitados y tengan el conocimiento, destrezas, y aptitudes para cumplir con las políticas y procedimientos del uso de fuerza. A lo mínimo, OPSO va a proporcionar capacitación de pre-servicio a los oficiales correccionales y cada año, capacitación en servicio en el uso de fuerza, tácticas defensivas, y las políticas y procedimientos del uso de fuerza. La capacitación va a incluir lo siguiente:
(1) Orientación sobre qué constituye fuerza excesiva.
(2) Tácticas de reducción de hostilidades, y
(3) El manejo de los prisioneros con trastornos mentales para limitar la necesidad de usar la fuerza.
b. OPSO va a garantizar que los oficiales estén conscientes de cualquier cambio a las políticas y prácticas mientras estén empleados por OPP. A lo mínimo, OPSO
- 6 -

va a proporcionar capacitación de pre-servicio y de servicio anualmente sobre el uso de fuerza que prohíbe:
(1) el uso de fuerza como respuesta a insultos verbales o amenazas de los prisioneros donde no existe amenaza inmediata a la seguridad y protección de la institución, los prisioneros, el personal o los visitantes;
(2) el uso de fuerza como respuesta cuando los prisioneros se rehúsan a seguir instrucciones donde no existe amenaza inmediata a la seguridad y protección de la institución, los prisioneros, el personal o los visitantes;
(3) el uso de fuerza contra un prisionero después que el prisionero haya dejado de resistir y esté bajo control.
(4) el uso de fuerza como castigo o represalia; y
(5) el uso de fuerza que consiste de patear, golpear, pegar o apuñetear a un prisionero que no está combativo.
c. OPSP va a someter a prueba al azar a un cinco por ciento del personal de oficiales correccionales para determinar su conocimiento sobre las políticas y procedimientos del uso de fuerza. El instrumento del examen y las políticas serán aprobadas por el Monitor. Los resultados de estos exámenes van a ser evaluados para determinar si se necesita cambiar las prácticas de capacitación. El análisis y las conclusiones serán documentadas y entregadas al Monitor.
3. Informando sobre el Uso de Fuerza.
a. El incumplimiento en informar un incidente de uso de fuerza por cualquier miembro del personal que está desempeñando el uso de fuerza o presenciando el uso de fuerza será motivo para aplicar sanciones, incluyendo el despido.
b. OPSO va a garantizar que se recopile suficiente información sobre los usos de fuerza para evaluar si los miembros del personal cumplen con la política, si existe la necesidad de medidas correctivas incluyendo la capacitación o disciplina; la efectividad de las políticas y procedimientos ; y si las condiciones en OPP cumplen con este Acuerdo. A lo mínimo, OPSO va a garantizar que los oficiales utilizando u observando la escala de fuerza 1 van a completar un informe de uso de fuerza que va a:
(1) incluir los nombres de todo el personal, prisionero(s), u otros testigos visuales u orales;
(2) contiene un relato preciso y detallado de los eventos que dieron lugar al uso de fuerza;
- 7 -

(3) describe el nivel de resistencia y el tipo y escala de la fuerza utilizada, coherente con las políticas y procedimientos del uso de fuerza de OPP, así como las acciones precisas tomadas por el personal de OPSO en respuesta al incidente.
(4) describe el arma o instrumento(s) de restricción, si hubiese alguno, y la manera en que se utilizó.
(5) está acompañado por un informe de disciplina del prisionero, si existe, referente a los eventos o actividad de los prisioneros que propició el incidente del uso de fuerza;
(6) describe la naturaleza y magnitud de las heridas sostenidas por cualquier persona involucrada en el incidente;
(7) contiene la fecha y hora cuando se pidió atención médica, si hubo alguna, y cuándo realmente se recibió;
(8) describe cualquier intento por el personal de reducir la tensión antes del uso de fuerza.
(9) incluye un relato escrito de cada uno de los miembros del personal que presenciaron el uso de fuerza;
(10) incluye fotografías que se tomaron en ese momento, pero no más tarde de dos horas después del incidente de uso de fuerza, de las heridas sostenidas, o como comprobante que no hubo heridas sostenidas por los prisioneros y el personal involucrado en el incidente de uso de fuerza;
(11) documentar si el uso de fuerzo fue grabado digitalmente o de otra manera. Si el uso de fuerza no fue grabado digitalmente o de otra manera, el oficial informante y/o el comandante de turno van a proporcionar una explicación de porqué no fue grabado, y
(12) incluye una declaración acerca del incidente del/los prisionero(s) contra quienes se usó la fuerza.
c. Todos oficiales utilizando la escala de fuerza 2 van a completar un informe de uso de fuerza que va a:
(1) incluir los nombres del personal, prisionero(s), u otros testigo(s) visuales u orales,
(2) contiene un relato preciso y detallado de los eventos que precipitaron el uso de fuerza;
- 8 -

(3) describe el nivel de resistencia y el tipo y escala de la fuerza utilizada, coherente con las políticas y procedimientos del uso de fuerza de OPP, así como las acciones precisas tomadas por el personal de OPSO en respuesta al incidente.
(4) describe el arma o instrumento(s) de restricción, si hubiese alguno, y la manera en que se utilizó.
(5) está acompañado por un informe de disciplina del prisionero, si existe, referente a los eventos o actividad de los prisioneros que propició el incidente del uso de fuerza;
(6) describe la naturaleza y magnitud de las heridas sostenidas por cualquier persona involucrada en el incidente;
(7) contiene la fecha y hora cuando se pidió atención médica, si hubo alguna, y cuándo realmente se recibió;
(8) describe cualquier intento por el personal de reducir la tensión antes del uso de fuerza.
d. OPSO va a requerir que los oficiales correccionales notifiquen al comandante de turno de cualquier incidente de uso de fuerza o alegatos del uso de fuerza, tan pronto como sea posible. Cuando sea notificado, el comandante de turno va a responder a la escena de todos los usos de fuerza de escala 1. Cuando llegue a la escena, el comandante de turno va a:
(1) garantizar la seguridad de todos los involucrados y aquellos cerca del incidente;
(2) determinar si algún prisionero u oficial correccional está herido y garantizar que se les proporcione la atención médica necesaria.
(3) asegurar que el personal y los testigos se hayan identificado, separado, e informado que se prohíben las comunicaciones sobre el incidente con otros testigos u oficiales correccionales.
(4) asegurar que las declaraciones de los testigos y sujetos se hayan tomado del personal y prisionero(s) fuera de la presencia de otros prisioneros y el personal,
(5) asegurar que el informe del uso de fuerza se haya enviado a IAD para investigación, si, al ser revisado por el supervisor se sospecha un quebrantamiento de ley o de la política. La determinación sobre qué tipo de investigación se necesita se va a basar en el grado de fuerza utilizada que sea congruente con las disposiciones del Acuerdo;
- 9 -

(6) Si el comandante de turno no está involucrado en el incidente de uso de fuerza, el comandante de turno va a presentar todos los informes de uso de fuerza dentro de 36 horas del final del incidente, y va a detallar sus conclusiones en cuanto a la integridad y errores procesales. Si el comandante de turno cree que el uso de fuerza fue innecesario o excesivo, se comunicará inmediatamente con IAD para que se considere la investigación y va a notificar al director de la prisión o al subdirector, y
(7) Todos los informes de uso de fuerza de escala 1, ya sea si se cree que la fuerza por cualquiera de la partes fue innecesaria o excesiva, serán enviados a IAD para su análisis. IAD va a desarrollar y presentar al Monitor dentro de 90 días de la Fecha de Entrada en Vigor criterios claros para identificar los incidentes de uso de fuerza que justifiquen una investigación completa. Incluyendo heridas que son extensas o graves, y visibles tal como ojos morados, lesiones a la boca, lesiones a los genitales, etc.) lesiones que requieran hospitalización, mala conducta del personal (incluyendo relaciones inapropiadas con los prisioneros), y ocasiones donde el uso de fuerza no es consistente, es contradictorio, o de otra manera sospechoso.
e. Asegurar que el supervisor de primera línea esté presente durante todos los usos de fuerza programados con anterioridad, tal como las extracciones de celda.
f. Dentro de 36 horas, excluyendo fines de semana y días de fiesta, de recibir el informe y análisis del comandante de turno, para determinar la adecuación de la fuerza utilizada y si se siguió la política, el Director o Subdirector va a revisar todos los informes de uso de fuerza y el análisis de los supervisores incluirá:
(1) el informe del incidente asociado con el uso de fuerza;
(2) cualquier documentación médica de las lesiones y cualquier seguimiento de cuidado médico;
(3) el informe de disciplina del prisionero asociado con el uso de fuerza, y
(4) El Director o Subdirector va a completar un informe escrito o declaración escrita de conclusiones detalladas y determinaciones de la adecuación del uso de fuerza.
g. Presentar al Monitor un informe periódico detallando el uso de fuerza por el personal. Estos informes periódicos se presentarán al Monitor dentro de cuatro meses de la Fecha de Entrada en Vigor; y cada 6 meses en lo sucesivo hasta que se termine el Acuerdo. Cada informe va a incluir la siguiente información:
(1) una breve reseña de todos los usos de fuerza, por tipo, (2) la fecha en que se utilizó la fuerza;
- 10 -

(3) la identidad de los miembros del personal involucrados en el uso de fuerza;
(4) la identidad de los prisioneros contra quienes se usó la fuerza;
(5) una breve reseña de todos los usos de fuerza resultando en lesiones;
(6) número de usos de fuerza programados y no programados;
(7) una reseña de todas las muertes en custodia relacionadas al uso de fuerza, incluyendo la identidad del fallecido y las circunstancias de la muerte, y
(8) una lista de heridas graves que requieren hospitalización.
h. OPSO va a conducir un análisis anual del sistema de informe del uso de fuerza para garantizar que ha sido efectivo para reducir los usos de fuerza excesivos e innecesarios. OPSO va a documentar su análisis y conclusiones y las presentará al Monitor, SPLC, y DOJ.
4. Sistema de Intervención Temprana ("EIS")
a. OPSO va a desarrollar, dentro de 120 días de la Fecha de Entrada en Vigor, una base de datos relacional computarizada ("EIS") que va a documentar y monitorear a los miembros del personal que están involucrados en incidentes de uso de fuerza y cualquier queja relacionadas al uso de fuerzo excesivo e inapropiado, con el fin de avisar a la gerencia de OPSO de posibles problemas con las políticas o lapsos en supervisión o la necesidad de volver a capacitar o de disciplinar. El Diputado Jefe de Operaciones, los supervisores y personal de investigación tendrán acceso a la información y analizarán regularmente, pero no menos de informes trimestrales del sistema para evaluar al personal individual, supervisor y actividad en el área de vivienda. OPSO va a utilizar a EIS como una herramienta para corregir la conducta inapropiada del personal antes de que se escale a una falta de conducta más grave.
b. Dentro de 120 días de la Fecha de Entrada en Vigor, el personal directivo superior de OPSO va a utilizar la información de EIS para mejorar las prácticas de manejo de calidad, identificar patrones y tendencias, y tomar las medidas de corrección necesarias tanto en el nivel individual como en el nivel del sistema. IAD va a manejar y administrar los sistemas EIS. SOD tendrá acceso al EIS. IAD va a llevar a cabo auditorías trimestrales del EIS para asegurar que el análisis e intervención se está llevando a cabo como se describe a continuación. El personal de liderazgo va a revisar los datos recopilados por el EIS por lo menos cada tres meses para identificar patrones potenciales o tendencias que resulten en perjuicios a los prisioneros. El Comité de Revisión del Uso de Fuerza va a revisar la información periódicamente sobre los usos de fuerza para identificar las necesidades para acción correctiva, incluyendo cambios a los protocolos de
- 11 -

entrenamiento o de perfeccionamiento o de disciplina para el personal individual o a miembros del personal. A través de comparaciones de la operación de este sistema para cambios en las condiciones en OPP, OPSO va a evaluar si el mecanismo es efectivo para abordar los requisitos de este Acuerdo.

c. OPSO va a presentar dentro de 180 días de la fecha de implementación de su EIS, a SPLC, DOJ, y al Monitor, una lista de todos los miembros del personal identificados por el EIS y las acciones disciplinarias que se llevaron a cabo.

d. El protocolo de EIS va a incluir los siguientes elementos: El almacenaje de datos, la recuperación de datos, el informe, análisis de datos, identificación de patrones, asesoramiento de supervisión, intervención de supervisión, documentación y auditoria.

e. Anualmente, OPSO va a revisar el EIS para asegurar que está funcionando efectivamente en la identificación de asuntos de política, entrenamiento, o la necesidad de la disciplina. Esta evaluación será basada en parte en el número y severidad del daño y lesiones identificadas por medio de los datos recopilados conforme a este Acuerdo. OPSO va a documentar su análisis y conclusiones y las presentará al Monitor quien entonces va a remitir el documento al DOJ y a SPLC.

5. Seguridad y Supervisión

Reconociendo que hay peligro potencial en un entorno penitenciario, OPSO tomará todas las medidas razonables para asegurar que los prisioneros no estén sujetos a perjuicio o amenazas de perjuicios. A lo mínimo, OPSO hará lo siguiente:

a.

Mantener políticas, procedimientos, y prácticas de seguridad para proporcionar un

entorno seguro y protegido para los prisioneros y el personal en conformidad con

este Acuerdo.

b.

Mantener políticas, procedimientos, y prácticas para asegurar la supervisión

adecuada de áreas de trabajo de los prisioneros y confidentes.

c.

Mantener políticas y procedimientos sobre el cuidado y albergue de prisioneros en

custodia protectora y prisioneros pidiendo la protección contra el daño.

d.

Continuar asegurando que los oficiales correccionales lleven a cabo inspecciones

apropiadas por lo menos una vez durante un periodo de 30 minutos, en horas

irregulares, dentro de cada unidad de vivienda de la población general, y por lo

menos cada 15 minutos para prisioneros de manejo especial, o más si fuese

necesario. Todas las inspecciones de seguridad serán documentadas en

formularios o registros que no contengan texto pre impreso. Alternativamente,

OPSO puede proveer la supervisión directa de prisioneros al colocar un oficial

correccional dentro de la sala diurna de una unidad de vivienda para llevar a cabo

la vigilancia.

- 12 -

e.

El personal va a proveer la supervisión directa en unidades de vivienda que están

diseñadas pare este tipo de supervisión. Vigilancia por vídeo puede usarse para

suplementar, pero no debe usarse para reemplazar las rondas de los oficiales

correccionales.

f.

Incrementar el uso de vigilancia por vídeo a lo alto y cámaras de grabación para

proveer la cobertura adecuada a través de las áreas comunes de la Cárcel,

incluyendo el Centro de Procesamiento de Admisión, las áreas de admisión de

todas las divisiones, unidades de salud mental, unidades de manejo especial,

unidades de viviendas de prisioneros, y en las áreas comunes de las divisiones.

g.

Continuar asegurando que los oficiales correccionales que son trasladados de una

división asistan como requisito, al entrenamiento específico a su división antes de

comenzar a trabajar en la unidad.

h.

Continuar asegurando que los oficiales correccionales asignados a unidades de

manejo especial, que incluyen niveles de adolescentes, segregación disciplinaria y

custodia protectora, reciban ocho horas de entrenamiento especializado acerca de

tales unidades sobre la seguridad y protección del prisionero por lo menos

anualmente.

i.

Continuar asegurando que los supervisores hagan sus rondas diarias en cada turno

en las viviendas de prisioneros, y documentar los resultados de tales rondas.

j.

Continuar asegurando que el personal lleve a cabo inspecciones diarias de las

celdas y áreas comunes de las viviendas para proteger a los prisioneros de

perjuicios irrazonables o riesgo de perjuicios irrazonables.

k.

Continuar asegurando que el personal lleve a cabo mensualmente depuraciones de

celdas y áreas comunes para que los prisioneros no tengan en su posesión o

tengan acceso a contrabando peligroso.

l.

Presentar al Monitor un informe periódico de seguridad y supervisión de la

Instalación. Estos informes periódicos se presentarán al Monitor dentro de cuatro

meses de la Fecha de Entrada en Vigor; y cada 6 meses en lo sucesivo hasta que

se termine el Acuerdo. Cada informe va a incluir la siguiente información:

(1) Una lista de prisioneros de manejo especial, sus viviendas asignadas, la base para que ellos estén situados en esa unidad de vivienda especializada, y la fecha en que fue colocado en esa unidad; y

(2) una lista de todo el contrabando incluyendo armas confiscadas, incluyendo el tipo de contrabando, la fecha en que fue incautado y el sitio y turno de la incautación.

- 13 -

6. Personal de Seguridad
a. OPSO va a asegurar que el personal correccional y la supervisión es suficiente para supervisar a los prisioneros adecuadamente, cumplir con las disposiciones de este Acuerdo y permitir la segura operación de la Instalación, congruente con las normas constitucionales. OPSO va a lograr la dotación adecuada de oficiales correccionales de la siguiente manera:
(1) Dentro de 90 días de la Fecha de Entrada en Vigor, va a desarrollar un plan de personal que va a identificar todos los sitios y puestos, el número adecuado y requisitos de personal para cubrir cada sitio y puesto, releve de turno adecuado y cobertura para vacaciones. El plan de personal va a asegurar que hay cobertura adecuada dentro de cada vivienda y área especializada de vivienda y para acompañar a los prisioneros a los tribunales, a visitas legales y otras operaciones de OPP y para cumplir con las disposiciones de este Acuerdo. OPSO va a presentar su plan al Monitor, SPLC y DOJ para su aprobación. El Monitor, SPLC y DOJ tendrán 60 días para formular cualquier objeción y recomendar revisiones al plan de personal.
(2) Dentro de 120 días antes de la apertura de una nueva instalación, deberán presentar un plan de personal congruente con el apartado (1) anterior.
(3) Dentro de 90 días después de completar un estudio de personal, OPSO va a reclutar y contratar a un administrador de correcciones profesional y de tiempo completo para analizar y revisar la operaciones de OPP. El administrador de correcciones profesional va a reportarse directamente al Alguacil y tendrá responsabilidades que serán determinadas por el Alguacil. El administrador de correcciones profesional tendrá por lo menos los siguientes requisitos: Un bachillerato en Justicia Criminal u otra carrera relacionada (b) cinco años de experiencia supervisando una penitenciaría grande, y (c) conocimiento y experiencia en la aplicación de normas correccionales modernas, mantenidas por medio de participación regular en conferencias relacionadas a la profesión u otra educación continua.
(4) Presentar al Monitor un informe periódico de los niveles de personal en la Instalación. Estos informes periódicos se presentarán al Monitor dentro de cuatro meses de la Fecha de Entrada en Vigor; y cada 6 meses en lo sucesivo hasta que se termine el Acuerdo.
i. Una lista de cada puesto y posición requerida.
ii. el número de horas requeridas para cada puesto y posición.
iii. Una lista de personal contratado y posiciones cubiertas.
- 14 -

iv. una lista de personal trabajando horas extras y la cantidad de horas extras trabajadas por cada miembro del personal.
v. una lista de supervisores trabajando horas extras y,
vi. una lista y tipos de incidentes críticos que fueron reportados
b. Revisar el informe periódico para determinar si el personal es adecuado para los requisitos de este Acuerdo. OPSO hará las recomendaciones sobre el personal basado en esta revisión. La revisión y las recomendaciones serán documentadas y entregadas al Monitor.
7. Incidentes y Remisiones
a. OPSO va a desarrollar e implementar políticas que garantizan que el comandante de turno de la Instalación tiene conocimiento de incidentes reportables en OPP y toma acción lo antes posible para prevenir perjuicios a los prisioneros o toma otra acción correctiva. A lo mínimo, OPSO hará lo siguiente:
b. Continuará asegurando que los comandantes de turno de la Instalación documenten todos los incidentes reportables al final del turno pero no más tarde de 24 horas después del incidente, incluyendo peleas entre prisioneros, quebrantamiento de reglas, lesiones a los prisioneros, intentos suicidas, extracciones de celdas, emergencias médicas, contrabando descubierto, vandalismo, fugas e intentos de fugas, e incendios.
c. Continuará asegurando que los comandantes de turno de la Instalación reporten todos los suicidios y fallecimientos a más tardar una hora después del incidente, a un supervisor, a IAD, la División de Operaciones Especiales, y personal médico y de salud mental.
d. Presentar entrenamiento formal de pre-servicio y entrenamiento anual en servicio sobre las políticas y procedimientos del reportaje de incidentes.
e. Implementar una política siempre y cuando es una infracción disciplinaria para el personal que no informe sobre un incidente reportable que ocurrió durante su turno. El incumplimiento de reportar formalmente cualquier perjuicio a un prisionero que fue observado puede resultar en la disciplina del personal hasta e incluyendo el despido.
f. Mantener un sistema para rastrear todos los incidentes reportables, a lo mínimo, incluir la siguiente información:
(1) número de rastreo;
- 15 -

(2) nombre del prisionero o prisioneros;

(3) clasificación y sitio de la vivienda;

(4) fecha y hora;

(5) tipo de incidente;

(6) lesiones al personal o al prisionero;

(7) atención médica;

(8) personal principal y secundario involucrado;

(9) Supervisor de revisión;

(10) revisiones externas y los resultados;

(11) medida de corrección tomada; y

(12) aprobación administrativa.

e.

Asegurar que cada informe de incidente y agravios de los prisioneros sean

evaluados para alegatos de fallas de conducta del personal, y, si el incidente o

alegato cumple con los criterios establecidos conforme a este Acuerdo que se

remite para investigación.

f.

Presentar al Monitor un informe periódico de datos de incidentes en la

Instalación. Estos informes periódicos se presentarán al Monitor dentro de cuatro

meses de la Fecha de Entrada en Vigor; y cada 6 meses en lo sucesivo hasta que

se termine el Acuerdo.

g.

Cada informe va a incluir la siguiente información:

(1) una breve reseña de todos los incidentes reportables por tipo y fecha;

(2) una descripción de todos los suicidios y muertes bajo custodia, incluyendo la fecha, nombre del prisionero, y unidad de vivienda;

(3) número de agravios presentados por los prisioneros examinados por alegatos de mala conducta; y
(4) número de agravios remitidos a IAD o SOD para investigación.

h.

Llevar a cabo revisiones internas de informes periódicos para determinar si el

sistema de reportaje de incidentes está garantizando que se están respetando los

derechos constitucionales de los prisioneros. Revisar el informe periódico para

- 16 -

determinar si el sistema de reportaje de incidentes está cumpliendo con los requisitos de este Acuerdo. OPSO hará recomendaciones sobre el sistema de reportaje u otros cambios necesarios a la política o personal a base de esta revisión. La revisión y las recomendaciones serán documentadas y entregadas al Monitor.
8. Investigaciones
OPSO va a asegurar que hay suficiente personal para identificar, investigar y recomendar la corrección de mala conducta que sea o pueda llegar a ser una violación de la Constitución. A lo mínimo, OPSO va a:
a. Mantener la implementación de políticas, procedimientos y prácticas completas para la oportuna y exhaustiva investigación de alegatos de mala conducta del personal, asaltos sexuales, y asaltos físicos de prisioneros resultando en lesiones graves, de acuerdo con este Acuerdo. Las Investigaciones van a :
(1) ser llevadas a cabo por personas que no tengan conflicto de intereses que puedan afectar la parcialidad de la investigación;
(2) incluir entrevistas oportunas, exhaustivas y documentadas de todo personal relevante y prisioneros que estuvieron involucrados o presenciaron el incidente en cuestión, a un grado practicable; y
(3) incluir todas las pruebas que lo respaldan, incluyendo registros, testigos y declaraciones de los participantes, remisiones a políticas y procedimientos relevantes al incidente, pruebas físicas, y grabaciones por vídeo o audio.
b. Continuar proporcionando a SOD e IAD personal con entrenamiento de preservicio y en servicio anual sobre las políticas y procedimientos de investigación apropiadas, el proceso de rastrear la investigación, técnicas de entrevistas de investigación, y requisitos de confidencialidad.
c. Asegurar que cualquier informe investigativo que indique posible conducta criminal será remitido a IAD/SOD y luego remitido a la Oficina del Fiscal del Distrito de la Municipalidad de Orleans.
d. Presentar al Monitor un informe periódico de investigaciones llevadas a cabo en la Instalación. Estos informes periódicos se presentarán al Monitor dentro de cuatro meses de la Fecha de Entrada en Vigor; y cada 6 meses en lo sucesivo hasta que se termine el Acuerdo.
e. Cada informe va a incluir la siguiente información:
(1) una breve reseña de todas las investigaciones completadas por tipo y fecha;
- 17 -

(2) una lista de investigaciones remitidas para investigación administrativa;
(3) una lista de todas las investigaciones remitidas a una agencia de aplicación de la ley; y
(4) una lista de todo personal suspendido, despedido, detenido o reasignado debido a mala conducta o quebrantamientos de la política y procedimientos. Esta lista también debe contener la mala conducta y/o quebrantamiento especifico.
f. OPSO va a revisar el informe periódico para determinar si el sistema de investigación está cumpliendo con los requisitos de este Acuerdo y hará las recomendaciones sobre el sistema de investigación u otros cambios necesarios a la política a base de esta revisión. La revisión y las recomendaciones serán documentadas y entregadas al Monitor.
9. Colocación en Antelación al Juicio en Entornos Alternativos
a. OPSO va a mantener su papel de proveer espacio y seguridad para facilitar entrevistas llevadas a cabo de conformidad con el programa de la Ciudad de libertad provisional con antelación al juicio, cuya intención es asegurar la colocación en la colocación apropiada con menos restricciones congruente con la seguridad pública.
b. OPSO va a desarrollar un sistema para asegurar no confinar ilegalmente a prisioneros que solo son detenidos por la Oficina de Inmigración y Aduanas (ICE pos sus siglas en inglés) cuando se haya vencido la orden de detención.
10. Colocación de Custodia dentro de OPP
a. OPP va a implementar un sistema de clasificación objetiva y válida para asignar a los prisioneros a unidades de vivienda por niveles de seguridad, entro otros factores válidos, con el fin de proteger a los prisioneros del riesgo irrazonable de perjuicio. El sistema va a considerar las necesidades de protección de los prisioneros, la severidad del cargo actual, tipos de obligaciones anteriores, riesgo suicida, antecedentes de intentos de fuga, antecedentes de violencia, afiliación a pandillas, y necesidades especiales incluyendo trastornos mentales, identidad de géneros, edad y requisitos educativos. OPSO va a anticipar periodos de volumen de admisiones irregulares y va a programar suficiente personal para clasificar los prisioneros dentro de 24 horas de su inscripción, ayudar a prisioneros de DOC elegibles con asistencia de re-entrada (preparación para poner en libertad), entre otras funciones relacionados al manejo de casos.
b. Prohibir las clasificaciones basadas únicamente en raza, color, origen nacional o etnicidad.
- 18 -

c. Asegurar que el personal de clasificación tiene suficiente acceso a información actualizada en cuanto a la disponibilidad de celdas en cada división.
d. Continuar actualizando el sistema de clasificación para incluir información de los antecedentes de cada prisionero en OPSO.
e. Continuar la capacitación y acceso a todos los supervisores en la capacidad completa de los sistemas de clasificación y rastreo de prisioneros de OPSO.
f. Llevar a cabo revisiones internas y externas y validación del sistema de clasificación de prisioneros por lo menos una vez al año.
g. Presentar al Monitor un informe periódico sobre la clasificación en la Instalación. Estos informes periódicos se presentarán al Monitor dentro de cuatro meses de la Fecha de Entrada en Vigor; y cada 6 meses en lo sucesivo hasta que se termine el Acuerdo. Cada informe va a incluir la siguiente información:
(1) número de asaltos de prisionero a prisionero;
(2) número de asaltos contra prisioneros con trastornos mentales;
(3) número de prisioneros que reportan tener afiliación con pandillas;
(4) el delito más grave que llevó al encarcelamiento;
(5) número de prisioneros clasificados en cada nivel de seguridad;
(6) número de prisioneros en custodia protectora, y número de quejas de mala conducta.
h. OPSO va a revisar el informe periódico de datos y hará recomendaciones sobre la colocación apropiada consistente con este Acuerdo u otros cambios necesarios a la política a base de esta revisión. La revisión y las recomendaciones serán documentadas y entregadas al Monitor.
11. Procedimiento de Agravio del Prisionero
a. OPSO va a asegurar que los prisioneros tienen un mecanismo para expresar sus agravios, resolver disputas, y asegurar que sus inquietudes sobre sus derechos constitucionales son abordados. A lo mínimo, OPSO hará lo siguiente:
(1) Continuar manteniendo políticas y procedimientos para asegurar que los prisioneros tienen acceso al procedimiento de adecuado de agravios y para asegurar que los agravios pueden ser reportados y registrados confidencialmente, sin que se requiera la intervención de un oficial
- 19 -

correccional. Las políticas y procedimientos deben ser aplicables y normalizados a través de todas las divisiones en la Instalación.
(2) Asegurar que cada agravio recibe el seguimiento apropiado incluyendo proporcionar una respuesta por escrito oportuna y rastreando la implementación de resoluciones.
(3) Asegurar que los formularios de agravios están disponibles en todas las unidades y en español y vietnamita y que hay suficiente oportunidad para prisioneros analfabeta y prisioneros con discapacidades físicas o cognitivas o barreras de idioma tienen acceso al sistema de agravio.
(4) Separar el proceso de “peticiones al personal” del proceso de agravios y darle prioridad a los agravios que plantean la cuestión sobre la seguridad o salud del prisionero.
(5) Asegurar que los agravios de los prisioneros son examinados para alegatos de mala conducta del personal y si un alegato o incidente merece, según el Acuerdo, ser remitido para investigación.
(6) Un miembro del personal de gerencia va a revisar el sistema de rastreo de agravios cada trimestre para identificar las áreas de preocupación. Estas revisiones y cualquier recomendaciones serán documentadas y entregadas al Monitor.
12. Abuso Sexual
OPSO va a desarrollar e implementar políticas, protocolos, capacitaciones, y auditorias consistentes con los requisitos de la Ley contra la Violación en las Cárceles de 2003, 42 U.S.C. § 15601, y subsiguientes, y la implementación de reglas que incluyen pero no se limitan a la prevención, detección, información, investigación y recopilación de datos de abuso sexual, incluyendo de prisionero a prisionero y de personal a prisionero abuso sexual, acoso sexual y toques sexuales.
13. Acceso a la Información
OPSO va a asegurar que todos los prisioneros recién ingresados reciban información por medio de una guía para prisioneros y a discreción de la cárcel, un vídeo de orientación acerca de los temas siguientes: Comprendiendo el proceso de disciplina de la Instalación y las reglas y reglamentos; reportando mala conducta, reportando abuso o asalto sexual; acceso a cuidado médico y de salud mental, procedimientos de emergencia, enviando y recibiendo correspondencia, comprendiendo el proceso de visitas y teniendo acceso al proceso de agravios.
- 20 -

B. SALUD MENTAL
OPSO va a asegurar la admisión constitucionalmente adecuada, asesoramiento, tratamiento, y seguimiento de las necesidades de salud mental de los prisioneros incluyendo pero no limitado a proteger la seguridad de y dando acceso de prioridad a prisioneros con riesgo de auto lesión o suicidio, OPSO va a examinar anualmente o más frecuentemente, si los servicios de salud mental cumplen con la Constitución. Para proveer servicios de salud mental a los prisioneros, OPSO a lo mínimo hará:
1. Detección y Asesoramiento
a. Desarrollar y mantener políticas y procedimientos exhaustivos para la detección apropiada y asesoramiento de prisioneros con trastornos mentales. Estas políticas van a incluir las definiciones de emergencia, urgencia, y necesidades rutinarias de salud mental, así como un horario para la provisión de servicios para cada categoría de salud mental.
b. Desarrollar e implementar un instrumento de detección apropiado que identifica las necesidades de salud mental y asegura el acceso oportuno a un profesional de salud mental cuando se presenten síntomas que requieran tales cuidados. El instrumento de detección debe incluir los factores descritos en Apéndice B. El instrumento de detección será validado por un profesional capacitado y aprobado por el Monitor dentro de 180 días de la Fecha de Entrada en Vigor y cada 12 meses en lo sucesivo, si es necesario.
c. Asegurar que todos los prisioneros son examinados por Personal Médico Capacitado al llegar a OPP, pero no más tardar de ocho horas de haber llegado, para identificar el riesgo suicida o conducta de auto lesión del prisionero. Ningún prisionero será detenido en celdas de aislamiento antes de una evaluación por el personal médico.
d. Implementar una política de clasificación que utiliza los procedimientos de detección y asesoramiento para asegurar que los prisioneros con necesidades de salud mental de emergencia o urgencia son los primeros para recibir servicios.
e. Desarrollar e implementar protocolos que equivalen al nivel de riesgo suicida o de auto-lesión, para asegurar que los prisioneros están protegidos contra riesgos identificados para el suicidio o conducta de auto-lesión. El protocolo también va a requerir que un Profesional de Salud Mental Calificado lleve a cabo asesoramientos de salud mental a base del riesgo de los prisioneros.
f. Para prisioneros con necesidades de salud mental de emergencia o urgencia, se inspecciona y monitorea con supervisión constante hasta que el prisionero sea trasladado a un Profesional de Salud Mental Calificado para asesoramiento.
- 21 -

g. Asegurar que el Profesional de Salud Mental Calificado lleva a cabo asesoramientos de salud mental apropiados dentro de los siguientes periodos de la examinación inicial u otro identificador de necesidad:
(1) 14 días o menos, si es necesario por razones médicas para prisioneros con necesidades de salud mental rutinarias.
(2) 48 horas o menos, si es necesario por razones médicas para prisioneros con necesidades de salud mental urgentes, y
(3) inmediatamente, pero no más tarde de dos horas, para los prisioneros que tengan necesidades emergentes de salud mental.
h. Asegurar que un Profesional en Salud Mental Calificado realice una evaluación de salud mental no más tarde del siguiente día laborable a partir de cualquier evento adverso desencadenante (por ejemplo, intento de suicidio, ideas suicidas y cualquier agresión que resulte en heridas graves).
i. Asegurar que un Profesional en Salud Mental Calificado, como parte del equipo de tratamiento interdisciplinario del prisionero, mantenga un perfil de riesgo para cada prisionero en la lista de casos de salud mental basado en los Factores de Evaluación identificados en el Apéndice B, y desarrolle e implemente un plan de tratamiento que minimice el riesgo de sufrir daños para cada uno de estos prisioneros.
j. Asegurar el tratamiento adecuado y oportuno de los prisioneros cuyas evaluaciones revelen enfermedad mental o ideas suicidas, que incluya remisiones oportunas y adecuadas a atención especializada y visitas a Profesionales en Salud Mental Calificados, según resulte clínicamente adecuado.
k. Asegurar la disponibilidad de servicios en casos de crisis para manejar emergencias psiquiátricas. Dichos servicios deben incluir atención psiquiátrica en hospitales autorizados, según resulte clínicamente adecuado.
l. Anualmente, evaluar el proceso de evaluación de las necesidades de salud mental de los prisioneros para determinar si se está identificando adecuadamente a los prisioneros para la atención. Con base en esta evaluación, OPSO recomendará cambios al sistema de evaluación. La evaluación y las recomendaciones se documentarán y proporcionarán al Monitor.
2. Tratamiento
a. Evaluar, revisar y suplementar las políticas existentes para implementar una política para la prestación de servicios de salud mental que incluya una gama de servicios, disponga para el personal de salud mental necesario y adecuado, incluya un plan de tratamiento para prisioneros que sufran de enfermedades
- 22 -

mentales graves, recopile datos y contenga mecanismos suficientes para medir si se está prestando atención conforme a la Constitución.
b. Asegurar que los planes de tratamiento atiendan de manera adecuada las necesidades graves de salud mental de los prisioneros y que los planes de tratamiento incluyan intervenciones que se ajusten específicamente a los diagnósticos y los problemas de los prisioneros.
c. Proporcionar servicios de terapia en grupo o individual por un proveedor debidamente autorizado cuando sea necesario para los prisioneros con necesidades de salud mental.
d. Asegurar que las evaluaciones de salud mental que se lleven a cabo como parte del proceso disciplinario incluya recomendaciones basadas en el estado de salud mental del prisionero.
e. Asegurar que los prisioneros reciban medicamentos psicotrópicos de manera oportuna y que los prisioneros tengan los diagnósticos correctos o instrucciones para cada medicamento psicotrópico que reciban.
f. Asegurar que los medicamentos psicotrópicos se administren de manera clínicamente adecuada para evitar el uso indebido, sobredosis, robo o violencia relacionados con los medicamentos.
g. Asegurar que las recetas para medicamentos psicotrópicos sean revisadas por un Profesional en Salud Mental Calificado de forma regular y oportuna, y que se supervise adecuadamente a los prisioneros.
h. Asegurar que se establezcan normas que regulen la frecuencia de la revisión y el expediente médico relacionado que incluya el monitoreo de medicamentos psicotrópicos, entre otros, el monitoreo de efectos metabólicos de los medicamentos psicotrópicos de la segunda generación.
3. Consejería
a. OPSO desarrollará e implementará políticas y procedimientos para la consejería de los prisioneros en las áreas de salud mental/terapia general, consejería de abuso sexual y consejería de alcohol y drogas. Esto debe incluir, como mínimo, una disposición relativa a los servicios individuales.
b. Dentro de los 180 días a partir de la Fecha de Entrada en Vigor, presentar cada tres meses un informe al Monitor sobre todos los servicios de consejería que se hayan ofrecido a los prisioneros, el cual debe incluir:
(1) el número de prisioneros que informó que participó en consejería de salud mental/terapia general en OPP;
- 23 -

(2) el número de prisioneros que informó que participó en servicios de consejería de alcohol y drogas en OPP;
(3) el número de prisioneros que informó que participó en consejería de abuso sexual en OPP;
(4) el número de casos con un profesional debidamente autorizado y la consejería individual relacionada en OPP.
4. Programa de Capacitación para la Prevención del Suicidio
a. OPSO se asegurará de que todo el personal que supervise a los prisioneros tenga el conocimiento, destrezas y capacidad adecuada para atender las necesidades de los prisioneros que estén en riesgo de suicidarse. Dentro de los 180 días a partir de la Fecha de Entrada en Vigor, OPSO evaluará y revisará su currículo de capacitación actual sobre el suicidio, el cual incluirá los siguientes temas:
(1) políticas y procedimientos para la prevención del suicidio (según revisado conforme a este Acuerdo);
(2) análisis de los ambientes en las instalaciones y por qué podrían contribuir al comportamiento suicida;
(3) posibles factores que predispongan al suicidio;
(4) períodos de alto riesgo para suicidios;
(5) señales de advertencia y síntomas de comportamiento suicida;
(6) estudios de casos de suicidios recientes e intentos de suicidio graves;
(7) demonstraciones simuladas con respecto a la respuesta adecuada a un intento de suicidio;
(8) diferenciar entre el comportamiento suicida y autolesiones; y
(9) el uso adecuado del equipo de emergencia.
b. Asegurar que todo el personal correccional, médico y de salud mental haya recibido capacitación acerca del instrumento de evaluación de suicidio y la herramienta de captación médica.
c. Asegurar que todo el personal correccional, médico y de salud mental complete anualmente capacitación multidisciplinaria en el lugar de empleo, lo cual incluirá capacitación en las políticas, procedimientos y técnicas actualizadas. La capacitación será revisada y aprobada por el Monitor.
- 24 -

d. Asegurar que el personal esté capacitado en la observación de prisioneros bajo vigilancia suicida y la situación de la unidad de cuidados intermedios.
e. Asegurar que todo el personal que tenga contacto con los prisioneros esté certificado en la resucitación cardiopulmonar ("CPR").
f. Asegurar que haya una bolsa de respuesta en casos de emergencia que incluya un estuche de primeros auxilios y herramienta de rescate en casos de emergencia cerca de todas las unidades de vivienda. Todo el personal que tenga contacto con los prisioneros deberá saber en qué lugar está ubicada esta bolsa de respuesta en casos de emergencia y haber recibido capacitación sobre cómo usar su contenido.
g. Realizar pruebas al azar del cinco por ciento del personal pertinente todos los años para determinar sus conocimientos sobre las políticas de prevención de suicidio. El instrumento de pruebas y políticas será aprobado por el Monitor. Los resultados de estas evaluaciones serán evaluados para determinar la necesidad de cambios en las prácticas de capacitación. La revisión y las conclusiones se documentarán y proporcionarán al Monitor.
5. Precauciones para evitar el suicidio
a. OPSO implementará una política para asegurar que los prisioneros que estén en riesgo de auto infligirse daños sean identificados, protegidos y tratados conforme a la Constitución.
b. Asegurar que los procedimientos para evitar el suicidio incluyan disposiciones para la supervisión directa constante de los prisioneros activamente suicidas y supervisión estrecha de los prisioneros con necesidades especiales que estén en menor riesgo (como mínimo, verificaciones cada 15 minutos). Los funcionarios de las prisiones deben documentar sus verificaciones en un formato que no tenga las horas pre-impresas.
c. Asegurar que los prisioneros bajo vigilancia suicida sean inspeccionados y monitoreados de inmediato y que tengan supervisión directa constante hasta que un Profesional en Salud Mental Calificado lleve a cabo una evaluación de los riesgos de suicidio, determine el nivel de riesgo y especifique el nivel adecuado de supervisión.
d. Asegurar que todos los prisioneros dados de alta de las precauciones para evitar el suicidio reciban una evaluación de seguimiento dentro de tres a ocho días laborables a partir de la fecha de salida, según resulte clínicamente adecuado, de acuerdo con un plan de tratamiento desarrollado por un Profesional en Salud Mental Calificado. Luego de ser dado de alta, el Profesional en Salud Mental Calificado realizará una evaluación documentada en persona con respecto a los intérvalos de seguimiento que resulten clínicamente adecuados.
- 25 -

e. Implementar un programa de cuidados intermedios que ofrezca una transición de las precauciones para evitar el suicidio que resulte clínicamente adecuada para los prisioneros dados de alta de las precauciones para evitar el suicidio.
f. Desarrollar e implementar políticas y procedimientos para las precauciones para evitar el suicidio que establezcan las condiciones de la vigilancia e incorporen un requisito de determinación clínica individualizada sobre la ropa, bienes y utensilios permitidos. Estas condiciones se alterarán solo mediante instrucciones por escrito de un Profesional en Salud Mental Calificado, excepto en los casos de emergencia o cuando lo exijan las consideraciones de seguridad.
g. Asegurar que las celdas designadas por OPSO para alojar prisioneros suicidas sean adaptadas de manera que sean resistentes al suicidio (por ejemplo, eliminar el bastidor o huecos en las camas, cabezales de rociadores, canilla del grifo de agua y alumbrado sin protección o enchufes eléctricos).
h. Asegurar que cada suicidio o intento grave de suicidio sea investigado por el personal de salud mental y correccional adecuado, y que se entreguen los resultados de la investigación al Sheriff y al Monitor.
i. Las órdenes de observación directa para los confinados bajo vigilancia suicida deben ser individualizadas por el médico que ordena sobre la base de las necesidades clínicas de cada confinado y no serán más restrictivas de lo que resulte necesario para asegurar la seguridad y bienestar del confinado.
j. Proporcionarle al Monitor un informe periódico sobre el suicidio y autolesiones en la Institución. Estos informes periódicos serán entregados al monitor dentro de los cuatro meses a partir de la Fecha de Entrada en Vigor; y cada seis meses posteriormente hasta que termine este Acuerdo. El informe incluirá lo siguiente:
(1) todos los suicidios;
(2) todos los intentos graves de suicidio o autolesión; y
(3) todos los usos de instrumentos de inmovilización para responder a un intento suicida o evitarlo.
k. Evaluar el informe periódico para determinar si se está identificando, protegiendo y tratando adecuadamente a los prisioneros que estén en riesgo de autolesionarse. Con base en esta evaluación, OPSO documentará los cambios recomendados a las políticas y procedimientos y se los proporcionará al Monitor.
6. Uso de instrumentos de inmovilización
a. OPSO evitará el uso innecesario o excesivo de instrumentos físicos o químicos de inmovilización en los prisioneros con enfermedades mentales.
- 26 -

b. Mantendrá políticas y procedimientos exhaustivos para el uso de instrumentos de inmovilización en los prisioneros con enfermedades mentales conforme a la Constitución.
c. Asegurará que se reciba y documente la aprobación por un Profesional Médico o en Salud Mental Calificado antes de usar los instrumentos de inmovilización en los prisioneros con enfermedades mentales o que necesiten precauciones para evitar el suicidio.
d. Asegurar que los prisioneros inmovilizados con enfermedades mentales sean monitoreados por lo menos cada 15 minutos por el Personal de Custodia para evaluar su condición física.
e. Asegurar que un Profesional Médico o en Salud Mental Calificado documente el uso de instrumentos de inmovilización, incluidos los fundamentos y duración del uso de instrumentos de inmovilización y la realización y resultados de las verificaciones de bienestar en los prisioneros inmovilizados.
f. Proporcionarle al Monitor un informe periódico sobre el uso de instrumentos de inmovilización en la Institución. Estos informes periódicos serán entregados al monitor dentro de los cuatro meses a partir de la Fecha de Entrada en Vigor; y cada seis meses posteriormente hasta que termine este Acuerdo. Cada informe incluirá:
(1) Una lista de los prisioneros que fueron inmovilizados;
(2) Una lista de cualquier comportamiento de autolesión observado o descubierto durante la inmovilización; y
(3) Una lista de todos los prisioneros que fueron inmovilizados en tres o más ocasiones en un período de treinta (30) días o que permanecieron inmovilizados por un período superior a las veinticuatro (24) horas.
g. Evaluar el informe periódico para determinar si se están utilizando los instrumentos de inmovilización de manera adecuada en los prisioneros con enfermedades mentales. Con base en esta evaluación, OPSO documentará los cambios recomendados a las políticas y procedimientos y se los proporcionará al Monitor.
7. Desintoxicación y capacitación
a. OPSO se asegurará de que todo el personal que supervise a los prisioneros tenga el conocimiento, destrezas y capacidades para identificar y responder a los prisioneros en proceso de desintoxicación. Dentro de los 180 días a partir de la Fecha de Entrada en Vigor, OPSO establecerá un programa de capacitación anual en el lugar de empleo sobre desintoxicación para el Personal Médico o en Salud Mental Calificado y el personal de la prisión. El programa de capacitación sobre desintoxicación incluirá:
- 27 -

(1) capacitación anual al personal sobre la desintoxicación en los casos de abuso de alcohol y drogas;
(2) capacitación al Personal Médico o en Salud Mental Calificado sobre el tratamiento contra el abuso de alcohol y drogas impartida por el Oficial Médico Principal o su delegado(a);
(3) supervisión sobre la capacitación del personal de la prisión, incluidos oficiales encargados del registro y la vivienda, sobre las políticas y procedimientos de la unidad de desintoxicación, por el Oficial Médico Principal o su delegado(a);
(4) capacitación sobre la desintoxicación de drogas y alcohol por el Personal Médico y en Salud Mental Calificado;
(5) capacitación por el Personal Médico y en Salud Mental Calificado sobre el acceso oportuno a los prisioneros a Profesionales en Salud Mental Calificados, como psiquiatras, según resulte clínicamente adecuado; y
(6) capacitación del Personal Médico y en Salud Mental Calificado sobre el uso y tratamiento de las desintoxicaciones, según resulte médicamente adecuado.
b. Proporcionar evaluaciones médicas para determinar el grado de riesgo de desintoxicaciones potencialmente mortales del alcohol, benzodiacepinas y otras sustancias, de acuerdo con el Apéndice B.
c. Asegurar que el personal de enfermería complete evaluaciones de los prisioneros sobre la desintoxicación en un calendario individualizado, ordenado por un Profesional Médico y en Salud Mental Calificado, según resulte clínicamente adecuado, que incluirán observaciones y signos vitales como la presión arterial.
d. Anualmente llevar a cabo una evaluación sobre si el programa de capacitación sobre desintoxicación ha sido efectivo para identificar las inquietudes con respecto a la política, capacitación o la identificación y respuesta adecuadas a los prisioneros en desintoxicación. OPSO documentará esta evaluación y proporcionará sus conclusiones al Monitor.
8. Personal Médico y en Salud Mental
a. OPSO asegurará que el personal médico y en salud mental sea suficiente para proporcionar la atención adecuada para las necesidades médicas y de salud mental graves de los prisioneros, cumplir con los mandatos constitucionales y los términos de este Acuerdo y permitir que se opere adecuadamente la Institución, conforme a las normas constitucionales.
b. Dentro de los 90 días a partir de la Fecha de Entrada en Vigor, OPSO preparará un plan de personal exhaustivo o llevará a cabo un análisis para determinar los niveles de personal médico y en salud mental necesarios para proporcionar
- 28 -

atención adecuada para las necesidades de salud mental de los prisioneros y cumplir con los requisitos de este Acuerdo. Luego de finalizarse el plan de personal o análisis, OPSO proporcionará sus hallazgos al Monitor, SPLC y DOJ para que lo revisen. El Monitor, SPLC y DOJ tendrán 60 días para presentar cualquier objeción y recomendar revisiones al plan de personal.
9. Manejo de Riesgos
a. OPSO desarrollará, implementará y mantendrá un sistema para asegurar que las tendencias e incidentes que conlleven suicidios y comportamiento de autolesión que pudieron haberse evitado sean identificados y corregidos de manera oportuna. Dentro de los 90 días a partir de la Fecha de Entrada en Vigor, OPSO desarrollará e implementará un sistema de manejo de riesgos que identifique los niveles de riesgo para el suicidio y comportamiento de autolesión y requiera la intervención a nivel individual y del sistema para prevenir o minimizar los daños a los prisioneros, con base en los indicadores y umbrales descritos en el Apéndice B.
b. El sistema de manejo de riesgos incluirá los siguientes procesos para suplementar la evaluación de salud mental y los procesos de evaluación: informar incidentes, recopilación de datos y agregación de datos para captura información suficiente para formular una evaluación de riesgos confiable a nivel individual y del sistema; identificación de prisioneros en riesgo que necesiten tratamiento clínico o evaluación por el Equipo Interdisciplinario o el Comité de Salud Mental; y el desarrollo e implementación de intervenciones que minimicen y eviten los daños en respuesta a los patrones y tendencias que se hayan identificado.
c. OPSO desarrollará e implementará un Equipo Interdisciplinario, el cual utilizará un examen en el momento de la admisión, evaluación de salud e información sobre eventos desencadenantes para formular planes de tratamiento. El Equipo Interdisciplinario:
(1) incluirá a los directores Médicos y de Enfermería, uno o más miembros del personal psiquiátrico, personal de consejería, personal de servicios sociales y personal de seguridad, y otros miembros según lo dicten las circunstancias clínicas;
(2) realizará rondas de tratamiento interdisciplinario, semanalmente, durante las cuales los pacientes seleccionados serán evaluados con base en los factores de examen y evaluación, al igual que los eventos desencadenantes; y
(3) proporcionará planes de tratamiento individualizados basados, en parte, en los factores de examen y evaluación, a todos los pacientes de salud mental que sean atendidos por diferentes proveedores.
d. OPSO desarrollará e implementará un Comité de Revisión de Salud Mental que, mensualmente, revisará las estadísticas de salud mental, las cuales incluirán de
- 29 -

manera no exclusiva, los desencadenantes de manejo de riesgo y tendencias a nivel individual y del sistema. El Comité de Revisión de Salud Mental:
(1) incluirá al director Médico y de Enfermería, uno o más miembros del personal psiquiátrico y el personal de servicios sociales, el Administrador de Servicios de Salud, el Director de las instalaciones donde se encuentre la Unidad Psiquiátrica Aguda y el Manejador de Riesgos.
(2) identificará pacientes en riesgo que necesiten un manejo del caso de salud mental que podrían requerir intervención y remisión al Equipo Interdisciplinario, la administración de OPSO u otros proveedores.
(3) llevará a cabo un análisis y validación a nivel del departamento de los procesos y herramientas para el examen y evaluación de salud mental y autolesión, revisará la calidad de los exámenes y evaluaciones y la oportunidad y adecuación de la atención proporcionada, y hará recomendaciones sobre cambios y medidas correctivas;
(4) analizará los datos de salud mental individuales y agregados e identificará tendencias desencadenantes que indiquen un riesgo de daños;
(5) revisará los datos sobre las citas de salud mental, incluidos el número de citas y tiempos de espera antes de que se reciba la atención; y
(6) revisará políticas, capacitación y personal y cambios recomendados, capacitación suplementaria o medidas correctivas.
e. OPSO desarrollará e implementará un Comité de Mejoramiento de Calidad y Revisión de Morbilidad y Mortalidad que revisará, por lo menos cada tres meses, los eventos desencadenantes y tendencias de manejo de riesgo e informes de mejoramiento de calidad para mejorar la atención a nivel de la Cárcel.
(1) El Comité de Mejoramiento de Calidad incluirá al Director Médico, Director de Psiquiatría, Jefe Adjunto, Manejador de Riesgos y Director de Capacitación. El Comité de Mejoramiento de Calidad revisará y analizará las actividades y conclusiones del Comité de Revisión de Salud Mental y adoptará medidas correctivas a nivel de la Cárcel.
(2) El Comité de Mejoramiento de Calidad:
i. monitoreará todas las actividades de manejo de riesgos en las instalaciones a través de la revisión de datos sobre riesgos, identificación de tendencias individuales y sistémicas y recomendaciones e implementación supervisada de investigación o medida correctiva; y
- 30 -

ii. generará informes de datos sobre riesgos analizados y medidas correctivas que se hayan tomado.
(3) El Comité de Revisión de Morbilidad y Mortalidad incluirá uno o más miembros de las operaciones de la Cárcel, el departamento médico, el departamento de salud mental, disciplinas clínicas relacionadas, correcciones y el Manejador de Riesgos. El Comité de Revisión de Morbilidad y Mortalidad:
i. revisará los suicidios e intentos de suicidio graves desde el punto de vista de la morbilidad y mortalidad;
ii. describirá los factores que intervienen en cada caso, incluidos las circunstancias individuales, identificación de factores de predisposición, documentación, procedimientos y capacitación médica y de seguridad y realizará una autopsia psicológica e informe de morbilidad;
iii. recomendará cambios a las políticas y procedimientos médicos y de seguridad;
iv. desarrollará un plan escrito, con un calendario, para las medidas correctivas; y
v. asegurará que se finalice un informe final de revisión de mortalidad dentro de los 30 días a partir de un suicidio o intento de suicidio.
f. OPSO revisará los informes de mortalidad y morbilidad cada tres meses para determinar si el sistema de manejo de riesgos está asegurando el cumplimiento con los términos de este Acuerdo. OPSO hará recomendaciones con respecto al sistema de manejo de riesgos u otros cambios necesarios en la política basados en esta revisión. La revisión y las recomendaciones se documentarán y proporcionarán al Monitor.
C. ATENCIÓN MÉDICA
OPSO se asegurará del trato adecuado de las necesidades médicas de los prisioneros conforme a la Constitución. OPSO evitará los riesgos innecesarios a los prisioneros y asegurará que las prácticas de administración de medicamentos sean adecuadas. OPSO evaluará por lo menos una vez al año si los servicios médicos en OPP cumplen con la Constitución. Como mínimo, OPSO:
- 31 -

1. Manejo de calidad de administración de medicamentos
a. Dentro de los 120 días a partir de la Fecha de Entrada en Vigor, asegurará que todo el personal médico y de salud mental estén capacitados sobre las prácticas de la administración adecuada de medicamentos, lo cual incluirá etiquetar los envases de manera adecuada y el registro en el momento en que se administren los medicamentos;
b. Asegurará que los médicos realicen una revisión sistemática del uso de los medicamentos para asegurar que el régimen prescrito de cada prisionero siga siendo adecuado y efectivo para su condición;
c. Mantendrá protocolos para la administración de medicamentos que proporcionen instrucciones adecuadas sobre cómo tomar los medicamentos, describir los nombres de los medicamentos, con qué frecuencia se deben tomar los medicamentos e identificar cómo se supervisa a los prisioneros que toman dichos medicamentos; y
d. Mantendrá protocolos para la administración de medicamentos que evite el uso indebido, sobredosis, robo o violencia relacionados con los medicamentos.
2. Prestación de atención de salud
a. Proporcionarle al Monitor un informe periódico sobre la atención de salud en la Institución. Estos informes periódicos serán entregados al monitor dentro de los cuatro meses a partir de la Fecha de Entrada en Vigor; y cada seis meses posteriormente hasta que termine este Acuerdo. Cada informe incluirá:
(1) el número de prisioneros transferido a una sala de emergencia para tratamiento médico relacionado con errores en los medicamentos;
(2) el número de prisioneros que fue llevado a la enfermería para tratamiento que no sea de emergencia relacionado con errores en los medicamentos;
(3) el número de prisioneros a quienes se le han recetado medicamentos psicotrópicos;
(4) el número de prisioneros a quienes se le han recetado medicamentos que pueden llevar consigo; y
(5) los incidentes de variaciones de medicamentos.
b. Revisará los informes periódicos de prestación de atención de salud para determinar si se están siguiendo los protocolos sobre la administración de medicamentos y los requisitos de este Acuerdo. OPSO hará recomendaciones con respecto al proceso de administración de medicamentos u otros cambios
- 32 -

necesarios en la política basados en esta revisión. La revisión y las recomendaciones se documentarán y proporcionarán al Monitor.
3. Liberación y transferencia
a. OPSO notificará al Personal Médico o en Salud Mental Calificado acerca de la liberación de prisioneros con necesidades médicas o de salud mental graves de la custodia de OPSO, tan pronto dicha información esté disponible.
b. Cuando se le notifique a un Personal Médico o en Salud Mental Calificado acerca de la liberación de prisioneros con necesidades médicas o de salud mental graves de la custodia de OPSO, OPSO proporcionará a estos prisioneros un suministro de por lo menos siete días de los medicamentos con receta adecuados, a menos que una cantidad diferente sea necesaria y médicamente adecuada para servir de enlace hasta que los prisioneros razonablemente puedan hacer las gestiones para continuar la atención en la comunidad.
c. En relación con los prisioneros con necesidades médicas o de salud mental graves que sean liberados de la custodia de OPSO sin aviso previo, OPSO le proporcionará al prisionero una receta para sus medicamentos, instrucciones impresas sobre los medicamentos con receta y recursos donde puede obtener los medicamentos con receta en la comunidad.
d. En relación con los prisioneros que vayan a ser transferidos a otra institución, OPSO preparará y enviará con el prisionero transferido un resumen de transición que detalle los problemas principales de salud y enumere los medicamentos y dosis actuales, al igual que el historial médico mientras estuvo en la Institución. OPSO también suministrará suficientes medicamentos para el período de tránsito de los prisioneros que serán transferidos a otra cárcel o institución correccional, en la cantidad que exija la agencia receptora.
D. SANIDAD Y CONDICIONES AMBIENTALES
La parte demandada se asegurará de proporcionarle a los prisioneros condiciones sanitarias y ambientales adecuadas conforme a la Constitución. Para proporcionarles a los prisioneros condiciones de vida seguras, OPSO, como mínimo:
1. Sanidad y condiciones ambientales
a. OPSO proporcionará vigilancia y supervisión de la limpieza rutinaria de las unidades de vivienda, duchas y áreas médicas. Dicha vigilancia y supervisión incluirá procesos y documentación de inspección significativos, al igual que establecer que los requisitos de limpieza rutinaria para los inodoros, duchas y unidades de vivienda se documenten por lo menos una vez a la semana, aunque deben ocurrir con más frecuencia.
- 33 -

b. Continuar con el plan de mantenimiento preventivo para responder a las necesidades de mantenimiento de rutina y de emergencia, incluso asegurar que las duchas, inodoros y los módulos de fregadero estén adecuadamente instalados y mantenidos. Las órdenes de trabajo se presentarán dentro de 48 horas a partir de la identificación de las deficiencias, o dentro de 24 horas cuando se trate de necesidades de mantenimiento de emergencia.
c. Mantener ventilación adecuada a través de las instalaciones de OPSO para asegurar que los prisioneros reciban flujo de aire adecuado y niveles razonables de calefacción y enfriamiento. El personal de mantenimiento revisará y evaluará el cumplimiento con este requisito, según corresponda, pero no menos de dos veces al año.
d. Asegurar la iluminación adecuada en todas las unidades de vivienda de los prisioneros y el reemplazo y reparación oportuna del sistema de iluminación en las áreas de estar dentro de cinco días, a menos que tenga que hacerse un pedido especial.
e. Asegurar el control adecuado de las plagas a través de las unidades de vivienda, incluido el rociado rutinario para el control de plagas por lo menos una vez cada tres meses y rociado adicional según sea necesario.
f. Asegurar que todo prisionero o miembro del personal asignado a limpiar un área con materia biológica peligrosa estén debidamente capacitados sobre las precauciones universales, estén equipados con materiales protectores y sean supervisados adecuadamente.
g. Asegurar el uso de químicos de limpieza que destruyan de manera suficiente los patógenos y organismos en los derrames de materia biológica peligrosa.
h. Mantener un plan de control de infecciones que atienda los peligros e infecciones que se transmiten por contacto, por la sangre o por el aire. El plan incluye disposiciones para la identificación, tratamiento y control de Estafilococo Aureus resistente a la Meticilina (MRSA en inglés) en la Institución.
2. Control ambiental
a. OPSO se asegurará de que los paneles eléctricos rotos o perdidos se reparen dentro de 30 días a partir de la identificación de las deficiencias, a menos que haya que hacer un pedido especial.
b. Desarrollar e implementar un sistema para el mantenimiento y reparación oportuna de paneles eléctricos, dispositivos y cables eléctricos expuestos.
- 34 -

3. Servicio de alimentos
a. OPSO se asegurará de que todo el personal de servicio de alimentos, incluidos los prisioneros, sigan recibiendo capacitación anual en el lugar de empleo sobre los temas de seguridad de los alimentos, procedimientos para el manejo seguro de los alimentos y la higiene adecuada, para reducir la contaminación de alimentos y las enfermedades transmitidas por los alimentos.
b. Asegurar que los platos y utensilios, áreas de preparación y almacenaje de alimentos y los vehículos y envases utilizados para transportar los alimentos se limpien y desinfecten todos los días.
c. Comprobar y registrar todos los días la temperatura en los refrigeradores, congeladores, habitaciones de refrigeración, el agua de los lavaplatos y todo el equipo de cocina que tenga un monitor de temperatura, para asegurar el mantenimiento adecuado del equipo para el servicio de alimentos.
4. Informes sobre sanidad y condiciones ambientales
a. Proporcionarle al Monitor un informe periódico sobre la sanidad y condiciones ambientales en la Institución. Estos informes periódicos serán entregados al Monitor dentro de los cuatro meses a partir de la Fecha de Entrada en Vigor; y cada seis meses posteriormente hasta que termine este Acuerdo. Cada informe incluirá:
(1) el número y tipo de violaciones notificadas por los inspectores de salud y sanidad;
(2) el número y tipo de violaciones de normas estatales;
(3) el número de querellas presentadas por los prisioneros con relación a las condiciones ambientales en la Institución;
(4) el número de instalaciones de plomería, sistemas de iluminación, sistemas de calefacción, refrigeración y ventilación (HVAC), sistemas de protección contra fuegos y sistemas de seguridad fuera de servicio que no hayan sido reparados dentro de los 30 días a partir del hallazgo;
(5) el número de áreas ocupadas por los prisioneros con vandalismo significativo, equipamiento roto o desorden excesivo;
(6) los incidentes de insectos y roedores en las unidades de vivienda y comedores; y
(7) los incidentes de pobre circulación del aire en las unidades de vivienda.
- 35 -

b. Revisar los informes periódicos sobre sanidad y condiciones ambientales para determinar si se han atendido las querellas de los prisioneros y las violaciones notificadas por los inspectores de salud, sanidad o estatales, de manera que se asegure el cumplimiento de los requisitos de este Acuerdo. OPSO hará recomendaciones con respecto a la sanidad y condiciones ambientales u otros cambios necesarios en la política basados en esta revisión. La revisión y las recomendaciones se documentarán y proporcionarán al Monitor.
E. PROTECCIÓN CONTRA INCENDIOS Y PROTECCIÓN DE LA VIDA
OPSO se asegurará de que la preparación en caso de emergencias y el equipo de protección contra incendios y protección de la vida sean conformes con las normas constitucionales. Para proteger a los prisioneros de incendios y peligros relacionados, OPSO, como mínimo:
1. Incendios y Seguridad
a. Asegurará que el equipo de protección contra incendios y protección de la vida necesario se mantenga de manera adecuada y se inspeccione por lo menos una vez cada tres meses. Estas inspecciones deben ser documentadas.
b. Asegurará que un oficial de protección contra incendios calificado lleve a cabo una inspección mensual de las instalaciones para evaluar el cumplimiento con las normas de protección contra incendios y protección de la vida (por ejemplo, rutas de escape en caso de incendio, cabezales de rociadores, detectores de humo, etc.).
c. Asegurará que se lleven a cabo simulacros de incendio exhaustivos cada seis meses. OPSO documentará estos simulacros e incluirá la hora de comienzo y fin y el número y ubicación de los prisioneros que fueron trasladados como parte de los simulacros.
d. Ofrecerá capacitación basada en las competencias al personal acerca de las prácticas y procedimientos en caso de incendios y emergencia adecuados por lo menos una vez al año.
e. Dentro de los 120 días a partir de la Fecha de Entrada en Vigor, asegurará que las llaves de emergencia estén debidamente marcadas y se puedan identificar al tacto, que se conserven continuamente en un lugar accesible, y que el personal esté debidamente capacitado en el uso de las llaves de emergencia.
2. Informes sobre protección contra incendios y protección de la vida
a. Proporcionará al Monitor un informe periódico sobre las condiciones de protección contra incendios y protección de la vida en la Institución. Estos informes periódicos serán entregados al Monitor dentro de los cuatro meses a
- 36 -

partir de la Fecha de Entrada en Vigor; y cada seis meses posteriormente hasta que termine este Acuerdo. Cada informe incluirá:
(1) El número y tipo de violaciones notificadas por los inspectores de protección contra incendios y protección de la vida;
(2) Las violaciones al código de incendios durante las inspecciones para prevención de incendios; y
(3) Los incidentes de desorden peligroso en las unidades de vivienda que podrían causar un incendio.
b. Revisará los informes periódicos sobre protección contra incendios y protección de la vida para determinar si se han atendido las querellas de los prisioneros y las violaciones notificadas por los inspectores de protección contra incendios y protección de la vida, de manera que se asegure el cumplimiento de los requisitos de este Acuerdo. OPSO hará recomendaciones con respecto a la protección contra incendios y protección de la vida u otros cambios necesarios en la política basados en esta revisión. La revisión y las recomendaciones se documentarán y proporcionarán al Monitor.
F. AYUDA CON EL IDIOMA
1. Acceso oportuno y significativo a los servicios
a. OPP se asegurará de que haya comunicación efectiva y se proporcione acceso oportuno y significativo a los servicios de OPP a todos los prisioneros de OPP, independientemente de su origen nacional o capacidad limitada para hablar, leer, escribir o entender inglés. Para alcanzar este resultado, OPP:
(1) Desarrollará e implementará un plan de asistencia con el idioma exhaustivo que cumpla, como mínimo con el Título VI de la Ley de Derechos Civiles de 1964, según enmendada, (42 U.S.C. § 2000d y subsiguientes) y otras leyes aplicables;
(2) Asegurará que todo el personal de OPP tome medidas razonables para proporcionar servicios de asistencia con el idioma oportunos y significativos a los prisioneros con conocimientos limitados del inglés;
(3) En el momento de ingreso y clasificación, identificará y evaluará los datos demográficos, específicamente el número de personas con conocimientos limitados del inglés en OPP mensualmente y el idioma(s) que hablan;
(4) Usará la información demográfica recopilada para desarrollar e implementar metas de contratación de personal bilingüe que cumpla con
- 37 -

las necesidades de la población promedio mensual actual de prisioneros con conocimientos limitados del inglés;
(5) Evaluará con regularidad la aptitud y calificaciones del personal bilingüe para convertirse en un intérprete autorizado de OPP (OPPAI, por su siglas en inglés);
(6) Creará y mantendrá una lista de OPPAI y proporcionará esa lista al personal de clasificación e ingreso; y
(7) Asegurará que mientras se encuentren en OPP, no se le pida a los prisioneros con conocimientos limitados del inglés que firmen o pongan sus iniciales en documentos en inglés sin que antes se les proporcione una traducción por escrito de parte de un OPPAI.
2. Políticas y procedimientos sobre la asistencia con el idioma
a. OPP desarrollará e implementará políticas, procedimientos y protocolos por escrito para documentar, procesar y dar seguimiento a las personas detenidas por el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS, por sus siglas en inglés) durante un plazo no mayor de 48 horas.
b. Las políticas, procedimientos y protocolos para tramitar las detenciones de 48 horas por DHS:
(1) Describirán claramente cuándo se considera que empieza y termina una detención de 48 horas;
(2) Asegurarán que, de ser necesario, un OPPAI se comunique verbalmente con el prisionero de OPP sobre cuándo se espera que el período de detención de 48 horas empiece y termine.
(3) Proporcionarán un mecanismo para que un pariente y abogado del prisionero sea notificado del período de detención durante 48 horas que incluya, de ser necesario, un OPPAI o servicio de interpretación telefónica;
(4) Crearán un método de seguimiento automatizado que no dependa de la memoria humana o documentación en papel, para activar una notificación a DHS y asegurar que no se exceda el período de detención de 48 horas.
(5) Asegurarán que los servicios telefónicos tengan instrucciones grabadas en inglés y español;
(6) Asegurarán que se traduzcan al español y se fijen los carteles que proporcionen instrucciones a los prisioneros de OPP o sus familias;
- 38 -

(7) Proporcionarán traducciones al español de documentos vitales que estén sujetos a diseminación a los prisioneros de OPP o sus parientes. Dichos documentos vitales incluirán de manera no exclusiva:
i. formularios de quejas;
ii. formularios de visitas a enfermería;
iii. manuales para confinados de OPP; Avisos a Prisioneros (por ejemplo, violaciones a las normas, transferencias y respuestas a quejas) y
iv. formularios de "Solicitud de Servicios".
(8) Asegurarán que los prisioneros hispanoparlantes con conocimientos limitados del inglés obtengan traducciones al español de los formularios que proporcione DHS; y
(9) Proporcionarán su plan de asistencia con el idioma y políticas relacionadas a todo el personal dentro de los 180 días a partir de la Fecha de Entrada en Vigor de este Acuerdo.
3. Capacitación sobre conocimientos limitados del inglés
a. Dentro de los 180 días a partir de la fecha de Entrada en Vigor, OPP proporcionará capacitación sobre la asistencia con el idioma durante por lo menos 8 horas a todo el personal correccional, médico y de salud mental que interactúe regularmente con los prisioneros con conocimiento limitado del inglés.
(1) La capacitación sobre los conocimientos limitados del inglés incluirá:
i. El plan y las políticas sobre los conocimientos limitados del inglés de OPP y los requisitos establecidos por el Título VI y este Acuerdo;
ii. cómo obtener acceso a los OPPAI por teléfono o en persona autorizados por OPP; y
iii. órdenes y declaraciones básicas en español para el personal de OPP.
(2) OPP traducirá el plan y política de asistencia con el idioma al español y otros idiomas según corresponda, y colocará la versión en inglés y la traducción en un área pública de las instalaciones de OPP y por Internet.
(3) OPP pondrá a disposición del público su plan de asistencia con el idioma.
- 39 -

4. Personal bilingüe
(1) OPP se asegurará de que se asigne personal bilingüe adecuado a las unidades de vivienda donde puedan estar recluidos los detenidos de DHS y otros prisioneros con conocimiento limitado del inglés.
(2) OPP se asegurará de que un número adecuado de personal bilingüe esté disponible para traducir o interpretar para los prisioneros y otro personal de OPP. El número adecuado de personal bilingüe se determinará con base en una evaluación de personal realizada por OPP.
G. PRISIONEROS JÓVENES
La Ley de eliminación de la violación en las prisiones de 2003, 42 U.S.C. § 15601 y subsiguientes, y los reglamentos de aplicación, disponen que no se asignará un prisionero joven a una unidad de vivienda donde el prisionero joven tendrá contacto visual, auditivo o físico con cualquier prisionero adulto a través del uso de salas diurnas compartidas u otros espacios comunes, área de duchas o dormitorios. En las áreas fuera de las unidades de vivienda, OPSO: mantendrá la separación visual y auditiva entre los prisioneros jóvenes y prisioneros adultos, o proporcionará supervisión directa por el personal cuando los prisioneros jóvenes y los prisioneros adultos tengan contacto visual, auditivo o físico. OPP se asegurará de que los prisioneros jóvenes con estado de custodia protectora no tengan contacto o acceso a prisioneros de custodia no protectora. OPP desarrollará políticas para la prestación de servicios de salud mental y programación adecuados para la edad.
V. FONDOS
A. El Tribunal determinará los fondos iniciales necesarios para asegurar las condiciones constitucionales del confinamiento en OPP, de acuerdo con los términos de este Acuerdo y la(s) fuente(s) responsable(s) de proporcionar los fondos durante la audiencia probatoria ("juicio de fondos"). El Demandado, el tercero Demandado, Ciudad de Nueva Orleans ("Ciudad") y los Demandantes tendrán el derecho a participar plenamente durante el juicio de fondos, lo que incluirá presentar el testimonio y análisis de expertos con respecto al costo de implementación de este Acuerdo.
B. El Demandado será responsable de la implementación de este Acuerdo luego de que se emita una decisión definitiva en relación con los fondos iniciales para este Acuerdo.
C. Una vez se determinen los fondos conforme al Párrafo A, la cantidad de los fondos a partir de ese momento podrá ajustarse anualmente para tomar en cuenta los cambios en el tamaño de la población de prisioneros, inflación u otros costos operacionales. Si el Demandado y la Ciudad no pueden ponerse de acuerdo sobre dichos ajustes al presupuesto anual, el Monitor intervendrá y resolverá la disputa. Si el Monitor no puede resolver la disputa dentro de los 45 días, la disputa se presentará al juez de distrito para que emita una resolución. El Demandado, la Ciudad y los Demandantes aceptan trabajar
- 40 -

de buena fe para determinar las medidas para reducir los gastos que podrían ser el resultado de la implementación continua de este Acuerdo.
D. El Demandado proporcionará un presupuesto anual para desembolsar los fondos para las operaciones de OPP y un estado financiero auditado anual al Monitor, la Ciudad y los Demandantes. El Monitor asistirá en la supervisión para asegurar que los fondos para implementar este Acuerdo se distribuyan de manera que se cumpla con este Acuerdo.
VI. LA NUEVA CÁRCEL
A. Las Partes tienen previsto que el Demandado construirá una nueva cárcel o cárceles que reemplazarán o suplementarán el establecimiento actual localizado en 2800 Gravier Street, New Orleans, Louisiana. Este Acuerdo aplicará a cualquier cárcel nueva.
B. El Demandado obtendrá los servicios de un profesional calificado para evaluar, diseñar, planificar, supervisar e implementar la construcción de cualquier cárcel nueva. En todas las etapas principales de la construcción de las instalaciones, el Demandado proporcionará al Monitor copias de los documentos de diseño.
C. El Demandado consultará con un experto en correcciones calificado en cuanto a los servicios requeridos y los niveles de personal necesarios para cualquier cárcel de reemplazo. OPSO llevará a cabo un estudio de personal para asegurar que cualquier cárcel nueva tenga el personal adecuado para proporcionarle a los prisioneros seguridad razonable.
D. El Demandado se asegurará de que la cárcel nueva se construya de conformidad con: (1) las normas de American Correctional Association con vigencia en el momento de la construcción; (2) la Ley de estadounidenses con discapacidades de 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, incluidos los cambios realizados por las Enmiendas a la ADA de 2008 (P.L. 110-325) y 47 U.S.C. §§ 225-661 y los reglamentos de aplicación; y (3) todos los códigos y reglamentos para la prevención de incendios aplicables.
VII. CUMPLIMIENTO Y MEJORAMIENTO DE CALIDAD
A. Dentro de los 120 días a partir de la Fecha de Entrada en Vigor, OPSO revisará o desarrollará sus políticas, procedimientos, protocolos, currículo de capacitación y prácticas para asegurar que estén en armonía, incorporen, atiendan e implementen todas las disposiciones de este Acuerdo. OPSO revisará o desarrollará según sea necesario otros documentos escritos como herramientas de evaluación, registros, manuales y formularios para hacer cumplir las disposiciones de este Acuerdo. OPSO enviará las políticas y procedimientos pertinentes, redactadas y revisadas recientemente, al Monitor a medida que se emitan. El Monitor presentará sus comentarios sobre las políticas a OPSO, SPLC y DOJ dentro de 30 días. OPSO, SPLC y DOJ pueden presentar comentarios en torno a los comentarios del Monitor dentro de 15 días. En ese momento, el Monitor considerará los comentarios de las Partes, mediará cualquier disputa y aprobará las políticas con todos los cambios dentro de 30 días. Si alguna de las partes está en desacuerdo con el Monitor, podrá llevar la disputa ante el Tribunal. OPSO también
- 41 -

ofrecerá capacitación inicial y durante el empleo a todo el personal de la Institución con respecto a las políticas y procedimientos implementados o revisados recientemente. OPSO documentará la revisión y capacitación sobre las políticas y procedimientos nuevos o revisados a los empleados.
H. Dentro de los 180 días a partir de la Fecha de Entrada en Vigor, el Demandado desarrollará e implementará políticas y procedimientos por escrito sobre el mejoramiento de la calidad que sean adecuados para identificar las deficiencias graves en la protección de daños, prevención de suicidios entre prisioneros, desintoxicación, cuidado de salud mental, salud ambiental y protección contra incendios y protección de la vida para evaluar y asegurar el cumplimiento con los términos de este Acuerdo de manera continua. Dentro de 90 días después de la identificación de deficiencias graves, OPSO desarrollará e implementará políticas y procedimientos para atender los problemas que se hayan descubierto durante las actividades de mejoramiento de calidad. Las políticas y procedimientos incluirán el desarrollo e implementación de planes de acción correctiva, según sea necesario, dentro de los 30 días a partir de cada revisión semestral.
I. Las Partes acuerdan que OPSO contratará y empleará, o reasignará a un empleado existente de OPSO durante el plazo de este Acuerdo, para que se desempeñe como Coordinador de Cumplimiento de OPSO a tiempo completo. El Coordinador de Cumplimiento será el enlace entre las Partes y el Monitor y asistirá a OPSO a cumplir con este Acuerdo. Como mínimo, el Coordinador de Cumplimiento: coordinará las actividades de cumplimiento e implementación de OPSO; facilitará la prestación de datos, documentos, materiales y acceso al personal de OPSO al Monitor, SPLC, DOJ y el público, según sea necesario; asegurará que todos los documentos y registros se conserven según lo dispone este Acuerdo; y ayudará a asignar las tareas de cumplimiento al personal de OPSO, según lo ordene el Sheriff o la persona que éste designe. El Coordinador de Cumplimiento tendrá la responsabilidad principal de recopilar la información que el Monitor requiere para llevar a cabo las tareas asignadas al Monitor.
J. Dos veces al año, OPSO le proporcionará al público una autoevaluación donde se presentarán las áreas de mejoramiento significativo o aquellas áreas que todavía están en proceso de mejoramiento ya sea a través del sitio Web de OPSO o mediante una declaración o informe público.
VIII. REQUISITOS DE NOTIFICACIÓN Y DERECHO A ACCESO
A. OPSO presentará informes de cumplimiento periódicos al Monitor. Estos informes periódicos serán entregados al Monitor dentro de los cuatro meses a partir de la fecha en que se emita una decisión definitiva en relación con los fondos, y cada seis meses posteriormente hasta que termine este Acuerdo. Cada informe de cumplimiento describirá las medidas que el Demandado ha tomado durante el período de notificación para implementar este Acuerdo y hará remisiones específicas a las disposiciones del Acuerdo que se están implementando. El informe también resumirá las auditorías y las actividades de mejoramiento continuo y aseguramiento de calidad, y contendrá los hallazgos y recomendaciones que se usarán para dar seguimiento y constatar las tendencias de los
- 42 -

datos recopilados en la Institución. El informe también recabará datos que son rastreados y monitoreados conforme a las normas de notificación en las siguientes disposiciones: Uso de la fuerza; Prevención de suicidio; Suministro de cuidado de salud; Condiciones sanitarias y ambientales; y Protección contra incendios y protección de la vida.
B. OPSO le notificará al Monitor sobre la muerte de un prisionero dentro de 24 horas. El Monitor enviará dichas notificaciones a SPLC y DOJ tan pronto las reciba. OPSO enviará al Monitor informes de incidentes e informes médicos o de salud mental relacionados con las muertes, autopsias o resúmenes de muerte de los prisioneros, al igual que todos los informes finales de SOD e IAD relacionados con prisioneros. El Monitor enviará dichos informes a SPLC y DOJ tan pronto las reciba.
C. El Demandado conservará registros suficientes para documentar que se están implementando de manera adecuada los requisitos de este Acuerdo y asegurar que dichos registros estén disponibles al Monitor dentro de siete días a partir de la solicitud de inspección y reproducción. Además, el Demandado conservará y proporcionará, previa solicitud, todos los registros u otros documentos para comprobar que han tomado las medidas descritas en sus informes de cumplimiento (por ejemplo, resúmenes del censo, políticas, procedimientos, protocolos, materiales de capacitación, investigaciones, informes de incidentes, registros por niveles (tier logs), informes sobre uso de fuerza.)
D. SPLC, DOJ y sus abogados, consultores y agentes tendrán acceso ilimitado a la Institución, prisioneros, personal y documentos, según sea razonablemente necesario para atender los asuntos afectados por este Acuerdo. SPLC y DOJ darán aviso con por lo menos siete días de anticipación y divulgarán los nombres de cada persona que participará en la visita, el rol de cada persona y el propósito de la visita. SPLC no tendrá que dar aviso con siete días de anticipación para las visitas regulares de los abogados.
E. Dentro de 30 días a partir del recibo de las preguntas escritas de SPLC o DOJ con respecto al cumplimiento del Demandado con los requisitos de este Acuerdo, el Demandado proporcionará al solicitante las respuestas por escrito y todos los documentos solicitados.
IX. MONITOREO
A. Selección del Monitor: Las Partes seleccionarán en conjunto al Monitor que supervisará la implementación del Acuerdo. Si el puesto del monitor se vuelve vacante y las Partes no pueden llegar a un acuerdo sobre el reemplazo, las Partes recomendarán candidatos al Tribunal y el Tribunal designará al Monitor de los nombres presentados por las Partes. Ninguna de las partes, empleados o agentes de cualquiera de las partes tendrán autoridad de supervisión sobre las actividades, informes, hallazgos o recomendaciones del Monitor. El Tribunal determinará la distribución del costo de las tarifas y gastos del Monitor. Si todas las Partes están de acuerdo en que el Monitor no está cumpliendo con sus deberes conforme a este Acuerdo, las Partes podrán pedirle al Tribunal que destituya y reemplace de inmediato al Monitor. Una de las partes puede unilateralmente pedirle al Tribunal que
- 43 -

destituya al Monitor por justa causa y las otras Partes tendrán la oportunidad de responder a la petición.
B. Justa causa para los fines de este Acuerdo significará de manera no exclusiva: descuido craso de los deberes; conducta indebida intencional; relación personal no adecuada con el Demandado o cualquier otro empleado de OPSO; conflicto de interés; o cualquier conducta delictiva durante la vigencia de este Acuerdo.
C. Calificaciones del Monitor: El Monitor y su personal tendrán la experiencia y educación o capacitación adecuada relacionada con las materias cubiertas por este Acuerdo. Las Partes se reservan el derecho a objetar por justa causa a cualquier miembro del personal del Monitor.
D. Acceso al Monitor: El Monitor tendrá acceso pleno y total a la Institución, todos los registros de la Institución, registros médicos y de salud mental de los prisioneros, el personal y los prisioneros. OPSO ordenará a todos los empleados a que cooperen plenamente con el Monitor. Toda la información que obtenga el Monitor será conservada de manera confidencial.
E. Comunicaciones ex parte del Monitor: El Monitor podrá dar inicio y recibir comunicaciones ex parte con todas las Partes.
F. Diseminación de documentos, informes y evaluaciones de OPSO: Dentro de siete días a partir del recibo, el Monitor diseminará todas las evaluaciones e informes de OPSO a SPLC, DOJ y la Ciudad. El Monitor también proporcionará todos los documentos relacionados con el cumplimiento de OPSO dentro de siete días a DOJ, SPLC, DOJ y la Ciudad previa solicitud.
G. Limitaciones a divulgaciones al público por el Monitor: Excepto según lo exijan o autoricen los términos de este Acuerdo o las Partes actuando en conjunto, el Monitor no hará declaraciones públicas o a la prensa (en una conferencia u de otro tipo) o emitirá hallazgos con relación a cualquier acto u omisión del Demandado o los agentes, representantes o empleados del Monitor, o divulgará información proporcionada al Monitor de conformidad con este Acuerdo. El Monitor no testificará en ningún otro litigio o procedimiento con respecto a cualquier acto u omisión del Demandado o cualquiera de los agentes, representantes o empleados del Demandado relacionado con este Acuerdo, ni testificará con respecto a otra materia o asunto del cual haya tenido conocimiento como resultado de su labor conforme a este Acuerdo, ni se desempeñará como experto en un litigio con respecto a ninguna materia o asunto del cual haya tenido conocimiento como resultado de su labor conforme a este Acuerdo. A menos que las Partes renuncien a dicho conflicto, el Monitor no aceptará empleo u ofrecerá servicios de consultoría que pudieran presentar un conflicto de intereses con las responsabilidades del Monitor conforme a este Acuerdo. Esto incluye ser contratado (con o sin compensación) por cualquier litigante o reclamante presente o futuro, o el abogado de dicho litigante o reclamante, en relación con cualquier reclamación o demanda en contra del Demandado o los departamentos, oficiales, agentes o empleados del Demandado. El Monitor no es una
- 44 -

agencia estatal, del condado o local, o un agente de ésta, y, por consiguiente, los registros en posesión del Monitor no se considerarán registros públicos sujetos a inspección pública. Ni el Monitor ni ninguna otra persona o entidad contratada o de otra manera empleada por el Monitor para asistir en el cumplimiento de cualquier disposición de este Acuerdo será responsable de cualquier reclamación, demanda o petición que surja del desempeño del Monitor conforme a este Acuerdo. Esta disposición no aplica a ningún procedimiento ante un tribunal relacionado con el cumplimiento de contratos o subcontratos para el monitoreo de este Acuerdo.
H. Informes del Monitor: El Monitor presentará ante el Tribunal y proporcionará a las Partes informes que describirán los pasos tomados por el Demandado para implementar este Acuerdo y evaluar la medida en que el Demandado ha cumplido con cada disposición sustantiva del Acuerdo. El Monitor emitirá un informe inicial 120 días después de la Fecha de Entrada en Vigor y luego cada 180 días. Los informes se proporcionarán a las Partes en formato de borrador para que se presenten comentarios por lo menos 14 días antes de su emisión. El Monitor considerará las respuestas de las Partes y efectuará los cambios adecuados, si hubiera alguno, antes de emitir el informe. Estos informes serán redactados con la debida consideración de los intereses de privacidad de los prisioneros individuales y el personal y los intereses del Demandado para proteger contra la divulgación de información no permitida por este Acuerdo.
I. Los informes emitidos por el Monitor no serán admisibles contra el Demandado en cualquier procedimiento que no esté relacionado con el cumplimiento de este Acuerdo iniciado y manejado exclusivamente por el Demandado, SPLC o DOJ.
J. Evaluaciones de cumplimiento: En el informe del Monitor, el Monitor evaluará la situación del cumplimiento para cada disposición pertinente del Acuerdo con base en las siguientes normas: (1) cumplimiento sustancial; (2) cumplimiento parcial e (3) incumplimiento. Para poder evaluar el cumplimiento, el Monitor examinará un número suficiente de documentos pertinentes para evaluar adecuadamente las condiciones actuales, entrevistar a todo el personal necesario y entrevistar a un número suficiente de prisioneros para evaluar adecuadamente las condiciones actuales. El Monitor será responsable de verificar independientemente las representaciones del Demandado en relación con el progreso hacia el cumplimiento y examinar los documentos de apoyo. Cada informe del Monitor describirá las medidas tomadas por cada miembro del equipo de monitoreo para analizar las condiciones y evaluar el cumplimiento, incluidos los documentos revisados y las personas entrevistadas y los fundamentos de hecho para cada uno de los hallazgos del Monitor.
K. Asistencia técnica por el Monitor: El Monitor le proporcionará al Demandado la asistencia técnica que solicite el Demandado. La asistencia técnica debe ser razonable y no debe interferir con la capacidad del Monitor de evaluar el cumplimiento.
- 45 -

X. CUMPLIMIENTO
A. El Tribunal conservará la jurisdicción sobre la implementación de este Acuerdo en el OPP existente o cualquier otra institución utilizada para reemplazar o suplementar el OPP para todos los fines.
B. Mientras este Acuerdo esté en vigor, si el Monitor, SPLC o DOJ determina que el Demandado no ha tenido progreso significativo hacia el cumplimiento sustancial con alguna obligación significativa conforme al Acuerdo, y dicho incumplimiento constituye una violación de los derechos constitucionales de los prisioneros, SPLC o DOJ podría dar inicio a un proceso de desacato o cumplimiento contra el Demandado por el incumplimiento presunto con alguna de las obligaciones bajo las Secciones IV a X de este Acuerdo en el Tribunal.
C. Antes de tomar una medida judicial para iniciar un proceso de desacato o incumplimiento, SPLC o DOJ notificará al Demandado por escrito sobre su intención de dar inicio a dicho proceso, y las Partes se comunicarán de buena fe para resolver la disputa y podrían pedirle al Tribunal que celebre una audiencia de estatus para ayudar a resolver el asunto.
D. El Demandado tendrá 30 días a partir de la fecha de dicho aviso para subsanar el incumplimiento (o el tiempo adicional que sea razonable debido a la naturaleza del asunto y según acordado por las Partes) y proporcionará a la parte que presentó la reclamación prueba suficiente para demostrar que subsanó el incumplimiento. Al final del período de 30 días (o el tiempo adicional que se considere razonable debido a la naturaleza del asunto y según acordado por las Partes), si la parte que presentó la reclamación determina que no se ha subsanado el incumplimiento, dicha parte podrá dar inicio a un proceso de desacato sin aviso previo. Las Partes se comprometen a trabajar de buena fe con el Demandado para evitar las acciones de incumplimiento.
E. Sin embargo, de surgir una emergencia que presente una amenaza inmediata a la salud o seguridad de cualquier prisionero o miembro del personal en OPP, DOJ o SPLC podría omitir el aviso y subsanar los requisitos y solicitar el cumplimiento con el Acuerdo.
XI. INTERPRETACIÓN, IMPLEMENTACIÓN Y RESCISIÓN
A. El Demandado implementará todas las reformas, según se designen en las disposiciones de este Acuerdo, que sean necesarias para poner en vigor este Acuerdo. La implementación de este Acuerdo comenzará de inmediato en la Fecha de Entrada en Vigor.
B. Excepto lo acordado conforme a una disposición específica de este Acuerdo, el Demandado implementará todas las disposiciones de este Acuerdo dentro de los 180 días a partir de la Fecha de Entrada en Vigor.
- 46 -

C. Este Acuerdo se dará por terminado cuando el Demandado haya alcanzado el cumplimiento sustancial con cada disposición del Acuerdo y haya mantenido Cumplimiento Sustancial con el Acuerdo durante un período de dos años.
D. Si ocurre alguna circunstancia imprevista que no permita que se cumpla con cualquiera de los requisitos de este Acuerdo, el Demandado le notificará a DOJ y SPLC por escrito dentro del plazo de siete días después de que el Demandado se entere de la circunstancia imprevista y su efecto sobre la capacidad del Demandado de cumplir con el Acuerdo. El aviso describirá la causa del incumplimiento y las medidas tomadas para evitar o minimizar el incumplimiento. El Demandado implementará todas las medidas razonables para evitar o minimizar dicho incumplimiento.
E. Este Acuerdo constituirá el Acuerdo íntegro completo de las Partes. Ninguna de las comunicaciones previas o contemporáneas, verbales o por escrito, serán pertinentes o admisibles para fines de determinar el significado de cualquier disposición en dicho Acuerdo, en este litigio o cualquier otro proceso.
F. El Acuerdo aplicará y vinculará a las Partes, sus oficiales, agentes, empleados, cesionarios y sus sucesores.
G. El incumplimiento por cualquiera de las partes con este Acuerdo en su totalidad o cualquier disposición en dicho Acuerdo con respecto a cualquier fecha límite o cualquier otra disposición no se interpretará como una renuncia al derecho de la parte de hacer cumplir otras fechas límite o disposiciones de este Acuerdo.
H. Si se declara inválida cualquier disposición de este Acuerdo por cualquier motivo por un tribunal de jurisdicción competente, dicho hallazgo no afectará las demás disposiciones de este Acuerdo.
XII. ESTIPULACIÓN CONFORME A LA LEY DE REFORMAS A LITIGIOS DE PRISIONES, 18 U.S.C. § 3626
Las partes estipulan que este Acuerdo cumple en todos los aspectos con las disposiciones de 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). Las Partes estipulan y aceptan y el Tribunal determina que el remedio potencial en este Acuerdo es estrecho, no se extiende más allá de lo necesario para corregir las violaciones a los derechos civiles según alegan los Demandantes en las Demandas, es la manera menos intrusiva para corregir estas violaciones y no tendrá un efecto adverso sobre la seguridad pública o las operaciones del sistema de justicia criminal. Por lo tanto, las partes aceptan y representan que este Acuerdo cumple en todos los aspectos con las disposiciones de 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). Cualquier admisión hecha para los fines de este Acuerdo no es admisible si se presenta por terceros en otro proceso.
- 47 -

Así se ORDENA el ___________ de __________________ de 2012 El Honorable _____________________________________, Juez del Tribunal de Distrito de los Estados Unidos
- 48 -

EN REPRESENTACIÓN DEL GRUPO DEMANDANTE:
_____________________________ KATIE SCHWARTZMANN ELIZABETH CUMMING Southern Poverty Law Center 4431 Canal Street New Orleans, LA 70119 (504) 486-8982 katie.schwartzmann@splcenter.org
EN REPRESENTACIÓN DE LOS DEMANDANTES, LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS:
_____________________________ THOMAS E. PEREZ Asistente del Secretario de Justicia División de Derechos Civiles
_____________________________ ROY L. AUSTIN, JR. Subsecretario Adjunto del Secretario de Justicia División de Derechos Civiles
_____________________________ JONATHAN M. SMITH Jefe Sección de Litigios Especiales
_______________________________________ LAURA L. COON, Asesora Especial COREY M. SANDERS SILVIA J. DOMINGUEZ Abogados Litigantes Departamento de Justicia de EE.UU. División de Derechos Civiles, Sección de Litigios Especiales 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305-3229 corey.sanders@usdoj.gov
- 49 -

EN REPRESENTACIÓN DEL DEMANDADO SHERIFF: __________________________ MARLIN N. GUSMAN Sheriff de Orleans Parish ___________________________ T. ALLEN USRY Usry, Weeks & Matthews, APLC 1615 Poydras Street, Suite 1250 New Orleans, LA 70112 (504) 592-4600
- 50 -

APÉNDICE A Criterios que activan una remisión para investigación
Eventos desencadenantes que ocurren en OPP Umbrales alcanzados en OPP

1. Presencia de heridas resultantes que sean extensas y graves
2. Presencia de heridas resultantes que incluyan fracturas o trauma a la cabeza
3. Presencia de heridas resultantes que requieran tratamiento en hospitales externos
4. Informes de eventos por el personal y prisioneros que sean sustancialmente incompatibles
5. No notificar o notificar de manera no exacta el uso de la fuerza
6. Represalias contra un confinado u otro miembro del personal que notifique el uso de fuerza excesiva o fuerza inadecuada
7. Interferir o no cooperar con una investigación relacionada con el uso de la fuerza
8. Conducta sexual con un confinado

1. Dos o más incidentes o quejas sobre uso de la fuerza en un período de 30 días
2. Muerte de un confinado que sea el resultado del uso de fuerza
3. Oficial arrestado por conducta indebida presunta relacionada con el uso de fuerza

- 51 -

 
 JOB TITLE:
Independent Jail Compliance Director, Orleans Parish Jail Facilities

SALARY RANGE:
$150,000-$200,000. To be finalized by the U.S. District Court.

SUPERVISION RECEIVED FROM: U.S. District Court

SUPERVISION EXERCISED OVER: All jail personnel and staff, food service, medical, and facility staff.

WORK SCHEDULE: FT Varies depending upon workload, typically M-F

APPLICATION PROCESS: By July 8, 2016, Send Resume/curriculum vitae and cover letter to opso.compliancedirector@usdoj.gov

MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: Applicants for this position must possess a Bachelor's degree in Criminal Justice, Public Administration or a related field and seven (7) years of experience in an urban correctional environment with at least five (5) years at a management level, or significant corrections experience that the Candidate can justify as comparable to the stated qualifications. Candidate should have excellent management and leadership skills, cutting edge knowledge of modern corrections methods, facilities and technology, and excellent written and verbal skills, including community and media relations.

PREFERRED QUALIFICATIONS: Master’s degree or certification as one or more of the following: Certified Corrections Executive (CCE), Certified Jail Manager (CJM), or Certified Correctional Trainer (CCT). Experience in direct supervision jail management and/or experience in a jail with an average daily population of more than 1000 inmates. Supervisory experience of management teams. Experience implementing jail reform measures. Experience with formulating and presenting jail budgets to local governmental entities.

SUMMARY: The Independent Jail Compliance Director is responsible for implementing the requirements of the attached Stipulated Order for Appointment of Independent Jail Compliance Director, to make progress toward bringing the Orleans jail into compliance with an existing federal court Consent Judgment. The Independent Jail Compliance Director shall provide the direction, control and guidance necessary for the safe and effective operation of the Orleans Parish jail facility within accepted professional standards and in accordance with the existing Consent Judgment. This includes directing and monitoring staffing, classification, disciplinary procedures, grievance procedures, detainee housing, visitation, sanitation, and medical, dental and mental health services. It further includes selecting, terminating and directing human resources assigned to the facility; monitoring building maintenance to include general upkeep of the property; formulating and managing the jail budget; and maintaining proper records.

The Independent Jail Compliance Director must exercise consistently sound judgment and initiative, be familiar with current best practices, national standards and regulatory mandates and remain current in law enforcement and jail administration philosophy, concepts and procedures.

1

REQUIRED KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, and ABILITIES: Knowledge of the principles and practices of jail management and direct supervision, pertinent laws, modern correctional practices and procedures, and computer hardware and software regarding jail operations. Ability to communicate technical information and ideas clearly and effectively both orally and in writing. Ability to train, mentor, and oversee training of subordinates, manage multiple priorities and demands, prepare concise reports and make appropriate recommendations, understand and interpret laws, policies and procedures related to jail operation, delegate duties and assignments to achieve objectives, and establish and maintain effective working relationships with co-workers, vendors, consultants, contractors , government officials, and community stakeholders.
Essential Duties: Job duties are ultimately defined and governed by the Stipulated Order for Appointment of Independent Jail Compliance Director and Consent Judgment, but will include:
 Develop and implement strategies for compliance and improvement consistent with the requirements of the Consent Judgment and Stipulated Order for Appointment of Independent Jail Compliance Director.
 Direct long-term and short-term strategic planning and policy development. Evaluate policies, procedures and practices to ensure compliance with the objectives and goals of the Orleans Parish Jail Consent Judgment.
 Provide clear and concise instruction to staff for achievement of goals and objectives.
 Establish and manage periodic internal compliance audit processes for operational and program areas.
 Review and evaluate overall workforce effectiveness and individual performance of staff members.
 Oversee the organizing and managing of work. Ensure employee performance issues are addressed. Administer employee disciplinary action as necessary. Interview candidates for positions and implement selections, reassignments, and other personnel actions.
 Direct the development and implementation of training programs to ensure all employees receive the amount and type of training necessary to competently perform their duties and to bring the facility into compliance with the Consent Judgment.
 Project and formulate budget requirements based on Consent Judgment objectives and future needs and plans. Present budget to City Council. Efficiently manage facility resources, including staff, equipment and supplies.
2

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 1 of 53

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

_________________________________________

LASHAWN JONES, et al., and

)

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

PLAINTIFFS,

)

)

v.

)

)

MARLIN GUSMAN, Sheriff,

)

)

)

DEFENDANT.

)

_________________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-00859 Section I Judge Lance M. Africk Magistrate Judge Chasez

CONSENT JUDGMENT

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 2 of 53
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PARTIES .............................................................................................................................- 1 II. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................- 1 III. DEFINITIONS.................................................................................................................- 2 IV. SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS......................................................................................- 5 -
A. PROTECTION FROM HARM....................................................................................- 5 1. Use of Force Policies and Procedures ..........................................................................- 5 2. Use of Force Training ..................................................................................................- 6 3. Use of Force Reporting ................................................................................................- 7 4. Early Intervention System (“EIS”).............................................................................- 10 5. Safety and Supervision...............................................................................................- 11 6. Security Staffing.........................................................................................................- 13 7. Incidents and Referrals...............................................................................................- 14 8. Investigations .............................................................................................................- 16 9. Pretrial Placement in Alternative Settings: ................................................................- 17 10. Custodial Placement within OPP............................................................................- 17 11. Prisoner Grievance Process ....................................................................................- 18 12. Sexual Abuse ..........................................................................................................- 19 13. Access to Information.............................................................................................- 19 -
B. MENTAL HEALTH CARE.......................................................................................- 19 1. Screening and Assessment .........................................................................................- 20 2. Treatment ...................................................................................................................- 21 3. Counseling..................................................................................................................- 22 4. Suicide Prevention Training Program ........................................................................- 22 -
ii

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 3 of 53
5. Suicide Precautions ....................................................................................................- 24 6. Use of Restraints ........................................................................................................- 25 7. Detoxification and Training .......................................................................................- 26 8. Medical and Mental Health Staffing ..........................................................................- 27 9. Risk Management.......................................................................................................- 27 C. MEDICAL CARE ......................................................................................................- 29 1. Quality Management of Medication Administration .................................................- 30 2. Health Care Delivered................................................................................................- 30 3. Release and Transfer ..................................................................................................- 31 D. SANITATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS .....................................- 31 1. Sanitation and Environmental Conditions..................................................................- 31 2. Environmental Control...............................................................................................- 32 3. Food Service...............................................................................................................- 32 4. Sanitation and Environmental Conditions Reporting.................................................- 33 E. FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY............................................................................................- 33 1. Fire and Life Safety....................................................................................................- 33 2. Fire and Life Safety Reporting...................................................................................- 34 F. LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE ........................................................................................- 34 1. Timely and Meaningful Access to Services...............................................................- 34 2. Language Assistance Policies and Procedures...........................................................- 35 3. Language Assistance Training ...................................................................................- 36 4. Bilingual Staff ............................................................................................................- 37 G. YOUTHFUL PRISONERS........................................................................................- 37 V. FUNDING......................................................................................................................- 37 VI. THE NEW JAIL FACILITY .........................................................................................- 38 -
iii

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 4 of 53 VII. COMPLIANCE AND QUALITY IMPROVEMENT...................................................- 38 VIII. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND RIGHT OF ACCESS ................................- 39 IX. MONITORING..............................................................................................................- 40 X. ENFORCEMENT ..........................................................................................................- 42 XI. CONSTRUCTION, IMPLEMENTATION, AND TERMINATION ...........................- 43 XII. STIPULATION PURSUANT TO THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT,
18 U.S.C. § 3626............................................................................................................- 44 -
iv

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 5 of 53
I. PARTIES
This Consent Judgment (“Agreement”) is entered among and between the Plaintiff class; United States of America, acting through the United States Department of Justice; and the Orleans Parish Sheriff (in his official capacity).
II. INTRODUCTION
1. The purpose of this Agreement is to address the constitutional violations alleged in this matter, as well as the violations alleged in the findings letter issued by the United States on September 11, 2009. The Orleans Parish Prison (“OPP”) is an integral part of the public safety system in New Orleans. Through the provisions of this Agreement, the Parties seek to ensure that the conditions in OPP protect the constitutional rights of prisoners confined there. By ensuring that the conditions in OPP are constitutional, the Sheriff will also provide for the safety of staff and promote public safety in the community.
2. Plaintiffs are the settlement class (Jones and JJ Plaintiffs) and the United States. The Parties agree to a settlement class comprised of all individuals who are now or will be imprisoned in OPP.
3. Defendant is the Orleans Parish Sheriff (in his official capacity) and each of his successors in office ( the “Defendant”). Defendant shall ensure that the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office (“OPSO”) will take all actions necessary to comply with the provisions of this Agreement.
4. As indicated in Section XII of this Agreement, the Parties consent to a finding that this Agreement complies in all respects with the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a).
5. OPP is a parish-wide correctional facility in New Orleans, Louisiana. OPSO is responsible for providing care, custody, and control of prisoners. The Parties recognize that the conditions in OPP and the treatment of prisoners confined there have an impact on whether prisoners will be successfully re-integrated on release, whether released prisoners will re-offend, and on the public confidence in the criminal justice system.
6. OPSO has taken steps to address concerns at OPP. OPSO has in place certain policies, practices, and procedures, and has plans to adopt certain other policies, practices, and procedures. This Consent Judgment is based on these policies, practices, and procedures, and contemplates that the dispute between the Parties will be resolved by the continued development and implementation of these measures.
- 1 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 6 of 53
III. DEFINITIONS
1. “OPSO” refers to the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office, which is responsible for all corrections and security functions at the Facility.
2. “OPP” or “Facility” or “Jail” refers to the Orleans Parish Prison, and shall include the Temporary Detention Center (“TDC”), Templeman V, Conchetta, the FEMA-supplied windowless canvas-tents (“The Tents”), the original Orleans Parish Prison Jail, and the Broad Street work-release facility, as well as any facility that is built, leased, or otherwise used, to replace or supplement the current OPP or any part of OPP.
3. “DOJ” refers to the United States Department of Justice, which represents the United States in this matter.
4. “SPLC” refers to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which represents the Plaintiff class in this matter. Should SPLC cease to represent the Plaintiff class, “Plaintiffs’ counsel” will be substituted for “SPLC.”
5. “Assessment factors” refers to the evaluation or estimate of the levels of risk for suicide and self-injurious behavior requiring intervention.
6. “Bilingual staff” means a staff person who has demonstrated and verified proficiency, pursuant to generally accepted objective criteria, in both spoken English and at least one other language as authorized by OPP. Bilingual staff must be routinely assessed and serve as bilingual employees on behalf of OPP.
7. Consistent with, or in accordance with, the term “generally accepted correctional standards” shall mean those industry standards accepted by correctional professionals or organizations in the relevant subject area as agreed to by the Parties (e.g., the NCCHC or ACA).
8. “Days” are measured in calendar days; weekend days are included.
9. “Describe” means provide a clear and detailed description of anything done, seen, or heard.
10. “District Attorney” or “DA’s Office” refers to the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office.
11. “Document” when used in this Agreement as a verb means completing a report either in hard copy or in electronic format.
12. “Effective Date” means the date the Court enters a definitive judgment regarding the amount of funding needed to ensure compliance with the signed Agreement that has been entered as a court order by the Court.
- 2 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 7 of 53
13. “EIS” means the Early Intervention System, which is a system to collect and analyze data regarding uses of force and is used to identify the need for corrective action, including changes to training protocols and policy or retraining or disciplining individual officers or groups of officers.
14. “Emergency maintenance needs” means items that affect building security, or which may cause imminent danger to the life, safety, or health of prisoners.
15. “Good cause” means fair and honest reasons, regulated by good faith on the part of either party, that are not arbitrary, capricious, trivial, or pretextual.
16. “IAD” refers to the Internal Affairs Division.
17. “Include,” “includes”, or “including” means “include, but not be limited to” or “including, but not limited to.”
18. “Interdisciplinary Team” refers to a team consisting of treatment staff from various disciplines, including medical, nursing, and mental health and one or more members from security.
19. “Limited English Proficient” or “LEP” refers to a person who does not speak English as his/her primary language and has a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English. LEP individuals may be competent in certain types of communication (e.g. speaking or understanding), but still be LEP for other purposes (e.g. reading or writing).
20. “Monitor” means an individual and his or her team of professionals, all of whom are selected by the Parties to oversee implementation of the Agreement.
21. “NOPRS” means City of New Orleans PreTrial Release Services.
22. “Prisoners” or “Prisoner” is construed broadly to refer to one or more individuals detained at, or otherwise housed, held, in the custody of, or confined at OPP based on arrests, detainers, criminal charges, civil contempt charges, or convictions.
23. “Psychotropic medication” means any medication used to affect mental activity, perception, behavior, or mood.
24. “Qualified Health Care Professional” means an individual who has received instruction and supervision in identifying and interacting with individuals in need of health care services.
25. “Qualified Medical Professional” means a licensed physician, licensed physician assistant, or a licensed nurse practitioner, who is currently licensed by the State of Louisiana to deliver those health care services he or she has undertaken to provide.
- 3 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 8 of 53
26. “Qualified Medical Staff” refers to Qualified Medical Professionals and Qualified Nursing Staff.
27. “Qualified Mental Health Professional” refers to an individual with a minimum of masters-level education and training in psychiatry, psychology, counseling, social work or psychiatric nursing, who is currently licensed by the State of Louisiana to deliver those mental health services he or she has undertaken to provide.
28. “Qualified Nursing Staff” means registered nurses and licensed practical nurses currently licensed by the State of Louisiana to deliver those health care services he or she has undertaken to provide.
29. “Reportable incidents” refers to any incident that involves a Level 1 or 2 rule violation, a prisoner death or serious injury, serious suicide attempt, sexual threats, a cell extraction, a use of force or restraint, a medical emergency, escapes and escape attempts, and fires.
30. “Serious injury” means any injury requiring hospitalization and/or follow-up medical care.
31. “Serious suicide attempt” means a suicide attempt that is considered to be either potentially life-threatening or that requires hospitalization. Even if caught in the early stages of the attempt, if the injury resulting from the attempted act could be life threatening, the suicide attempt is “serious” and is reportable under this Agreement.
32. “Special Management Units” mean those housing units of the Facility designated for prisoners in administrative or disciplinary segregation, in protective custody, on suicide precautions, with mental illness, or who are youth age 17 and below.
33. “Staff Members” includes all employees, including correctional officers, who have contact with prisoners.
34. “Suicide Attempt” means any serious effort to commit an act of self-harm that can result in death and involving definite risk.
35. “Suicide Precautions” means any level of watch, observation, or measures to prevent suicide or self-harm.
36. “Train” means to instruct in skills to a level that the trainee has the demonstrated proficiency by testing to implement those skills as and when called for. “Trained” means proficient in the skills.
37. “Threshold” or “threshold event” means requiring a certain level of intervention due to a serious event or a number of serious events. This term is further explained in Appendix A.
- 4 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 9 of 53
38. “Triggers” or “triggering event” means an event or events, like a suicide or serious suicide attempt that causes the Facility to self-assess. This term is further explained in Appendix A.
39. “Use of force” means the application of physical or mechanical measures to compel compliance. “Use of force” shall include all force to compel compliance except complaints of minor discomfort from un-resisted handcuffing or un-resisted shackling of prisoners for movement purposes.
40. “Vital Documents” means paper or electronic written material that contains information that is critical for accessing OPP’s programs, services, or activities, or is required by law. Vital documents may include grievance forms, notification to prisoners (such as rule violations, transfers, and grievance responses), prisoner handbooks, sick call forms, and request for service forms.
41. “Youth” and “youthful prisoner” shall mean any person in OPSO custody who is age 17 or younger, or who is housed in OPP as a “transfer” youth being tried as an adult.
42. Throughout this Agreement, the following terms are used when discussing compliance: substantial compliance, partial compliance, and non-compliance. “Substantial Compliance” indicates that Defendant has achieved compliance with most or all components of the relevant provision of the Agreement. “Partial Compliance” indicates that Defendant achieved compliance on some of the components of the relevant provision of the Agreement, but significant work remains. “Non-compliance” indicates that Defendant has not met most or all of the components of the Agreement.
IV. SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS
A. PROTECTION FROM HARM
Consistent with constitutional standards, Defendant shall provide prisoners with a safe and secure environment and ensure their reasonable safety from harm. OPSO shall take all reasonable measures to ensure that during the course of incarceration prisoners are not subjected to unnecessary or excessive force by OPSO staff and are protected from violence by other prisoners.
1. Use of Force Policies and Procedures
a. OPSO shall develop, implement, and maintain comprehensive policies and procedures (in accordance with generally accepted correctional standards) relating to the use of force with particular emphasis regarding permissible and impermissible uses of force.
b. OPSO shall develop and implement a single, uniform, reporting system under a Use of Force Reporting policy. OPSO reportable force shall be divided into two levels, as further specified in policy: Level 1 uses of force will include all serious
- 5 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 10 of 53
uses of force (i.e., the use of force leads to injuries that are extensive, serious or visible in nature, including black eyes, lacerations, injuries to the mouth or head, multiple bruises, injuries to the genitals, etc.), injuries requiring hospitalization, staff misconduct, and occasions when use of force reports are inconsistent, conflicting, or otherwise suspicious. Level 2 uses of force will include all escort or control holds used to overcome resistance that are not covered by the definition of Level 1 force.
c. OPSO shall assess, annually, all data collected regarding uses of force and make any necessary changes to use of force policies or procedures to ensure that unnecessary or excessive use of force is not used in OPP. The review and recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor, DOJ, and SPLC.
2. Use of Force Training
a. OPSO shall ensure that all correctional officers are knowledgeable of and have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to comply with use of force policies and procedures. At a minimum OPSO shall provide correctional officers with pre-service and annual in-service training in use of force, defensive tactics, and use of force policies and procedures. The training will include the following:
(1) instruction on what constitutes excessive force;
(2) de-escalation tactics; and
(3) management of prisoners with mental illness to limit the need for using force.
b. OPSO shall ensure that officers are aware of any change to policies and practices throughout their employment with OPP. At a minimum, OPSO shall provide preservice and annual in-service use of force training that prohibits:
(1) use of force as a response to verbal insults or prisoner threats where there is no immediate threat to the safety or security of the institution, prisoners, staff or visitors;
(2) use of force as a response to prisoners’ failure to follow instructions where there is no immediate threat to the safety or security of the institution, prisoners, staff or visitors;
(3) use of force against a prisoner after the prisoner has ceased to offer resistance and is under control;
(4) use of force as punishment or retaliation; and
- 6 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 11 of 53
(5) use of force involving kicking, striking, hitting, or punching a non-combative prisoner.
c. OPSO shall randomly test five percent of the correctional officer staff on an annual basis to determine their knowledge of the use of force policies and procedures. The testing instrument and policies shall be approved by the Monitor. The results of these assessments shall be evaluated to determine the need for changes in training practices. The review and conclusions will be documented and provided to the Monitor.
3. Use of Force Reporting
a. Failure to report a use of force incident by any staff member engaging in the use of force or witnessing the use of force shall be grounds for discipline, up to and including termination.
b. OPSO shall ensure that sufficient information is collected on uses of force to assess whether staff members complied with policy; whether corrective action is necessary including training or discipline; the effectiveness of training and policies; and whether the conditions in OPP comply with this Agreement. At a minimum, OPSO will ensure that officers using or observing a Level 1 use of force shall complete a use of force report that will:
(1) include the names of all staff, prisoner(s), or other visual or oral witness(es);
(2) contain an accurate and specific account of the events leading to the use of force;
(3) describe the level of resistance and the type and level of force used, consistent with OPP use of force policy and procedure, as well as the precise actions taken by OPSO staff in response to the incident;
(4) describe the weapon or instrument(s) of restraint, if any, and the manner of such use;
(5) be accompanied by a prisoner disciplinary report, if it exists, pertaining to the events or prisoner activity that prompted the use of force incident;
(6) describe the nature and extent of injuries sustained by anyone involved in the incident;
(7) contain the date and time when medical attention, if any, was requested and actually provided;
(8) describe any attempts the staff took to de-escalate prior to use of force;
- 7 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 12 of 53
(9) include an individual written account of the use of force from every staff member who witnessed the use of force;
(10) include photographs taken promptly, but no later than two hours after an use of force incident, of all injuries sustained, or as evidence that no injuries were sustained, by prisoners and staff involved in the use of force incident;
(11) document whether the use of force was digitally or otherwise recorded. If the use of force is not digitally or otherwise recorded, the reporting officer and/or watch commander will provide an explanation as to why it was not recorded; and
(12) include a statement about the incident from the prisoner(s) against whom force was used.
c. All officers using a Level 2 use of force shall complete a use of force report that will:
(1) include the names of staff, prisoner(s), or other visual or oral witness(es);
(2) contain an accurate and specific account of the events leading to the use of force;
(3) describe the level of resistance and the type and level of force used, consistent with OPP Use Of Force policy and procedure, as well as the precise actions taken by OPSO staff in response to the incident;
(4) describe the weapon or instrument(s) of restraint, if any, and the manner of such use;
(5) be accompanied by a prisoner disciplinary report, if it exists, pertaining to the events or prisoner activity that prompted the use of force incident;
(6) describe the nature and extent of injuries sustained by anyone involved in the incident;
(7) contain the date and time when medical attention, if any, was requested and actually provided; and
(8) describe any attempts the staff took to de-escalate prior to use of force;
d. OPSO shall require correctional officers to notify the watch commander as soon as practical of any use of force incident or allegation of use of force. When
- 8 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 13 of 53
notified, the watch commander will respond to the scene of all Level 1 uses of force. When arriving on the scene, the watch commanders shall:
(1) ensure the safety of everyone involved in or proximate to the incident;
(2) determine if any prisoner or correctional officer is injured and ensure that necessary medical care is provided;
(3) ensure that personnel and witnesses are identified, separated, and advised that communications with other witnesses or correctional officers regarding the incident are prohibited;
(4) ensure that witness and subject statements are taken of both staff and prisoner(s) outside of the presence of other prisoners and staff;
(5) ensure that the supervisor’s use of force report is forwarded to IAD for investigation if, upon the supervisor’s review, a violation of law or policy is suspected. The determination of what type of investigation is needed will be based on the degree of the force used consistent with the terms of this Agreement;
(6) If the watch commander is not involved in the use of force incident, the watch commander shall review all submitted use of force reports within 36 hours of the end of the incident, and shall specify his findings as to completeness and procedural errors. If the watch commander believes that the use of force may have been unnecessary or excessive, he shall immediately contact IAD for investigation consideration and shall notify the warden or assistant warden; and
(7) All Level 1 use of force reports, whether or not the force is believed by any party to be unnecessary or excessive, shall be sent to IAD for review. IAD shall develop and submit to the Monitor within 90 days of the Effective Date clear criteria to identify use of force incidents that warrant a full investigation, including injuries that are extensive or serious, visible in nature (including black eyes, injuries to the mouth, injuries to the genitals, etc.), injuries requiring hospitalization, staff misconduct (including inappropriate relationships with prisoners), and occasions when use of force reports are inconsistent, conflicting, or otherwise suspicious.
e. Ensure that a first-line supervisor is present during all pre-planned uses of force, such as cell extractions.
f. Within 36 hours, exclusive of weekends and holidays, of receiving the report and review from the shift commander, in order to determine the appropriateness of the force used and whether policy was followed, the Warden or Assistant Warden shall review all use of force reports and supervisory reviews including:
- 9 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 14 of 53
(1) the incident report associated with the use of force;
(2) any medical documentation of injuries and any further medical care;
(3) the prisoner disciplinary report associated with the use of force; and
(4) the Warden or Assistant Warden shall complete a written report or written statement of specific findings and determinations of the appropriateness of force.
g. Provide the Monitor a periodic report detailing use of force by staff. These periodic reports shall be provided to the monitor within four months of the Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until termination of this Agreement. Each report will include the following information:
(1) a brief summary of all uses of force, by type;
(2) date that force was used;
(3) identity of staff members involved in using force;
(4) identity of prisoners against whom force was used;
(5) a brief summary of all uses of force resulting in injuries;
(6) number of planned and unplanned uses of force;
(7) a summary of all in-custody deaths related to use of force, including the identity of the decedent and the circumstances of the death; and
(8) a listing of serious injuries requiring hospitalization.
h. OPSO shall conduct, annually, a review of the use of force reporting system to ensure that it has been effective in reducing unnecessary or excessive uses of force. OPSO will document its review and conclusions and provide them to the Monitor, SPLC, and DOJ.
4. Early Intervention System (“EIS”)
a. OPSO shall develop, within 120 days of the Effective Date, a computerized relational database (“EIS”) that will document and track staff members who are involved in use of force incidents and any complaints related to the inappropriate or excessive use of force, in order to alert OPSO management to any potential problematic policies or supervision lapses or need for retraining or discipline. The Chief of Operations Deputy, supervisors, and investigative staff shall have
- 10 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 15 of 53

access to this information and shall review on a regular basis, but not less than quarterly, system reports to evaluate individual staff, supervisor, and housing area activity. OPSO will use the EIS as a tool for correcting inappropriate staff behavior before it escalates to more serious misconduct.

b. Within 120 days of the Effective Date, OPSO senior management shall use EIS information to improve quality management practices, identify patterns and trends, and take necessary corrective action both on an individual and systemic level. IAD will manage and administer EIS systems. SOD will have access to the EIS. IAD will conduct quarterly audits of the EIS to ensure that analysis and intervention is taken according to the process described below. Command staff shall review the data collected by the EIS on at least a quarterly basis to identify potential patterns or trends resulting in harm to prisoners. The Use of Force Review Board will periodically review information collected regarding uses of force in order to identify the need for corrective action, including changes to training protocols and policy or retraining or disciplining individual staff or staff members. Through comparison of the operation of this system to changes in the conditions in OPP, OPSO will assess whether the mechanism is effective at addressing the requirements of this Agreement.

c. OPSO shall provide, within 180 days of the implementation date of its EIS, to SPLC, DOJ and the Monitor, a list of all staff members identified through the EIS and corrective action taken.

d. The EIS protocol shall include the following components: data storage, data retrieval, reporting, data analysis, pattern identification, supervisory assessment, supervisory intervention, documentation, and audit.

e. On an annual basis, OPSO shall review the EIS to ensure that it has been effective in identifying concerns regarding policy, training, or the need for discipline. This assessment will be based in part on the number and severity of harm and injury identified through data collected pursuant to this Agreement. OPSO will document its review and conclusions and provide them to the Monitor, who shall forward this document to DOJ and SPLC.

5. Safety and Supervision

Recognizing that some danger is inherent in a jail setting, OPSO shall take all reasonable measures to ensure that prisoners are not subjected to harm or the risk of harm. At a minimum, OPSO shall do the following:

a.

Maintain security policies, procedures, and practices to provide a reasonably safe

and secure environment for prisoners and staff in accordance with this

Agreement.

- 11 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 16 of 53

b.

Maintain policies, procedures, and practices to ensure the adequate supervision of

prisoner work areas and trustees.

c.

Maintain policies and procedures regarding care for and housing of protective

custody prisoners and prisoners requesting protection from harm.

d.

Continue to ensure that correctional officers conduct appropriate rounds at least

once during every 30 minute period, at irregular times, inside each general

population housing unit and at least once every 15 minute period of special

management prisoners, or more often if necessary. All security rounds shall be

documented on forms or logs that do not contain pre-printed rounding times. In

the alternative, OPSO may provide direct supervision of prisoners by posting a

correctional officer inside the day room area of a housing unit to conduct

surveillance.

e.

Staff shall provide direct supervision in housing units that are designed for this

type of supervision. Video surveillance may be used to supplement, but must not

be used to replace, rounds by correctional officers.

f.

Increase the use of overhead video surveillance and recording cameras to provide

adequate coverage throughout the common areas of the Jail, including the Intake

Processing Center, all divisions’ intake areas, mental health units, special

management units, prisoner housing units, and in common areas of the divisions.

g.

Continue to ensure that correctional officers who are transferred from one

division to another are required to attend training on division-specific post orders

before working on the unit.

h.

Continue to ensure that correctional officers assigned to special management

units, which include youth tiers, mental health tiers, disciplinary segregation, and

protective custody, receive eight hours of specialized training regarding such units

on prisoner safety and security on at least an annual basis.

i.

Continue to ensure that supervisors conduct daily rounds on each shift in the

prisoner housing units, and document the results of their rounds.

j.

Continue to ensure that staff conduct daily inspections of cells and common areas

of the housing units to protect prisoners from unreasonable harm or unreasonable

risk of harm.

k.

Continue to ensure that staff conduct random monthly shakedowns of cells and

common areas so that prisoners do not possess or have access to dangerous

contraband.

l.

Provide the Monitor a periodic report of safety and supervision at the Facility.

These periodic reports shall be provided to the monitor within four months of the

- 12 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 17 of 53
Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until termination of this Agreement. Each report will provide the following information::
(1) a listing of special management prisoners, their housing assignments, the basis for them being placed in the specialized housing unit, and the date placed in the unit; and
(2) a listing of all contraband, including weapons, seized, including the type of contraband, date of seizure, location and shift of seizure.
6. Security Staffing
a. OPSO shall ensure that correctional staffing and supervision is sufficient to adequately supervise prisoners, fulfill the terms of this Agreement, and allow for the safe operation of the Facility, consistent with constitutional standards. OPSO shall achieve adequate correctional officer staffing in the following manner:
(1) Within 90 days of the Effective Date, develop a staffing plan that will identify all posts and positions, the adequate number and qualification of staff to cover each post and position, adequate shift relief and coverage for vacations. The staffing plan will ensure that there is adequate coverage inside each housing and specialized housing area and to accompany prisoners for court, visits and legal visits and other operations of OPP and to comply with all provisions of this Agreement. OPSO will provide its plan to the Monitor, SPLC, and DOJ for approval. The Monitor, SPLC, or DOJ will have 60 days to raise any objections and recommend revisions to the staffing plan.
(2) Within 120 days before the opening of any new facility, submit a staffing plan consistent with subsection (1) above.
(3) Within 90 days after completion of the staffing study, OPSO shall recruit and hire a full-time professional corrections administrator to analyze and review OPP operations. The professional corrections administrator shall report directly to the Sheriff and shall have responsibilities to be determined by the Sheriff. The professional corrections administrator shall have at least the following qualifications: (a) a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice or other closely related field; (b) five years of experience in supervising a large correctional facility; and (c) knowledge of and experience in applying modern correctional standards, maintained through regular participation in corrections-related conferences or other continuing education.
(4) Provide the Monitor a periodic report on staffing levels at the Facility. These periodic reports shall be provided to the monitor within four months
- 13 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 18 of 53
of the Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until termination of this Agreement Each report will include the following information:
i. a listing of each post and position needed;
ii. the number of hours needed for each post and position;
iii. a listing of staff hired and positions filled;
iv. a listing of staff working overtime and the amount of overtime worked by each staff member;
v. a listing of supervisors working overtime; and
vi. a listing of and types of critical incidents reported.
b. Review the periodic report to determine whether staffing is adequate to meet the requirements of this Agreement. OPSO shall make recommendations regarding staffing based on this review. The review and recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor.
7. Incidents and Referrals
a. OPSO shall develop and implement policies that ensure that Facility watch commanders have knowledge of reportable incidents in OPP to take action in a timely manner to prevent harm to prisoners or take other corrective action. At a minimum, OPSO shall do the following:
b. Continue to ensure that Facility watch commanders document all reportable incidents by the end of their shift, but no later than 24 hours after the incident, including prisoner fights, rule violations, prisoner injuries, suicide attempts, cell extractions, medical emergencies, found contraband, vandalism, escapes and escape attempts, and fires.
c. Continue to ensure that Facility watch commanders report all suicides and deaths no later than one hour after the incident, to a supervisor, IAD, the Special Operations Division, and medical and mental health staff.
d. Provide formal pre-service and annual in-service training on proper incident reporting policies and procedures.
e. Implement a policy providing that it is a disciplinary infraction for staff to fail to report any reportable incident that occurred on his or her shift. Failure to formally report any observed prisoner injury may result in staff discipline, up to and including termination.
- 14 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 19 of 53

f. Maintain a system to track all reportable incidents that, at a minimum, includes the following information:

(1) tracking number;

(2) the prisoner(s) name;

(3) housing classification and location;

(4) date and time;

(5) type of incident;

(6) injuries to staff or prisoner;

(7) medical care;

(8) primary and secondary staff involved;

(9) reviewing supervisor;

(10) external reviews and results;

(11) corrective action taken; and

(12) administrative sign-off.

e.

Ensure that incident reports and prisoner grievances are screened for allegations

of staff misconduct, and, if the incident or allegation meets established criteria in

accordance with this Agreement that it is referred for investigation.

f.

Provide the Monitor a periodic data report of incidents at the Facility. These

periodic reports shall be provided to the Monitor within four months of the

Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until termination of this

Agreement.

g.

The report will include the following information:

(1) a brief summary of all reportable incidents, by type and date;

(2) a description of all suicides and in-custody deaths, including the date, name of prisoner, and housing unit;

(3) number of prisoner grievances screened for allegations of misconduct; and

(4) number of grievances referred to IAD or SOD for investigation.

- 15 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 20 of 53

h.

Conduct internal reviews of the periodic reports to determine whether the incident

reporting system is ensuring that the constitutional rights of prisoners are

respected. Review the quarterly report to determine whether the incident

reporting system is meeting the requirements of this Agreement. OPSO shall

make recommendations regarding the reporting system or other necessary

changes in policy or staffing based on this review. The review and

recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor.

8. Investigations

OPSO shall ensure that it has sufficient staff to identify, investigate, and recommend correcting misconduct that has or may lead to a violation of the Constitution. At a minimum, OPSO shall:

a. Maintain implementation of comprehensive policies, procedures, and practices for the timely and thorough investigation of alleged staff misconduct, sexual assaults, and physical assaults of prisoners resulting in serious injury, in accordance with this Agreement. Investigations shall:

(1) be conducted by persons who do not have conflicts of interest that bear on the partiality of the investigation;

(2) include timely, thorough, and documented interviews of all relevant staff and prisoners who were involved in or who witnessed the incident in question, to the extent practicable; and

(3) include all supporting evidence, including logs, witness and participant statements, references to policies and procedures relevant to the incident, physical evidence, and video or audio recordings.

b. Continue to provide SOD and IAD staff with pre-service and annual in-service training on appropriate investigation policies and procedures, the investigation tracking process, investigatory interviewing techniques, and confidentiality requirements.

c. Ensure that any investigative report indicating possible criminal behavior will be referred to IAD/SOD and then referred to the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office if appropriate.

d. Provide the Monitor a periodic report of investigations conducted at the Facility. These periodic reports shall be provided to the monitor within four months of the Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until termination of this Agreement.

e. The report will include the following information:

- 16 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 21 of 53
(1) a brief summary of all completed investigations, by type and date;
(2) a listing of investigations referred for administrative investigation;
(3) a listing of all investigations referred to an appropriate law enforcement agency and the name of the agency; and
(4) a listing of all staff suspended, terminated, arrested or reassigned because of misconduct or violations of policy and procedures. This list must also contain the specific misconduct and/or violation.
f. OPSO shall review the periodic report to determine whether the investigation system is meeting the requirements of this Agreement and make recommendations regarding the investigation system or other necessary changes in policy based on this review. The review and recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor.
9. Pretrial Placement in Alternative Settings:
a. OPSO shall maintain its role of providing space and security to facilitate interviews conducted pursuant to the City’s pretrial release program, which is intended to ensure placement in the least restrictive appropriate placement consistent with public safety.
b. OPSO shall create a system to ensure that it does not unlawfully confine prisoners whose sole detainer is by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), where the detainer has expired.
10. Custodial Placement within OPP
a. OPP shall implement an objective and validated classification system that assigns prisoners to housing units by security levels, among other valid factors, in order to protect prisoners from unreasonable risk of harm. The system shall include consideration of a prisoner’s security needs, severity of the current charge, types of prior commitments, suicide risk, history of escape attempts, history of violence, gang affiliations, and special needs, including mental illness, gender identity, age and education requirements. OPSO shall anticipate periods of unusual intake volume and schedule sufficient classification staff to classify prisoners within 24 hours of booking and perform prisoner reclassifications, assist eligible DOC prisoners with re-entry assistance (release preparation), among other duties related to case management.
b. Prohibit classifications based solely on race, color, national origin, or ethnicity.
- 17 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 22 of 53
c. Ensure that the classification staff has sufficient access to current information regarding cell availability in each division.
d. Continue to update the classification system to include information on each prisoner’s history at OPSO.
e. Continue competency-based training and access to all supervisors on the full capabilities of the OPSO classification and prisoner tracking system.
f. Conduct internal and external review and validation of the prisoner classification system on at least an annual basis.
g. Provide the Monitor a periodic report on classification at the Facility. These periodic reports shall be provided to the monitor within four months of the Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until termination of this Agreement. Each report will include the following information:
(1) number of prisoner-on-prisoner assaults;
(2) number of assaults against prisoners with mental illness;
(3) number of prisoners who report having gang affiliations;
(4) most serious offense leading to incarceration;
(5) number of prisoners classified in each security level;
(6) number of prisoners placed in protective custody; and number of misconduct complaints.
h. OPSO shall review the periodic data report and make recommendations regarding proper placement consistent with this Agreement or other necessary changes in policy based on this review. The review and recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor.
11. Prisoner Grievance Process
a. OPSO shall ensure that prisoners have a mechanism to express their grievances, resolve disputes, and ensure that concerns regarding their constitutional rights are addressed. OPSO shall, at a minimum, do the following:
(1) Continue to maintain policies and procedures to ensure that prisoners have access to an adequate grievance process and to ensure that grievances may be reported and filed confidentially, without requiring the intervention of a correctional officer. The policies and procedures should be applicable and standardized across all the Facility divisions.
- 18 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 23 of 53
(2) Ensure that each grievance receives appropriate follow-up, including providing a timely written response and tracking implementation of resolutions.
(3) Ensure that grievance forms are available on all units and are available in Spanish and Vietnamese and that there is adequate opportunity for illiterate prisoners and prisoners who have physical or cognitive disabilities or language barriers to access the grievance system.
(4) Separate the process of “requests to staff” from the grievance process and prioritize grievances that raise issues regarding prisoner safety or health.
(5) Ensure that prisoner grievances are screened for allegations of staff misconduct and, if an incident or allegation warrants per this Agreement, that it is referred for investigation.
(6) A member of the management staff shall review the grievance tracking system quarterly to identify areas of concerns. These reviews and any recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor.
12. Sexual Abuse
OPSO will develop and implement policies, protocols, trainings, and audits consistent with the requirements of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, 42 U.S.C. § 15601, et seq., and its implementation of regulations, including but not limited to, preventing, detecting, reporting, investigating, and collecting sexual abuse data, including prisoneron-prisoner and staff-on-prisoner sexual abuse, sexual harassment, and sexual touching.
13. Access to Information
OPSO will ensure that all newly admitted prisoners receive information, through an inmate handbook and, at the discretion of the Jail, an orientation video, regarding the following topics: understanding Facility disciplinary process and rules and regulations; reporting misconduct; reporting sexual abuse or assault; accessing medical and mental health care, emergency procedures, and sending and receiving mail, understanding the visitation process, and accessing the grievance process.
B. MENTAL HEALTH CARE
OPSO shall ensure constitutionally adequate intake, assessment, treatment, and monitoring of prisoners’ mental health needs, including but not limited to, protecting the safety of and giving priority access to prisoners at risk for self-injurious behavior or suicide. OPSO shall assess on an annual or more frequent basis whether the mental health services at OPP comply with the Constitution. In order to provide mental health services to prisoners, OPSO, at a minimum, shall:
- 19 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 24 of 53
1. Screening and Assessment
a. Develop and maintain comprehensive policies and procedures for appropriate screening and assessment of prisoners with mental illness. These policies should include definitions of emergent, urgent, and routine mental health needs, as well as timeframes for the provision of services for each category of mental health needs.
b. Develop and implement an appropriate screening instrument that identifies mental health needs, and ensures timely access to a mental health professional when presenting symptoms requiring such care. The screening instrument should include the factors described in Appendix B. The screening instrument will be validated by a qualified professional approved by the Monitor within 180 days of the Effective Date and every 12 months thereafter, if necessary
c. Ensure that all prisoners are screened by Qualified Medical Staff upon arrival to OPP, but no later than within eight hours, to identify a prisoner’s risk for suicide or self-injurious behavior. No prisoner shall be held in isolation prior to an evaluation by medical staff.
d. Implement a triage policy that utilizes the screening and assessment procedures to ensure that prisoners with emergent and urgent mental health needs are prioritized for services.
e. Develop and implement protocols, commensurate with the level of risk of suicide or self-harm, to ensure that prisoners are protected from identified risks for suicide or self-injurious behavior. The protocols shall also require that a Qualified Mental Health Professional perform a mental health assessment, based on the prisoner’s risk.
f. For prisoners with emergent or urgent mental health needs, search the prisoner and monitor with constant supervision until the prisoner is transferred to a Qualified Mental Health Professional for assessment.
g. Ensure that a Qualified Mental Health Professional conducts appropriate mental health assessments within the following periods from the initial screen or other identification of need:
(1) 14 days, or sooner, if medically necessary, for prisoners with routine mental health needs;
(2) 48 hours, or sooner, if medically necessary, for prisoners with urgent mental health needs; and
- 20 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 25 of 53
(3) immediately, but no later than two hours, for prisoners with emergent mental health needs.
h. Ensure that a Qualified Mental Health Professional performs a mental health assessment no later than the next working day following any adverse triggering event (i.e., any suicide attempt, any suicide ideation, and any aggression to self resulting in serious injury).
i. Ensure that a Qualified Mental Health Professional, as part of the prisoner’s interdisciplinary treatment team, maintains a risk profile for each prisoner on the mental health case load based on the Assessment Factors identified in Appendix B, and develops and implements a treatment plan to minimize the risk of harm to each of these prisoners.
j. Ensure adequate and timely treatment for prisoners, whose assessments reveal mental illness and/or suicidal ideation, including timely and appropriate referrals for specialty care and visits with Qualified Mental Health Professionals, as clinically appropriate.
k. Ensure crisis services are available to manage psychiatric emergencies. Such services include licensed in-patient psychiatric care, when clinically appropriate.
l. On an annual basis, assess the process for screening prisoners for mental health needs to determine whether prisoners are being appropriately identified for care. Based on this assessment, OPSO shall recommend changes to the screening system. The assessment and recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor.
2. Treatment
a. Review, revise, and supplement its existing policies in order to implement a policy for the delivery of mental health services that includes a continuum of services, provides for necessary and appropriate mental health staff, includes a treatment plan for prisoners with serious mental illness and collects data and contains mechanisms sufficient to measure whether care is being provided in a manner consistent with the Constitution.
b. Ensure that treatment plans adequately address prisoners’ serious mental health needs and that the treatment plans contain interventions specifically tailored to the prisoners’ diagnoses and problems.
c. Provide group or individual therapy services by an appropriately licensed provider where necessary for prisoners with mental health needs.
d. Ensure that mental health evaluations that are done as part of the disciplinary process include recommendations based on the prisoner's mental health status.
- 21 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 26 of 53
e. Ensure that prisoners receive psychotropic medications in a timely manner and that prisoners have proper diagnoses and/or indications for each psychotropic medication they receive.
f. Ensure that psychotropic medications are administered in a clinically appropriate manner as to prevent misuse, overdose, theft or violence related to the medication.
g. Ensure that prescriptions for psychotropic medications are reviewed by a Qualified Mental Health Professional on a regular, timely basis and prisoners are properly monitored.
h. Ensure that standards are established for the frequency of review and associated charting of psychotropic medication monitoring, including monitoring for metabolic effects of second generation psychotropic medications.
3. Counseling
a. OPSO shall develop and implement policies and procedures for prisoner counseling in the areas of general mental health/therapy, sexual-abuse counseling, and alcohol and drug counseling. This should, at a minimum, include some provision for individual services.
b. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, report all prisoner counseling services quarterly to the Monitor, which should include:
(1) the number of prisoners who report having participated in general mental health/therapy counseling at OPP;
(2) the number of prisoners who report having participated in alcohol and drug counseling services at OPP;
(3) the number of prisoners who report having participated in sexual-abuse counseling at OPP; and
(4) the number of cases with an appropriately licensed practitioner and related one-to-one counseling at OPP.
4. Suicide Prevention Training Program
a. OPSO shall ensure that all staff who supervise prisoners have the adequate knowledge, skill, and ability to address the needs of prisoners at risk for suicide. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, OPSO shall review and revise its current suicide prevention training curriculum, to include, the following topics:
- 22 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 27 of 53
(1) suicide prevention policies and procedures (as revised consistent with this Agreement);
(2) analysis of facility environments and why they may contribute to suicidal behavior;
(3) potential predisposing factors to suicide;
(4) high-risk suicide periods;
(5) warning signs and symptoms of suicidal behavior;
(6) case studies of recent suicides and serious suicide attempts;
(7) mock demonstrations regarding the proper response to a suicide attempt;
(8) differentiating between suicidal and self-injurious behavior; and
(9) the proper use of emergency equipment.
b. Ensure that all correctional, medical, and mental health staff are trained on the suicide screening instrument and the medical intake tool.
c. Ensure that multi-disciplinary in-service training is completed annually by all correctional, medical, and mental health staff, to include training on updated policies, procedures, and techniques. The training will be reviewed and approved by the Monitor.
d. Ensure that staff are trained in observing prisoners on suicide watch and stepdown unit status.
e. Ensure that all staff that have contact with prisoners are certified in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (“CPR”).
f. Ensure that an emergency response bag that includes a first aid kit and emergency rescue tool shall be in close proximity to all housing units. All staff that has contact with prisoners shall know the location of this emergency response bag and be trained to use its contents.
g. Randomly test five percent of relevant staff on an annual basis to determine their knowledge of suicide prevention policies. The testing instrument and policies shall be approved by the Monitor. The results of these assessments shall be evaluated to determine the need for changes in training practices. The review and conclusions will be documented and provided to the Monitor.
- 23 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 28 of 53
5. Suicide Precautions
a. OPSO shall implement a policy to ensure that prisoners at risk of self harm are identified, protected, and treated in a manner consistent with the Constitution.
b. Ensure that suicide prevention procedures include provisions for constant direct supervision of actively suicidal prisoners and close supervision of special needs prisoners with lower levels of risk (at a minimum, 15 minute checks). Correctional officers shall document their checks in a format that does not have pre-printed times.
c. Ensure that prisoners on suicide watch are immediately searched and monitored with constant direct supervision until a Qualified Mental Health Professional conducts a suicide risk assessment, determines the degree of risk, and specifies the appropriate degree of supervision.
d. Ensure that all prisoners discharged from suicide precautions receive a follow-up assessment within three to eight working days after discharge, as clinically appropriate, in accordance with a treatment plan developed by a Qualified Mental Health Care Professional. Upon discharge, the Qualified Mental Health Care Professional shall conduct a documented in-person assessment regarding the clinically appropriate follow-up intervals.
e. Implement a step-down program providing clinically appropriate transition from suicide precautions for prisoners discharged from suicide precautions.
f. Develop and implement policies and procedures for suicide precautions that set forth the conditions of the watch, incorporating a requirement of an individualized clinical determination of allowable clothing, property, and utensils. These conditions shall be altered only on the written instruction of a Qualified Mental Health Professional, except under emergency circumstances or when security considerations require.
g. Ensure that cells designated by OPSO for housing suicidal prisoners are retrofitted to render them suicide-resistant (e.g., eliminating bed frames/holes, sprinkler heads, water faucet lips, and unshielded lighting or electrical sockets).
h. Ensure that every suicide or serious suicide attempt is investigated by appropriate mental health and correctional staff, and that the results of the investigation are provided to the Sheriff and the Monitor.
i. Direct observation orders for inmates placed on suicide watch shall be individualized by the ordering clinician based upon the clinical needs of each inmate, and shall not be more restrictive than is deemed necessary by the ordering clinician to ensure the safety and well being of the inmate.
- 24 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 29 of 53
j. Provide the Monitor a periodic report on suicide and self-harm at the Facility. These periodic reports shall be provided to the monitor within four months of the Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until termination of this Agreement. The report will include the following:
(1) all suicides;
(2) all serious suicide or self-harm attempts; and
(3) all uses of restraints to respond to or prevent a suicide attempt .
k. Assess the periodic report to determine whether prisoners are being appropriately identified for risk of self harm, protected, and treated. Based on this assessment, OPSO shall document recommended changes to policies and procedures and provide these to the Monitor.
6. Use of Restraints
a. OPSO shall prevent the unnecessary or excessive use of physical or chemical restraints on prisoners with mental illness.
b. Maintain comprehensive policies and procedures for the use of restraints for prisoners with mental illness consistent with the Constitution.
c. Ensure that approval by a Qualified Medical or Mental Health Professional is received and documented prior to the use of restraints on prisoners living with mental illness or requiring suicide precautions.
d. Ensure that restrained prisoners with mental illnesses are monitored at least every 15 minutes by Custody Staff to assess their physical condition.
e. Ensure that Qualified Medical or Mental Health Staff document the use of restraints, including the basis for and duration of the use of restraints and the performance and results of welfare checks on restrained prisoners.
f. Provide the Monitor a periodic report of restraint use at the Facility. These periodic reports shall be provided to the monitor within four months of the Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until termination of this Agreement. Each report shall include: (1) A list of prisoners whom were restrained; (2) A list of any self-injurious behavior observed or discovered while restrained; and
- 25 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 30 of 53
(3) A list of any prisoners whom were placed in restraints on three or more occasions in a thirty (30) day period or whom were kept in restraints for a period exceeding twenty-four (24) hours.
g. Assess the periodic report to determine whether restraints are being used appropriately on prisoners with mental illness. Based on this assessment, OPSO shall document recommended changes to policies and procedures and provide these to the Monitor.
7. Detoxification and Training
a. OPSO shall ensure that all staff who supervise prisoners have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to identify and respond to detoxifying prisoners. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, OPSO shall institute an annual in-service detoxification training program for Qualified Medical and Mental Health Staff and for correctional staff. The detoxification training program shall include:
(1) annual staff training on alcohol and drug abuse withdrawal;
(2) training of Qualified Medical and Mental Health Staff on treatment of alcohol and drug abuse conducted by the Chief Medical Officer or his or her delegate;
(3) oversight of the training of correctional staff, including booking and housing unit officers, on the policies and procedures of the detoxification unit, by the Chief Medical Officer or his or her delegate;
(4) training on drug and alcohol withdrawal by Qualified Medical and Mental Health Staff;
(5) training of Qualified Medical and Mental Health Staff in providing prisoners with timely access to a Qualified Mental Health Professional, including psychiatrists, as clinically appropriate; and
(6) training of Qualified Medical and Mental Health Staff on the use and treatment of withdrawals, where medically appropriate.
b. Provide medical screenings to determine the degree of risk for potentially lifethreatening withdrawal from alcohol, benzodiazepines, and other substances, in accordance with Appendix B.
c. Ensure that the nursing staff complete assessments of prisoners in detoxification on an individualized schedule, ordered by a Qualified Medical or Mental Health Professional, as clinically appropriate, to include observations and vital signs, including blood pressure.
d. Annually, conduct a review of whether the detoxification training program has been effective in identifying concerns regarding policy, training, or the proper
- 26 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 31 of 53
identification of and response to detoxifying prisoners. OPSO will document this review and provide its conclusions to the Monitor.
8. Medical and Mental Health Staffing
a. OPSO shall ensure that medical and mental health staffing is sufficient to provide adequate care for prisoners’ serious medical and mental health needs, fulfill constitutional mandates and the terms of this Agreement, and allow for the adequate operation of the Facility, consistent with constitutional standards.
b. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, OPSO shall conduct a comprehensive staffing plan and/or analysis to determine the medical and mental health staffing levels necessary to provide adequate care for prisoners’ mental health needs and to carry out the requirements of this Agreement. Upon completion of the staffing plan and or analysis, OPSO shall provide its findings to the Monitor, SPLC, and DOJ for review. The Monitor, SPLC, and DOJ will have 60 days to raise any objections and recommend revisions to the staffing plan.
9. Risk Management
a. OPSO shall develop, implement, and maintain a system to ensure that trends and incidents involving avoidable suicides and self-injurious behavior are identified and corrected in a timely manner. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, OPSO shall develop and implement a risk management system that identifies levels of risk for suicide and self-injurious behavior and requires intervention at the individual and system levels to prevent or minimize harm to prisoners, based on the triggers and thresholds set forth in Appendix B.
b. The risk management system shall include the following processes to supplement the mental health screening and assessment processes: incident reporting, data collection, and data aggregation to capture sufficient information to formulate a reliable risk assessment at the individual and system levels; identification of atrisk prisoners in need of clinical treatment or assessment by the Interdisciplinary Team or the Mental Health Committee; and development and implementation of interventions that minimize and prevent harm in response to identified patterns and trends.
c. OPSO shall develop and implement an Interdisciplinary Team, which utilizes intake screening, health assessment, and triggering event information for formulating treatment plans. The Interdisciplinary Team shall:
(1) include the Medical and Nursing directors, one or more members of the psychiatry staff, counseling staff, social services staff, and security staff, and other members as clinical circumstances dictate;
- 27 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 32 of 53
(2) conduct interdisciplinary treatment rounds, on a weekly basis, during which targeted patients are reviewed based upon screening and assessment factors, as well as triggering events; and
(3) provide individualized treatment plans based, in part, on screening and assessment factors, to all mental health patients seen by various providers.
d. OPSO shall develop and implement a Mental Health Review Committee that will, on a monthly basis, review mental health statistics including, but not limited to, risk management triggers and trends at both the individual and system levels. The Mental Health Review Committee shall:
(1) include the Medical and Nursing Director, one or more members of the psychiatry staff and social services staff, the Health Services Administrator, the Warden of the facility housing the Acute Psychiatric Unit, and the Risk Manager.
(2) identify at-risk patients in need of mental health case management who may require intervention from and referral to the Interdisciplinary Team, the OPSO administration, or other providers.
(3) conduct department-wide analyses and validation of both the mental health and self-harm screening and assessment processes and tools, review the quality of screenings and assessments and the timeliness and appropriateness of care provided, and make recommendations on changes and corrective actions;
(4) analyze individual and aggregate mental health data and identify trends and triggers that indicate risk of harm;
(5) review data on mental health appointments, including the number of appointments and wait times before care is received; and
(6) review policies, training, and staffing and recommend changes, supplemental training, or corrective actions.
e. OPSO shall develop and implement a Quality Improvement and Morbidity and Mortality Review Committee that will review, on at least a quarterly basis, risk management triggers and trends and quality improvement reports in order to improve care on a Jail-wide basis.
(1) The Quality Improvement Committee shall include the Medical Director, the Director of Psychiatry, the Chief Deputy, the Risk Manager, and the Director of Training. The Quality Improvement Committee shall review and analyze activities and conclusions of the Mental Health Review Committee and pursue Jail-wide corrective actions.
- 28 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 33 of 53
(2) The Quality Improvement Committee shall:
i. monitor all risk management activities of the facilities through the review of risk data, identification of individual and systemic trends, and recommendation and monitored implementation of investigation or corrective action; and
ii. generate reports of risk data analyzed and corrective actions taken.
(3) The Morbidity and Mortality Review Committee shall include one or more members of Jail operations, the medical department, the mental health department, related clinical disciplines, corrections, and the Risk Manager. The Morbidity and Mortality Review Committee shall:
i. Review suicides and serious suicide attempts in a morbidity and mortality capacity;
ii. outline the factors involved in each case, including the individual circumstances, identification of predisposing factors, documentation, medical and security procedures and training, and perform a psychological autopsy and morbidity report;
iii. recommend changes to medical and security policies and procedures;
iv. develop a written plan, with a timetable, for corrective actions; and
v. Ensure a final mortality review report is completed within 30 days of a suicide or suicide attempt.
f. OPSO shall review mortality and morbidity reports quarterly to determine whether the risk management system is ensuring compliance with the terms of this Agreement. OPSO shall make recommendations regarding the risk management system or other necessary changes in policy based on this review. The review and recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor.
C. MEDICAL CARE
OPSO shall ensure constitutionally adequate treatment of prisoners’ medical needs. OPSO shall prevent unnecessary risks to prisoners and ensure proper medication administration practices. OPSO shall assess on an annual or more frequent basis whether the medical services at OPP comply with the Constitution. At a minimum, OPSO shall:
- 29 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 34 of 53
1. Quality Management of Medication Administration
a. Within 120 days of the Effective Date, ensure that medical and mental health staff are trained on proper medication administration practices, including appropriately labeling containers and contemporaneously recording medication administration;
b. Ensure that physicians provide a systematic review of the use of medication to ensure that each prisoner’s prescribed regimen continues to be appropriate and effective for his or her condition;
c. Maintain medication administration protocols that provide adequate direction on how to take medications, describe the names of the medications, how frequently to take medications, and identify how prisoners taking such medications are monitored; and
d. Maintain medication administration protocols that prevent misuse, overdose, theft or violence related to medication.
2. Health Care Delivered
a. Provide the Monitor a periodic report on health care at the Facility. These periodic reports shall be provided to the monitor within four months of the Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until termination of this Agreement. Each report will include:
(1) number of prisoners transferred to the emergency room for medical treatment related to medication errors;
(2) number of prisoners taken to the infirmary for non-emergency treatment related to medication errors;
(3) number of prisoners prescribed psychotropic medications;
(4) number of prisoners prescribed “keep on person” medications; and
(5) occurrences of medication variances.
b. Review the periodic health care delivery reports to determine whether the medication administration protocols and requirements of this Agreement are followed. OPSO shall make recommendations regarding the medication administration process, or other necessary changes in policy, based on this review. The review and recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor.
- 30 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 35 of 53
3. Release and Transfer
a. OPSO shall notify Qualified Medical or Mental Health staff regarding the release of prisoners with serious medical and/or mental health needs from OPSO custody, as soon as such information is available.
b. When Qualified Medical or Mental Health staff are notified of the release of prisoners with serious medical and/or mental health needs from OPSO custody, OPSO shall provide these prisoners with at least a seven-day supply of appropriate prescription medication, unless a different amount is necessary and medically appropriate to serve as a bridge until prisoners can reasonably arrange for continuity of care in the community.
c. For all other prisoners with serious medical and/or mental health needs who are released from OPSO custody without advance notice, OPSO shall provide the prisoner a prescription for his or her medications, printed instructions regarding prescription medications, and resources indicating where prescriptions may be filled in the community.
d. For prisoners who are being transferred to another facility, OPSO shall prepare and send with a transferring prisoner a transition summary detailing major health problems and listing current medications and dosages, as well as medication history while at the Facility. OPSO shall also supply sufficient medication for the period of transit for prisoners who are being transferred to another correctional facility or other institution, in the amount required by the receiving agency.
D. SANITATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Defendant shall ensure that prisoners are provided with constitutionally adequate sanitation and environmental conditions. To provide prisoners safe living conditions, OPSO, at a minimum, shall:
1. Sanitation and Environmental Conditions
a. OPSO shall provide oversight and supervision of routine cleaning of housing units, showers, and medical areas. Such oversight and supervision will include meaningful inspection processes and documentation, as well as establish routine cleaning requirements for toilets, showers, and housing units to be documented at least once a week but to occur more frequently.
b. Continue the preventive maintenance plan to respond to routine and emergency maintenance needs, including ensuring that showers, toilets, and sink units are adequately installed and maintained. Work orders will be submitted within 48 hours of identified deficiencies, or within 24 hours in the case of emergency maintenance needs.
- 31 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 36 of 53
c. Maintain adequate ventilation throughout OPSO facilities to ensure that prisoners receive adequate air flow and reasonable levels of heating and cooling. Maintenance staff shall review and assess compliance with this requirement, as necessary, but no less than twice annually.
d. Ensure adequate lighting in all prisoner housing units and prompt replacement and repair of malfunctioning lighting fixtures in living areas within five days, unless the item must be specially ordered.
e. Ensure adequate pest control throughout the housing units, including routine pest control spraying on at least a quarterly basis and additional spraying as needed.
f. Ensure that any prisoner or staff assigned to clean a biohazardous area is properly trained in universal precautions, outfitted with protective materials, and properly supervised.
g. Ensure the use of cleaning chemicals that sufficiently destroy the pathogens and organisms in biohazard spills.
h. Maintain an infection control plan that addresses contact, blood borne, and airborne hazards and infections. The plan shall include provisions for the identification, treatment, and control of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (“MRSA”) at the Facility.
2. Environmental Control
a. OPSO shall ensure that broken or missing electrical panels are repaired within 30 days of identified deficiencies, unless the item needs to be specially ordered.
b. Develop and implement a system for maintenance and timely repair of electrical panels, devices, and exposed electrical wires.
3. Food Service
a. OPSO shall ensure that food service staff, including prisoner staff, continues to receive in-service annual training in the areas of food safety, safe food handling procedures, and proper hygiene, to reduce the risk of food contamination and food-borne illnesses.
b. Ensure that dishes and utensils, food preparation and storage areas, and vehicles and containers used to transport food are appropriately cleaned and sanitized on a daily basis.
- 32 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 37 of 53
c. Check and record on a daily basis the temperatures in the refrigerators, coolers, walk-in refrigerators, the dishwasher water, and all other kitchen equipment with a temperature monitor, to ensure proper maintenance of food service equipment.
4. Sanitation and Environmental Conditions Reporting
a. Provide the Monitor a periodic report on sanitation and environmental conditions in the Facility. These periodic reports shall be provided to the Monitor within four months of the Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until termination of this Agreement. The report will include:
(1) number and type of violations reported by health and sanitation inspectors;
(2) number and type of violations of state standards;
(3) number of prisoner grievances filed regarding the environmental conditions at the Facility;
(4) number of inoperative plumbing fixtures, light fixtures, HVAC systems, fire protection systems, and security systems that have not been repaired within 30 days of discovery;
(5) number of prisoner-occupied areas with significant vandalism, broken furnishings, or excessive clutter;
(6) occurrences of insects and rodents in the housing units and dining halls; and
(7) occurrences of poor air circulation in housing units.
b. Review the periodic sanitation and environmental conditions reports to determine whether the prisoner grievances and violations reported by health, sanitation, or state inspectors are addressed, ensuring that the requirements of this Agreement are met. OPSO shall make recommendations regarding the sanitation and environmental conditions, or other necessary changes in policy, based on this review. The review and recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor.
E. FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY
OPSO shall ensure that the Facility’s emergency preparedness and fire and life safety equipment are consistent with constitutional standards. To protect prisoners from fires and related hazards, OPSO, at a minimum, shall:
1. Fire and Life Safety
- 33 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 38 of 53
a. Ensure that necessary fire and life safety equipment is properly maintained and inspected at least quarterly. These inspections must be documented.
b. Ensure that a qualified fire safety officer conducts a monthly inspection of the facilities for compliance with fire and life safety standards (e.g., fire escapes, sprinkler heads, smoke detectors, etc.).
c. Ensure that comprehensive fire drills are conducted every six months. OPSO shall document these drills, including start and stop times and the number and location of prisoners who were moved as part of the drills.
d. Provide competency-based training to staff on proper fire and emergency practices and procedures at least annually.
e. Within 120 days of the Effective Date, ensure that emergency keys are appropriately marked and identifiable by touch and consistently stored in a quickly accessible location, and that staff are adequately trained in use of the emergency keys.
2. Fire and Life Safety Reporting
a. Provide the Monitor a periodic report on fire and life safety conditions at the Facility. These periodic reports shall be provided to the Monitor within four months of the Effective Date and every six months thereafter until termination of this Agreement. Each report shall include:
(1) number and type of violations reported by fire and life safety inspectors;
(2) fire code violations during annual fire inspections; and
(3) occurrences of hazardous clutter in housing units that could lead to a fire.
b. Review the periodic fire and life safety reports to determine whether the prisoner grievances and violations reported by fire and life safety inspectors are addressed, ensuring the requirements of this Agreement are being met. OPSO shall make recommendations regarding the fire and life safety conditions, or other necessary changes in policy, based on this review. The review and recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor.
F. LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE
1. Timely and Meaningful Access to Services
a. OPP shall ensure effective communication with, and provide timely and meaningful access to services at OPP to all prisoners at OPP, regardless of their
- 34 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 39 of 53
national origin or limited ability to speak, read, write, or understand English. To achieve this outcome, OPP shall:
(1) Develop and implement a comprehensive language assistance plan and policy that complies, at a minimum, with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, (42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.) and other applicable law;
(2) Ensure that all OPP personnel take reasonable steps to provide timely, meaningful language assistance services to limited English Proficient (“LEP”) prisoners;
(3) At intake and classification, identify and assess demographic data, specifically including the number of LEP individuals at OPP on a monthly basis, and the language(s) they speak;
(4) Use collected demographic information to develop and implement hiring goals for bilingual staff that meet the needs of the current monthly average population of LEP prisoners;
(5) Regularly assess the proficiency and qualifications of bilingual staff to become an OPP authorized interpreter (“OPPAI”);
(6) Create and maintain an OPPAI list and provide that list to the classification and intake staff; and
(7) Ensure that while at OPP, LEP prisoners are not asked to sign or initial documents in English without the benefit of a written translation from an OPPAI.
2. Language Assistance Policies and Procedures
a. OPP shall develop and implement written policies, procedures and protocols for documenting, processing, and tracking of individuals held for up to 48 hours for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”);
b. Policies, procedures, and protocols for processing 48-hour holds for DHS will:
(1) Clearly delineate when a 48-hour hold is deemed to begin and end;
(2) Ensure that, if necessary, an OPPAI communicates verbally with the OPP prisoner about when the 48-hold period begins and is expected to end;
(3) Provide a mechanism for the prisoner’s family member and attorney to be informed of the 48-hour hold time period, using, as needed, an OPPAI or telephonic interpretation service;
- 35 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 40 of 53
(4) Create an automated tracking method, not reliant on human memory or paper documentation, to trigger notification to DHS and to ensure that the 48-hour time period is not exceeded.
(5) Ensure that telephone services have recorded instructions in English and Spanish;
(6) Ensure that signs providing instructions to OPP prisoners or their families are translated into Spanish and posted;
(7) Provide Spanish translations of vital documents that are subject to dissemination to OPP prisoners or their family members. Such vital documents include, but are not limited to: i. grievance forms; ii. sick call forms; iii. OPP inmate handbooks; Prisoner Notifications (e.g., rule violations, transfers, and grievance responses) and iv. “Request for Services” forms.
(8) Ensure that Spanish-speaking LEP prisoners obtain the Spanish language translations of forms provided by DHS; and
(9) Provide its language assistance plan and related policies to all staff within 180 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement.
3. Language Assistance Training a. Within 180 days of the effective date, OPP shall provide at least eight hours of LEP training to all corrections and medical and mental health staff who may regularly interact with LEP prisoners. (1) LEP training to OPP staff shall include: i. OPP’s LEP plan and policies, and the requirements of Title VI and this Agreement; ii. how to access OPP-authorized, telephonic and in-person OPPAIs; and iii. basic commands and statements in Spanish for OPP staff.
- 36 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 41 of 53
(2) OPP shall translate the language assistance plan and policy into Spanish, and other languages as appropriate, and post the English and translated versions in a public area of the OPP facilities, as well as online.
(3) OPP shall make its language assistance plan available to the public.
4. Bilingual Staff
(1) OPP shall ensure that adequate bilingual staff are posted in housing units where DHS detainees and other LEP prisoners may be housed.
(2) OPP shall ensure that an appropriate number of bilingual staff are available to translate or interpret for prisoners and other OPP staff. The appropriate number of bilingual staff will be determined based on a staffing assessment by OPP.
G. YOUTHFUL PRISONERS
Consistent with the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, 42 U.S.C. § 15601, et seq., and its implementation of regulations, a youthful prisoner shall not be placed in a housing unit in which the youthful prisoner will have sight, sound, or physical contact with any adult prisoner through use of a shared dayroom or other common space, shower area, or sleeping quarters. In areas outside of housing units, OPSO shall either: maintain sight and sound separation between youthful prisoners and adult prisoners, or provide direct staff supervision when youthful prisoners and adult prisoners have sight, sound, or physical contact. OPP shall ensure that youthful prisoners in protective custody status shall have no contact with, or access to or from, non-protective custody prisoners. OPP will develop policies for the provision of developmentally appropriate mental health and programming services.
V. FUNDING
A. The Court shall determine the initial funding needed to ensure constitutional conditions of confinement at OPP, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, and the source(s) responsible for providing that fundingat an evidentiary hearing (“funding trial”). Defendant, third-party Defendant City of New Orleans (“City”), and Plaintiffs shall have the right to participate fully in the funding trial, including producing expert testimony and analysis regarding the cost of implementing this Agreement.
B. Defendant shall be responsible for implementation of this Agreement upon a definitive judgment with regard to initial funding for this Agreement.
C. Once the funding is determined pursuant to Paragraph A, the funding amount thereafter may be adjusted on an annual basis to account for changes in the size of the prisoner population, inflation, or other operating costs. If Defendant and the City are unable to agree upon such adjustments to the annual budget, the Monitor will intervene and resolve the dispute. If the Monitor cannot resolve the dispute within 45 days, the dispute will be
- 37 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 42 of 53
submitted to the district judge for resolution. Defendant, the City, and Plaintiffs agree to work in good faith to determine available cost savings measures that may result from the ongoing implementation of this Agreement or otherwise.
D. Defendant will provide an annual budget for the expenditure of the funds for operation of OPP and an annual audited financial statement to the Monitor, the City, and Plaintiffs. The Monitor will assist in conducting oversight to ensure that funds for implementing this Agreement are allocated to achieve compliance with this Agreement.
VI. THE NEW JAIL FACILITY
A. The Parties anticipate that Defendant will build a new jail facility or facilities that will replace or supplement the current facility located at 2800 Gravier Street, New Orleans, Louisiana. This Agreement shall apply to any new jail facility.
B. Defendant shall obtain the services of a qualified professional to evaluate, design, plan, oversee, and implement the construction of any new facility. At each major stage of the facility construction, Defendant shall provide the Monitor with copies of design documents.
C. Defendant shall consult with a qualified corrections expert as to the required services and staffing levels needed for any replacement facility. OPSO shall complete a staffing study to ensure that any new facility is adequately staffed to provide prisoners with reasonable safety.
D. Defendant will ensure that the new jail facility will be built in accordance with: (1) the American Correctional Association’s standards in effect at the time of construction; (2) the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, including changes made by the ADA Amendments of 2008 (P.L. 110-325) and 47 U.S.C. §§ 225-661, and the regulations thereunder; and (3) all applicable fire codes and regulations.
VII. COMPLIANCE AND QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
A. Within 120 days of the Effective Date, OPSO shall revise and/or develop its policies, procedures, protocols, training curricula, and practices to ensure that they are consistent with, incorporate, address, and implement all provisions of this Agreement. OPSO shall revise and/or develop as necessary other written documents such as screening tools, logs, handbooks, manuals, and forms, to effectuate the provisions of this Agreement. OPSO shall send pertinent newly-drafted and revised policies and procedures to the Monitor as they are promulgated. The Monitor will provide comments on the policies to OPSO, SPLC and DOJ within 30 days. OPSO, SPLC and DOJ may provide comments on the Monitor’s comments within 15 days. At that point, the Monitor will consider the Parties’ comments, mediate any disputes, and approve the policies with any changes within 30 days. If either party disagrees with the Monitor, they may bring the dispute to the Court. OPSO shall provide initial and in-service training to all Facility staff with respect to
- 38 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 43 of 53
newly implemented or revised policies and procedures. OPSO shall document employee review of and training in new or revised policies and procedures.
H. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, Defendant shall develop and implement written quality improvement policies and procedures adequate to identify serious deficiencies in protection from harm, prisoner suicide prevention, detoxification, mental health care, environmental health, and fire and life safety in order to assess and ensure compliance with the terms of this Agreement on an ongoing basis. Within 90 days after identifying serious deficiencies, OPSO shall develop and implement policies and procedures to address problems that are uncovered during the course of quality improvement activities. These policies and procedures shall include the development and implementation of corrective action plans, as necessary, within 30 days of each biannual review.
I. The Parties agree that OPSO will hire and retain, or reassign a current OPSO employee for the duration of this Agreement, to serve as a full-time OPSO Compliance Coordinator. The Compliance Coordinator will serve as a liaison between the Parties and the Monitor and will assist with OPSO’s compliance with this Agreement. At a minimum, the Compliance Coordinator will: coordinate OPSO’s compliance and implementation activities; facilitate the provision of data, documents, materials, and access to OPSO’s personnel to the Monitor, SPLC, DOJ, and the public, as needed; ensure that all documents and records are maintained as provided in this Agreement; and assist in assigning compliance tasks to OPSO personnel, as directed by the Sheriff or his or her designee. The Compliance Coordinator will take primary responsibility for collecting information the Monitor requires to carry out the duties assigned to the Monitor.
J. On a bi-annual basis, OPSO will provide the public with a self-assessment in which areas of significant improvement or areas still undergoing improvement are presented either through use of the OPSO website or through issuance of a public statement or report.
VIII. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND RIGHT OF ACCESS
A. OPSO shall submit periodic compliance reports to the Monitor. These periodic reports shall be provided to the Monitor within four months from the date of a definitive judgment on funding; and every six months thereafter until termination of this Agreement. Each compliance report shall describe the actions Defendant has taken during the reporting period to implement this Agreement and shall make specific reference to the Agreement provisions being implemented. The report shall also summarize audits and continuous improvement and quality assurance activities, and contain findings and recommendations that would be used to track and trend data compiled at the Facility. The report shall also capture data that is tracked and monitored under the reporting provisions of the following provisions: Use of Force; Suicide Prevention; Health Care Delivered; Sanitation and Environmental Conditions; and Fire and Life Safety.
- 39 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 44 of 53
B. OPSO shall, within 24 hours, notify the Monitor upon the death of any prisoner. The Monitor shall forward any such notifications to SPLC and DOJ upon receipt. OPSO shall forward to the Monitor incident reports and medical and/or mental health reports related to deaths, autopsies, and/or death summaries of prisoners, as well as all final SOD and IAD reports that involve prisoners. The Monitor shall forward any such reports to SPLC and DOJ upon receipt.
C. Defendant shall maintain sufficient records to document that the requirements of this Agreement are being properly implemented and shall make such records available to the Monitor within seven days of request for inspection and copying. In addition, Defendant shall maintain and provide, upon request, all records or other documents to verify that they have taken the actions described in their compliance reports (e.g., census summaries, policies, procedures, protocols, training materials, investigations, incident reports, tier logs, use of force reports).
D. SPLC, DOJ and their attorneys, consultants, and agents shall have unrestricted access to the Facility, prisoners, staff and documents, as reasonably necessary to address issues affected by this Agreement. SPLC and DOJ shall provide at least seven days’ notice and disclose the names of each individual to participate in the visit, each individual’s role, and the purpose of the visit. SPLC shall not have to provide seven days notice for regular attorneys’ visits.
E. Within 30 days of receipt of written questions from SPLC or DOJ concerning Defendant’s compliance with the requirements of this Agreement, Defendant shall provide the requester with written answers and any requested documents.
IX. MONITORING
A. Monitor Selection: The Parties will jointly select a Monitor to oversee implementation of the Agreement. Should the monitor position become vacant and the Parties are unable to agree on a replacement, the Parties shall recommend candidates to the Court, and the Court will appoint the Monitor from the names submitted by the Parties. Neither party, nor any employee or agent of either party, shall have any supervisory authority over the Monitor’s activities, reports, findings, or recommendations. Allocation of the cost for the Monitor’s fees and expenses shall be determined by the Court. Should all the Parties agree that the Monitor is not fulfilling his or her duties in accordance with this Agreement, the Parties may petition the Court for the Monitor’s immediate removal and replacement. One party may unilaterally petition the Court for the Monitor’s removal for good cause, and the other Parties will have the opportunity to respond to the petition.
B. Good cause for the purposes of this Agreement shall mean, but not be limited to: gross neglect of duties; willful misconduct; inappropriate personal relationship with Defendant or any OPSO employee; conflicts of interest; or any criminal conduct during the pendency of this Agreement.
- 40 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 45 of 53
C. Monitor Qualifications: The Monitor and his or her staff shall have appropriate experience and education or training related to the subject areas covered in this Agreement. The Parties reserve the right to object for good cause to any member of the Monitor’s staff.
D. Monitor Access: The Monitor shall have full and complete access to the Facility, all Facility records, prisoner medical and mental health records, staff, and prisoners. OPSO shall direct all employees to cooperate fully with the Monitor. All information obtained by the Monitor shall be maintained in a confidential manner.
E. Monitor Ex Parte Communications: The Monitor shall be permitted to initiate and receive ex parte communications with all Parties.
F. Monitor Distribution of OPSO Documents, Reports, and Assessments: Within seven days of receipt, the Monitor shall distribute all OPSO assessments and reports to SPLC, DOJ, and the City. The Monitor also shall provide any OPSO compliance-related documents within seven days to DOJ, SPLC, and the City upon request.
G. Limitations on Public Disclosures by the Monitor: Except as required or authorized by the terms of this Agreement or the Parties acting together, the Monitor shall not make any public or press statements (at a conference or otherwise) or issue findings with regard to any act or omission of Defendant or Defendant’s agents, representatives or employees, or disclose information provided to the Monitor pursuant to this Agreement. The Monitor shall not testify in any other litigation or proceeding with regard to any act or omission of Defendant or any of Defendant’s agents, representatives, or employees related to this Agreement, nor testify regarding any matter or subject that he or she may have learned as a result of his or her performance under this Agreement, nor serve as a non-testifying expert regarding any matter or subject that he or she may have learned as a result of his or her performance under this Agreement. Unless such conflict is waived by all Parties, the Monitor shall not accept employment or provide consulting services that would present a conflict of interest with the Monitor’s responsibilities under this Agreement, including being retained (on a paid or unpaid basis) by any current or future litigant or claimant, or such litigant’s or claimant’s attorney, in connection with a claim or suit against Defendant, Defendant’s departments, officers, agents or employees. The Monitor is not a State/County or local agency or an agent thereof, and accordingly the records maintained by the Monitor shall not be deemed public records subject to public inspection. Neither the Monitor nor any person or entity hired or otherwise retained by the Monitor to assist in furthering any provision of this Agreement shall be liable for any claim, lawsuit or demand arising out of the Monitor’s performance pursuant to this Agreement. This provision does not apply to any proceeding before a court related to performance of contracts or subcontracts for monitoring this Agreement.
H. Monitor’s Reports: The Monitor shall file with the Court and provide the Parties with reports describing the steps taken by Defendant to implement this Agreement and evaluate the extent to which Defendant has complied with each substantive provision of the Agreement. The Monitor shall issue an initial report 120 days after the Effective
- 41 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 46 of 53
Date, and then every 180 days thereafter. The reports shall be provided to the Parties in draft form for comment at least 14 days prior to their issuance. The Monitor shall consider the Parties’ responses and make appropriate changes, if any, before issuing the report. These reports shall be written with due regard for the privacy interests of individual prisoners and staff and the interest of Defendant in protecting against disclosure of information not permitted by this Agreement.
I. Reports issued by the Monitor shall not be admissible against Defendant in any proceeding other than a proceeding related to the enforcement of this Agreement initiated and handled exclusively by Defendant, SPLC, or DOJ.
J. Compliance Assessments: In the Monitor’s report, the Monitor shall evaluate the status of compliance for each relevant provision of the Agreement using the following standards: (1) Substantial Compliance; (2) Partial Compliance, and (3) Non-compliance. In order to assess compliance, the Monitor shall review a sufficient number of pertinent documents to accurately assess current conditions, interview all necessary staff, and interview a sufficient number of prisoners to accurately assess current conditions. The Monitor shall be responsible for independently verifying representations from Defendant regarding progress toward compliance, and examining supporting documentation. Each Monitor report shall describe the steps taken by each member of the monitoring team to analyze conditions and assess compliance, including documents reviewed and individuals interviewed, and the factual basis for each of the Monitor’s findings.
K. Technical Assistance by the Monitor: The Monitor shall provide Defendant with technical assistance as requested by Defendant. Technical assistance should be reasonable and should not interfere with the Monitor’s ability to assess compliance.
X. ENFORCEMENT
A. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over the implementation of this Agreement at the existing OPP or any other facility used to replace or supplement OPP for all purposes.
B. During the period that the Agreement is in force, if the Monitor, SPLC, or DOJ determines that Defendant has not made material progress toward substantial compliance with a significant obligation under the Agreement, and such failure constitutes a violation of prisoners’ constitutional rights, SPLC or DOJ may initiate contempt or enforcement proceedings against Defendant for an alleged failure to fulfill an obligation under Sections IV through X of this Agreement in Court.
C. Before taking judicial action to initiate contempt or other enforcement proceedings, SPLC or DOJ shall give Defendant written notice of its intent to initiate such proceedings, and the Parties shall engage in good-faith discussions to resolve the dispute and may petition the Court for a status conference to assist in resolution.
D. Defendant shall have 30 days from the date of such notice to cure the failure (or such additional time as is reasonable due to the nature of the issue and agreed upon by the
- 42 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 47 of 53
Parties) and provide the complaining party with sufficient proof of its cure. At the end of the 30-day period (or such additional time as is reasonable due to the nature of the issue and agreed upon by the Parties), in the event that the complaining party determines that the failure has not been cured, that party may initiate contempt proceedings without further notice. The Parties commit to work in good faith with Defendant to avoid enforcement actions.
E. In case of an emergency posing an immediate threat to the health or safety of any prisoner or staff member at OPP, however, DOJ or SPLC may omit the notice and cure requirements herein and seek enforcement of the Agreement.
XI. CONSTRUCTION, IMPLEMENTATION, AND TERMINATION
A. Defendant shall implement all reforms, as designated within the provisions of this Agreement, that are necessary to effectuate this Agreement. The implementation of this Agreement will begin immediately upon the Effective Date.
B. Except where otherwise agreed to under a specific provision of this Agreement, Defendant shall implement all provisions of this Agreement within 180 days of the Effective Date.
C. This Agreement shall terminate when Defendant has achieved substantial compliance with each provision of the Agreement and have maintained Substantial Compliance with the Agreement for a period of two years.
D. If any unforeseen circumstance occurs that causes a failure to timely carry out any requirements of this Agreement, Defendant shall notify DOJ and SPLC in writing within seven days after Defendant becomes aware of the unforeseen circumstance and its impact on the Defendant’s ability to perform under the Agreement. The notice shall describe the cause of the failure to perform and the measures taken to prevent or minimize the failure. Defendant shall implement all reasonable measures to avoid or minimize any such failure.
E. This Agreement shall constitute the entire integrated Agreement of the Parties. No prior or contemporaneous communications, oral or written, will be relevant or admissible for purposes of determining the meaning of any provisions herein, in this litigation or in any other proceeding.
F. The Agreement shall be applicable to, and binding upon, all Parties, their officers, agents, employees, assigns, and their successors in office.
G. Failure by any party to enforce this entire Agreement or any provision thereof with respect to any deadline or any other provision herein shall not be construed as a waiver of the party’s right to enforce other deadlines or provisions of this Agreement.
- 43 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 48 of 53
H. If any provision of this Agreement is declared invalid for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, said finding shall not affect the remaining provisions of this Agreement.
XII. STIPULATION PURSUANT TO THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT, 18 U.S.C. § 3626
The Parties stipulate that this Agreement complies in all respects with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). The Parties further stipulate and agree and the Court finds that the prospective relief in this Agreement is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violations of federal rights as alleged by Plaintiffs in the Complaints, is the least intrusive means necessary to correct these violations, and will not have an adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system. Accordingly, the Parties agree and represent that the Agreement complies in all respects with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). Any admission made for purposes of this Agreement is not admissible if presented by third Parties in another proceeding.
So ORDERED this ___________ day of __________________, 2013
LANCE M. AFRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
- 44 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 49 of 53

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 50 of 53

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 51 of 53

APPENDIX A Criteria that Trigger Referral for Investigation

Trigger Events Occurring in OPP

Thresholds Reached at OPP

1. Existence of resulting injuries that are extensive or serious
2. Existence of resulting injuries involving fractures or head trauma
3. Existence of resulting injuries that require treatment at outside hospitals
4. Reports of events by staff and inmates that are materially inconsistent .5. Failure to report or report accurately the use of force
6. Retaliation against an inmate or other staff member for reporting the use of excessive or inappropriate force
7. Interfered or failed to cooperate with an investigation regarding a use of force
8. Sexual conduct with an inmate

1. Two or more use of force incidents or complaints in a 30-day period.
2. Inmate death resulting from a use of force
3. Officer arrested for suspected misconduct related to a use of force

- 47 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 52 of 53

APPENDIX B Screening and Assessment Factors, Triggers, and Thresholds

Screening Factors

Assessment Factors

Trigger Events Occurring in Orleans Parish Prison

Thresholds Reached in Orleans Parish Prison

History, Ideation, and Observation

Intake screening shall inquire as to the following:
1. Past suicidal ideation and/or attempts 2. Current suicidal ideation, threat, or
plan 3. Prior mental health treatment or
hospitalization 4. Recent significant loss - such as the
death of a family member or close friend 5. History of suicidal behavior by family members and close friends 6. Suicide risk during any prior confinement 7. Any observations of the transporting officer, court, transferring agency, or similar individuals regarding the prisoner’s potential suicidal risk

Any of the following:
1. Suicide risk screening indicates moderate or high risk
2. Any suicide attempt in the past 3. Any suicidal ideations, with intent/plan within the
past 30 days 4. Any command hallucinations to harm self within
the past 30 days 5. Any combination of the following:
a) Suicidal ideations within the past year with or without intent/plan
b) Suicidal gestures (current and/or within past year)
c) One or more of the following diagnoses: i) Bipolar Disorder, Depressed ii) Major Depression With or Without Psychotic Features iii) Schizophrenia iv) Schizoaffective Disorder v) Any diagnosis within the Pervasive Developmental Disorder Spectrum vi) Any other factor(s) determined by the interdisciplinary team (IDT) as contributing to suicide risk (e.g. recent loss, family history of suicide, etc.)
6. Any history of self-injurious behavior (SIB) resulting in injury requiring medical attention within the past year

1. Any suicide attempt 2. Any suicide ideation, with or
without a plan 3. Any aggression to self resulting
in major injury

1. Any suicide 2. Any suicide attempt
resulting in outside medical treatment 3. Two or more episodes of suicidal ideation/attempts within 14 consecutive days 4. Four or more episodes of suicidal ideations/ attempts within 30 consecutive days

-48-

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 53 of 53

Detoxification and Use of Illicit Substances

Intake screening shall inquire as to the following: 1. Substance(s) or medications used 2. Amount 3. Time of last use 4. History of use 5. Any physical observations, such as
shaking, seizing, hallucinating, history of drug withdrawal symptoms, such as agitation, tremors, seizures, hallucinations, and D.T.’s (delirium tremens)

Any of the following: 1. Immediate history of substance use disorder 2. History of substance use disorder within the past
year. 3. Any degree of risk for potentially life-threatening
withdrawal from alcohol, benzodiazepines, opiates, opioid derivatives and other substances. 4. Vital signs appearing abnormal, when measuring body temperature, pulse rate, blood pressure, and respirations. 5. CIWA-AR score of 10 or over.

1. Any incident of an individual testing positive for illicit substance (street drug) use
2. Use of benzodiazepines (continuous for more than 60 days) in an individual with past history of substance use disorder
4. Any suicide attempt 5. Any suicidal ideation, with or
without a plan 6. Any aggression to self resulting
in major injury

1. Two or more incidents of illicit use in 7 consecutive days
2. Four or more incidents of illicit use in 30 consecutive days

- 49 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 183-2 Filed 03/18/13 Page 1 of 1
V. FUNDING
A. The Court shall determine the initial funding needed to ensure constitutional conditions of confinement at OPP, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, and the source(s) responsible for providing that funding at an evidentiary hearing (“funding trial”). Defendant, third-party Defendant City of New Orleans (“City”), and Plaintiffs shall have the right to participate fully in the funding trial, including producing expert testimony and analysis regarding the cost of implementing this Agreement.
A.B. Defendant shall be responsible for implementation of this Agreement upon a definitive judgment with regard to such initial funding for this Agreement.
B.C. Once the funding is determined pursuant to Paragraph A, the funding amount thereafter may be adjusted on an annual basis to account for changes in the size of the prisoner population, inflation, or other operating costs. If the PartiesDefendant and the City are unable to agree upon such adjustments to the annual budget, the Monitor will intervene and resolve the dispute. If the Monitor cannot resolve the dispute within 45 days, the dispute will be submitted to the district judge for resolution. Defendant, the City, and Plaintiffs The Parties agree to work in good faith to determine available cost savings measures that may result from the ongoing implementation of this Agreement or otherwise.
C.D. Defendant will provide an annual budget for the expenditure of the funds for operation of OPP and an annual audited financial statement to the Monitor, the City, and the PartiesPlaintiffs. The Monitor will assist in conducting oversight to ensure that funds for implementing this Agreement are allocated to achieve compliance with this Agreement.
IX. MONITORING
F. Monitor Distribution of OPSO Documents, Reports, and Assessments: Within seven days of receipt, the Monitor shall distribute all OPSO assessments and reports to SPLC, and DOJ, and the City. The Monitor also shall provide any OPSO compliance-related documents within seven days to DOJ, and SPLC, and the City upon request.

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1227 Filed 03/18/19 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LASHAWN JONES, ET AL.
VERSUS
MARLIN GUSMAN, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION No. 12-859
SECTION I

ORDER
In a January 25, 2019 order issued by this Court, the Court emphasized:
The situation facing prisoners with mental health needs—both the male prisoners at [Elayn Hunt Correctional Center] and the female prisoners at the [Orleans Justice Center]—is dire: with Hunt no longer available as of October 2019, there is no plan in place regarding housing and treatment for male prisoners with significant mental health needs. Equally as troubling is the fact that there simply is no facility to address the needs of female prisoners with significant mental health issues. Despite repeated assurances from the City [of New Orleans], little progress has been made. As the Court advised the parties, action must be taken on an emergency basis to avert a crisis.
During the conference, the Court also emphasized the importance of a permanent solution designed to provide constitutionally mandated mental health treatment for all OJC prisoners. The Court reminded the City that all plans are subject to review by the monitors and, ultimately, the Court.
In the above-mentioned order, the Court mandated that “the City of New
Orleans, in collaboration with the Independent Jail Compliance Director Darnley
Hodge, Sr. and after consultation with the monitors, shall submit by February 25,
2019 a specific written proposal regarding a short-term solution” to the problem of
incarcerating prisoners with significant mental health issues.1

1 R. Doc. No. 1221.

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1227 Filed 03/18/19 Page 2 of 3
On February 25, 2019 the City of New Orleans (the “City”) submitted a plan intended to address the Court’s concerns (the “Short-Term Plan”).2 The Short-Term Plan calls for the renovation of two buildings at the Temporary Detention Center (the “TDC”) (four building units) for use as a temporary facility to house 39 male inmates and 26 to 30 female inmates with serious health issues.3 The City’s response also referenced detailed plans by GraceHebert Architects and advised that its plan was submitted “in collaboration with Director Hodge and [the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office], and after consultation with the monitor.”4
There being no feasible alternative presented by the parties, and time being of the essence with respect to what the Court considers a dire and exigent situation regarding the housing and treatment of mentally ill prisoners in the custody of Orleans Parish,
IT IS ORDERED that the City immediately initiate the planning, design, procurement, and renovation of the temporary accommodations described in its Short-Term Plan and the attachments thereto. The Court expects the project to be completed on or near the deadline set forth in the City’s Short-Term Plan.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the City and the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office are directed to continue the programming phase of Phase III.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are to work collaboratively to design and build a facility that provides for the constitutional treatment of the special
2 R. Doc. No. 1222. 3 R. Doc. No. 1222. 4 R. Doc. No. 1222.
2

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1227 Filed 03/18/19 Page 3 of 3
populations discussed herein without undue delay, expense or waste. The parties may seek the assistance of United States Magistrate Judge Michael North in that regard.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, beginning on April 18, 2019 and continuing every thirty (30) calendar days thereafter, the City shall timely submit a written statement to this Court advising it of the progress of the TDC renovation as well as any change in the projected date set forth in the City’s response to the Court’s January 25, 2019 order.5 The written statement shall also advise the Court of the City’s progress toward construction of Phase III.
The Court specifically finds that the orders herein extend no further than necessary to correct violations of the federal rights of the plaintiff class. The Court further specifically finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violations of federal rights, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct such violations. The Court has given substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief ordered herein.
New Orleans, Louisiana, March 18, 2019.
_______________________________________ LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5 R. Doc. No. 1221. 3

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274 Filed 05/27/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LASHAWN JONES, ET AL.

*

*

VERSUS

*

*

MARLIN GUSMAN, ET AL.

*

*

*

*

********************* *

CIVIL ACTION No. 12-00859
HON. LANCE M. AFRICK SECTION: I
MAG. MICHAEL B. NORTH SECTION: 5

MOTION TO TERMINATE CONSENT DECREE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §3626(b) AND MOTION TO TERMINATE THE STIPULATED ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT
OF INDEPENDENT JAIL COMPLIANCE DIRECTOR

NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes Defendant, Marlin N.

Gusman, Sheriff of the Parish of Orleans (hereinafter referred to as “Sheriff Gusman” or “OPSO”),

who respectfully moves this Honorable Court to terminate the Consent Decree (R. Doc. 466)

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3626(b) and, further, to terminate the Stipulated Order for Appointment of

Independent Jail Compliance Director (hereinafter referred to as the “Stipulated Agreement”) (R.

Doc. 1082). For the reasons more fully detailed in the Memorandum in Support filed

contemporaneously herewith, OPSO has reached compliance with the provisions of the Consent

Decree pursuant to the standards set forth in the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and the continued

enforcement of the Consent Decree violates 18 U.S.C. §3626, warranting termination.

Furthermore, as required in Section E(2) of the Stipulated Agreement, material progress with

substantial compliance with all provisions of the Consent Decree has been achieved. Thus, the

Stipulated Agreement, and the position of Compliance Director, must be terminated.

[SIGNATURE BLOCK ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE.]

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274 Filed 05/27/20 Page 2 of 2
Respectfully submitted,
CHEHARDY, SHERMAN, WILLIAMS, MURRAY, RECILE, STAKELUM & HAYES, LLP
/s/ James M. Williams_________________ JAMES M. WILLIAMS, BAR NO. 26141 INEMESIT U. O’BOYLE, BAR NO. 30007 PATRICK R. FOLLETTE, BAR NO. 34547 One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100 Metairie, Louisiana 70001 Telephone: (504) 833-5600 Facsimile: (504) 833-8080
-and-
ORLEANS PARISH SHERIFF’S OFFICE BLAKE J. ARCURI, BAR NO. 32322 LAURA C. RODRIGUE, BAR NO. 30428 FREEMAN R. MATTHEWS, BAR NO. 9050 2800 Perdido Street New Orleans, LA 70119 Tel: 504.202.9404 Fax: 504.202.9454 arcurib@opso.us; rodriguela@opso.us
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify that on this 26th day of May 2020, a copy of the foregoing was filed
electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent
by operation of the court’s electronic filing system. I also certify that a copy of the foregoing will
be sent to all non-CM/ECF participants by United States Mail, properly addressed and postage
pre-paid.
/s/ James M. Williams_________________ James M. Williams

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 1 of 44

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LASHAWN JONES, ET AL.

*

*

VERSUS

*

*

MARLIN GUSMAN, ET AL.

*

*

*

*

********************* *

CIVIL ACTION No. 12-00859
HON. LANCE M. AFRICK SECTION: I
MAG. MICHAEL B. NORTH SECTION: 5

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TERMINATE CONSENT DECREE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §3626(b) AND MOTION TO TERMINATE THE STIPULATED
ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF INDEPENDENT JAIL COMPLIANCE DIRECTOR

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:

Defendant, Marlin N. Gusman, Sheriff of the Parish of Orleans (hereinafter referred to as

“Sheriff Gusman” or “OPSO”), respectfully moves this Honorable Court to terminate the Consent

Decree (R. Doc. 466) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3626(b) and, further, to terminate the Stipulated Order

for Appointment of Independent Jail Compliance Director (hereinafter referred to as the “Stipulated

Agreement”) (R. Doc. 1082). For the reasons more fully detailed herein, OPSO has reached

compliance with the provisions of the Consent Decree and the continued enforcement of the Consent

Decree violates 18 U.S.C. §3626, the Prison Litigation Reform Act, warranting termination.

I. INTRODUCTION

The Consent Judgment (hereinafter referred to as the “Consent Decree”) was executed on

June 6, 2013 in response to ongoing litigation regarding the alleged unconstitutional conditions of

confinement at OPSO.1 This litigation was the result of a 2012 Class Action Complaint filed by the

Southern Poverty Law Center on behalf of prisoners detained in the Orleans Parish Prison (“Plaintiffs’ Complaint”)2. Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleged, inter alia, that the conditions of

1 See Consent Decree, R. Doc. 466. 2 See Plaintiffs’ 2012 Complaint, R. Doc. 1.
1

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 2 of 44
confinement at OPSO placed inmates in imminent risk of serious harm and failed to meet their basic fundamental rights under the Constitution. When it was executed, the Consent Decree was intended to be a guiding roadmap for ensuring OPSO and its then dilapidated jail facilities would be improved to meet the standards for constitutional compliance as set forth in the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). Since then, OPSO has made drastic and unprecedented steps improving its operations and jail facility. Despite this significant progress, however, the Consent Decree is presently being implemented in a manner that demands prospective relief which far exceeds the constitutional minimum standards under the PLRA.
The PLRA, 18 U.S.C. §3626, establishes a comprehensive set of standards to govern prospective relief in prison condition cases. It provides that prospective relief shall “extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs.”3 Relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the violation, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation.4 Further, courts must “give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief.”5 The PLRA represents the statutory authority enacted by the United States Congress to achieve several goals in prison litigation. Primarily, the PLRA has been enacted to prevent federal courts from micromanaging prisons by consent decrees and to return control of the prison system from courts to “the elected officials accountable to the taxpayer.”6 “[N]o longer may courts grant or approve relief that binds prison administrators to do more than the constitutional minimum.”7 This, therefore, is the standard by which OPSO must be judged.
OPSO is in compliance with the Consent Decree based on the applicable constitutional
3 18 U.S.C. §3626(a)(1). 4 Id. 5 Id. 6 Gilmore v. California, 220 F.3d 987, 996 (9th Cir. 2000). 7 Id. at 999.
2

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 3 of 44
minimum standards in the PLRA. There are no current or ongoing federal violations of inmates’ constitutional rights that warrant the continued enforcement of this Consent Decree. The Consent Decree was executed to correct the alleged constitutional violations as they existed at the time of Plaintiffs’ Complaint in 2012. Those alleged federal violations were the result of a different time under a different organizational structure, wherein overpopulation plagued an understaffed and under-resourced office operating in decaying jail facilities. Those conditions no longer exist. The alleged constitutional violations from 2012 have been remedied by means far exceeding the constitutional minimum demanded under the PLRA. Continued enforcement of the Consent Decree seeks a jail utopia, reflective of the Court appointed Monitors’ personal preferences and idealistic aspirations, not the “narrowly drawn…least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation” requirement that controls prospective relief for jail conditions.
The Monitors, appointed by the Court to assess OPSO’s compliance with the Consent Decree, are not applying the proper legal standard under the PLRA. Instead, they are requiring OPSO to meet a standard of unwavering perfection, which is not the law. For example, OPSO’s inexplicable “Partial Compliance” with Section IV.A.5.f. of the Consent Decree illustrates the improper standards the Monitors have placed on OPSO. This Section of the Consent Decree encompasses surveillance in the jail and provides that OPSO must: “Increase the use of overhead video surveillance and recording cameras to provide adequate coverage throughout the common areas of the jail, including the Intake Processing Center, all divisions’ intake areas, mental health units, special management units, prisoner housing units, and in the divisions’ common areas.”8 At the time when this language was drafted, OPSO was housing inmates in the former dilapidated Orleans Parish Prison (“OPP”) facility, which had only twenty-four (24) outdated and poorly working cameras. The recently constructed state-of-the-art Orleans Justice Center (“OJC”), which now houses the inmates, has over
8 See Section IV.A.5.f of the Consent Decree, R. Doc. 466. 3

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 4 of 44
nine hundred (900) ultra-modern cameras operating throughout the facility including all locations required by the Consent Decree. Since OPSO increased the number of jail cameras from 24 to 900, in all locations described in the Consent Decree, it is unquestionably in Substantial Compliance with the jail camera provision. The Monitors, however, have refused to find OPSO in Substantial Compliance with this provision for the last two years because, on occasion, technical issues occur with the camera system and every single one of the 900 cameras may not work simultaneously.9 The jail camera provision of the Consent Decree does not set forth that technical issues with the cameras would result in Non or Partial Compliance. It simply calls for the increased use of overhead video surveillance and recording cameras throughout the common areas of the jail, which OPSO has indisputably accomplished.
The jail camera issue is just one of many instances that exposes the unattainable and improper standard to which OPSO is being held by the current Monitors. OPSO and the City have spent 7 years, 11 Monitors, 2 Compliance Directors, and $3,740,723.3810 in monitoring fees yet the Monitors claim to have only brought OPSO into Substantial Compliance with 59% of the Consent Decree.11 The progress at OPSO since 2012 is undeniable, and there are no current and ongoing violations at OPSO which warrant the overly broad, highly intrusive Consent Decree to continue. As such, this Honorable Court should grant this Motion to Terminate, and bring an end to the Consent Decree.
II. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY A. State of the Jail Pre-Sheriff Gusman and the Progress Thereafter
9 Of note, several district courts have even refused to order the installation of video cameras to increase inmate security, finding that “[A] proposed order directing the installation of security cameras – is beyond the narrow scope permitted by the PLRA.” Houston v. Collerman, 2016 WL 6267968 at *12 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2016). See also Oliver v. Gafford, 2016 WL 3247618 at *3 (N.D. Fla. May 9, 2016); Begay v. United States, 2015 WL 1540982, at *5 (D. Colo. Apr. 1, 2015); Deas v. Ingham Cty. Jail, 2018 WL 3853521, at *4 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 14, 2018); Stockenauer v. Ball, 2015 WL 4509130, at *6 (E.D. Mich. July 24, 2015). 10 As of the date of filing, the Court appointed Monitors have billed $3,740,723.38 for their services from 2013 to present. See Declaration of Elizabeth Boyer, attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 11 See Monitors’ Report No. 11, R. Doc. 1259.
4

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 5 of 44
Understanding OPSO’s past is necessary to understand the substantial progress it has achieved. In 1969, a class action was filed regarding conditions of confinement at the Orleans Parish jail system. The original title of that case reveals the longevity of the litigation: Hamilton v. Schiro, ELDA Docket No. 69-243. That consent decree litigation continued for nearly forty years until 2008. During this time, numerous consent decrees regarding various conditions of confinement were confected.
The current Orleans Parish Sheriff, Marlin Gusman, was elected by the public in 2004. This historic election made Sheriff Gusman the first African American Sheriff in the (then) 286-year history of the City of New Orleans. However, the change was more than symbolic. Sheriff Gusman ushered in a new and compassionate era of corrections in Orleans Parish. Before Sheriff Gusman’s arrival, OPSO received a per diem or pre-determined amount of money for each day that each inmate was housed in an Orleans Parish jail. This meant that OPSO received more revenue for housing more inmates – and that OPSO received more money the longer they held inmates. This created an incentive to increase the inmate population and to hold those inmates in jail longer. Under this per diem system, the prior Sheriff amassed a plethora of inmates as the inmate population ballooned to 6,500 inmates. To accommodate the increased population, the prior Sheriff increased the capacity of existing jail buildings and acquired other neighborhood properties (e.g. hotel, school, office buildings) to convert them into additional jail buildings. These buildings were almost entirely rundown facilities that were housing inmates in conditions that were arguably unsafe for both the inmates and the staff guarding them. Sheriff Gusman worked diligently over the years after taking office and ultimately abolished this archaic and problematic long-standing per diem funding system thereby removing the incentive to maintain such an enormous inmate population. Sheriff Gusman’s commitment to humane treatment for inmates and an appropriate inmate population size led him to change this decades long practice.
5

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 6 of 44
Sheriff Gusman further endeavored to reduce the inmate population and improve the physical plant of the OPSO jail buildings. Unfortunately, nine months after his election, Hurricane Katrina devastated the City of New Orleans. OPSO was not spared in the devastation. This meant that the already old, crumbling, and overused buildings were now in even greater disrepair. Nevertheless, Sheriff Gusman continued working towards his goal and dramatically reduced the inmate population to the more reasonable level that it is today. Sheriff Gusman has also closed almost every old jail building and the inmates of Orleans Parish are now housed in the new, state-of-the-art, Orleans Justice Center (“OJC”).12
B. Plaintiffs’ 2012 Class Action Complaint On September 11, 2009, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) issued a Findings Letter13 following its investigation of conditions at OPP pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (“CRIPA”), 42 U.S.C. §1997. CRIPA gives the DOJ authority to seek a remedy for a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the constitutional rights of inmates in adult detention and correctional facilities. The DOJ’s Letter acknowledged that OPSO was still recovering from the devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina, and even commended the efforts of Sheriff Gusman and his staff on their extraordinary efforts in repairing the facilities following Katrina.14 The DOJ’s Letter ultimately concluded, however, that certain conditions at OPP violated the constitutional rights of inmates.15 On April 2, 2012, the Southern Poverty Law Center filed a class action complaint against
12 The Temporary Detention Center (“TDC”) remains open for the purpose of housing work release inmates and inmates with acute mental health needs. The use of TDC for these purposes was approved by this Court and the New Orleans City Council. 13 See DOJ’s September 11, 2009 Letter, attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 14 Id. at p. 2. 15 Id. Specifically, the DOJ’s Letter found that inmates confined at OPP were not adequately protected from harm, including physical harm from excessive use of force by staff and inmate-on-inmate violence. In addition, the DOJ found that inmates did not receive adequate mental health care, including proper suicide prevention. The Letter also found that OPP inmates faced serious risks posed by inadequate environmental and sanitation conditions.
6

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 7 of 44
Sheriff Gusman and OPSO on behalf of the prisoners detained in the Orleans Parish Prison. The
Plaintiffs’ Complaint was largely based on the DOJ’s 2009 Findings Letter. The Plaintiffs’
Complaint alleged, inter alia, that the conditions of confinement at the jail were unconstitutional and
abusive to the inmates. On September 24, 2012, the United States, through the DOJ, intervened into
the legal proceedings and aligned its interests with the Plaintiffs. On October 1, 2012, OPSO brought
the City of New Orleans, who is responsible for funding the operations of the jail, into the case via a
third-party complaint.
The allegations contained in Plaintiffs’ Complaint are necessary to analyze because, in
Plaintiffs’ own words, they “. . . describe conditions that currently exist and gives examples involving specific individuals who are or were incarcerated at OPP. . ..”16 That is, Plaintiffs’ Complaint
describes and complains of unsafe and unconstitutional conditions as they existed in April 2012, over
eight years ago. The Complaint makes pointed, and specific allegations, which are no longer at issue
presently. This is a position Defendants, Plaintiffs, the Monitors, and the Court would agree. For
instance, Plaintiffs’ Complaint makes the following allegations:
Individuals housed at the jail are at imminent risk of serious harm. Rapes, sexual assaults and beatings are common place throughout the facility. The facility is full of homemade knives, or “shanks.” People living with serious mental illnesses languish without treatment, left vulnerable to physical and sexual abuse. These conditions have created a public safety crisis that affects the entire City of New Orleans. The jail is oversized, understaffed, and Sheriff Gusman’s classification and security policies and practices are dangerously deficient. The men and women housed there are at constant risk of physical harm due to the presence of contraband and weapons in the facility, which, coupled with the absence of meaningful mental health services, places the lives of people incarcerated there in immediate jeopardy.17
Inmates are no longer in imminent risk of rapes, sexual assaults and beatings as alleged in
16 See Plaintiffs’ Complaint, para. 42, R. Doc. 1. 17 See Plaintiffs’ Complaint, para. 2, R. Doc. 1.
7

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 8 of 44
Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Prisoners with mental illnesses are receiving sufficient, constitutionally compliant, care at the OJC. The jail is no longer oversized, grossly understaffed18, and the classification and security policies and practices have been corrected and brought into constitutional compliance. The conditions described in Plaintiffs’ Complaint do not represent current and ongoing conditions in 2020.
As will be more fully shown herein, in deciding OPSO’s requested relief, the Court must consider evidence on current jail conditions.19 Evidence of current and ongoing violations must reflect conditions “as of the time termination is sought.”20 Thus, the law does not permit this Court to analyze the prospective relief requested under the Consent Decree based on past conditions and violations nor can it predict future violations. It must look at the current conditions and make its findings as to whether or not the prospective relief represents the constitutional minimum required to cure the ongoing federal violation. If the violation has been cured, or if the prospective relief goes beyond the constitutional minimum set forth in the PLRA, the provision must be terminated.
C. The Consent Decree After months of litigation and negotiations, Sheriff Gusman determined that it would be in OPSO’s best interest if it worked hand in hand with the DOJ, the City of New Orleans, and Plaintiffs to improve the conditions of confinement in Orleans Parish. Sheriff Gusman was cognizant that the dilapidated jail facilities and understaffing caused by budget constraints would not be easily fixed without the cooperation of all parties involved. With these good faith intentions in mind, the parties entered into the Consent Decree, which was signed by this Court and entered into the record on June 6, 2013.21
18 The staffing issues in 2020, while they still exist, are nothing like the understaffing concerns that were raised in the 2012 Complaint. 19 See Gilmore v. California, 220 F.3d 987-1010 (9th Cir. 2000). 20 Id. 21 See R. Doc. 466.
8

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 9 of 44
Despite the good intentions of Sheriff Gusman and OPSO, it quickly became apparent that the provisions of the Consent Decree were extraordinarily broad and overreaching, and the DOJ and Plaintiffs sought to hold Sheriff Gusman and OPSO to much different standards than what is constitutionally required for a jail facility. Pursuant to the PLRA, “prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.”22 The Consent Decree, which was drafted in 2013, was 44 pages long and encompassed approximately 174 areas of compliance that Sheriff Gusman and OPSO are required to achieve “Substantial Compliance” with, all of which are evaluated by the Court appointed Monitors. Simply put, the depth and breadth of the Consent Decree governing OPSO goes far beyond requiring a constitutionally compliant jail facility. Again, the legal standard for prospective relief under the PLRA is maintaining the constitutional minimum to correct the federal wrong. Section IV(D)(1)(d) is an example of the Consent Decree’s overreach stating that OPSO must, “ensure adequate lighting in all prisoner housing units and prompt replacement and repair of malfunctioning lighting fixtures in living areas within five days, unless the item must be specially ordered.” This is an actual provision included as one of the 174 areas of compliance within the Consent Decree. Under this provision, if OPSO fails to replace a burnt-out lightbulb within 5 days, it is deemed non-compliant with the Consent Decree even though a burnt-out lightbulb does not make the conditions of a jail unconstitutional. And yet, partial compliance with this provision could prevent Sheriff Gusman and OPSO from being released from the Consent Decree.
In Section XII. of the Consent Decree, the parties “stipulated” that, as of the time of
22 18 U.S.C. §3626. 9

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 10 of 44
execution, the provisions of the Consent Decree complied with the requirements set forth in the PLRA. Sheriff Gusman now rejects this stipulation as no longer accurate. The Plaintiffs have not complied with their obligations under this stipulation and have consistently required prospective relief which blatantly violates the provisions of the PLRA. Thus, this “stipulation” in the Consent Decree is null and void and has no bearing on the relief sought in this Motion. Furthermore, it is well settled law that stipulations between parties are not binding on the Court. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal has opined that “We note that we are not bound to accept stipulations as to questions of law.”23 The law requires that the Consent Decree not be overly broad, be narrowly drawn, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the federal right as required under the PLRA. The opposite has proven true and the Monitor’s micro-managed enforcement of the Consent Decree violates the PLRA and makes demands well outside of the constitutional requirements..
The termination provisions of the Consent Decree, under Section XI(C), state that, “This Agreement shall terminate when Defendant has achieved Substantial Compliance with each provisions of the Agreement and has maintained Substantial Compliance with the Agreement for a period of two years.” This is an unconstitutional and overly burdensome requirement. Under this provision, OPSO could achieve perfection -which is not the legal standard- for 23 months, fall out of Substantial Compliance with one of the 174 provisions of the Consent Decree, and be forced into two more years of oversight. This provision violates the PLRA. Under the PLRA, a Consent Decree is terminable upon the motion of any party or intervener two years after a district court has granted or approved the prospective relief.24 This Court granted the Consent Decree sub judice nearly seven years ago. Consequently, Sheriff Gusman is well within his legal rights to seek termination of the Consent Decree without complying with the restrictive, legally unsupported, termination provision
23 Equitable Life Assurance Soc. V. Macgill, 551 F.2d 978, 983 (5th Cir. 1977); Overton v. Austin, 748 F.2d 941, 957 (5th Cir. 1984); Provident Financial Inc. V. Strategic Energy L.L.C., 2010 WL 5093884, footnote 3 (5th Cir. 2010). 24 18. U.S.C. §3626(b).
10

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 11 of 44
in Section XI(C) of the Consent Decree. D. Move into the Orleans Justice Center At the heart of the 2012 Complaint filed by Plaintiffs was the unconstitutional conditions of
confinement in OPP and several other jail facilities in the area.25 There was no dispute from Sheriff Gusman that many of the jail facilities he inherited, specifically the OPP building, were in ruin. Upon his first election, Sheriff Gusman inherited jail facilities that were already beyond repair. This fact was exacerbated by the devastation wreaked on these already corroded facilities during Hurricane Katrina. Following Katrina, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) allocated funds for the construction of a new jail facility. By the time Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in 2012, plans were already underway for the construction of the new jail facility. All parties understood that the new facility would eliminate many of the alleged constitutional violations outlined in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Section VI of the Consent Decree was specifically dedicated to the “New Jail Facility” and outlined the expectations of the parties for the construction of this constitutionally compliant building.
On September 14, 2015, OPSO began transitioning inmates from the old jail facilities into the OJC. The OJC contains state-of-the-art jail technology and is functionally designed to house inmates in constitutional living conditions, all while keeping both inmates and OPSO staff members safe and secure. The living conditions for inmates in the OJC are drastically improved from those of the former Orleans Parish jail facilities.
25 See R. Doc. 1. 11

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 12 of 44
No longer are inmates housed in the run-down facilities of the past. Now, inmates are housed in one of the most modern and functional jail facilities in the country.
E. Receivership Proceedings - The Stipulated Agreement It is well settled among experts that transferring inmates into a new jail will always present a significant challenge. A move in the corrections context is a complex set of tasks that requires staff and other resources working together to ensure the move is successful. As stated in the Resource Manual for Transition to a New Jail, “no matter how skilled in current operations staff are, they will not know where everything is and how it works in the new facility.”26 The manual further provides, “in the best of all possible worlds, transition teams would have all the time they need.”27 The
26 Gail Elias & John Milosovich, Resource Manual for Transition to a New Jail, Ch. 1, p. 6, March 2005, NIC Accession No. 020159. 27 Id. at Ch. 2, p. 4.
12

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 13 of 44
transition into the OJC was not simply moving inmates from one building to another. Rather, it would take months or even up to a year to transition the inmates into their new accommodations and train staff on the requirements of the new jail environment.
Everyone knew this transition would take time, but Sheriff Gusman was not afforded the time needed to transition successfully. On April 25, 2016, only a few months after the transfer of inmates from the old jail facilities into the OJC, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for an Order to Show Cause and for Appointment of a Receiver to Implement Consent Judgment (the “Motion for Receivership”).28 In their Motion for Receivership, the Plaintiffs sought the overly broad relief of asking the Court to appoint a Receiver to assist in the administration of the Orleans Parish Jail. This included the ability to discipline, reassign, terminate, and promote Jail employees; develop and implement policies and procedures; allocate Jail budget funds; and enter into contracts for Jail services.29 In support of this requested relief, Plaintiffs argued that there was a regression from the progress with compliance with the Consent Decree from the Monitors’ Report No. 4 to No. 5, which was finalized on March 17, 2016. Although the Plaintiffs and the Court were warned that rushing the inmate transfer from the old to the new facility would likely result in a slight regression due to the complexities of the entire transition, the Plaintiffs nevertheless seized on their opportunity to move for the drastic remedy of receivership following Monitor Report No. 5.
Sheriff Gusman ardently opposed the Motion for Receivership. Sheriff Gusman, after all, was the publicly elected, multi-term Sheriff who successfully guided OPSO through the aftermath of Katrina, drastically reduced the inmate population and bed count, and opened a state-of-the-art constitutional jail facility in the OJC. Although there was still room for improvement to be made at OPSO, the appointment of a receiver to completely take over operations of the jail was an
28 See R. Doc. 1009. 29 Id. at para. 8.
13

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 14 of 44
extraordinary remedy that was not warranted under the circumstances. The court conducted an evidentiary hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion which lasted several weeks. However, after significant negotiations, but before Sheriff Gusman concluded his defense to the motion, the parties reached a Court approved settlement.30 This Stipulated Agreement established that a Compliance Director would be appointed to provide expertise and technical assistance with the operations of the jail and help bring OPSO into compliance with the Consent Decree. Although the law favored Sheriff Gusman’s legal position, Sheriff Gusman once again made a good faith and unselfish decision to enter into the Stipulated Agreement. Sheriff Gusman has always, and will always, do what is best for OPSO. Bringing in a corrections specialist who could assist OPSO in achieving substantial compliance with the Consent Decree seemed prudent. Unfortunately, the Stipulated Agreement was never implemented as intended.
F. Appointment of Compliance Director i. Former Director Maynard’s Unsuccessful Stint as Compliance Director
On September 15, 2016, this Court ordered that Gary Maynard would serve as Compliance Director at OPSO, with an effective start date of October 1, 2016.31 Gary Maynard boasted an impressive resume which included stints serving as corrections chief for Iowa, South Carolina, and Maryland. The Monitors collaborated with the Plaintiffs and DOJ to recommend Gary Maynard for the Compliance Director position. The Monitors previously claimed that OPSO could be brought into compliance in a brief amount of time once a corrections expert was appointed within the jail. Inexplicably, they reversed course and subsequently claimed that their preferred expert could not bring the jail into compliance. On January 18, 2018, the Monitors filed Monitors’ Report No. 8 into the record.32 This Monitors’ Report emphasized that Director Maynard was not making the progress
30 R. Doc. 1082. 31 See R. Doc. 1097. 32 See Monitors’ Report No. 8, R. Doc. 1143.
14

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 15 of 44
envisioned under the Stipulated Agreement, and in fact his inability to meet even minimal milestones as the overseer of jail operations was alarming.
On January 29, 2018, less than two weeks after Monitors’ Report No. 8 was filed, Director Maynard submitted his resignation as Compliance Director after only 18 months. The parties who previously recommended Director Maynard now questioned his ability to do the job. One of the Plaintiffs’ lead counsel was quoted stating the following: “Gary Maynard’s tenure has been marked with a deterioration of the conditions in the jail, not progress.”33 In addition to the Plaintiffs’ criticisms of Director Maynard, the Court likewise issued a stern criticism of Director Maynard stating: “. . . While there has been some improvement in compliance over the course of Director Maynard’s tenure, the Court is nonetheless dissatisfied with the pace of reform and lack of compliance relating to numerous mandates of the consent decree. . .”.34
ii. Director Hodge’s Assistance with Achieving Compliance Following former Director Maynard’s resignation, the Court ordered that then Monitor Darnley Hodge serve as interim Compliance Director until a new, permanent Compliance Director could be selected by the Sheriff and approved by the Court.35 After several months of searching for a permanent replacement for former Director Maynard, the only candidate that was ultimately proposed to Sheriff Gusman for his approval was acting interim Director Hodge. Sheriff Gusman had built a solid professional relationship with Director Hodge during his interim stint and believed Director Hodge would be a valuable asset to OPSO. On October 12, 2018, Sheriff Gusman informed the Court that he would accept interim Director Hodge to serve as OPSO’s Compliance Director.36 Director Hodge previously served as the Court appointed Monitor overseeing correctional
33 See https://www.nola.com/news/courts/article_65ea59af-87cf-58c0-b5b1-90b90e7be01c.html 34 See R. Doc. 1151. 35 See R. Doc. 1151 36 See R. Doc. 1202.
15

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 16 of 44
practices. He has over forty (40) years of experience in law enforcement, jail leadership, management, military, and consulting services. Among his many accomplishments, Director Hodge has led two regional jails from the design and construction through activation and daily operation. He did this while achieving 100% compliance with Virginia Board of Correction standards. Director Hodge has provided consultation, evaluation, and policy guidelines for jails in the United States and the U.S. Virgin Islands. He was named “Correctional Administrator of the Year” for Large Jails by the American Jail Association.
In the two years that Director Hodge has served as Compliance Director, OPSO has made significant advancements in complying with the provisions of the Consent Decree. Prior to Director Hodge’s appointment, OPSO was in Substantial Compliance with 23 provisions, Partial Compliance with 104 provisions, and Non-Compliance with 44 provisions.37 As of the most recent Monitors’ Report, based upon the Monitors’ tour and evaluation in September 2019, OPSO is in Substantial Compliance with 103 provisions, Partial Compliance with 66 provisions, and Non-Compliance with only 5 provisions.38 This represents a 97% compliance rate, be it Substantial or Partial, with the Consent Decree.
It is well-documented that Director Hodge, Sheriff Gusman, and OPSO have made the material progress necessary to terminate the Stipulated Agreement and abolish the position of Compliance Director. This progress, however, does more than support termination of the Stipulated Agreement. The progress achieved at OPSO is sufficient to satisfy the minimum standards of the Constitution. As such, pursuant to Section §3626(b) of the PLRA, the entirety of the Consent Decree should be terminated.
III. PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT – 18 U.S.C. §3626
37 See Monitors’ Report No. 8, R. Doc. 1143. 38 See Monitors’ Report No. 11, R. Doc. 1259.
16

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 17 of 44
A. History and Purpose of the PLRA
For decades preceding its implementation, criticism regarding prisoner litigation culminated
in the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Prisoners, taking advantage of the increased availability
of civil rights claims, were one of the fastest growing plaintiff classes in the federal courts from 1960
to the present.39 In 1994, only a year before Congress introduced the PLRA, prisoners filed 60,086
cases in federal courts.40 In 1990, over 1,200 local prison systems, including those in major cities
such as New York, Philadelphia, and Detroit, were under federal court supervision.41 The rise in
prisoner litigation and prospective relief calling for extensive court involvement in prisons generated
significant negative attention.42 Prison administrators expressed frustration with judges taking on a
“micro-managing” function in the remedy phase of meritorious cases.43 Although the vast majority
of cases were deemed without merit, administrators were overwhelmed by having to answer
discovery requests and make court appearances.44 Local officials complained of the enormous
financial and political costs of complying with court-ordered relief and any effort to alter those
terms.45 Legislators blamed judicial activism for the state of prison litigation, finding unjustified
usurpation of local criminal justice systems.46 Many judges, burdened with increasing numbers of
pro se inmate complaints on crowded dockets and prison condition class actions, called for legislative
reform.47
39 See Due Process Rights and Their Termination of Decrees Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Anne K. Heidel, University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, April 2002, 4 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 561. Citing 142 Cong. Rec. 23,255 (1996)(statement of Sen. Abraham indicating that in 1995, inmates filed 63,550 federal actions.) 40 Id. (citing 141 Cong. Rec. 14,572 (1995)(statement of Sen. Kyl citing statistics compiled by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.) 41 Id. (citing Criminal Oversight, Wall St. J., June 10, 1996, at A18.) 42 Id. 43 Id. (citing John W. Palmer & Stephen E. Palmer, Constitutional Rights of Prisoners 338-39 (6th Ed. 1999). 44 Id. 45 Id. (citing Criminal Oversight, supra note 5, at A18 (“[T]he National Association of attorneys General estimates that states spend $81 million a year on prisoner’s litigation.”); Inmates’ Suits No Joke, Boston Herald, Jan. 11, 1997, at 12.) 46 Id. (citing 149 Cong. Rec. 18,695 (1994)(statement of Sen. Dole, future PLRA sponsor, supporting the nomination of Justice Breyer to the Supreme Court.)) 47 Id. (citing, e.g., Gabel v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 124, 125, n.1 (5th Cir. 1988)(per curiam)(noting the court’s impatience with “frivolous or malicious appeals” and threatening future sanctions.))
17

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 18 of 44
In 1995, Congress responded with the PLRA, which was signed by President Clinton as part of the 1996 Appropriations Bill.48 The PLRA sponsors described “overzealous Federal courts…micromanaging our Nation’s prisons,”49 and criticized “judicial orders entered under Federal law [which] have effectively turned control of the prison system away from elected officials accountable to the taxpayer, and over to the courts.”50 In response to these types of concerns, the PLRA was enacted to require that remedies in prison condition lawsuits “do not go beyond the measures necessary to remedy federal rights violations,”51 but rather are limited “to the minimum necessary to correct the violation of the federal right.”52 In narrowing the scope of prospective relief to be issued in prison litigation, the PLRA also sought to diminish the discretion of federal district judges.53 By requiring that relief be the least intrusive means of remedying a violation of a federal right, the PLRA “stops judges from imposing remedies intended to effect an overall modernization of local prison systems or provide an overall improvement in prison conditions.”54
B. Requirements of the PLRA Congress enacted the PLRA to prevent federal courts from micromanaging prisons with consent decrees and to return control of the prison system form courts to “the elected officials accountable to the taxpayer.”55 “[N]o longer may courts grant or approve relief that binds prison administrators to do more than the constitutional minimum.”56 The PLRA requires that prospective relief regarding prison conditions extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the
48 Id. (citing Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996).) 49 141 Cong. Rec. S14418 (daily ed. Sept. 27, 1995)(remarks of Sen. Hatch). 50 Id. at S14419 (remarks of Sen. Abraham). 51 H.R. Rep. No. 104-378, at 166 (1995)H.R. Rep. No. 104-378, at 166 (1995). 52 Id. at 24 n.2. 53 See, e.g., Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327, 328, 120 S. Ct. 2246, 147 L.Ed.2d 326 (2000)(explaining that “curbing the equitable discretion of district courts was one of the PLRA’s principal objectives….”). 54 H.R. Rep. No. 104-378 H.R. Rep. No. 104-378 at 166. 55 Gilmore v. California, 220 F.3d 987, 996 (9th Cir. 2000). 56 Id. at 999.
18

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 19 of 44
Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs.57 Relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further
than necessary to correct the violation, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the
violation.58 Further, courts must give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or
the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief.59
These are codified requirements in the PLRA, and the United States legislative branch drafted
these direct and pointed restrictions with the full intention of the judiciary branch upholding them in
the court system.
C. Legal Standards for Termination of Prospective Relief Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3626(b)
The PLRA provides that any order for prospective relief regarding prison conditions is
terminable upon the motion of any party or intervener two years after a district court has granted or
approved the prospective relief. Specifically, 18. U.S.C. §3626(b) sets forth the standards for
termination of prospective relief, such as the Consent Decree, as follows:
(b) Termination of relief.-(1) Termination of prospective relief.--(A) In any civil action with respect to prison conditions in which prospective relief is ordered, such relief shall be terminable upon the motion of any party or intervener-(i) 2 years after the date the court granted or approved the prospective relief; (ii) 1 year after the date the court has entered an order denying termination of prospective relief under this paragraph; or (iii) in the case of an order issued on or before the date of enactment of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 2 years after such date of enactment. (2) Immediate termination of prospective relief.--In any civil action with respect to prison conditions, a defendant or intervener shall be entitled to the immediate termination of any prospective relief if the relief was approved or granted in the absence of a finding by the court that the relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation
57 18 U.S.C. §3626(a)(1). 58 Id. 59 Id.
19

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 20 of 44
of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right. (3) Limitation.--Prospective relief shall not terminate if the court makes written findings based on the record that prospective relief remains necessary to correct a current and ongoing violation of the Federal right, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and that the prospective relief is narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means to correct the violation. (4) Termination or modification of relief. --Nothing in this section shall prevent any party or intervener from seeking modification or termination before the relief is terminable under paragraph (1) or (2), to the extent that modification or termination would otherwise be legally permissible.
i. Relevant Period for a “Current and Ongoing” Violation of a Federal Right
To make the findings required to terminate prospective relief, the Court must take evidence
on current jail conditions, at least with respect to those remedies Plaintiffs do not concede Defendants comply with constitutional requirements.60 Evidence of “current and ongoing” violations must reflect conditions “as of the time termination is sought.”61 As such, in determining whether or not
prospective relief should be terminated, this Honorable Court must look at current and ongoing jail
conditions, not a history of previous jail conditions or those conditions that were in existence at the
time the Plaintiffs’ Complaint was filed or the Consent Decree was executed.
ii. Section 3626(b)(3) Findings
Under Section 3626(b)(3) of the PLRA, prospective relief shall not terminate only if the court
makes written findings based on the record that prospective relief remains necessary to correct a
current and ongoing violation of the Federal right, extends no further than necessary to correct the
violation of the Federal right, and that the prospective relief is narrowly drawn and the least intrusive
means to correct the violation.
60 See Gilmore v. California, 220 F.3d 987-1010 (9th Cir. 2000). 61 Id.; accord Pierce, 526 F.3d at 1205.
20

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 21 of 44
The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, as stated in Ruiz v. Ortiz62, has outlined the procedure necessary for this Court to follow in analyzing whether or not prospective relief should be terminated or continue.
Although a district court’s decision to terminate or continue prospective relief is to be reviewed for an abuse of discretion, where the court’s decision to terminate or continue such relief “turns on the application of § 3626(b) of the PLRA, that interpretation is reviewed de novo.”63
Under § 3626, unless a court makes specific written findings regarding the continuing necessity of prospective relief, it must terminate such relief. Specifically, under § 3626(b)(3), a court may not terminate prospective relief if it makes written findings based on the record that such relief (1) “remains necessary to correct a current and ongoing violation of the Federal right,” (2) “extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right,” and (3) “is narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means to correct the violation.”64
Section 3626(b)(3) outlines specific standards to be followed when a district court considers whether to terminate a consent decree providing for prospective relief. It requires “particularized findings, on a provision-by-provision basis, that each requirement imposed by the consent decree satisfies the need-narrowness-intrusiveness criteria, given the nature of the current and ongoing violation.”65 “It is not enough [for the district court] to simply state in conclusory fashion that the requirements of the consent decree satisfy those criteria.”66 Rather, “the district court should engage in specific, provision-by-provision examination of the consent decree, measuring each requirement against the statutory criteria.”67
To comply with the standards set forth in § 3626(b)(3), a district court should first give the
62 243 F.3d 941 (5th Cir. 2001). 63 See Castillo v. Cameron County, Texas, 238 F.3d 339, 347 (5th Cir. 2001). 64 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3). 65 Cason v. Seckinger, 231 F.3d 777, 785 (11th Cir. 2000). 66 Id. 67 Id.
21

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 22 of 44
parties an opportunity to present evidence regarding whether or not there are any existing
unconstitutional conditions at the institution that is the subject of the consent decree.68 Next, the court
should review the record and determine whether there are indeed ongoing constitutional violations.69
The court should then consider each provision of the consent decree in light of the current
and ongoing constitutional violations, if there are any, and determine which aspects of the decree
remain necessary to correct those violations.70 In Ruiz, the Court gave the following example:
. . .if the court finds a constitutional violation in the area of inmate protection, a section of the consent decree regarding staffing issues may be necessary if under staffing is contributing to the unconstitutional conditions. However, if the excessive use of force is the only constitutional violation found, then a provision regarding crowding issues may no longer be necessary.71
Finally, if there are remaining aspects of the decree which are still necessary, the court should
determine whether those parts of the decree are narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means to
correct the applicable violation.72 Ruiz again gave the following example:
. . . with respect to a violation in the area of inmate protection, if a staffing provision remains necessary, it might not involve relief that is narrowly drawn and the least intrusive if it covers positions that are not commonly associated with the protection of inmates, such as security positions or certain administrative positions dealing with the reporting and investigation of complaints from inmates.73
The procedure outlined above is mandated by § 3626(b)(3) and cannot be circumvented by a
mere recitation of the key statutory language. Instead, the requisite findings must be put in writing
with respect to each remaining aspect of prospective relief. See Cason74 (finding that § 3626(b)(3)
requires “[p]articularized findings, analysis, and explanations [to] be made as to the application of
68 See Castillo, 238 F.3d at 355; Cason, 231 F.3d at 781–83; Ruiz, 243 F.3d at 950-951. 69 Id. 70 Ruiz, 243 F.3d at 950-951. 71 Id. at 951. 72 Id. 73 Id. 74 231 F.3d at 785.
22

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 23 of 44
each criteria to each requirement imposed by the consent decrees.”). Otherwise, the district court should terminate the unnecessary relief, assuming the other requirements for termination under § 3626 are met.
iii. Prospective Relief Defined under the PLRA The PLRA explicitly defines “prospective relief” as “all relief other than compensatory monetary damages.”75 The term “relief,” in turn, is defined as “all relief in any form that may be granted or approved by the court, and includes consent decrees but does not include private settlement agreements.”76 When a statute includes an explicit definition, that statutory definition is given controlling weight.77 Thus, the Court need look no further than the definitions found within the PLRA to make the determination that the Consent Decree provides prospective relief that is subject to termination. IV. THE COURT APPOINTED JAIL MONITORS A. The Original Purpose of the Monitors After executing the Consent Decree, the parties acknowledged that a Jail Monitor would be necessary to oversee the implementation of the Consent Decree and offer practical advice to OPSO for obtaining compliance. By their own description, the Monitors are, “. . . appointed by and work for and with the Federal Court. The monitoring team works closely with the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office (OPSO), the City of New Orleans, the plaintiff class, the U.S. Department of Justice, and citizens in assessing the OPSO’s compliance with the Consent Judgment governing conditions at the Parish’s jail.”78 At the fairness hearing in 2013, the DOJ’s counsel described the purpose of the Monitors as follows:
75 § 3626(g)(7). 76 § 3626(g)(9). 77 See, e.g., Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484, 107 S. Ct. 1862, 95 L.Ed.2d 415 (1987). 78 See www.nolajailmonitors.org/
23

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 24 of 44
In addition, the decree calls for an independent monitor, and that’s exactly what the independent monitor will do. The independent monitor will look to see what’s being done at the facility and what’s not. The monitor is not just someone to assess compliance. The monitor also will guide compliance and provide technical assistance to the facility to assist them in coming into compliance.79 Sheriff Gusman welcomed the expertise of the Monitors as a valuable resource for OPSO. Unfortunately, even though OPSO began to hit noteworthy milestones and achievements with compliance, the Monitors refused to fairly evaluate their progress towards compliance. As time has endured, it has become more than evident that OPSO’s compliance with the Consent Decree is not being judged on the narrowly drawn, least intrusive means necessary standards set forth in the PLRA, but rather moving targets and the impossible unconstitutional standard of absolute perfection. Congress addressed this issue head on with the enactment of the PLRA and the limitations for prospective relief for jails. The PLRA provides that prospective relief should “extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs.”80 Relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the violation, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation.81 Further, courts must “give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief.”82 This is not what is being applied to OPSO. B. The United States Attorney General’s November 7, 2018 Memorandum The Monitor issues OPSO faces are not unique to OPSO. Rather, many other jails throughout the country are similarly plagued with Monitors imposing their idealistic preferences in the enforcement of consent decrees while turning a blind eye to the PLRA. The Attorney General of the United States took notice and addressed this issue directly. On November 7, 2018, Attorney General
79 See April 4, 2013 transcript of the fairness hearing, p. 66-67, R. Doc. 412. 80 18 U.S.C. §3626(a)(1). 81 Id. 82 Id.
24

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 25 of 44
Jeff Sessions issued a memorandum to the Department of Justice entitled: “Principles and
Procedures for Civil Consent Decrees and Settlement Agreements with State and Local
Governmental Entities.” (the “Memorandum”).83 In his Memorandum, the Attorney General
discussed the use of monitors for state and local governmental entities. Among the many issues
detailed concerning monitors, the Memorandum emphasized that monitors should operate with
sufficient accountability and oversight, and should adhere to a code of ethics so that conflicts of
interest – including a financial interest in prolonging the duration or expanding the scope of the
monitorship – are avoided.84 The Memorandum goes on to state:
In light of the monitor’s role in overseeing compliance with a settlement that the Department believes is necessary to remedy a legal violation and is otherwise in the interests of justice, good government principles require that the Department structure agreements to ensure that monitors have appropriate incentives to work efficiently and effectively to bring the defendant into compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement or consent decree and to ensure that monitors act in the interests of justice and not in their own interest.85
The Memorandum then dictates that for cases in which a monitor is appointed, the following
guidelines must be followed, unless an exception is approved by the Deputy Attorney General or the
Associate Attorney General:
1. The settlement agreement or consent decree must create incentives for the monitor to encourage early compliance with and conclusion of the settlement agreement or consent decree.
2. In most cases, the monitor must be replaced at an appropriate interval, usually of no more than two to three years.
3. Payment of costs and fees for the monitor’s services must be specified in the settlement agreement or consent decree and capped at a reasonable amount (requiring the monitor to complete remaining tasks even if the cap is met).
83 See United States Attorney General’s November 7, 2018 Memorandum, attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 84 Id. 85 Id. at p. 7.
25

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 26 of 44
4. The monitor must be selected in accordance with the guidance set forth in the Memorandum from Acting Associate Attorney General Stuart F. Delery dated April 13, 2016, entitled Statement of Principles for Selection of Corporate Monitors in Civil Settlements and Resolutions, to avoid conflicts of interest and ensure that monitors are independent and highly qualified.86
As will be detailed below, several issues currently facing OPSO are in direct conflict with the dictates of the PLRA and are the types of issues the Attorney General warns the DOJ of in his Memorandum. These issues are precisely why the Attorney General felt it necessary to revise the method in which the DOJ permits monitors in consent decree cases.
C. Jail Monitor Compliance Issues This Motion to Terminate repeatedly discusses the absolute perfection standard being imposed by the Monitors, as opposed to the constitutional minimum standard they should be applying under the PLRA. The following sections detail specific incidents in which the Monitors are preventing OPSO from achieving Substantial Compliance by applying these unreasonable standards.
i. Prison Rape Elimination Act Certification Section IV.G of the Consent Decree relates to Youthful Prisoners. The Consent Decree identifies the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (“PREA”), 42 U.S.C. §15601, et seq., as the controlling source of Federal law which governs compliance with Section IV.G. OPSO was informed by the Monitors that if it were to obtain a PREA Certification by an independent PREA auditor, it would be in Substantial Compliance with all provisions of the Consent Decree related to PREA, including Section IV.G. In fact, in Monitors’ Report No. 10, the Monitors’ observation stated that, “OPSO has appropriately linked compliance with this provision to IV.A.12., Sexual Abuse and the upcoming PREA audit.”87 This evidences the statements made by the Monitors that should OPSO successfully pass the PREA audit, it would be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV.G. of the
86 Id. 87 See Monitors’ Report No. 10, p. 109, R. Doc. 1226.
26

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 27 of 44
Consent Decree. From August 23 through August 25, 2019, an independent certified PREA auditor toured
OPSO and inspected documentation, including its policies and procedures. After touring the facility and drafting her final report88, the auditor issued a Certificate of Achievement89, finding OPSO in compliance with the Prison and Jails Standards set forth by the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003. The auditors final report noted that, after a thorough audit, OPSO exceeded 6 standards, met 38 standards, and failed to meet 0 standards in the audit.90 The PREA auditor was highly impressed with OPSO’s PREA compliance, and noted that it is exceptionally rare that a jail passes a PREA audit on the first try, but OPSO did just that.
As this Court is aware, in preparation for a Monitors’ Report, the Monitors typically make an on-site visit at the OJC wherein they collect data and make site walks to compile the necessary information to draft the Monitors’ Reports. After the initial visit, the Monitors will issue a draft report to the Plaintiffs and OPSO for review and comment. Once the parties have an opportunity to object or raise concerns to any issues in the draft reports, the Monitors will thereafter make a final report which is filed into the record of this matter.
The site visit prior to Monitors’ Report No. 11 took place in September 2019. In the Draft Report91, circulated on November 27, 2019, the Monitors listed Section IV.G. in the Consent Decree in Substantial Compliance due to OPSO’s successful passing of its PREA Audit. Therefore, OPSO submitted no comments in the Draft Report. In the Final Report, however, the Monitors lowered the grade to Partial Compliance, stating that “Documentation has not been presented regarding [sic] the developmentally appropriate mental health and programming services.”92 OPSO, however, had
88 See PREA Final Audit Report, attached hereto as Exhibit 4. 89 See Certificate of Achievement, attached hereto as Exhibit 5. 90 See PREA Final Audit Report, p. 10, attached hereto as Exhibit 4. 91 See Draft Report of Monitors’ Report No. 11, attached hereto as Exhibit 6. 92 See Monitors’ Report No. 11, p. 102, R. Doc. 1259.
27

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 28 of 44
submitted its PREA policies, its Juvenile Policies, and the completed PREA Audit Report to the Monitors as requested.
OPSO passed the highly stringent certified PREA Audit from an independent qualified auditor, yet the Monitors found that Section IV.G, which is governed by PREA, is not in Substantial Compliance. Obtaining a PREA Certification is a significant accomplishment, but at a minimum, it represents that OPSO is compliant with PREA and is ensuring constitutional compliance. It is puzzling why the Monitors graded this provision in Partial instead of Substantial Compliance, especially considering that in the previous report and in prior conversations they informed OPSO that obtaining a PREA Certification would result in Substantial Compliance. This is an example of a “moving target” evaluation by the Monitors that has plagued OPSO and the citizens of New Orleans who bear this cost.
ii. Food Service Non-Compliance in Report No. 10 OPSO’s Non-Compliance with Section IV.D.3.b. in Monitors’ Report No. 10 is a keen example of the overreaching standards demanded by the Monitors that far exceed the constitutional minimum. Section IV.D. covers Sanitation and Environmental Conditions. Section IV.D.3.b. provides that OPSO, “Ensure that dishes and utensils, food preparation and storage areas, and vehicles and containers used to transport food are appropriately cleaned and sanitized on a daily basis.”93 OPSO was found in Non-Compliance with this provision in Report No. 10. The Monitors issued the following reasons in support of its decision to find Non-Compliance:
 On January 15, 2019, the “Detergent Empty” audible and visible alarms were alerting on the back of the automatic dishwasher. The dishwasher was in use, the detergent canister was empty, and it is unknown how long the dishwasher was running without detergent. The detergent was refilled after the Monitor reported the problem to kitchen staff. A properly functioning dishwasher including dispensing of detergent is fundamental in ensuring that dishes and
93 See Monitors’ Report No. 10, p. 97-98, R. Doc. 1226. 28

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 29 of 44
utensils are appropriately cleaned and sanitized between uses.94
This issue was addressed with the kitchen staff and they informed OPSO that when the “Detergent
Empty” sign comes on, they will refill the detergent and re-run the dishwasher. The Monitor just
happened to walk through this area at the exact time the “Detergent Empty” signal had turned on.
This was explained to the Monitor, but it did not affect the finding of Non-Compliance.
 On January 15, 2019, the Monitor observed a piece of potato on the kitchen floor and found it to still be there over 24-hours later. Upon closer examination, the Monitor found that it was covered in mold. Based on this observation, it is evident that the floor in this area was not cleaned and sanitized on a daily basis.95
Once this was relayed to OPSO’s attention, the kitchen staff found this small potato skin on the floor
in an area under a cart. It was hidden from sight and had to be specially sought out as it was not in
the main area and was under equipment.
 Bakery equipment was observed to be dirty with dried, caked on food debris. The Monitor was informed that one of the pieces of equipment had not been operational since 2015 and another piece of equipment had not worked “for years.” OPSO and CBM Summit is clearly not ensuring that food preparation equipment is cleaned and sanitized on a daily basis as is essential to maintain a hygienic kitchen environment.96
By her own admission, the Monitor acknowledges in the report that she was informed that the alleged
“dirty” equipment was not operational and had not been in use for years. Since it was not in use,
OPSO was not using this alleged “dirty” equipment to prepare or serve food to the inmates. In fact,
upon information and belief it was kept in a closet away from the main cooking areas. Nevertheless,
the Monitor used this alleged dirty equipment that was not in use to give OPSO a designation of
Non-Compliance with the Consent Decree.
Non-Compliance is the worst designation OPSO can receive for a provision of the Consent
94 Id. at p. 98. 95 Id. 96 Id.
29

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 30 of 44
Decree. Non-Compliance should mean that the condition is unconstitutional and constitutes a federal wrong to the inmates. To recap, this Monitor found Non-Compliance based on: dishwashing detergent running out; a potato skin stuck to the floor under a cart; and a dirty piece of equipment that was not in use and not in the main cooking area. Assume OPSO was in Substantial Compliance with every provision of the Consent Decree for 18 months and then this Monitor issues a finding of Non-Compliance for the above reasons. OPSO would thereafter have the clock on termination reset for another two years for Substantial Compliance.
This type of perfection standard was never anticipated when the Consent Decree was executed, and it certainly exceeds the constitutional minimums under the PLRA. “The Eighth Amendment requires only that prisoners receive food that is adequate to maintain health; it need not be tasty or aesthetically pleasing. The fact that food sometimes is served cold, while unpleasant, does not amount to a constitutional deprivation.”97 Similarly, the above instances noted by the Monitors certainly do not rise to the level of a constitutional deprivation. This example, similar to the Jail Camera example discussed in the introduction, are the types of nitpicked findings that are keeping OPSO from reaching Substantial Compliance with the Consent Decree pursuant to the Monitors’ perfection standards.
iii. Reduction from Substantial to Partial Compliance without Explanation or Warning
There has been a troubling pattern wherein OPSO was given the designation of Substantial Compliance in the Draft Report, but in the Final Report the grading was reduced to Partial Compliance without any warning or notice to OPSO. This is a major concern because OPSO relies on the designation of Substantial Compliance when commenting on the Draft Reports. If a designation of Substantial Compliance is given, there is no need for OPSO to comment or defend
97 LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1456 (9th Cir. 1993); see also Toussaint v. Yockey, 722 F.2d 1490, 1493 (9th Cir. 1984).
30

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 31 of 44
itself because it has achieved its goal. For some inexplicable reason, on several occasions with
Monitors’ Report No. 11, areas were marked in Substantial Compliance in the Draft Report, but
when the final report was released, OPSO was downgraded to Partial Compliance. Of course, since
these designations were changed without warning, OPSO was unable to offer feedback on these
positions as it was unaware they changed. The following are examples of this occurrence in
Monitors’ Report No. 11:
 In the Draft Report, Section IV.A.7.b. was graded as Substantially Compliant. This provision of the Consent Decree provides that OPSO must: “Continue to ensure that Facility watch commanders document all reportable incidents by the end of their shift, but no later than 24 hours after the incident, including prisoner fights, rule violations, prisoner injuries, suicide attempts, cell extractions, medical emergencies, found contraband, vandalism, escapes and escape attempts and fires.” In the Final Report, however, this grade was dropped down to partially compliant without any explanation. The Final Report simply states that because all reports are not timely submitted, this section is in Partial Compliance, without citing to any specific incidents warranting this demoted designation.
 In the Draft Report, Section IV.A.7.f. was graded as Substantially Compliant. This provision of the Consent Decree provides that OPSO must: “Maintain a system to track all reportable incidents that, at a minimum, includes the following information . . ..” Although previously deemed in Substantial Compliance in the Draft Report, when the Final Report was released, this grade was dropped down to Partial Compliance without explanation.98 This Section only requires that a system be put in place to track incidents, and lists the required information that the system must track. OPSO successfully updated the AS400 system to include all of the required elements. In the Draft Report, the Monitors found that the AS400 met these requirements. In the Final Report, however, the Monitors state that some information is not gathered by staff.
 In the Draft Report, Section IV.B.8.a. was given a grade of Substantial Compliance. When the Final Report was issued, however, this Section was downgraded to Partial Compliance without warning. The comments by the Monitors in the Draft Report and Final Report were identical, and there was no information on why the grade was demoted to Partial Compliance. Furthermore, this Section only requires that OPSO have staffing sufficient to provide “adequate care” and “fulfill
98 See Monitors’ Report No. 11, page 32, R. Doc. 1259. 31

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 32 of 44
constitutional mandates.” OPSO maintains that it has sufficient staffing to satisfy this Consent Decree requirement.
 In the Draft Report, regarding Section VII.B., the Monitors state that “OPSO has provided documentation that it now [sic] developing plans to identify serious deficiencies, and to address problems that are uncovered during the course of quality improvement activities to warrant a finding of substantial compliance.”99 Then, once again without warning or additional feedback, the Monitors changed this Section from Substantial Compliance to Partial Compliance in the Final Report, even stating the same language verbatim from the Draft Report (which found Substantial Compliance). The Final Report goes on to state that “These plans could benefit from being more thorough such as the development of corrective action to be taken and the auditing of adherence to the action plan.”100 OPSO complied with this provision in the Consent Decree, which the Monitors agreed, but then once again they inexplicably reduced the findings to Partial Compliance stating that it could simply be better.
These instances wherein the Monitors reduce areas from Substantial to Partial Compliance
without forewarning to OPSO has caused significant issues and persists to be an unnecessary hurdle
OPSO must overcome.
iv. Findings of Partial or Non-Compliance without a Legitimate Basis
The Monitors often give a designation of Partial or Non-Compliance for an area of the
Consent Decree even though there is clear documentation to the contrary and no basis for not finding
Substantial Compliance. In the Draft Report, the Monitors stated that Section IV.A.5.h. was not in
Substantial Compliance because no documentation or proof of training was provided. This was not
accurate. OPSO submitted a comment to the Draft Report stating that the documentation was in fact
provided and was still available on the DropBox link to be viewed at any time.101 In the Final Report,
the Monitors’ kept the same language as the Draft Report, with zero changes, despite being informed
that their position was incorrect.102
99 See Draft Report of Monitors’ Report No. 11, page 104, attached hereto as Exhibit 6. 100 Id. 101 See Draft Report of Monitors’ Report No. 11, page 104, attached hereto as Exhibit 6. 102 See Monitors’ Report No. 11, p. 28, R. Doc. 1259.
32

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 33 of 44
As another example, in the Draft Report, the Monitors listed Section IV.D.1.h. in Partial Compliance, stating that the policy is not complete. Section IV.D.1.h. provides that OPSO: “Maintain an infection control plan that addresses contact, blood borne, and airborne hazards and infections. The plan shall include provisions for the identification, treatment, and control of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (“MRSA”) at the Facility.” OPSO, however, created, submitted, and had this exact policy approved by the Monitors on October 31, 2018. OPSO challenged this designation of Partial Compliance in the Draft Report, but received no feedback and the Final Report still listed this Section in Partial Compliance. Again, this policy was approved by the Monitors in 2018, yet they continue to find only Partial Compliance with the Consent Decree.
v. Request for Guidance but Receiving Little to No Feedback There have been several instances wherein the Monitors do not find OPSO to be in Substantial Compliance but have not provided feedback on what is needed for Substantial Compliance. For instance, in Section IV.A.10 of the Consent Decree, OPSO submitted several comments requesting more information on what is needed to achieve Substantial Compliance.103 OPSO received no response to this request for information. Section IV.B. of the Consent Decree provides another good example. Throughout the entirety of this Section on Mental Health Care, the Monitors often only write 1-2 sentences without any actual substance.104 It is difficult to determine from these vague, uninformative sentences what OPSO is failing to do to achieve Substantial Compliance. Consequently, OPSO often requests additional information. No additional information is provided. Furthermore, these sentences from the Monitors remain the same from one report to the next and often simply parrot the language of the Consent Decree.
103 See Draft Report of Monitors’ Report No. 11, page 104, attached hereto as Exhibit 6. 104 See Monitors’ Report No. 11, R. Doc. 1259.
33

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 34 of 44
vi. Failure to Find Substantial Compliance with Semi-Annual Reports Sections IV.B.5.j, IV.B.5.k, IV.B.6.g., IV.C.2.a, and IV.C.2.b. of the Consent Decree relate to the required semiannual reports, which OPSO has consistently and timely submitted as required in the Consent Decree. OPSO has received a marking of Substantial Compliance from all other Monitors for timely submitting their semiannual reports except for Drs. Greifinger and Patterson (see, e.g., Sections IV.A.3.g., IV.A.5.l, IV.A.6.a, IV.A.6.b., IV.A.7.h., IV.A.7.i., IV.A.7.j, IV.A.8.d, IV.A.8.e, IV.A.8.f, IV.A.10.g, IV.A.10.h., IV.B.6.f., IV.D.4.a., IV.D.4.b, IV.E.2.a., IV.E.2.b, VIII.A.) Drs. Greifinger and Patterson refuse to find OPSO in Substantial Compliance with these provisions because they desire extra documentation and analysis outside of the requirements set forth in the Consent Decree. After the Draft Report was issued, OPSO immediately submitted comments challenging these findings, however, only Section IV.B.6.f. was changed from Non-Compliance to Substantial Compliance. Drs. Greifinger and Patterson refused to change the remaining Sections into Substantial Compliance and have provided no feedback as to why.
vii. Drawn Out Monitor Reports Provide Minimal Time for Corrective Actions In September 2019, the Monitors toured the OPSO facility and began gathering their information in anticipation of drafting Monitors’ Report No. 11. On November 27, 2019, the Monitors provided OPSO with the Draft Report. Thereafter, OPSO provided its feedback and challenged many of the findings (some of which are described above). Many of these concerns were never addressed. The Final Report, Monitors’ Report No. 11, was then submitted to the Court on January 19, 2020, approximately five (5) months after the Monitors toured the OJC. Then, the Monitors were set to return for the next site visit for Report No. 12 in March 2020.105 As stated in the sections above, many areas were reduced from Substantial Compliance to Partial Compliance in the Draft Report to the Final Report without providing OPSO with reasons or knowledge that the
105 Note that this tour did not take place as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. 34

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 35 of 44

Monitors intended to reduce these areas. By delaying the time from their physical tours to issuance

of the Final Report, the Monitors essentially set OPSO up for failure because of the timeliness

associated with fixing issues identified by them.

D. Costs/Expenses Associated with Monitors

i. The Cost of the Monitors has been significant for OPSO and the City.

During the fairness hearing on April 4, 2013, the Court asked counsel for the DOJ if the federal government was willing to pay the cost of an independent monitor.106 In response, counsel

for the DOJ stated that the issue had not been discussed, “But we are always happy to sit down and have discussions.”107 Unfortunately, the cost associated with the Monitors was passed along to the

taxpayers of New Orleans. OPSO must include the costs for the Consent Decree into its budget which is funded by the City.108 Thus, the City of New Orleans funds all things related to compliance with

the Consent Decree. A breakdown of the costs to date are as follows:

 Since it was executed in 2013, there have been 11 Monitors, 2

Compliance Directors and the following hard costs have been paid

to the Monitors and Plaintiffs’ attorneys

* Monitors’ Costs: $3,740,723.38

* Plaintiffs’ Fees:

$2,600,000.34

* TOTAL: $6,340,723.72

 This does not include other fees associated with the Consent Decree, such as Compliance Director salary and related positions.

OPSO avers that it is in compliance with the Consent Decree and it should be terminated. If ended,

the resources expended by the City in the continued efforts to meet these shifting standards would

also end.

ii. Lack of incentive to find Substantial Compliance.

As noted by the United States Attorney General in his November 7, 2018 Memorandum,

106 See April 4, 2013 Transcript of Fairness Hearing, p. 65, R. Doc. 412. 107 Id. 108 See Declaration of Elizabeth Boyer, para. 9, attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
35

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 36 of 44
“Monitors should operate with sufficient accountability and oversight, and should adhere to a code
of ethics so that conflicts of interest – including a financial interest in prolonging the duration or expanding the scope of the monitorship – are avoided.”109 The Attorney General incorporated this
into his Memorandum because of his awareness that Monitors, who are paid by the hour for the work
completed at jails, could have a potential conflict of interest for not finding Substantial Compliance
with the Consent Decree. The Attorney General found it necessary to have renewed guidelines for
the appointment, compensation and duration of Monitors to “ensure that monitors have appropriate
incentives to work efficiently and effectively to bring the defendant into compliance with the terms of
the settlement agreement or consent decree and to ensure that monitors act in the interests of justice and not in their own interest.”110 Regrettably, there is presently no incentive for the Monitors to find
OPSO in Substantial Compliance with the Consent Decree. Thus, when this Court considers the
findings of the Monitors in the Monitors’ Reports, it must be cognizant of this inherent conflict of
interest.
V. TERMINATION OF THE CONSENT DECREE IS WARRANTED PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §3626(b)
A. OPSO is Eligible for Termination of the Consent Decree
18 U.S.C.A. §3626(b) sets forth the statutory provisions which provide for termination of a
civil action with respect to prison conditions. Specifically, §3626(b) sets forth the following:
(b) Termination of relief.-(1) Termination of prospective relief.--(A) In any civil action with respect to prison conditions in which prospective relief is ordered, such relief shall be terminable upon the motion of any party or intervener-(i) 2 years after the date the court granted or approved the prospective relief; (ii) 1 year after the date the court has entered an order denying termination of prospective relief under this paragraph; or
109 See Attorney General’s November 7, 2018 Memorandum, page 6, attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 110 Id. at p. 7.
36

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 37 of 44
(iii) in the case of an order issued on or before the date of enactment of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 2 years after such date of enactment. The Consent Decree was approved by this Court on June 6, 2013, nearly 7 years ago. Thus, this Motion to Terminate satisfies §3626(b)(1)(i) as it is filed more than 2 years after the date the Court granted or approved the Consent Decree. The language in Section XI.(C) of the Consent Decree stating that it shall not terminate until Substantial Compliance with the Consent Decree is maintained for a period of two years is of no consequence. Section XI.(C) clearly violates federal law in that it directly contradicts the rights afforded to OPSO in section §3626(b)(1)(i) of the PLRA. B. The Consent Decree Must Be Terminated i. OPSO is in compliance with the Consent Decree, despite the findings of the Monitors. As argued throughout this Motion, the standard currently being applied by the Monitors in the enforcement of the Consent Decree is not the legal standard for prospective relief in prison litigation under the PLRA. Thus, it is immaterial if the Monitors only found 103 of 174 areas of the Consent Decree in Substantial Compliance based on their standards. The standard that applies to OPSO, the constitutional minimum standard, has been achieved. There are no current or ongoing violations that warrant the prospective relief set forth in the Consent Decree. In U.S. v. Territory of the Virgin Islands, the court addressed this exact issue.111 There, the court concluded that a March 2011 Special Master Report evaluating the prison’s compliance with the consent decree, . . . evaluates Defendants’ actions through the prism of compliance rather than considering whether Defendants’ responses, while potentially falling short of compliance, were nonetheless sufficient to rise above the constitutional floor. See Hadix v. Johnson, 228 F.3d 662, 670 (6th Cir. 2000) (“The fundamental problem with the district
111 884 F. Supp. 2d, 399, 417 (2012). 37

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 38 of 44
court’s order is that it focused not on the inquiry required by the PLRA, but rather on the question whether the consent decree had been substantially complied with.”) In other words, there is reason to be concerned that the undergirding purpose of the March 2011 Special Master Report – to evaluate Defendants’ compliance with the Orders of the Court – has caused the Special Master’s analysis to be filtered through the perspective of compliance in such a way as to diminish its utility for the constitutional inquiry. Thus, if the Court were to embrace the Special Master’s characterizations of the judgments about Defendants’ failures and improvements vis-à-vis compliance, it may run the risk of obscuring the inquiry regarding the conditions at Golden Grove relative to the constitutional baseline.112
Similarly, this Court must not look at the Monitors’ findings regarding compliance with the
Consent Decree because any of the findings of Non or Partial Compliance are immaterial to its
ultimate analysis. Rather, this Court must focus its inquiry on the requirements of the PLRA, and
the constitutional floor set forth therein. OPSO has worked tirelessly on achieving a constitutionally
compliant jail facility since the Consent Decree was executed seven years ago. It has achieved this
goal. No longer can Plaintiffs claim that individuals housed in the OJC are at imminent risk of
serious harm, such as rapes, sexual assaults and beatings.113 No longer can Plaintiffs claim that
inmates with serious mental illnesses languish without treatment.114 No longer can Plaintiffs claim
that an over populated jail has dangerously deficient classification and security policies which pose
a constant risk of harm.115 Once this Court applies the appropriate standard under the PLRA, it will
inevitably conclude that there are no current or ongoing violations of the inmates constitutional
rights.
ii. The Court must consider current jail conditions, not those alleged when the Consent Decree was executed.
When deciding whether to terminate the Consent Decree, the Court must take evidence on
112 Id. 113 See Plaintiffs’ Complaint, para. 2, R. Doc. 1. 114 Id. 115 Id.
38

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 39 of 44
current jail conditions with respect to those remedies Plaintiffs do not concede comply with
constitutional requirements.116 In a recently decided case, J.U. v. Salt Lake County,117 the district
court granted Defendants’ Motion to Terminate Consent Decree because circumstances at the jail
changed since the entry of the consent decree in that matter. The court opined that:
Put plainly, history has moved on and the Consent Decree is simply out of date. The old Salt Lake County Jail was abandoned. The new Salt Lake County Jail was built. . . . The Consent Decree sought to correct conditions in a markedly different facility than exists currently and it imposed requirements on specific units of the Third East facility that simply no longer exist. . . . In addition to physical changes, there has been a shift in attitude toward mental illness since the Consent Decree was entered. The Complaint filed in 1982 alleged nightmarish scenarios in which Defendants largely ignored mentally-ill inmates. . . It is against this backdrop the parties settled their differences and the court entered the Consent Decree. There is no evidence in this record to suggest defendants currently exhibit this type of indifference to inmates’ mental health. Accordingly, the court will vacate the Consent Decree. The court does so, in part, because the facility at issue in the Consent decree no longer exists. . . In sum, the Consent Decree is not necessary to correct any current or ongoing comparable violation at the new Salt Lake County Jail.118
A keenly similar scenario exists here. The Court cannot look at the conditions that existed at
the time the Consent Decree was executed in 2013, or when Plaintiffs’ Complaint was filed in 2012.
Those complaints of federal violations were based on conditions that existed at that time, in the old
OPP and prior to the substantial changes made at OPSO. Like the court found in J.U. v. Salt Lake
County above, history has moved on since the execution of the Consent Decree, especially in light
of the new jail facility. There are no current and ongoing federal violations at OPSO which warrant
the intrusive relief outlined in the Consent Decree, and thus it should be terminated.
iii. If the Court determines that a current or ongoing violation exists, it must then conduct a § 3626(b)(3) analysis to determine if the provision satisfies the neednarrowness-intrusiveness criteria.
116 See Gilmore v. California, 220 F.3d 987, 1010 (9th Cir. 2000). 117 2019 WL 1170767 (D. Utah 2019). 118 2019 WL 1170767 at 3-4.
39

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 40 of 44
If the Plaintiffs object to this Motion to Terminate, under the PLRA, the Court is thereafter required to conduct an evidentiary hearing and give the parties an opportunity to present evidence regarding whether or not there are any current or ongoing constitutional violations.119 If the Court determines that there is a constitutional violation, it must then analyze the provision of the Consent Decree applicable to this violation and determine if the provision satisfies the need-narrownessintrusiveness criteria.
A Section 3626(b)(3) analysis requires “particularized findings, on a provision-by-provision basis, that each requirement imposed by the consent decree satisfies the need-narrownessintrusiveness criteria, given the nature of the current and ongoing violation.”120 “It is not enough [for the district court] to simply state in conclusory fashion that the requirements of the consent decree satisfy those criteria.”121 Rather, “the district court should engage in specific, provision-byprovision examination of the consent decree, measuring each requirement against the statutory criteria.”122
There should be no dispute that at least 103 provisions of the Consent Decree warrant immediate termination. The Court appointed Monitors have found that OPSO is in Substantial Compliance with 103 provisions of the Consent Decree. Thus, the analysis at the evidentiary hearing should focus on the remaining provisions of the Consent Decree, and analyze on a provision-byprovision basis whether the 66 areas in Partial Compliance, and the 5 areas in Non-Compliance, satisfy the need-narrowness-intrusiveness criteria of the PLRA, should the Court determine a constitutional violation still exists. If this Honorable Court determines that these provisions satisfy this statutory requirement, it must then make written findings based on the record that such relief (1)
119 See Castillo, 238 F.3d at 355; Cason, 231 F.3d at 781–83; Ruiz, 243 F.3d at 950-951. 120 Cason v. Seckinger, 231 F.3d 777, 785 (11th Cir. 2000). 121 Id. 122 Id.
40

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 41 of 44
“remains necessary to correct a current and ongoing violation of the Federal right,” (2) “extends
no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right,” and (3) “is narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means to correct the violation.”123
iv. Director Hodge believes OPSO is in Substantial Compliance with the Consent Decree.
On May 1, 2020, Director Hodge was quoted in an article published by thelensnola.org
regarding his opinions on Sheriff Gusman’s recent court filing seeking to terminate the Stipulated Agreement and the position of Compliance Director.124 When asked about his thoughts on the filing,
Director Hodge stated:
Well that is what is outlined in the consent judgment, if the sheriff gets to a point where he feels that the compliance director had made – what are the exact words – ‘material compliance,’ he can petition the court to remove the compliance director on that basis. So I think that’s a good thing that he feels that I have made material progress. I believe that we have done more than make material progress.125
Director Hodge, however, believes the progress has been more than material. Director Hodge
went on to be quoted saying, “I personally believe that we are in substantial compliance with 100 percent of that consent judgment. That’s just my opinion.”126
Director Hodge’s position regarding compliance with the Consent Decree is correct. He
possesses the keen insight as acting Compliance Director, and one-time Court appointed jail Monitor,
to offer this factually based determination. He is intimately familiar with the Consent Decree, the
standard being applied to OPSO, and the progress that has been made. This Honorable Court should
defer to Director Hodge’s assessment and so too find that OPSO is in compliance with the Consent
Decree.
123 18 U.S.C. §3626(b)(3). 124 See https://thelensnola.org/2020/05/01/official-in-charge-of-jail-says-he-thinks-its-in-shape-for-sheriff-gusman-toretake-control/ 125 Id. 126 Id.
41

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 42 of 44
VI. IMMEDIATE TERMINATION OF THE STIPULATED AGREEMENT – COMPLIANCE DIRECTOR APPOINTMENT – IS WARRANTED
A. Procedure for Termination of Compliance Director Position
Section E(2) of the Stipulated Agreement provides the termination procedure for terminating
the position of Compliance Director as follows:
No sooner than nine months after the appointment of the Compliance Director, the Sheriff may file a motion to terminate the Compliance Directorship on the basis that the Compliance Director has enabled the Orleans Parish Jail to achieve material progress with substantial compliance with all provisions of the Consent Judgment, as defined in Paragraph A.2. Prior to filing such a motion, the moving Party shall request a status conference with the Court. The other parties shall have an opportunity to respond to or oppose that motion. The Court will order an evidentiary hearing and permit all reasonable discovery associated with the Motion.(emphasis added)
B. Material Progress with Substantial Compliance Has Been Achieved
OPSO is in Substantial Compliance with the Consent Decree, which warrants termination of
the entirety of the Consent Decree. Thus, at a minimum OPSO has achieved material progress with
Substantial Compliance with all provisions of the Consent Decree, which satisfies the standard
necessary to terminate the Stipulated Agreement under Section E(2).
Monitors’ Report No. 5 was based on the Monitors’ tour that occurred in February 2016. This Report was filed into the record on March 17, 2016.127 The Stipulated Agreement was approved
by this Court on June 21, 2016. Therefore, improvement from the areas found to be in Substantial
Compliance in Monitors’ Report No. 5 is the measure by which the Court must judge whether
“material progress with substantial compliance” has been achieved per the Stipulated Agreement.
In Monitors’ Report No. 5, OPSO was in Substantial Compliance with 10 provisions, Partial Compliance with 96 provisions, and Non-Compliance with 63 provisions.128 As of the most recent
127 See Monitors’ Report No. 5, R. Doc. 996. 128 See Monitors’ Report No. 5, R. Doc. 996.
42

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 43 of 44
Monitors’ Report, based upon the Monitors’ tour and evaluation in September 2019, OPSO is in
Substantial Compliance with 103 provisions, Partial Compliance with 66 provisions, and NonCompliance with only 5 provisions.129 Thus, Director Hodge has facilitated OPSO improving the
areas of Substantial Compliance from 10 to 103. This material progress is precisely what is
contemplated in Section E(2) of the Stipulated Agreement and, therefore, the Stipulated Agreement,
and the position of Compliance Director, should be terminated immediately.
VII. REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING
OPSO further respectfully requests an evidentiary hearing on this matter. Under Section E(2)
of the Stipulated Agreement, the Court must order an evidentiary hearing and permit all reasonable
discovery associated with the Motion. Furthermore, an evidentiary hearing is required on OPSO’s
Motion to Terminate the Consent Decree if the Plaintiffs or DOJ object to the Motion.
VIII. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed hereinabove, OPSO respectfully moves this Honorable Court to
terminate the Consent Decree, and, further, to terminate the Stipulated Order for Appointment of
Independent Jail Compliance Director.
Respectfully submitted,
CHEHARDY, SHERMAN, WILLIAMS, MURRAY, RECILE, STAKELUM & HAYES, LLP
/s/ James M. Williams_________________ JAMES M. WILLIAMS, BAR NO. 26141 INEMESIT U. O’BOYLE, BAR NO. 30007 PATRICK R. FOLLETTE, BAR NO. 34547 One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100 Metairie, Louisiana 70001 Telephone: (504) 833-5600 Facsimile: (504) 833-8080
-and-
129 See Monitors’ Report No. 11, R. Doc. 1259. 43

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA Document 1274-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 44 of 44
ORLEANS PARISH SHERIFF’S OFFICE BLAKE J. ARCURI, BAR NO. 32322 LAURA C. RODRIGUE, BAR NO. 30428 FREEMAN R. MATTHEWS, BAR NO. 9050 2800 Perdido Street New Orleans, LA 70119 Tel: 504.202.9404 Fax: 504.202.9454 arcurib@opso.us; rodriguela@opso.us CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that on this 26th day of May 2020, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent by operation of the court’s electronic filing system. I also certify that a copy of the foregoing will be sent to all non-CM/ECF participants by United States Mail, properly addressed and postage prepaid. /s/ James M. Williams_________________ James M. Williams
44

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 1 of 53

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LASHAWN JONES, et al., and

)

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

) Civil Action No.2: 12-cv-00859

PLAINTIFFS,

) Section I

) Judge Lance M. Africk

v.

) Magistrate Judge Chasez

)

MARLIN GUSMAN, Sheriff,

)

-I----------------~~-------------

,

DEFENDANT.)

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

CONSENT JUDGMENT

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 2 of 53
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PARTIES .............................................................................................................................- 1 -
II. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... - 1 III. DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................- 2IV. SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS ...................................................................................... - 5-
A. PROTECTION FROM HARM.................................................................................... - 5 -
1. Use of Force Policies and Procedures ..........................................................................- 5 2. Use of Force Training .................................................................................................. - 6 3. Use of Force Reporting ................................................................................................- 74. Early Intervention System ("EIS") ............................................................................. - 105. Safety and Supervision............................................................................................... - 11 6. Security Staffing......................................................................................................... - 13 -
7. Incidents and Referrals ............................................................................................... - 14 -
8. Investigations .............................................................................................................- 16 -
9. Pretrial Placement in Alternative Settings: ................................................................ - 17 10. Custodial Placement within OPP............................................................................- 17 -
11. Prisoner Grievance Process .................................................................................... - 18 12. Sexual Abuse ..........................................................................................................- 19 13. Access to Information............................................................................................. - 19 B. MENTAL HEALTH CARE.......................................................................................- 201. Screening and Assessment ......................................................................................... - 20 -
2. Treatment ................................................................................................................... - 21 3. Counseling.................................................................................................................. - 22 -
4. Suicide Prevention Training Program ........................................................................- 23 -
ii

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 3 of 53
5. Suicide Precautions .................................................................................................... _24 _ 6. Use of Restraints ........................................................................................................ - 25 _ 7. Detoxification and Training ....................................................................................... - 26 _ 8. Medical and Mental Health Staffing ....................................................................:.....- 27 _ 9. Risk Management. ......................................................................................................- 27 -
C. MEDICAL CARE ......................................................................................................- 30 - . 1. Quality Management of Medication Administration .................................................- 30 -
2. Health Care Delivered ................................................................................................- 30 -
3. Release and Transfer .................................................................................................. - 31 D. SANITATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ..................................... - 31 -
1. Sanitation and Environmental Conditions.................................................................. - 31 -
2. Environmental Control ............................................................................................... - 32 -
3. Food Service...............................................................................................................- 32 -
4. Sanitation and Environmental Conditions Reporting.................................................- 33 -
E. FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY............................................................................................- 34 1. Fire and Life Safety....................................................................................................- 34 -
+------~2. Fi-re-and-bi-fe-SaJetrReporting ...................................................................................- 341~_~---F. LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE ........................................................................................ - 35-
-- - - -- -1-.-Timely'and Meaningful-Access·to-Services=~;~;....................... ,.......................=~35 2. Language Assistance Policies and Procedures ...........................................................- 35 3. Language Assistance Training ...................................................................................- 36 4. Bilingual Staff ............................................................................................................- 37 -
G. YOUTHFUL PRISONERS ........................................................................................- 37 V. FUNDING...................................................................................................................... - 38 VI. THE NEW JAIL FACILITY ......................................................................................... - 38 -
iii

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 4 of 53 VII. COMPLIANCE AND QUALITY IMPROVEMENT................................................... - 39 _ VIII. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND RIGHT OF ACCESS ................................ - 40 IX. MONITORING ..............................................................................................................- 40X. ENFORCEMENT ..........................................................................................................- 43 _ XI. CONSTRUCTION, IMPLEMENTATION, AND TERMINATION ........,.................. - 43 XII. STIPULATION PURSUANT TO THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT,
18 U.S.C. § 3626 ............................................................................................................- 44-
iv

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 5 of 53
I. PARTIES
This Consent Judgment ("Agreement") is entered among and between the Plaintiff class; United States of America, acting through the United States Department of Justice; and the Orleans Parish Sheriff (in his official capacity).
II. INTRODUCTION
1. The purpose of this Agreement is to address the constitutional violations alleged in this matter, as well as the violations alleged in the findings letter issued by the United States on September 11,2009. The Orleans Parish Prison ("OPP") is an integral part of the public safety system in New Orleans, Louisiana. Through the provisions of this Agreement, the Parties seek to ensure that the conditions in OPP protect the constitutional
i--------ri'ling'uts of pnsoners confinedlliere. By ensurillg1liat the conditions in OPP are constitutional, the Sheriff will also provide for the safety of staff and promote public safety in the community.
2. Plaintiffs are the settlement class (Jones and JJPlaintiffs) and the United States. The Parties agree to a settlement class comprised of all individuals who are now or will be imprisoned inOPP.
3. Defendant is the Orleans Parish Sheriff (in his official capacity) and each of his successors in office (the "Defendant"). Defendant shall ensure that the Orleans Parish Sheriffs Office ("OPSO") will take all actions necessary to comply with the provisions of this Agreement.
4. As indicated in Section XII of this Agreement, the Parties consent to a finding that this Agreement complies in all respects with the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a).
~-----c!i-.--8P.P-is-a-parish~wide-correctiona]-facHityiITNewOrleans;-Louisiana. (JPS0,-ij"s- - - - - - - - responsible for providing care, custody, and control ofprisoners. The Parties recognize that the conditions in OPP and the treatment of prisoners confined there have an impact on whether prisoners will be successfully re-integrated on release, whether released
-'p""risoners will re-offeilCi,-iiild onfuepu1:iIic confidence in the criminal justic-'=e-"'s'-"ys=;t=-=em-"-.-- - -
6. OPSO has taken steps to address concerns at OPP. OPSO has in place certain policies, practices, and procedures, and has plans to adopt certain other policies, practices, and procedures. This Consent Judgment is based on these policies, practices, and procedures, and contemplates that the dispute between the Parties will be resolved by the continued development and implementation of these measures.
- 1-

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 6 of 53
III. DEFINITIONS
1. "OPSO" refers to the Orleans Parish Sheriffs Office, which is responsible for all corrections and security functions at the Facility.
2. "OPP" or "Facility" or "]ail" refers to the Orleans Parish Prison, and shall include the Temporary Detention Center ("TDC"), Templeman V, Conchetta, the FEMA-supplied windowless canvas-tents ("The Tents"), the original Orleans Parish Prison Jail, and the Broad Street work-release facility, as well as any facility that is built, leased, or otherwise used, to replace or supplement the current OPP or any part of OPP.
3. "DO]" refers to the United States Department of Justice, which represents the United States in this matter.
4. "SPLC" refers to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which represents the Plaintiff class in this matter. Should SPLC cease to represent the Plaintiff class, "Plaintiffs' counsel" will be substituted for "SPLC."
5. "Assessment factors" refers to the evaluation or estimate of the levels of risk for suicide and self-injurious behavior requiring intervention.
6. "Bilingual staff' means a staff person who has demonstrated and verified proficiency, pursuant to generally accepted objective criteria, in both spoken English and at least one other language as authorized by OPP. Bilingual staff must be routinely assessed and serve as bilingual employees on behalf of OPP.
7. Consistent with, or in accordance with, the term "generally accepted correctional standards" shall mean those industry standards accepted by correctional professionals or organizations in the relevant subject area, as agreed to by the Parties (e.g., the NCCHC or ACA).
8. "Days" are measured in calendar days; weekend days are included.
9. "Describe" means provide a clear and detailed description of anything done, seen, or --- -- -- - - - - - - - - -lieara~- - -
10. "District Attorney" or "DA's Office" refers to the Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office.
11. "Document" when used in this Agreement as a verb means completing a report, either in hard copy or in electronic format.
12. "Effective Date" means the date the Court enters a definitive judgment regarding the amount of funding needed to ensure compliance with the signed Agreement that has been entered as an order by the Court.
-2 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 7 of 53
B. "EIS" means the Early Intervention System, which is a system to collect and analyze data regarding uses of force and is used to identify the need for corrective action, including changes to training protocols and policy or retraining or disciplining individual officers or groups of officers.
14. "Emergency maintenance needs" means items that affect building security, or which may cause imminent danger to the life, safety, or health of prisoners.
15. "Good cause" means fair and honest reasons, regulated by good faith on the part of either party, that are not arbitrary, capricious, trivial, or pretextual.
16. "lAD" refers to the Internal Affairs Division.
17-.-«mcTij.C!e";-"includes", or "including" means "include,out not 6elimlted to" or "including, but not limited to."
18. "Interdisciplinary Team" refers to a team consisting of treatment staff from various disciplines, including medical, nursing, and mental health, and one or more members from security.
19. "Limited English Proficient" or "LEP" refers to a person who does not speak English as hislher primary language and has a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English. LEP individuals may be competent in certain types of communication (e.g., speaking or understanding), but still be LEP for other purposes (e.g., reading or writing).
20. "Monitor" means an individual and his or her team of professionals, all of whom are selected by the Parties to oversee implementation of the Agreement.
21. "NOPRS" means City of New Orleans PreTrial Release Services.
+------2~-.--"Prisoners"-or-"Prisoner>Lis~construed~broadiyto~refertmJlIe-ormureindividuals·--------­
detained at, or otherwise housed, held, in the custody of, or confined atOPP, based on arrests, detainers, criminal charges, civil contempt charges, or convictions.
- - -2J:-- -"PsyclioffojJic medicatioii"meansany meaicationusecHo affect mentaI activity, - perception, behavior, or mood.
24. "Qualified Health Care Professional" means an individual who has received instruction and supervision in identifying and interacting with individuals in need of health care services.
25. "Qualified Medical Professional" means a licensed physician, licensed physician assistant, or a licensed nurse practitioner, who is currently licensed by the State of Louisiana to deliver those health care services he or she has undertaken to provide.
-3-

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 8 of 53
26. "Qualified Medical Staff' refers to Qualified Medical Professionals and Qualified Nursing Staff.
27. "Qualified Mental Health Professional" refers to an individual with a minimum of masters-level education and training in psychiatry, psychology, counseling, social work, or psychiatric nursing, who is currently licensed by the State of Louisiana to deliver those mental health services he or she has undertaken to provide.
28. "Qualified Nursing Staff' means registered nurses and licensed practical nurses currently licensed by the State of Louisiana to deliver those health care services he or she has undertaken to provide.
29. "Reportable incidents" refers to any incident that involves a Level 1 or 2 rule violation, a pnsoner oeatli or serious injury, serious suicioe attempt, sexualtilleats, a ceIl'-e~x·tr~a-c~t1-o"-n,-a-----­ use of force or restraint, a medical emergency, escapes and escape attempts, and fires.
30. "Serious injury" means any injury requiring hospitalization andior follow-up medical care.
31. "Serious suicide attempt" means a suicide attempt that is considered to be either potentially life-threatening or that requires hospitalization. Even if caught in the early stages of the attempt, ifthe injury resulting from the attempted act could be life threatening, the suicide attempt is "serious" and is reportable under this Agreement.
32. "Special Management Units" mean those housing units of the Facility designated for prisoners in administrative or disciplinary segregation, in protective custody, on suicide precautions, with mental illness, or who are youth age 17 and below.
33. "Staff Members" includes all employees, including correctional officers, who have contact with prisoners.
34. "Suicide Attempt" means any serious effort to commit an act of self-harm that can result in death and involves a definite risk.
.. -----35-.--"SUiciClePrecautiomrineans anflevelofwatch~servation, or measures fci prevent suicide or self-hann.
36. "Train" means to instruct in skills to a level that the trainee has demonstrated proficiency by testing to implement those skills as and when called for. "Trained" means proficient in the skills.
37. "Threshold" or "threshold event" means requiring a certain level of intervention due to a serious event or a number of serious events. This term is further explained in Appendix A and Appendix B.
-4-

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 9 of 53
38. "Triggers" or "triggering event" means an event or events, like a suicide or serious suicide attempt that causes the Facility to self-assess. This term is further explained in Appendix A and Appendix B.
39. "Use of force" means the application ofphysical or mechanical measures to compel compliance. "Use of force" shall include all force to compel compliance except force resulting from complaints of minor discomfort from un-resisted handcuffing or unresisted shackling of prisoners for movement purposes.
40. "Vital Documents" means paper or electronic written material that contains information that is critical for accessing OPP's programs, services, or activities, or is required by law. Vital documents may include grievance forms, notification to prisoners (such as ru1e violations, transfers, and grievance responses), prisoner handbooks, sick call forms, and
c--------~re~q=u~e~stfor service forms.
41. "Youth" and "youthful prisoner" shall mean any person in OPSO custody who is age 17 or younger, or who is housed in OPP as a "transfer" youth being tried as an adult.
42. Throughout this Agreement, the following terms are used when discussing compliance: substantial compliance, partial compliance, and non-compliance. "Substantial Compliance" indicates that Defendant has achieved compliance with most or all components of the relevant provision ofthe Agreement. "Partial Compliance" indicates that Defendant achieved compliance on some of the components of the relevant provision ofthe Agreement, but significant work remains. "Non-compliance" indicates that Defendant has not met most or all of the components of the Agreement.
IV. SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS
A. PROTECTION FROM HARM
~--~---~eonsisterrt-witlrconstitutionaI-standards,Befendant-shail-provide-prisoners-witlnrsafe;.-.------~
and secure enviroument and ensure their reasonable safety from harm. OPSO shall take all reasonable measures to ensure that during the course of incarceration, prisoners are not subjected
-- -- - -tporuisnonenceersssa.-r-y--o-r -e-x-c-e-s-s-iv-e--f-o-r-ce by OPSO staff and are protected from violence by other - - -
1. Use of Force Policies and Procedures
a. OPSO shall develop, implement, and maintain comprehensive policies and procedures (in accordance with generally accepted correctional standards) relating to the use of force with particu1ar emphasis regarding permissible and impermissible uses of force.
b. OPSO shall develop and implement a single, uniform reporting system under a Use of Force Reporting policy. OPSO reportable force shall be divided into two levels, as further specified in policy: Levell uses of force will include all serious
-5 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 10 of 53
uses of force (i.e., the use of force leads to injuries that are extensive, serious or visible in nature, including black eyes, lacerations, injuries to the mouth or head, multiple bruises, injuries to the genitals, etc.), injuries requiring hospitalization, staff misconduct, and occasions when use of force reports are inconsistent, conflicting, or otherwise suspicious. Level 2 uses offorce will include all escort or control holds used to overcome resistance that are not covered by the definition of Level 1 uses of force.
c. OPSO shall assess, armually, all data collected regarding uses offorce aod make aoy necessary chaoges to use of force policies or procedures to ensure that unnecessary or excessive use of force is not used in OPP. The review aod recommendations will be documented aod provided to the Monitor, DOJ, and SPLC.
2. Use of Force Training
a. OPSO shall ensure that all correctional officers are knowledgeable of aod have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to comply with use of force policies and procedures. At a minimum, OPSO shall provide correctional officers with pre-service aod armual in-service training in use of force, defensive tactics, aod use of force policies aod procedures. The training will include the following:
(1) instruction on what constitutes excessive force;
(2) de-escalation tactics; and
(3) maoagement of prisoners with mental illness to limit the need for using force.
b. OPSO shall ensure that officers are aware of aoy chaoge to policies aod practices "----~~~~~~~~~----<throughourtheir employment witlreJPP:-Al: a minimmn, (JP:5(Tglmtl-'p"'r"OV1m'md"'e"'p""re"=-~~~~­
service and aonual in-service use of force training that prohibits:
(1) use of force as a response to verbal insults or prisoner threats where there is no immediate threat to the -s-afety or security of the institution, prisoners, staff, or visitors;
(2) use of force as a response to prisoners' failure to follow instructions where there is no immediate threat to the safety or security of the institution, prisoners, staff, or visitors;
(3) use of force against a prisoner after the prisoner has ceased to offer resistance aod is under control;
(4) use offorce as punishment or retaliation; aod
-6 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 11 of 53
(5) use of force involving kicking, striking, hitting, or punching a non-combative prisoner.
c. OPSO shall randomly test five percent ofthe correctional officer staff on an annual basis to determine their knowledge of the use of force policies and procedures. The testing instrument and policies shall be approved by the Monitor. The results of these assessments shall be evaluated to determine the need for changes in training practices. The review and conclusions will be documented and provided to the Monitor.
3. Use of Force Reporting
a. Failure to report a use of force incident by any staff member engaging in the use e------------OCofIorce or witnessmg the use offorce shall be grounds for discipline, up to and
including termination.
b. OPSO shall ensure that sufficient information is collected on uses offorce to assess whether staff members complied with policy; Whether corrective action is necessary including training or discipline; the effectiveness of training and policies; and whether the conditions in OPP comply with this Agreement. At a minimum, OPSO will ensure that officers using or observing a Levell use of force shall complete a use of force report that will:
(1) include the names of all stan; prisoner(s), or other visual or oral witness(es);
(2) contain an accurate and specific account of the events leading to the use of force;
(3) describe the level of resistance and the type and level of force used, +---------------lconsrstent-with-ElPhse of fOlCe pOlicy and procedure, as wel1as1u"e--------
precise actions taken by OPSO staff in response to the incident;
(4) describe the weapon or instrument(s) of restraint, if any, and the manner of - - - -~- sucll use;
(5) be accompanied by a prisoner disciplinary report, if it exists, pertaining to the events or prisoner activity that prompted the use of force incident;
(6) describe the nature and extent of injuries sustained by anyone involved in the incident;
. (7) contain the date and time when medical attention, if any, was requested and actually provided;
-7-

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 12 of 53

(8) describe any attempts the staff took to de-escalate prior to the use of force;

(9) include an individual written account of the use of force from every staff member who witnessed the use of force;

(10) include photographs taken promptly, but no later than two hours after a use of force incident, of all injuries sustained, or as evidence that no injuries were sustained, by prisoners and staff involved in the use of force incident;

(II) document whether the use of force was digitally or otherwise recorded. If the use of force is not digitally or otherwise recorded, the reporting officer and/or watch commander will provide an explanation as to why it was not recorded; and

(12) include a statement about the incident from the prisoner(s) against whom force was used.

c. All officers using a Level 2 use of force shall complete a use of force report that will:

(1) include the names of staff, prisoner(s), or other visual or oral witness(es);

(2) contain an accurate and specific account of the events leading to the use of force;

(3) describe the level of resistance and the type and level of force used, consistent with opp use offorce policy and procedure, as well as the precise actions tal(en by OPSO staff in response to the incident;

(4) I - - - - - - -- - - - - - (5)

describe the weapon or instrument(s) of restraint, if any, and the manner of such use;

---

-~~~~--~-

be accompanied by a prisoner disciplinary report, if it exists, pertaining to

the events or prisoner activity that prompted the use of force incident;

(6) describe the nature and extent of injuries sustained by anyone involved in the incident;

(7) contain the date and time when medical attention, if any, was requested and actually provided; and

(8) describe any attempts the stafftook to de-escalate prior to the use of force;

-8 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 13 of 53

d. OPSO shall require correctional officers to notify the watch commander as soon as practical of any use of force incident or allegation of use of force. When notified, the watch commander will respond to the scene of all Level I uses of force. When arriving on the scene, the watch commander shall:

(I) ensure the safety of everyone involved in or proximate to the incident;

(2) determine if any prisoner or correctional officer is injured and ensure that necessary medical care is provided;

(3) ensure that personnel and witnesses are identified, separated, and advised that commnnications with other witnesses or correctional officers regarding the incident are prohibited;

(4) ensure that witness and subject statements are taken from both staff and prisoner(s) outside of the presence of other prisoners and staff;

(5) ensure that the supervisor's use offorce report is forwarded to lAD for investigation if, upon the supervisor's review, a violation oflaw or policy is suspected. The determination of what type of investigation is needed will be based on the degree of the force used consistent with the terms of this Agreement;

(6) If the watch commander is not involved in the use offorce incident, the watch commander shall review all submitted use of force reports within 36 hours ofthe end of the incident, and shall specify his findings as to completeness and procedural errors. If the watch commander believes that the use of force may have been urmecessary or excessive, he shall immediately contact lAD for investigation consideration and shall notify the warden or assistant warden; and

(7) All Level I use of force reports, whether or not the force is believed by any party to be unnecessary or excessive, shall be sent to lAD for review. lAD shall develop and submit to the Monitor within 90 days of the
------ -- - ------------Efrectlve-Oilte clear criteiTato Ideiltify use offorce incidents that warraot
a full investigation, including injuries that are extensive or serious, visible in nature (including black eyes, injuries to the mouth, injuries to the_ genitals, etc.), injuries requiring hospitalization, staff misconduct (including inappropriate relationships with prisoners), and occasions when use of force reports are inconsistent, conflicting, or otherwise suspicious.

e. Ensure that a first-line supervisor is present during all pre-planned uses of force, such as cell extractions.

f.

Within 36 hours, exclusive of weekends and holidays, of receiving the report and

review from the shift commander, in order to determine the appropriateness of the

-9-

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 14 of 53

force used and whether policy was followed, the Warden or Assistant Warden shall review all use offorce reports and supervisory reviews including:

(1) the incident report associated with the use of force;

(2) any medical documentation of injuries and any further medical care;

(3) the prisoner disciplinary report associated with the use of force; and

(4) the Warden or Assistant Warden shall complete a written report or written statement of specific findings and determinations of the appropriateness of force.

g. Provide the Monitor a periodic report detailing use of force by staff. These periodic reports shall be provided to the Monitor within four months of the Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until termination of this Agreement. Each report will include the following information:

(1) a brief summary of all uses of force, by type;

(2) date that force was used;

(3) identity of staff members involved in using force;

(4) identity of prisoners against whom force was used;

(5) a brief summary of all uses of force resulting in injuries;

(6) number of planned and unplarmed uses offorce;

~-----------{(T)

a summary ofatl in-custodycleatns related to use offorce, mcluctingtlie identity of the decedent and the circumstances of the death; and

(8) a listing of serious injuries requiring hospitalizatio=-::n=-._

h. OPSO shall conduct, annually, a review of the use of force reporting system to ensure that it has been effective in reducing urmecessary or excessive uses of force. OPSO will document its review and conclusions and provide them to the Monitor, SPLC, and DOJ.

4. Early Intervention System ("EIS")

a. OPSO shall develop, within 120 days of the Effective Date, a computerized relational database ("EIS") that will document and track staff members who are involved in use of force incidents and any complaints related to the inappropriate or excessive use of force, in order to alert OPSO management to any potential

- 10-

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 15 of 53

problematic policies or supervision lapses or need for retraining or discipline. The Chief of Operations Deputy, supervisors, and investigative staff shall have access to this information and shall review on a regular basis, but not less than quarterly, system reports to evaluate individual staff, supervisor, and housing area activity. OPSO will use the EIS as a tool for correcting inappropriate staff behavior before it escalates to more serious misconduct.

b. Within 120 days of the Effective Date, OPSO senior management shall use BIS

information to improve quality management practices, identify patterns and

trends, and take necessary corrective action both on an individual and systemic

level. lAD will manage and administer EIS systems. The Special Operations

.. Division ("SOD") will have access to the EIS. lAD will conduct quarterly audits
~, --------------------of-t-h-e -E-IS-t,o-e-n.su~r,e ,th-a,t -an-a~ly~s-is-a-n-d .in-te~r~vent,io-n-is.t-ak-e~n-a,cc~o~rd~in~g~to~. th-e -------------

,

process described below. Command staff shall review the data collected by the

ErS on at least a quarterly basis to identify potential patterns or trends resulting in

harm to prisoners. The Use of Force Review Board will periodically review

information collected regarding uses of force in order to identify the need for

corrective action, including changes to training protocols and policy or retraining

or disciplining individnal staff or staff members. Through comparison of the

operation of this system to changes in the conditions in OPP, OPSO will assess

whether the mechanism is effective at addressing the requirements of this

Agreement.

c. OPSO shall provide, within 180 days of the implementation date of its ErS, to SPLC, DOl, and the Monitor, a list of all staff members identified through the ErS and corrective action taken.

d. The EIS protocol shall include the following components: data storage, data retrieval, reporting, data analysis, pattern identification, supervisory assessment, supervisory intervention, documentation, and audit.

e. On an annual basis, OPSO shall review the EIS to ensure that it has been effective in identifying concerns regarding policy, training, or the need for discipline. This assessment will be based in parton the number and severity of harm and injury identified through data collected pursuant to this Agreement. OPSO will document its review and conclusions and provide them to the Monitor, who shall forward this document to DO] and SPLC.

5. Safety and Supervision

Recognizing that some danger is inherent in ajail setting, OPSO shall take all reasonable measures to ensure that prisoners are not subjected to harm or the risk of harm. At a minimum, OPSO shall do the following:

- 11 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 16 of 53

a.

Maintain security policies, procedures, and practices to provide a reasonably safe

and secure environment for prisoners and staff in accordance with this

Agreement.

b.

Maintain policies, procedures, and practices to ensure the adequate supervision of

prisoner work areas and trustees.

c.

Maintain policies and procedures regarding care for and h(,lUsing of protective

custody prisoners and prisoners requesting protection from harm.

d.

Continue to ensure that correctional officers conduct appropriate rounds at least

once during every 3D-minute period, at irregular times, inside each general

population housing unit and at least once during every IS-minute period of special

management prisoners, or more often if necessary. All security rounds shall be

documented on forms or logs that do not contain pre-printed rounding times. In

the alternative, OPSO may provide direct supervision of prisoners by posting a

correctional officer inside the day room area of a housing unit to conduct

surveillance.

e.

Staff shall provide direct supervision in housing units that are designed for this

type of supervision. Video surveillance may be used to supplement, but must not

be used to replace, rounds by correctional officers.

f.

Increase the use of overhead video surveillance and recording cameras to provide

adequate coverage throughout the common areas of the Jail, including the Intake

Processing Center, all divisions' intalce areas, mental health units, special

management units, prisoner housing units, and in the divisions' common areas.

g.

Continue to ensure that correctional officers, who are transferred from one

division to another, are required to attend training on division-specific post orders

-'------------~oefore workingoIr1helmit.

h.

Continue to ensure that correctional officers assigned to special management

___ ___ _

units, which include youth tiers, mental health tiers, disciplinary segregation, and

----- - Protective custody, receive eight hours of specialized training regarding such units

on prisoner safety and security on at least an annual basis.

i.

Continue to ensure that supervisors conduct daily rounds on each shift in the

prisoner housing units, and document the results of their rounds.

j.

Continue to ensure that staff conduct daily inspections of cells and common areas

of the housing units to protect prisoners from uureasonable harm or uureasonable

risk of harm.

- 12 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 17 of 53

k.

Continue to ensure that staff conduct random monthly shakedowns of cells and

common areas so that prisoners do not possess or have access to dangerous

contraband.

I.

Provide the Monitor a periodic report of safety and supervision at the Facility.

These periodic reports shall be provided to the monitor within four months of the

Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until tennination ofthis

Agreement. Each report will provide the following information:

(I) a listing of special management prisoners, their housing assignments, the . basis for them being placed in the specialized housing unit, and the date placed in the unit; and

(2) a listing of all contraband, including weapons seized, the type of . contraband, date of seizure, location, and shift of seizure.

6. Security Staffing

a. OPSO shall ensure that correctional staffing and supervision is sufficient to adequately supervise prisoners, fulfill the terms of this Agreement, and allow for the safe operation of the Facility, consistent with constitutional standards. OPSO shall achieve adequate correctional officer staffing in the following manner:

(1) Within 90 days of the Effective Date, develop a staffing plan that will identifY all posts and positions, the adequate number and qualification of staffto cover each post and position, adequate shift relief, and coverage for vacations. The staffing plan will ensure that there is adequate coverage inside each housing and specialized housing areas and to accompany prisoners for court, visits and legal visits, and other operations ofOPP and to comply with all provisions of this Agreement. OPSO will
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~p~r~o"'*vide1ts]'JIantotlIe Monitor,SPte;-and-OOj for approval. 'fi~Ie~~~~~~~Monitor, SPLC, or DO] will have 60 days to raise any objections and recommend revisions to the staffing plan.
~~~ ---(2-)-Wit1iin~126-da-ys~before-the-open-in-gof any new facility, submit a staffing plan consistent with subsection (1) above.

(3) Within 90 days after completion of the staffing study, OPSO shall recruit and hire a full-time professional corrections administrator to analyze and review OPP operations. The professional corrections administrator shall report directly to the Sheriff and shall have responsibilities to be determined by the Sheriff. The professional corrections administrator shall have at least the following qualifications: (a) a bachelor's degree in criminal justice or other closely related field; (b) five years of experience in supervising a large correctional facility; and (c) knowledge of and experience in applying modern correctional standards, maintained through

- 13 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 18 of 53
regular participation in corrections-related conferences or other continuing education.
(4) Provide the Monitor a periodic report on staffing levels at the Facility. These periodic reports shall be provided to the Monitor within four months of the Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until termination of this Agreement Each report will include the following information:
i. a listing of each post and position needed;
ii. the number of hours needed for each post and position;
iii. a listing of staff hired and positions filled;
iv. a listing of staff working overtime and the amount of overtime worked by each staff member;
v. a listing of supervisors working overtime; and
vi. a listing of and types of critical incidents reported.
b. Review the periodic report to determine whether staffing is adequate to meet the requirements ofthis Agreement. OPSO shall make recommendations regarding staffing based on this review. The review and recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor.
7. Incidents and Referrals
a. OPSO shall develop and implement policies that ensure that Facility watch ~~----------'c"'o"'m=m'"an="ders have Imowledge of repoftal5leincidents inDPP to take action i " n - o a c - - - - - - -
timely marmer to prevent harm to prisoners or take other corrective action. At a minimum, OPSO shall do the following:
b. Continue to ensure that Facility watch commanders document all reportable incidents by the end of their shift, but no later than 24 hours after the incident, including prisoner fights, rule violations, prisoner injuries, suicide attempts, cell extractions, medical emergencies, found contraband, vandalism, escapes and escape attempts, and fires.
c. Continue to ensure that Facility watch commanders report all suicides and deaths no later than one hour after the incident, to a supervisor, lAD, the Special Operations Division, and medical and mental health staff.
d. Provide formal pre-service and armual in-service training on proper incident reporting policies and procedures.
- 14-

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 19 of 53

e. Implement a policy providing that it is a disciplinary infraction for staff to fail to report any reportable incident that occurred on his or her shift. Failure to formally report any observed prisoner injury may result in staff discipline, up to and including termination.

f.

Maintain a system to track all reportable incidents that, at a minimum, includes

the following information:

(1) tracking number;

(2) the prisoner(s) name;

0) housing classilication andlocatlOn;

(4) date and time;

(5) type of incident;

(6) injuries to staff or prisoner;

(7) medical care;

(8) primary and secondary staff involved;

(9) reviewing supervisor;

(10) external reviews and results;

(11) corrective action taken; and

(12) administrative sign-off.

- --

e.

Ensure that incident reports and prisoner grievances are screened for allegations

-------- --- -- -oIstaIf iriisconOud, arid; IT1lie incident or ii11egillon meets estaDllshed critenaTri----

accordance with this Agreement, it is referred for investigation.

f.

Provide the Monitor a periodic data report of incidents at the Facility. These

periodic reports shall be provided to the Monitor within four months of the

Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until termination ofthis

Agreement.

g.

The report will include the following information:

(1) a brief summary of all reportable incidents, by type and date;

- 15 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 20 of 53

(2) a description of all suicides and in-custody deaths, including the date, name of prisoner, and housing unit;

(3) number of prisoner grievances screened for allegations of misconduct; and

(4) number of grievances referred to lAD or SOD for investigation.

h.

Conduct internal reviews ofthe periodic reports to determine whether the incident

reporting system is ensuring that the constitutional rights of prisoners are

respected. Review the quarterly report to determine whether the incident

reporting system is meeting the requirements ofthis Agreement. OPSO shall

mal(e recommendations regarding the reporting system or other necessary

changes in policy or staffing based on this review. The review and

recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor.

8. Investigations

OPSO shall ensure that it has sufficient staff to identify, investigate, and make recommendations correcting misconduct that has or may lead to a violation of the Constitution. At a minimum, OPSO shall:

a. Maintain implementation of comprehensive policies, procedures, and practices for the timely and thorough investigation of alleged staff misconduct, sexual assaults, and physical assaults of prisoners resulting in serious injury, in accordance with this Agreement. Investigations shall:

(1) be conducted by persons who do not have conflicts of interest that bear on the partiality of the investigation;

(2) include timely, thorough, and documented interviews of all relevant staff -,---------------ca'"nmdhp"r"'is"o<¥n"'e.r.s.."w""lIo were involved in or wlIowitlWsB"&\~lIe incident in
question, to the extent practicable; and

________________ ~_ include all supporting evidence, including logs, witness and participant _ _ _ _ __ statements, references to policies and procedures relevant to the incident, physical evidence, and video or audio recordings.

b. Continue to provide SOD and lAD staff with pre-service and annual in-service training on appropriate investigation policies and procedures, the investigation tracking process, investigatory interviewing techniques, and confidentiality requirements.

c. Ensure that any investigative report indicating possible criminal behavior will be referred to lAD/SOD and then referred to the Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office, if appropriate.

- 16 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 21 of 53

d. Provide the Monitor a periodic report of investigations conducted at the Facility. These periodic reports shall be provided to theMonitor within four months of the Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until termination of this Agreement.

e. The report will include the following information:

(1) a brief summary of all completed investigations, by type and date;

(2) a listing of investigations referred for administrative investigation;

(3) a listing of all investigations referred to an appropriate law enforcement ~~~~~~~~~~~~~--,a=<g,-"e=ncy. and the name of the agencYL;""an"'d'"----~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_

(4) a listing of all staff suspended, terminated, arrested, or reassigned because of misconduct or violations of policy and procedures. This list must also contain the specific misconduct and/or violation.

f.

OPSO shall review the periodic report to determine whether the investigation

system is meeting the requirements of this Agreement and make

recommendations regarding the investigation system or other necessary changes

in policy based on this review. The review and recommendations will be

documented and provided to the Monitor.

9. Pretrial Placement in Alternative Settings:

a. OPSO shall maintain its role of providing space and security to facilitate interviews conducted pursuant to the City's pretrial release program, which is intended to ensure placement in the least restrictive appropriate placement consistent with public safety.

b. OPSO shall create a system to ensure that it does not unlawfully confine prisoners

whose sole detainer is by hnmigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), where

_~-,th...e,,-,detainer h!\s_tllC]Jired.

_____ ,__~~_

10. Custodial Placement within OPP

a. OPP shall implement an objective and validated classification system that assigns prisoners to housing units by security levels, among other valid factors, in order to protect prisoners from unreasonable risk of harm. The system shall include: consideration of a prisoner's security needs, severity of the current charge, types of prior commitments, suicide risk, history of escape attempts, history of violence, gang affiliations, and special needs, including mental illness, gender identity, age, and education requirements. OPSO shall anticipate periods of unusual intake volume and schedule sufficient classification staff to classify prisoners within 24 hours of booking and perform prisoner reclassifications, assist eligible DOC

- 17 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 22 of 53

prisoners with re-entry assistance (release preparation), among other duties related to case management.

b. Prohibit classifications based solely on race, color, national origin, or ethnicity.

c. Ensure that the classification staff has sufficient access to current information regarding cell availability in each division.

d. Continue to update the classification system to include information on each prisoner's history at OPSO.

e. Continue competency-based training and access to all supervisors on the full capabilities of the OPSO classification and prisoner trackingJ;)'"st""e,..m"'._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

f.

Conduct internal and external review and validation of the classification and

prisoner tracking system on at least an annual basis.

g. Provide the Monitor a periodic report on classification at the Facility. These periodic reports shall be provided to the Monitor within four months of the Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until termination of this Agreement. Each report will include the following information:

(1) number of prisoner-on-prisoner assaults;

(2) number of assaults against prisoners with mental illness;

(3) number of prisoners who report having gang affiliations;

(4) most serious offense leading to incarceration;

(5) number of pnsoners classiliooin each security level;

(6) number of prisoners placed in protective custody; and
- -------------------------------
(7) number of misconduct complaints.

h. OPSO shall review the periodic data report and make recommendations regarding proper placement consistent with this Agreement or other necessary changes in policy based on this review. The review and recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor.

11. Prisoner Grievance Process

a. OPSO shall ensure that prisoners have a mechanism to express their grievances, resolve disputes, and ensure that concerns regarding their constitutional rights are addressed. OPSO shall, at a minimum, do the following:

- 18 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 23 of 53
(1) Continue to maintain policies and procedures to ensure that prisoners have access to an adequate grievance process and to ensure that grievances may be reported and filed confidentially, without requiring the intervention of a correctional officer. The policies and procedures should be applicable and standardized across all the Facility divisions.
(2) Ensure that each grievance receives appropriate follow-up, including providing a timely written response and tracking implementation of resolutions.
(3) Ensure that grievance forms are available on all units and are available in Spanish and Vietnamese and that there is adequate opportunity for illiterate prisoners and prisoners who have physical or cognitive disabilities or language barriers to access the grievance system.
(4) Separate the process of "requests to staff' from the grievance process and prioritize grievances that raise issues regarding prisoner safety or health.
(5) Ensure that prisoner grievances are screened for allegations of staff misconduct and, if an incident or allegation warrants per this Agreement, that it is referred for investigation.
(6) A member of the management staff shall review the grievance tracking system quarterly to identify areas of concerns. These reviews and any recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor.
12. Sexual Abuse
OPSO will develop and implement policies, protocols, trainings, and audits, consistent -'--------~W1'""'"tlil'li:e reqillrements ofl1i:e Prison Rape E11mmation Act of2U03~TU:S-:C:-§l-SOO1'-,~et~----­
seq., and its implementation of regulations, including but not limited to, preventing, detecting, reporting, investigating, and collecting sexual abuse data, including prisoner. ____._ ____ on:prisoner _and ..staffon.-Ilrisoner sexual abuse, sexual harassment, and sexual touching>,-,_ __
13. Access to Information
OPSO will ensure that all newly admitted prisoners receive information, through an inmate handbook and, at the discretion of the Jail, an orientation video, regarding the following topics: understanding Facility disciplinary process and rules and regulations; reporting misconduct; reporting sexual abuse or assault; accessing medical and mental health care; emergency procedures; and sending and receiving mail; understanding the visitation process; and accessing the grievance process.
- 19 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 24 of 53

B. MENTAL HEALTH CARE

OPSO shall ensure constitutionally adequate intake, assessment, treatment, and monitoring of prisoners' mental health needs, including but not limited to, protecting the safety of and giving priority access to prisoners at risk for self-injurious behavior or suicide. OPSO shall assess, on an annual or more frequent basis, whether the mental health services at OPP comply with the Constitution. In order to provide mental health services to prisoners, OPSO, at a minimum, shall:

1. Screening and Assessment

a. Develop and maintain comprehensive policies and procedures for appropriate screening and assessment of prisoners with mental illness. These policies should
~----------incluaedefinmons of emergent, urgent, and routine mental heallli-'cn~e~e"d~s,-a-s-w-e'I~l------
as timeframes for the provision of services for each category of mental health needs.

b. Develop and implement an appropriate screening instrument that identifies mental health needs, and ensures timely access to a mental health professional when presenting symptoms require such care. The screening instrument should include the factors described in Appendix B. The screening instrument will be validated by a qualified professional approved by the Monitor within 180 days of the Effective Date and every 12 months thereafter, if necessary.

c. Ensure that all prisoners are screened by Qualified Medical Staff upon arrival to OPP, but no later than within eight hours, to identify a prisoner's risk for suicide or self-injurious behavior. No prisoner shall be held in isolation prior to an evaluation by medical staff.

d. Implement a triage policy that utilizes the screening and assessment procedures to ------------,ensure-that-prisoners-with-emergent-and-urgent-mental-health-neecis-are-priuritizedl- - - - - -
for services.

,-------- - - -

e. Develop and implement protocols, commensurate with the level of risk of suicide ---0~r~seIf~harm;-t6-ensuremat prisoners are protected-fromidentffiedriSll:Sfor
suicide or self-injurious behavior. The protocols shall also require that a Qualified Mental Health Professional perform a mental health assessment, based on the prisoner's risk.

f.

For prisoners with emergent or urgent mental health needs, search the prisoner

and monitor with constant supervision until the prisoner is transferred to a

Qualified Mental Health Professional for assessment.

g. Ensure that a Qualified Mental Health Professional conducts appropriate mental health assessments within the following periods from the initial screen or other identification of need:

- 20-

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 25 of 53

(1) 14 days, or sooner, if medically necessary, for prisoners with routine mental health needs;

(2) 48 hours, or sooner, if medically necessary, for prisoners with urgent mental health needs; and

(3) immediately, but no later than two hours, for prisoners with emergent mental health needs.

h. Ensure that a Qualified Mental Health Professional performs a mental health assessment no later than the next working day following any adverse triggering event (i.e., any suicide attempt, any suicide ideation, orany aggression to self resulting in serious injury).

1.

Ensure that a Qualified Mental Health Professional, as part of the prisoner's

interdisciplinary treatment team, maintains a risk profile for each prisoner on the

mental health case load based on the Assessment Factors identified in Appendix

B, and develops and implements a treatment plan to minimize the risk of harm to

each ofthese prisoners.

j.

Ensure adequate and timely treatment for prisoners, whose assessments reveal

mental illness andlor suicidal ideation, including timely and appropriate referrals

for specialty care and visits with Qualified Mental Health Professionals, as

clinically appropriate.

k. Ensure crisis services are available to manage psychiatric emergencies. Such services include licensed in-patient psychiatric care, when clinically appropriate.

1.

On an annual basis, assess the process for screening prisoners for mental health

c-----------~n"'e=eCls to Cletermme wlleilier pnsoners are 15emg appropriately iaentlfiectfo"'r"c"'ar""'e.------

Based on this assessment, OPSO shall recommend changes to the screening

system. The assessment and recommendations will be documented and provided

to the Monitor.

~--- ~ ---~~ ~--- ~------"'--=~

-----------~~--~--~----

2. Treatment

a. Review, revise, and supplement its existing policies in order to implement a policy for the delivery of mental health services that includes a continuum of services, provides for necessary and appropriate mental health staff, includes a treatment plan for prisoners with serious mental illness, and collects data and contains mechanisms sufficient to measure whether care is being provided in a manner consistent with the Constitution.

- 21 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 26 of 53

b. Ensure that treatment plans adequately address prisoners' serious mental health needs and that the treatment plans contain interventions specifically tailored to the prisoner's diagnoses and problems.

c. Provide group or individual therapy services by an appropriately licensed provider where necessary for prisoners with mental health needs.
d. Ensure that mental health evaluations that are done as part of the disciplinary process include recommendations based on the prisoner's mental health status.

e. Ensure that prisoners receive psychotropic medications in a timely manner and that prisoners have proper diagnoses and/or indications for each psychotropic
~____________________~m~e~d~i~ca~t~io~n~th=ey~r~ec~e~i~ve~.~____________________________________________________

f.

Ensure that psychotropic medications are administered in a clinically appropriate

mauner as to prevent misuse, overdose, theft, or violence related to the

medication.

g. Ensure that prescriptions for psychotropic medications are reviewed by a Qualified Mental Health Professional on a regular, timely basis and prisoners are properly monitored.

h. Ensure that standards are established for the frequency of review and associated charting of psychotropic medication monitoring, including monitoring for metabolic effects of second generation psychotropic medications.
3. Counseling
a. bpso shall develop and implement policies and procedures for prisoner
counseling in the areas of general mental health/therapy, sexual-abuse counseling, and alcohol and drug counsehng. 'IbIS should, at a mll1lmum, ii1C1ua'''e~s'''o=m'"'e,----='-----------­ provision for individual services.
b. Withi!1 J80 da)'s of the Effective Date, and Quarterly th()feafter, renort allnrisoner
counseling services to the Monitor, which should include:
(1) the number of prisoners who report having participated in general mental health/therapy counseling at OPP;
(2) the number of prisoners who report having participated in alcohol and drug counseling services at OPP;

(3) the number of prisoners who report having participated in sexual-abuse counseling at OPP; and

- 22-

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 27 of 53

(4) the number of cases with an appropriately licensed practitioner and related one-to-one counseling at OPP.

4. Suicide Prevention Training Program

a. OPSO shall ensure that all staff who supervise prisoners have the adequate Imowledge, skill, and ability to address the needs of prisoners at risk for suicide. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, OPSO shall review and revise its current suicide prevention training curriculum to include the following topics:

(I) suicide prevention policies and procedures (as revised consistent with this Agreement);

(2) analysis of facility environments and why they may contribute to suicidal behavior;

(3) potential predisposing factors to suicide;

(4) high-risk suicide periods;

(5) warning signs and symptoms of suicidal behavior;

(6) case studies ofrecent suicides and serious suicide attempts;

(7) mock demonstrations regarding the proper response to a suicide attempt;

(8) differentiating suicidal and self-injurious behavior; and

(9) the proper use of emergency equipment.

-'---------lb.

Ensure thahrtl correctionaI;-nredtca:l;<md mental health staff are ltained-untI""le~-----­ suicide screening instrument and the medical intake tool.

c. Ensure that multi-disciplinary in-service training is completed armually by all
------- - - -
correctional, medical, and mental health staff, to include training on updated policies, procedures, and techniques. The training will be reviewed and approved by the Monitor.

d. Ensure that staff are trained in observing prisoners on suicide watch and stepdown unit status.

e. Ensure that all staff that have contact with prisoners are certified in cardiopulmonary resuscitation ("CPR").

f. Ensure that an emergency response bag, which includes a first aid kit and emergency rescue tool, is in close proximity to all housing units. All staff that has

- 23 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 28 of 53

contact with prisoners shallimow the location of this emergency response bag and be trained to use its contents.

g. Randomly test five percent of relevant staff on an annual basis to determine their knowledge of suicide prevention policies. The testing instrument and policies shall be approved by the Monitor. The results of these assessments shall be evaluated to determine the need for changes in training practices. The review and conclusions will be documented and provided to the Monitor.

5. Suicide Precautions

a. OPSO shall implement a policy to ensure that prisoners at risk of self-harm are identified, protected, and treated in a manner consistent with the Constitution.

b. Ensure that suicide prevention procedures include provisions for constant direct supervision of current suicidal prisoners and close supervision of special needs prisoners with lower levels of risk (at a minimum, 15 minute checks). Correctional officers shall document their checks in a format that does not have pre-printed times.

c. Ensure that prisoners on suicide watch are immediately searched and monitored with constant direct supervision until a Qualified Mental Health Professional conducts a suicide risk assessment, determines the degree of risk, and specifies the appropriate degree of supervision.

d. Ensure that all prisoners discharged from suicide precautions receive a follow-up assessment within three to eight working days after discharge, as clinically appropriate, in accordance with a treatment plan developed by a Qualified Mental Health Care Professional. Upon discharge, the Qualified Mental Health Care Professional shall conduct a docnmented in-person assessment regarding the
~-----------c"'l·miCally appropriatefo[[ow-up mtervals.

e. Implement a step-down program providing clinically appropriate transition for ___ ._prisoners disc;ha,rged from suicideprecautions.

f.

Develop and implement policies and procedures for suicide precautions that set

forth the conditions of the watch, incorporating a requirement of an individualized

clinical determination of allowable clothing, property, and utensils. These

conditions shall be altered only on the written instruction of a Qualified Mental

Health Professional, except under emergency circumstances or when security

considerations require.

g. Ensure that cells designated by OPSO for housing suicidal prisoners are retrofitted to render them suicide-resistant (e.g., eliminating bed frames/holes, sprinkler heads, water faucet lips, and unshielded lighting or electrical sockets).

- 24-

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 29 of 53

h. Ensure that every suicide or serious suicide attempt is investigated by appropriate mental health and correctional staff, and that the results of the investigation are provided to the Sheriff and the Monitor.

i.

Direct observation orders for inmates placed on suicide watch shall be

individualized by the ordering clinician based upon the clinical needs of each

inmate, and shall not be more restrictive than is deemed necessary by the ordering

clinician to ensure the safety and well being of the inmate.

j.

Provide the Monitor a periodic report on suicide and self-harm at the Facility,

These periodic reports shall be provided to the monitor within four months ofthe

Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until termination of this

Agreement. The report will include the following:

(I) all suicides;

(2) all serious suicide or self-harm attempts; and

(3) all uses of restraints to respond to or prevent a suicide attempt.

Ie Assess the periodic report to determine whether prisoners are being appropriately
identified for risk of self-harm, protected, and treated, Based on this assessment, OPSO shall document recommended changes to policies and procedures and provide these to the Monitor.

6, Use of Restraints

a, OPSO shall prevent the unnecessary or excessive use of physical or chemical restraints on prisoners with mental illness,

15, Mamtam comprenenslve poliCies and procedures for ilie use of restiamts for prisoners with mental illness consistent with the Constitution,

.______.__ . __. _-"c'--'__ El1s\l1"eth.il!il[JpJ_oval1:Jy a Qualified Medical or Mental Health Professiona,,-l;'Cis;--_ _ received and documented prior to the use of restraints on prisoners living with
mental illness or requiring suicide precautions,

d, Ensure that restrained prisoners with mental illnesses are monitored at least every IS minutes by Custody Staff to assess their physical condition,

e, Ensure that Qualified Medical or Mental Health Staff document the use of restraints, including the basis for and duration of the use of restraints and the performance and results of welfare checks on restrained prisoners,

f.

Provide the Monitor a periodic report of restraint use at the Facility, These

periodic reports shall be provided to the monitor within four months of the

- 25 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 30 of 53
Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until termination of this Agreement. Each report shall include:
(1) A list of prisoners whom were restrained;
(2) A list of any self-injurious behavior observed or discovered while restrained; and
(3) A list of any prisoners whom were placed in restraints on three or more occasions in a thirty (30) day period or whom were kept in restraints for a period exceeding twenty-four (24) hours.
g. Assess the periodic report to determine whether restraints are being used appropriately on prisoners with mental illness. Based on this assessment, OPSO shall document recommended changes to policies and procedures and provide these to the Monitor.
7. Detoxification and Training
a. OPSO shall ensure that all staff who supervise prisoners have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to identifY and respond to detoxifYing prisoners. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, OPSO shall institute an annual in-service detoxification training program for Qualified Medical and Mental Health Staff and for correctional staff. The detoxification training program shall include:
(1) annual staff training on alcohol and drug abuse withdrawal;
(2) training of Qualified Medical and Mental Health Staff on treatment of alcohol and drug abuse conducted by the Chief Medical Officer or his or her delegate;
(3) oversight of the training of correctional staff, including booldng and housing unit oflicers, on the polIcIes and procedures of the detoxification unit, by the Chief Medical Officer or his or her delegate;
(4) training on drug and alcohol withdrawal by Qualified Medical and Mental
--rlealfli Staff;
(5) training of Qualified Medical and Mental Health Staff in providing prisoners with timely access to a Qualified Mental Health Professional, including psychiatrists, as clinically appropriate; and
(6) training of Qualified Medical and Mental Health Staff on the use and treatruent of withdrawals, where medically appropriate.
b. Provide medical screenings to determine the degree of risk for potentially lifethreatening withdrawal from alcohol, benzodiazepines, and other substances, in accordance with Appendix B.
-26 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 31 of 53

c. Ensure that the nursing staff complete assessments of prisoners in detoxification on an individualized schedule, ordered by a Qualified Medical or Mental Health Professional, as clinically appropriate, to include observations and vital signs, including blood pressure.

d. Annually, conduct a review of whether the detoxification training program has been effective in identifying concerns regarding policy, training, or the proper identification of and response to detoxifying prisoners. OPSO will document this review and provide its conclusions to the Monitor.

8. Medical and Mental Health Staffing

a. OPSO shall ensure that medical and mental health staffing is sufficient to provide adequate care for prisoners' serious medical and mental health needs, fulfill constitutional mandates and the terms of this Agreement, and allow for the adequate operation of the Facility, consistent with constitutional standards.

b. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, OPSO shall conduct a comprehensive staffing plan and/or analysis to determine the medical and mental health staffing levels necessary to provide adequate care for prisoners' mental health needs and to carry out the requirements of this Agreement. Upon completion of the staffing plan and/or analysis, OPSO shall provide its findings to the Monitor, SPLC, and DOJ for review. The Monitor, SPLC, and DOJ will have 60 days to raise any objections and recommend revisions to the staffing plan.

9. Risk Management

a. OPSO shall develop, implement, and maintain a system to ensure that trends and

incidents involving avoidable suicides and self-injurious behavior are identified

and corrected in a timely manner. Within 90 days ofthe Effective Date, OPSO -------------"snaltclevelop ana implement a risk management system tnatillenttfies levelsof~-----­

risk for suicide and self-injurious behavior and requires intervention at the

individual and system levels to prevent or minimize harm to prisoners, based on

___th_e triggers and thresholds set forth in Appendix B.
----------

___________

b. The risk management system shall include the following processes to supplement the mental health screening and assessment processes: incident reporting, data collection, and data aggregation to capture sufficient information to formulate a reliable risk assessment at the individual and system levels; identification of atrisk prisoners in need of clinical treatment or assessment by the Interdisciplinary Team or the Mental Health Committee; and development and implementation of interventions that minimize and prevent harm in response to identified patterns and trends.

c. OPSO shall develop and implement an Interdisciplinary Team, which utilizes intake screening, health assessment, and triggering event information for formulating treatment plans. The Interdisciplinary Team shall:

- 27-

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 32 of 53
(I) include the Medical and Nursing directors, one or more members of the psychiatry staff, counseling staff, social services staff, and security staff, and other members as clinical circumstances dictate;
(2) conduct interdisciplinary treatment rounds, on a weekly basis, during which targeted patients are reviewed based upon screening and assessment factors, as well as triggering events; and
(3) provide individualized treatment plans based, in part, on screening and assessment factors, to all mental health patients seen by various providers.
d. OPSO shall develop and implement a Mental Health Review Committee that will, on a monthly basis, review mental health statistics including, but not limited to, risk management triggers and trends at both the individual and system levels. The Mental Health Review Committee shall:
(I) include the Medical and Nursing Director, one or more members of the psychiatry staff and social services staff, the Health Services Administrator, the Warden of the facility housing the Acute Psychiatric Unit, and the Risk Manager.
(2) identify at-risk patients in need of mental health case management who may require intervention from and referral to the Interdisciplinary Team, the OPSO administration, or other providers.
(3) conduct department-wide analyses and validation of both the mental health and self-harm screening and assessment processes and tools, review the quality of screenings and assessments and the timeliness and appropriateness of care provided, and malce recommendations on changes
---------------ooanO'::'a·...,c"'o=rr""e=ctive actions;
(4) analyze individual and aggregate mental health data and identify trends _ __ ___ ____ _________!U1d triggers that indicate risk of hllffll~
(5) review data on mental health appointments, including the number of appointments and wait times before care is received; and
(6) review policies, training, and staffing and recommend changes, supplemental training, or corrective actions.
e. OPSO shall develop and implement a Quality Improvement and Morbidity and Mortality Review Committee that will review, on at least a quarterly basis, risk management triggers and trends and quality improvement reports in order to improve care on a Jail-wide basis.
- 28 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 33 of 53

(1) The Quality Improvement Committee shall include the Medical Director, the Director of Psychiatry, the Chief Deputy, the Risk Manager, and the Director of Training. The Quality Improvement Committee shall review and analyze activities and conclusions of the Mental Health Review Committee and pursue Jail-wide corrective actions.

(2) The Quality Improvement Committee shall:

1. monitor all risk management activities of the facilities through the review of risk data, identification of individual and systemic trends, and recommendation and monitored implementation of investigation or corrective action; and

ii. generate reports of risk data analyzed and corrective actions talcen.

(3) The Morbidity and Mortality Review Committee shall include one or more members of Jail operations, the medical department, the mental health department, related clinical disciplines, corrections, and the Risk Manager. The Morbidity and Mortality Review Committee shall:

i. review suicides and serious suicide attempts in a morbidity and mortality capacity;

ii. outline the factors involved in each case, including the individual circumstances, identification of predisposing factors, documentation, medical and security procedures and training, and perform a psychological autopsy and morbidity report;

iii. recommend changes to medical and security policies and procedures;

iv. develop a written plan, with a timetable, for corrective actions; and

___v_'. ensure a final mortality review report is completed within 30 days of a suicide or suicide attempt.

f.

OPSO shall review mortality and morbidity reports quarterly to determine

whether the risk management system is ensuring compliance with the terms of

this Agreement. OPSO shall malce recommendations regarding the risk

management system or other necessary changes in policy based on this review.

The review and recommendations will be documented and provided to the

Monitor.

- 29-

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 34 of 53

C. MEDICAL CARE

OPSO shall ensure constitutionally adequate treatment of prisoners' medical needs. OPSO shall prevent unnecessary risks to prisoners and ensure proper medication administration practices. OPSO shall assess on an aunual or more frequent basis whether the medical services at OPP comply with the Constitution. At a minimum, OPSO shall:

1. Quality Management of Medication Administration

a. Within 120 days ofthe Effective Date, ensure that medical and mental health staff are trained on proper medication administration practices, including appropriately labeling containers and contemporaneously recording medication administration;

b. Ensure that physicians provide a systematic review of the use of medication to ensure that each prisoner's prescribed regimen continues to be appropriate and effective for his or her condition;

c. Maintain medication administration protocols that provide adequate direction on how to take medications, describe the names of the medications, how frequently to take medications, and identify how prisoners taking such medications are monitored; and

d. Maintain medication administration protocols that prevent misuse, overdose,

theft, or violence related to medication.

.

2. Health Care Delivered
a. Provide the Monitor a periodic report on health care at the Facility. These periodic reports shall be provided to the Monitor within four months of the Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until termination of this
-:-----------~A~g=r7ee=m~en=t~.~Eacli report wnnncluae:

(1)
------------- - - - -
(2)

number of prisoners transferred to the emergency room for medical treiltment related to medication err-o-r-s;'----
number of prisoners taken to the infirmary for non-emergency treatment related to medication errors;

(3) number of prisoners prescribed psychotropic medications;

(4) number of prisoners prescribed "keep on person" medications; and

(5) occurrences of medication variances.

b. Review the periodic health care delivery reports to determine whether the medication administration protocols and requirements of this Agreement are

- 30-

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 35 of 53
followed. OPSO shall make recommendations regarding the medication administration process, or other necessary changes in policy, based on this review. The review and recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor.
3. Release and Transfer
a. OPSO shall notify Qualified Medical or Mental Health staff regarding the release of prisoners with serious medical and/or mental health needs from OPSO custody, as soon as such information is available.
b. When Qualified Medical or Mental Health staff are notified of the release of prisoners with serious medical andlor mental health needs from OPSO custody, OPSO shall provide these prisoners with at least a seven-day supply of appropriate prescription medication, unless a different amount is necessary and medically appropriate to serve as a bridge until prisoners can reasonably arrange for continuity of care in the community.
c. For all other prisoners with serious medical andlor mental health needs who are released from OPSO custody without advance notice, OPSO shall provide the prisoner a prescription for his or her medications, printed instructions regarding prescription medications, and resources indicating where prescriptions may be filled in the community.
d. For prisoners who are being transferred to another facility, OPSO shall prepare and send with a transferring prisoner, a transition summary detailing major health problems and listing current medications and dosages, as well as medication history while at the Facility. OPSO shall also supply sufficient medication for the period of transit for prisoners who are being transferred to another correctional facility or other institution, in the amount required by the receiving agency.
D. SANITATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
,________ Defendant shall ensure that prisoners are provided with constitutionally adeCJ.u.a..t..e.__________ sanitation and environmental conditions. To provide prisoners safe living conditions, OPSO, at a minimum, shall:
I. Sanitation and Environmental Conditions
a. OPSO shall provide oversight and supervision of routine cleaning of housing units, showers, and medical areas. Such oversight and supervision will include meaningful inspection processes and documentation, as well as establish routine cleaning requirements for toilets, showers, and housing units to be documented at least once a week but to occur more frequently.
- 31 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 36 of 53

b. Continue the preventive maintenance plan to respond to routine and emergency maintenance needs, including ensuring that showers, toilets, and sink units are adequately installed and maintained. Work orders will be submitted within 48 hours of identified deficiencies, or within 24 hours in the case of emergency maintenance needs.

c. Maintain adequate ventilation throughout OPSO facilities to ensure that prisoners receive adequate air flow and reasonable levels of heating and cooling. Maintenance staff shall review and assess compliance with this requirement, as necessary, but no less than twice annually.

d. Ensure adequate lighting in all prisoner housing units and prompt replacement
+-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--'a-on"'d'-'r-"epr~al"'·"_r_"o=_f.m.""a_l_fun=_cct~io"".ni.n"'g":-'Clighting fixtures in living areas within five day"'s,_ _ _ _ _ __
unless the item must be specially ordered.

e. Ensure adequate pest control throughout the housing units, including routine pest control spraying on at least a quarterly basis and additional spraying as needed.

f. Ensure that any prisoner or staff assigned to clean a biohazardous area is properly

trained in universal precautions, outfitted with protective materials, and properly

supervised.

.

g. Ensure the use of cleaning chemicals that sufficiently destroy the pathogens and organisms in biohazard spills.

h. Maintain an infection control plan that addresses contact, blood borne, and airborne hazards and infections. The plan shall include provisions for the identification, treatment, and control of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus ("MRSA") at the Facility.

2. EnvlronmentiiI Control

a. OPSO shall ensure that broken or missing electrical panels are repaired within 30 days of identified deficiencies, nnless the item needs to be sJlecially-,o~r.d..e~r_ce.d..._ _ __

b. Develop and implement a system for maintenance and timely repair of electrical panels, devices, and exposed electrical wires.

3. Food Service

a. OPSO shall ensure that food service staff, including prisoner staff, continues to receive in-service annual training in the areas of food safety, safe food handling procedures, and proper hygiene, to reduce the risk of food contall1ination and food-borne illnesses.

- 32-

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 37 of 53
b. Ensure that dishes and utensils, food preparation and storage areas, and vehicles and containers used to transport food are appropriately cleaned and sanitized on a daily basis.
c. Check and record on a daily basis the temperatures in the refrigerators, coolers, walk-in refrigerators, the dishwasher water, and all other kitchen equipment with a temperature monitor, to ensure proper maintenance of food service equipment.
4. Sanitation and Environmental Conditions Reporting
a. Provide the Monitor a periodic report on sanitation and environmental conditions in the Facility. These periodic reports shall be provided to the Monitor within four months of the Effective Date; and every six months thereafter until termination of this Agreement. The report will include:
(1) number and type of violations reported by health and sanitation inspectors;
(2) number and type of violations of state standards;
(3) number of prisoner grievances filed regarding the environmental conditions at the Facility;
(4) number of inoperative plumbing fixtures, light fixtures, HVAC systems, fire protection systems, and security systems that have not been repaired within 30 days of discovery;
(5) number of prisoner-occupied areas with significant vandalism, broken furnishings, or ~xcessive clutter;
(6) occurrences of insects and rodents in the housing units and dining halls; and
(7) occurrences of poor air circulation in housing units.
----------;------;-------c--;-~~---__c_c____.__c_~-----
b. Review the periodic sanitation and environmental conditions reports to determine whether the prisoner grievances and violations reported by health, sanitation, or state inspectors are addressed, ensuring that the requirements of this Agreement are met. OPSO shall make recommendations regarding the sanitation and environmental conditions, or other necessary changes in policy, based on this review. The review and recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor.
- 33 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 38 of 53
E. FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY
OPSO shall ensure that the Facility's emergency preparedness and fire and life safety equipment are consistent with constitutional standards. To protect prisoners from fires and related hazards, OPSO, at a minimum, shall:
1. Fire and Life Safety
a. Ensure that necessary fire and life safety equipment is properly maintained and inspected at least quarterly. These inspections must be documented.
b. Ensure that a qualified fire safety officer conducts a monthly inspection of the facilities for compliance with fire and life safety standards (e.g., fire escapes, sprinkler heads, smoke detectors, etc.).
c. Ensure that comprehensive fire drills are conducted every six months. OPSO shall document these drills, including start and stop times and the number and location of prisoners who were moved as part of the drills.
d. Provide competency-based training to staff on proper fire and emergency practices and procedures at least annually.
e. Within 120 days of the Effective Date, ensure that emergency keys are appropriately marked and identifiable by touch and consistently stored in a quickly accessible location, and that staff are adequately trained in use of the emergency keys.
2. Fire and Life Safety Reporting
a. Provide the Monitor a periodic report on fire and life safety conditions at the a ~-----------cF ciliry,Tnese periwic reports sli:alloe provldeal'01li:e Monitor witlIinfo""ur=--------
months of the Effective Date and every six months thereafter until termination of this Agreement. Each report shall include:
- - - : - - - . _ - - - - - -~-
(1) number and type of violations reported by fire and life safety inspectors;
(2) fire code violations during annual fire inspections; and
(3) occurrences of hazardous clutter in housing units that could lead to a fire.
b. Review the periodic fire and life safety reports to determine whether the violations reported by fire and life safety inspectors are addressed, ensuring the requirements of this Agreement are being met. OPSO shall malce recommendations regarding the fire and life safety conditions, or other necessary changes in policy, based on this review. The review and recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor.
- 34-

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 39 of 53
F. .LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE
1. Timely and Meaningful Access to Services
a. OPP shall ensure effective communication with, and provide timely and meaningful access to services at OPP to all prisoners at OPP, regardless of their national origin or limited ability to spealc, read, write, or understand English. To achieve this outcome, OPP shall:
(1) Develop and implement a comprehensive language assistance plan and policy that complies, at a minimum, with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
+-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-'!0"'-f~19L\6=4, as amended,/42 U.S.C. § 2000d et segj and other a1212I""i.c..a.."'b""le"----_ _ _ __ law;
(2) Ensure that all OPP personnel talce reasonable steps to provide timely, meaningful language assistance services to Limited English Proficient ("LEP") prisoners;
(3) At intake and classification, identify and assess demographic data, specifically including the number ofLEP individuals at OPP on a monthly basis, and the language(s) they spealc;
(4) Use collected demographic information to develop and implement hiring goals for bilingual staffthat meet the needs of the current monthly average population of LEP prisoners;
(5) Regularly assess the proficiency and qualifications of bilingual staff to become an OPP Authorized Interpreter ("OPPAI");
(6) Create and maintain an OPPAI list and provide that list to the classification and intalce staff; and
__m___Ensure_thaLwhile_aLQl'l',_LEP_pusoner1Lal'<;Ulot asked to sign or initial
documents in English without the benefit of a written translation from an OPPAL
2. Language Assistance Policies and Procedures
a. OPP shall develop and implement written policies, procedures and protocols for documenting, processing, and tracking of individuals held for up to 48 hours for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS");
b. Policies, procedures, and protocols for processing 48-hour holds for DHS will:
(1) Clearly delineate when a 48-hour hold is deemed to begin and end;
- 35 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 40 of 53

(2) Ensure that, if necessary, an OPPAI communicates verbally with the OPP prisoner about when the 48-hour period begins and is expected to end;
(3) Provide a mechanism for the prisoner's family member and attorney to be informed of the 48-hour hold time period, using, as needed, an OPPAI or telephonic interpretation service;
(4) Create an automated tracking method, not reliant on human memory or paper documentation, to trigger notification to DHS and to ensure that the 48-hour time period is not exceeded.
-,-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _(5) Ensure that telephone services have recorded instructions in English and Spanish;
(6) Ensure that signs providing instructions to OPP prisoners or their families are translated into Spanish and posted;
(7) Provide Spanish translations of vital documents that are subject to dissemination to OPP prisoners or their family members. Such vital documents include, but are not limited to:
1. grievance forms;
ii. sick call forms;
iii. OPP inmate handbooks;

iv. Prisoner Notifications (e.g., rule violations, transfers, and
~---------------~g~ri~e~VIDm~lc~e~t~espmmesTarrd

-----------
(8)

v. "Request for Services" forms.
Ensure that Spanish-speaking LEP pnsoners o15tain llie Spanisnlanguage translations of forms provided by DHS; and

(9) Provide its language assistance plan and related policies to all staff within 180 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement.

3. Language Assistance Training
a. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, OPP shall provide at least eight hours of LEP training to all corrections and medical and mental health staff who may regularly interact with LEP prisoners.

(1) LEP training to OPP staff shall include:

- 36 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 41 of 53
i. oPP's LEP plan and policies, and the requirements of Title VI and this Agreement;
11. how to access OPP-authorized, telephonic and in-person OPPAIs; and
iii. basic commands and statements in Spanish for OPP staff. (2) OPP shall translate the language assistance plan and policy into Spanish,
and other languages as appropriate, and post the English and translated versions in a public area of the OPP facilities, as well as online. (3) OPP shall malce its language assistance plan available to the public. 4. Bilingual Staff (1) OPP shall ensure that adequate bilingual staff are posted in housing units where DRS detainees and other LEP prisoners may be housed. (2) OPP shall ensure that an appropriate number of bilingual staff are available to translate or interpret for prisoners and other OPP staff. The appropriate number of bilingual staff will be determined based on a staffing assessment by OPP. G. YOUTHFUL PRISONERS Consistent with the Prison Rape Elimination Act of2003, 42,U.S.C. § 15601, et seq., and its implementation of regulations, a youthful prisoner shall not be placed in a housing unit in which the youthful prisoner will have sight, sound, or physical contact with any adult prisoner through use of a shared dayroom or other common space, shower area, or sleeping quarters. In areas outside of housing units, OPSO shall either: maintain sight and sound separation between youthful prisoners and adult prisoners, or provide direct staff supervision when youthful prisoners and adult prisoners have sight, sound, or physical contact. OPP shall ensure that youthful prisoners in protective custody status shall have no contact with, or access to or from, ~---------non,protecti¥e-custody-prisoners.-Ol'P-wilLde'lelop_policies_foLthe_prlLvlsion,-'oLLf_ _ __ developmentally appropriate mental health and programming services.
- 37-

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 42 of 53

V. FUNDING

A. The Court shall determine the initial funding needed to ensure constitutional conditions of confinement at OPP, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, and the source(s) responsible for providing that funding at an evidentiary hearing ("funding trial"). Defendant, third-party Defendant City of New Orleans ("City"), and Plaintiffs shall have the right to participate fully in the funding trial, including producing expert testimony and analysis regarding the cost of implementing this Agreement.

B. Defendant shall be responsible for implementation of this Agreement upon a definitive judgment with regard to initial funding for this Agreement.

C. Once the funding is determined pursuant to Parag!!lPh A, the funding amount thereafter may be adjusted on an annual basis to account for changes in the size of the prison population, inflation, or other operating costs. If Defendant and the City are unable to agree upon such adjustments to the armual budget, the Monitor will intervene and resolve the dispute. If the Monitor carmot resolve the dispute within 45 days, the dispute will be submitted to the district judge for resolution. Defendant, the City, and Plaintiffs agree to work in good faith to determine available cost-savings measures that may result from the ongoing implementation of this Agreement or otherwise.

D. Defendant will provide an armual budget for the expenditure of the funds for operation of OPP and an annual audited financial statement to the Monitor, the City, and Plaintiffs. The Monitor will assist in conducting oversight to ensure that funds for implementing . this Agreement are allocated to achieve compliance with this Agreement.
VI. THE NEW JAIL FACILITY

A. The Parties anticipate that Defendant will build a new jail facility or facilities that will replace or supplement the current facility located at 2800 Gravier Street, New Orleans,
--------be>uisiana:-'Fhis--AgTeemenh:haH-appl-y-to-an-y-new-jaiHaeilityc-.- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

B.
.._ - _ . _ - - -

Defendant shall obtain the services of a qualified professional to evaluate, design, plan,

oversee, and implement the construction of any new facility. At each major stage ofthe

--facility construction, DeTendant sha:llproviae1lie Monitor willi copies ofaesign

----

documents.

C. Defendant shall consult with a qualified corrections expert as to the required services and staffing levels needed for any replacement facility. OPSO shall complete a staffing study to ensure that any new facility is adequately staffed to provide prisoners with reasonable safety.

D. Defendant will ensure that the new jail facility will be built in accordance with: (I) the American Correctional Association's standards in effect at the time of construction; (2) the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, including changes made by the ADA Amendments of2008 (P.L. 110-325) and 47 U.S.C.

- 38 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 43 of 53

§§ 225-661, and the regulations thereunder; and (3) all applicable fire codes and regulations.

VII. COMPLIANCE AND OUALITY IMPROVEMENT

A. Within 120 days of the Effective Date, OPSO shall revise and/or develop its policies, procedures, protocols, training curricula, and practices to ensure that they are consistent with, incorporate, address, and implement all provisions of this Agreement. OPSO shall revise and/or develop, as necessary, other written documents, such as screening tools, logs, handbooks, manuals, and forms, to effectuate the provisions of this Agreement. OPSO shall send pertinent newly-drafted and revised policies and procedures to the Monitor as they are promulgated. The Monitor will provide cormnents on the policies to OPSO, SPLC, and DOJ within 30 days. OPSO, SPLC, and DOJ may provide comments on the Monitor's comments within 15 days. At that point, the Monitor will consider the Parties' comments, mediate any disputes, and approve the policies with any changes within 30 days. If either party disagrees with the Monitor, they may bring the dispute to the Court. OPSO shall provide initial and in-service training to all Facility staff with respect to newly implemented or revised policies and procedures. OPSO shall document employee review and training in new or revised policies and procedures.

H. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, Defendant shall develop and implement written quality improvement policies and procedures adequate to identify serious deficiencies in protection from harm, prisoner suicide prevention, detoxification, mental health care, environmental health, and fire and life safety in order to assess and ensure compliance with the terms of this Agreement on an ongoing basis. Within 90 days after identifying serious deficiencies, OPSO shall develop and implement policies and procedures to address problems that are uncovered during the course of quality improvement activities. These policies and procedures shall include the development and implementation of corrective action plans, as necessary, within 30 days of each biannual review.

-,-----~I.
_______

The-Parties agree tlurrtJPS{)-wtU-hire and retain, or reassign a current C>PS0--en::IJY11no"y"'ee,.-------for the duration of this Agreement, to serve as a full-time OPSO Compliance Coordinator. The Compliance Coordinator will serve as a liaison between the Parties and the Monitor and will assist with OPSO's complianoe with this Agreement. At a minimum, the Compliance Coordinator will: coordinate OPSO's compliance and implementation activities; facilitate the provision of data, documents, materials, and access to OPSO's personnel to the Monitor, SPLC, DOJ, and the public, as needed; ensure that all documents and records are maintained as provided in this Agreement; and assist in assigning compliance tasks to OPSO personnel, as directed by the Sheriff or his or her designee. The Compliance Coordinator will take primary responsibility for collecting information the Monitor requires to carry out the duties assigned to the Monitor.

J.

On a bi-annual basis, OPSO will provide the public with a self-assessment in which areas

of significant improvement or areas still undergoing improvement are presented either

through use of the OPSO website or through issuance of a public statement or report.

- 39 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 44 of 53
VIII. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND RIGHT OF ACCESS
A. OPSO shall submit periodic compliance reports to the Monitor. These periodic reports shall be provided to the Monitor within four months from the date of a definitive judgment on funding; and every six months thereafter until termination of this Agreement. Each compliance report shall describe the actions Defendant has taken during the reporting period to implement this Agreement and shall make specific reference to the Agreement provisions being implemented. The report shall also summarize audits and continuous improvement and quality assurance activities, and contain findings and recommendations that would be used to track and trend data compiled at the Facility. The report shall also capture data that is tracked and monitored under the reporting provisions of the following provisions: Use of Force; Suicide Prevention; Health Care Delivered; Sanitation and Environmental Conditions; and Fire and Life Safety.
B. OPSO shall, within 24 hours, notify the Monitor upon the death of any prisoner. The Monitor shall forward any such notifications to SPLC and DOJ upon receipt. OPSO shall forward to the Monitor incident reports and medical and/or mental health reports related to deaths, autopsies, and/or death summaries of prisoners, as well as all final SOD and lAD reports that involve prisoners. The Monitor shall forward any such reports to SPLC and DOJ upon receipt.
C. Defendant shall maintain sufficient records to document that the requirements of this Agreement are being properly implemented and shall make such records available to the . Monitor within seven days of request for inspection and copying. In addition, Defendant shall maintain and provide, upon request, all records or other documents to verify that they have taken the actions described in their compliance reports (e.g., census summaries, policies, procedures, protocols, training materials, investigations, incident reports, tier logs, or use of force reports).
D. SPLC, DOJ, and their attorneys, consultants, and agents, shall have unrestricted access to the Facility, prisoners, staff, and documents, as reasonably necessary to address issues
_ _--'af~fec:'ct..,ed by this A!Q:eement. SPLC and DOJ shall ])rovide at least seven day"-s'--cn,:,,o,-,t,,-,ic~e-,an=d_ _ _ __ disclose the names of each individual to participate in the visit, each individual's role, and the purpose of the visit. SPLC shall not have to provide seven days' notice for regular attorneys' visits.
E. Within 30 days of receipt of written questions from SPLC or DOJ concerning Defendant's compliance with the requirements of this Agreement, Defendant shall provide the requester with written answers and any requested documents.
IX. MONITORING
A. Monitor Selection: The Parties will jointly select a Monitor to oversee implementation of the Agreement. Should the monitor position become vacant and the Parties are unable to
- 40-

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 45 of 53
agree on a replacement, the Parties shall recommend candidates to the Court, and the Court will appoint the Monitor from the names submitted by the Parties. Neither party, nor any employee or agent of either party, shall have any supervisory authority over the Monitor's activities, reports, findings, or recommendations. Allocation of the cost for the Monitor's fees and expenses shall be determined by the Court. Should all the Parties agree that the Monitor is not fulfilling his or her duties in accordance with this Agreement, the Parties may petition the Court for the Monitor's immediate removal and replacement. One party may unilaterally petition the Court for the Monitor's removal for good cause, and the other Parties will have the opportunity to respond to the petition.
B. Good cause for the purposes of this Agreement shall mean, but not be limited to: gross neglect of duties; willful misconduct; inappropriate personal relationship with Defendant
+-_______----'o"'r-"an?y_--'o"'P=S~0_c.e.m...]JlQyee; conflicts of interest; or any criminal conduct during the
pendency of this Agreement.
C. Monitor Qualifications: The Monitor and his or her staff shall have appropriate experience and education or training related to the subject areas covered in this Agreement. The Parties reserve the right to object for good cause to any member of the Monitor's staff.
D. Monitor Access: The Monitor shall have full and complete access to the Facility, all Facility records, prisoners' medical and mental health records, staff, and prisoners. OPSO shall direct all employees to cooperate fully with the Monitor. All information obtained by the Monitor shall be maintained in a confidential manner.
E. Monitor Ex Parte Communications: The Monitor shall be permitted to initiate and receive ex parte communications with all Parties.
F. Monitor Distribution ofOPSO Documents, Reports, and Assessments: Within seven days of receipt, the Monitor shall distribute all OPSO assessments and reports to SPLC,
--------'u""'O;..,),--oan=dlhe-city. TlielVI:Oi1itor also slial1 proviUe any OPSO comphance-related-------documents within seven days to DOJ, SPLC, and the City upon request.
G"".~_'=L.i.m. =it"ations on Public Disclosures by the Monitor: Exceflt as reguired or authorized by the terms of this Agreement or the Parties acting together, the Monitor shall not make any public or press statements (at a conference or otherwise) or issue findings with regard to any act or omission of Defendant or Defendant's agents, representatives or employees, or disclose information provided to the Monitor pursuant to this Agreement. The Monitor shall not testify in any other litigation or proceeding with regard to any act or omission of Defendant or any of Defendant's agents, representatives, or employees related to this Agreement, nor testify regarding any matter or subject that he or she may have learned as a result of his or her performance under this Agreement, nor serve as a non-testifying expert regarding any matter or subj ect that he or she may have learned as a result of his or her performance under this Agreement. Unless such conflict is waived by all Parties, the Monitor shall not accept employment or provide consulting services that would present a conflict of interest with the Monitor's responsibilities under this Agreement, including
- 41 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 46 of 53

being retained (on a paid or unpaid basis) by any current or future litigant or claimant, or such litigant's or claimant's attorney, in connection with a claim or suit against Defendant, Defendant's departments, officers, agents, or employees. The Monitor is not a State/County or local agency or an agent thereof, and accordingly, the records maintained by the Monitor shall not be deemed public records subject to public inspection. Neither the Monitor nor any person or entity hired or otherwise retained by the Monitor to assist in furthering any provision of this Agreement, shall be liable for any claim, lawsuit, or demand arising out of the Monitor's performance pursuant to this Agreement. This provision does not apply to any proceeding before a court related to performance of contracts or subcontracts for monitoring this Agreement.

H. Monitor's Reports: The Monitor shall file with the Court and provide the Parties with ~_ _ _ _ _ _----,r."e"]lorts describing the ste]ls taken by Defendant to implement this Agreement and
evaluate the extent to which Defendant has complied with each substantive provision of the Agreement. The Monitor shall issue an initial report 120 days after the Effective Date, and then every 180 days thereafter. The reports shall be provided to the Parties in draft form for comment at least 14 days prior to their issuance. The Monitor shall consider the Parties' responses and malce appropriate changes, if any, before issuing the report. These reports shall be written with due regard for the privacy interests of individual prisoners and staff and the interest of Defendant in protecting against disclosure of information not permitted by this Agreement.

1.

Reports issued by the Monitor shall not be admissible against Defendant in any

proceeding other than a proceeding related to the enforcement of this Agreement initiated

and handled exclusively by Defendant, SPLC, or DOJ.

J.

Compliance Assessments: In the Monitor's report, the Monitor shall evaluate the status

of compliance for each relevant provision of the Agreement using the following

standards: (1) Substantial Compliance; (2) Partial Compliance, and (3) Non-compliance.

In order to assess compliance, the Monitor shall review a sufficient number of pertinent

documents to accurately assess current condItIons, mterview all necessary staff, a n d ' - - - - - - - -

interview a sufficient number of prisoners to accurately assess current conditions. The

Monitor shall be responsible for independently verifying representations from Defendant

L ________ _----'r"e,garding-Ilrogress toward com]lliance, and examining supporting documentation. Each

Monitor report shall describe the steps taken by each member of the monitoring team to

analyze conditions and assess compliance, including documents reviewed and individuals

interviewed, and the factual basis for each of the Monitor's findings.

K. Technical Assistance by the Monitor: The Monitor shall provide Defendant with technical assistance as requested by Defendant. Technical assistance should be reasonable and should not interfere with the Monitor's ability to assess compliance.

- 42-

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 47 of 53
X. ENFORCEMENT
A. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over the implementation of this Agreement at the existing OPP or any other facility used to replace or supplement OPP for all purposes.
B. During the period that the Agreement is in force, if the Monitor, SPLC, or DOJ determines that Defendant has not made material progress toward Substantial Compliance with a significant obligation under the Agreement, and such failure constitutes a violation of prisoners' constitutional rights, SPLC or DOJ may initiate contempt or enforcement proceedings against Defendant for an alleged failure to fulfill an obligation under Sections IV through X of this Agreement in Court.
C. Before taking judicial action to initiate contempt or other enforcement proceedings, SPLC or DOJ shall give Defendant written notice of its intent to initiate such proceedings, and the Parties shall engage in good-faith discussions to resolve the dispute and may petition the Court for a status conference to assist in resolution.
D. Defendant shall have 30 days from the date of such notice to cure the failure (or such additional time as is reasonable due to the nature of the issue and agreed upon by the Parties) and provide the complaining party with sufficient proof of its cure. At the end of the 30-day period (or such additional time as is reasonable due to the nature of the issue and agreed upon by the Parties), in the event that the complaining party determines that the failure has not been cured, that party may initiate contempt proceedings without further notice. The Parties commit to work in good faith with Defendant to avoid enforcement actions.
E. In case of an emergency posing an immediate threat to the health or safety of any prisoner or staff member at OPP, however, DOJ or SPLC may omit the notice and cure requirements herein and seek enforcement of the Agreement.
XI. CONSTRUCTlON-;-IIVlPtEMENTATION-;-AN1JTERMlNATION
A. Defendant shall implement all reforms, as designated within the provisions of this _ _ _ _----'Ac=grcce=ement, that are necessary to effectuate this Agreement. The implementation of this
Agreement will begin immediately upon the Effective Date.
B. Except where otherwise agreed to under a specific provision of this Agreement, Defendant shall implement all provisions of this Agreement within 180 days of the Effective Date.
C. This Agreement shall terminate when Defendant has achieved Substantial Compliance with each provision of the Agreement and has maintained Substantial Compliance with the Agreement for a period oftwo years.
D. If any unforeseen circumstance occurs that causes a failure to timely carry out any requirements of this Agreement, Defendant shall notify DOJ and SPLC in writing within
- 43 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 48 of 53
seven days after Defendant becomes aware of the unforeseen circumstance and its impact on the Defendant's ability to perform under the Agreement. The notice shall describe the cause of the failure to perform and the measures talcen to prevent or minimize the failure. Defendant shall implement all reasonable measures to avoid or minimize any such failure.
E. This Agreement shall constitute the entire integrated Agreement of the Parties. No prior or contemporaneous communications, oral or written, will be relevant or admissible for purposes of determining the meaning of any provisions herein, in this litigation, or in any other proceeding.
F. The Agreement shall be applicable to, and binding upon, all Parties, their officers, agents, ~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _e""m,,-,poolo~y.ees, assigns, and their successors in office.
G. Failure by any party to enforce this entire Agreement or any provision thereof with respect to any deadline or any other provision herein, shall not be construed as a waiver of the party's right to enforce other deadlines or provisions of this Agreement.
H. If any provision of this Agreement is declared invalid for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction; said finding shall not affect the remaining provisions of this Agreement.
XII. STIPULATION PURSUANT TO THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT, 18 U.S.C. § 3626
The Parties stipulate that this Agreement complies in all respects with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). The Parties further stipulate and agree and the Court finds that the prospective relief in this Agreement is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violations of federal rights as alleged by Plaintiffs in the Complaints, is the least intrusive means necessary to correct these violations, and will not have an adverse impact on ~-----=p=u5Iic safety or the operation of a crimiillitJusnce system. Accordingly, tl:IePa:rt';-'ie~s~a~g~re=e~an".,-,ld-----­ represent that the Agreement complies in all respects with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). Any admission made for purposes of this Agreement is not admissible if presented by Third Parties in another ]Jroceeding.
Hello This is a Test
So ORDERED this _ _6th_ _ day of _ _-J-un-e - - . , 2013
-44 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 49 of 53
I

. . ..

........ _,.... ..• .... ••• ".•.•.• _ .•,',," .... "" ....... " ,._......_ .. .",.,,".J~ , _" ._.'.. • "•._ •••••• ,,_ ........, .
. .....
.: :::
€IlL'VIA. 1,POMl:NGtJIi.Z
'l'rtal.A:~.u;e¥iJ
. U,S.l:l~at\I'll;lIIlt·Q:F}uatlo~ .
CiV'll:tU.ghts nM/lt(i111SJ)eol~1 L1t1satlon. S:~~tl'OfI :950 P~!ll1IJ¥lYal~ill AY~~NW WallhlngWl.l, D;C. ,20$$0'
(2a2)3'(j~~9 !1Ol'ey..$i\llt1~l:~®t'lsdqj;Ma"

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 50 of 53

··W···'~"'" , ,,' ,

. . . . , , " - ",

•

T it'

,,'

. ", ""

"

_,

.I r

i:M<r":'-' M~ A, ~U- N" N.." ..•.. '.",-",

Otl"'~l,~ l?iltll!b.Shol'tU

. F, WEEKSlr
l'lUI1iWli\Nll" M.ATtB:rrWS
BLAKH J. ARCtJ'Rl
'USl,'y, Wl;)u).a ~ MIi~j!i .fiJ?LC
181.$ POllillNS $t~\!t, $:I;t!w.'l.~;~Q New Od~li!"~i t,A70 112 (504) ~·92'4MO

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 51 of 53

APPENOIXA Criteria that Trigger Referral for Investigation

Trigger Events Occurring in Opp
!

Thresholds Reached at OPP

1. Existence of resulting injuries that are extensive or serious

1. Two or more use of force incidents or complaints in a 3O-day period.

2. Existence of resulting injuries
involving fractures or head trauma

2. Imnate death resulting from a use of
force

,

3. Existence of resulting injuries that require treatment at outside hospitals

3. Officer arrested for suspected misconduct related to a use of force

4. Reports of events by staff and imnates that are materially inconsistent

5. Failure to report or report accurately the use of force

6. Retaliation against an inmate or other
staff member for reporting the use of excessive or inappropriate force

7. Interfered or failed to cooperate with an
investigation regarding a use of force

8. Sexual conduct with an imnate
,

- 47 -

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 52 of 53

I

i

I

APPENDIX B

Screening and Assessment Factors, Triggers, and ThresJ:lolds

Screening Factors

I

I

""~m~"rn

I
Trigger Events I
Occurring in 0reans Parish Prison

Thresholds Reached in Orleans Parish Prison

History, Ideation, and Observation
Intake screening shall inquire as to the following:
L Past suicidal ideation andlor attempts 2. Current suicidal ideation, threat, or
plan 3. Prior mental health treattnent or
hospitalization 4. Recent significant loss - such as the
death of a family member or close friend 5. History of suicidal behavior by family members and close friends 6. Suicide risk during any prior confinement 7. Any observations ofthe transporting officer, court, transferring agency, or similar individuals, regarding the prisoner's potential suicidal risk

I

I

An~ ofthe fOllting:

1. I Suicide ris screening indicates moderate or high

risk

I

2. Any suicidf attempt in the past

3. Any suicidf ideations, with intent/plan within the

'~'"~ 4. Any co

d hallucinations to harm selfwithin

the past 30 days

5. Any comb' ation ofthe following:

a) Suicid ideations within the past year with or

, withorlt intent/plan

b) Suicidhl gestures (current andlor within past
year) I

c) One olj more of the following diagnoses:

i) Bipolar Disorder, Depressed

ii) :1ajor Depression With or Without

PFchotic Features

ill) Sdhizopbreuia

iv) SJhizoaffective Disorder
Ah v) y diagnosis within the Pervasive

Drvelopmental Disorder Spectrnm

vi) Ally other factor(s) determined by the

IIferdiSCiplinary Team (IDT) as

CtntribUting to suicide risk (e.g., recent

10 s, family history of suicide, etc.)

6. Any history of self-injurious behavior (SIB)
resulting ill injury requiring medical attention

within the past year

I
L Any suicide attempt 2. Any suicide fdeation,
with or with?ut a plan 3. Any aggression to
selfresulting in major injury

L Any suicide 2. Any suicide attempt resulting in
outside medical treattnent 3. Two or more episodes of suicidal
ideation/attempts within 14 consecutive days 4. Four or more episodes of suicidal ideations! attempts within 30 consecutive days

- 48-

Case 2:12-cv-00859-LMA-ALC Document 466 Filed 06/06/13 Page 53 of 53

-.

-

- -- -

--_ . ._ - - - - - - - - - -

- .------ -

---"

Detoxification and Use of Illicit Substances
Intake screening shall inquire as to the following: I. Substance(s) or medications used 2. Amount 3. Time of last use 4. History of use
5. Any physical observations, such as
shaking, seizing, hallucinating, history of drug withdrawal symptoms, such as agitation, tremors, seizures, hallucinations, and D.To's (delirium tremeus)

I

I

, ;::'"T-re Anlfofthe foll9wing:
I. Immediate history of substance use disorder.
= '"'""""""""..,..

3. Any degre ofrisk for potentially life-threatening withdrawal from alcohol, benzodiazepines, opiates, op oid derivatives, and other substances.
4. I Vital Sigu~PPearing abnormal, when measuring
I body temp rature, pulse rate, blood pressure, and
respiratio .
5. CIWA-AR score of 10 or over.

I

I I. Any inciden~ of an individual testing

I. Two or more

positive for illicit substance (street
drug)USe~
2. Use of be diazepines (continuous

incidents of illicit use in 7 consecutive days

for more thaJi 60 days) in an individual 2. Four or more

with past history of substance use

incidents of illicit

disorder I 3. Any suicide attempt

use in 30 consecutive days

4. Any SuiCid1 ideation, with or without

a plan

5. Any aggression to selfresulting in

major injury

- 49-

 
 Report on Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
Review Panel on Prison Rape
April 2012

Review Panel on Prison Rape Report on Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
G. J. Mazza, Editor The Review Panel on Prison Rape’s Report on Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails is available online at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/reviewpanel.htm. Obtaining prior permission is not necessary for copying and distributing this report. To contact the Review Panel on Prison Rape, e-mail PREAReviewPanel@usdoj.gov or call (202) 307-0690. Review Panel on Prison Rape, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC (April 2012)

Review Panel on Prison Rape
Dr. Reginald A. Wilkinson is currently the president and chief executive officer of the Ohio College Access Network. He is the former executive director of the Business Alliance on Higher Education and the Economy. He worked with the State of Ohio Department of Rehabilitation since 1973, and prior to his retirement, he served as its director for sixteen years. Dr. Wilkinson is also a past president of the American Correctional Association (ACA) and the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA). He is a past chairperson of the National Institute of Corrections Advisory Board on which he still serves as a member. Dr. Wilkinson has authored numerous articles on a variety of correctional topics, and he has received awards from many organizations, including the National Governors Association, the ACA, the ASCA, the International Community Corrections Association, the National Association of Blacks in Criminal Justice, and the Volunteers of America. Dr. Wilkinson’s academic background includes a bachelor’s degree in political science and a master’s degree in higher education administration, both from The Ohio State University. He earned a doctorate in education from the University of Cincinnati.
Dr. Gary E. Christensen has worked within the correctional field for the past thirty-three years. He has researched extensively the premise of evidence-based or outcome-driven practice within a correctional milieu and initiated several innovative correctional programs, including the Dutchess County Jail Transition Program, which has been recognized nationally for significant recidivism reduction and the enhancement of general public safety. In addition to his responsibilities as jail administrator, Dr. Christensen also served in an advisory capacity to the executive and legislative branches of county government as chair of the Dutchess County Criminal Justice Council. He authored legislation to counter the effects of police racial profiling, and he coordinated master planning for the criminal justice system, implementing system-wide, evidence-based, criminal justice practice. For his many contributions to the field of corrections, Dr. Christensen has received recognition from numerous local and state entities. In 2007, he received national acclaim by being named the Jail Administrator of the Year by the American Jail Association. Since his retirement from public service, Dr. Christensen, as president of Corrections Partners, Inc., continues to work with leaders throughout the field of criminal justice to enhance the implementation of evidence-based practice. He has developed the Applied Correctional Transition Strategy, a comprehensive software suite designed to enhance all aspects of daily jail transition as well as to provide policymakers with essential information to ensure that allocated resources lead to the most productive, cost-efficient outcomes. Dr. Christensen continues to serve on several national advisory boards investigating innovative responses to pressing issues within corrections and to author publications for the field at large, including the Transition from Jail to the Community Implementation Toolkit. Dr. Christensen is a professor of management, leadership, and organizational psychology at the University of Phoenix, School of Advanced Studies; an adjunct professor at Marist College; and a qualified master police/peace instructor with the State of New York.
Anne Seymour has been a national crime victim advocate for twenty-seven years, specializing in corrections-based victim services. She has authored or contributed to many texts and curricula that address improving victims’ rights and services throughout criminal and juvenile justice processes, including the 2008 Victim Issues Related to Prison Rape and Sexual Assault curriculum sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice. She has received numerous honors for her work to benefit crime victims and the field of corrections, including the 1992 Outstanding Service to Victims of Crime Award from President George H.W. Bush and the 2007 U.S. Congressional Victims’ Rights Caucus Ed Stout Memorial Award for Outstanding Victim Advocacy.

Executive Summary

This Report presents the findings of the Review Panel on Prison Rape (Panel), resulting from the hearings it held in Washington, DC, in the spring and fall of 2011, based on the national survey that the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) published in August 2010, Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails, Reported by Inmates, 2008-09. Under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, the Panel is responsible for holding public hearings to which it invites, relying on data from the BJS, two correctional institutions with a low prevalence of sexual victimization and three institutions with a high prevalence of sexual victimization. The purpose of the hearings is to identify the common characteristics of (1) sexual predators and victims, (2) correctional institutions with a low prevalence of sexual victimization, and (3) correctional institutions with a high prevalence of sexual victimization.

In 2011, the Panel held two sets of hearings. In April of 2011, the hearings addressed federal and state prisons; in September of 2011, the hearings addressed local jails.

Hearings on Prisons

For the April 2011 hearings on prisons, the Panel invited the following five prisons to appear:

(1) Low Incidence: Elkton Federal Correctional Institution, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Elkton, Ohio.

(2) Low Incidence: Bridgeport Pre-Parole Transfer Facility, operated by Corrections Corporation of America for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ),
Bridgeport, Texas.

(3) High Incidence: James V. Allred Unit, TDCJ, Wichita Falls, Texas.

(4) High Incidence: Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women, Virginia Department of Corrections, Troy, Virginia.

(5) High Incidence: Elmira Correctional Facility, Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Elmira, New York.

Based on the prison hearings, the Panel identified the following common themes requiring careful consideration:

●

Recognizing Common Characteristics of Inmates Who are Vulnerable to Sexual Abuse

●

Understanding Common Differences between Male and Female Facilities

●

Understanding the Importance of Professional Language in Establishing a Safe

Environment

●

Recognizing the Vulnerability of Non-Heterosexual Inmates and Their Need for

Proper Treatment

●

Strengthening the Integrity of the Entire Complaint Process

●

Providing Effective Victim Services

●

Equipping Staff to Respond Effectively to Inmate Sexual Victimization

ii

The Panel identified the following topics for further study:

●

Why are Homosexuality and Prior Victimization Significant Indicators of Inmate

Victims of Sexual Abuse?

●

What are the Distinctive Needs of Female Facilities in Preventing Sexual

Victimization?

Hearings on Jails

For the September 2011 hearings on jails, the Panel invited the following five jails to appear:

(1) Low Incidence: Hinds County Work Center, Hinds County Sheriff’s Department, Raymond, Mississippi.

(2) Low Incidence: David L. Moss Criminal Justice Center, Tulsa County Sheriff’s Office, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

(3) High Incidence: Clallam County Corrections Facility, Clallam County Sheriff’s Office, Port Angeles, Washington.

(4) High Incidence: Pre-Trial Detention Center, Miami-Dade County Corrections and Rehabilitation Department, Miami, Florida.

(5) High Incidence: Orleans Parish Prison, Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Based on the jail hearings, the Panel identified the following common themes requiring careful consideration:

●

Acknowledging the Importance of Facility Design

●

Appreciating the Value of Outside Oversight

●

Noting the Reluctance to Prosecute Sexual Victimization Cases Involving Inmates

●

Recognizing the Resource Challenges that Jails Face

●

Employing Well-Trained, Professional Staff

The Panel identified the following topics for further study:

●

What are the Specific Challenges of Big-City and Rural Jails in Preventing Inmate

Sexual Victimization?

●

What are the Best Practices in Classifying and Housing LGBTQ Inmates?

●

What Would Encourage the Prosecution of Crimes Involving Inmate Sexual

Victimization?

●

What are the Policies and Practices that Contribute to a Jail Culture that Has Zero

Tolerance for Sexual Victimization?

●

What are the Best Practices for Monitoring Compliance with a Jail’s Zero-

Tolerance Policy for Sexual Victimization?

●

What are the Best Practices for Reliably Reporting Sexual Abuse in Jails?

iii

Table of Contents
I. Overview....................................................................................................................................................1
A. Background .......................................................................................................................................... 1
B. BJS Report ............................................................................................................................................ 2 C. Selection of Facilities for the Public Hearings...................................................................................... 3 II. Review of Facilities.................................................................................................................................. 5 A. Prisons................................................................................................................................................... 6
1. Low-Incidence Prisons .......................................................................................................... 6 a. FCI Elkton.......................................................................................................................6
i. Facility Description ............................................................................................ 6 ii. Facility’s Explanation for Reported Low Incidence of Sexual Victimization... 7 iii. Observations ................................................................................................... 11 b. Bridgeport ..................................................................................................................... 12 i. Facility Description .......................................................................................... 12 ii. Facility’s Explanation for Reported Low Incidence of Sexual Victimization. 13 iii. Observations ................................................................................................... 15 2. High-Incidence Prisons ..................................................................................................... 16 a. Fluvanna........................................................................................................................ 16 i. Facility Description .......................................................................................... 16 ii. Facility’s Explanation for Reported High Incidence of Sexual Victimization 18 iii. Observations ................................................................................................... 22
(a) The Distinctive Dynamics of Women’s Prisons ............................... 22 (b) Onsite Visit ....................................................................................... 25 (c) Inmates and Trauma .......................................................................... 26 (d) Testimony from Former Inmate and Inmate Advocate ..................... 26 iv. Facility-Specific Recommendations ............................................................... 29 b. Allred ............................................................................................................................ 30 i. Facility Description .......................................................................................... 30 ii. Facility’s Explanation for Reported High Incidence of Sexual Victimization 32 iii. Observations ................................................................................................... 33 iv. Facility-Specific Recommendations ............................................................... 37 c. Elmira............................................................................................................................ 38 i. Facility Description .......................................................................................... 38
iv

ii. Facility Explanation for Reported High Incidence of Sexual Victimization ... 40 iii. Observations ................................................................................................... 41 iv. Facility-Specific Recommendations ............................................................... 46 3. Common Themes ................................................................................................................ 47 a. Recognizing Common Characteristics of Inmates Who are Vulnerable to Sexual Abuse ................................................................................................................................ 47 b. Understanding Common Differences between Male and Female Facilities ................. 47 c. Understanding the Importance of Professional Language in Establishing a Safe Environment...................................................................................................................... 48 d. Recognizing the Vulnerability of Non-Heterosexual Inmates and Their Need for Proper Treatment .......................................................................................................................... 48 e. Strengthening the Integrity of the Entire Complaint Process........................................ 49 f. Providing Effective Victim Services ............................................................................. 50 g. Equipping Staff to Respond Effectively to Inmate Sexual Victimization .................... 50 4. Topics for Further Study ..................................................................................................... 50 a. Why are Homosexuality and Prior Victimization Significant Indicators of Inmate Victims of Sexual Abuse?................................................................................................. 50 b. What are the Distinctive Needs of Female Facilities in Preventing Sexual Victimization?................................................................................................................... 51 B. Jails.. ................................................................................................................................................... 51 1. Low-Incidence Jails............................................................................................................. 51 a. Hinds County ................................................................................................................ 51 i. Facility Description .......................................................................................... 51 ii. Facility’s Explanation for Reported Low Incidence of Sexual Victimization. 52 iii. Observations ................................................................................................... 53 b. The Moss Center ........................................................................................................... 54 i. Facility Description .......................................................................................... 54 ii. Facility’s Explanation for Reported Low Incidence of Sexual Victimization. 56 iii. Observations ................................................................................................... 57 2. High-Incidence Jails ............................................................................................................ 58 a. Clallam County ............................................................................................................. 58 i. Facility Description .......................................................................................... 58 ii. Facility’s Explanation for Reported High Incidence of Sexual Victimization 59 iii. Observations ................................................................................................... 61
v

iv. Facility-Specific Recommendations ............................................................... 61 b. Miami-Dade PTDC ....................................................................................................... 62
i. Facility Description .......................................................................................... 62 ii. Facility’s Explanation for Reported High Incidence of Sexual Victimization 64 iii. Observations ................................................................................................... 67 iv. Facility-Specific Recommendations ............................................................... 68 c. OPP ............................................................................................................................... 68 i. Facility Description .......................................................................................... 68 ii. Facility’s Explanation of Reported High Incidence of Sexual Victimization . 71 iii. Observations ................................................................................................... 73
(a) Testimony of Civil Rights Attorney .................................................. 74 (b) Statement of Former Inmate.............................................................. 76 (c) OPP’s Response to the Former Inmate’s Testimony......................... 78 (d) Testimony of Youth Advocate .......................................................... 80 iv. Facility-Specific Recommendations ............................................................... 82 3. Common Themes ................................................................................................................ 84 a. Acknowledging the Importance of Facility Design ...................................................... 84 b. Appreciating the Value of Outside Oversight............................................................... 84 c. Noting the Reluctance to Prosecute Sexual Victimization Cases Involving Inmates ... 85 d. Recognizing the Resource Challenges that Jails Face .................................................. 85 e. Employing Well-Trained, Professional Staff ................................................................ 85 4. Topics for Further Study ..................................................................................................... 86 a. What are the Specific Challenges of Big-City and Rural Jails in Preventing Inmate Sexual Victimization? ....................................................................................................... 86 b. What are the Best Practices in Classifying and Housing LGBTQ Inmates? ................ 86 c. What Would Encourage the Prosecution of Crimes Involving Inmate Sexual Victimization?................................................................................................................... 86 d. What are the Policies and Practices that Contribute to a Jail Culture that Has Zero Tolerance for Sexual Victimization? ................................................................................ 86 e. What are the Best Practices for Monitoring Compliance with a Jail’s Zero-Tolerance Policy for Sexual Victimization? ...................................................................................... 87 f. What are the Best Practices for Reliably Reporting Sexual Abuse in Jails? ................. 87 III. Conclusion.............. ....................................................................................................................... 87
vi

Appendices

Appendix A

Contact Letters and Data Requests to Selected Facilities

Appendix B

Chart Indicating Strengths and Weaknesses of Each Facility

Appendix C

Charts Summarizing Facility Investigations of Inmate-on-Inmate and Staff-on-Inmate Sexual Assaults

Appendix D

Memorandum from D. Scott Dodrill, Assistant Director, Correctional Program Division, Bureau of Prisons, to Chief Executive Officers (Oct. 12, 2011).

As the appendices are lengthy, they are accessible only from the Panel’s website at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/reviewpanel.htm. Online readers may also access the appendices by clicking on the title for each appendix, which will then direct the reader to the corresponding document posted online.

vii

Review Panel on Prison Rape Report on Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
This Report presents the findings of the Review Panel on Prison Rape (Panel) related to the hearings it held in Washington, DC, in the spring and fall of 2011. Based on the national survey that the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) published in August 2010, Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails, Reported by Inmates, 2008-09,1 the Panel’s hearings focused on the experiences of selected correctional institutions that had either a high or low prevalence of inmate sexual victimization. The Panel’s goal in issuing this Report is to assist correctional practitioners by identifying common themes and making recommendations for further research that will lead to effective practices that prevent sexual victimization in prisons and jails.
I. Overview
A. Background
The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) of 20032 created the Panel and commissioned it to assist the BJS by holding public hearings based on data that the BJS collected on the incidence of sexual victimization in correctional institutions in the United States.3 According to PREA, the BJS is to survey state and federal prisons as well as other categories of correctional facilities that the Attorney General designates.4 Through BJS, the Attorney General identified jails as one of the categories of correctional institutions that merited a national survey under PREA. The purpose of the Panel’s hearings is to identify the common characteristics of (1) victims and perpetrators of prison rape, (2) prisons and prison systems with a low incidence of prison rape, and (3) prisons and prison systems with a high incidence of prison rape.5
In 2011, the Panel held two sets of hearings in Washington, DC.6 The first hearings, on April 26-27, 2011, addressed state and federal prisons; the second hearings, on September 15-16, 2011, addressed jails. At each of these hearings, the Panel requested the appearance of five correctional institutions, two representing facilities with the lowest incidence of sexual victimization and three representing the highest.7
PREA created both the Panel and the Commission on Prison Rape (Commission).8 In June of 2009, after issuing proposed institutional standards for reducing prison rape, the Commission
1 BJS, Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008-09 (Jan. 2010) (A. Beck et al.), available at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/svpjri0809.pdf [hereinafter BJS Report]. 2 42 U.S.C. §§ 15601-15609 (2006) (Pub. L. No. 108-79, 117 Stat. 972). 3 Id. § 15603(b). 4 Id. § 15603(c)(4). 5 Id. § 15603(b)(3)(A). 6 The members of the Panel in 2011 were Dr. Reginald A. Wilkinson, Chairperson; Dr. Gary E. Christensen; and Ms. Anne Seymour. The Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice provided the Panel with professional staffing and support services. OCR staff persons assisting the Panel in 2011 included Mr. George Mazza, Senior Counsel; Mr. Christopher Zubowicz, Attorney Advisor; Ms. Kimberly Scheckner, Attorney Advisor; Mr. Joseph Swiderski, Program Analyst; and Ms. Anna Offit, Law Clerk. 7 42 U.S.C. § 15603(b)(3)(A). 8 Id. § 15606(a).

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
disbanded.9 The process for issuing national standards is still moving forward at the Justice Department and the Panel anticipates that the standards may appear in the near future.10 The Panel’s work complements the work of the Commission in issuing national standards, but it is independent of it. Through its hearings, the Panel intends to assist both prison administrators and victim advocates by identifying administrative practices that either contribute to or prevent sexual victimization of individuals in custody.
B. BJS Report
The BJS Report analyzed data on sexual victimization in prisons and jails from October of 2008 until December 2009 based on computer-assisted self-interviews of 81,566 inmates, age eighteen or older, in 167 state and federal prisons and 286 jails in the United States.11 The survey of inmates is not a complete enumeration of all prison and jail inmates in the United States; rather, as PREA permits,12 it relies on sampling techniques that allow the BJS to add weights to the collected data to produce estimates at both the national and facility level.13 Following this methodology, the BJS was able to identify prisons and jails in the United States that have high rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization14 and staff sexual misconduct.15 The report was also able to identify prisons and jails with low rates of any type of sexual victimization.16
According to the estimates in the BJS Report, 4.4% of prison inmates and 3.1% of jail inmates experienced sexual victimization within a period of twelve months or since admission to a correctional facility, if the admission took place within less than twelve months.17 “Nationwide, these percentages suggest that approximately 88,500 adults held in prisons and jails at the time of the survey had been sexually victimized.”18
Approximately 2.1% of prison inmates and 1.5% of jail inmates reported inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, whereas approximately 2.8% of prison inmates and 2.0% of jail inmates reported staff sexual misconduct.19
In comparison to male inmates in prisons and jails, the BJS Report found that female inmates were more than twice as likely to report inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization.20
Reported sexual activity with facility staff involved 2.9% of male prisoners, 2.1% of male jail inmates, 2.1% of female prisoners, and 1.5% of female jail inmates.21
9 National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Report (June 2009), available at http://www.cybercemetery.unt.edu/archive/nprec/20090820154816/http://nprec.us/publication/. 10 National Standards To Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape, 76 Fed. Reg. 6248 (proposed Feb. 3, 2011) (to be codified at 28 C.F.R. pt. 115) [hereinafter Nat’l Standards]. 11 BJS Report 6. 12 42 U.S.C. § 15603(a)(1)(4). 13 BJS Report 6. 14 Id. 8 tbl.2. 15 Id. 9 tbl.3. 16 Id. 10 tbl.4. 17 Id. 5, 6. 18 Id. 5. 19 Id. 20 Id.
2

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
The BJS Report identified risk factors for both inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization.22 The rates of reported inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization were significantly higher for inmates who had the following characteristics:
● Being white or multi-racial,
● Having a college education,
● Having a sexual orientation other than heterosexual, and
● Experiencing sexual victimization prior to coming to the facility.23
The rates of reported staff sexual misconduct were lower among inmates who were white and twenty-five years old or older, whereas the rates were higher among inmates who had a college education and who experienced sexual victimization before coming to the facility.24
Among inmates reporting inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, 13% of male prisoners, 19% of male jail inmates, and 4% of female inmates in both prisons and jails said they were victimized within the first twenty-four hours of admission to a facility.25 Among inmates reporting staff-oninmate sexual victimization, 16% of male prisoners, 30% of male jail inmates, 5% of female prisoners, and 4% of female jail inmates said they were victimized within the first twenty-four hours of admission to a facility.26
Significantly, most perpetrators of staff sexual misconduct were female and most victims were male: among male victims of staff sexual misconduct, 69% of prisoners and 64% of jail inmates reported sexual activity with female staff.27
C. Selection of Facilities for the Public Hearings
Relying on the BJS Report, the Panel selected a total of ten correctional institutions to appear at public hearings in Washington, DC, in 2011.
For the April hearings on prisons, the Panel identified two institutions representing lowincidence facilities: (1) the Elkton Federal Correctional Institution (FCI Elkton), Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), in Elkton, Ohio, and (2) the Bridgeport Pre-Parole Transfer Facility (Bridgeport), operated by Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), in Bridgeport, Texas; and three institutions representing highincidence facilities: (1) the James V. Allred Unit (Allred), TDCJ, in Wichita Falls, Texas; (2) the Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women (Fluvanna), Virginia Department of Corrections
21 Id. 22 Id. 23 Id. 24 Id. 25 Id. 26 Id. 27 Id.
3

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
(VADOC), in Troy, Virginia; and (3) the Elmira Correctional Facility (Elmira), New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS),28 in Elmira, New York.
One of the factors influencing the Panel’s selection of facilities in 2011 was its interest in gathering more information on the experiences of women who have been the target of sexual victimization in prisons and jails and to understand the dynamics of correctional facilities that serve women. Accordingly, for the prison hearings, the Panel chose Fluvanna, a women’s facility that the BJS Report identified as having not only one of the highest rates of inmate-oninmate sexual victimization but also one of the highest rates of staff sexual misconduct.29 Seeking to learn from a female prison with a low incidence of sexual victimization, the Panel chose Bridgeport, which had no incidents of sexual victimization during the time period of the BJS survey.30
The Panel selected FCI Elkton based on its having a low incidence of any type of sexual victimization,31 and the Panel wanted at least one representative of a federal prison at the hearings.
The Panel chose Allred not only because the BJS Report identified it as having one of the highest rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization32 but also because the Panel had previously identified Allred, as well as other prisons in the TDCJ, as having a high rate of sexual victimization, and the Panel was interested in learning why the prison had not improved its performance despite having appeared at a prior hearing.33 The Panel chose Elmira based on its having the highest rate of male offenders reporting staff sexual misconduct that involved pressure.34
For the September hearings on jails, the Panel again identified two institutions representing lowincidence facilities: (1) the Hinds County Work Center (Hinds County),35 Hinds County Sheriff’s Department (HCSD), in Raymond, Mississippi, and (2) the David L. Moss Criminal Justice Center (Moss Center), Tulsa County Sheriff’s Office (TCSO), in Tulsa, Oklahoma; and three institutions representing high-incidence facilities: (1) the Clallam County Corrections Facility (Clallam County), Clallam County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO), in Port Angeles, Washington; (2) the Pre-Trial Detention Center (PTDC), Miami-Dade County Corrections and Rehabilitation Department (MDCR), in Miami, Florida; and (3) the Orleans Parish Prison (OPP), Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office (OPSO), in New Orleans, Louisiana.
28 In April of 2011, the New York State Department of Correctional Services merged with the New York State Division of Parole to become the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision or DOCCS. 29 BJS Report 8 tbl.2, 9 tbl.3. 30 Id. 10 tbl.4. 31 Id. 32 Id. 8 tbl.2. 33 See BJS, Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007, at 2 tbl.1 (Apr. 2008) available at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/svsfpri07.pdf [hereinafter BJS Report 2007]; Transcript of Record: Panel Hearing on Rape and Staff Sexual Misconduct in U.S. Prisons, E. Williams, 190 passim (Mar. 28, 2008), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs_mar08/080328_prea_hearing.txt. 34 BJS Report 9 tbl.3, 10. 35 Since the publication of the BJS Report, the name of the Hinds County Penal Farm has changed to the Hinds County Work Station. Id. 10 tbl.4, 11.
4

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
The Panel chose Hinds County and the Moss Center because the BJS Report identified each of them, in comparison to other surveyed jails, as having among the lowest rates of sexual victimization of any type.36
Consistent with its intent to highlight female facilities during the 2011 hearings, the Panel initially selected the South White Street Jail, a female facility associated with the OPP, which the BJS Report identified as having one of the highest rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization.37 Since the publication of the BJS Report, however, the OPSO closed the South White Street Jail, prompting the Panel to broaden its inquiry to the OPP as a whole.
Based on the survey results in the BJS Report, the Panel also chose Clallam County, which had a high rate of reported staff sexual misconduct,38 and the PTDC, which had a high rate of reported inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization.39
II. Review of Facilities
In reviewing the correctional facilities that the Panel invited to appear at its hearings in 2011, a Panel Member or one of its staff members visited each of the facilities, touring the buildings and grounds and meeting informally not only with facility representatives but also at times with inmates. The Panel also issued tailored Data Requests to both prisons and jails,40 and each facility provided a response.41 The Panel engaged the services of Creative Corrections, a private contractor, to summarize the strengths and weaknesses of each of the selected facilities.42 At the Panel’s request, Creative Corrections also produced a chart summarizing reported incidents of both inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization at the selected facilities.43
The Panel has organized this Report to correspond to its inquiry at the public hearings. The first half of the Report presents the prisons the Panel invited to the April 2011 hearings, treating first the low-incidence facilities and then the high-incidence facilities. Based on the data collected, the Panel offers facility-specific recommendations, identifies common themes, and proposes topics for further study. The second half of the Report presents the jails the Panel invited to the September 2011 hearings, again addressing first the low-incidence facilities before turning to the high-incidence facilities. With the focus on jails, the Panel also offers facility-specific recommendations, identifies common themes, and proposes topics for additional research.
36 Id. 10 tbl.4. 37 Id. 8 tbl.2. 38 Id. 9 tbl.3. 39 Id. 8 tbl.2. 40 App. A. 41 The responses to the Data Request are on file with the Panel. 42 App. B. 43 App. C.
5

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
A. Prisons
1. Low-Incidence Prisons
a. FCI Elkton
i. Facility Description
FCI Elkton, located in Elkton, Ohio, is a low-to-medium-security facility,44 which had a rated capacity in both January 2008 and January 2009 of 1536 male inmates.45 In January of 2008, the actual number of inmates at FCI Elkton was 1797.46 In calendar year 2008, 3045 inmates spent any time at FCI Elkton; the average length of stay was 539 days; and the longest stay of any inmate was 3501 days.47 In January of 2009, the actual number of inmates was 1925.48 In calendar year 2009, 2855 inmates spent any time at FCI Elkton; the average length of stay was 555 days; and the longest stay of any inmate was 3704 days.49
The ethnic and racial composition of the inmates in FCI Elkton in 2008 was 44.6% White, 54.1% African American, 13.9% Hispanic, 0.8% Asian or Pacific Islander, and 0.5% Alaska Native or American Indian.50 In 2009, the ethnic and racial composition of the inmates in FCI Elkton was 45.1% White, 53.6% African American, 1.7% Hispanic, 0.7% Asian or Pacific Islander, 0.5% Alaska Native or American Indian.51
FCI Elkton reported no suicides or attempted suicides in 2008.52 In 2009, there were no suicides, but there were two suicide attempts—neither was connected to sexual victimization.53
On January 1, 2008, FCI Elkton employed 149 correctional officers; the inmate-to-correctional officer ratio was 16.6 to 1.0; FCI Elkton employed 185 other correctional workers; the inmate-toother-correctional-worker ratio was 13.3 to 1.0; the total onboard staff was 334, with an inmateto-total-staff ratio of 7.4 to 1.0.54 On January 1, 2009, FCI Elkton employed 152 correctional officers; the inmate-to-correctional-officer ratio was 16.6 to 1.0; FCI Elkton employed 183 other correctional workers; the inmate-to-other-correctional-worker ratio was 13.8 to 1.0; the total onboard staff was 335, with an inmate-to-total-staff ratio of 7.5 to 1.0.55
44 Transcript of Record: Panel Hearings on Rape and Staff Sexual Misconduct in U.S. Prisons, H. Lappin, 279:7-8 (Apr. 26-27, 2011), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/transcript_04_2011.htm [hereinafter Tr.]. 45 FCI Elkton Resp. 9(a), 10(a) (on file with the Panel). 46 Id. 9(b). 47 Id. 9(f)-(h). 48 Id 10(b). 49 Id. 10(f)-(h). 50 Id. 11. In reporting national origin and racial data for inmates, FCI Elkton used the category of Asian and Pacific Islander rather than the two separate categories that the U.S. Census Bureau employs: (1) Asian and (2) Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders. FCI Elkton did not provide an explanation for the total exceeding 100%. 51 Id. 12. FCI Elkton did not provide an explanation for the total exceeding 100%. 52 Id. 13. 53 Id. 15, 16. 54 Id. 25. 55 Id.
6

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
In 2008 and 2009, FCI Elkton terminated no staff members for sexual misconduct.56 In 2009, FCI Elkton permitted one staff member to resign in a matter related to sexual misconduct.57 There was one instance in each of the calendar years 2008 and 2009 when a staff member received either discipline or a warning for sexual misconduct, but the investigations sustained neither charge.58
During calendar years 2008 and 2009, there were two investigations of staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct.59 One investigation found that the evidence did not substantiate the allegations; the other investigation concluded that the evidence did support the following charges: unprofessional conduct of a sexual nature, preferential treatment of an inmate, breach of security, introduction of contraband, and soliciting or accepting anything of value.60 Subsequently the staff member resigned.61 During the same time period there were three investigations of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization.62 In all three instances the investigations did not sustain the charges.63
ii. Facility’s Explanation for Reported Low Incidence of Sexual Victimization
In his written statement to the Panel, Director of BOP Harley G. Lappin testified that the BOP’s management approach is the basis for preventing sexual victimization in its facilities, including FCI Elkton.64 He noted in particular that BOP employs numerous oversight strategies, as well as an internal system of checks and balances, to ensure compliance with the applicable laws, regulations, policies, and procedures that exist to prevent sexual victimization of inmates.65 In addition, the BOP has a written policy that specifically addresses sexual abuse in its facilities.66 According to Mr. Lappin, for security, the BOP relies on a combination of approaches, including direct-management supervision, facility design, cameras and other enhanced technology, and the use of the unit-management concept.67 In addition, the BOP uses an inmate-classification system based on a variety of risk factors, which allows facilities to assign housing based on the needs of each inmate for security and targeted programming.68
Mr. Lappin noted that inmate participation in programming, which may include prison industries as well as vocational and educational training, is an important aspect of the operations of BOP
56 Id. 22(a). 57 Id. 22(b). 58 Id. 22(c). 59 App. C (FCI Elkton Staff-on-Inmate Assaults). 60 Id. 61 Id. (Incident 2). 62 Id. (FCI Elkton Inmate-on-Inmate Assaults). 63 Id. 64 Lappin Test. 2 (Apr. 26, 2011), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs_apr11/Lappin_Statement.pdf. Mr. Lappin’s testimony also appears in the Transcript of Record. See Tr., H. Lappin, 227:8-233:10. 65 Lappin Test. 2. 66 Id. (citing Sexually Abusive Behavior Prevention and Intervention Program, P5324.06 (Apr. 27, 2005)). 67 Id. 3. 68 Id.
7

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
facilities.69 Inmate programming plays an important role in reducing inmate idleness and the stresses associated with prison life.70
Mr. Lappin also testified, “Qualified and trained staff are essential for effective inmate management.”71 He stated, “All staff are expected to be vigilant and attentive to inmate accountability and security issues.”72
In regard to discouraging staff misconduct, Mr. Lappin testified that the BOP’s approach is multidimensional, which begins with employees clearly understanding BOP’s zero-tolerance policy and continues with staff training on the shared responsibility to report incidents of misconduct.73 BOP expects staff to report incidents of staff sexual misconduct to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG), which then refers the matter back to BOP’s independent Office of Internal Affairs.74 The OIG has a hotline available to the public for reporting employees of the Justice Department who have violated a person’s civil rights or civil liberties; this hotline is available to BOP inmates for reporting the sexual misconduct of BOP staff.75
Mr. Lappin said that the BOP also takes allegations of inmate-on-inmate sexual assaults seriously, referring all allegations to BOP staff.76 If the matter potentially involves a crime, Mr. Lappin explained, BOP staff will promptly refer the case to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).77
The BOP’s policy for preventing sexually abusive behavior, Mr. Lappin noted, contains the following elements: (1) fostering awareness of the BOP’s zero-tolerance policy, (2) following standardized procedures to detect and prevent sexually abusive behavior, (3) responding effectively to the various needs of victims, (4) intervening and promptly investigating reported sexually abusive behavior, and (5) disciplining and prosecuting perpetrators.78
Mr. Lappin observed, “Staff are required to assume all reports of victimization are credible, regardless of the source.”79 Mr. Lappin stressed that BOP staff needs to be mindful of inmates who are at risk, either as victims or predators; he stated that prevention of sexual abuse relies on following basic correctional practices, which include observing inmates’ interactions, communicating with inmates effectively, noting behavior changes, and monitoring the institutional environment.80
69 Id. 70 Id. 71 Id. 72 Id. 73 Id. 4. 74 Id. 75 Id. 5. 76 Id. 77 Id. 78 Id. 6. 79 Id. 80 Id.
8

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
Inmates learn about their rights and responsibilities in preventing sexually abusive behavior during orientation; they learn about prevention strategies, methods for reporting incidents, treatment, and the consequences for perpetrators.81 They also receive this information in written form.82
In elaborating on his prepared remarks, Mr. Lappin noted the importance at BOP of having separate oversight teams to keep individual facilities accountable:
We’re blessed in the Bureau of Prisons as large as we are that we can have a separate oversight group. So the warden, even though he’s practicing this [sexual-abuse prevention] policy every day, he also knows in the back of his mind that several times a year, a team of people are going to come in there and they’re going to look at the policy. They’re going to look at the incidents where there is a sexual, physical or verbal assault, or an escape or whatever, and somebody’s going to critique what occurred . . . [and] make some recommendations as to what you need to do to improve upon the adherence of that policy in the future.83
In his testimony before the Panel, Mr. John Shartle, Warden of the Federal Correctional Institution in Fairton, New Jersey, and former Warden of FCI Elkton, noted in particular the importance of creating a prison culture that treats seriously every allegation related to sexual victimization of an inmate.84 Mr. Shartle said, “Every allegation is taken extremely seriously. Whether you think this inmate is manipulative or not, that’s not your decision to make.”85 Mr. Shartle said that the key word in creating a prison culture that does not tolerate the sexual abuse of inmates is “buy-in” from staff members at every level of the organization:
[W]hat you need is buy-in, not just from the management staff and the executive staff, but from the correctional officer who is walking through the unit and just sort of senses that something is wrong or the case manager who’s talking to the inmate and they seem a little distracted and they have that sixth sense to sort of pursue that and find out if something is going on. And once they have that awareness that something is going on, again, the protocols kick in . . . it has been my experience, in my twenty-plus years of experience with the Bureau of Prisons, that I have not been witness to one case where somebody just said, “You know what, that was nothing.” When there’s even the slightest sense of it, it kicks in.86
In responding to questions from the Panel about the protocols FCI Elkton employs to respond to an allegation of sexual victimization, Mr. Kevin Schwinn, Chief of Intelligence for the Central Office of the BOP, stated that the procedures are similar regardless of whether the alleged assault involves another inmate or a staff member.87 When a staff member initially receives a report of sexual victimization, regardless of what form it may take, the notice triggers an institutional
81 Id. 8. 82 Id. 83 Tr., H. Lappin, 241:19-242:9. 84 Id., J. Shartle, 237:2-19. 85 Id. 237:14-16, 266:2-20. 86 Id. 237:21-238:14. 87 Id., K. Schwinn, 243:2-5.
9

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
response.88 The staff member notifies the operations lieutenant, the chief of correctional services, the local investigator, and the Special Investigative Support office, which then immediately launches an investigation.89 Also within minutes of a reported sexual incident, staff members notify the warden.90 The institution then reassigns the alleged victim to a safe area while the investigation proceeds.91 Departing from its past practices and in keeping with the recommendations of the Commission,92 the BOP advises wardens to consider thoughtfully the reassignment of alleged victims, to weigh other options other than automatically placing the alleged victim in segregation.93 Staff members collect as much evidence as possible at the scene in accordance with FBI procedures.94 The facility sends the alleged victim to the medical unit for an initial evaluation; once that is complete, the warden will authorize the inmate’s transfer to a local hospital for the administration of a rape kit.95 The facility maintains the rape kit as evidence in the event of future prosecution.96
Mr. Lappin noted that BOP investigators are already relying on the Commission’s work, using a PREA checklist in the investigative process.97 According to Mr. Lappin, having local PREA coordinators in facilities, along with coordinators in regional offices and at the central office, contributes to the BOP’s ability to audit the investigative process.98
Dr. Paul Clifford, Chief Psychologist at FCI Elkton, stated that following an alleged sexual assault, mental health workers receive notification as soon as possible so that they can make an immediate assessment of the effects of trauma on the alleged victim—this assessment takes place, in accordance with established policy, within twenty-four hours of the alleged incident.99 The psychological assessment includes an evaluation of the alleged victim’s suicide risk.100 Psychological services quickly identify the treatment needs of the alleged victim, ranging from immediate care to long-term follow up.101
If an alleged sexual assault comes to the attention of FCI Elkton staff a significant time after the alleged incident, staff members who learn of the allegation still immediately contact psychological services.102 In dealing with an incident that occurred after a lapse of time, the facility follows the same protocols it does in dealing with an alleged sexual assault that had just
88 Id. 243:6-8. 89 Id. 243:10-14. 90 Id. 251:17. 91 Id. 244:6-7. 92 Nat’l Standards, 76 Fed. Reg. at 6282 (§ 115.66). 93 Tr., H. Lappin, 260:15-261:7; see app. D (Memorandum from D. Scott Dodrill, Assistant Director, Correctional Program Division (CPD), BOP, to Chief Executive Officers (Oct. 12, 2011) (Inmate Sexual Abuse Follow-up) (citing Memorandum from D. Scott Dodrill, Assistant Director, CPD, BOP, to Chief Executive Officers (Oct. 16, 2009) and Sexual Abusive Behavior Prevention Intervention Program, P5324.06 (Apr. 27, 2005))). 94 Tr., K. Schwinn, 244:11-16. 95 Id. 245:2-7. 96 Id. 245:8-9. 97 Id., H. Lappin, 260:1-6. 98 Id. 260:7-14. 99 Id., P. Clifford, 247:3-19. 100 Id. 247:15. 101 Id. 247:16-19. 102 Id., K. Schwinn, 254:3-17.
10

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
taken place; the only difference is that investigators will be less able to collect physical evidence.103 Whether the lapse of time would make the administration of a rape kit unproductive is a question that the BOP defers to the FBI.104
Dr. Clifford testified that the low incidence of reported sexual victimization at FCI Elkton may be attributed to “culture and continuum,” meaning that the institutional environment is based on good correctional practices, which extend not only to recruiting and training staff but also to fostering professional behavior that may not be directly related to implementing PREA.105 According to Dr. Clifford, among those good correctional practices are the maintenance of professional boundaries between staff and inmates, which includes taking care to keep desks and bulletin boards free of inappropriate materials and avoiding abusive language in dealing with inmates.106 Dr. Clifford said that a proactive approach was key, noting that the phrase repairing “broken windows” captures this idea: when an institution tends to minor infractions, similar to fixing a broken window, it communicates to staff and inmates a commitment, along a continuum, to address larger, more serious issues.107
iii. Observations
In reviewing the testimony from administrators from FCI Elkton, its response to the Data Request, and the information that the Panel gathered through an onsite visit to the facility, the Panel would like to underscore three general principles that appear to have contributed to the low incidence of sexual victimization at the prison.
First, BOP has implemented managerial practices that promote facility oversight. The BOP has more than just a policy that addresses sexual victimization of inmates; it has put into place procedures that evaluate whether a facility has put the policy into practice. A review team periodically visits each facility to examine how it deals with allegations of sexual victimization and how the staff has responded. The BOP not only has PREA coordinators at the facility level, but it also has PREA coordinators at the regional and central-office levels to serve as a check and balance on the work of the facility coordinator. If there were a break-down in a facility’s response to incidents of sexual victimization, the BOP has put into place a system designed to identify the problem and correct it.
Second, the BOP takes seriously the issue of developing an institutional culture that prevents sexual victimization. This is apparent through a number of institutional practices, which include treating every allegation of sexual victimization as being important rather than dismissing some claims based on a prejudgment of the complainant’s credibility or motives, avoiding abusive language in interactions with inmates, cultivating in the staff an attentiveness to subtle warnings
103 Id. 104 Id., H. Lappin, 257:19-158:1. 105 Tr., P. Clifford, 262:2-15. 106 Id. 262:9-15, 262:17-263:5. 107 Id. 263:6-14. Although Dr. Clifford did not cite the work of George L. Kelling and James Q. Wilson in his testimony, he was referring to the broken-windows theory of community policing that they formulated. See George L. Kelling & James Q. Wilson, Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety, ATLANTIC MONTHLY, Mar. 1982 at 29-38, available at http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/03/broken-windows/4465/.
11

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
that may indicate sexually abuse behavior, and encouraging the staff at all organizational levels to buy in to the shared responsibility to identify and report sexual victimization.
Third, consistent with the draft PREA standards, the BOP’s policy to consider alternatives to administrative segregation in housing inmates alleging sexual victimization avoids a practice that has often resulted in punishing victims. Consequently, inmates may be more likely to report incidents of sexual victimization.
b. Bridgeport
i. Facility Description
Bridgeport, located in Bridgeport, Texas, is a minimum security female facility operated by the CCA under a contract with the TDCJ. The facility at its full rated capacity houses 200 inmates, and on January 1, 2008, and on January 1, 2009, the facility was at full capacity.108 The average length of stay for inmates at Bridgeport in calendar year 2008 was 190 days;109 the average length of stay in calendar year 2009 was 191 days.110 The longest length of stay of any inmate at Bridgeport in calendar year 2008 was 1761 days;111 the longest length of stay in calendar year 2009 was 1476 days.112 The total number of inmates who spent any time at Bridgeport in calendar year 2008 was 588,113 consisting of 289 Whites, 160 African Americans, 136 Hispanics, 1 Asian, and 1 Alaska Native or American Indian.114 The total number of inmates who spent any time at Bridgeport in 2009 was 565,115 consisting of 286 Whites, 141 African Americans, 136 Hispanics, 1 Asian, and 1 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.116
The total number of authorized staff positions at Bridgeport at full capacity on January 1, 2008, and on January 1, 2009, was sixty-one.117 On January 1, 2008, Bridgeport staffing consisted of fourteen custody staff members and three non-custody staff members.118 On January 1, 2009, Bridgeport staff consisted of fifteen custody staff members and five non-custody staff members.119 The ratio of custody staff members to offenders on January 1, 2008, and on January 1, 2009, was one to eleven.120
In calendar years 2008 and 2009, no Bridgeport inmates either attempted or committed suicide.121 There were also no allegations of sexual abuse of any type at Bridgeport in calendar years 2008 and 2009.122
108 Bridgeport Resp. 9(a)-(b), 10(a)-(b) (on file with the Panel). 109 Id. 9(g). 110 Id. 10(g). 111 Id. 9(h). 112 Id. 10(h). 113 Id. 9(f). 114 Id. 11. Bridgeport did not account for the racial and ethnic background of one inmate. 115 Id. 10(f). 116 Id. 12. 117 Id. 23(a), 24(a). 118 Id. 23(d)(i). 119 Id. 24(d)(i). 120 Id. 25(a), (e). 121 Id. 13(a)-(b), 15(a)-(b).
12

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
ii. Facility’s Explanation for Reported Low Incidence of Sexual Victimization
Mr. Steven Conry, who serves as the PREA coordinator for CCA, linked the low incidence of sexual victimization at Bridgeport to three broader strategies that the CCA has adopted to eliminate sexual abuse in its correctional facilities: (1) working on prevention, (2) exceeding contract requirements with government partners related to the current draft of the national PREA standards, and (3) improving policies and practices.123 Mr. Conry noted that CCA has taken a number of steps to prevent sexual victimization of inmates in its facilities. The CCA has appointed a corporate PREA committee, and each time the CCA learns about an allegation of sexual abuse at one of its facilities, the committee convenes within forty-eight hours of the incident and holds a conference call with administrators at the facility to discuss the incident and make sure that the facility is adhering to the CCA’s PREA policy in regard to the investigative process and the treatment of the alleged victim.124 The CCA has also worked to install at most of its facilities a digital platform for the telephone system that will alert a warden if an inmate calls a staff member’s home or mobile telephone.125 The CCA is conducting a PREA vulnerability assessment of all of its facilities nationwide; it has already completed an assessment of its female facilities and it is in the process of completing an assessment of its male facilities.126 The CCA is investing in recording systems, cameras, and signage to prevent sexual abuse at its facilities.127 Although it has not as yet been successful, the CCA is also sponsoring psychological research to develop a screening instrument for prospective employees that would identify individuals with predatory tendencies.128 The CCA has also retained independent outside groups to audit its facilities and to make recommendations on how it could improve its operations to prevent the sexual victimization of inmates.129
Ms. Mary Brandin, Warden of Bridgeport, testified that the hard work of her staff, combined with the support of the CCA and TDCJ, contributed to the low incidence of sexual victimization at her facility.130 She said that even though there is a sound program in place at Bridgeport, the biggest challenge is not to become complacent.131 She noted that it is important for administrators to guard against thinking that there are no problems on their units: “[t]o do so would mean that you are not looking at the situation with an open mind.”132 Warden Brandin volunteered that to be effective, prison officials have to be willing to be open to information from staff that she categorized as “hard to hear.”133
122 Id. 29(a). 123 Tr., S. Conry, 283:3-14. 124 Id. 284:6-22; see also id., M. Brandin, 303:1-13. 125 Id., S. Conry, 285:7-12. 126 Id. 285:12-19. 127 Id. 285:20-286:5. 128 Id. 286:21-287:6. 129 Id. 287:7-14. 130 Id., M. Brandin, 288:12-18. 131 Id. 288:19-289:3. 132 Id. 293:15-21. 133 Id. 293:21-294:3.
13

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
Warden Brandin testified that based on her prior experience working for almost twenty years in male facilities, she would characterize female correctional institutions as significantly different.134 She said that one has to be aware in working with a female population that “everything that they do is emotion-based . . . .”135 Consequently, Warden Brandin said that it is important to have programming that keeps the inmates busy and focused on what is important to them, which means having them keep in mind not only their upcoming release dates but also the lives they will lead beyond the release dates:
[W]hat we preach to them is who you are. It’s not so much what you are. You are an inmate, but it’s who you are. You are a mother, a sister, a daughter, a grandmother, and you need to focus on that and you need to better yourself on that.136
Warden Brandin said that in male facilities inmates may join groups that pose a security threat, whereas in female facilities the inmates tend to form family cliques.137 Bridgeport administrators have let inmates know that creating in-house surrogate families is an unacceptable way to obtain the attention and affection that many crave.138 Warden Brandin noted that one of the ways in which Bridgeport discourages family cliques is through programming that gives inmates unitwide recognition; one example of such programming is the production of a talent show.139 The intent of these programs is to boost an inmate’s sense of self-respect with the hope that there will be less need to seek one-on-one attention.140
Echoing the testimony of Mr. Shartle, the former warden at FCI Elkton, Warden Brandin observed that it was important to have staff members who are attentive to the needs of inmates:
It’s very important that your staff are able to recognize a change or a sway in behavior or attitude, and I think that we have excellent staff who have been able to recognize any type of immediate mood, physical/emotional/behavioral change and openly report . . . that to the administration and to their supervisors, and then from there, we pull in the offender and express to them our concern for their wellbeing.141
Warden Brandin said that Bridgeport had an excellent education system for both staff members and offenders so that both would know the consequences of violating the facility’s policies related to sexual misconduct.142 She also said that there is a great need to train new staff members who come to Bridgeport whose only prior experience was working in male facilities.143 Warden Brandin said that she will often have a one-on-one briefing with these new staff
134 Id. 313:16-21. 135 Id. 292:14-15. 136 Id. 294:17-22. 137 Id. 311:21-312:3. 138 Id. 312:3-14. 139 Id. 312:15-20, 313:1-4. 140 Id. 312:20-313:4. 141 Id. 292:18-293:4. 142 Id. 292:7-11. 143 Id. 314:6-11.
14

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
members to discuss their experience in working at a women’s facility, where, according to Warden Brandin, the inmates, in comparison with men, tend to be more emotional, self-involved, and unwilling to let an issue drop.144 She said that she will often sit down with the new staff members every two weeks to see how they are adjusting to the new environment.145
Warden Brandin said that she will also often counsel staff members to use the facility’s surveillance cameras to their advantage, instructing them to interact with inmates in view of the cameras so as to protect themselves from any possible future allegations of misconduct.146
One of the distinctive features of Bridgeport, contributing to its low incidence of sexual victimization, is its no-touch policy.147 Warden Brandin explained that Bridgeport does not allow any form of touching among inmates:
[T]here are no handshakes. There is no hugging. There is no patting on the back. There is no sitting there at the dayroom table with your hand on her knee. It is not acceptable and we approach it [as] a manner of professionalism. You’re here to go to school. You’re here to meet goals. You’re here to meet a certain parole presumptive date. You have a job to do. You do your job. We’ll do our job. If you don’t do so well in your job, then we will follow through with our job.148
Warden Brandin said that in one of her quarterly discussions with inmates, the topic was PREA and the prevention of sexual abuse.149 During the discussion, the inmates agreed that if she as the warden gave them an inch, they would take a mile; so when it comes to touching, having a clear boundary prevents any confusion about what is appropriate behavior.150 Warden Brandin said, “[I]t starts with a handshake. It starts with a hug. It starts with a hand on the knee, and . . . it progresses into something that could create a violation or is a violation.”151
iii. Observations
In reflecting on the testimony and the data response from Bridgeport, as well as the onsite visit, the Panel takes note of five broad issues that may relate to Bridgeport’s success in having a low incidence of inmate sexual victimization: (1) the culture of the women’s facility, (2) the relatively small size of the institution, (3) the rapport between the warden and her staff, (4) the select population and the effectiveness of incentives, and (5) the challenge of the no-touch policy.
Women’s prisons appear to have interpersonal dynamics that are significantly different than male facilities.152 To their credit, the warden and administration of Bridgeport are mindful of this
144 Id. 314:11-16. 145 Id. 314:17-315:3. 146 Id. 315:4-10. 147 Id. 308:19. 148 Id. 310:4-13. 149 Id. 310:14-21. 150 Id. 310:21-311:3. 151 Id. 311:5-9. 152 See infra Part II.A.2.a.iii.(a).
15

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
difference, which has far-reaching effects, from the training provided to staff to the daily interactions with inmates.
Given Bridgeport’s relatively small size, the Panel anticipates that other facilities may dismiss its success as difficult to replicate in prisons that may be ten or more times larger. Without in any way diminishing Bridgeport’s achievement—as few other facilities of the same size and security level were able to match its no-incident results, the Panel notes that prison size in itself may be a significant factor in reducing the incidence of inmate sexual victimization. This conclusion is consistent with the Panel’s previous report on juvenile justice facilities, in which it found a correlation between small facilities and reduced incidents of sexual victimization.153
Based on the onsite visit and the warden’s testimony, the Panel found that one of the distinguishing characteristics of Bridgeport was the rapport that the warden had with her staff. In addition to meeting with the staff regularly, she has one-on-one debriefings with new hires to guide them in adjusting to the unique dynamics of a women’s facility. To her credit, the warden is also open to listening to the staff, knowing that the most important information is often the most difficult to hear.
Bridgeport is undoubtedly unlike many other prisons in the BJS survey in that its inmates are screened for its programming based on their success at other state facilities and a release date within six months. Given that inmate misconduct risks a delayed release date as well as transfer back to another state facility, inmates have clear incentives to comply with the rules of the institution. While these particular dynamics might not be replicable in other institutions, the Panel notes that tailored incentives to discourage sexual impropriety may play a key role in controlling inmate behavior that contributes to sexual victimization.
Bridgeport’s no-touch policy invites further consideration. Although the Panel was at first inclined to view the policy as too restrictive, it is unaware of alternative approaches at other female facilities that have been able to match Bridgeport’s level of success in eliminating inmate sexual victimization.154 There is a need, however, for a careful study of Bridgeport’s “no-touch policy” to determine its correlation with reported reduced rates of inmate sexual victimization.
2. High-Incidence Prisons
a. Fluvanna
i. Facility Description
Fluvanna, located in Troy, Virginia, and operated by VADOC, is Virginia’s maximum-security prison for women.155 The number of inmates at Fluvanna at its full rated capacity on January 1,
153 Review Panel on Prison Rape, Report on Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Correctional Facilities 34-35 (Oct. 2010), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs/panel_report_101014.pdf [hereinafter Juvenile Justice Report]. 154 See infra Part II.A.2.a.iii.(a). 155 Tr., J. Jabe, 120:5-7.
16

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
2008, and on January 1, 2009, was 1257.156 The actual number of inmates housed at Fluvanna on January 1, 2008, was 1190.157 In calendar year 2008, the total number of inmates who spent any time at Fluvanna was 1568;158 the average length of stay was 30 months;159 and the longest stay of any inmate was 309.6 months.160 On January 1, 2009, the actual number of inmates housed at Fluvanna was 1212.161 In calendar year 2009, the total number of inmates who spent any time at Fluvanna was 1352;162 the average length of stay was 31.7 months;163 and the longest stay of any inmate was 217.6 months.164
In 2008, the racial and ethnic composition of the total inmate population at Fluvanna was 802 Whites, 750 African Americans, 8 Hispanics, 4 Asians, and 3 unknown.165 In 2009, the racial and ethnic composition of the total inmate population at Fluvanna was 695 Whites, 644 African Americans, 9 Hispanics, 2 Asians, and 2 unknown.166
On January 1, 2008, the total number of authorized positions at Fluvanna was 372 (318 filled and 54 vacant), which included 285 security staff (239 filled and 46 vacant) and 87 non-security staff (80 filled and 7 vacant).167 The actual staffing level on January 1, 2008, was 318 (238 sworn and 80 non-sworn).168 On January 1, 2009, the total number of authorized positions at Fluvanna was 372 (329 filled and 43 vacant), which included 285 security staff (247 filled and 38 vacant) and 87 non-security staff (83 filled and 4 vacant).169 The actual staffing level on January 1, 2009, was 329 (246 sworn and 83 non-sworn).170 On January 1, 2008, and on January 1, 2009, the staff-to-inmate ratio was one to five.171
In calendar years 2008 and 2009, Fluvanna did not designate a PREA coordinator.172
In 2008 and 2009, there were no suicides at Fluvanna, but in each year there were three suicide attempts.173 There was no evidence to connect the six suicide attempts to sexual victimization.174
In calendar years 2008 and 2009, there were nine inmate grievances alleging inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization.175 The charges included sexual assault and rape.176 Of the nine charges,
156 Fluvanna Resp. 9(a), 10(a) (on file with the Panel). 157 Id. 9(b). 158 Id. 9(f). 159 Id. 9(g). 160 Id. 9(h). 161 Id. 10(b). 162 Id. 10(f). 163 Id. 10(g). 164 Id. 10(h). 165 Id. 11. Fluvanna did not account for the racial and ethnic background of one inmate. 166 Id. 12. 167 Id. 23(a)-(c). 168 Id. 23(d)-(f). 169 Id. 24(a)-(b). 170 Id. 24(d)-(f). 171 Id. 24(d)-(f), 25(a). 172 Id. (noting that the institutional investigator coordinated PREA-related issues in the absence of a designated PREA coordinator). 173 Id. 13(a)-(b), 15(a)-(b). 174 Id. 14, 16.
17

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
five were not sustained; one investigation was inconclusive; one rape charge was sustained, resulting in the perpetrator receiving ten days in isolated confinement and referral to the Commonwealth’s Attorney for prosecution; in one charge involving unwanted touching, both inmates received discipline of ten days in isolated confinement; and in one charge against a fellow inmate for making sexual advances, the charge was sustained and the perpetrator received fifteen days of disciplinary segregation.177
In 2008 and 2009, there were six inmate grievances alleging staff-on-inmate sexual victimization.178 All of the charges alleged sexual assault.179 Of the six charges, all but one were not sustained, inconclusive, or unfounded.180 One grievance resulted in a finding of fraternization between a male staff member and a female inmate, but the more serious charge of carnal knowledge was not sustained.181
ii. Facility’s Explanation for Reported High Incidence of Sexual Victimization
In written testimony, Mr. Harold W. Clarke, Director of the VADOC, stated that the reported high incidence of staff-on-inmate sexual victimization that the BJS Report identified at Fluvanna should be understood in light of allegations that surfaced in 2007 involving the facility’s former chief of security.182 Ultimately, the chief of security stood trial in 2008 and was convicted of engaging in sexual acts with female offenders at Fluvanna.183 Mr. Clarke noted that VADOC investigated these incidents and the perpetrator was disciplined, terminated, and charged under Virginia law.184 Mr. Clarke observed, “Due to his high position in [Fluvanna’s] management, confidence in the leadership and management of the facility was lost. Therefore, when the surveys were completed the offenders based their responses on issues which occurred during 2007.”185
Mr. Clarke conceded that there were a number of factors that led to the former chief of security’s sexual misconduct, including the lack of supervision, the distance of the chief of security’s office from his supervisor’s office, the chief of security’s office having an unmonitored entrance, inadequate procedures for tracking the movement of inmates, the lack of strategically located surveillance cameras, the chief of security’s work schedule extending beyond business hours, his working behind closed doors, no protocols for male staff working alone with female offenders, a staff who feared retaliation for reporting the sexual misconduct of a supervisor, inadequate
175 App. C (Fluvanna Inmate-on-Inmate Assaults). 176 Id. 177 Id. 178 Id. (Fluvanna Staff-on-Inmate Assaults). 179 Id. 180 Id. 181 Id. (Incident 3). 182 As Mr. Clarke was unable to appear before the Panel, he provided a sworn, written response to questions that the Panel sent to him in writing. See Clarke Test. 1(a) (Apr. 18, 2011), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs_apr11/testimony_clarke.pdf. 183 Id. 184 Id. 185 Id.
18

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
training for staff, the dismissal of complaints from offenders, and poor communication at various levels within the organization.186
Mr. Clarke also testified that the following factors related to offenders may have contributed to the high incidence of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization that the BJS Report identified at Fluvanna:
● Lack of knowledge of PREA and the process for reporting incidents,
● Fear of retaliation for reporting sexual victimization,
● Fear of being placed in administrative segregation during the investigation of a reported incident,
● Lack of trust in the staff to handle properly allegations of sexual victimization, and
● Fear of the staff’s labeling an offender as a consenting participant in a sexual relationship with another inmate.187
Mr. Clarke also stated that short staffing during the early morning and late evening hours, when most incidents occur, may have contributed to the high incidence of reported inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization at Fluvanna.188 He asserted that VADOC believes that some consensual sexual relationships among inmates were improperly classified as PREA violations.189
The Panel notes that in the wake of the sexual scandal at Fluvanna, VADOC took action to address the problem, replacing both the warden, who retired, and the chief of security, who was sent to prison, and appointing a committee in July of 2009 to investigate the facility and make recommendations for improving its management.190 When the committee ultimately released its report, among other issues, it addressed management styles and practices at Fluvanna and reviewed whether inmate housing assignments were related to sexual orientation.191
The committee found that the chief of security at the time192 had tried to enhance security measures at the facility, but the committee had concerns with his management style, noting his use of inappropriate language with offenders and low staff morale:
Interviews revealed that the [chief of security] and key administrators were ineffective in their communication of changes to operational procedures. Input
186 Id. 187 Id. 1(b). 188 Id. 189 Id. 190 See Fluvanna Managerial Review Final Report (Jan. 4, 2010) (on file with the Panel) [hereinafter Fluvanna Report]. 191 Fluvanna Report 1. 192 The Panel learned after the April 2011 hearings that the security chief at Fluvanna at the time of the Panel’s onsite visit and hearings subsequently left this position. This chief of security should not be confused with his predecessor who was convicted of sexual misconduct.
19

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
from impacted staff and others was not obtained before the implementation of changes which has led to low morale of staff, offenders, and volunteers. According to staff . . . [the chief of security’s] management practices lack a contemporary participatory style and staff feels uncomfortable in approaching the [chief of security]. There were multiple complaints concerning the [chief of security’s] use of inappropriate language in some of his interactions with staff and volunteers.193
In testimony before the Panel, Mr. John Jabe, Deputy Director of Operations at VADOC, stated that he doubted the accuracy of the Fluvanna Report as it pertained to the alleged complaints against the chief of security.194 He sensed that the former warden and her staff did not like the way the new chief of security implemented VADOC policies; consequently, Mr. Jabe believed that the negative comments about the chief of security that appeared in the Fluvanna Report were inaccurate.195
Based on an article published by the Associated Press claiming that Building 5D at Fluvanna was a “butch wing,” where the facility allegedly segregated offenders based on their masculine physical appearance and sexual orientation,196 the committee investigated housing practices at Fluvanna and concluded that there was no factual evidence to support this news story.197
Among the recommendations that the committee made were the following:
● Staff should have additional training on working with female offenders;
● Administrators needed training on effective communication and leadership;
● Staff should be consulted before the facility implemented policy changes;
● The administration should develop facility expectations and communicate them to all staffing levels;
● The facility should clarify staff roles in the operation of the facility;
● The administration should apply policies consistently, and
● The facility should implement an equitable system to make special programming available to all offenders.198
Ms. Wendy Hobbs, the current warden at Fluvanna, who took leadership of the facility in December of 2009,199 stated that problems at Fluvanna were the result of poor security
193 Id. 4. 194 Tr., J. Jabe, 204:10-205:3; but see infra notes 251 and 274. 195 Tr., J. Jabe, 205:7-10, 12. 196 Dena Potter, Women’s Prison Said to Have Segregated Lesbians, Others, WASH. TIMES, June 11, 2009, available at http://www.washingtontimes.com. 197 Fluvanna Report 6-7. 198 Id. 9. 199 Tr., W. Hobbs, 133:1.
20

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
measures.200 When she was the warden at the Virginia Correctional Center for Women in Goochland, Virginia, Warden Hobbs served on the committee that investigated Fluvanna.201 Warden Hobbs assured the Panel that the administration at Fluvanna takes incidents of sexual victimization at the facility seriously, investigating any allegations, taking statements from both the alleged victim and alleged perpetrator, and providing medical services as needed.202
Warden Hobbs said that one of her priorities at Fluvanna is to increase the number of female security staff, which is not as high as she would like.203 She said that she would like to increase the percentage of female security officers from the current percentage, which is fifty-three, to at least seventy.204 She said that there is no cross-gender supervision at Fluvanna.205
Warden Hobbs said that she is trying to create a culture at Fluvanna where inmates would feel free to report sexual victimization and where the staff understands its professional obligation to report sexual victimization.206 She testified that in investigating an allegation of inmate-oninmate sexual assault, “both inmates are put into investigative hold . . . .”207 She said that even though this is a form of segregation, she cautioned that one should distinguish between protective segregation during an investigation and segregation as punishment.208 Still, Warden Hobbs acknowledged that alleged victims may spend weeks in segregation during an investigation.209 She said that even though placement in segregation during an investigation is not punishment, inmates understandably perceive it as so because they are removed from the general population.210
Warden Hobbs said that Fluvanna places the alleged victim of staff sexual misconduct in segregation during an investigation to control the communication between the staff person and the inmate, to make sure that they are not coordinating their stories to undermine the integrity of the investigation.211 In the coming year, Warden Hobbs said that she plans to provide training to staff on working with female inmates and revamping a master pass list so that women do not miss participation in programming.212
200 Id. 131:16-18. 201 Id. 130:10-11, 131:7-13. 202 Id. 132:12-21. 203 Id. 133:15-17. 204 Id. 133:19-20, 133:22-134:1. 205 Id. 134:8-14. 206 Id. 135:9-21. 207 Id. 136:1. 208 Id. 136:2-10. 209 Id. 136:11-16. 210 Id. 139:20-140:4. 211 Id. 142:3-19. 212 Id. 191:9-11, 14-21.
21

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
iii. Observations
(a) The Distinctive Dynamics of Women’s Prisons
The Panel invited testimony from Dr. Barbara Owen, Professor of Criminology at the California State University at Fresno, to provide perspective on the unique dynamics of female correctional institutions, such as Bridgeport and Fluvanna.213 She stated, “[Y]ou have to pay separate attention to the issues of women or they get lost in the discussion of men.”214 Dr. Owen noted that consistent with the BJS Report, prior victimization contributes to the cycle of violence among women.215 Using an ecological model suggested by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Owen stated that “[m]ultiple organizational, environmental and individual factors contribute to violence in women’s facilities . . . the dynamic interplay between individual, relational, community, facility and societal factors create and sustain violence potentials in women’s jails and prisons.”216
Dr. Owen observed that women who come from dysfunctional families, where emotional support is not available or where the primary caregivers may be violent or exploitative, may struggle with developing healthy relationships in adulthood.217 “One of the most consistent findings has been that female offenders are more likely than male offenders to have experienced violent victimization in childhood, and much more likely to have experienced violent victimization than non-incarcerated women.”218 A prison sentence may trigger earlier trauma, aggravating the symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).219 Although it is unclear why women who have been prior victims of sexual abuse are more likely to be targets for recurrent victimization, for “incarcerated women, it is most probably due to a variety of risky behaviors and their tendency to become involved with abusive partners and engage in high-risk sexual behavior.”220
According to Dr. Owen, one of the key concepts in understanding women’s prisons is “that the primary motivation for women throughout life is not separation, but connection. Women’s emotional development is dependent upon relationships and when women feel disconnected from others, they experience disempowerment, confusion, and anxiety.”221 Dr. Owen confirmed prior testimony that the cultures in men’s and women’s prisons differ significantly.222 She observed, “Women’s sexual relationships are described as usually consensual rather than coercive; unlike men, women sometimes develop pseudo-families as a result of these relationships.”223 Dr Owen noted that “some of the inmate-inmate violence that we see in the prisons can be thought of as interpersonal violence . . . replicating domestic violence.”224
213 Owen Test. (Apr. 26, 2011), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs_apr11/testimony_owen.pdf 214 Tr., B. Owen, 90:8-10. 215 Owen Test. 1. 216 Id. 2. 217 Id. 218 Id. 3. 219 Id. 4. 220 Id. 221 Id. 3. 222 Id. 223 Id. 4. 224 Tr., B. Owen, 98:2-5.
22

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
Dr. Owen noted female offenders are not all the same, and the reasons for their engaging in sexual activity while in prison vary considerably:
[F]emale inmates are not a homogenous group of passive victims. Some do fall in love with correctional officers, some actively exploit male or female officers who fall in love with them, and some willingly participate in sexual banter. If it is true that female inmates actively seek out sexual relationships with male staff members, it may be the case that such relationships are truly consensual; or it may be that such relationships can be understood as the tactics of the oppressed, a result of sexualized identity and low self image because of childhood sexual abuse, or a result of gender socialization.225
In any case, Dr. Owen testified that any official reports of sexual victimization of female inmates are certain to be lower than the actual numbers, as the consequences for reporting a sexual assault are too high for both the inmate and the staff member.226
To improve the safety of women inmates, Dr. Owen asserts that it is important to consider both the individual as well as the place of confinement in analyzing the factors that increase the risk of sexual victimization, noting that “safety and violence have different meanings for female and male inmates.”227 Dr. Owen suggests that correctional institutions should broaden the definition of safety in considering female inmates to include “physical, psychological, social, moral, and ethical safety.”228 She writes, “Expanding on these broader components of safety for female offenders directs our attention not only to improving safety in women’s facilities, but also supports successful re-integration and rehabilitation.”229
In fashioning recommendations to reduce institutional violence, Dr. Owen, referring again to the ecological model, offered suggestions for improvement in three broad categories: individual factors, relationship factors, and community and facility factors.230
In regard to individual factors, she suggests that correctional facilities should provide training to staff on trauma and responding to trauma, including PTSD, and understanding the impact domestic and intimate-partner violence may have on offenders.231 Correctional institutions should have the capacity to provide treatment to inmates who experienced violence prior to incarceration as well as to inmates who experience violence while incarcerated.232
In regard to relationship factors, Dr. Owen encourages correctional institutions to have frank discussions with inmates during orientation about the benefits and consequences of developing relationships with other inmates.233 The orientation should touch on alternative ways for women to develop healthy relationships with each other and to identify and develop healthy relationship
225 Owen Test. 5-6. 226 Id. 6. 227 Id. 228 Id. 229 Id. 230 Id. 7-8. 231 Id. 7. 232 Id. 233 Id. 8.
23

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
boundaries.234 Correctional facilities should also provide constructive programming for inmates, which may include education on conflict management, the warning signs and components of domestic and intimate-partner violence, the mechanisms to promote personal safety, and the ways to break the cycle of violence.235
In regard to community and facility factors, Dr. Owen wrote that it is important for correctional institutions to evaluate the level of violence tolerated in the facility, which includes whether the staff sexually harasses inmates, whether the management has a rehabilitative or custodial approach, and whether verbal and nonverbal interactions with female inmates are either respectful or degrading.236 Dr. Owen wrote that it is important for correctional facilities to have clear policies against verbal, physical, or sexual misconduct.237 Among other recommendations, she suggested that correctional facilities implement processes for reporting and investigating sexual victimization that protect confidentiality, provide treatment to victims, and refer them to appropriate services.238 She wrote that prisons should require staff training on “genderappropriate ways to manage female offenders, with a particular emphasis on respecting female inmates, understanding the role of trauma and victimization as a pathway to prison/jail, sexual harassment, and staff sexual misconduct.”239 She also noted that staff training should address negative attitudes toward women, especially stereotypes about women in the criminal justice system.240 Finally, Dr. Owen recommended that correctional institutions develop committees that include the participation of female inmates, as well as the custody and treatment staffs, to “implement innovative ideas to reduce institutional violence.”241
In elaborating on her written testimony, Dr. Owen observed that verbal harassment in prison is a key indicator of the level of violence a correctional institution may tolerate:
Our findings show that both inmate-inmate victimization and staff sexual misconduct occurs on a continuum, and when we take this prevention or intervention approach, it’s almost like the broken windows philosophy of stop the small stuff, and I think probably the most single indicator of that is staff verbal harassment. When we hear the reports, again nationwide, of the terms that are allowed to be used in addressing women, and I just want to footnote they’re often used to address female staff as well, there’s a tolerance for that type of language.242
Dr. Owen also suggested that there are two terms that are often part of the discussion of the sexual victimization of women in prisons that require closer examination.243 She said that thinking of women as “sexual predators” tends to be confusing, because based on her research,
234 Id. 235 Id. 236 Id. 237 Id. 238 Id. 9. 239 Id. 240 Id. 241 Id. 242 Tr., B. Owen, 92:16-93:4; see also supra note 107. 243 Tr., B. Owen, 99:2-3.
24

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
the roles of predator and victim are often interchangeable for women on an individual level.244 Dr. Owen also said that the term “manipulation” is an ill-fitting term in describing the relationship between women offenders and staff members; she said that this language requires more careful thought, otherwise it suggests that women are “magical creatures” who can make people do things they might not otherwise want to do.245 Dr. Owen also observed that a common term in discussing women’s prison is “drama,” which she believes is a stereotypical way of dismissing women’s issues.246
Dr. Owen testified that violence in women’s prisons is rarely stranger violence; instead, it often takes place within the context of a relationship with staff or with other inmates.247
(b) Onsite Visit
In preparation for the hearings, the Panel toured Fluvanna on April 21, 2011. In listening to inmates in the general population, the Panel heard a number of comments questioning the wisdom of reporting sexual victimization to prison officials, as many perceived that reporting an incident invariably led to segregation, which they saw as a form of punishment.248 One inmate commented, “If you dial the PREA number, it’s a ticket to SEG.”249 Several inmates also alleged that the correctional staff mistreated them.250 Some stated that the chief of security at the time of the onsite visit used derogatory language in referring to them.251 Some of the inmates also alleged that despite VADOC’s efforts to change the environment at Fluvanna, at least one male officer in a supervisory position was still having sex with female inmates.252
The Panel learned that inmates receive training on PREA that lasts between thirty and forty-five minutes.253 One inmate said, however, that she had not been to a PREA orientation in nine years.254
The Panel witnessed one inmate in segregation who was being moved with what inmates called a “dog leash” or “dog collar,” or what correctional officers referred to as a “tether strap” or “control strap.”255 The tether strap is a restraining device that encircles an inmate’s waist, which
244 Id. 99:4-9. 245 Id. 99:10-16. 246 Id. 101:17-21. 247 Id. 103:20-104:3. 248 Interview with Wendy Hobbs, Warden, Fluvanna, et al. in Troy, Va. 1 (Apr. 21, 2011) (on file with the Panel) [hereinafter Fluvanna Interview]. 249 Id. 250 Id. 251 Id. 5. 252 Id.; see also Andrews Test. 2 (Apr. 26, 2011), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs_apr11/testimony_andrews.pdf. Ms. Andrews’ testimony also appears in the Transcript of Record. See Tr., M. Andrews, 36:20-50:7. During the onsite visit, the Panel heard inmate allegations of sexual misconduct involving a lieutenant at Fluvanna. At the time of the visit, the Panel conveyed these inmate complaints to Warden Hobbs. Since the Panel’s hearings on Fluvanna in April of 2011, the lieutenant who was the subject of the inmates’ complaints has been arrested on three charges of carnal knowledge with a prisoner. Crime Scene: Former Va. Guard Accused of Repeated Sex with Female Inmate, WASH. POST, Mar. 9, 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/crime-scene/. 253 Fluvanna Interview 5. 254 Id. 255 Id. 1; Tr., M. Andrews, 52:2-4; id., D. Ratliffe-Walker, 156:1-3.
25

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
correctional staff use, along with hand and foot shackles, when moving inmates located in segregated housing.256
During the hearing, in response to the Panel’s questions about the necessity of using the tether strap in dealing with inmates in segregation, especially in balancing its usefulness relative to the negative message it communicates to inmates, Mr. Jabe stated that VADOC will reevaluate its policy on the use of the tether strap.257
During the onsite visit, the Panel learned about Fluvanna’s “honor wing,” housing that allows inmates more privileges based on their good behavior.258
The Panel found that the investigators at Fluvanna had limited training in dealing with sexual assault.259
(c) Inmates and Trauma
Mr. Wayne Reed, the mental health director at Fluvanna, noted that at least half of the women at Fluvanna have trauma histories and the facility has programming that works with women to control symptoms associated with trauma.260 Mr. Nathan Young, the assistant director for mental health at Fluvanna, said that all staff members receive annual training on mental health issues.261 One of the elements of this training program is to remind staff members that PTSD is a mental health diagnosis and that they need to be aware of the symptoms of this disorder, especially in the way that female inmates may respond to correctional officers:262
[We] underscore that an offender’s response to an officer, if it’s negative or disproportionate, . . . may not have anything to do with that situation or that particular officer or those officers personally, but that the situation . . . or something related to it may be triggering that response, which security staff may interpret as being manipulative, [or] antisocial.263
Mr. Young said that eighty percent of the women at Fluvanna meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD or have symptoms of it; he noted that “basically the institution is a big trauma wing.”264
(d) Testimony from Former Inmate and Inmate Advocate
The Panel heard testimony from Ms. Melissa Andrews, who served eight-and-half years as an inmate in the custody of VADOC. 265 She was incarcerated in 2002 and spent over a year at Fluvanna from 2003 to 2004 before she was transferred to another facility.266 She returned to
256 Id., M. Frame, 156:17-21. 257 Id., J. Jabe, 163:13-19. 258 Fluvanna Interview 4. 259 Id., S. Horn, 181:22. 260 Id., W. Reed, 173:17-174:9; see supra note 219 (Owen Test.). 261 Tr., N. Young, 187:19-22. 262 Id. 188:2-4. 263 Id. 188:5-12. 264 Id.189:3-7. 265 Id., M. Andrews, 37:15-16. 266 Id. 37:18-20.
26

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
Fluvanna in November of 2007, where she spent the last three years of her sentence before her release in July of 2010.267 Ms. Andrews testified as a survivor of an inmate-on-inmate sexual assault at another VADOC facility, but she nonetheless provided first-hand observations about the culture of Fluvanna. Ms. Andrews testified that the sexual encounters between female inmates and male correctional staff were not violent; instead they were often the result of an agreement between the parties:
I’ve never heard or seen a violent sexual exchange between officers and inmates because it is more of an exchange of services between the two. Women would allow these officers to have sexual relations with them because they were lonely, wanted a better job, wanted more privileges, wanted less consequences for infractions or just for something to do.268
Ms. Andrews said that incarcerated women are especially vulnerable to staff members who show an interest in them, as the women come to prison with poor self-esteem and welcome attention that would give them an advantage over other inmates.269
Commenting on her own experience at another facility where she said that she was the target of a fellow inmate’s sexual assault, Ms. Andrews said that the investigation was significantly wanting: she was not sent to the medical unit; she was not provided counseling services; no pictures were taken; and the inquiry was limited.270 She asserted that Fluvanna would similarly not take inmate-on-inmate allegations of sexual assault seriously unless there were physical signs to prove the allegation.271 Ms. Andrews said that what she learned from her experience was that “never, ever to tell any authority anything that was going on.”272
Ms. Andrews said that when she returned to Fluvanna in 2007, the warden at that time repeatedly told the inmates that “if she took anything and everything from us, including our humanity, maybe we would not return to prison.”273 Consistent with the Fluvanna Report, but contrary to Mr. Jabe’s testimony, Ms. Andrews testified that the chief of security, who replaced his convicted predecessor, took a hard line, often referring to women inmates in a derogatory way.274 She said that if inmates felt mistreated under the harsh, new policies, they could only appeal to the very people who were implementing them.275 She said that as part of this new regime, women could not use makeup and had to cut their hair above the collar of their shirts.276 If the women did not comply with these requirements, they were denied access not only to religious, educational, and vocational programming but also to family visits.277 One aspect of the new
267 Id. 37:20-22. 268 Id. 38:16-39:1. 269 Id. 39:2-9. 270 Id. 41:8-16. 271 Id. 41:16-21. 272 Id. 42:12-14. 273 Id. 42:22-43:2. 274 Id. 43:3-7. 275 Id. 43:7-12. 276 Id. 43:20-22. 277 Id. 43:22-44:4.
27

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
policies was an absolute ban on physical contact between inmates, not permitting hand-holding or hugging even during religious services.278
Ms. Andrews attested to the serious problem that women inmates had in accessing the toilet, not only during the night but also especially during weekly shakedowns.279 As the cells do not have toilets, the staff would allow women to access the restroom only one at a time.280 Women would often have to wait hours to use the toilet, forcing many to urinate on themselves, an infraction that resulted in disciplinary segregation.281
Contrary to the Fluvanna Report’s conclusion, Ms. Andrews corroborated the Associated Press’ story regarding the segregation of lesbians and masculine-appearing women at Fluvanna.282 She stated that Fluvanna created a “butch wing” in Building 5D:283
They segregated all the butch inmates into D wing . . . They segregated all the butch girls that had short hair or sagged their pants or looked like boys, grew facial hair, whatever the case may be. Put them all in one wing thinking that it would stomp down relationships between them and their girlfriends, and the truth of the matter is, is they just continued relationships and then they wrote about it because they were segregated.284
Ms. Andrews reported that during her time at Fluvanna she was aware of officers and inmates having sex in a windowless bathroom and supply closet; both were free of monitoring cameras installed at the facility in the wake of PREA.285
With Ms. Hobbs’ appointment at Fluvanna, Ms. Andrews said that the atmosphere changed for the better, but still, based on her correspondence with former inmates at Fluvanna, the usage of the “dog collar” and the problem of access to toilets remain.286
Ms. Helen Trainor, the former director of the Virginia Institutionalized Persons Project for the Legal Aid Justice Center of Charlottesville, Virginia, testified that she worked as an advocate for inmates in Virginia prisons from 2007 to 2010.287 She said that the primary focus of her contact with inmates at Fluvanna was civil rights work.288 Ms. Trainor said that based on her interactions with inmates at Fluvanna, the complaints of staff sexual misconduct significantly outnumbered complaints of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization.289 She stated that the policies and practices at Fluvanna served a dual purpose: to foster the illusion that inmate-oninmate sexual victimization is a problem, which deflects attention away from the recent sex
278 Id. 44:5-14. 279 Id. 45:6-19, 46:8-12. 280 Id. 45:6-19. 281 Id. 282 Id. 47:11-21. 283 Id. 66:13-15, 67:2-3. 284 Id. 67:2-11. 285 Id. 46:20-47:10. 286 Id. 48:5-8, 49:7-21. 287 Id., H. Trainor, 70:4-7. 288 Id. 71:5-6. 289 Id. 71:15-19.
28

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
scandal at the prison involving the former chief of security, and to create a “a culture of degradation, shame, and intimidation” that allows officers to victimize inmates unchallenged.290
Ms. Trainor testified that she had evidence of the current chief of security using derogatory language in dealing with female offenders.291 She also corroborated Ms. Andrews’ testimony regarding the existence of a “butch wing” at Fluvanna,292 the distress inmates encountered in accessing toilets,293 the policy of restricting any physical contact inmates had with each other,294 and the use of the “dog leash” in moving inmates in segregation.295
Commenting on Fluvanna’s alleged practice, at least at one time, of segregating masculineappearing women, Ms. Trainor observed, “Unit managers were authorized to identify . . . women who looked butch on the basis solely of their appearance, notably a preference for wearing baggy clothes and having short hair. The assumption, I assume, was that women who looked butch were, in fact, sexual predators and should therefore be punished.”296
Ms. Trainor said that “correctional officers routinely referred to the wing in which butch women were housed as ‘the locker room’ and to the women there as ‘little boys.’”297 She also testified that Fluvanna mistreated inmates by failing to provide sufficient privacy during consultations with medical staff.298
iv. Facility-Specific Recommendations
In light of Fluvanna’s response to the Data Request, the Panel’s site visit, and the testimony that the Panel received regarding Fluvanna, the Panel recommends that the VADOC revisit the Fluvanna Report and determine whether it has been effective in implementing the recommendations contained in it, particularly in regard to staff training, effective communication, and the investigation of alleged sexual victimization. The Panel also recommends that the facility revisit its policy of holding alleged victims of sexual misconduct in administrative segregation during an investigation. Consistent with the recommendations of the proposed regulations, the Panel encourages Fluvanna to explore other alternatives before placing an alleged victim of sexual assault in segregation. The Panel found the use of tether straps at Fluvanna disturbing, failing to understand their value in enhancing security while recognizing the dehumanizing message their use sends to inmates at the facility. The Panel welcomed Mr. Jabe’s offer to revisit VADOC’s policy on the use of tether straps. The question as to whether Fluvanna segregated inmates based on sexual orientation or masculine physical appearance is beyond the purview of these hearings. Still, the Panel received credible testimony that women at Fluvanna may have been subject to discrimination based on sexual orientation or physical
290 Id. 72:9-12. 291 Id. 75:13-19. The Panel requested documentation of the e-mails that Ms. Trainor claimed to have in her files showing the usage of offensive language (see id., G. Christensen, 85:13-16; id., H. Trainor, 85:17-21); however, Ms. Trainor was unable to produce these documents. 292 Id. 76:10-21. 293 Id. 77:7-22. 294 Id. 76:22-77:6. 295 Id. 79:18-21. 296 Id. 76:11-17. 297 Id. 75:20-76:1. 298 Id. 79:22-81:8.
29

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails

appearance. Given these allegations, it may make sense to invest in staff training on the obligation to respect inmates, regardless of sexual orientation or physical appearance. The staff training might include a segment on the importance of appropriate professional language in creating a positive institutional culture. Consistently speaking to inmates with respect plays a key role in creating a prison culture that does not tolerate any form of sexual victimization. In practice, implementing zero tolerance for inmate sexual victimization might begin with insisting on zero tolerance for verbal harassment of inmates in any form. The Panel encourages Warden Hobbs to strengthen staff training programs, particularly for male staff, on the dynamics of working in a female facility and on the importance of maintaining appropriate professional boundaries.

b. Allred

i.

Facility Description

Allred is a maximum-security prison for men operated by the TDCJ, in Wichita Falls, Texas. On
January 1, 2008, and January 1, 2009, the facility’s capacity was 3682; on January 1, 2008, the
actual inmate population was 3646; and on January 1, 2009, the actual inmate population was 3636.299 In 2008, 5866 inmates spent any time at Allred; the average length of stay was 1302 days; and the longest stay was 4941 days.300 In 2009, 4693 spent any time at Allred; the average length of stay was 1682 days; and the longest stay was 5306 days.301 In 2008, out of a total of
5866 inmates, the racial and ethnic breakdown was as follows: 2290 African Americans, 1727 Hispanics, 1818 Whites, 3 Asians, 1 American Indian, and 27 others.302 In 2009, out of a total of
4693 inmates, the racial and ethnic breakdown was as follows: 1814 African Americans, 1401 Hispanics, 1415 Whites, 2 Asians, 1 American Indian, and 24 others.303

In 2008, Allred had one suicide, fifty-eight attempted suicides, no homicides, and six attempted homicides.304 In 2009, Allred had four suicides, forty-eight attempted suicides, no homicides, and five attempted homicides.305 In 2008 and 2009, none of the suicides or attempted homicides was related to sexual victimization.306 In 2008, of the fifty-eight suicide attempts, seven inmates alleged prior inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization;307 in 2009, of the forty-eight suicide attempts, two inmates alleged prior inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization.308

In 2008 and 2009, no employees at Allred were terminated, disciplined, or received a warning for sexual misconduct;309 however, in the same time period, eighteen staff members were

299 Allred Resp. 9-12 (on file with the Panel). 300 Id. 301 Id. 302 Id. 303 Id. Allred did not account for the racial and ethnic backgrounds of thirty-six inmates. 304 Id. 13-16. The TDCJ explained that in reporting the number of attempted homicides at Allred, it relied on data from the OIG, which characterizes attempted homicide as aggravated assault. 305 Id. 306 Id. 14, 16. 307 Id. 14. 308 Id. 16. 309 Id. 22(a), (c).
30

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
investigated for improper conduct involving an inmate and resigned prior to receiving discipline.310 According to the investigative summaries that the Panel received from the TDCJ, about half of these cases involved female staff members who developed inappropriate relationships with male offenders.311 Of the eighteen staff members who resigned following an investigation in 2008-09, one resigned based on a “Failure to Provide Notification of Offender Relationship;” and seventeen resigned based on “Establishment of Offender Relationship that Jeopardizes Security or Compromises the Employee (other than cohabitation or sexual misconduct).”312
On January 1, 2008, Allred had 973 authorized staff positions, including 842 security positions and 131 non-security positions.313 On January 1, 2008, Allred had in actuality 850 staff persons, 721 in security positions and 129 in non-security positions.314 On January 1, 2009, Allred had 974 authorized staff positions, including 842 security positions and 132 non-security positions.315 On January 1, 2009, Allred had in actuality 896 staff persons, 748 in security positions and 121 in non-security positions.316 On January 1, 2008, and on January 1, 2009, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) assigned three sworn officers to Allred.317 As the security staff in Texas is not sworn, the only sworn officers at Allred in 2008 and 2009 were from the OIG; consequently, the TDCJ did not provide data on the ratio of security staff to inmates during this time period.318
At Allred the staffing plan provided for a Unit Safe Prisons Program Coordinator in 2008-09; this position would include many of the duties of a PREA coordinator.319 This position was vacant from January of 2008 to March 15, 2008; then it was assigned to a sergeant on staff.320
For the period under review, there were sixty-six investigations at Allred responding to complaints of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization.321 In all instances, the charges were not sustained.322
During the same time period, there were twenty-five investigations of staff sexual misconduct involving inmates.323 The investigations involved staff members of both sexes and included a range of charges from establishing a relationship with an inmate to rape.324 None of the charges were sustained except for eight incidents, as previously noted, involving female staff members who either wrote romantic letters to inmates or established inappropriate relationships with
310 Id. 22(b) & electronic file supp. 311 Id. 312 Id. 22(b). 313 Id. 23(a). 314 Id. 23(d)(i). 315 Id. 24(a). 316 Id. 24(d)(i). These figures do not total 896; the discrepancy is a reporting error attributable to Allred. 317 Id. 23(b), 24(b). 318 Id. 23-25. 319 Id. 2. 320 Id. 321 App. C (Allred Inmate-on-Inmate Assaults). 322 Id. 323 Id. (Allred Staff-on-Inmate Assaults). 324 Id.
31

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
them.325 The investigative reports indicated that when the charge was sustained against a female staff member, she was either escorted from the facility or allowed to resign without facing discipline or criminal prosecution.326
In reviewing the complete investigative files from Allred, there were instances in which the Panel could not determine from the produced documents what happened either to the complainant or the alleged perpetrator.327 On reviewing the investigative files, the Panel noted that there were a significant number of complainants who self-identified as homosexual.328
ii. Facility’s Explanation for Reported High Incidence of Sexual Victimization
Neither the written nor oral testimony to the Panel from representatives from the TDCJ provided a sufficient explanation for the sustained high level of sexual victimization at Allred in 2008 and 2009. In responding to the Panel’s Data Request,329 the TDCJ stated that the high level of reported sexual victimization at Allred may be related to the classification of inmates at the facility, but the TDCJ did not explain how inmate classification led to the high prevalence of sexual victimization:
Due to Allred’s maximum security profile, it houses various custody levels ranging from general population offenders that are housed in accordance with the agency’s Classification Plan to various levels of administrative segregation. Additionally, the unit houses a significant number of Safekeeping offenders. Safekeeping is a classification status utilized for housing offenders who have been identified as vulnerable and in some cases have been victimized in the past. These custody levels are contributing factors in the allegations of sexual victimization.330
Mr. Brad Livingston, Executive Director, TDCJ, explained in his written testimony that the Texas Board of Criminal Justice (TBCJ), comprised of nine members appointed by the governor
325 Id. (Incidents 1-3, 21-25); see supra note 311. 326 App. C (Allred Staff-on-Inmate Assaults) (Incidents 1-3, 21-25). 327 Id. (Incidents 27, 28); see also Tr., R. Taler, 427:1-3 (“I can’t even tell from the documentation any additional actions taken against the offender.”). 328 Based on the Panel’s review of Allred’s investigative files of inmate complaints alleging inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, the Panel found that a significant number of the complainants self-identified as being other than heterosexual. In 2008, out of thirty-four inmate complaints alleging inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, fourteen complainants (41%) self-identified as other than heterosexual. In 2009, out of thirty-two inmate complaints alleging inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, seventeen complainants (53%) self-identified as being other than heterosexual. 329 Question forty-six in the Data Request that the Panel sent to the TDCJ is “What are the key factors that led to the high incidence of sexual victimization at the Allred Unit in calendar years 2008 and 2009?” See app. A (Letter and Data Request from Michael L. Alston, Attorney Advisor, Panel, to Brad Livingston, Executive Director, TDCJ (Feb. 2, 2011)). 330 Allred Resp. 46 (italics in original).
32

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
of Texas, is the policy-making and oversight body for the TDCJ.331 The OIG, the Internal Audit Division, the PREA Ombudsman, and the Special Prosecution Unit are independent agencies that report directly to the TBCJ.332 Mr. Livingston noted that prior to the enactment of PREA, the Texas Legislature mandated that TDCJ implement a safe prisons program to address offender assault.333 Moreover, in 2007, the Texas Legislature codified into law the TDCJ’s zero-tolerance policy toward sexual assault in Texas prisons and created the position of PREA Ombudsman within the TDCJ.334 Mr. Livingston stated, “From the time an offender enters our system and an individual accepts employment with our agency, we communicate our expectations for behavior and our mechanisms for reporting behavior in violation of our standards of conduct.”335 He said that the offender population receives orientation and a handbook that addresses the issue of sexual assault, and during intake and prior to permanent assignment to a unit, the Safe Prisons Program Coordinator interviews each inmate and provides information on the TDCJ Safe Prisons Program.336 The Safe Prisons Program is “a coordinated effort to integrate education, training, classification, security, monitoring medical and investigative functions in a manner which promotes offender safety.”337 The TDCJ displays posters on its zero-tolerance policy in prominent locations in each unit.338 TDCJ employees also receive written standards of conduct and an ethics policy, and they must acknowledge receipt of these documents in writing.339 All employees receive a toll-free telephone number for the OIG to report any criminal violations, including sexual assault.340 Mr. Livingston noted that avenues for reporting sexual victimization include grievance procedures, the agency’s ombudsman, the PREA Ombudsman, the administrative monitor for the use of force, and direct reports to the OIG.341 Mr. Livingston noted that none of these administrative functions report to the division responsible for prison operations.342
iii. Observations
Mr. Wayne Krause, the legal director of the Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP), provided testimony to the Panel on the culture at Allred.343 He stated that the TCRP has an active prisoner rights program, which receives hundreds of complaints from inmates throughout the State of Texas, but his organization represents less than one percent of the inmates who contact it.344 Mr. Krause provided two examples of inmates whom the TCRP represents who have alleged sexual victimization at Allred in 2008; he referred to one as John and to the other as Jane, a transgender
331 Livingston Test. 2 (Apr. 26-27, 2011), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs_apr11/testimony_livingston.pdf. Mr. Livingston’s testimony also appears in the Transcript of Record. See Tr., B. Livingston, 351:2-372:17. 332 Livingston Test. 2. 333 Id. 334 Id. 3; see TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 501.011 (zero-tolerance policy), 501.172 (ombudsperson) (2011). 335 Livingston Test. 4-5. 336 Id. 5. 337 Id. 6. 338 Id. 5. 339 Id. 340 Id. 341 Id. 342 Id. 343 Tr., W. Krause, 324:18-22. 344 Id. 325:1-8.
33

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
inmate.345 Producing a redacted sworn statement from John, who is still housed at TDCJ, Mr. Krause stated that on October 5, 2008, a correctional officer came to John’s cell and forced him to perform oral sex.346 Mr. Krause contended that there were two good reasons to believe John’s version of this event: first, there is an official report that shows that the semen sample that John produced matched the DNA of the accused correctional officer; and second, the correctional officer confessed to prison authorities that John performed oral sex on him.347 Mr. Krause said that according to Jane’s sworn statement, which Mr. Krause produced, the same correctional officer who victimized John used the same techniques of intimidation to force Jane to perform oral sex on him, too.348
Mr. Krause said that one of the saddest aspects of this story is that at the time of the alleged sexual victimization of John, the administrators of Allred were already aware that the facility had one of the nation’s highest rates of sexual victimization, by both correctional staff and other inmates.349 Moreover, according to Mr. Krause, John told Allred’s Safe Prisons Program Officer that the same correctional officer had sexually assaulted him twice previously and the program officer allegedly did nothing to protect him.350 Most significantly, Mr. Krause claims that the Safe Prisons Program Officer refuted John’s allegations without investigation.351 Citing the documents he produced, Mr. Krause stated that when John gave the semen sample to the Safe Prisons Program Officer she threatened him, allegedly telling him that if the semen sample did not match the accused correctional officer, she would charge him with assaulting her with a bodily fluid.352 She also allegedly warned him not to file another grievance.353
Mr. Krause noted that the TDCJ has some good policies on paper that try to prevent and respond to sexual victimization, but based on the experiences of John and Jane, the practice does not appear to conform to the policies.354 He said that the culture at Allred is one that blames and punishes the victim.355 Mr. Krause contended that the grievance procedures are inherently flawed when it comes to reporting sexual victimization because the TDCJ allows an inmate only fifteen days after an incident to file a grievance.356 Mr. Krause said that based on his experience, some victims of sexual assault may need more than fifteen days to process what happened to them.357 He said that one should contrast this fifteen-day period to criminal sexual assault
345 Id. 325:9-10, 328:7. 346 Id. 326:7-20. The sworn statements and other documents related to Mr. Krause’s testimony are on file with the Panel. 347 Id. 327:4-8. 348 Id. 328:5-12. 349 Id. 327:15-19; see supra note 33. 350 Tr., W. Krause, 327:20-328:1. 351 Id. 329:4-5. 352 Id. 329:9-14. 353 Id. 329:14-15. 354 Id. 328:16-21. 355 Id. 329:20-21. 356 Id. 331:14-17. 357 Id. 331:17-20. The proposed national standards state that an inmate should have a minimum of twenty days to file a grievance following an incident of sexual abuse. Nat’l Standards, 76 Fed. Reg. at 6298 (§ 115.352(a)(1)). The proposed national standards also state that a correctional institution should grant an extension of no less than ninety days for filing a grievance when an inmate can provide documentation that the normal time limit for filing a grievance was impractical because of either physical or psychological trauma. Id. (§ 115.352(a)(2)).
34

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails

statutes, which in most states extend the reporting period to five years or more after the incident.358 Mr. Krause also commented on the lack of services for victims of sexual assault at Allred and a culture that follows rules at the expense of people.359

Mr. Krause offered four recommendations for improving Allred: (1) providing consistent, effective education on preventing and responding to sexual victimization for both correctional staff and inmates; (2) having correctional officials take every complaint of sexual victimization seriously; (3) collaborating with organizations outside the prison to provide services to inmate victims; and (4) expanding the staff of TDCJ’s PREA Ombudsman (currently there is just one ombudsman and one assistant) and improving communication between the PREA Ombudsman’s Office and inmates who have complained of sexual victimization, especially when it comes to informing them of the disposition of the charges made against sexual predators.360

In reflecting on Mr. Krause’s testimony regarding the alleged treatment of both John and Jane,
the Panel noted that during its onsite visit of Allred, staff members referred to homosexual inmates as “queens.”361

At the request of the Panel, the BJS prepared a short summary comparing the incidence of sexual victimization at Allred between its last appearance before the Panel, based on 2007 data, and the data collected in the most recent BJS Report. The summary, Trends in Sexual Victimization at Allred, appears in the following chart:362

Trends in Sexual Victimization at Allred Total Inmate-on-Inmate
Nonconsensual Sexual Acts Staff Sexual Misconduct
Nonconsensual Sexual Acts Nonconsensual Sexual Acts Abusive Sexual Contacts Only Physically Forced
Inmate-on-Inmate Staff Pressured Inmate-on-Inmate Staff No Force/Pressure Injured Inmate-on-Inmate Staff

2007 9.9% 4.8 4.0 6.7 4.9 8.0 1.9
3.6 3.2
2.8 3.2 2.3 3.3 3.3 0.9

2008-09 10.9% 7.6 2.5 5.6 3.6 6.5 4.4
6.8 3.2
3.9 3.7 3.2 1.9 0.6 1.9

358 Tr., W. Krause, 332:6-9. 359 Id. 332:12-13, 333:7-9. 360 Id. 335:1-337:10. 361 Interview with Eddie Williams, Senior Warden, Allred, et al. in Wichita Falls, Tex. (Apr. 19, 2011) (on file with Panel). 362 The BJS relied on data that appears in the BJS Report and the BJS Report 2007 in preparing the chart.
35

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
Based on the chart that the BJS prepared, the Panel expressed concern that the data indicated that abusive sexual contact at Allred more than doubled since the BJS Report 2007.363 Mr. Livingston said that the data from BJS significantly differs from the number of reported incidents that the TDCJ has.364 He said that he could not offer an explanation for why the incidence of sexual victimization at Allred increased, nor could he make sense of the discrepancy between the BJS’ data and the TDCJ’s data on the reported incidence of sexual victimization at Allred, as TDCJ’s numbers are roughly ten times less than the numbers reported in the BJS Report.365 Mr. Livingston stated that contrary to the trend suggested by the BJS data in the above chart, the TDCJ as a whole actually had a decrease in the incidence of sexual victimization from 261 in 2007 to 168 in 2009.366 Mr. Livingston testified that during the same three-year period, Allred also experienced a slight decrease in the incidence of sexual victimization.367 Mr. Livingston noted that Allred has an inmate population with many of the characteristics that the BJS Report identified as being overrepresented among inmates who have experienced sexual victimization, including inmates convicted of violent offenses, inmates with mental illness, inmates who identify as being other than heterosexual, and inmates in safekeeping status.368
In reviewing reports of both inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization that Allred provided to the Panel, the Panel chose one report involving the investigation of an inmate’s sexual assault on a cellmate to examine more closely with the assistance of representatives of the TDCJ.369 The Panel noted that the record showed that the perpetrator had a history of being disciplined repeatedly for sexual misconduct,370 and the facility had identified the perpetrator as a sexual predator.371 In reviewing the report, TDCJ officials noted that some of the previous disciplinary actions against the perpetrator were most likely based on his masturbating in front of female staff members, but the inmate’s disciplinary record attached to the report lacked sufficient detail to determine whether the other incidents prompting discipline for sexual misconduct were limited to masturbation or involved sexual activity with other inmates.372 In this instance, the investigative report noted that the perpetrator admitted to the sexual assault on his cellmate.373 Despite this admission, the investigator checked a box on the standard investigative report form, indicating that the investigator was “Unable to Substantiate Subject’s Allegation.”374
After reviewing the investigative report, Mr. Eddie Williams, Senior Warden of Allred, said that he was unable to explain the investigator’s action.375 The report showed that the victim was placed in transient housing pending the outcome of the investigation,376 but the report was silent
363 Tr., G. Christensen, 369:14-17. 364 Id., B. Livingston, 370:3-12. 365 Id. 372:7-12, 373:2-4; see also id., R. Thaler, 374:22-375:3. 366 Id., B. Livingston, 377:18-22. 367 Id. 378:4-5. 368 Id. 380:5-21, 381:4-13. 369 Id., G. Christensen, 410:1-4. 370 Id., G. Christensen & E. Williams, 414:13-415:5. 371 Id., E. Williams, 416:18-19. 372 Id. 414:22, 417:7-8, 420:7; id., J. Moriarty, 423:9-14. 373 Id., E. Williams, 418:22-419:2. 374 Id. 419:19-21. 375 Id. 376 Id. 415:17-21.
36

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
as to whether Allred took any actions against the alleged perpetrator.377 Sgt. Lisa James, Safe Prisons Program Coordinator, testified that even though the report that the TDCJ provided did not contain this information, Allred did place the perpetrator in maximum security.378
Mr. Livingston acknowledged that in a system as large as the TDCJ, there is always a challenge in trying to close the gap between stated policy and actual practice.379 In dealing with this challenge in the context of addressing inmate sexual victimization, the TDCJ has emphasized the significance of staff training.380 To augment existing in-service training programs for staff, Mr. Livingston said that the TDCJ has in the last few years strengthened its training department and created special training programs for both newly promoted sergeants and captains.381
In discussing the prosecution of serious cases involving inmate-on-inmate sexual assault, Mr. John Moriarty, Inspector General, TDCJ, stated that even when there is overwhelming evidence, grand juries are often reluctant to move forward with the cases because they often lack sympathy for victims of prison sexual assault.382 Ms. Gina DeBottis, Special Prosecution Unit, OIG, agreed with this assessment, noting the number of sound cases that her office presented to grand juries that chose not to issue indictments.383 Mr. Moriarty noted that prosecutors often face the same prospect at trial, citing a particularly disturbing case in which a jury ignored aggravated sexual assault charges against an inmate despite convincing DNA evidence supporting a conviction.384
Ms. DeBottis stated to the Panel’s surprise that in prosecuting cases, her office cannot use the evidence gathered for administrative discipline.385
Ms. Charma Blount, Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner at TDCJ, testified that Allred does take measures to provide services to inmates who are victims of sexual assault, which takes the form of giving a pamphlet to an inmate at the beginning of a sexual assault investigation to explain the inmate’s rights, providing the inmate a forensic examination, and referring the inmate to mental health services.386 The institution also provides inmates with an “offender victim representative,” a trained advocate who is to be the “eyes and ears” of an inmate during the forensic medical examination process.387
iv. Facility-Specific Recommendations
The Panel finds disturbing that Allred, which the Panel identified previously as a facility with a high incidence of sexual victimization, does not appear to have made significant improvements since the same administrators from the facility and TDCJ appeared before the Panel in 2008.388
377 Id., R. Thaler, 427:1-3. 378 Id., L. James, 433:1-10. 379 Id., B. Livingston, 385:8-12. 380 Id. 385:20-386:1. 381 Id. 386:1-22. 382 Id., J. Moriarty, 449:14-16. 383 Id., G. DeBottis, 450:1-15. 384 Id. 451:12-21. 385 Id. 448:6-8. 386 Id., C. Blount, 464:15-465:8. 387 Id. 461:11, 21-22. 388 See supra note 33.
37

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
The Panel strongly recommends that TDCJ and Allred develop a comprehensive management plan that identifies the factors contributing to the high incidence of sexual victimization at Allred, including measurable goals that an outside observer can track to ensure demonstrable progress. The plan should include an evaluation of Allred’s compliance with directives, policies, and common practices that TDCJ has promulgated to eliminate sexual misconduct.389 The Panel also urges TDCJ and Allred to review administrative investigations into allegations of sexual abuse, which might involve having TDCJ or OIG conduct quarterly reviews of all investigations, strengthening the training for investigative staff, improving documentation of investigative outcomes, and ensuring better coordination of administrative and OIG investigations. The Panel also encourages the prosecutor’s office to review its stated practice of not relying on evidence gathered during administrative investigations. The TDCJ should also review the services it provides to inmates who have been the target of sexual abuse. In light of the high number of grievances from self-identified homosexual inmates at Allred, the Panel encourages the Allred administrators to provide training to staff on the vulnerability of homosexual inmates and to take steps to protect them from sexual assault. Given the significant number of female staff members who were forced to resign from Allred in the wake of investigations finding that they established inappropriate relationships with male inmates, Allred should provide staff training, especially for newly hired female staff, on how to maintain proper professional boundaries. The training should include information for both staff members and supervisors on how to identify early warning signs that a staff member’s professional relationship with an inmate may be headed in the wrong direction.
c. Elmira
i. Facility Description
Elmira, located in Upstate New York, is a maximum-security prison for men. On January 1, 2008, and on January 1, 2009, the full rated capacity at Elmira was 1680; in addition there were fifty-four beds in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) and thirty-four beds in the infirmary.390 The actual number of inmates on January 1, 2008, was 1718 in the general population, 51 in the SHU, 15 inmates in the infirmary, and 16 inmates out of the count, making a total of 1800 inmates.391 The total number of inmates who spent any time at Elmira in 2008 was 9464.392 In 2008, the average length of stay for an inmate was 161 days; the longest length of stay was 6463 days.393 The actual number of inmates at Elmira on January 1, 2009, was 1750 in the general population, 54 in the SHU, 17 in the infirmary, and 11 out of the count, making a total of 1832 inmates.394 The total number of inmates who spent any time at Elmira in 2009 was 9396.395 In 2009, the average length of stay for an inmate was 168 days; the longest length of stay was 6776 days.396
389 See Livingston Test. 3-6. 390 Elmira Resp. 9(a), 10(a) (on file with the Panel). 391 Id. 9(b). 392 Id. 9(f). 393 Id. 9(g), (h). 394 Id. 10(b). 395 Id. 10(f). 396 Id. 10(g), (h).
38

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
In 2008, among the 9464 inmates who spent any time at Elmira, the racial and ethnic composition was as follows: 3260 Whites, 4782 African Americans, 1249 Hispanics, 18 Asians, 95 Alaska Natives or American Indians, 40 others, and 20 unknown.397 In 2009, among the 9396 inmates who spent any time at Elmira, the racial and ethnic composition was as follows: 3384 Whites, 4612 African Americans, 1226 Hispanics, 15 Asians, 100 Alaska Natives or American Indians, 53 others, and 6 unknown.398 In 2008 and 2009, Elmira did not collect inmate data either for the category of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander or for the category of Two or More Races.399
At Elmira in 2008, one inmate committed suicide, and ten inmates attempted suicide.400 The suicide and attempted suicides in 2008 were not related to sexual victimization.401 In 2009, two inmates committed suicide, and eleven attempted suicide.402 One of the inmates who attempted suicide in 2009 had alleged that he was the victim of inmate-on-inmate sexual abuse about three months earlier at another correctional facility, but the charge was not substantiated and the inmate had a well-documented history of mental illness.403 There were no homicides at Elmira in 2008 and 2009, and Elmira does not gather data on attempted homicides.404
On January 1, 2008, there were 727 staff positions at Elmira at full capacity (523 sworn and 204 non-sworn).405 On January 1, 2008, however, there were 232 sworn staff members and twentysix non-sworn staff members actually present.406 DOCCS does not require a minimum mandatory number of daily staff at each of its facilities; rather it employs a “plot-plan approach” to determine the staffing pattern.407 In 2008, the plot-plan for Elmira entailed 266 security and sixteen non-uniform positions.408
On January 1, 2009, Elmira at full capacity had 741 staff positions (544 sworn and 197 nonsworn).409 On January 1, 2009, there were, however, 235 sworn staff and nineteen non-sworn staff actually present.410 In 2009 the staffing plot-plan for Elmira entailed 269 security and sixteen non-uniform positions.411
397 Id. 11(a)-(g). 398 Id. 12(a)-(g). 399 Id. 11(g), 12(g). 400 Id. 13(a)-(b). 401 Id. 14. 402 Id. 15(a)-(b). 403 Id. 16. 404 Id. 13(c)-(d), 14(c)-(d). 405 Id. 23(a)-(c). 406 Id. 23(e)(i), (f)(i). These numbers refer to individuals and do not account for staff members who may have worked more than one shift. 407 Id. 23(g). 408 Id. 409 Id. 24(a)-(c). 410 Id. 24(e)(i), (f)(i). These numbers refer to individuals and do not account for staff members who may have worked more than one shift. 411 Id. 24(g).
39

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
On January 1, 2008, and on January 1, 2009, the ratio of uniformed staff to inmates was one to 3.49.412
In 2008 and 2009, Elmira did not have a PREA coordinator.413 For the period under review, calendar years 2008 and 2009, there were four investigations into inmate-on-inmate charges of sexual assault at Elmira.414 In each case, the charge was not sustained.415 During the same period, there were twenty-two investigations into staff sexual misconduct at Elmira.416 In all but one of these cases the charges were not substantiated.417 In one instance, the investigation substantiated a charge of unwanted touching against a contract phlebotomist; Elmira referred the matter for prosecution, but at trial the accused was found not guilty.418
In reviewing the complaint files that Elmira produced, the Panel found them unorganized, incomplete, and difficult to follow, hindering an independent review of the facility’s complaint process.
ii. Facility Explanation for Reported High Incidence of Sexual Victimization
After reviewing the data in the BJS Report showing a high incidence of staff-on-inmate sexual victimization at Elmira, Brian Fischer, Commissioner of DOCCS, made two observations: (1) the results of the recent BJS survey differ significantly from a comparable BJS survey of Elmira in 2007 that showed a significantly lower rate of staff-on-inmate sexual victimization, and (2) the inmate-reported incidents of staff sexual misconduct may reflect the inmates’ objection to Elmira’s thorough pat-frisk procedures.419
Mr. Fischer noted that the BJS survey in 2007 found that the reported rate of staff-on-inmate sexual victimization at Elmira was 3.3%, which is less than half the 7.7% rate of staff-on-inmate sexual victimization for Elmira in the recent BJS Report.420 Mr. Fischer said that DOCCS has undertaken its own analysis of sexual victimization at Elmira, which includes reviewing reported incidents and having discussions with offenders, but the analysis is not yet complete.421
Mr. Fischer stated that it was the belief of DOCCS that the majority of the reported staff-oninmate incidents at Elmira are related to “necessary and thorough pat frisks.”422 Mr. Fischer stated that anecdotal evidence suggests that Elmira inmates were surprised by the reported high
412 Id. 25(a), (e). 413 Id. 2. 414 App. C (Elmira Inmate-on-Inmate Sexual Assaults). 415 Id. 416 Id. (Elmira Staff-on-Inmate Assaults). 417 Id. Two of the unsubstantiated charges involved allegations of staff sexual misconduct during the pat frisk of an inmate (Incidents 7, 22). 418 Id. (Incident 2). 419 Fischer Test. 8 (Apr. 27, 2011), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs_apr11/testimony_fischer.pdf. 420 Id. Compare BJS Report 2007, at 26 (app. tbl.4) with BJS Report 43 (app. tbl.2). 421 Fischer Test. 8. 422 Id.
40

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
incidence of staff-on-inmate sexual victimization, whereas those same offenders considered pat frisks a form of sexual assault:
Anecdotally, when asked about the results of the [BJS Report], offenders housed at Elmira expressed shock that their facility would be rated as a facility with high incidence of staff-on-inmate sexual abuse. They reported never having experienced any such abuse, nor even knowing of any staff-on-inmate sexual contact at the facility. What is relevant is that a number of these same offenders, when asked about pat frisks, responded that they felt they were being conducted inappropriately by a small number of employees. Those offenders stated that they consider a thorough pat frisk to constitute a sexual assault. We believe that the perception that a good pat frisk constitutes a sexual assault is the major fact influencing the results of the [BJS Report].423
iii. Observations
At the request of the Panel, two experts provided testimony and sworn, written statements on the conditions of confinement at Elmira: Mr. Jack Beck, Director of the Prison Visiting Project (PVP) for the Correctional Association (CA) of New York, and Ms. Betsy Hutchings, Managing Attorney of the Ithaca Office of Prisoners’ Legal Services (PLS) of New York.
In his sworn, written statement, Mr. Beck explained that the New York State Legislature created the CA to inspect prisons operated by DOCCS and then report its findings to the Legislature.424 “The CA uses this unique mandate to advocate for improved prison conditions and to issue comprehensive reports to policymakers and the public.”425 The CA’s PVP conducts onsite assessments of DOCCS’ sixty-two male facilities, visiting six to eleven facilities each year.426 In the past six years, the PVP has gathered extensive data from the prison population in DOCCS, surveying inmates on a variety of issues, including general prison conditions, substance abuse and other treatment programs, medical health services, disciplinary confinement, reentry programs, and inmates’ experience with prison violence and staff abuse.427
Mr. Beck stated that the PVP’s survey of Elmira in March of 2010 is consistent with the finding in the BJS Report of elevated levels of staff sexual misconduct at the facility:428
Eleven percent of the 176 Elmira general population inmates who responded to our survey reported that they frequently or very frequently hear about staff sexual abuse occurring in the prison, suggesting that sexual abuse is more prevalent at Elmira than at approximately two-thirds of the state prisons we have visited. Similarly, 11% of Elmira survey participants said that staff sexual abuse was
423 Id. 424 Beck Test. 2 (Apr. 27, 2011), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs_apr11/testimony_beck.pdf. Mr. Beck’s testimony also appears in the Transcript of Record. See Tr., J. Beck, 476:11-505:2. 425 Beck Test. 2. 426 Id. 427 Id. 428 Id. 3.
41

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
common in the prison, a rate that is higher than the response from survey participants at approximately two-thirds of the CA-visited prisons.429
Mr. Beck stated that CA also analyzed complaints of sexual abuse at Elmira and found that in the three-year period from 2008 to 2010, Elmira averaged seventeen complaints of staff sexual abuse per year per 1000 inmates, a rate five times higher than the median rate at all DOCCS facilities.430 The CA also found that even though inmates at Elmira did not express “strongly negative views of the prison’s staff,” the survey found that the “rate of Elmira inmates’ grievances about staff conduct for the period 2007-09 was 67% higher than the median rate for all state prisons.”431
Addressing the DOCCS’ contention that the high rate of reported staff sexual misconduct at Elmira in the BJS Report may be attributable to inmates’ dissatisfaction with thorough but proper pat frisks, Mr. Beck acknowledged that aggressive pat frisks may be “highly charged encounters” that some inmates perceive to be “sexually offensive,” but he cautioned that the “persistence of inmates’ complaints of aggressive pat-frisking procedures . . . should not be use[d] to dismiss or minimize the existence of other staff conduct that involves sexual abuse.”432 Moreover, Mr. Beck testified that based on the data CA collected from Elmira in 2010, aggressive pat-frisk procedures may account for some of the inmates’ sexual misconduct complaints against staff; however, inmate discomfort with aggressive pat frisks does not account for the reported high levels of staff sexual misconduct at the prison:
The CA 2010 survey of Elmira inmates specifically asked whether the survey respondent experienced abus[ive] pat frisks; how frequently the individual heard about abusive pat frisks of others at the prison; and how common such activity was in the prison. Elmira survey participants’ responses support the conclusion that abusive pat frisks occurred at Elmira at rates that were about average for all CA-visited prisons. A review of inmates’ comments included in the survey responses did not reveal any particular expression of heightened concern about sexually abus[ive] pat frisks compared to other prisons we have visited.433
Mr. Beck said that it would be difficult to assess all of the factors at Elmira that may contribute to staff sexual abuse, but based on previous conversations with inmates and the CA’s recent visit to the facility, he identified three causes of concern.434 First, he asserted that Elmira’s physical plant is not conducive to safety.435 Mr. Beck observed that cells in housing areas run along long tiers, making it difficult for inmates to view activity outside their cells.436 In addition, the facility has few video cameras, allowing staff members, who routinely escort inmates, to isolate them from the observation of other inmates.437 Second, Mr. Beck noted that an analysis of incident reports suggests that “violence is a significant issue at the prison, both between inmates and staff
429 Id. 3-4 (citation omitted). 430 Id. 4. 431 Id. 432 Id. 5. 433 Id. (citation omitted). 434 Id. 6. 435 Id. 436 Id. 437 Id.
42

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
and among inmates.”438 Mr. Beck observed that there were a large number of inmate grievances at Elmira alleging staff misconduct, which may include any allegations of mistreatment by staff; the CA found a high correlation between allegations of staff misconduct and sexual abuse.439 According to the CA, “[t]he rate of such grievances was substantially higher for Elmira than at most other state prisons.”440 Finally, Mr. Beck stated that Elmira inmates are particularly vulnerable during the work shift from 3:00 pm to 11:00 pm when most reported staff misconduct occurs, which is after the executive staff has left for the day.441
In viewing DOCCS from a system-wide perspective, Mr. Beck made additional observations related to the incidence of sexual victimization. He noted that in analyzing DOCCS prisons with high rates of staff sexual abuse, “the common factors at these prisons were high levels of violence and staff-inmate confrontations, and an intimidating atmosphere where threats by staff with retaliation were common.”442 He also stated that in comparing the rates of sexual abuse allegations between maximum-security prisons and medium-security prisons within DOCCS, the characteristics of inmates, including whether they received convictions for violent offenses, do not account for the higher rates.443 Mr. Beck stated that another factor influencing the high rate of sexual victimization in DOCCS facilities is the relative unavailability of protective custody for vulnerable inmates.444 He reported that CA estimates that the total prison population in protective custody in New York State prisons is significantly less than 1000 beds or less than two percent of the prisons’ capacity.445
According to Mr. Beck, the CA frequently receives complaints from prisoners who are unable to obtain protective custody because they cannot meet the requirement of demonstrating a specific threat from identified individuals.446
Based on data that it has collected, the CA is also concerned that inmates under-report staff sexual abuse, especially at maximum-security prisons, because they are justifiably concerned that they risk staff intimidation and retaliation.447 In light of the Panel’s interest in the treatment of women inmates, it noted in particular Mr. Beck’s reporting that all of the women’s facilities in DOCCS have high rates of staff-on-inmate sexual abuse.448
Mr. Beck noted that tracking allegations of staff sexual misconduct in DOCCS is difficult because the available data from DOCCS is confusing; although apparently at odds with his earlier statement about the under-reporting of staff sexual misconduct, he noted, for example, that the BJS Report contains only forty-six percent of the allegations of staff sexual misconduct that the DOCCS reported to CA.449
438 Id. 439 Id. 6-7. 440 Id. 7. 441 Id. 442 Id. 8. 443 Id. 444 Id. 445 Id. 446 Id. 447 Id. 9. 448 Id. 449 Id. 11.
43

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
Finally, Mr. Beck identified the DOCCS’ low rate of substantiating inmate complaints alleging staff sexual misconduct as a factor that discourages inmates from reporting sexual abuse.450 Mr. Beck stated that at best, DOCCS substantiated only six percent of all inmate complaints alleging staff sexual misconduct.451 In contrast, Mr. Beck noted that about ninety-five percent of all disciplinary charges against inmates result in a guilty finding.452 In view of facing potential retaliation and further abuse from corrections staff, Mr. Beck stated that it is understandable that an inmate would be reluctant to file a complaint, as “[i]t is difficult to justify undertaking these risks given such limited possibilities for success.”453
The Panel also received information on the conditions of confinement at Elmira from Ms. Hutchings, who explained that the PLS is a statewide civil legal service program that provides advocacy services to indigent inmates in DOCCS facilities.454 The Ithaca Office of PLS, where Ms. Hutchings serves as the managing attorney, receives requests for assistance from inmates at Elmira as well as other DOCCS prisons.455 In 2010, Ms. Hutchings’ office received seventeen letters from Elmira inmates who requested legal assistance related to allegations of staff physical misconduct.456 Twelve letters concerned excessive force, and five involved claims of sexual misconduct.457 None of the complaints that PLS received from Elmira inmates alleging staff-oninmate sexual misconduct occurred during pat frisks.458 Concurring with Mr. Beck, Ms. Hutchings stated that the discrepancy between the high rate of reported staff sexual misconduct at Elmira in the BJS Report and the low number of complaints involving staff sexual misconduct that the PLS has received can be attributed to “the reluctance of inmates to report such conduct due to shame, fear of retaliation and the belief that . . . their reports will be found untrue.”459 Ms. Hutchings observed, “These factors are inherent in the prison culture and are the result of the power disparity between staff and inmates, the solidarity of the security staff, and insularity of prison culture.”460 Ms. Hutchings stated that a further disincentive that inmates have in reporting staff sexual misconduct is DOCCS’ written policy warning inmates that making a false claim of staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct may lead to discipline, including prosecution.461
To illustrate the deterrent effect of DOCCS’ policy, Ms. Hutchings presented a case study of an inmate whom PLS represented in 2010 who complained of staff excessive force.462 According to Ms. Hutchings, prior to contacting PLS, the inmate filed a grievance concerning a staff physical assault, including a report to the superintendent of the facility where the assault allegedly occurred.463 After an initial interview with a PLS staff attorney, the inmate confided that he had
450 Id. 12. 451 Id. 452 Id. 13. 453 Id. 12. 454 Hutchings Test. 1 (Apr. 22, 2011), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs_apr11/testimony_hutchings.pdf. A portion of Ms. Hutchings testimony appears in the Transcript of Record. See, Tr., K. Scheckner, 520:16-528:16. 455 Hutchings Test. 1. 456 Id. 457 Id. 458 Id. 459 Id. 2 (citation omitted). 460 Id. 461 Id. & n.2 (citing Directive No. 4028A). 462 Id. 2. Ms. Hutchings did not identify the DOCCS facility. 463 Id. 2-3.
44

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
also been sexually assaulted during the alleged excessive use of force, but he was afraid to include the sexual misconduct claim in his grievance “out of ‘personal pride’ and because he thought he would not be believed and would suffer retaliation.”464 Ms. Hutchings testified that after speaking to the PLS attorney, the inmate felt sufficiently safe to amend his grievance to include the sexual assault charge.465 After investigating the inmate’s grievance and dismissing it, investigators instituted charges against the inmate, claiming that he lied based on the inconsistencies in his grievances and the lack of medical evidence to prove his claim.466 At the subsequent disciplinary hearing, despite the inmate’s explanation that he did not include the sexual assault charge in the initial grievance because he feared retaliation and despite his citing another DOCCS written policy that prohibits reprisal against an inmate who reports staff sexual misconduct (and despite contesting the investigators’ understanding of the medical reports), the hearing officer found the inmate guilty and imposed a penalty of nine months in isolated confinement.467 Ms. Hutchings stated that on appeal the Director of Inmate Disciplinary Programs affirmed the determination of guilt.468 Ultimately the PLS contacted the Commissioner of DOCCS on the inmate’s behalf and obtained a reversal of the decision, but only after the inmate had spent four months confined to the SHU.469
Ms. Hutchings stated that the details of this case study are important because it shows that the very people entrusted with protecting inmates from reprisal failed to protect an inmate when he made a charge of sexual misconduct against a staff member.470 Significantly, Ms. Hutchings noted that the inmate’s initial fears about filing a sexual-misconduct grievance against a staff member were justified; she contends that other inmates will cite his experience to confirm their belief that reporting incidents of staff sexual misconduct results in retaliation.471
Similar to Mr. Krause’s concerns with the limited timeframe for filing grievances with TDCJ, Ms. Hutchings criticized the grievance procedures at DOCCS because she believes there is insufficient time to make claims of staff sexual misconduct.472 She cited a twenty-one day deadline for filing a grievance, which may be extended to forty-five days for good cause.473 She contended that these time limits do not sufficiently take into account the reluctance that many inmates must overcome to file a sexual misconduct grievance against a staff member.474
Ms. Hutchings stated that based on her interviews with civilian victim advocates, who come to local hospitals to assist inmates who are victims of sexual assault, she learned that prison security staff routinely remain in the room during the meetings between victims and advocates.475 The advocates reported that the presence of the security staff had a chilling effect, discouraging
464 Id. 3. 465 Id. 466 Id. 467 Id. 468 Id. 4. 469 Id. 5. 470 Id. 471 Id. 472 Id. 6. 473 Id. 474 Id.; see supra note 357. 475 Hutchings Test. 7.
45

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
inmates from speaking about staff perpetrators because they feared retaliation from the security staff.476
Ms. Hutchings also dismissed the assertion that aggressive pat frisks could account for the high level of reported staff sexual misconduct at Elmira. She wrote, “The notion that inmate reports of staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct during pat frisks is based on the inmates’ misunderstanding of invasiveness of a properly conducted pat frisk is misguided.”477 She said that an otherwise proper pat frisk can become improper when it includes sexual taunts, when it is “unduly rough, or when it involves unnecessary touching.”478 479
Ms. Hutchings offered five recommendations to reduce sexual victimization in DOCCS facilities: (1) to revise disciplinary policies so that inmates need not fear retaliation based on filing a complaint alleging staff sexual misconduct; (2) to transfer the responsibility for processing inmate complaints alleging staff sexual misconduct to an agency outside DOCCS so as to encourage inmates to file complaints; (3) to amend DOCCS written policies to give additional time to inmates to file staff sexual misconduct complaints; (4) to ensure that meetings between civilian victim advocates and victims of staff sexual misconduct can take place outside the earshot of security staff; and (5) to develop a policy that would allow DOCCS to videotape and review pat frisks.480
iv. Facility-Specific Recommendations
In light of the testimony from Mr. Beck and Ms. Hutchings and other data relating to Elmira, the Panel recommends that the administrators of Elmira look beyond the explanation of inmate dissatisfaction with aggressive pat-frisk procedures as the cause for the high rate that the BJS Report found of staff-on-inmate sexual victimization at the facility.481 To minimize any inmate allegations of staff sexual misconduct associated with legitimate pat frisks, the Panel also counsels the DOCCS to provide corrections staff with a refresher course on the proper procedures for conducting a pat frisk. DOCCS should also appoint a PREA coordinator not only for the system as a whole but for Elmira and each of the facilities in the New York prison system. The PREA coordinators should track inmate complaints of sexual misconduct to ensure that inmates are protected from reprisal when they make charges of sexual misconduct against staff members.482 The PREA coordinators should also ensure that staff members who are
476 Id. 477 Id. 478 Id. 7-8. 479 Apart from her testimony, Ms. Hutchings drew the Panel’s attention to an article in the New York Post that reported that an inmate at a state prison other than Elmira won a $300,000 settlement for an incident in 2007 when a corrections officer roughly groped the inmate’s genitals during a pat frisk. Janon Fisher, Inmate Scores $300k for Prison Grope, N.Y. POST, June 10, 2010, available at http://www.nypost.com. The trial judge in this matter said that there was a clear, systemic problem in the management at the state prison facility where this incident occurred, contributing “‘to an environment that allows the abuse of inmates to go unpunished.’” Id. 480 Hutchings Test. 8-9. 481 Given the lack of meaningful data related to Elmira complaint investigations, the Panel has concerns that the current DOCCS investigation into the causes of the reported high rate of sexual victimization at Elmira (see Fischer Test. 8) will yield information that prompts a significant change in policy or practice. 482 Nat’l Standards, 76 Fed. Reg. at 6299 (§ 115.365(a)).
46

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
involved in all aspects of an investigation into inmate sexual victimization are aware of their roles and responsibilities.
DOCCS may also want to reconsider the rationale for its written policies that caution inmates that they may face severe penalties for making a false charge of sexual misconduct against staff. The proposed national standards note that as long as an inmate makes a report of sexual abuse in good faith, the inmate should be protected from disciplinary sanctions even if the investigation does not substantiate the allegation.483
The Panel strongly encourages Elmira administrators to undertake a careful review of the documentation of complaint investigations. Without records that easily show the course of an investigation and the results, neither managers nor outside observers can monitor the integrity of the complaint process.
DOCCS should also revisit its procedures in providing appropriate support services to inmates who have been targets of sexual assault. Victim advocates at local hospitals may be able to offer support to traumatized inmates outside the earshot of security staff so that the inmates need not fear staff retaliation.
3. Common Themes
The Panel is mindful of the inherent limitations in drawing generalizations based on the experiences of the five prisons it selected to appear at the April 2011 hearings. Nonetheless, in carrying out its statutory mission to identify similarities and differences among low- and highincidence prisons, the Panel approached the testimony as illustrative case studies that help to identify common themes. The Panel has previously written about the significance of institutional culture in creating environments that either prevent or permit sexual victimization.484 Each of the common themes that the Panel has identified below profoundly affects a prison’s culture.
a. Recognizing Common Characteristics of Inmates Who are Vulnerable to Sexual Abuse
The BJS Report emphasized that two groups of inmates are particularly vulnerable as targets of sexual victimization: inmates who have had a prior history of being victims of sexual abuse and inmates who identify as being other than heterosexual.485 The Panel’s review of sample investigative records and the hearing testimony supports this finding.486
b. Understanding Common Differences between Male and Female Facilities
The Panel heard testimony that stressed understanding the differences in operating male and female facilities.487 Of particular importance in female prisons is recognizing the relationship
483 Id. at 6300 (§ 115.377(f)). 484 Juvenile Justice Report 33. 485 BJS Report 14 & tbl.8, 15. 486 Owen Test. 4. 487 Id.; Tr., M. Brandin, 313:16-21.
47

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
needs of women inmates.488 In creating prison cultures that protect women from sexual abuse, it is important to recognize that self-esteem is a significant criminogenic factor for female offenders.
c. Understanding the Importance of Professional Language in Establishing a Safe Environment
The importance of language in creating an institutional culture is an issue that the Panel heard previously in its hearings on juvenile justice facilities;489 so it is not surprising that the Panel received corroborative testimony at its prison hearings that the language that correctional officers use in referring to inmates under their supervision, particularly female inmates, serves as an indicator of whether an institution is committed to creating an environment that has zero tolerance for sexual victimization of inmates.490 In prisons where inmates must bear verbal harassment from the staff, the question arises as to whether other forms of mistreatment are tolerated in the facility, including sexual abuse. This question is particularly significant in light of the testimony the Panel heard from Fluvanna, which may be a case study in the linkage between the alleged demeaning terms that the staff used to refer to the women in custody and the reported high incidence of both inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization.491
d. Recognizing the Vulnerability of Non-Heterosexual Inmates and Their Need for Proper Treatment
Given that inmates who identify as being other than heterosexual are more likely to be targets of sexual abuse while in custody,492 the way a prison treats non-heterosexual inmates may also be a marker that indicates its commitment to preventing sexual victimization. The experience at Fluvanna may again be instructive. If it is true, as alleged, that Fluvanna segregated lesbians and masculine-appearing women into separate housing units and it also allowed its staff to refer to these women in demeaning ways, then one would expect to find, as the BJS Report did, a facility with a high rate of reported sexual victimization.493
A similar dynamic may also have been work at Allred in the context of responding to and investigating grievances alleging sexual victimization from homosexual inmates, whom staff referred to as “queens.” As mentioned previously, the Panel noted in its review of sample investigative files that a significant number of complainants self-identified as homosexual. Given Allred’s history of being a prison with a high rate of sexual victimization while having no records substantiating sexual abuse—other than inappropriate relationships between female staff members and male inmates, a question remains as to whether complaints from homosexual inmates are treated as seriously as they deserve.494
488 Owen Test. 3. 489 Juvenile Justice Report 6 (citing Transcript of Record: Panel Hearings on Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Correctional Facilities, T. Decker, 54:10-15 (June 3-4, 2010), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov//reviewpanel/pdfs_june10/transcript_060410.pdf). 490 Tr., B. Owen, 92:16-93:4. 491 BJS Report 8 tbl.2, 9 tbl.3. 492 Id. 14. 493 Id. 8 tbl.2. 494 National studies have found that a significant number of correctional officers believe that homosexual inmates should not be protected from rape or that if homosexual inmates are raped, they got what they deserved. See
48

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
e. Strengthening the Integrity of the Entire Complaint Process
An institution’s treatment of an inmate who alleges sexual abuse, either against another inmate or a staff member, is a telling indicator of its culture. As the Panel learned from FCI Elkton, a facility with a low incidence of sexual victimization, the prison takes every complaint seriously; it is not up to staff members to decide whether an inmate is being manipulative or abusing the grievance process. Complainants at FCI Elkton are also not immediately moved to segregation, which inmates view understandably as punishment. In contrast, facilities with a high incidence of sexual victimization appeared to have had a different approach. At Fluvanna, complainants are placed in administrative segregation while the charge is being investigated, which may be a number of weeks; at Elmira, the Panel heard testimony that inmates feared retaliation for coming forward to make a complaint; and at Allred, despite more than sixty complaints of inmate-oninmate sexual victimization, the subsequent investigations did not substantiate even one claim.
Institutions with faulty documentation of investigative procedures may have a higher incidence of sexual victimization. The Panel found that missing information from the investigative files at Allred and Elmira—including such important information as an alleged perpetrator’s prior history of predatory behavior and the ultimate disposition of an investigation—may suggest a correspondence between lax investigative procedures and an institutional culture that permits the sexual victimization of inmates.
There may be a correlation between outside oversight of investigations and the incidence of sexual victimization. Notably, the Panel heard testimony that the BOP has management controls that allow for periodic review of adherence to all institutional policies and procedures, including investigations. The Panel also heard that the CCA’s central office carefully monitors investigations into allegations of sexual abuse at all of its facilities. These approaches may explain, at least in part, the relative successes of both FCI Elkton and Bridgeport. The Panel saw no evidence that similar, regular outside monitoring of investigations was present at the institutions with a reported high incidence of sexual victimization. The lack of such outside oversight was also evident in the incomplete investigative files that these institutions sent to the Panel to review.
The Panel also heard from victim advocates that prisons should consider enlarging the time period that an inmate has for making a complaint. Given the trauma that a victim of sexual assault endures, an inmate alleging sexual abuse may need more than a few weeks before he or she may be in a position to make the charge.
The specter of retaliation may be a significant deterrent, pressuring inmates to be quiet when they should come forward with a legitimate complaint against a staff member. Prisons that fail to take reasonable steps to protect inmates from retaliation for filing a sexual abuse charge, regardless of whether the investigation ultimately substantiates the charge, risk undermining the entire complaint process.
Katherine Robb, What We Don’t Know Might Hurt Us: Subjective Knowledge and the Eighth Amendment’s Deliberate Indifference Standard for Sexual Abuse in Prisons, 65 N.Y.U. ANN. SURV. AM. L. 705, 719 nn.69 & 70 (2010) (citing Peter L. Nacci & Thomas R. Kane, Sex and Sexual Aggression in Federal Prisons: Inmate Involvement and Employee Impact, 48 FED. PROBATION 46, 48 (1984); Helen Eigenberg, Correctional Officers’ Definition of Rape in Male Prisons, 28 J. CRIM. JUST. 435, 442 (2000)).
49

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
When inmates lose confidence in the grievance process and the resultant investigations, victims of sexual abuse are unlikely to come forward.
f. Providing Effective Victim Services
The services a prison provides to an inmate after a sexual assault demonstrate how seriously it takes the issue of sexual victimization. The failure to provide comprehensive victim services to an inmate alleging sexual abuse devalues the significance not only of the claim but also of the individual making the claim.
Institutions that are relatively isolated from outside services may tend to have closed environments that invite deviant behavior.495 When outside victim advocates are not available or when their interactions with victims are not confidential, inmates may be less inclined to take advantage of the support they need or report staff sexual misconduct.
There is a need for correctional institutions to collaborate with victim service providers. In many states, victim advocates and, in particular, statewide sexual assault coalitions and rape crisis centers seek to partner with correctional agencies in both preventing and responding to sexual victimization.
g. Equipping Staff to Respond Effectively to Inmate Sexual Victimization
The Panel noted that institutions that either lacked a PREA coordinator or had an ineffective one risked having a higher incidence of sexual abuse.
Many of the wardens who appeared at the hearings stressed the importance of providing their staffs with appropriate training to deal with the particular challenges their facilities encounter in dealing with sexual victimization. Notably, at Bridgeport and Fluvanna, the wardens stressed the need to provide training to staff in operating a female facility and understanding the importance of maintaining professional boundaries. The need for this training is no less needed at male facilities such as Allred, where female staff members entered into inappropriate relationships with male inmates. With each staff training program, however, it is important to identify the desired outcome and then measure the staff’s progress toward achieving it.
4. Topics for Further Study
The Panel encourages academics and practitioners to conduct additional research on the following topics.
a. Why are Homosexuality and Prior Victimization Significant Indicators of Inmate Victims of Sexual Abuse?
The Panel is interested in understanding more precisely the dynamics that make homosexual inmates and inmates with a history of sexual victimization prior to coming to prison particularly vulnerable to sexual aggression. There are a number of questions related to this issue. If having a history of victimization attracts predators, how do inmates who have internalized this identity
495 See Nat’l Standards, 76 Fed. Reg. at 6282 (§ 115.53).
50

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
convey this message? Are there effective tools that prior victims can access to protect themselves in prison? Do negative attitudes of prison staff toward homosexual inmates play a significant role in making the inmates particularly vulnerable to sexual assaults? If so, is there effective training that engages these attitudes in a constructive way to create an environment that protects homosexual inmates?
b. What are the Distinctive Needs of Female Facilities in Preventing Sexual Victimization?
The Panel is aware of the paucity of resources that are available to female correctional facilities when it comes to serving the particular needs of female offenders. The Panel encourages additional research into ways of creating healthy female prisons based on data that show the relationship between institutional practices (e.g., policies on touching between inmates) and the incidence of sexual victimization. The Panel also encourages the development of training tools especially tailored to helping staff who work in female facilities in addressing such issues as maintaining proper professional boundaries and creating an environment free of verbal harassment.
B. Jails
1. Low-Incidence Jails
a. Hinds County
i. Facility Description
Located in Raymond, Mississippi, Hinds County, which opened in 2009, is a joint county and state facility for men, which housed on August 9, 2011, 156 state inmates convicted of felonies and fifty-six county inmates convicted of misdemeanors.496
The state inmates and the jail inmates occupy separate sections or “zones” of the jail, and they do not interact with each other.497 Each zone can house up to 200 inmates at a time.498 The facility consists of open bays, which afford correctional officers a clear line of sight to observe the inmates at all times.499 All of the inmates are convicted on nonviolent charges; some are at the facility for a few months, whereas others are at the facility for as long as five to eight years.500 None of the inmates has a sex-crime conviction, and state inmates have an incentive to abide by the jail’s rules or they risk being sent back to state prisons where they would not have the same level of freedom and variety of work assignments.501 The work assignments include such
496 Interview with John Hulsebosch, Deputy, HCSD, in Raymond, Miss. (Aug. 9, 2011) (on file with the Panel) [hereinafter Hinds County Interview]. In response to the Panel’s Data Request, Hinds County provided no data related to the capacity of the facility, the number and composition of inmates, and the number and composition of staff. Hinds County Resp. 9-12, 23-27 (on file with the Panel). 497 Hinds County Interview 1. 498 Id. 3. 499 Id. 1, 4. 500 Id. 1. 501 Id. 3, 4.
51

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
projects as cutting grass on state and county roads, assisting nonprofit organizations, and serving on the facility’s volunteer fire department that serves the local community.502
The facility has eighty-seven staff members.503 All are sworn deputies, but only two or three are certified deputies, which means that they completed training at a law-enforcement academy.504 The staff is male except for four females: two nurses, one kitchen worker, and one state caseworker.505 During each shift, three staff members work in each zone.506
There were no suicides, attempted suicides, homicides, or attempted homicides at the facility in 2008 and 2009.507 There were also no reported allegations of sexual abuse of any kind at the facility in either 2008 or 2009.508 Consequently, during the time period under review, there were no investigations into allegations of sexual abuse, and no employees received discipline or were terminated for sexual misconduct.509
Hinds County does not have a specific policy on preventing or responding to sexual victimization.510 On touring the facility, the Panel did not observe any posters or other materials that educate inmates on how to prevent or report sexual assault.511 In 2008 and 2009, Hinds County did not have a PREA coordinator.512
ii. Facility’s Explanation for Reported Low Incidence of Sexual Victimization
Mr. Malcom McMillin, Sheriff of Hinds County, who is responsible for the operation of the Hinds County facility, testified that the low incidence of sexual victimization at the work center may be attributable to a number of factors, including the caliber and training of the correctional officers, the design of the facility, the inmate population, and the work center’s communityservice programming.513
Sheriff McMillin noted that Hinds County deputies assigned to detention must complete eighty hours of training to be certified, and there are no uncertified jailers at Hinds County.514 In referring to his staff, Sheriff McMillin said, “They are trained to be fair but firm with those individuals who are incarcerated in our facility, allowing them to be observant towards
502 Id. 2. 503 Id. 504 Id. 505 Id. 506 Id. 3. 507 Hinds County Resp. 13, 15. 508 Id. 29-33. 509 Id. 22. 510 Hinds County Interview 2. 511 Id. 512 Hinds County Resp. 2. 513 Tr., M. McMillin, 440:20-445:3. As he was not re-elected, at the end of calendar year 2011, Sheriff McMillin’s term of office ended. 514 Id. 442:6-10; but see supra note 504.
52

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
conditions that might lead to possible sexual assault, and trusting enough for inmates to confide in them should such an incident occur.”515
Sherriff McMillin said that the work center’s open-bay design, which allows for direct supervision, deters sexual assault because it minimizes places where they could occur.516 He also noted that the jail has a modern video surveillance system that detention officers monitor twenty-four hours a day.517
According to Sheriff McMillin, the composition of the inmate population at Hinds County may also be a factor in its low incidence of sexual assault, because all of the state inmates are carefully selected as to their suitability in taking advantage of the programming provided by the work center.518
Finally, Sheriff McMillin testified that the fact that Hinds County is a work center minimizes the opportunities for sexual assault.519 He said there is constant supervision of inmates as they work thirty hours each week at jobs in the facility and community.520 The assignments may include working for nonprofit organizations such as the Mississippi Food Network and Habitat for Humanity, serving in the facility-operated volunteer fire department, collecting litter, and eradicating graffiti.521
Chief Deputy Steven Pickett observed that the inmates’ work in the community has a positive impact on the culture of Hinds County, which has a low number of assaults, aggravated assaults, and sexual assaults.522 He said that the community service that the inmates perform leads to a greater sense of respect not only for themselves but for each other.523
iii. Observations
Based on Hinds County’s response to the Data Request, the onsite visit, and the testimony that the Panel received on Hinds County, the Panel notes that the low incidence of sexual victimization in the jail may be attributable to many of the factors that Sheriff McMillin cited, including the inmate population, which does not have any violent offenders. There are, however, three factors that Sheriff McMillin identified that the Panel would like to underscore: prison design, community service, and the caliber and training of the correctional officers. First, although building design alone does not reduce sexual victimization of inmates, a correctional facility that has a design that promotes direct supervision, eliminates hidden areas, and includes monitored surveillance cameras can make the work of corrections administrators significantly easier in preventing sexual abuse. Second, when inmates work on community-service projects, their efforts not only benefit the neighboring communities they serve, but they also have a
515 Tr., M. McMillin, 442:12-18. 516 Id. 442:19-21, 443. 517 Id. 443:10-13. 518 Id. 443:2-7. 519 Id. 443:18-19. 520 Id. 443:20-444:1, 21. 521 Id. 444:1-3, 7-9, 22. 522 Id., S. Pickett, 449:20-450:2. 523 Id. 450:1-5.
53

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
rehabilitative effect. Through community service, inmates have an opportunity to develop greater self-respect, which then extends to the respectful treatment of other inmates in the facilities where they live. Lastly, when corrections staff members are “firm but fair,” acting with professional integrity in keeping with the organization’s mission, inmates will find them not only approachable but also trusted to take necessary actions to address sexual impropriety.
b. The Moss Center
i. Facility Description
The Moss Center, located in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and completed in 1999, provides for direct supervision of inmates; the facility is bright, light, and airy.524 The Moss Center houses both male and female inmates at all custody levels, including a small number of juveniles.525 In addition to inmates from Tulsa County, the Moss Center houses inmates detained by the U.S. Marshals Service and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).526
On January 1, 2008, and on January 1, 2009, the rated capacity of the jail was 1714.527 On January 1, 2008, there were 1390 inmates in the jail.528 In calendar year 2008, the total number of inmates who spent any time at the Moss Center was 30,312; the average length of stay was eighteen days; and the longest length of stay was 204 days.529 On January 1, 2009, there were 1359 inmates in the jail.530 Although the jail ordinarily functioned well below its rated capacity in 2008 and 2009, on June 1, 2009, there were 1717 inmates present in the jail.531 In calendar year 2009, the total number of inmates who spent any time at the Moss Center was 30,879; the average length of stay was eighteen days; and the longest length of stay was 365 days.532
In calendar year 2008, the inmate composition at the Moss Center was as follows: 12,222 White males; 4126 White females; 7414 African American males; 2274 African American females; 2586 Hispanic males; 200 Hispanic females; 894 Alaska Native or American Indian males; 383 Alaska Native or American Indian females; 189 males or other or unknown ancestry; and 24 females of other or unknown ancestry.533 In calendar year 2009, the inmate composition at the Moss Center was as follows: 12,122 White males; 4414 White females; 6952 African American males; 2074 African American females; 3681 Hispanic males; 257 Hispanic females; 863 Alaska Native or American Indian males; 353 Alaska Native or American Indian females; 135 males of other or unknown ancestry; and 28 females of other or unknown ancestry.534 The Moss Center did not use the following three categories in tracking the racial or ethnic backgrounds of inmates
524 Interview with Stanley Glanz, Sheriff, TCSO, et al. in Tulsa, Okla. 1 (Aug. 17, 2011) (on file with the Panel). 525 Id. 526 Id. 527 Moss Center Resp. 9(a), 10(a) (on file with the Panel). 528 Id. 9(b). 529 Id. 9(f)-(h). 530 Id. 10(b). 531 Id. 10(d). 532 Id. 10(f)-(h). 533 Id. 11(a)-(c), (e), (g). 534 Id. 12(d), (f), (g).
54

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
in 2008 and 2009: (1) Asian, (2) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and (3) two or more races.535
The Moss Center reported that in 2008, there was one inmate suicide, twenty-five attempted suicides, no homicides, and no attempted homicides.536 The suicide and attempted suicides in 2008 were not related to sexual victimization.537 The Moss Center reported that in 2009, there was one suicide, nineteen attempted suicides, no homicides, and no attempted homicides.538 The suicide and attempted suicides in 2009 were not related to sexual victimization.539
On January 1, 2008, the total number of authorized staff positions at the Moss Center was 340 (forty-three sworn and 297 non-sworn).540 The staffing level on January 1, 2008, was 333 (fortythree sworn and 297 non-sworn).541 On January 1, 2009, the total number of authorized staff positions at the Moss Center was 339 (sixty-two sworn and 277 non-sworn).542 The staffing level on January 1, 2008, was 339 (sixty-two sworn and 277 non-sworn).543
The Moss Center does not distinguish between sworn and non-sworn staff members.544 On January 1, 2008, the ratio of staff members to inmates was one staff person per 4.17 inmates; on January 1, 2009, the ratio of staff members to inmates was one staff person per 4.01 inmates.545
In calendar year 2008, one staff person was terminated from employment for sexual misconduct.546 In calendar year 2009, on the basis of sexual misconduct, the Moss Center terminated three staff members and allowed one to resign.547
There was one investigation of staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct in 2008 at the Moss Center and another investigation in 2009.548 In the first incident, a male nurse allegedly observed a female juvenile while she was showering.549 The investigation produced sufficient evidence to present the charge to the district attorney, who then declined to prosecute.550 In the second incident, a male detention officer allegedly used coercion to perform oral sex on a male inmate.551 The investigation produced sufficient evidence to present the charge to the district attorney, who then prosecuted the case and obtained a conviction.552
535 Id. 11(d), (f), (g); id. 12(d), (f), (g). 536 Id. 13. 537 Id. 14. 538 Id. 15. 539 Id. 16. 540 Id. 23(a)-(c). 541 Id. 23(d)(i), (e)(i), (f)(i). There appears to be a computing error in the data supplied by the Moss Center. If on January 1, 2008, there were forty-three sworn and 297 non-sworn staff members actually present, the total would be 340 instead of the reported 333. 542 Id. 24(a)-(c). 543 Id. 24(d)(i), (e)(i), (f)(i). 544 Id. 25(m)-(n). 545 Id. 25(a), (e). 546 Id. 22(a) (2008). 547 Id. 22(a)-(b) (2009). 548 App. C (Moss Center Staff-on-Inmate Assaults); Moss Center Resp. 35. 549 Id. 35(g) (2008). 550 Id. 35(h), (j) (2008). 551 Id. 35(b), (g) (2009). 552 Id. 35(h), (j) (2009).
55

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
In 2008 and 2009, there were a total of six investigations into inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization.553 The charges included forcible sodomy, sexual misconduct, sexual battery, and attempted rape.554 Three of the charges involved unwanted touching that resulted in the perpetrators receiving in-house discipline.555 The Moss Center presented two charges of sexual victimization to the district attorney, who declined prosecution; one of the charges was sexual assault, and the other was attempted rape.556 The facility also presented a charge of forcible oral sodomy to the district attorney, who accepted the matter for prosecution.557
ii. Facility’s Explanation for Reported Low Incidence of Sexual Victimization
Mr. Stanley Glanz, Sheriff of Tulsa County, identified a number of factors that contributed to the low incidence of sexual victimization at the Moss Center, but he particularly emphasized the importance of staff training and the accreditation of the facility.558
Beginning in 2005, all employees who attended basic jail training received a four-hour session on harassment, sexual awareness, and prison rape.559 Since 2008, the Moss Center’s training division has also presented to new staff members information and resources related to PREA, which were made available by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC).560
Through module training programs, which allow all employees who work in security areas to receive from eighty to a hundred hours of in-service training annually by attending daily thirtyminute squad meetings, the Moss Center is able to provide continuing education courses to its staff.561 One of these courses, entitled Sexual Harassment, includes the following materials: Cross Gender Supervision; Sexual Harassment: An Innovative Perspective; Men, Women and Respect; and Correctional Workplace Issues, Sexual Harassment in Corrections.562
Sheriff Glanz testified that there is a benefit that comes from having outside monitors; he noted that the Moss Center and the TCSO have welcomed inspections, often related to meeting accreditation standards, from the American Correctional Association (ACA), the National Commission on Correctional Health Care, the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Department of Homeland
553 Id. 36. The Moss Center’s response to the Panel’s Data Request and the chart prepared by Creative Corrections both agree that there were six investigations into inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization in calendar years 2008 and 2009; however, there is a discrepancy in the reported incidents. The second incident in 2009 described in the Moss Center’s Response does not appear in the chart that Creative Corrections prepared based on the files that the facility produced; also, the Moss Center does not account for incident five in Creative Corrections’ chart (see app. C (Moss Center Inmate-on-Inmate Assaults)). The analysis here follows the Moss Center’s Response. See Tr., S. Glanz, 410:12. 554 App. C (Moss Center Inmate-on-Inmate Assaults). 555 Moss Center Resp. 36 (Incidents 2 & 3 in 2008; Incident 2 in 2009). 556 Id. (Incidents 1 & 3 in 2009). 557 Id. (Incident 1 in 2008). 558 Tr., S. Glanz, 429:1-2. 559 Moss Center Resp. 43(a). 560 Id. 561 Id. 43(b). 562 Id.
56

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
Security.563 Sheriff Glanz observed that being open to outside inspection prevents sexual assaults at the Moss Center.564 He noted that another deterrent to sexual victimization at the facility, consistent with this openness, is the daily presence of hundreds of community volunteers who work with inmates.565
According to the testimony that the Panel heard, other factors that contributed to the low incidence of sexual victimization at the Moss Center are a corrections philosophy and a facility design that promote direct supervision,566 a rapid response to and in-depth investigation of sexual assaults,567 inmate programming that develops life skills,568 and an inmate classification system based on behavior.569
In the written response to the Panel’s Data Request, Sheriff Glanz summarized the reasons for the Moss Center’s success:
It is my belief that employees of this facility are proactive with sexual assault due to their professionalism, the training that is given on a continual basis that addresses such issues, the thoroughness of the investigations into every complaint or allegation and that the management style is such that inmates are treated as people.570
iii. Observations
Sheriff Glanz noted that he has found reluctance on the part of prosecutors to pursue cases involving female staff members who have entered into inappropriate relationships with male inmates; however, prosecutors appear to be more inclined to take sexual misconduct cases involving a male staff member and a male inmate.571 Sheriff Glanz said that he has found that both federal and local authorities often decline to prosecute female staff members.572
In reviewing the reported incidents of sexual victimization at the Moss Center, the Panel found documentation that a rape kit was provided in one instance to the complainant; however in two instances the perpetrator was a repeat offender.573 Also, a review of the incidents showed that even though the Moss Center had a contract with an outside vendor to provide mental health services, the contract did not address specifically counseling for sexual assault victims.574 In none of the reviewed cases was there documentation that the facility provided an advocate or
563 Tr., S. Glanz, 425:15-426:15. 564 Id. 427:21-428:4. 565 Id. 428:4-10. 566 Id. 412:4-413:7. 567 Id. 415:5-7. 568 Id., M. Robinette, 416:15-417:1, 417:13-418:2. 569 Id. 432:18-434:6. 570 Moss Center Resp. 46. 571 Tr., S. Glanz, 420:14-21. 572 Id. 421:8-18. 573 App. B 18, 19 (Strengths and Weaknesses of Each Facility (Jails)). 574 Id. 20.
57

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
counseling services to victims of sexual assault.575 The Moss Center may want to review its practices in making available victim services to inmates who have been sexually assaulted.
Like Hinds County, the Moss Center is a modern building designed to support the philosophy of direct supervision of inmates. Despite the significant differences between Hinds County and the Moss Center, it may be no coincidence that the two jails that the Panel identified as having a low incidence of sexual victimization share this common commitment. The Panel supports Sheriff Glanz’s assessment that providing ongoing staff training and welcoming outside inspection— whether through the accreditation process of professional organizations or the constant presence of community volunteers—are invaluable tools in creating a jail culture that prevents sexual victimization.
2. High-Incidence Jails
a. Clallam County
i. Facility Description
Clallam County is located in Port Angeles, Washington. On January 1, 2008, and on January 1, 2009, the full rated capacity of Clallam County was 120.576 The actual number of inmates present in the facility on January 1, 2008, was 125.577 In calendar year 2008, the total number of inmates who spent any time at the jail was 44,544; the average length of stay was sixteen days; and the longest stay of any inmate was 339 days.578 The actual number of inmates present in the facility on January 1, 2009, was 126.579 In calendar year 2009, the total number of inmates who spent any time at the jail was 43,781; the average length of stay was fourteen days; and the longest stay of any inmate was 342 days.580
In calendar year 2008, the racial and ethnic composition of the total number of inmates at Clallam County was as follows: 37,781 Whites, 1205 African Americans, 1574 Hispanics, 47 Asians, 3902 Alaska Natives or American Indians, no Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders, and 45 inmates classified as other or unknown.581 In calendar year 2009, the racial and ethnic composition of the total number of inmates at Clallam County was as follows: 36,827 Whites, 1736 African Americans, 886 Hispanics, 22 Asians, 4295 Alaska Natives or American Indians, no Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders, and 15 inmates classified as other or unknown.582
575 Id. 576 Clallam County Resp. 9(a), 10(a) (on file with the Panel). 577 Id. 9(b). 578 Id. 9(f)-(h). 579 Id. 10(b). 580 Id. 10(f)-(h). 581 Id. 11(a)-(g). These figures total 44,554 instead of 44,544; the discrepancy is a reporting error attributable to Clallam County. Clallam County does not collect inmate data under the category of two or more races. 582 Id. 12(a)-(g).
58

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
In 2008, there were no inmate suicides, homicides, or attempted homicides at Clallam County; but there was a single attempted suicide.583 Clallam County provided no information on whether the suicide attempt in 2008 had any connection with sexual victimization.584 In 2009, there were no inmate suicides, homicides, or attempted homicides; however, there were nine suicide attempts.585 None of the suicide attempts in 2009 involved sexual victimization.586
On January 1, 2008, and on January 1, 2009, the total number of authorized staff positions at Clallam County was forty-one (forty-one sworn and no non-sworn).587 The staffing level on January 1, 2008, was thirty-nine (thirty-nine sworn and no non-sworn).588 The staffing level on January 1, 2009, was forty (forty sworn and no non-sworn).589 The ratio of sworn staff members to inmates on January 1, 2008, was one staff person per 3.13 inmates; the ratio of sworn staff members to inmates on January 1, 2009, was one staff person per 3.15 inmates.590
Clallam County reported that in 2008 and 2009, there were no allegations of sexual abuse involving either inmates or staff.591
In 2008 and 2009, the jail did have a PREA coordinator.592 When inmates pick up telephones in the facility they receive information on PREA and how to report sexual victimization.593
ii. Facility’s Explanation for Reported High Incidence of Sexual Victimization
Mr. William L. Benedict, Sheriff of Clallam County, contended that the BJS Report was in error for reporting a high incidence of sexual victimization at Clallam County, because the jail simply did not have any incidents of sexual abuse.594 He testified that shortly after he received the results of the survey he went to the FBI to request an investigation and he went on a local radio station to request anyone who was a victim at Clallam County to come forward.595 Sheriff Benedict said he respected the confidentiality and anonymity of those inmates who participated in the BJS survey, but by requesting victims to contact his office he wanted information.596 Sheriff Benedict said that he broadcast the PREA hotline number to the public so that it could report instances of sexual abuse at the jail, and he also contacted the public defenders and requested any information regarding clients who might be victims.597 Despite all of these efforts, Sheriff Benedict testified that no one has ever come forward to claim being a victim of sexual
583 Id. 13. 584 Id. 14. 585 Id. 15. 586 Id. 16. 587 Id. 23(a)-(c), 24(a)-(c). 588 Id. 23(d)(i), (e)(i), (f)(i). 589 Id. 24(d)(i), (e)(i), (f)(i). 590 Id. 25(a), (e). 591 Id. 22, 30-33. 592 Id. 2. 593 Tr., G. Christensen, 263:7-10. 594 Id., W. Benedict, 221:11-13. 595 Id. 221:14-15, 221:22-222:3. 596 Id. 222:5-6, 11. 597 Id. 222:20-21, 223:2-5.
59

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
abuse while housed at Clallam County.598 Sheriff Benedict said that he also received a letter from the head of the public defenders, who concurred with him in questioning whether any sexual abuse occurred in the jail; Sheriff Benedict noted that the head of the public defenders would know about sexual abuse in the jail because he interviews every inmate.599 Sheriff Benedict also said that the FBI reported to him that there was no evidence that his staff was abusing inmates and until it could find a victim there was nothing the FBI could do.600 Sheriff Benedict pointedly observed, “[T]here are no victims.”601
Sheriff Benedict stated that he did not question the methodology of the BJS survey, its accuracy, its internal safeguards to identify dissemblers, or the veracity of inmates.602 He also said that he also understood that prison rape happens and that it needs to be eliminated.603 He did, however, question what the survey actually measures; he contended that in addition to gathering data on sexual misconduct, the survey may reflect a “cultural delusion.”604 Sheriff Benedict argued that the survey results may be understood in reference to the fantasy that a significant number of people sincerely believe that they have been abducted and sexually molested by aliens:
I think there is, for lack of a better term—and I’ve done some research on this— there is a factor that I’ll call cultural delusion. And it is very prevalent in our society, and I’ll give you an example. You may think it’s far off, but it is very true.
Many surveys have been done, and it shows that between fifty and seventy percent of our population believe in UFOs. . . . Does that prove that they exist? No. But there is a subset of that which says two percent of the general population that believe—and survey after survey concludes this—that believe that they have been abducted by aliens, have gone to the mother ship. Some of them have been sexually abused in the mother ship.605
Sheriff Benedict said that the frequency of reported alien abductions is unlikely, yet he infers that this cultural phenomenon may be a useful reference in thinking about inmate responses to the BJS survey.606 He noted that many inmates suffer from PTSD as well as mental illness; and so, despite facts to the contrary, they may sincerely believe that they have been the victims of sexual abuse by another inmate or a staff member.607 He suggested that the survey should filter out these self-deluded responses; the survey’s current capacity to screen out inconsistent responses is insufficient because it does not eliminate responses from inmates who are convinced that their
598 Id. 222:22-223:2. Sheriff Benedict stated that there was one reported incident of an attorney who engaged in sexual misconduct while visiting a client in a sealed attorney-client booth at the jail, a place the jail cannot observe; the attorney was not a staff member. Sheriff Benedict immediately suspended the attorney from the jail and took measures to have him disbarred. Id. 223:6-17. 599 Id. 223:18-22. 600 Id. 262:10-15. 601 Id. 224:15; see also id. 266:7-8, 274:15-16. 602 Id. 227:22-228:3, 230:17-18, 268:20-21, 270:12-18. 603 Id. 226:4-6. 604 Id. 227:18-21, 228:12-17. 605 Id. 228:12-229:4. 606 Id. 229:11-13. 607 Id. 229:17-22.
60

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
delusions of sexual abuse are real.608 Sheriff Benedict observed, “[W]ith human beings, belief is often as powerful as experience.”609
Sheriff Benedict also questioned the results in the BJS Report based on extrapolating the survey results to the yearly population size at Clallam County.610 He said that if as the BJS Report showed, eight percent of the daily population at the jail experienced sexual victimization, the Sheriff speculated that with roughly 4000 bookings per year, which the Sheriff then halved to take into account repeat offenders, there would be approximately 160 people who have experienced sexual abuse in the jail every year (i.e., eight percent of 2000).611 He noted that if these numbers were true, then there would be 800 victims since he took office five years ago.612 Contesting these results, Sheriff Benedict said, “Now surely one of them would have come forward to say, ‘I’m one of those victims.’ I didn’t get that.”613 He also noted that he receives 400 inmate complaints each year, and none of them had to do even with sexual harassment.614
iii. Observations
The Panel appreciates that given the absence of any in-house records of sexual abuse and the reluctance of any victims to come forward, Sheriff Benedict sincerely questions the validity of the BJS Report as it pertains to Clallam County. Nonetheless, the Panel relies on the science and integrity of the BJS survey and defers to the BJS to address any of Sheriff Benedict’s lingering concerns. As previously noted, during the reporting period of the BJS Report, there were instances in which an attorney, who was not an employee of Clallam County, allegedly exposed himself to inmates.615 Reference to these instances might have contributed, at least in part, to the BJS’ findings.
iv. Facility-Specific Recommendations
Based on its site visit, the Panel found that the design of Clallam County is quite dated; it uses a holding tank with double bunks to house most of its inmates. Clallam County is also in varying states of disrepair, lacking cleanliness. The facility operates in a manner that limits direct observation of inmates.616 While touring the facility, the Panel observed that the windows of every unit were covered completely with magnetic covers, which were designed to prevent inmates from looking outward.617 These covers, however, also prevented correctional officers from looking in on the inmates on a routine basis; consequently, inmates perceived that they were not being watched at any time other than during security tours.618 To remedy what the Panel identified as a safety issue, Sheriff Benedict reported that he took this observation to heart
608 Id. 230:1-5. 609 Id. 271:10-11. 610 Id. 232:1-11. 611 Id. 612 Id.; id. 235:15-16. 613 Id. 232:12-13. 614 Id. 235:10-12. 615 See supra note 598. 616 Tr., W. Benedict, 237:18-20. 617 Id., G. Christensen, 236:11-15. 618 Id. 236:10-21.
61

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
and was in the process of replacing the film on the windows with a one-way coating that would still prevent inmates from looking outward but would allow correctional officers to see into units where inmates are.619 The Panel also observed that there was a lack of privacy in the boxes used for collecting grievance forms from inmates, and the Panel suggested that Clallam County might consider ways to guarantee the confidentiality of the grievance process.620 Sheriff Benedict noted the concern and said that he would address it.621 The Panel also observed that even though the facility’s telephones advised inmates about PREA, there were no posted placards that informed them of the jail’s policies on the prevention of sexual victimization.622 The Panel recommends placing in the jail posters that inmates can readily view that have information on reporting sexual victimization.
b. Miami-Dade PTDC
i. Facility Description
The PTDC, located in Miami, Florida, and opened in 1961, is a high-rise facility, just one of six housing units of the MDCR.623 It was originally designed to process through its receiving area eighty inmates per day or 30,000 inmates per year.624 Today the PTDC processes 300 inmates per day or 110,000 per year.625 The PTDC houses only male inmates, and many are classified as among the most violent offenders in the MDCR jail system.626
On January 1, 2008, and on January 1, 2009, the number of inmates at the PTDC at its full rated capacity was 1400.627 The actual number of inmates present at PTDC on January 1, 2008, was 1556.628 The number of inmates at PTDC frequently exceeded the full rated capacity in 2008 (e.g., on March 1, 2008, there were 1767 inmates; on June 1, 2008, there were 1570 inmates; and on September 1, 2008, there were 1659 inmates).629 In 2008, the total number of inmates who spent any time at the facility was 118,080; the average length of an inmate’s stay was just over twenty-two days; and the longest length of stay of any inmate was 3884 days.630 On January 1, 2009, the actual number of inmates present at PTDC was 1365.631 Although the number of inmates at PTDC in 2009 at times exceeded its capacity, the inmate population was significantly closer to the rated capacity and at times even less (e.g., on March 1, 2009, there were 1436 inmates; on June 1, 2009, there were 1432 inmates; and on September 1, 2009, there were 1341
619 Id., W. Benedict, 237:8-15. 620 Id., G. Christensen, 260:9-17. 621 Id., W. Benedict, 260:18-20. 622 Id., G. Christensen, 263:10-11. 623 Ryan Test. 2 (Apr. 15, 2011), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs_sept11/testimony_ryan.pdf. Director Ryan’s testimony also appears in the Transcript of Record. See Tr., T. Ryan, 284:12-301:6. 624 Ryan Test. 2. 625 Id. 626 Id. 627 PTDC Resp. 9(a), 10(a) (on file with the Panel). 628 Id. 9(b). 629 Id. 9(c)-(e). 630 Id. 9(f)-(h). 631 Id. 10(b).
62

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
inmates).632 In 2009, the total number of inmates who spent any time at the PTDC was 109,899; the average length of an inmate’s stay was over twenty-one days; and the longest stay of any inmate was 4249 days.633
In 2008, for the total number of inmates at PTDC, the racial and ethnic composition was as follows: 14,784 Whites; 49,800 African Americans; 53,452 Hispanics; 25 Asians; 13 Alaska Natives or American Indians; no Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders; no inmates identifying as belonging to two or more races; and 6 inmates of unknown racial or ethnic heritage.634 In 2009, for the total number of inmates at PTDC, the racial and ethnic composition was as follows: 13,363 Whites; 45,943 African Americans; 50,537 Hispanics; 34 Asians; 17 Alaska Natives or American Indians; no Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders; no inmates identifying as belonging to two or more races; and 5 inmates of unknown racial or ethnic heritage.635
In 2008, at PTDC there were no suicides, homicides, or attempted homicides; there were, however, six attempted suicides.636 In 2009, at PTDC there were no suicides, homicides, or attempted homicides; there were again, however, eight attempted suicides.637 The PTDC reported that the attempted suicides in 2008 and 2009 were not related to staff-on-inmate or inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization.638
On January 1, 2008, the total number of authorized staff positions at PTDC was 429 (397 sworn and thirty-two non-sworn).639 The staffing level at PTDC on January 1, 2008, was 342 (294 sworn and forty-eight non-sworn).640 On January 1, 2009, the total number of authorized staff positions at PTDC was 378 (350 sworn and twenty-eight non-sworn).641 The staffing level at PTDC on January 1, 2009, was 340 (296 sworn and forty-four non-sworn).642
On January 1, 2008, the ratio of sworn staff to inmates was one to sixteen; on January 1, 2009, the ratio of sworn staff to inmates was one to fourteen.643
In 2008 and 2009, the PTDC initiated nine investigations into inmate-on-inmate sexual assaults.644 The charges included rape and sexual assault.645 In each case, either the complainant
632 Id. 10(c)-(e). 633 Id. 10(f)-(h). 634 Id. 11. 635 Id. 12. The PTDC reported that the total number of inmates in 2009 was 109,899, but the data it provided to the Panel on the racial and ethnic composition of the total inmate population accounted for only 109,865. 636 Id. 13. 637 Id. 15. 638 Id. 14, 16. 639 Id. 23(a). 640 Id. 23(d)(i), (e)(i), (f)(i). The numbers do not include staff members on scheduled leave. 641 Id. 24(a). 642 Id. 24(d)(i), (e)(i), (f)(i). The numbers do not include staff members on scheduled leave. 643 Id. 25(a), (e). 644 App. C (PTDC Inmate-on-Inmate Assaults). Lt. Eric Garcia, Special Victims Bureau, Miami-Dade Police Department (MDPD), testified that his unit investigated eleven sexual assault cases in 2008 and 2009, but it is unclear from his testimony whether these investigations were limited to the PTDC or involved other MDCR units. Tr., E. Garcia, 328:17-19. Lt. Garcia testified that out of the eleven cases that his unit investigated, one resulted in
63

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
rescinded the charge or the evidence did not support the allegation.646 In 2008 and 2009, the PTDC conducted three investigations into staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct.647 The charges included sexual misconduct and an inappropriate relationship with an inmate.648 In the first case, the investigation did not substantiate the underlying charge, but it found that staff members failed to report the matter immediately to the appropriate supervisor.649 In the second case, the investigation substantiated the charges against a female officer, finding that she had an inappropriate relationship with a male inmate and that she introduced contraband into the jail; PTDC terminated her employment.650 In the third case, the investigation found insufficient evidence to support the charge.651
In 2008 and 2009, based on sexual misconduct, the PTDC terminated three staff members and disciplined one staff member.652
ii. Facility’s Explanation for Reported High Incidence of Sexual Victimization
The MDCR did not provide an explanation for the high incidence of sexual victimization at the PTDC, contending that its own internal review did not support the findings of the BJS Report: “MDCR respectfully disputes the characterization of a high incidence of sexual victimization at the PTDC facility during the years 2008 and 2009. An analysis of empirical data by MDCR and MDPD do not corroborate such a finding.”653
Mr. Timothy P. Ryan, Director, MDCR, reminded the Panel in his testimony that few jails in the United States have undergone the level of scrutiny his has, which has included a recent investigation by the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, which resulted in adverse findings based on the MDCR’s noncompliance with the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA).654
For the Panel to understand the MDCR, Mr. Ryan offered basic information about the jail system in Miami-Dade County.655 A sheriff does not oversee the system; instead, MDCR reports to the Mayor of Miami-Dade County and the Board of County Commissioners.656 The MDCR is the
an arrest and prosecution; one was unfounded; and as to the remaining nine cases, either the victim chose not to continue with the investigation or the State Attorney’s Office declined to prosecute. Id. 330:4-16. 645 App. C (PTDC Inmate-on-Inmate Assaults). 646 Id. 647 Id. 648 Id. 649 Id. (Incident 1). 650 Id. (Incident 2). 651 Id. (Incident 3). 652 PTDC Resp. 22. 653 PTDC Resp. 46. 654 Ryan Test. 1; see also Letter of Finding from Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, to Carlos E. Gimenez, Mayor, Miami-Dade County (Aug. 24, 2011), available at http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/Miami-Dade_findlet_8-24-11.pdf [hereinafter MDCR Letter of Finding]. 655 Ryan Test. 1. 656 Id.
64

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
eighth largest jail system in the United States.657 The jail system operates under Florida rules that require correctional certification, not law enforcement certification; this means that the Miami-Dade Police Department investigates criminal matters involving PREA in the jail system.658 Mr. Ryan stated that the MDCR is not a single jail facility, but is comprised of six housing units, serving at the time of the hearing 6000 inmates.659 Mr. Ryan noted that the current inmate population is significantly smaller than the inmate population at the time of the BJS survey in 2008 when the inmate population was 7400.660 He stated that the inmate population is 8% female and 92% male, whereas the custodial staff is 53% female and 47% male.661
Mr. Ryan noted that the prison system receives arrestees from thirty-seven jurisdictions at the rate of one every four minutes, and one in five of these arrestees is mentally ill.662 The inmate population of the MDCR is 84% pre-sentence, while 16% are sentenced.663
Mr. Ryan said that to become a correctional officer at MDCR requires passing a rigorous written test, a background check, psychological screening, and a medical examination.664 He said that in his department’s last recruitment effort, there were 1700 applicants but only 150 received offers of employment.665 Once selected, a recruit must successfully pass a twenty-two-week academy, which includes training on PREA; on completion of the academy, the recruit must successfully pass a state-certification examination, receive thirty days of intensive orientation, and serve a one-year probationary period.666 All correctional officers must be recertified every four years, which requires retraining on such topics as PREA.667 Mr. Ryan said that NIC’s online training on PREA is being provided to all staff, and at the time of promotion as well as at other times, supervisors and managers receive in-service training, which includes information on PREA.668 He said that at the time of the hearing 2800 MDCR staff members (95%) have completed the NIC’s online PREA course.669
In describing the PTDC, Mr. Ryan observed, “This facility is considered a first generation jail with indirect supervision as its model which means that inmates are not under constant observation by staff.”670 Mr. Ryan said, “Like most of the urban jails designed and built in the 1950s and 1960s, it was not anticipated that it would incarcerate the numbers and types of violent inmates it has been called upon to house today.”671
657 Id. 658 Id. 659 Id. 660 Id. 661 Id. 2. 662 Id. 2. 663 Id. 2-3. 664 Id. 2. 665 Id. 666 Id. 667 Id. 668 Id. 669 Id. 4. 670 Id. 3 (underscoring omitted). 671 Id.
65

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
Mr. Ryan reported, “Since taking the leadership role at Miami-Dade County, I did discover that even though there had long been policies and procedures addressing sexual misconduct, the PREA initiative had not been fully embraced.”672 To remedy this situation, Mr. Ryan said that he took the following steps: distributing videos to the staff that conveyed the institution’s zero tolerance for fraternization with inmates; developing and updating the institutional policy addressing PREA; revising the inmate handbook to include a reference to the institution’s intolerance of sexual misconduct; posting PREA placards in three languages in all six housing units; incorporating information on PREA into annual and in-service training programs for staff; including information on PREA in new-employee orientation; improving intake, medical, and classification procedures to identify potential victims of sexual assault and predators; installing a rape-crisis hotline that is available from every inmate telephone; contracting with outside organizations (e.g., Just Detention International (JDI), The Moss Group, Inc.) to provide technical assistance to assess institutional needs and provide specialized training on investigating sexual assaults; installing surveillance cameras in housing units; and implementing wordrecognition software that will identify incident reports with sexually related language.673 Mr. Ryan also said that he also strongly believes in meeting national professional standards for correctional facilities, which has meant obtaining accreditation from the ACA for some of the units at the MDCR; the MDCR is in the process of obtaining ACA accreditation for its other units, including the PTDC.674
Mr. Ryan noted that since 2007, the incidence of inmate-on-inmate violence dropped 54%, from 162 incidents in March 2007 to seventy-five in 2011.675 He also reported that use-of-force reports have dropped 78% since 2008, from fifty-four events in March 2008 to twelve events in March 2011.676
Mr. Ryan mentioned that the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) produced a troubling documentary on MDCR operations that was useful in facing the “age old problem between policy and practice.”677 One of the problems that the BBC documentary highlighted, especially for female staff, is male inmates masturbating in their presence.678 Mr. Ryan said that this is an issue in which the MDCR is still seeking answers.679 He noted that the MDCR has been unsuccessful in having the State Attorney’s Office prosecute inmates for this behavior, which means that the only available response is administrative discipline.680 Mr. Ryan said that recently the MDCR has provided staff members who have encountered this situation with counseling services from in-house psychologists.681
672 Id. 673 Id. 3-4. 674 Id. 4-5. 675 Id. 5-6. 676 Id. 6. 677 Id. 5. 678 Id. 6. 679 Id. 680 Id. 681 Id.
66

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
iii. Observations
During the Panel’s onsite tour of the PTDC, the Panel saw that there were numerous posters providing information to inmates on reporting and preventing sexual victimization.682 The tour also raised for the Panel a number of concerns. The Panel observed black sheets enclosing the shower area and recognized them as a potential security risk.683 Responding to the Panel’s concern, Captain John W. Johnson of the MDCR said that the PTDC was in the process of replacing the black shower curtains with opaque ones.684
Although the Panel commends the MDCR’s installation of additional surveillance cameras in housing units, the Panel found during its tour of the PTDC that staff members assigned to monitoring the cameras were not properly trained; they could not use the cameras to pan an area or focus on a particular inmate.685 Again, Captain Johnson reported that the MDCR has taken steps to remedy this problem; one of those steps has been issuing a post order for the monitoring station, which explains the responsibilities of the correctional officers assigned to this task.686
The Panel was troubled during the tour of the PTDC’s mental health unit to encounter an unclothed inmate.687 Dr. Eloisa C. Montoya, Mental Health Services Manager, MDCR, and Dr. Mercy Mary Gonzales, Interim Associate Medical Director, MDCR, explained that this was an unusual occurrence, as the inmate had been issued a Ferguson gown and blanket in accordance with standard procedures, but he disrobed just before the Panel’s visit.688
The discussion that the Panel had with Director Ryan during the hearing highlighted a number of broader issues that may warrant further exploration. Among the topics that might benefit the corrections field as a whole are the difficulties that district attorneys have in accepting for prosecution inmate sexual abuse cases,689 the different challenges of urban and rural jails,690 the impact that facility architecture has on keeping inmates safe,691 and the vulnerability that some female staff members have in developing inappropriate relationships with male inmates.692
The Panel concurs with Director Ryan’s assessment of the challenges in implementing PREA standards in a large urban jail, which include having committed leadership at the top,693 having in place good policies,694 and having effective, comprehensive training for all staff members.695 The Panel also agrees with Director Ryan’s assessment of the need to advocate for cultural
682 Tr., R. Wilkinson, 311:18-21. 683 Id. 304:6-9. 684 Id., J. Johnson, 304:10-15. 685 Id., R. Wilkinson, 307:10-13, 17-19. 686 Id., J. Johnson, 308:4-13. 687 Id., R. Wilkinson, 308:18-309:4. 688 Id., E. Montoya, 309:14-17, 19-22; id., M. Gonzales, 310:8-11. 689 Id., T. Ryan, 317:2-8, 322:1-323:1. 690 Id. 342:18-343:1. 691 Id. 343:2-18. 692 Id. 345:3-16. 693 Id. 319:13-14. 694 Id. 319:20-21. 695 Id. 320:4-15.
67

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
change, not only in an America in which joking about sexual assaults in prisons and jails remains pervasive, but also among the people who work in the field of corrections:696
[W]e have a cultural change to make as well, to recognize that our jails and prisons should not have [sexual assaults] going on; that as a profession, we do not tolerate those things.
And that message, I don’t think has gotten out, that we have not done a good job of marketing ourselves as to what we really do believe in.697
iv. Facility-Specific Recommendations
In reviewing the section in the handbook for inmates on reporting and preventing sexual abuse, the Panel found that the information could be more accessible to inmates. In particular, the Panel found the printing was small and that some of the language was too technical (e.g., a reference to carnal knowledge), making the information difficult for inmates with limited education to understand.698 The Panel recommends reviewing this section in the inmate handbook, as well as other educational materials, to make sure that the information on reporting and preventing sexual victimization is readily accessible to inmates.
The Panel remains troubled by the August 2011 CRIPA findings of the U.S. Department of Justice and encourages the MDCR to work closely with the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division in implementing all of the recommendations in the Letter of Finding, particularly those dealing with prisoner violence.699 Toward this end, the Panel also encourages the MDCR to continue seeking the assistance of outside advocacy and professional organizations to create a jail environment in which inmates are protected from sexual victimization.
c. OPP
i. Facility Description
The South White Street Jail in New Orleans, Louisiana, is one of a number of housing units at the OPP, which also include Old Parish Prison, the House of Detention (HOD), the Tents, Conchetta, and Templeman V.700 In response to the Panel’s initial Data Request for the South White Street Jail, the OPP stated that this housing unit at its full rated capacity on January 1, 2008, and on January 1, 2009, was 288.701 The actual number of inmates present in the facility on January 1, 2008, was 176.702 In 2008, the total number of inmates who spent any time at the South White Street Jail was 5089; the average length of stay was almost fifteen days; and the
696 Id. 320:17-321:6. 697 Id. 321:3-9. 698 Id., R. Wilkinson, 323:2-22. 699 MDCR Letter of Finding 36-37. 700 Cumming Test. 1 (Apr. 15, 2011), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs_sept11/testimony_cumming.pdf. Ms. Cumming’s testimony also appears in the Transcript of Record. See Tr., E. Cumming, 83:9-94:10. 701 OPP Resp. 9(a), 10(a) (on file with the Panel). 702 Id. 9(b).
68

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
longest length of stay of any inmate was 365 days.703 The actual number of inmates present in the facility on January 1, 2009, was 185.704 In 2009, the total number of inmates who spent any time at the South White Street Jail was 5371; the average length of stay was a little over eighteen days; and the longest length of stay of any inmate was 364 days.705
In 2008, for the total number of inmates at the South White Street Jail, the racial and ethnic composition was as follows: 1149 Whites, 3716 African Americans, 172 Hispanics, and 52 Asians.706 In 2009, for the total number of inmates at the South White Street Jail, the racial and ethnic composition was as follows: 1169 Whites, 4167 African Americans, 11 Hispanics, and 24 Asians.707 The OPP reported that in both 2008 and 2009, there were no inmates who identified as Alaska Native or American Indian, as Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or as belonging to two or more races.708
In 2008, the OPP reported that at the South White Street Jail, there were no suicides, no attempted suicides, no homicides, and the number of attempted homicides was unknown.709 In 2009, the OPP reported that at the South White Street Jail, there were no suicides, no homicides, two attempted suicides, and the number of attempted homicides was unknown.710 The OPP stated that neither of the attempted suicides in 2009 was related to sexual victimization or interactions with either staff members or other inmates.711
In response to the Panel’s Supplemental Data Request after the closure of the South White Street Jail, the OPP stated that the total inmate population was “3,279, [i]f you mean the female population, they are located in Templeman V, and the House of Detention & the Intake and Processing Center . . . .”712 713
The OPP explained that it hired staff for all of the OPP units, not just for the South White Street Jail.714 Nonetheless, the OPP provided the Panel with information on the number of staff assigned to the South White Street Jail for each month in 2008 and 2009.715 Based on the staffing pattern that the OPP supplied to the Panel, in 2008, the average number of staff members working each month at the facility was 34; in 2009, the average number of staff members working each month at the facility was 30.716 Despite this reported information, the OPP also stated that the total number of staff positions at the South White Street Jail, whether filled or vacant, at full capacity on January 1, 2008, was twenty-six, with nineteen being sworn staff
703 Id. 9(f)-(h). 704 Id. 10(b). 705 Id. 10(f)-(h). 706 Id. 11(a)-(d). 707 Id. 12(a)-(d). 708 Id. 11(e)-(g), 12(e)-(g). 709 Id. 13. 710 Id. 15. 711 Id. 16. 712 OPP Supp. Resp. 4 (on file with the Panel). 713 The Panel received testimony that at the time of the hearing, the total capacity of the OPP was 3563 beds. Tr., J. Ursin, 190:7. 714 OPP Resp. 20, 21. 715 Id. 716 Id.
69

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
members.717 In response to the Panel’s request for staffing information in 2009 at the South White Street Jail, the OPP directed the Panel to “refer to the above question for the year 2009;” but the referenced question was about staffing in 2008.718 The Panel construed the OPP’s response to mean that the staffing levels at the South White Street Jail in 2008 and 2009 were the same. In 2008, the daily ratio of sworn staff to inmates at the South White Street Jail was 1 to 5.5 (thirty-two sworn staff to 176 inmates); in 2009, the daily ratio of sworn staff to inmates was 1 to 5.2 (thirty-five sworn staff to 185 inmates).719
The OPP reported that in 2008 and 2009, it did not discipline or terminate any employees based on sexual misconduct, nor did it allow any employees to resign for similar misbehavior.720
The OPP’s Special Operations Division (SOD) investigates all criminal matters, whereas its Internal Affairs Division investigates administrative violations of policies and procedures.721 The SOD has jurisdiction over allegations of sexual abuse because “[a]ll incidents alleging sexual misconduct are considered criminal violations.”722 The SOD reported that it did not conduct any investigations involving sexual abuse at the South White Street Jail in either 2008 or 2009.723 Moreover, SOD reported that it did not have “any incident reports pertaining to sexual abuse from the South White Street Facility in 2008 or 2009;”724 it did not have “any disciplinary records pertaining to female inmate(s) for sexual abuse in 2008 or 2009;”725 it did not have “any grievance(s) from any female inmate regarding alleged sexual abuse in 2008 or 2009;”726 and “[t]here were no reported allegations of sexual assault from the South White Street Facility in 2008 or 2009 . . . .”727
After the Panel expanded its inquiry beyond the South White Street Jail, it received investigative files from OPP relating not only to the two inmates whom the Panel named in its Supplemental Data Request but also to fourteen inmate-on-inmate sexual assaults in calendar years 2008 and 2009.728 Of those incidents, only two were substantiated.729 Both substantiated incidents were sexual assaults that occurred in 2009, one involving digital penetration and another involving a broomstick.730 In both instances, the perpetrators were arrested.731 In the case involving digital penetration, the district attorney declined to prosecute; in the case involving the broomstick, the
717 Id. 23(a)-(b). 718 Id. 24; see id. 23. 719 Id. 24(a), (e). 720 Id. 22; see also id. 31. 721 OPP Supp. Resp. 10. 722 Id. 723 OPP Resp. 29. 724 Id. 30. 725 Id. 32. 726 Id. 33. 727 Id. 35. 728 OPP Supp. Resp. (rape investigations 2008 and 2009). Aside from the investigations involving the named inmates in the Supplemental Data Request, OPP submitted to the Panel fourteen cases with one electronic file that the Panel could not open. 729 Id. 730 Id. 731 Id.
70

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
investigative file did not have information on the outcome of the case.732 In one investigation into an inmate-on-inmate sexual assault, despite the inmate’s allegation of rape, the investigative team concluded that the sexual encounter was consensual.733 The investigative files showed that in more than half of the cases, the OPP provided the complainants with a medical examination.734
ii. Facility’s Explanation of Reported High Incidence of Sexual Victimization
Elected in 2004, Orleans Parish Sheriff Marlin N. Gusman provided the Panel with a notarized written statement dated September 15, 2011.735 Sheriff Gusman reminded the Panel that the OPSO was still recovering from the effects of Hurricane Katrina.736 As to the South White Street Jail, the original focus of the Panel’s inquiry, which was closed since the publication of the BJS Report, Sheriff Gusman reported that there were no substantiated inmate grievances in 2008 and 2009 alleging either staff-on-inmate or inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization.737 The Sheriff said that according to the jail’s records there was a single inmate complaint alleging that a civilian maintenance worker used a sexually derogatory remark in addressing a female inmate.738 The OPP investigated the matter and found it to be unsubstantiated.739 Sheriff Gusman stated that the South White Street Jail’s physical design deterred incidents of inmate victimization because it was a large open dormitory with a deputy station and a surveillance camera focused on the housing unit.740 Sheriff Gusman noted that the OPP submitted affidavits to the Panel attesting that no persons working at the South White Street Jail, whether staff members, chaplains, medical professionals, elected officials, or volunteers, ever received a complaint from an inmate alleging sexual victimization.741
Sheriff Gusman stated that in 2009, female inmates were housed in other locations at OPP in addition to the South White Street Jail, including the HOD and the Intake and Processing Center (IPC).742 Sheriff Gusman faulted the BJS Report because it failed to recognize that the South White Street Jail was just one component of the OPP, because it unfairly selected the South White Street Jail as only one of two female jails surveyed, and because it wrongly compared the information from the South White Street Jail to predominantly male jails:
732 Id. 733 Id. 734 Id. 735 Gusman Test. (Apr. 15, 2011), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs_sept11/Gusman_Statement.pdf. Sheriff Gusman regretted that he was unable to appear at the Panel’s hearing in person as he had previously accepted an invitation for the same date to make a presentation at a conference of the International Corrections and Prisons Association in Singapore. Sheriff Gusman’s testimony also appears in the Transcript of Record. See Tr., J. Ursin, 129:4-140:13. 736 Gusman Test. 1. 737 Id. 738 Id. 739 Id. 740 Id. 2. 741 Id.; see OPP Supp. Resp. (apps.). 742 Gusman Test. 2.
71

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
The survey analysis seems to treat the South White Street building as a standalone jail while it should really be viewed as part of the entire Orleans Parish Prison. While many female prisons were included in the study, our female population was only one of two female-only jails surveyed. . . . OPP’s female South White Street population was then compared to all the other malepredominant jails in the nation, resulting in an inappropriate comparison and misleading conclusions. If the entire population of the Orleans Parish Prison had been reported together, as done with most jails in the study, our results would have been more in keeping with the national average.743
Sheriff Gusman claimed that the rate of reported sexual victimization at the South White Street Jail was comparable to the rate at the other female-only jail that appeared in the BJS Report.744 Sheriff Gusman further criticized the methodology of the inmate survey because it offered a reward for obtaining responses: “I want to emphasize that these were anonymous responses on computers after being promised a bag of cookies by the [technicians] for completing the questionnaire.”745 Based on the problems with the BJS survey, Sheriff Gusman concluded, “I don’t think there is a high incidence of sexual victimization at the South White Street building.”746 Sheriff Gusman stated, “[W]e have a strong, committed and dedicated staff as well as policies, procedures and protocols with management systems and employee training that focuses on sexual victimization.”747 He noted that OPP shows videos each day to inmates on how to report and prevent sexual victimization.748
Sheriff Gusman also stated that the OPP has an electronic database, the Justice Management System (JMS), which contains files of all inmate grievances, including formal and informal statements not only from staff members but also from inmates, as well as their family members and attorneys.749
Sheriff Gusman explained that the SOD, under the command of Major Michael Laughlin, investigates all allegations of sexual assault at OPP.750 According to Sheriff Gusman, when OPP receives notice of an incident, the detective team conducts a preliminary interview of the alleged victim and then OPP tends to the alleged victim’s medical needs, which includes an examination by the in-house medical staff, before transporting the alleged victim to University Hospital, less than a mile away, for evaluation by a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner.751 Sheriff Gusman stated that in the wake of an incident, the SOD follows standard procedures in gathering evidence, and the OPP’s medical staff intervenes only to ensure that the inmate has not sustained life-
743 Id. 2 (emphasis omitted). 744 Id. 745 Id. Dr. Allen Beck, the principal author of the BJS Report, testified that in some jails cookies were offered as an incentive to encourage inmates to participate in the survey, but the incentive was only offered when jail administrators agreed. Dr. Beck reported that the incentive had no impact on reported victimization, but it did produce a higher response rate, resulting in greater precision in those facilities that used the incentive. Tr., A. Beck, 53:16-17. 746 Gusman Test. 2. 747 Id. 748 Id. 2-3. 749 Id. 750 Id. 3. 751 Id.
72

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
threatening injuries before sending the inmate to the hospital.752 According to Sheriff Gusman, on release of the inmate from the hospital, the OPP houses the inmate in OPP’s Acute Psychiatric Unit to provide both protection and mental health services.753 Sheriff Gusman wrote that a psychiatrist evaluates the needs of the victim, ensuring the provision of proper medical care and the counseling services of a social worker, if warranted.754 He said that only when the victim is psychiatrically stable would the victim leave the protective custody of the psychiatric unit.755
Sheriff Gusman wrote that every warden of a housing unit “responds immediately to all reports of sexual victimization and then contacts the SOD.”756 He assured the Panel, “Wardens also review all grievances and incident reports filed in the JMS and respond to the inmate either in person or in writing.”757
Acknowledging that the OPP can improve its operations, Sheriff Gusman said that the OPP plans to use a new checklist in the inmate-classification process that will better identify potential victims and predators, assign an assistant to the designated PREA coordinator to monitor compliance with PREA standards, and build a new direct-supervision facility.758
iii. Observations
Four factors influenced the Panel to shift the scope of its inquiry, which began with a focus on the South White Street Jail, to the OPP as a whole. First, with the closing of the South White Street Jail, the Panel could no longer observe the operations of the housing unit at the OPP that exclusively served female inmates. Second, in light of the serious findings of the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice that the OPP was in violation of CRIPA, the Panel recognized the need to broaden its inquiry beyond the South White Street Jail.759 Third, JDI, an independent, prisoner-advocacy organization, identified an individual who provided a compelling account of alleged sexual victimization while incarcerated at the OPP during the time period of the BJS survey. Finally, the OPP itself urged the Panel to think of the OPP as a whole rather than limiting its view to the South White Street Jail.760
The Panel found the following testimony particularly useful in framing its understanding of the OPP: (1) testimony from Ms. Elizabeth Cumming, a New Orleans civil rights attorney; (2) testimony from A.A., a former inmate at OPP; (3) the OPP’s response to A.A.’s testimony; and
752 Id. 753 Id. 4. 754 Id. 755 Id. 756 Id. 757 Id. 758 Id. According to the OPP, construction started on a new facility on September 1, 2011, and the completion date is March 2014. OPP Supp. Resp. 1. 759 Letter of Finding from Loretta King, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, to Marlin N. Gusman, Sheriff, OPSO (Sept. 11, 2009), available at http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/parish_findlet.pdf [hereinafter OPP Letter of Finding]. 760 See, e.g., Gusman Test. 2.
73

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
(4) testimony from Mr. Wesley Ware, Director of BreakOUT!, an advocacy group working with juveniles formerly housed at the OPP who identify as being other than heterosexual.
(a) Testimony of Civil Rights Attorney
Ms. Cumming stated that although she is currently in private practice, she began working with the Orleans Parish Prison Reform Coalition (OPPRC) in 2006.761 She explained that the OPPRC was “dedicated to reducing the massive size of the jail, improving jail conditions and practices to make it a safer place for those who are held there and working there.”762 In her work with the OPPRC, Ms. Cumming said that she gathered data on the OPP’s funding, the demographics of its population, and the number of deaths that occurred in the jail.763 In 2008, Ms. Cumming stated that she received an Equal Justice Works Fellowship.764 At first, she used the fellowship to advocate for OPP inmates’ access to health care, especially for inmates with infectious diseases; however, in light of the “horrific conditions at the jail,” Ms. Cumming expanded her advocacy work to include access to medical care in general for all OPP inmates.765 Ms. Cumming testified that in the course of her work, she received hundreds of letters from people at OPP who confided in her that either they had been victims of sexual assault or they witnessed other inmates who were victims of sexual assault.766 Ms. Cumming stated that she forwarded the reports on sexual assaults to the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice.767
Ms. Cumming stated that the problems at the OPP may be attributable to four contributing factors. First, the OPP receives funding in a way that encourages a large prison population, as the OPP charges the City of New Orleans for each day an inmate is held in custody.768 Ms. Cumming stated, “The per diem funding structure, and the enormous jail population that flows from it, all create the foundation for the jail’s rampant sexual assault and violence rate.”769 According to Ms. Cumming, given the jail’s method of funding, there is an incentive for the OPP to keep the inmate population rate high.770 Consequently, as Ms. Cumming noted, “New Orleans can boast the highest per-capita jail detention rate in the country.”771
Second, Ms. Cumming wrote that despite the large inmate population, the OPP is significantly understaffed.772 Quoting an NIC 2008 report on the OPP, Ms. Cumming stated, “‘staffing issues were pervasive and most serious . . . actual staffing levels are so far below planned staffing levels that required and critical important duties such as inmate welfare or security rounds cannot be
761 Cumming Test. 1. 762 Id. 763 Id. 764 Id. 765 Id. 766 Id. 767 Id. 768 Id. 2. 769 Id. 770 Id. 771 Id. 772 Id.
74

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
completed in many cases.’”773 Ms. Cumming contended that nothing has changed since the publication of the NIC’s 2008 report.774
Third, Ms. Cumming stated that the current classification system at OPP fails to identify likely predators and likely victims of sexual assault.775 Ms. Cumming claimed that lack of space at OPP, compounded by an inadequate classification system, often lead to housing decisions that fail to protect vulnerable inmates:
The current classification system fails to take into account previous convictions, previous histories of violence, age, residence, or body mass index. Instead, the classification system is reliant almost entirely on bond amount. However, even this rudimentary classification is often ignored because of space constraints in the various facilities. Inmates are placed wherever space can be found, even if it is a mattress on the floor of HOD.776
Fourth, Ms. Cumming stated that the barriers to reporting sexual assault contribute to the high level of sexual victimization at OPP.777 She said, “OPP’s grievance system is essentially nonexistent.”778 She contended that “[f]ew grievances are ever even acknowledged and even fewer are responded to appropriately.”779 Ms. Cumming noted that when rapes do occur, “the failures of the grievance system and the lack of staff supervision can mean that the rape will go unreported for days, even when the survivor is looking for a way to report the rape or to be moved to protective custody.”780
Ms. Cumming offered recommendations for improving OPP based on her analysis of the contributing factors to sexual victimization at the jail.781 She recommended that the OPP reduce its inmate population. She observed, “Preventing sexual assaults in a corrections setting is significantly easier if fewer people are in jail.”782 She also recommended that the OPP implement a classification system that takes into account relevant criteria to protect vulnerable inmates. Finally, she recommended that the OPP adopt “appropriate staffing at levels commensurate with the number of people held at OPP.”783
Ms. Cumming concluded her testimony by appealing to the Justice Department to intervene in a corrections system that she regards as severely dysfunctional:
OPP is in such a state of crisis that we, in New Orleans, are forced to rely on the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division to help us rebuild a fundamentally
773 Id. (citation omitted in original). 774 Id. 775 Id. 776 Id. 777 Id. 778 Id. 779 Id. 780 Id. 781 Id. 4. 782 Id. 783 Id.
75

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
broken system. The level of sexual assaults and violence present in the jail are symptoms of this system’s profound dysfunction.784
(b) Statement of Former Inmate
JDI brought to the Panel’s attention the experience of a former inmate at OPP, A.A.,785 who at the time of the hearing was serving a sentence in the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Although he could not appear before the Panel in person, counsel for the Panel interviewed him prior to the hearing, and A.A. submitted a statement about his experience at OPP that a representative of JDI read into the record.786 Here follow excerpts from his statement, in which he claims that he was brutally assaulted at the OPP multiple times, and despite his seeking assistance through the jail’s grievance process and other avenues, he received no help:
When I was arrested in 2008 in New Orleans, I was on a 72-hour pass from [a work center] in Mississippi. . . . Because I didn’t return to the Work Center within 72-hours, I was considered an escapee and arrested on October 31, 2008. I went to the Central Lock-[U]p at the OPP’s House of Detention. I was thirty years old at the time.
In January 2009, I was moved from Central Lock-[U]p to the general population at the OPP’s House of Detention (HOD). Before assigning me to the general population, the facility officials didn’t do a screening process. For instance, no one asked me if I was gay. No one asked me if I had ever been sexually assaulted before, either. The fact is that I had been—prior to my incarceration. Because I was afraid for my safety, I told them I was gay and that I wanted to be put on a tier for gay men. . . . When they said they didn’t have that tier anymore, I asked if I could just stay in Central Lock-Up. They said no and that I had to go to general population.
They put me in an overcrowded cell that should have been used for ten inmates maximum, but had fifteen or sixteen in it when I got there. The other inmates were all between eighteen and twenty-one years old. From the moment I arrived, they were sizing me up. They asked me whether I was gay. I was scared to lie to them so I said “yes.” I didn’t have a bed so I took a mat to lay on. I was so depressed and exhausted that I put it on the floor next to the cell bars and took a nap.
I woke up all of a sudden when some of my cellmates threw a chest of ice on me that was kept in the cell for drinks. One of the inmates told me to give him a blow job. This man was very scary, and I felt extremely afraid. I called for help, but there were no guards around and no one responded to my screams. At first, I
784 Id. 785 To the extent that it is possible, the Panel protects the identities of individuals who allege to have been victims of sexual abuse. 786 A.A. Test. (Apr. 15, 2011), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs_sept11/AA_Statement.pdf; see also Tr., C. Totten, 70:16-82:14.
76

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
refused to do what the inmate was telling me to do, but then he grabbed me by my hair and kicked me while another inmate held a knife to my back. I decided that I had better do what he wanted in order to save my life—I was already bleeding from the knife.
Later that night, several of these inmates tied me down to the frame of a bed in the cell with strips of a blue towel. I tried to fight them off at first, but a large inmate choked me until I passed out. When I came to, I was choked again. There were at least a dozen inmates around who saw what was happening. Three of the men said they wanted me to give them oral sex, but they were afraid that I would bite them, so they masturbated onto me instead. This nightmare only ended when an inmate kicked me off the bed I was tied to because he wanted to go to sleep.
During my assault, there were no guards around. I quickly realized that the guards at OPP did not do rounds of the tiers on a regular basis, so there was no one to protect me. . . . And there were no cameras around, so the attacks weren’t recorded or seen by guards in another part of the jail. . . .
The morning after that first night at OPP, I couldn’t go to the showers so I washed up as best I could using the small sink in the cell. I tried to be friendly to the other inmates just so I could try to keep from being attacked again. But, I was on the lookout for an officer who I could ask for help. The whole day passed and I never had a chance to talk to a guard or any other staff members.
As the next night came, I was really anxious. I had not been able to speak with any jail officials, and I was so afraid that my cellmates would attack me again. That night, three of the inmates—all large men—anally raped me. With no one to help me, I laid down on the floor, bleeding from my injuries, and terrified about what would happen next. My cellmates continued to orally and anally gang-rape me . . . the whole time I was at OPP sometimes in the cell, but often in the showers.
It happened so many times I lost count.787
A.A. stated that despite filing at least six grievances and trying to approach correctional officers, he never received a response from OPP.788 He stated that on one occasion he tried to give a grievance to a correctional officer, and the correctional officer allegedly responded, “‘a faggot raped in prison—imagine that!’”789
A.A. also wrote that he had requested medical help from correctional officers two or three times a week from February to April of 2009 because he was afraid of contracting a sexually transmitted disease.790 He said that he must have filled out over twenty-five slips requesting
787 A.A. Test. 1-2. 788 Id. 2. 789 Id. 790 Id. 3.
77

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
medical care, but he said that he never received a response.791 A.A. said that the only time he saw a doctor at A.A. was by accident: when he happened to pass the medical unit on the way to the “rec yard” he asked to see the doctor on duty.792 A.A. reported that after waiting for two hours, the doctor examined him and did blood work to see whether he had Hepatitis C or HIV, but the medical staff did not administer a rape kit.793 A.A. stated that “[t]he doctor told me that I had herpes, which he thinks I got from the rapes.”794 A.A. also reported that despite telling the doctor about the sexual assaults, the doctor took no action: “The doctor told me that he couldn’t do anything about the rapes and beatings, because that was a security issue, not a medical one.”795
A.A. claimed that while at OPP there were also no available support services to help him as a victim of sexual assault: “There was no one I could talk with to help me with how I was feeling emotionally. I don’t think OPP had a chaplain or counselor, and there were no religious services or any other type of support that I could find.”796 He said, “I would say without a doubt that the whole time I was at OPP, I had to deal with all this stuff on my own. Not one person there tried to help me in any way.”797
A.A. wrote that he was not the only one at OPP who was a victim of sexual assault.798 During his tenure at OPP, he claimed to have witnessed between five and seven other male inmates who were sexually assaulted; one transgender woman was so severely beaten that she was sent to the hospital.799
Appealing to the Panel, A.A. wrote, “I think that what I went through and what I saw happening to some of the other people at OPP could have been prevented if OPP had done something to keep inmates like me—guys who are gay or who are going to be targeted by other inmates— safe.”800
(c) OPP’s Response to the Former Inmate’s Testimony
Following up on the testimony from A.A., which the Panel received prior to the hearing, the Panel requested that OPP produce any documentation that might be related to A.A.’s confinement at OPP, including whether he filed any grievances and whether the OPP responded to the grievances.801
791 Id. 792 Id. 793 Id. 794 Id. 795 Id. 796 Id. 797 Id. 798 Id. 799 Id. 3-4. 800 Id. 4. 801 App. A (Letter from Michael L. Alston, Attorney Advisor, Panel, to Marlin N. Gusman, Sheriff, OPSO 3 (Aug. 3, 2011)) [hereinafter Supp. Data Request].
78

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
Based on the documentation that the OPP submitted to the Panel regarding the history of A.A.’s grievances while he was in custody, the Panel closely questioned Major Michael Laughlin, Commander of SOD, about OPP’s response to A.A.’s alleged sexual assaults. Major Laughlin testified that at the Panel’s request he undertook a review of A.A.’s grievance record at OPP and found that of the ten grievances that A.A. filed during his tenure at OPP, six went unanswered.802 Among the unanswered grievances, was the first one that A.A. filed on February 3, 2009, which claimed that he was sexually assaulted.803 According to the record of A.A.’s grievances in the JMS that the OPP submitted to the Panel,804 A.A.’s February 3, 2009, grievance contained the following question and answer: “What is your complaint? I’m a homosexual and have been forced to have sex 3 times, and assaulted.”805 The standard electronic grievance form also asked A.A. whether the grievance was an emergency.806 A.A.’s response was “yes” because “my life’s in danger and I’m scared.”807
Major Laughlin explained what happened to A.A.’s first grievance: the staff picked up A.A.’s complaint on February 3, 2009, and entered it into the OPP’s computer system, which immediately sent the grievance to the electronic inbox of the warden of HOD, where it remained unanswered.808
Speaking for the OPP, Colonel Jerry Ursin, Commander, IPC, admitted that in regard to A.A.’s first grievance, “we dropped the ball on that case as an organization.”809
The OPP does not appear to have done much better in handling the other grievances that A.A. filed. According to the record that OPP provided the Panel, on February 10, 2009, A.A. filed a second grievance in which he complained that a correctional officer removed clippers from the tier before A.A. had the chance to finish cutting his hair.810 In the grievance, A.A. stated that the officer “‘called me a faggot and cracker and told me he would beat my ass. He works up here every day and I fear for my life.’”811 Major Laughlin testified that after the second grievance, OPP transferred A.A. to another floor at the HOD, but there was no evidence that the decision to transfer him was in response to the grievance.812 A.A. also filed grievances on March 3, 2009 (requesting access to clippers), and March 4, 2009 (claiming assault).813 In the March 4, 2009, grievance, A.A. complained, “‘I got jumped by four other inmates and I’m scared to be on this side.’”814 The warden of the HOD did respond to this grievance by transferring A.A. to a different wing,815 but there was no documentation indicating that the warden investigated A.A.’s
802 Tr., M. Laughlin, 158:8. 803 Id. 155:1-3. 804 OPP Supp. Resp. (A.A.’s grievances) [hereinafter exh. B]; see Tr., G. Christensen, 153:21 (referring to exh. B). 805 Exh. B 10. 806 Id. 11. 807 Id.; see also Tr., G. Christensen, 160:14-15. 808 Id., M. Laughlin, 155:1-3, 6-12, 15-18, 156:1-3, 17. 809 Id., J. Ursin, 180:7; see also id. 149:7-8. 810 Id., M. Laughlin, 159:3, 159:20-160:1. 811 Id. 160:1-3 (citing grievance form); see also exh. B 14. 812 Tr., M. Laughlin, 161:5-8, 17-20. 813 Id. 162:1-2, 10-12, 163:6-10. 814 Id. 163:7-8 (quoting grievance form); see also exh. B 22. 815 Tr., M. Laughlin, 164:3-4, 7-8.
79

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
claim that he was assaulted by four other inmates.816 On March 10, 2009, A.A. filed another grievance in which he stated, “‘I am having problems with the guys here, I don’t feel safe. The guys are having a problem with me being a homosexual. I’m scared to live over here.’”817 Major Laughlin testified that by the time A.A. filed the March 10, 2009, complaint, OPP already moved him, but the OPP did not undertake any investigation into A.A.’s allegation of sexual harassment.818 Given that the March 10, 2009, grievance could be a criminal offense, the Panel asked why the warden would not have documented an investigation.819 Colonel Ursin admitted, “We have no paper trail that he documented it.”820 Again, Colonel Ursin said, “[W]e dropped the ball on this.”821
(d) Testimony of Youth Advocate
Mr. Wesley Ware, the director of BreakOUT!, provided testimony to the Panel on the treatment of young people who have served time at OPP who identify as being other than heterosexual.822 Mr. Ware explained that “BreakOUT! is a project of the Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana (JJPL) that focuses on working with LGBTQ [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning] young people to help reform the criminal justice system in New Orleans.”823 Prior to founding BreakOUT! in 2011, Mr. Ware, in his capacity as an advocate and investigator for the JJPL, visited youth in state and local facilities throughout Louisiana, focusing from 2007 to 2010 on the needs of LGBTQ young people.824
Mr. Ware stated that in the summer of 2011, youth members of BreakOUT!, most of whom are formerly incarcerated African American transgender women aged sixteen to twenty-four, conducted an informal, person-to-person survey of sixteen peers.825 All but one of the surveyed young people were African Americans; all were homeless or “marginally housed;” and most had previously engaged in sex work.826 Mr. Ware reported that of the 90% who had been detained, 80% had experienced some form of sexual victimization at the OPP.827 Mr. Ware stated that “[t]he majority of the violence was considered ‘inmate versus inmate’ in areas with little staff or guard supervision.”828
816 Id. 164:12, 16-20. 817 Id., G. Christensen, 165:3-6 (quoting grievance form); see also exh. B 26. 818 Id., M. Laughlin, 165:10-11, 15. 819 Id., G. Christensen, 167:11-13, 15-16. 820 Id., J. Ursin, 167:17-18. 821 Id. 168:3-4. 822 Ware Test. (Apr. 15, 2011), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs_sept11/Ware_Statement.pdf. Mr. Ware’s testimony also appears in the Transcript of Record. See Tr., W. Ware, 95:4-111:4. 823 Id. 1. 824 Id. 1, 2. 825 Id. 2. 826 Id. 827 Id. 828 Id.
80

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
Citing a 2009 public letter from the American Civil Liberties Union to Sheriff Gusman, Mr. Ware noted that it is well known to the members of the transgender community in New Orleans that if they are detained at OPP, they should post bond as soon as possible or risk being raped.829
Mr. Ware cited a number of examples of gay men and transgender women who experienced sexual victimization at the OPP.830 He read into the record a short statement from one young man, “Robert,” a “twenty-two year old gender-nonconforming, gay white male” who claimed to have experienced sexual victimization during his custody at OPP from December 2010 to February 2011.831 Robert’s statement is similar in many ways to A.A.’s: he claimed that during the classification process the OPP did ask him if he had any concerns for his safety; that the OPP housed him in HOD; that in the night, a larger inmate in the same housing unit overpowered him and raped him; that he screamed for help but no correctional officer responded; and that despite sustaining serious injuries, no correctional officer checked on him throughout the night.832
On the morning after his alleged attack, Robert stated that he reported the assault to a correctional officer, and then two investigators from SOD interviewed him.833 Robert stated, “During the interview, one of the SOD investigators accused me of lying and called me a ‘faggot.’ He accused me of wanting to have anal sex because I was a ‘faggot.’”834 Robert said that after the interview, OPP placed him in a holding cell for two to three hours and then took him to the hospital where a rape kit was completed.835 Robert questioned whether the rape kit was ever given to the Orleans Police Department.836 Robert said that when he was released from the hospital, the OPP placed him back in the same cell at HOD, next to the inmate who allegedly raped him.837
Consistent with A.A.’s account, Robert stated that the OPP did not provide any follow-up medical or psychological support, nor did the OPP respond to any of his written grievances:
The OPP never provided me with any additional medical or psychological treatment while I was in custody.
829 Id. 2-3 & n.1 (citing ACLU Seeks to End Rapes in New Orleans Parish Prison (Apr. 4, 2009), available at https://laaclu.org/newsArchive.php?id=330#n330; Letter from Marjorie R. Esman, Executive Director, ACLU of Louisiana, to Marlin N. Gusman, Sheriff, OPSO (Apr. 28, 2009), available at https://www.laaclu.org/PDF_documents/Letter_Gusman_042809.pdf). 830 Ware Test. 3. The Panel met informally with youth members of BreakOUT! on August 22, 2011, in New Orleans, Louisiana, and listened to first-hand accounts from young transgender women and gay men who claimed to have been mistreated at the OPP. They stated that their filed grievances at the OPP received no responses. They said that before Hurricane Katrina there was a separate, “protective custody” unit for LGBTQ inmates, which is now no longer an option. They stated that there is only one social worker who serves all of the OPP; they claimed that they did not have access to counselors or chaplains. 831 Id. 832 Id. 3-4. 833 Id. 4. 834 Id. 835 Id. 836 Id. 4-5. 837 Id. 5.
81

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
I filed a number of written grievances while I was at OPP, including an emergency grievance complaining about the rape as well as one complaining about being physically abuse[d] by an OPP guard. I never received a response to my grievances.838
Mr. Ware offered recommendations for improving the OPP based on consultations that BreakOUT! conducted with the local LGBTQ community, youth members of BreakOUT!, and criminal justice reform advocates in New Orleans.839 Echoing three of Ms. Cumming’s recommendations, Mr. Ware advised the OPP (1) to revamp its inmate-classification system to protect vulnerable inmates, noting in particular the needs of transgender inmates; (2) to strengthen its grievance and investigation procedures to respond more effectively to complaints of sexual victimization; and (3) to increase the staff-to-inmate ratio at the jail by decoupling funding of the jail from the size of the inmate population.840
In addition, Mr. Ware suggested that staff at every level of the OPP should receive training on LGBTQ issues in consultation with national experts and local, formerly incarcerated LGBTQ individuals.841 Mr. Ware stated that OPP “should ensure proper medical care and follow-up for those in need of medical attention,” including victims of sexual assault, people with pre-existing conditions, and people living with HIV or AIDS.842 Mr. Ware said that OPP “should increase its accountability mechanisms to the community.”843 He suggested that the OPP convene regular meetings to listen to the concerns of community members, which may include attorneys, family members of inmates, and LGBTQ young people.844
Along with Ms. Cumming, Mr. Ware appealed to the Panel as a part of the U.S. Department of Justice, to intervene with the OPP: “It is apparent that in addition to the recommendations already stated, we need federal oversight of our jail to realize full reform.”845
iv. Facility-Specific Recommendations
Based on the investigative record and the Panel’s onsite visit to the jail,846 the Panel is deeply disturbed by the apparent culture of violence at the OPP.847 848 During the tour of the OPP,
838 Id. 839 Id. 5-6. 840 Id. 841 Id. 7. 842 Id. 843 Id. 844 Id. 845 Id. 8. 846 Although the Panel compliments the OPP in undertaking the construction of a new, direct-supervision facility, the Panel found that many of the deplorable conditions of the jail have not changed significantly since the issuance of the OPP Letter of Finding. See OPP Letter of Finding 21-22. 847 On September 22, 2011, the Panel sent a letter of concern to Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez, to bring to his attention the OPP’s admission that it failed to respond to inmate grievances alleging sexual assault. Letter from Dr. Reginald A. Wilkinson, Chairperson, Panel, to Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice (Sept. 22, 2011) (on file with the Panel). In light of the absence of a negotiated resolution agreement between the OPP and the Justice Department, despite the issuance of the OPP Letter of Finding in September of 2009, the Panel wrote, “Two years is too long for the OPP to still operate as it does
82

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
inmates approached the Panel privately, stating that their grievances went unanswered. These appeals are a particular cause for concern, given that the OPP admitted its failure in responding to A.A.’s grievances, that the Panel heard similar complaints from BreakOUT! youth members, and that the Panel heard testimony from both Ms. Cumming and Mr. Ware about the OPP’s dysfunctional grievance and investigation system.849 The Panel urges the OPP, consistent with the OPP Letter of Finding, to conduct a thorough review of its grievance process, making sure that all inmates receive a fair, timely response to every grievance, and that any investigation, no matter how minor, has sufficient documentation that would allow an outside organization to review the investigative process and understand the outcome.
In its Letter of Finding, the Civil Rights Division concluded, “Staffing levels at OPP are inadequate to protect inmates from harm.”850 As a remedial measure, the Civil Rights Division recommended that the OPP should implement, “in accordance with generally accepted professional standards of correctional practice,”851 a program for safety and supervision to “[e]sure that correctional officer staffing and supervision levels are appropriate to adequately supervise inmates.”852 Noting that the testimony from Ms. Cumming and Mr. Ware support this assessment, the Panel concurs with the Civil Rights Division and urges the OPP to review its current staffing plan.
The Panel, consistent with the recommendations of Ms. Cumming, Mr. Ware, and the Civil Rights Division,853 urges the OPP to implement an objective classification system that protects vulnerable inmates from sexual assault.854 At the hearing, Colonel Ursin agreed that the OPP needed to put into place an objective classification system that would better serve vulnerable inmates.855 The Panel encourages the OPP to improve the classification system as soon as possible.
without court enforceable federal oversight.” Id. 2. On December 20, 2011, the chief of the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division responded. Letter from Jonathan M. Smith, Chief, Special Litigation Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, to Dr. Reginald A. Wilkinson, Chairperson, Panel (Dec. 20, 2011) (on file with the Panel). Chief Smith wrote, “Attorneys from the Section are actively engaged with OPP leadership in settlement discussions. We continue to be hopeful that the parties will agree upon a court-enforceable settlement.” Id. 1. 848 Just prior to the release of this Report, the Panel read with alarm a letter that the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) of New Orleans sent to the OPP to seek protection for a transgender woman who was allegedly raped multiple times in February and March of 2012 while in OPP’s custody. Letter from Katie Schwartzmann, Managing Attorney, SPLC, to Marlin N. Gusman, Sheriff, OPSO (Mar. 27, 2012), available at http://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/downloads/case/GusmanLetter03272012.pdf. 849 The Panel acknowledges that it did review some investigations from SOD into allegations of sexual victimization that appeared to be thorough. For example, the Panel found that the SOD’s investigation convincingly debunked the sexual assault claims of one of two named former inmates that the Panel identified in its letter to Sheriff Gusman on August 3, 2011. See Supp. Data Request 3. 850 OPP Letter of Finding 13. 851 Id. 23. 852 Id. 25. 853 Id. 11-12. “The classification system at OPP contributes to its deficiencies in safety and security. Generally accepted correctional practices for classification systems utilize a variety of objective, behavior-based factors to determine the appropriate level of custody.” Id. 11. 854 See id. 26. 855 Tr., J. Ursin, 186:17-20, 187:2; see also Gusman Test. 4.
83

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
In light of the Panel’s previous discussion on the importance of language in creating a correctional culture that has zero tolerance for sexual victimization,856 the Panel recommends that the OPP provide training to its staff on treating LGBTQ people with proper respect.857 The Panel supports Mr. Ware’s recommendation for the OPP to work with the local LGBTQ community in New Orleans as part of this effort.
Although the OPP has protocols for providing victim services to inmates who may need them, the personal accounts from former inmates at OPP who claimed to be victims of sexual assault raise serious questions as to how accessible and effective the services actually are. The Panel strongly recommends that the OPP review the quality of the services it provides to victims of sexual assault, which should include collaboration with victim-service providers in the community.858
3. Common Themes
Cognizant of the inherent limitations in drawing generalizations from the data that the Panel has gathered on the five jails that appeared at the September 2011 hearings, the Panel has nonetheless identified the following recurrent themes: (1) the importance of jail design in deterring inmate sexual victimization, (2) the value of outside oversight, (3) the reluctance of prosecutors to pursue cases involving inmate sexual assault, (4) the challenges that jails encounter in creating safe environments with increasingly limited resources, and (5) the importance of employing well-trained, professional correctional staff.
a. Acknowledging the Importance of Facility Design
Among the jails that the Panel invited to the September hearing there was a notable correlation between incidence of sexual victimization and facility design. The two jails with low sexual victimization, Hinds County and the Moss Center, were both direct-supervision facilities, whereas two of the three jails with reported high sexual victimization, Clallam County and PTDC, were not. The single outlier was the South White Street Jail, which the OPP characterized as a direct-supervision facility, but as already noted, the facility closed before the Panel could observe its operation. For many local jurisdictions throughout the country, the Panel knows well that the construction of new, direct-supervision jails is a cost-prohibitive option to prevent the sexual victimization of inmates. Nonetheless, in communities where jail construction or remodeling is on the agenda, community leaders and jail administrators should consider the security benefits of a direct-supervision design.
b. Appreciating the Value of Outside Oversight
Two of the three high-incidence jails that the Panel selected to appear at the September hearings, the PTDC and the OPP, were also recently the subject of Justice Department investigations, which resulted in specific recommendations for improving facility management. The Panel contends that it is not a matter of coincidence that the BJS Report identified these facilities as
856 See supra Part II.A.3.c. 857 See supra Part II.A.3.d. 858 See supra Part II.A.3.f.
84

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
problematic, a result that was completely independent of the Civil Rights Division’s investigations and findings. Although the Justice Department has a key role in holding correctional institutions accountable, Sheriff Glanz of TCSO and Director Ryan of MDCR reminded the Panel of the benefits that come from working with outside organizations in helping jails improve their operations. Echoing their remarks, Director Arthur Wallenstein of the Montgomery County, Maryland, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, a jail administrator with significant experience in implementing PREA, also noted the importance of correctional institutions being open to outside oversight.859 Sheriff Glanz, Director Ryan, and Director Wallenstein commented on the important role that accreditation organizations have in holding jails to professional standards. Jail administrators should consider what may prevent them from welcoming the opportunity of a neutral, outside organization’s review of their operations.
c. Noting the Reluctance to Prosecute Sexual Victimization Cases Involving Inmates
The Panel heard the frustrated testimony of more than one jail administrator who complained that prosecutors are often reluctant to take criminal cases that involve sexual victimization of inmates. The Panel heard speculation that the reluctance may be attributable to a number of factors, including societal stereotypes about inmates, female staff members, and alternative sexual practices.
d. Recognizing the Resource Challenges that Jails Face
The Panel heard from jail administrators about the challenges that they face under current economic conditions to maintain safe correctional institutions. For smaller jails, notably in rural counties, it may be useful to identify off-the-shelf resources that may assist them in complying with the goals of PREA. The Justice Department and the PREA Resource Center may be able to link jails with relevant materials that are readily available, such as online staff training on PREA or an objective inmate-classification system.
e. Employing Well-Trained, Professional Staff
The Panel heard testimony from sheriffs, jail administrators, and jail officials espousing the importance of employing well-trained, professional security staff. Indeed, to prevent or at least limit the frequency of sexual assault, committed correctional professionals must work within a jail facility in which organizational culture does not permit language that gives the impression that any form of sexual impropriety is acceptable. Proper training and staff awareness of evidence-based policies that are designed to prevent and address sexual impropriety, as well as measures or practices that monitor the effectiveness of and adherence to prescribed processes, are essential to the realization of a correctional environment that is free of sexual victimization.
859 Tr., A. Wallenstein, 19:8-22; see also Wallenstein Test. 11 (Apr. 15, 2011), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs_sept11/testimony_wallenstein.pdf.
85

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
4. Topics for Further Study
The Panel encourages academics and practitioners to conduct additional research on the following topics:
a. What are the Specific Challenges of Big-City and Rural Jails in Preventing Inmate Sexual Victimization?
The Panel is aware that the challenges that big-city jails face, such as the MDCR and the OPP, are significantly different from jails with much smaller inmate populations, staffing, and financial resources. The Panel would like to encourage research that would provide practical tools not only to large jails but also to small, rural jails in implementing the goals of PREA.
b. What are the Best Practices in Classifying and Housing LGBTQ Inmates?
The Panel is aware of the directive in the proposed national standards that in considering housing and programming decisions for LGBTQ inmates, correctional institutions should “make individualized determinations about how to ensure the safety of each inmate.”860 The Panel heard testimony and received studies that both supported and criticized the practice of creating special units for LGBTQ inmates.861 The Panel encourages further evidence-based research on correctional institutions’ screening and housing practices that prevent the sexual victimization of gay and transgender women inmates.862
c. What Would Encourage the Prosecution of Crimes Involving Inmate Sexual Victimization?
The Panel encourages the Justice Department to fund research that would identify the factors that discourage local and federal prosecutors from pursuing criminal charges against either staff members or inmates when the victim of a sexual assault is an inmate. The research might include convening a task force composed of prosecutors, prison administrators, and inmate advocacy groups to address this issue.863
d. What are the Policies and Practices that Contribute to a Jail Culture that Has Zero Tolerance for Sexual Victimization?
Through its public hearings and the issuance of this Report, the Panel has attempted to highlight many of the issues that jails encounter in preventing the sexual victimization of inmates. When
860 Nat’l Standards, 76 Fed. Reg. at 6281 (§ 115.42(b)). 861 Robinson Test. (Sept. 16, 2011), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs_sept11/testimony_robinson.pdf; Russell K. Robinson, Masculinity as Prison: Sexual Identity, Race, and Incarceration, 99 CAL. L. REV. 1309 (2011); see also Susan Dolovich, Strategic Segregation in the Modern Prison, 48 AM. CRIM. L. REV. 1 (2011). 862 See NIC, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex Offenders, http://nicic.gov/LGBTI (last visited Mar. 1, 2012). 863 See Tr., T. Ryan, 322:1-15.
86

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
it comes to the sexual abuse of inmates, almost all jail administrators affirm that their facilities have a zero-tolerance policy.864 More important than stating a policy is knowing what actually works. Mindful of the proposed national standards, the Panel encourages evidenced-based research on the policies and practices that contribute to jail cultures that keep inmates safe from sexual victimization.
e. What are the Best Practices for Monitoring Compliance with a Jail’s Zero-Tolerance Policy for Sexual Victimization?
The Panel has often found that the written policies on preventing sexual victimization in highand low-incidence correctional facilities may not differ significantly. One of the distinguishing characteristics, however, between high- and low-incidence facilities is that the low-incidence facilities are often able to evaluate whether their practice complies with their stated policy. To help jails with the process of self-evaluation when it comes to preventing and responding to the sexual abuse of inmates, the Panel encourages the development of effective tools, based on best practices, that jails can readily access that will assist them to identify their shortcomings and then take appropriate corrective actions.
f. What are the Best Practices for Reliably Reporting Sexual Abuse in Jails?
In reviewing correctional facilities’ investigative files, the Panel has found that some facilities still have significant problems when it comes to receiving, answering, and recording inmate complaints alleging sexual victimization; responding appropriately to a reported incident of sexual assault; conducting a well-documented investigation; taking warranted remedial actions; and providing proper medical and emotional support to victims. The Panel encourages the development of technical assistance materials for jails that would assist them in reliably tracking inmate complaints alleging sexual victimization and responding to them based on best practices from the field. In designing the materials, researchers should consider the needs of all jails, whether large or small, urban or rural.
III. Conclusion
The Panel takes the issues of sexual misconduct and sexual safety in correctional environments seriously. We recognize that when a person is sexually abused, that person becomes the victim of a violent crime. Our mission, especially in preparing for and during the hearings, is to help corrections practitioners and allied professionals achieve the spirit of PREA. While we believe that jails, juvenile institutions, and prisons are making significant advancements to abate sexual victimization, much more can be done to prevent sexual assaults and to punish sexual predators.
Through our hearings we have come to know and consequently document that many correctional jurisdictions deserve praise for their hard work. Creating a corrections culture that seeks to eliminate sexual abuse takes considerable energy on the part of many in leadership. We
864 See, e.g., id., J. Ursin, 130:6-9; id., W. Benedict, 235:15-19; id., T. Ryan, 284:19-285:4.
87

Review Panel on Prison Rape Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
congratulate them on their efforts and thank them for their contributions to the continued professionalization of the corrections field. We realize that all correctional agencies want to reduce institutional assaults. Unfortunately, the attention given to eliminating sexual abuse is not the same throughout the nation. We know that sexual assaults can be reduced by changing attitudes toward potentially vulnerable populations, including female, LGBTQ, and physically frail inmates; paying close attention to institutional design and surveillance; providing offender education and staff training; improving operational policies and post orders; and monitoring adherence to established policies. Moreover, a reliable inmate-classification system; improved efforts on the part of first responders, investigators, and prosecutors; and timely victim assistance and healthcare services will help an agency reduce, if not eliminate, inmate sexual victimization. With the goal of ending sexual violence in prisons and jails, we will continue to gather information that we hope will be helpful to correctional policymakers, administrators, line staff, and allied professionals.865 Our mission is nothing less than to assist correctional institutions to become safer and more humane.
865 In 2013, the BJS anticipates issuing the next surveys of sexual victimization in prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities based on inmate interviews. The Panel will schedule hearings related to the surveys shortly after their publication.
88

 
 U.S. District Court Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:12-cv-00859-LMA

Jones et al v. Gusman et al Assigned to: Judge Lance M Africk Case in other court: USCA, 5th Circuit, 13-30851
USCA, 16-30110 USCA, Fifth Circuit, 16-30945 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 04/02/2012 Date Terminated: 10/21/2013 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Special Master
Susan W. McCampbell TERMINATED : 04/22/2019

Special Master
Margo Frasier

Plaintiff
Kent Anderson

represented b Emily Mottiel Washington y Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center 4400 S. Carrollton Avenue New Orleans, LA 70119 504-620-2259 Email: emily.washington@macarthurjustice.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christine P. Sun Southern Poverty Law Center (Montgomery) 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 334-956-8200 Email: christine.sun@splcenter.org TERMINATED: 06/10/2013

Elizabeth Cumming MacArthur Justice Center

4400 S. Carrollton Ave LA New Orleans, LA 70119 504-620-2259 Email: elizabeth.cumming@macarthurjustice.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric A. Foley Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center 4400 S. Carrollton Avenue New Orleans, LA 70119 504-684-2364 Email: eric.foley@macarthurjustice.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer M. Coco 3319 St. Claude Ave New Orleans, LA 70117 504-619-9999 Email: jencoco@gmail.com TERMINATED: 06/10/2013
Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (New Orleans) 1340 Poydras St. Suite 2160 P. O. Box 56157 New Orleans, LA 70156 504-522-0628 Email: kschwartzmann@laaclu.org TERMINATED: 11/27/2018
Mary C. Bauer Southern Poverty Law Center Immigrant Justice Project 233 Peachtree Street NE Suite 2150 Atlanta, GA 30303 404-521-6700 Email: mbauer@splcenter.org TERMINATED: 06/10/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Sara Zampierin Southern Poverty Law Center (Montgomery) 400 Washington Avenue

Plaintiff Steven Dominick
Plaintiff Anthony Gioustavia

Montgomery, AL 36104 334-956-8326 Email: sara.zampierin@splcenter.org TERMINATED: 06/10/2013
represented b Emily Mottiel Washington y (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine P. Sun (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/10/2013
Elizabeth Cumming (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric A. Foley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer M. Coco (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/10/2013
Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/27/2018
Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/10/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Sara Zampierin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/10/2013
represented b Emily Mottiel Washington y (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jimmie Jenkins

Christine P. Sun (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/10/2013
Elizabeth Cumming (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric A. Foley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer M. Coco (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/10/2013
Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/27/2018
Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/10/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Sara Zampierin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/10/2013
represented b Emily Mottiel Washington y (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine P. Sun (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/10/2013
Elizabeth Cumming (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric A. Foley (See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer M. Coco (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/10/2013

Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/27/2018

Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/10/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Sara Zampierin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/10/2013

Plaintiff Greg Journee

represented b Emily Mottiel Washington y (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christine P. Sun (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/10/2013

Elizabeth Cumming (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric A. Foley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer M. Coco (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/10/2013

Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/27/2018

Mary C. Bauer

Plaintiff Richard Lanford
Plaintiff

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/10/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Sara Zampierin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/10/2013
represented b Emily Mottiel Washington y (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine P. Sun (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/10/2013
Elizabeth Cumming (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric A. Foley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer M. Coco (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/10/2013
Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/27/2018
Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/10/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Sara Zampierin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/10/2013

Leonard Lewis
Plaintiff Euell Sylvester

represented b Emily Mottiel Washington y (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine P. Sun (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/10/2013
Elizabeth Cumming (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric A. Foley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer M. Coco (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/10/2013
Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/27/2018
Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/10/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Sara Zampierin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/10/2013
represented b Emily Mottiel Washington y (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine P. Sun (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/10/2013
Elizabeth Cumming (See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric A. Foley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer M. Coco (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/10/2013

Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/27/2018

Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/10/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Sara Zampierin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/10/2013

Plaintiff
Mark Walker on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated TERMINATED : 07/06/2015

represented b Christine P. Sun y (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/10/2013
Elizabeth Cumming (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2013
Jennifer M. Coco (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/10/2013

Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/27/2018

Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/10/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Sara Zampierin

Plaintiff
Lashawn Jones

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/10/2013
represented b Emily Mottiel Washington y (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine P. Sun (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/10/2013
Elizabeth Cumming (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric A. Foley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer M. Coco (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/10/2013
Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/27/2018
Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/10/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Sara Zampierin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/10/2013

V.
Intervenor Plaintiff
United States of America

represented b Corey M. Sanders y U. S. Department of Justice (Civil Rights Division) 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20530 202-514-6255 Email: corey.sanders@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 06/19/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Kerry Dean U. S. Department of Justice (Civil Rights Division) 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 202-514-6255 Email: kerry.k.dean@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
George E. Eppsteiner U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division 4 Constitution Square 140 M Street NE Room 10 1812 Washington, DC 20530 202-305-4044 Email: george.eppsteiner@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan M. Smith U. S. Department of Justice (Civil Rights Division) 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 202-514-6255 TERMINATED: 06/19/2018
Laura Coon Cowall U. S. Department of Justice (Civil Division) 601 D Street NW Room 9922 Washington, DC 20004 202-514-1089 Email: laura.cowall@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Megan R Marks DOJ-Crt Housing and Civil Enforcement Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20530

202-616-2579 Fax: 202-514-0212 Email: megan.marks@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 09/25/2019
Sharon Brett U. S. Department of Justice (950 Penn Ave) 950 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20010 202-353-1091 Fax: 202-514-6273 Email: sharon.brett@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 06/19/2018
Theodore R. Carter , III U. S. Attorney's Office (New Orleans) 650 Poydras St. Suite 1600 New Orleans, LA 70130 504-680-3165 Email: usalae.ecfcr@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.

Defendant

Marlin N. Gusman Sheriff, Orleans Parish

represented b Freeman Rudolph Matthews y Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff's Office 2800 Perdido St. New Orleans, LA 70119 504-343-4424 Fax: 504-202-9454 Email: petematthewslaw@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy R. Richardson Usry & Weeks, APLC 1615 Poydras St., Suite 1250 New Orleans, LA 70112 504-592-4600 Email: trichardson@usryweeks.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Blake J. Arcuri Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff's Office 2800 Perdido St. New Orleans, LA 70119 504-202-9404 Email: arcurib@opso.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Inemesit U. O'Boyle Chehardy,Sherman,Williams,Murray,Recile,Stakelum&Haye s, LLC One Galleria Blvd. Suite 1100 Metairie, LA 70001 504-833-5600 Fax: 504-556-4108 Email: iuo@chehardy.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James McClendon Williams Chehardy,Sherman,Williams,Murray,Recile,Stakelum&Haye s, LLC One Galleria Blvd. Suite 1100 Metairie, LA 70001 504-833-5600 Fax: 504-456-8624 Email: jmw@chehardy.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura C Rodrigue Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office 421 Loyola Ave. Suite 403 New Orleans, LA 70112 504-827-6727 Email: rodriguela@opso.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick R Follette Chehardy,Sherman,Ellis,Murray,Recile,Stakelum&Hayes, LLP One Galleria Blvd. Suite 1100 Metairie, LA 70001 504-833-5600

Fax: 504-833-8080 Email: prf@chehardy.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ryan Paul Monsour Chehardy,Sherman,Ellis,Murray,Recile,Stakelum&Hayes, LLP One Galleria Blvd. Suite 1100 Metairie, LA 70001 504-833-5600 Email: rpm@chehardy.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Allen Usry Usry, Weeks & Matthews 1615 Poydras St. Suite 1250 New Orleans, LA 70112 504-592-4600 Email: ausry@usryweeks.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Kevin Winfield Warden, Old Parish Prison

represented b Freeman Rudolph Matthews y (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy R. Richardson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Blake J. Arcuri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Inemesit U. O'Boyle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James McClendon Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Bonita Pittman Warden, Templeman Phase V

represented b Freeman Rudolph Matthews y (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy R. Richardson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Blake J. Arcuri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Inemesit U. O'Boyle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James McClendon Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Charles Ezeb Warden, Temporary Jails

represented b Freeman Rudolph Matthews y (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy R. Richardson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Blake J. Arcuri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Inemesit U. O'Boyle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James McClendon Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Jerrod Spinney Warden, Conchetta

represented b Freeman Rudolph Matthews y (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy R. Richardson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Blake J. Arcuri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Inemesit U. O'Boyle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James McClendon Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Samuel Gore Medical Director

represented b Freeman Rudolph Matthews y (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy R. Richardson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Blake J. Arcuri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Inemesit U. O'Boyle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James McClendon Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Charles Higgins Psychiatric Director

represented b Freeman Rudolph Matthews y (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy R. Richardson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Blake J. Arcuri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Inemesit U. O'Boyle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James McClendon Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

Carlos Louque Warden, House of Detention

represented b Freeman Rudolph Matthews y (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy R. Richardson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Blake J. Arcuri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Inemesit U. O'Boyle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James McClendon Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Unidentified Party

Movant
Roxane A. Townsend

represented b Philip H. Kennedy y Louisiana State University Medical Center 1532 Tulane Ave. Suite 1812 New Orleans, LA 70112 504-903-9983 Email: pkenne@lsuhsc.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant

Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office

represented b Thomas Jeffrey Barbera y Barbera Law Firm 4645 Carthage Street Metairie, LA 70002 504-931-0662 Email: barberalawfirm@cox.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Orleans Public Defenders

represented b Derwyn D. Bunton y Orleans Public Defender's Office 2601 Tulane Avenue Suite 700 New Orleans, LA 70119 504-821-8101 Email: dbunton@opdla.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Colin Reingold Orleans Public Defender's Office 2601 Tulane Avenue Suite 700 New Orleans, LA 70119 504-827-8220 Email: creingold@opdla.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jee Y. Park Innocence Project New Orleans 4051 Ulloa Street New Orleans, LA 70119 504-943-1902 Email: jeep@ip-no.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Orleans Parish Prison Reform Coalition

represented b William Patrick Quigley y Loyola Law School Clinic 7214 St. Charles Ave. New Orleans, LA 70118 504-710-3074 Email: quigley77@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY

Anna Lellelid Law Office of Anna Lellelid, LLC 2415 Bienville Street New Orleans, LA 70119 305-721-7777 Email: alellelid.law@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Monotor M Pete TERMINATED : 08/04/2016

Movant
Darnley R. Hodge, Sr.

represented b Richard C. Stanley y Stanley, Reuter, Ross, Thornton & Alford, LLC (New Orleans) LL&E Tower 909 Poydras St. Suite 2500 New Orleans, LA 70112 504-523-1580 Email: rcs@stanleyreuter.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bryan C. Reuter

Movant William D. Short
Third Party Plaintiff

Stanley, Reuter, Ross, Thornton & Alford, LLC (New Orleans) LL&E Tower 909 Poydras St. Suite 2500 New Orleans, LA 70112 504-523-1580 Email: bcr@stanleyreuter.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
M. Rebecca Cooper The Kullman Firm (New Orleans) Energy Centre 1100 Poydras St Suite 1600 New Orleans, LA 70163 504-596-4161 Email: mrc@kullmanlaw.com TERMINATED: 07/17/2019
Matthew J. Paul Stanley, Reuter, Ross, Thornton & Alford, LLC (New Orleans) LL&E Tower 909 Poydras St. Suite 2500 New Orleans, LA 70112 504-523-1580 Email: mjp@stanleyreuter.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented b Kevin S. Vogeltanz y Law Office of Kevin S. Vogeltanz, LLC 823 Carroll St. Suite A Mandeville, LA 70448 504-275-5149 Email: vogeltanz@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marlin N. Gusman Sheriff, Orleans Parish

represented b Freeman Rudolph Matthews y (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy R. Richardson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Blake J. Arcuri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Inemesit U. O'Boyle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James McClendon Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laura C Rodrigue (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patrick R Follette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ryan Paul Monsour (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Allen Usry (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Third Party Defendant
New Orleans City

represented b Christy C. Harowski y City Attorney's Office (New Orleans) 1300 Perdido Street

Suite 7E05 New Orleans, LA 70112 504-658-9854 Email: ccharowski@nola.gov TERMINATED: 02/08/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Rebecca H. Dietz City Attorney's Office (New Orleans) 1300 Perdido Street 5th Floor New Orleans, LA 70112 504-658-9816 Email: rhdietz@nola.gov TERMINATED: 06/19/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Sunni Jones LeBeouf City of New Orleans 1300 Perdido Street Room 5E03 New Orleans, LA 70112 504-658-9920 Email: sunni.lebeouf@nola.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adam J. Swensek City Attorney's Office (New Orleans) 1300 Perdido Street 5th Floor New Orleans, LA 70112 504-658-9810 Fax: 658-9868 Email: ajswensek@nola.gov TERMINATED: 02/08/2018
Brian J. Capitelli Capitelli & Wicker Energy Centre 1100 Poydras St. Suite 2950 New Orleans, LA 70163 504-582-2425 Email: brian@capitelliandwicker.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bryan Edward Bowdler Kullman Firm (New Orleans) 1100 Poydras St. 1600 Energy Centre P. O. Box 60118 New Orleans, LA 70163 504-524-4162 Email: beb@kullmanlaw.com TERMINATED: 10/20/2015
Cherrell Simms Taplin Liskow & Lewis (New Orleans) One Shell Square 701 Poydras St. Suite 5000 New Orleans, LA 70139-5099 504-556-4025 Email: cstaplin@liskow.com TERMINATED: 12/11/2018
Churita H. Hansell City Attorney's Office (New Orleans) 1300 Perdido Street 5th Floor New Orleans, LA 70112 504-658-9850 Email: chhansell@nola.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donesia Diane Turner City of New Orleans Law Deptment 1300 Perdido Street Room 5E03 New Orleans, LA 70112 504-658-9800 Email: donesia.turner@nola.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ewell Patrick Eagan City Attorney's Office (New Orleans) 1300 Perdido Street Room 5E03 New Orleans, LA 70112 504-658-9839 Email: epeagan@nola.gov

TERMINATED: 06/19/2018
Harry Rosenberg Phelps Dunbar, LLP (New Orleans) Canal Place 365 Canal St. Suite 2000 New Orleans, LA 70130-6534 (504) 584-9219 Email: harry.rosenberg@phelps.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew David Fraser King, Krebs & Jurgens, PLLC (New Orleans) Place St. Charles 201 St. Charles Ave. 45th Floor New Orleans, LA 70170 504-582-3800 Fax: 504-582-1233 Email: mfraser@kingjurgens.com TERMINATED: 02/08/2018
Ralph Capitelli Capitelli & Wicker Energy Centre 1100 Poydras St. Suite 2950 New Orleans, LA 70163 (504) 582-2425 Email: rc@capitelliandwicker.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard Felipe Cortizas Jones Walker (New Orleans) Place St. Charles 201 St. Charles Ave. Suite 5100 New Orleans, LA 70170 504-582-8222 Email: rfcortizas@nola.gov TERMINATED: 06/19/2018
Sharonda R. Williams Fishman Haygood, LLP (New Orleans) 201 St. Charles Ave.

Suite 4600, 46th Floor New Orleans, LA 70170-4600 504-556-5506 Email: swilliams@fishmanhaygood.com TERMINATED: 11/02/2015

Third Party Plaintiff
Marlin N. Gusman Sheriff, Orleans Parish

represented b Freeman Rudolph Matthews y (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy R. Richardson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Blake J. Arcuri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Inemesit U. O'Boyle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James McClendon Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laura C Rodrigue (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patrick R Follette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ryan Paul Monsour (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Allen Usry (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Third Party Defendant
New Orleans City

represented b Christy C. Harowski y (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/08/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Rebecca H. Dietz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/19/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Sunni Jones LeBeouf (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adam J. Swensek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/08/2018
Brian J. Capitelli (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bryan Edward Bowdler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/20/2015
Cherrell Simms Taplin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/11/2018
Churita H. Hansell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donesia Diane Turner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ewell Patrick Eagan (See above for address)

TERMINATED: 06/19/2018
Harry Rosenberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew David Fraser (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/08/2018
Ralph Capitelli (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard Felipe Cortizas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/19/2018
Sharonda R. Williams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/02/2015

Date Filed 04/02/2012
04/02/2012
04/03/2012 04/04/2012

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants (Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 053L-3454225) filed by Richard Lanford, Kent Anderson, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Steven Dominick, Euell Sylvester, Leonard Lewis, Anthony Gioustavia, Mark Walker, Jimmie Jenkins. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) Modified on 4/4/2012 (lag, ). (Entered: 04/02/2012)
2 MOTION to Certify Class by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Lashawn Jones, Euell Sylvester, Mark Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1 Plaintiff Declarations, # 3 Exhibit 2 Witness Declarations, # 4 Exhibit 3 State Court Pleadings, # 5 Exhibit 4 Bedi Declaration, # 6 Exhibit 5 DOJ Findings)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) Modified on 4/4/2012 (lag, ). (Entered: 04/02/2012)
3 Initial Case Assignment to Judge Lance M Africk and Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan. (jmd, ) (Entered: 04/03/2012)
4 Request of Summons Issued as to All Defendants filed by All Plaintiffs re 1 Complaint,. (Attachments: # 1 Summons Gore,

04/05/2012 04/09/2012 04/23/2012 04/24/2012 04/24/2012
04/24/2012 04/25/2012

# 2 Summons Gusman, # 3 Summons Higgins, # 4 Summons Louque, # 5 Summons Pittman, # 6 Summons Spinney, # 7 Summons Winnfield)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 04/04/2012)
5 Summons Issued as to Charles Ezeb, Samuel Gore, Marlin N Gusman, Charles Higgins, Carlos Louque, Bonita Pittman, Jerrod Spinney, Kevin Winfield. (car, ) (Entered: 04/05/2012)
6 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Supplemental Filing re class certification. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit PREA Report 2012)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) Modified on 4/10/2012 (car, ). (Entered: 04/09/2012)
7 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer by Charles Ezeb, Samuel Gore, Marlin N Gusman, Charles Higgins, Carlos Louque, Bonita Pittman, Jerrod Spinney, Unidentified Party, Kevin Winfield. Motion(s) referred to Sally Shushan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Matthews, Freeman) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
8 MOTION to Consolidate Cases by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, Mark Walker. Motion set for 5/9/2012 09:00 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Hearing, # 3 Proposed Order Consolidating, # 4 Proposed Order Granting Oral Argument)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 04/24/2012)
9 SUMMONS Returned Executed; Charles Ezeb served on 4/9/2012, answer due 4/30/2012; Samuel Gore served on 4/9/2012, answer due 4/30/2012; Marlin N Gusman served on 4/9/2012, answer due 4/30/2012; Charles Higgins served on 4/9/2012, answer due 4/30/2012; Carlos Louque served on 4/9/2012, answer due 4/30/2012; Bonita Pittman served on 4/9/2012, answer due 4/30/2012; Jerrod Spinney served on 4/9/2012, answer due 4/30/2012; Kevin Winfield served on 4/9/2012, answer due 4/30/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Summons Louqe, # 2 Summons Ezeb, # 3 Summons Spinney, # 4 Summons Winfield, # 5 Summons Pittman, # 6 Summons Gusman, # 7 Summons Gore)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 04/24/2012)
10 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by All Plaintiffs regarding 8 MOTION to Consolidate Cases . (car, ) (Entered: 04/25/2012)
11 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 8 MOTION to Consolidate Cases - Filing attorney attached a Request/Statement for Oral Argument to this motion instead of filing it as a separate entry. Clerk

04/30/2012 04/30/2012 05/01/2012
05/01/2012
05/02/2012 05/02/2012

took corrective action by separating the request and docketing it as a separate entry. All future requests for oral argument must be filed separately, without a signature line for the Judge's signature. (car, ) (Entered: 04/25/2012)
12 ORDER finding as moot 8 Motion to Consolidate Cases. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk. (car, ) (Entered: 04/30/2012)
13 ORDER consolidating lead case 12-859 w/SEALED member case 12138 as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk.(car, ) (Entered: 05/01/2012)
14 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, Mark Walker. Motion set for 9/5/2012 09:00 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 Exhibit 1: DOJ 2012 Findings, # 4 Exhibit 2: Witness Declarations, # 5 Exhibit 3: DOJ 2009 Findings)(Reference: 12859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 05/01/2012)
15 MOTION for Discovery by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, Mark Walker. Motion(s) referred to Sally Shushan. Motion set for 5/23/2012 09:00 AM before Mag Judge Shushan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) Modified on 5/2/2012 (car, ). (Entered: 05/01/2012)
16 ORDER re 15 MOTION for Discovery. Dfts are ORDERED to file a resp on or bfr 5/16/2012. Plas may file a reply to that resp, not exceeding 5 pages in length, on or bfr 5/21/2012. The motion will then be taken under submission on the briefs w/out the necessity of oral argument. Req for oral argument is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan on 5/2/2012.(Reference: 12-0859)(caa, ) (Entered: 05/02/2012)
17 ORDER that 16 Order is hereby WITHDRAWN AND VACATED. Further Order denying w/out prej as moot 15 MOTION for Discovery filed by Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Lashawn Jones, Leonard Lewis, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Euell Sylvester & Mark Walker. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan on 5/2/2012.(Reference: 120859)(caa, ) (Entered: 05/02/2012)

05/02/2012 05/02/2012
05/03/2012 05/04/2012 05/07/2012 05/08/2012
05/09/2012

18 ORDER granting 7 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re 1 Complaint, as to Charles Ezeb, Samuel Gore, Marlin N Gusman, Charles Higgins, Carlos Louque, Bonita Pittman, Jerrod Spinney, Kevin Winfield; answer due 5/21/2012. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 5/2/12. (Reference: 12-859)(sek, ) (Entered: 05/02/2012)
19 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 5/2/2012. ORDERED that the parties will submit a proposed 90-day discovery schedule with respect to the motion for injunctive relief along with a reasonable discovery schedule with respect to the motion for class certification no later than Wednesday, May 9, 2012. FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs will submit their initial witness list no later than Wednesday, May 30, 2012, with a continuing duty to supplement the witness list every thirty (30) days thereafter. FURTHER ORDERED that another Status Conference is set for 6/5/2012 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. (Reference: 12-859)(sek, ) (Entered: 05/02/2012)
20 Exparte Motion by All Plaintiffs for Status Conference (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) Modified on 5/4/2012 (car, ). (Entered: 05/03/2012)
21 ORDER granting 20 Request for Hearing filed by Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Lashawn Jones, Leonard Lewis, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Euell Sylvester, Mark Walker. Status Conference set for 5/9/2012 05:00 PM before Judge Lance M Africk.. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk.(Reference: 12-859)(car, ) (Entered: 05/04/2012)
22 **DEFICIENT** Amendment/Supplement to Document by All Plaintiffs re 21 Order, Set/Reset Hearings, Terminate Motions. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) Modified on 5/8/2012 (caa, ). (Entered: 05/07/2012)
23 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Pleading by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, Mark Walker. Motion set for 5/23/2012 09:00 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Proposed Pleading, # 4 Proposed Pleading exhibits, # 5 Notice of Submission)(Reference: 12859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 05/08/2012)
24 Proposed Expedited Discovery Plan for hrg on prelim injunction by All Plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-

05/09/2012
05/09/2012 05/09/2012 05/09/2012 05/11/2012
05/14/2012
05/14/2012 05/14/2012 05/15/2012 05/15/2012 05/16/2012

859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) Modified on 5/10/2012 (car, ). (Entered: 05/09/2012)
25 RESPONSE to Motion filed by All Defendants re 23 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Pleading. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Reference: 12-0859)(Matthews, Freeman) Modified on 5/10/2012 (car, ). (Entered: 05/09/2012)
26 Sealed mtn for prelim injunction. (Reference: 12-138)(car, ) (Entered: 05/10/2012)
27 Sealed Order (Reference: 12-138)(car, ) (Entered: 05/10/2012)
28 Sealed amd prelim injunction (Reference: 12-138)(car, ) (Entered: 05/10/2012)
29 Proposed Class Certification Discovery Schedule by All Plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) Modified on 5/14/2012 (car, ). (Entered: 05/11/2012)
30 Second MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Pleading by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, Mark Walker. Motion set for 6/6/2012 09:00 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Proposed Pleading, # 5 Proposed Pleading, # 6 Proposed Pleading)(Reference: 12859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 05/14/2012)
31 ORDER granting 23 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk. (Reference: 12-859)(car, ) (Entered: 05/14/2012)
32 Supplemental Memorandum by All Plaintiffs in support of request for status conf (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Reference: 12-859)(car, ) (Entered: 05/14/2012)
33 ORDER granting 30 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk. (Reference: 12-859)(car, ) (Entered: 05/15/2012)
34 Supplemental pleading in support of req for status conf by All Plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Reference: 12859)(car, ) (Entered: 05/15/2012)
36 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 5/16/2012. (Reference: 12-0859)(caa, ) (Entered: 05/18/2012)

05/17/2012 06/05/2012 06/06/2012
06/08/2012 06/08/2012 06/11/2012 06/15/2012 06/18/2012 06/18/2012

35 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by Charles Ezeb, Samuel Gore, Marlin N Gusman, Charles Higgins, Carlos Louque, Bonita Pittman, Jerrod Spinney, Unidentified Party, Kevin Winfield.(Reference: 120859)(Matthews, Freeman) (Entered: 05/17/2012)
37 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 6/5/2012. Status Conference set for 7/26/2012 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk in chambers. (Reference: 12-859)(gec, ) (Entered: 06/05/2012)
38 ORDER re 29 Proposed Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan - counsel prepare a joint class certification discovery schedule that will accommodate a class certification hearing beginning on November 12, 2012. The revised discovery schedule will be filed by Monday, June 11, 2012.. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk.(Reference: 12-859)(car, ) (Entered: 06/06/2012)
39 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to move to quash or limit subp by Roxane A. Townsend. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(Reference: 12-859)(car, ) (Entered: 06/11/2012)
40 (Text entry only) ORDER granting 39 Motion for Extension of Time to move to quash or limit subp. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk. (Reference: 12-859)(car, ) (Entered: 06/11/2012)
41 Proposed Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan by All Parties (Reference: 12859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 06/11/2012)
42 DEFICIENT-EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Marlin N Gusman. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Submission, # 2 Exhibit)(Reference: 120859)(Matthews, Freeman) Modified on 6/18/2012 (cms, ). (Entered: 06/15/2012)
43 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 45 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) Modified on 6/19/2012 (car, ). (Entered: 06/18/2012)
44 Exparte MOTION to Expedite Defendants' Motion for Extension by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, Mark Walker. Motion(s) referred to Sally Shushan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) Modified on 6/19/2012 (car, ). (Entered: 06/18/2012)

06/18/2012 06/18/2012 06/19/2012 06/22/2012 06/29/2012
06/29/2012
07/02/2012

45 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Marlin N Gusman. Motion referred to and set for 7/25/12 9:00 a.m. before Mag Judge Sally Shushan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 Exhibit)(Reference: 120859)(Matthews, Freeman) Modified on 6/19/2012 (car, ). (Entered: 06/18/2012)
46 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of HIPAA stipulation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Reference: 12-859; 12-138)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 06/18/2012)
47 ORDER granting 44 Motion to Expedite & granting in part and denying in part 45 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan on 6/19/2012. (Reference: 12-0859)(caa, ) (Entered: 06/19/2012)
48 ORDER re 41 Proposed Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan - deadline stated herein. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk.(Reference: 12-859)(car, ) (Entered: 06/22/2012)
49 -DEFICIENT- MOTION to Compel by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, Mark Walker. Motion(s) referred to Sally Shushan. Motion set for 7/18/2012 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Proposed Order, # 9 Notice of Submission)(Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) Modified on 7/2/2012 (ala, ). (Entered: 06/29/2012)
50 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, Mark Walker. Motion(s) referred to Sally Shushan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) Modified on 7/2/2012 (ala, ). (Entered: 06/29/2012)
51 MOTION to Compel by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, Mark Walker. Motion(s) referred to Sally Shushan. Motion set for 7/18/2012 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Notice of Submission, # 9 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 07/02/2012)

07/05/2012 07/10/2012 07/10/2012 07/23/2012
07/26/2012
07/27/2012
07/30/2012 07/30/2012

52 ORDER granting 50 MOTION to Expedite Consideration of Motion to Compel filed by Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Lashawn Jones, Leonard Lewis, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Euell Sylvester, Mark Walker. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan on 7/5/2012.(Reference: 120859)(caa, ) (Entered: 07/05/2012)
53 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Defendants re 51 MOTION to Compel . (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Reference: 12-00859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 07/10/2012)
54 ORDER: Status Conference RESCHEDULED for 8/1/2012 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 7/10/2012.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 07/12/2012)
55 ORDERED that within five working days, plaintiffs notify the Court in writing as to whether the 51 MOTION to Compel is now moot. FURTHER ORDERED that, if plaintiffs contend that the motion is not moot, they supplement their pending motion by that same date to identify the specific issues which remain in dispute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan.(Reference: 12-859)(gec, ) (Entered: 07/23/2012)
56 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue Hearing on Preliminary Injunction by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, Mark Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 07/26/2012)
57 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, Mark Walker. Motion(s) referred to Sally Shushan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 Proposed Pleading Exhibit)(Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 07/27/2012)
58 ORDER granting 57 Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limit. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan. (Reference: 12-859)(gec, ) (Entered: 07/30/2012)
59 Supplemental Memorandum filed by All Plaintiffs, in support of 51 MOTION to Compel. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Reference: 12859)(gec, ) (Entered: 07/30/2012)

07/31/2012
08/01/2012 08/08/2012 08/09/2012 08/16/2012 09/04/2012 09/10/2012

60 ORDERED that, within five days, the parties meet and confer to attempt to resolve discovery responses which plaintiffs believe to be insufficient. FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' counsel notify the Court immediately after that conference has concluded. FURTHER ORDERED that, within seven days of that conference, defendants file a response to plaintiffs' supplemental memorandum and seek protective orders as stated within document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan.(Reference: 12-859)(gec, ) (Entered: 07/31/2012)
61 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Telephone Conference held on 8/1/2012. ORDERED that the 56 MOTION to Continue Preliminary Injunction Hearing is GRANTED and the hearing is CONTINUED. FURTHER ORDERED that another status conference is scheduled for 9/4/2012 07:30 AM in the chambers of Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 8/1/2012. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 08/02/2012)
62 Supplemental Memorandum by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, Mark Walker to 60 Order,, (Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 08/08/2012)
63 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan: Telephone Conference held on 8/9/2012. 51 Motion to Compel shall remain under advisement. Telephone Status Conference set for 8/16/2012 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan. (Reference: 12-859)(gec, ) (Entered: 08/09/2012)
64 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan: Telephone Status Conference held on 8/16/2012. Telephone Status Conference SCHEDULED for 8/28/2012 01:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan. 51 Motion to Compel shall remain under advisement. (Reference: 12-859)(gec, ) (Entered: 08/16/2012)
65 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 9/4/2012. ORDERED that a Telephone Conference is set for 9/10/2012 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 9/4/2012. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 09/04/2012)
66 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Telephone Conference held on 9/10/2012. ORDERED that a Telephone Conference is set for 9/18/2012 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 9/10/2012. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 09/11/2012)

09/18/2012 09/21/2012 09/24/2012 09/25/2012 09/25/2012 09/28/2012 09/28/2012 10/01/2012

67 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Telephone Conference held on 9/18/2012. ORDERED that a Telephone Conference is set for 9/21/2012 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 9/18/2012. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 09/19/2012)
71 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Telephone Status Conference held on 9/21/2012. ORDERED that an additional telephone conference is scheduled for 10/4/2012 at 7:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 9/27/2012. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 09/27/2012)
68 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Intervene by Department of Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Complaint in Intervention, # 3 Memorandum in Support)(Reference: 12 cv 00859)(Sanders, Corey) Modified on 9/24/2012 (ala, ). (Entered: 09/24/2012)
69 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Telephone Conference held on 9/25/2012; ORDERED that the 68 Motion to Intervene is GRANTED; FURTHER ORDERED that the next Telephone Conference is set for 10/4/2012 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 9/25/2012. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 09/25/2012)
70 Intervenor COMPLAINT filed by United States of America.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 09/25/2012)
72 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Third-Party Complaint Re: Lashawn Jones by Marlin N Gusman. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading Third-Party Complaint, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit to Complaint, # 4 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-00859)(Usry, Thomas) (Entered: 09/28/2012)
73 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Third-Party Complaint Re: United States of America by Marlin N Gusman. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading Third-Party Complaint, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit to Complaint, # 4 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-00859)(Usry, Thomas) (Entered: 09/28/2012)
74 ORDER granting 72 and 73 Motions for Leave to File Third Party Complaint. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/1/2012. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) Modified on 10/2/2012 (blg). (Entered: 10/01/2012)

10/01/2012 10/01/2012 10/04/2012
10/05/2012 10/05/2012 10/09/2012 10/12/2012 10/15/2012
10/16/2012
10/17/2012

75 THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT against New Orleans City (re: Lashawn Jones, et al) filed by Marlin N Gusman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/01/2012)
76 THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT against New Orleans City (re: Unites States of America) filed by Marlin N Gusman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/02/2012)
77 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Telephone Conference held on 10/4/2012. ORDERED that the parties will file a proposed interim consent judgment by 10/15/2012. FURTHER ORDERED that another Telephone Conference is set for 10/15/2012 07:30 AM. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/4/2012. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/04/2012)
78 Request of Summons Issued as to New Orleans City filed by Marlin N Gusman re 76 Third Party Complaint. (Reference: 12-00859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 10/05/2012)
79 Request of Summons Issued as to New Orleans City filed by Marlin N Gusman re 75 Third Party Complaint. (Reference: 12-00859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 10/05/2012)
80 Summons Issued as to New Orleans City. (Reference: 12-859)(ala, ) (Entered: 10/09/2012)
81 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs re 77 Telephone Conference, Set/Reset Hearings,, . (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Reference: 12859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 10/12/2012)
82 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Telephone Conference held on 10/15/2012. ORDERED that all counsel will appear in person for the next status conference set for 10/18/2012 08:00 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/15/2012. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
83 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Telephone Conference held on 10/16/2012, re potential appointment of special master. ORDERED that the parties shall provide the Court with written objections and comments, if any, to such appointment and/or may suggest other candidates for said appointment by Wednesday, October 17, 2012, at 4:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/16/2012. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/16/2012)
84 Statement by All Plaintiffs Regarding Appointment of Special Master (Reference: 2:12cv859)(Dean, Kerry) (Entered: 10/17/2012)

10/17/2012 10/18/2012
10/25/2012 10/26/2012 11/02/2012 11/05/2012 11/05/2012 11/27/2012

85 Memorandum by New Orleans City (Reference: 12-cv00859)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 10/17/2012)
86 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 10/18/2012. ORDERED that an additional Status Conference is set for 11/27/2012 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/18/2012. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/18/2012)
87 Request of Summons Issued as to Marlin N Gusman filed by United States of America re 70 Intervenor Complaint. (Reference: 2:12-cv859)(Sanders, Corey) (Entered: 10/25/2012)
88 Summons Issued as to Marlin N Gusman. (Reference: 12-859)(ala, ) (Entered: 10/26/2012)
89 ANSWER to 70 Intervenor Complaint by Marlin N Gusman.(Reference: 12-00859)(Matthews, Freeman) (Entered: 11/02/2012)
90 ANSWER to 75 Third Party Complaint, 76 Third Party Complaint , by New Orleans City.(Reference: 12-cv-00859)(Williams, Sharonda) Modified on 11/6/2012 (ala, ). (Entered: 11/05/2012)
91 SUMMONS Returned Executed; Marlin N Gusman served on 10/30/2012, answer due 11/20/2012. (Reference: 12-859)(ala, ) (Entered: 11/08/2012)
92 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 11/27/2012. ORDERED that a trial to determine whether conditions at Orleans Parish prison facilities are constitutional is scheduled for 2/19/2013 08:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. FURTHER ORDERED that a pretrial conference for this trial is scheduled for 2/1/2013 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. FURTHER ORDERED that on or before 1/30/2013, theparties shall submit briefing, as stated herein. FURTHER ORDERED that a trial to determine the funding needed to ensure constitutional compliance and the source(s) responsible for providing that funding is scheduled for 4/1/2013 08:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. FURTHER ORDERED that a pretrial conference for this trial is scheduled for 3/5/2013 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. FURTHER ORDERED that the case be re-allotted to U.S. Magistrate Judge Alma L. Chasez. Magistrate Judge Alma L. Chasez added; Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 11/27/2012. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 11/27/2012)

11/27/2012 11/28/2012 12/03/2012 12/03/2012 12/04/2012 12/05/2012 12/06/2012 12/10/2012 12/11/2012

93 ORDER dismissing without prejudice 14 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 11/27/2012. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 11/27/2012)
94 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Elizabeth Cumming by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) Modified text on 11/29/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 11/28/2012)
95 ORDER granting 94 Motion to Enroll as Additional Counsel of Record for Attorney Elizabeth Cumming for plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 11/29/2012. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 12/03/2012)
96 -ERROR: Document has been stricken pursuant to Rule 5(d) of the FRCP.- Proposed Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan by United States of America (Reference: 859)(Dean, Kerry) Modified on 12/5/2012 (ala, ). (Entered: 12/03/2012)
97 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Ralph Capitelli and Brian Capitelli by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-00859)(Williams, Sharonda) (Attachment 1 replaced on 12/5/2012) (ala, ). (Attachment 1 replaced on 12/5/2012) (ala, ). (Entered: 12/04/2012)
98 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 96 Proposed Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan ; Document has been stricken pursuant to Rule 5(d) of the FRCP. No further action needed. (Reference: 12-859)(ala, ) (Entered: 12/05/2012)
99 ORDER granting 97 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record for Attorney Ralph Capitelli, and Brian J. Capitelli for third-party defendant, New Orleans City. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 12/5/2012. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 12/06/2012)
100 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Harry Rosenberg by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-00859)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
101 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Proposed Consent Decree, # 4 Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement)(Reference: 859)(Sanders, Corey) (Entered: 12/11/2012)

12/11/2012 12/11/2012
12/12/2012 12/13/2012 12/14/2012 12/14/2012
12/28/2012

102 ORDER granting 100 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record for Attorney Harry Rosenberg for New Orleans City. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 12/11/2012. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 12/11/2012)
103 ORDERED that the trial scheduled for 2/19/2013, will additionally encompass the Title VI claims filed by intervenor plaintiff, the United States of America. FURTHER ORDERED that the City respond to plaintiffs' motion (R. Doc. No. 2 ) for class certification on or before 12/28/2012. FURTHER ORDERED that the City respond to the joint motion (R. Doc. No. 101 ) for preliminary approval of the proposed consent judgment on or before 12/28/2012. FURTHER ORDERED that a Status Conference is set for 1/3/2013 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 12/11/2012.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 12/11/2012)
104 ORDER re 101 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment filed by United States of America; ORDERED that the request for a status conference regarding modifications to the discovery plan is REFERRED to the U.S. Magistrate Judge. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk. (NEF-Magistrate Judge Chasez)(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 12/12/2012)
105 NOTICE of Related Case 69-2443 by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) Modified on 12/14/2012 (ala, ). (Entered: 12/13/2012)
106 ORDER re 105 Notice of collateral proceeding, requesting that the case be transferred. ORDERED that the request is DENIED pursuant to Local Rule 3.1.1. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 12/14/2012.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 12/14/2012)
107 ORDERED that the U.S. Department of Justice submit a memorandum of law on whether the City of New Orleans may assume all defenses of the Orleans Parish Sheriff to the plaintiffs' claims on or before 12/28/2012. FURTHER ORDERED that the City of New Orleans respond to the memorandum within 10 calendar days of its submission. FURTHER ORDERED that all trial dates remain intact. Accordingly, the parties should continue to prepare for the trial scheduled for 2/19/2013. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 12/14/2012.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 12/14/2012)
108 Memorandum by All Plaintiffs re 107 Order,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Reference: 2:12cv859)(Dean, Kerry) (Entered: 12/28/2012)

12/28/2012 12/30/2012
12/31/2012 12/31/2012 01/03/2013 01/09/2013 01/10/2013 01/11/2013
01/11/2013

109 RESPONSE to Motion filed by New Orleans City re 2 MOTION to Certify Class, 101 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Reference: 12859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 12/28/2012)
110 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America, Mark Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Proposed Pleading, # 4 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 1)(Reference: 12859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 12/30/2012)
111 ORDER granting 110 Motion for Leave to File Reply. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 12/31/2012. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 01/02/2013)
112 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by All Plaintiffs re 2 MOTION to Certify Class, 101 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment . (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 01/02/2013)
113 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 1/3/2013. Counsel to comply with deadlines stated herein. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 1/3/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 01/03/2013)
114 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs re 113 Status Conference . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 01/09/2013)
115 Memorandum by New Orleans City re 113 Status Conference (Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 01/10/2013)
116 MOTION to Quash by Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office. Motion(s) referred to Alma L. Chasez. Motion set for 2/6/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Alma L. Chasez. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Reference: 12-859)(Barbera, Thomas) Modified on 1/14/2013 (ala, ). (Entered: 01/11/2013)
117 OBJECTIONS by Marlin N Gusman re 114 Notice (Other) as Proposed by Plaintiffs (Reference: 12-00859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 01/11/2013)

01/11/2013 01/11/2013 01/14/2013 01/14/2013
01/14/2013 01/14/2013 01/16/2013 01/16/2013

118 Memorandum by New Orleans City re 114 Notice (Other) re Proposed Notice to the Punitive Class Members (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 01/11/2013)
119 ORDER: Status Conference set for 1/16/2013 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 1/11/2013.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 01/14/2013)
120 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Response to Memorandum by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Reference: 2:12-cv00859)(Dean, Kerry) (Entered: 01/14/2013)
121 ORDERED that the parties inform the Court as to their positions on 28 U.S.C. 1715's effect, if any, on current dates and deadlines in the above-captioned case. While the parties should come prepared to discuss their positions at the 1/16/2013 status conference, written position statements must be filed on or before 1/18/2013. FURTHER ORDERED that 120 plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a response is granted. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 1/14/2013.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 01/14/2013)
122 Response by United States of America and class plaintiffs to 115 Memorandum by New Orleans City. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 01/14/2013)
123 Memorandum by All Plaintiffs re 113 Status Conference Memorandum in Reply to Defendants' Objections to Proposed Class Notification Procedures (Reference: 12859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 01/14/2013)
124 ORDER Setting Oral Argument on 116 MOTION to Quash : Motion set for 2/6/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Alma L. Chasez via telephone. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alma L. Chasez on 1/15/2013.(Reference: All cases)(lag, ) (Entered: 01/16/2013)
125 ***DEFICIENT - EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Mary C. Bauer to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L3795779) by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, Mark Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Statement under oath, # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) Modified on 1/17/2013 (blg). (Entered: 01/16/2013)

01/16/2013
01/18/2013 01/18/2013 01/18/2013 01/22/2013 01/22/2013

126 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 1/16/2013. ORDERED: Fairness Hearing set for 4/1/2013 08:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. The 2/19/2013 hearing is CANCELLED. Pre-hearing Conference set for 3/5/2013 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Funding Hearing set for 5/28/2013 08:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Prehearing Conference set for 4/22/2013 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Counsel to comply with all deadlines as stated herein. FURTHER ORDERED that the parties schedule a conference with the U.S. Magistrate Judge to address new discovery deadlines. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 1/17/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 01/18/2013)
127 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Mary C. Bauer to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Fee previously paid) by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, Mark Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) Modified on 1/18/2013 (blg). (Entered: 01/18/2013)
128 Statement by Marlin N Gusman as to 28 USC 1715 (Reference: 1200859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 01/18/2013)
129 Supplemental Notice of Proposed Class Notification Procedures, with Revised Notices of Settlement by All Plaintiffs to 101 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment. > (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) Modified on 1/22/2013 (blg). (Entered: 01/18/2013)
130 ORDER granting 127 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Mary C. Bauer for plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 1/21/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 01/22/2013)
131 ORDER granting in part 101 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment; FURTHER ORDERED that a fairness hearing shall be held 4/1/2013, at 8:30 a.m. FURTHER ORDERED that the revised notice procedures (rec. doc. 129 ) are approved and that Plaintiffs' counsel is authorized to begin implementing these procedures. FURTHER ORDERED that the dates, deadlines, and other requirements detailed in this Court's prior Order (rec. doc. 126 ) continue to apply. FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will DEFER ruling on whether to grant final approval on the proposed consent judgment as between Plaintiffs, the United States, and the Sheriff until after the 4/1/2013 fairness hearing. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 1/21/2013.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 01/22/2013)

01/28/2013
01/31/2013 02/04/2013 02/07/2013 02/08/2013 02/14/2013
02/14/2013 02/14/2013

132 EXPARTE/CONSENT First MOTION to Continue Hearing on Motion to Quash by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, Mark Walker. Motion(s) referred to Alma L. Chasez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-cv-859)(Cumming, Elizabeth) (Entered: 01/28/2013)
133 ORDER granting 132 MOTION to Continue Hearing on 116 MOTION to Quash to 2/20/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alma L. Chasez.(Reference: All cases)(lag, ) (Entered: 01/31/2013)
134 Public comments received are posted on court's website (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 02/06/2013)
135 ORDER re 134 Letter submitted by Ernie Jacobs: ORDERED that Jacobs' request for Court-arranged transportation to the 4/1/2013 fairness hearing is DENIED. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 2/7/2013. (copy mailed to Ernie Jacobs)(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 02/07/2013)
136 ORDER approving and adopting the attached Joint Amended Discovery Plan. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alma L. Chasez on 2/7/2013.(Reference: All cases)(lag, ) (Entered: 02/08/2013)
137 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, Mark Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading Motion for certification of a Settlement Class, # 3 Proposed Pleading Memorandum in Support of Motion to Certify Settlement Class, # 4 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 1-- Declarations, # 5 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 2-- Schwartzmann Declaration, # 6 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 3-- Bauer Decl.)(Reference: 12859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 02/14/2013)
138 PLAINTIFF CLASS MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF FAIRNESS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT by All Plaintiffs to 126 Status Conference (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1Schwartzmann Decl., # 2 Exhibit 2- Arcuri Decl., # 3 Exhibit 3)(Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) Modified on 2/15/2013 (ala, ). (Entered: 02/14/2013)
139 PLAINTIFFS JOINT MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED CONSENT JUDGMENT by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell

02/14/2013
02/14/2013 02/19/2013 02/19/2013 02/19/2013

Sylvester, United States of America, Mark Walker. (Reference: 12cv859)(Coon, Laura) Modified on 2/15/2013 (ala, ). (Entered: 02/14/2013)
140 Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America, Mark Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 4, # 4 Exhibit 8, # 5 Exhibit 85, # 6 Exhibit 86, # 7 Exhibit 87)(Reference: 12cv859)(Coon, Laura) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/22/2013: # 8 *SEALED Exhibit3, # 9 *SEALED - Exhibit 5, # 10 *SEALED - Exhibit 6 (part 1), # 11 *SEALED - Exhibit 6 (part 2), # 12 *SEALED - Exhibit 6 (part 3), # 13 *SEALED - Exhibit 7, # 14 *SEALED - Exhibits 9-15, # 15 *SEALED - Exhibits 16-23, # 16 *SEALED - Exhibits 24-39, # 17 *SEALED - Exhibits 40-56, # 18 *SEALED - Exhibits 57-59, # 19 *SEALED - Exhibits 60-63, # 20 *SEALED - Exhibits 64-65, # 21 *SEALED - Exhibit 66, # 22 *SEALED - Exhibits 67-69, # 23 *SEALED - Exhibits 70-74, # 24 *SEALED - Exhibits 75-76, # 25 *SEALED - Exhibits 77-78, # 26 *SEALED - Exhibit 79, # 27 *SEALED - Exhibit 80, # 28 *SEALED - Exhibits 81-84, # 29 *SEALED - Exhibits 88-90) (blg). Modified on 2/22/2013 Sealed exhibits added, pursuant to 143 Order. (blg). (Entered: 02/14/2013)
141 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Seal Document Certain Attachments to Plaintiffs' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12cv859)(Coon, Laura) (Entered: 02/14/2013)
142 ORDER Resetting Hearing on 116 MOTION to Quash : Motion continued to 3/6/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Alma L. Chasez via telephone. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alma L. Chasez on 2/15/2013.(Reference: 12-859)(lag, ) (Entered: 02/19/2013)
143 ORDER granting 141 Motion to Seal Exhibits 3, 5-7, 9-59, 60-84, and 88-90 in support of 140 Plaintiffs' Joint Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 2/15/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 02/19/2013)
144 ORDER granting 137 Motion for Leave to File motion for class certification, with memorandum that exceeds the page limit; dismissing without prejudice prior 2 Motion to Certify Class. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 2/15/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 02/19/2013)

02/19/2013 02/20/2013
02/25/2013 02/25/2013
02/26/2013 02/28/2013 02/28/2013

145 MOTION to Certify Settlement Class by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3)(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 02/19/2013)
146 ORDERED that the three letters from putative class members, as identified herein, be FILED UNDER SEAL. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court serve copies of the sealed filings by First Class U.S. Mail to lead counsel of record in this matter. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 2/20/2013.(Reference: 12-859) (copies of sealed letters mailed by clerk to lead counsel)(blg) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/20/2013: # 1 *SEALED*, # 2 *SEALED*, # 3 *SEALED*) (blg). (Entered: 02/21/2013)
147 ORDER Setting Oral Argument via Telephone on 51 MOTION to Compel for 3/6/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Alma L. Chasez. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alma L. Chasez on 2/25/2013.(Reference: 12-0859)(caa, ) (Entered: 02/25/2013)
148 ORDER that the parties shall comply with the attached pre-hearing notice's requirements by preparing a proposed pre-hearing order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are to meet in person or via telephone on or before Thursday, February 28, 2013, to permit timely preparation of the proposed prehearing order. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 2/25/13.(Reference: all cases)(ala, ) (Entered: 02/25/2013)
149 ORDER that previously imposed deadlines in this case, including the discovery plan and pre-hearing notice deadlines,are modified as stated herein. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 2/26/13.(Reference: 12859)(ala, ) (Entered: 02/26/2013)
150 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File to Exceed Page Limit by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/1/2013: # 2 Proposed Pleading) (ala, ). (Entered: 02/28/2013)
151 -ERROR: SHOULD BE AN ATTACHMENT TO DOC 150RESPONSE to Motion filed by New Orleans City re 145 MOTION to Certify Class (Plaintiff Class Memorandum of Law in Support For Certification of Settlement Class, Plaintiff Class Memorandum of Law in Support of Fairness of Proposed Settlement Agreement Rec. Doc. 138, and Plaintiffs and the United States Joint Memorandum of Law in Support of the Proposed Consent Judgment Rec. Doc. 139. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) Modified on 3/1/2013 (ala, ). (Entered: 02/28/2013)

02/28/2013 03/01/2013 03/01/2013 03/04/2013 03/04/2013
03/04/2013 03/04/2013 03/04/2013
03/04/2013

152 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record (Additional) by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 02/28/2013)
153 Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law by New Orleans City. (Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 03/01/2013)
154 Response/Reply by New Orleans City to 140 Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law,,,, (Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 03/01/2013)
155 Memorandum by New Orleans City re 126 Status Conference, Set Hearings, Terminate Hearings,,,,,, [of Law regarding the Burden of Proof and Order of Presentation) (Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 03/04/2013)
156 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 Exhibit Ex. 1 to Plaintiffs' Reply, # 4 Exhibit Ex. 2 to Plaintiffs' Reply, # 5 Exhibit Ex. 3 to Plaintiffs' Reply, # 6 Exhibit Ex. 4 to Plaintiffs' Reply, # 7 Exhibit Ex. 5 to Plaintiffs' Reply)(Reference: 2:12-cv-00859)(Dean, Kerry) (Entered: 03/04/2013)
157 ORDER granting 152 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record for Attorney Bryan Edward Bowdler for New Orleans City. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/1/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/04/2013)
158 ORDER granting 150 Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limit. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/1/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/04/2013)
159 Response by New Orleans City to 145 MOTION to Certify Settlement Class, 138 Plaintiff Class' Memorandum of Law in Support of Fairness of Proposed Settlement Agreement, and 139 Plaintiffs and the United States' Joint Memorandum of Law in Support of the Proposed Consent Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/04/2013)
160 Proposed Pretrial Order by All Parties (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Plaintiffs' exhibit list, # 2 Appendix Plaintiffs' witness list, # 3 Appendix Defendant City exhibit list, # 4 Appendix Defendant City Witness list, # 5 Appendix Defendant Sheriff witness list)(Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 03/04/2013)

03/05/2013 03/05/2013
03/05/2013
03/07/2013 03/08/2013 03/11/2013 03/11/2013 03/11/2013 03/11/2013 03/11/2013

161 ORDER granting 156 Motion for Leave to File Reply that exceeds page limit. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/4/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/05/2013)
162 JOINT REPLY by plaintiffs, United States of America, to 159 Response by New Orleans City re 138 Plaintiff Class' Memorandum of Law in Support of Fairness of Proposed Settlement Agreement, and 139 Plaintiffs and the United States' Joint Memorandum of Law in Support of the Proposed Consent Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/05/2013)
163 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Prehearing Conference held on 3/5/2013. Settlement Conference set for 3/13/2013 01:30 PM before Judge Martin L.C. Feldman. Counsel to comply with all deadlines stated herein. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/5/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/05/2013)
164 ORDER dismissing without prejudice 51 Motion to Compel; dismissing as moot 116 Motion to Quash. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alma L. Chasez on 3/6/2013. (Reference: All cases)(lag, ) (Entered: 03/07/2013)
165 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Alma L. Chasez: Telephone Status Conference held on 3/8/2013. (Reference: All cases)(lag, ) (Entered: 03/11/2013)
166 Memorandum by New Orleans City re 163 Pretrial Conference, Set Hearings,, In Response to the Court's March 5, 2013 Minute Entry Regarding Fifth Amendment Invocation (Reference: 12859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 03/11/2013)
167 Final Witness List by New Orleans City. (Reference: 12859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 03/11/2013)
168 Final Witness List by Marlin N Gusman. (Reference: 12-859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 03/11/2013)
169 Witness List by All Plaintiffs. (Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 03/11/2013)
172 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Telephone Status Conference held on 3/11/2013. ORDERED that the City of New Orleans shall advise the Court whether it will stipulate to the admission of expert reports into evidence by 3/12/2013 5:00 PM; FURTHER ORDERED that that the City shall advise the Court whether it intends to challenge the medical records underlying expert

03/12/2013 03/12/2013 03/13/2013 03/13/2013 03/14/2013 03/14/2013
03/14/2013
03/15/2013

opinion testimony by 3/12/2013 5:00 PM; FURTHER ORDERED that the U.S. Department of Justice and putative plaintiff class shall submit a revised joint bench book by 3/12/2013 5:00 PM; FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline to file written objections to any exhibits and to deposition testimony is 3/13/2013; FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline to file written memoranda in opposition is 3/19/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(lag, ) (Entered: 03/12/2013)
171 Supplemental Witness List by Marlin N Gusman. (Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 03/12/2013)
173 Memorandum by New Orleans City Memorandum of Law Regarding the Application of the Federal Rules of Evidence at the Fairness Hearing (Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 03/12/2013)
174 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 3/13/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/14/2013)
194 MOTION to Supplement by Mark Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-B, # 2 Exhibit C)(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/20/2013)
175 OBJECTIONS by New Orleans City to Plaintiffs' Proposed Exhibits (Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 03/14/2013)
176 EXPARTE/CONSENT First MOTION for Protective Order by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, Mark Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Cumming, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/14/2013)
177 Memorandum by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, Mark Walker Regarding 5th Am Rights of Witnesses (Reference: 12-859)(Cumming, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/14/2013)
178 ORDER granting 176 Motion for Protective Order. The unidentified sexual assault victim may be referred to by a pseudonym at the April 1, 2013 hearing. FURTHER ORDERED that any medical records submitted as exhibits at the hearing shall be FILED UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/15/2013)

03/15/2013 03/15/2013
03/15/2013 03/15/2013 03/18/2013
03/18/2013 03/18/2013 03/19/2013

179 Response/Reply by All Plaintiffs to 153 Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit City's Responses to 3rd Interrogatories)(Reference: 2:12cv859)(Dean, Kerry) (Entered: 03/15/2013)
180 NOTICE of Certification of Records through Federal Rule of Evidence 902(11) by plaintiffs, United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix University Hospital Certifications, # 2 Appendix DHH and FFF Certification, # 3 Appendix EMS Certification, # 4 Appendix NIC Certification, # 5 Appendix OJP Certification)(Reference: 12-859)(Cumming, Elizabeth) Modified on 3/18/2013 (blg). (Entered: 03/15/2013)
181 Revised Exhibit Lists by All Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' updated exhibit list, with objections, # 2 City updated exhibit list, with objections)(Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) Modified on 3/18/2013 (blg). (Entered: 03/15/2013)
367 OBJECTIONS by Robert Funchess, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
182 ***DEFICIENT - EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L-3865889) by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, Mark Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) Modified on 3/18/2013 (blg). (Entered: 03/18/2013)
183 Joint Statement Amending Proposed Consent Judgment by plaintiffs, Orleans Parish Sheriff, United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Reference: 12cv859)(Coon, Laura) Modified on 3/19/2013 (blg). (Entered: 03/18/2013)
184 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Stipulated Order regarding exhibit admission and exhibit bench books for fairness hearing by All Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12cv859)(Coon, Laura) Modified on 3/19/2013 (blg). (Entered: 03/18/2013)
185 Joint Response by Plaintiffs, United States of America to 173 Memorandum of Law re: Application of Federal Rules of Evidence to Fairness Hearing (Reference: 12cv859)(Coon, Laura) Modified on 3/20/2013 (blg). (Entered: 03/19/2013)

03/19/2013 03/20/2013 03/20/2013 03/20/2013 03/20/2013 03/20/2013 03/20/2013
03/20/2013 03/20/2013

186 Joint Response by Plaintiffs to 175 Objections to Plaintiffs' Exhibits (Reference: 12cv859)(Coon, Laura) Modified on 3/20/2013 (blg). (Entered: 03/19/2013)
187 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum as to Carl Fagin by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Sanders, Corey) Modified on 3/20/2013 (blg). (Entered: 03/20/2013)
188 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum as to Nicholas Miorana by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Sanders, Corey) Modified on 3/20/2013 (blg). (Entered: 03/20/2013)
189 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum as to Aaron Steel by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Sanders, Corey) Modified on 3/20/2013 (blg). (Entered: 03/20/2013)
190 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum as to Euell Sylvester by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Sanders, Corey) Modified on 3/20/2013 (blg). (Entered: 03/20/2013)
191 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum as to Donald Washington by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Sanders, Corey) Modified on 3/20/2013 (blg). (Entered: 03/20/2013)
192 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 187 , 188 , 189 , 190 and 191 Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum Returned Executed; Filing attorney selected incorrect event. Correct event is 'MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum'. Clerk took corrective action by changing the event. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/20/2013)
193 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum as to Durrell Richard by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Sanders, Corey) Modified on 3/20/2013 (blg). (Entered: 03/20/2013)
195 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Fee previously paid) by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, Mark Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing,

03/20/2013 03/20/2013 03/20/2013 03/20/2013 03/20/2013 03/21/2013

# 3 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 03/20/2013)
196 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 194 Motion requesting the Court consider comments on the proposed settlement, admit certain exhibits into evidence, and review a decision by the Supreme Court of Montana by Mark Walker; The eight pages of commentary will be filed into the record and posted on the case website. The motion is DENIED in all other respects. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/20/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/20/2013)
197 ORDERED that the March 6 letter from a putative class member, as identified herein, be FILED UNDER SEAL. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court serve copies of the sealed filings by First Class U.S. Mail to lead counsel of record in this matter. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/19/2013. (Reference: 12-859) (copies of sealed letter mailed by clerk to lead counsel)(blg) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/20/2013: # 1 *SEALED*) (blg). (Entered: 03/20/2013)
198 MOTION in Limine to Limit Cross Examination by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America, Mark Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) Modified on 3/21/2013 (blg). (Entered: 03/20/2013)
199 MOTION in Limine to Prohibit Introduction of Documents Not Produced in Discovery by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America, Mark Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7)(Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 03/20/2013)
200 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, Mark Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 03/20/2013)
201 ORDER granting 187 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for Carl Faggin to appear for trial set on April 1, 2013 before Judge Lance M. Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on

03/21/2013 03/21/2013 03/21/2013 03/21/2013 03/21/2013 03/21/2013 03/21/2013 03/21/2013 03/21/2013

3/20/2013. (Reference: 12-859) (3cc-USM)(blg) (Entered: 03/21/2013)
202 Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum Issued as to Carl Faggin for April 1, 2013. (3cc-USM) (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/21/2013)
203 ORDER granting 188 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for Nicholas Miorana to appear for trial set on April 1, 2013 before Judge Lance M. Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/20/2013. (3cc-USM) (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/21/2013)
204 Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum Issued as to Nicholas Miorana for April 1, 2013. (Reference: 12-859) (3cc-USM) (blg) (Entered: 03/21/2013)
205 ORDER granting 189 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for Aaron Steel to appear for trial set on April 1, 2013 before Judge Lance M. Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/20/2013. (3cc-USM) (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/21/2013)
206 Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum Issued as to Aaron Steel for April 1, 2013. (Reference: 12-859) (3cc-USM)(blg) (Entered: 03/21/2013)
207 ORDER granting 190 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for Euell Sylvester to appear for trial set on April 1, 2013 before Judge Lance M. Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/20/2013. (3cc-USM) (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/21/2013)
208 Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum Issued as to Euell Sylvester for April 1, 2013. (Reference: 12-859) (3cc-USM)(blg) (Entered: 03/21/2013)
209 ORDER granting 191 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for Donald Washington to appear for trial set on April 1, 2013 before Judge Lance M. Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/20/2013. (3cc-USM) (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/21/2013)
210 Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum Issued as to Donald Washington for April 1, 2013. (Reference: 12-859) (3cc-USM) (blg) (Entered: 03/21/2013)

03/21/2013 03/21/2013 03/21/2013
03/21/2013 03/21/2013 03/22/2013
03/22/2013

211 ORDER granting 193 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for Durrell Richard to appear for trial set on April 1, 2013 before Judge Lance M. Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/20/2013. (3cc-USM) (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/21/2013)
212 Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum Issued as to Durrell Richard for April 1, 2013. (Reference: 12-859) (3cc-USM)(blg) (Entered: 03/21/2013)
213 ORDER re 183 Joint Statement requesting that the Court preliminarily approve the Amended Proposed Consent Judgment and substitute it for the original Proposed Consent Judgment; ORDERED that the Amended Proposed Consent Judgment is preliminarily approved. FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Proposed Consent Judgment is substituted for the original Proposed Consent Judgment as the subject of the 4/1/2013 fairness hearing. The Court will consider all previous briefing when evaluating the Amended Proposed Consent Judgment. FURTHER ORDERED that the City of New Orleans may file a memorandum addressing the amendments on or before 3/25/2013 at 4:00 p.m. Any response shall be filed on or before 3/27/2013 at 12:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/20/2013.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/21/2013)
214 ORDER granting 195 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Sara Zampierin for plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/20/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/21/2013)
215 ORDER granting 200 Motion to Enroll as Additional Counsel of Record for Attorney Jennifer M. Coco for plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/21/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/21/2013)
216 DEFICIENT: EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L-3873903) by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, Mark Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) Modified on 3/25/2013 (lag, ). (Entered: 03/22/2013)
217 ORDER re 198 MOTION in Limine to Limit Cross Examination, 199 MOTION in Limine to Prohibit Introduction of Documents Not Produced in Discovery; ORDERED that the City of New Orleans and the Sheriff of Orleans Parish shall respond to motions on or before 3/26/2013, at 10:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Lance

03/22/2013
03/25/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013
03/26/2013
03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013

M Africk on 03/21/2013.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/22/2013)
218 STIPULATED ORDER REGARDING EXHIBIT ADMISSION AND EXHIBIT BENCH BOOKS FOR FAIRNESS HEARING. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/22/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/22/2013)
219 Memorandum by New Orleans City re 183 Joint Statement Amending Proposed Consent Judgment. (Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) Modified on 3/25/2013 (blg). (Entered: 03/25/2013)
220 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Marlin N Gusman re 198 MOTION in Limine to Limit Cross Examination . (Reference: 12-859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
221 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Marlin N Gusman re 199 MOTION in Limine to Prohibit Introduction of Documents Not Produced in Discovery . (Reference: 12-859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
222 RESPONSE to Motion filed by New Orleans City re 199 MOTION in Limine to Prohibit Introduction of Documents Not Produced in Discovery . (Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
223 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by New Orleans City re 198 MOTION in Limine to Limit Cross Examination . (Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
224 ORDER: Status Conference set for 3/28/2013 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/26/2013.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
225 ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall docket into the record all received objections and public comments. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/26/2013.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
226 OBJECTIONS by Ernie Jacobs, received 1/30/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
227 OBJECTIONS by Nicholas D. Miorana, Sr., received 1/30/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
228 OBJECTIONS by Romonde Henry, Michael Devezin, and Michael Wilson, received 1/30/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)

03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013

229 OBJECTIONS by Mark Walker, received 2/14/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
230 OBJECTIONS by Washington McCaskill, received 2/15/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
231 OBJECTIONS by Emory Walters, received 2/19/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
232 OBJECTIONS by Anthony Groves, received 2/20/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
233 OBJECTIONS by Willie Perez, Jr., received on 2/28/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
234 OBJECTIONS by Emory Walters, received on 1/30/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
235 OBJECTIONS by Jimmie Jenkins, received on 2/5/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
236 OBJECTIONS by Jimmie Jenkins, received on 2/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
237 OBJECTIONS by Mark Walker, received on 2/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
238 OBJECTIONS by Kristal Glover, received on 3/1/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
239 OBJECTIONS by Nicholas D. Miorana, Sr., received on 3/1/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
240 OBJECTIONS by Wayne A. Johnson, received on 3/1/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
241 OBJECTIONS by Sr. Allison McCrary, CSJ, received on 3/4/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
242 OBJECTIONS by Derrick Woodberry, received on 3/6/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
243 OBJECTIONS by James and Pamela Hitzman, received on 3/6/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
244 OBJECTIONS by Lou Furman, received on 3/6/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)

03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013
03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013

245 OBJECTIONS by Milan Nicole on behalf of BreakOut, received on 3/6/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
246 OBJECTIONS by Rev. Norwood Thompson, Jr., received on 3/6/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
247 OBJECTIONS by Carol Leslie Runnels, received on 3/7/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
248 OBJECTIONS by Caryl L. Fagot, received on 3/7/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
249 OBJECTIONS by Cristy Richmond, received on 3/7/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
250 OBJECTIONS by Donna Gauthier, Margaret Nagle, John Eric Goetzee, Tracy Barquet, Sr., Stacey Barquet, Pam Hitzman, James Hitzman, Michelle Perdomo, Sophia Miceli, and Christy Richmond, received on 3/7/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
251 OBJECTIONS by Donna M. Gauthier, received on 3/7/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
252 OBJECTIONS by Laura Pegram, received on 3/7/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
253 OBJECTIONS by Margaret Goetzee Nagle, received on 3/7/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
254 OBJECTIONS by Tracy Barquet, Sr., received on 3/7/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
255 OBJECTIONS by Timothy G. Rothberger, received on 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
256 OBJECTIONS by Katie Hunter-Lowrey, received on 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
257 OBJECTIONS by Lydia Pelot-Hobbs, received on 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
258 OBJECTIONS by Katie Carter, received 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
259 OBJECTIONS by Sara V. Pic, Esq., received on 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)

03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013
03/26/2013
03/26/2013
03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013

260 OBJECTIONS by Russell Armstrong, received on 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
261 OBJECTIONS by Kevin D. Micale, Editor-in-Chief, Loyola Journal of Public Interest Law, received on 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
262 OBJECTIONS by Eric Pollard, M. Bellavia, Peter Crates, Floyd Falcon, Kate Gegenheimer, Karen Grego, Stacey Parks, Steve Picou, Rev. Anne Skinner, Paul Ukenstein, Laura Valliant, David WinklerSchmit, J.L. Chiarito, Paul Davey, John "Jack" Flynn, Douglas Greco, Llisa Jones, Margie Perez, Misty Reilly, Kacie Stillings, Rebecca Utech, Emma Louise Whitfield, and Ben Wisdom, received on 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
263 OBJECTIONS by Emily Faye Ratner, Tu Thomas Hoang, Joshua Pichon, Marissa Trevino, Amelia Hoppe, Daniel B. Stanton, Lynsey Johnson, Taylor Burnham, Anna Lellelid, and Cecilia Almeida, leaders of student organizations at Loyola University New Orleans College of Law, received on 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
264 OBJECTIONS by Professor William P. Quigley, Professor Majeeda Snead, Asst. Professor Stephen Singer., Asst. Professor Judson Mitchell, Asst. Professor Hiroko Kusuda, and Asst. Professor Davida Finger, members of the Loyola University of New Orleans College of Law Stuart A. Smith Law Clinic and Center for Social Justice, received on 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
265 OBJECTIONS by Frank X. Neuner, Jr. and Julie H. Kilborn, Louisiana Public Defender Board, received on 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
266 OBJECTIONS by A. Lofton, received on 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
267 OBJECTIONS by Adrian Godfrey, received on 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
268 OBJECTIONS by Alvin Lee Welch, received on 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
269 OBJECTIONS by Alvin Trimble, received on 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
270 OBJECTIONS by Brian K. Williams, received on 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)

03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013

271 OBJECTIONS by Burnell McCann and Morris Joseph, received on 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
272 OBJECTIONS by Charles Bell, Jr., received on 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
273 OBJECTIONS by Clifford Milton, received on 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
274 OBJECTIONS by Corey Ladd, received on 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
275 OBJECTIONS by Dan Green, received on 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
276 OBJECTIONS by Daniel Holler, received on 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
277 OBJECTIONS by Dannie Reine, received on 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
278 OBJECTIONS by Darren Lewis, received on 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
279 OBJECTIONS by Darren Thompson, received on 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
280 OBJECTIONS by Deon Perry, received on 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
281 OBJECTIONS by Earl Sylvester, received on 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
282 OBJECTIONS by Elijah Dozier, received on 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
283 OBJECTIONS by Emile McCrory, received on 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
284 OBJECTIONS by Eric L. Hudson, received on 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
285 OBJECTIONS by Ferdinand Rochon, received on 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
286 OBJECTIONS by Herbert Robair, received on 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)

03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013

287 OBJECTIONS by James J. Maloney, received 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
288 OBJECTIONS by Jason Zimmermann, received 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
289 OBJECTIONS by Jeremiah Jones, received 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
290 OBJECTIONS by Joe Gray, received 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
291 OBJECTIONS by John Bertrand, received 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
292 OBJECTIONS by John F. Bertrand, received 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
293 OBJECTIONS by Jonathan Honeycutt, received 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
294 OBJECTIONS by Joseph M. Rodriguez, received on 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
295 OBJECTIONS by Juan J. Toledano, received 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
296 OBJECTIONS by Keith E. Johnson, Sr., received 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
297 OBJECTIONS by Kelub Dickerson, received on 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
298 OBJECTIONS by Kendall Phillips, received 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
299 OBJECTIONS by Kevin Bryant, received 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
300 OBJECTIONS by Lee Roy Brown, received 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
301 OBJECTIONS by M. Matthews, III, received 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
302 OBJECTIONS by Melvin Russell, received 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)

03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013

303 OBJECTIONS by Mexes Jones, received 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
304 OBJECTIONS by Mr. Neely, received 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
305 OBJECTIONS by Owen Robinson, received 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
306 OBJECTIONS by Paul Johnson, received 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
307 OBJECTIONS by Richard White, received 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
308 OBJECTIONS by Rodney C. Mason, received 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
309 OBJECTIONS by Sean Geagan, received 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
310 OBJECTIONS by Taurus Gregory, received 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
311 OBJECTIONS by Terrance Hebrand, received 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
312 OBJECTIONS by Towy Ray Williams, received 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
313 OBJECTIONS by Troy King, received 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
314 OBJECTIONS by Tyrone Gordon, received 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
315 OBJECTIONS by Verrick T. Bills, received 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
316 OBJECTIONS by Willie McKee, received 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
317 OBJECTIONS by Zerase Reed, received 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
318 OBJECTIONS by Daniel Brown, received 3/11/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)

03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013
03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013
03/26/2013

319 OBJECTIONS by Derwyn Bunton-Orleans Parish Public Defender, received 3/8/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
320 OBJECTIONS by Don Everard - Hope House, received 3/11/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
321 OBJECTIONS by Dr. Heidi Hoechst, received 3/11/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
322 OBJECTIONS by Frank X. Neuner, Jr., Louisiana Public Defender Board, received 3/11/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
323 OBJECTIONS by Gahiji Barrow, Critical Resistance New Orleans, received 3/11/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
324 OBJECTIONS by Jacky Kim, received 3/11/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
325 OBJECTIONS bu Jordan Shannon, Puentes New Orleans, received 3/11/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
326 OBJECTIONS by Kim Diemer, received 3/11/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
327 OBJECTIONS by Mary E. Howell, received 3/11/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
328 OBJECTIONS by Orleans Parish Prison Reform Coalition, received 3/11/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
329 OBJECTIONS by Paul Troyano, received 3/11/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
330 OBJECTIONS by Robert Goodman Jr., Safe Streets, received 3/11/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
331 OBJECTIONS by Tarana-jane, received 3/11/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
332 OBJECTIONS by Marjorie Esman, Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
333 OBJECTIONS by Allen Etienne, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)

03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013

334 OBJECTIONS by Alvin Polk, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
335 OBJECTIONS by Andrew Smith, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
336 OBJECTIONS by Anthony Bryan, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
337 OBJECTIONS by Antoine Frank, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
338 OBJECTIONS by Bobby Magee, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
339 OBJECTIONS by Bowye Burke, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
340 OBJECTIONS by CTA 2-2, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
341 OBJECTIONS by Charles Terrell, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
342 OBJECTIONS by Clarence Jones, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
343 OBJECTIONS by Corey Q. Bailey, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
344 OBJECTIONS by Darell T. Kelley, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
345 OBJECTIONS by Darnell Demoarelle, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
346 OBJECTIONS by Darrell Allen, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
347 OBJECTIONS by Donovan Taplette, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
348 OBJECTIONS by Earl Simmons, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
349 OBJECTIONS by Edward Dobue, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)

03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013

350 OBJECTIONS by Ernest Trosclair, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
351 OBJECTIONS by Frank Blackburn, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
352 OBJECTIONS by Geoffrey Grice, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
353 OBJECTIONS by Jamaal Morris, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
354 OBJECTIONS by Jamal Jordan, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
355 OBJECTIONS by Jamin Tobias, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
356 OBJECTIONS by Jenero Sims, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
357 OBJECTIONS by Kenneth Anderson, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
358 OBJECTIONS by Kenshawn King, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
359 OBJECTIONS by Kevin Green, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
360 OBJECTIONS by Milton Gruss, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
361 OBJECTIONS by Napoleon Morris, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
362 OBJECTIONS by Nathaniel Jeanpierre, III, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
363 OBJECTIONS by Nicholas Carver, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
364 OBJECTIONS by Orson Ellis, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
365 OBJECTIONS by Percy Smith, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)

03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/27/2013
03/27/2013
03/28/2013

366 OBJECTIONS by Reginald Lee, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
368 OBJECTIONS by Samuel Gabriel, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
369 OBJECTIONS by Scot Bedlion, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
370 OBJECTIONS by Tyrone Johnson, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
371 OBJECTIONS by Victor McGill, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
372 OBJECTIONS by Washington McCaskill, received 3/15/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
373 OBJECTIONS by Kristal Glover, received 3/22/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
374 OBJECTIONS by Michael Allen Sextion, received 3/26/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
375 Joint Response by Plaintiffs, Marlin N Gusman, and United States of America to 219 Memorandum re: Amended Proposed Consent Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit City's Discovery Responses, # 2 Exhibit Kopplin Depo. Tr.)(Reference: 12-859)(Dean, Kerry) Modified on 3/27/2013 (blg). (Entered: 03/27/2013)
376 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by All Plaintiffs re 198 MOTION in Limine to Limit Cross Examination, 199 MOTION in Limine to Prohibit Introduction of Documents Not Produced in Discovery . (Reference: 12-859)(Cumming, Elizabeth) Modified on 3/28/2013 (lag, ). Modified on 4/3/2013 - deficiency removed, see doc 379 . (blg). (Entered: 03/27/2013)
377 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 3/28/2013. ORDERED that on or before 5:00 p.m. today, 3/28/2013, counsel for the Orleans Parish Sheriff shall either provide previously requested documents and video recordings to the City or advise the City that any missing requested documents and/or video recordings have not been located and do not exist. FURTHER ORDERED that, in addition to the ten minutes for optional opening statements, the plaintiffs, the United States of America, the Sheriff, and the City shall each receive ten minutes for optional closing statements. FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing is

03/28/2013 03/28/2013
03/28/2013 03/29/2013 03/30/2013 04/01/2013
04/01/2013

scheduled for 7/1/2013 at 8:30 a.m., to address residual funding issues, including any issues related to the funding needed to implement the proposed consent judgment, should the Court approve it. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/28/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/28/2013)
378 ORDERED that the City of New Orleans submit a memorandum in support of any objections on or before 3/29/2013 at 12:00 p.m. (CST). FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs shall file a response on or before 3/31/2013 at 9:00 a.m. (CST). Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/28/2013.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/28/2013)
379 ORDER re 175 Objections filed by the City of New Orleans with respect to exhibits proposed by plaintiffs, LaShawn Jones, et al., and intervenor plaintiff, the United States of America, and the 185 opposition to the objections. ORDER deferring ruling on 198 Motion in Limine to limit cross-examination; dismissing as moot 199 Motion in Limine to limit the introduction of documents not previously produced during discovery. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/28/2013.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/28/2013)
380 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Seal Certain Hearing Exhibits by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Annotated Exhibit List)(Reference: 12cv859)(Coon, Laura) (Entered: 03/28/2013)
381 OBJECTIONS by New Orleans City To Proposed Exhibits Listed in Footnote to Court's March 22, 2013, Order (Reference: 12859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 03/29/2013)
382 Response/Reply by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America, Mark Walker to 381 Objections Re City Objections to Certain Plaintiffs' Exhibits (Reference: 12cv859)(Coon, Laura) Modified on 4/1/2013 (lag, ). (Entered: 03/30/2013)
383 ORDER granting 380 Motion to admit certain exhibits under seal; Should they be admitted at the hearing, the exhibits indicated in R. Doc. No. 380-3 shall be SEALED. FURTHER ORDERED that counsel may display redacted versions of admitted sealed exhibits throughout the courtroom during the hearing. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/29/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 04/01/2013)
384 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Fairness Hearing begun on 4/1/2013. Evidence entered. Court

04/02/2013
04/02/2013 04/03/2013 04/03/2013 04/03/2013 04/04/2013 04/04/2013

recessed to reconvene Tuesday, April 2, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. (Court Reporter Cathy Pepper (am)/ Toni Tusa (pm)) (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/2/2013: # 1 Notice for Removal of Exhibits) (blg). (Entered: 04/02/2013)
385 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L-3888705) by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, Mark Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Exhibit ECF Registration Form, # 4 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 04/02/2013)
386 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Fairness Hearing held on 4/2/2013. Evidence entered, continued. Court recessed to reconvene Wednesday, April 3, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. (Court Reporter Cathy Pepper (am)/ Toni Tusa (pm)) (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 04/03/2013)
387 OBJECTIONS/Public Comment by Taxpayers of New Orleans, received 4/3/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 04/04/2013)
388 ORDER granting 385 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Christine P. Sun for plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 4/3/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 04/04/2013)
389 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Fairness Hearing held on 4/3/2013. Evidence entered, continued. Court recessed to reconvene Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. (Court Reporter Cathy Pepper (am)/ Toni Tusa (pm).) (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 04/04/2013)
390 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Fairness Hearing completed on 4/4/2013. (Court Reporter Cathy Pepper (am)/ Toni Tusa (pm).) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List, # 2 Attachment of plaintiffs' exhibits) (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 04/05/2013)
391 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 4/4/2013. Counsel to comply with all deadlines, as stated herein. ORDERED: Telephone Status Conference set for 4/16/2013 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 4/4/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 04/05/2013)

04/09/2013
04/09/2013 04/10/2013 04/11/2013 04/15/2013 04/16/2013 04/18/2013
04/18/2013

392 MOTION to Appoint Receiver by New Orleans City. Motion set for 5/1/2013 09:00 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Notice of Submission)(Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 04/09/2013)
393 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by New Orleans City regarding 392 MOTION to Appoint Receiver (Reference: 12859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 04/09/2013)
394 ORDER denying 393 Request/Statement of Oral Argument re 392 MOTION to Appoint Receiver filed by New Orleans City. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk.(Reference: 12-859)(lag, ) (Entered: 04/10/2013)
395 Memorandum by New Orleans City re 391 Status Conference, Regarding Notice of Amended Proposed Consent Decree (Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) Modified on 4/12/2013 (lag, ). (Entered: 04/11/2013)
396 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION Scheduling Order by New Orleans City, Marlin N Gusman. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Joint Consent Motion for Scheduling Order)(Reference: 12859)(Rosenberg, Harry) Modified on 4/16/2013 (blg). (Entered: 04/15/2013)
397 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 4/16/2013. Counsel to comply with deadlines stated herein. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 4/16/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 04/16/2013)
398 ORDERED that the pre-hearing conference scheduled is CONTINUED to 5/6/2013 at 7:30 a.m. FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent the 5/28/2013 hearing requires more than two days, Court will not be in session on 5/30/2013. Court will resume session on 5/31/2013 at 9:30 a.m. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 4/18/2013.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 04/18/2013)
399 RESPONSE filed by all plaintiffs, United States of America re 395 City's Memorandum regarding notice of the amended proposed consent decree. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Reference: 12859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) Modified on 4/19/2013 (blg). (Entered: 04/18/2013)

04/22/2013 04/22/2013
04/23/2013 04/23/2013 04/24/2013 04/24/2013

400 RESPONSE to Motion filed by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America, Mark Walker re 396 Joint MOTION Scheduling Order . (Reference: 12cv859)(Coon, Laura) (Entered: 04/22/2013)
401 ORDERED that the 396 motion is GRANTED to the extent it requests a scheduling order be issued for the May 28, 2013 and July 1, 2013 hearings. FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs and intervenor plaintiff shall be given the opportunity to participate in the negotiation of the scheduling order because of their involvement in the implementation of the proposed amended consent judgment, should the Court approve it. FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall submit a joint proposed scheduling order on or before 4/29/2013. Any scheduling issues on which the parties cannot agree shall be submitted separately on this date for resolution by the U.S. Magistrate Judge. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 4/22/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 04/22/2013)
402 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Marlin N Gusman re 392 MOTION to Appoint Receiver . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit)(Reference: 12-859)(Matthews, Freeman) (Entered: 04/23/2013)
403 RESPONSE to Motion filed by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America, Mark Walker re 392 MOTION to Appoint Receiver . (Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 04/23/2013)
404 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines by Marlin N Gusman. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 04/24/2013)
405 TRANSCRIPT of Fairness Hearing held on April 1, 2013-Day 1 morning session before Judge Lance Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Cathy Pepper, Telephone number 504-589-7779. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/23/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) (Entered: 04/24/2013)

04/24/2013 04/24/2013 04/24/2013 04/24/2013 04/24/2013

406 TRANSCRIPT of Fairness Hearing held on April 1, 2013-Day 1 afternoon session before Judge Lance Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Toni Tusa, Telephone number 504-589-7778. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/23/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) (Entered: 04/24/2013)
407 TRANSCRIPT of Fairness Hearing held on April 2, 2013-Day 2 morning session before Judge Lance Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Cathy Pepper, Telephone number 504-589-7779. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/23/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) (Entered: 04/24/2013)
408 TRANSCRIPT of Fairness Hearing held on April 2, 2013-Day 2 afternoon session before Judge Lance Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Toni Tusa, Telephone number 504-589-7778. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/23/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) (Entered: 04/24/2013)
409 TRANSCRIPT of Fairness Hearing held on April 3, 2013-Day 3 morning session before Judge Lance Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Cathy Pepper, Telephone number 504-589-7779. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/23/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) (Main Document 409 replaced on 4/25/2013) (jtd). (Entered: 04/24/2013)
410 TRANSCRIPT of Fairness Hearing held on April 3, 2013-Day 3 afternoon session before Judge Lance Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Toni Tusa, Telephone number 504-589-7778. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript

04/24/2013
04/24/2013
04/29/2013 04/29/2013 04/29/2013 04/30/2013

Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/23/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) (Entered: 04/24/2013)
411 TRANSCRIPT of Fairness Hearing held on April 4, 2013-Day 4 morning session before Judge Lance Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Cathy Pepper, Telephone number 504-589-7779. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/23/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) (Entered: 04/24/2013)
412 TRANSCRIPT of Fairness Hearing held on April 4, 2013-Day 4 afternoon session before Judge Lance Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Toni Tusa, Telephone number 504-589-7778. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/23/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) (Entered: 04/24/2013)
413 ORDER granting 404 Motion for Extension of time in which to submit legal memoranda; The Sheriff and the City shall each file their initial memoranda of law identifying and addressing legal issues relative to the May 28 hearing on or before 5/1/2013. The Sheriff and the City shall file responsive memoranda on or before 5/8/2013. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 4/25/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
414 Proposed Scheduling Order for May 28th and July 1st Hearings by New Orleans City, United States of America, Marlin N Gusman, all plaintiffs, pursuant to 401 Order. (Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) Modified on 4/30/2013 (blg). (Entered: 04/29/2013)
415 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Appointment of a Receiver by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
416 Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell

04/30/2013 04/30/2013 05/01/2013 05/01/2013 05/01/2013 05/03/2013
05/03/2013 05/03/2013 05/03/2013

Sylvester, United States of America, Mark Walker. (Reference: 12cv859)(Coon, Laura) (Entered: 04/30/2013)
417 ORDER granting 415 Motion for Leave to File Reply. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 4/30/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 05/01/2013)
418 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by New Orleans City re 392 MOTION to Appoint Receiver . (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 05/01/2013)
419 ORDER re 414 Proposed Scheduling Order for the May 28 and July 1 hearings; ORDERED that the parties submit a revised proposed scheduling order on or before 5/3/2013. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 5/1/2013.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 05/01/2013)
420 Memorandum re Legal Issues for the May 28th Hearing by New Orleans City re 397 Status Conference. (Reference: 12859)(Rosenberg, Harry) Modified on 5/2/2013 (blg). (Entered: 05/01/2013)
421 MEMORANDUM of Law re May 28th Hearing by Marlin N Gusman. (Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) Modified on 5/2/2013 (blg). (Entered: 05/01/2013)
422 MOTION to Compel by New Orleans City. Motion(s) referred to Alma L. Chasez. Motion set for 5/22/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Alma L. Chasez. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Notice of Submission, # 4 Rule 37 Certificate)(Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 05/03/2013)
423 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Motion to Compel by New Orleans City. Motion(s) referred to Alma L. Chasez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 05/03/2013)
424 Proposed Scheduling Order for May 28th and July 1st Hearings by All Parties. (Reference: 12-859)(Bowdler, Bryan) Modified on 5/6/2013 (blg). (Entered: 05/03/2013)
425 Memorandum by New Orleans City re 424 Proposed Scheduling Order for May 28th and July 1st Hearings. (Reference: 12859)(Bowdler, Bryan) Modified on 5/6/2013 (blg). (Entered: 05/03/2013)

05/06/2013
05/07/2013 05/10/2013 05/10/2013 05/10/2013 05/13/2013 05/13/2013
05/22/2013 05/22/2013

426 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: PreHearing Conference held on 5/6/2013. ORDERED that, with the consent of the parties, the July 1 hearing is CONTINUED to Monday, 8/5/2013 at 8:30 a.m. FURTHER ORDERED that the revised scheduling order is APPROVED with the following amendments with respect to the May 28 and August 5 hearings, as stated herein. FURTHER ORDERED that the 422 motion to compel and the 423 motion to expedite are DISMISSED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 5/7/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 05/07/2013)
427 Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law by New Orleans City. (Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 05/07/2013)
428 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue May 28th Hearing by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12859)(Capitelli, Ralph) (Entered: 05/10/2013)
429 ORDERED that on or before Monday, 5/13/2013 at 12:00 p.m. the Sheriff shall produce all financial documents from the past three years that have not yet been produced. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 5/9/2013.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 05/10/2013)
430 Witness and Exhibit List by New Orleans City. (Reference: 12859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 05/10/2013)
431 RESPONSE to Motion filed by Marlin N Gusman re 428 MOTION to Continue May 28th Hearing . (Reference: 12-859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 05/13/2013)
432 ORDER granting in part 428 MOTION to Continue May 28th Hearing filed by New Orleans City. The 5/28/2013 hearing date is CONTINUED to Monday, 6/10/2013 08:30 am. FURTHER ORDERED that the motion is denied in all other respects. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 5/13/2013.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 05/13/2013)
433 Witness List by Marlin N Gusman. (Reference: 12-859)(Matthews, Freeman) (Entered: 05/22/2013)
435 ORDER re Scheduling Order ( 424 , 426 ); ORDERED that the scheduling order deadlines that fall on May 13 are CONTINUED to 5/28/13. FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline for each party's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is CONTINUED to 5/31/13. FURTHER ORDERED that all other deadlines listed in Section I of the scheduling order are CONTINUED 14 calendar days.

05/23/2013
05/23/2013 05/23/2013 05/23/2013 05/23/2013 05/24/2013 05/24/2013

Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 5/22/2013.(Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 05/23/2013)
434 MOTION for Leave to File by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America, Mark Walker. Motion set for 6/19/2013 09:00 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Submission, # 4 Proposed Pleading, # 5 Proposed Pleading Exhibit)(Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 05/23/2013)
436 MOTION to Compel by New Orleans City. Motion(s) referred to Alma L. Chasez. Motion set for 6/12/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Alma L. Chasez. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Rule 37 Certificate, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 05/23/2013)
437 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Submission of ThirdParty Defendant The City of New Orleans' Motion to Compel by New Orleans City. Motion(s) referred to Alma L. Chasez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 05/23/2013)
438 ORDER granting 434 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum. FURTHER ORDERED that the City of New Orleans and the Sheriff of Orleans Parish shall each file a response on or before 5/30/2013, at 5:00 p.m. FURTHER ORDERED that a Status Conference is set for 6/3/2013 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 5/23/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) Modified on 5/24/2013 (blg). (Entered: 05/24/2013)
439 Supplemental Memorandum by Plaintiffs, United States of America, in Support of the Amended Proposed Consent Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 05/24/2013)
440 OBJECTION to Motion filed by Marlin N Gusman re 436 MOTION to Compel Filed in Violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Reference: 12-859)(Arcuri, Blake) Modified on 5/28/2013 (blg). (Entered: 05/24/2013)
441 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Alma L. Chasez: Motion Hearing held on 5/24/2013 re 436 MOTION to Compel filed by New Orleans City. Further Telephone Conference set

05/28/2013 05/28/2013 05/28/2013
05/29/2013 05/29/2013
05/30/2013 05/30/2013 05/30/2013 05/31/2013

for 5/28/2013 04:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Alma L. Chasez. (Reference: 12-859)(lag, ) (Entered: 05/28/2013)
442 Supplemental Witness and Exhibit List by New Orleans City. (Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 05/28/2013)
443 MOTION in Limine to by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 05/28/2013)
445 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Alma L. Chasez: Telephone Status Conference held on 5/28/2013. Further Telephone Conference set for 5/29/2013 04:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Alma L. Chasez. (Reference: 12-859)(lag, ) (Entered: 05/30/2013)
444 ORDER denying 443 Motion in Limine; FURTHER ORDERED that the Sheriff file a preliminary exhibit list on or before Friday, 5/31/2013, at 9:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 5/29/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 05/29/2013)
446 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Alma L. Chasez: Status/Discovery Conference held on 5/29/2013. Further Telephone Status Conference set for 5/31/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Alma L. Chasez. (Reference: 12-859)(lag, ) (Entered: 05/30/2013)
447 RESPONSE filed by Marlin N Gusman to 439 Supplemental Memorandum re Amended Proposed Consent Judgment. (Reference: 12-859)(Arcuri, Blake) Modified on 5/31/2013 (blg). Modified on 5/31/2013 (blg). (Entered: 05/30/2013)
448 RESPONSE by New Orleans City to 439 Supplemental Memorandum RE Amended Proposed Consent Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) Modified on 5/31/2013 (blg). (Entered: 05/30/2013)
449 Preliminary Exhibit List by Marlin N Gusman. (Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) Modified on 5/31/2013 (blg). (Entered: 05/30/2013)
450 MOTION to Quash Notice of Deposition, MOTION for Protective Order by Marlin N Gusman. Motion(s) referred to Alma L. Chasez. Motion set for 6/19/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Alma L. Chasez. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 Exhibit A)(Reference: 12-859)(Arcuri, Blake) Modified on 6/3/2013 (blg). (Entered: 05/31/2013)

05/31/2013
05/31/2013 05/31/2013
05/31/2013 05/31/2013 05/31/2013 05/31/2013 05/31/2013 06/03/2013 06/03/2013

451 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite and Incorporated Memorandum in Support re 450 Motion to Quash by Marlin N Gusman. Motion(s) referred to Alma L. Chasez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Arcuri, Blake) Modified on 6/3/2013 (blg). (Entered: 05/31/2013)
452 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by New Orleans City re 450 MOTION to Quash Notice of Deposition MOTION for Protective Order . (Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 05/31/2013)
453 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Alma L. Chasez: Status/Discovery Conference held on 5/31/2013. Further Telephone Conference set for 5/31/2013 03:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Alma L. Chasez. (Reference: 12-859)(lag, ) (Entered: 05/31/2013)
454 Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law by Marlin N Gusman. (Reference: 12-859)(Arcuri, Blake) Modified on 6/3/2013 (blg). (Entered: 05/31/2013)
455 Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law by New Orleans City. (Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 05/31/2013)
456 PROPOSED PRE-HEARING ORDER by All Parties. (Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) Modified on 6/3/2013 (blg). (Entered: 05/31/2013)
457 Designation of Experts by Marlin N Gusman. (Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) Modified on 6/3/2013 (blg). (Entered: 05/31/2013)
460 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Alma L. Chasez: Telephone Conference held on 5/31/2013. Further Telephone Conference set for 6/4/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Alma L. Chasez. (Reference: 12-859)(lag, ) (Entered: 06/03/2013)
458 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Telephone Status Conference held on 6/3/2013. Counsel discussed issues relative to the June 10, 2013 hearing. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 6/3/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/03/2013)
459 ORDER granting 451 MOTION to Expedite, Setting Hearing on 450 MOTION to Quash Notice of Deposition MOTION for Protective Order for 5/31/2013 03:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Alma L. Chasez via telephone. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alma L. Chasez.(Reference: 12-859)(lag, ) (Entered: 06/03/2013)

06/03/2013 06/03/2013 06/04/2013 06/04/2013 06/05/2013
06/06/2013
06/06/2013 06/06/2013 06/07/2013

461 Witness List by New Orleans City. (Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 06/03/2013)
462 Final Witness and Exhibit List by Marlin N Gusman. (Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) Modified on 6/4/2013 (blg). (Entered: 06/03/2013)
463 ORDERED that counsel for the Sheriff and counsel for the City shall appear in the chambers of the undersigned U.S. District Judge at 7:30 a.m. on Wednesday, June 5, 2013. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 6/4/2013.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/04/2013)
478 Return of Service of subpoena served on Gerald D. Hebert II on 6/4/2013 by United States of America.(Reference: 12-859)(lag, ) (Entered: 06/10/2013)
468 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 6/5/2013. ORDERED that at the hearing commencing on 6/10/2013, the parties shall specifically direct the Court to record citations, including page numbers, which support their arguments. FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall submit revised bench books, or instruct the Court in writing as to what exhibits may be omitted, on or before Thursday, 6/6/2013, at 5:00 p.m. FURTHER ORDERED that the failure to cite to specific portions of the bench books at the hearing will result in the waiver of any reliance on such support. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 6/6/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/07/2013)
464 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Mary C. Bauer, Christine Sun, Jennifer Coco, Sara Zampierin as Attorney by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, Mark Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 06/06/2013)
465 ORDER APPROVING CONSENT JUDGMENT AND CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASS re 101 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment, 145 MOTION to Certify Class. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 6/6/2013.(Reference: BOTH CASES)(blg) (Entered: 06/06/2013)
466 CONSENT JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 6/6/2013.(Reference: BOTH CASES)(blg) (Entered: 06/06/2013)
467 JOINT Filing of Consent Judgment Redline by plaintiffs, Marlin N. Gusman, United States of America, re 465 Order, 466 Consent

06/07/2013 06/08/2013
06/08/2013 06/08/2013 06/10/2013
06/10/2013 06/10/2013 06/10/2013

Judgment. (Reference: 12cv859)(Coon, Laura) Modified on 6/10/2013 (blg). (Entered: 06/07/2013)
469 NOTICE by New Orleans City re 468 Status Conference, Revisions to Joint Bench Book. (Reference: 12-859)(Bowdler, Bryan) Modified on 6/10/2013 (blg). (Entered: 06/07/2013)
470 MOTION Supplement Exhibit List by New Orleans City. Motion set for 7/10/2013 09:00 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Reference: 12-859)(Bowdler, Bryan) (Entered: 06/08/2013)
471 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Submission of Motion to Supplement Exhibit List by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Bowdler, Bryan) (Entered: 06/08/2013)
472 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Marlin N. Gusman re 470 MOTION Supplement Exhibit List . (Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) Modified on 6/10/2013 (blg). (Entered: 06/08/2013)
473 MOTION to Continue June 10th Hearing by New Orleans City. Motion set for 7/10/2013 09:00 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 06/10/2013)
474 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Submission of Motion to Continue by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 06/10/2013)
475 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Funding hearing CONTINUED to 6/24/2013 08:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/10/2013)
476 ORDERED that the 471 and 474 motions filed by the City of New Orleans to expedite are GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that the 470 City's motion to supplement its exhibit list is GRANTED. The Court defers ruling on the admissibility of the report from the Office of the Inspector General. FURTHER ORDERED that the 470 motion to continue the June 10 hearing is GRANTED. The June 10 hearing date is continued to 6/24/2013, at 8:30 a.m. FURTHER ORDERED that a telephone status conference is scheduled for 6/20/2013 07:30 AM. Counsel to comply with all deadlines as stated herein. Signed by

06/10/2013 06/11/2013
06/13/2013 06/14/2013 06/17/2013 06/18/2013
06/19/2013 06/19/2013

Judge Lance M Africk on 6/10/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/10/2013)
477 ORDER granting 464 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Christine P. Sun; Sara Zampierin; Mary C. Bauer and Jennifer M. Coco terminated. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 6/10/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/10/2013)
479 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 6/11/2013. ORDERED that counsel for the Sheriff shall submit a memorandum of law on or before 6/17/2013, identifying streams of revenue, including those coming from the City, that the Sheriff is legally obligated to use for OPP. FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff Class, United States, and City shall file memoranda of law in response on or before 6/19/2013. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 6/11/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/11/2013)
480 ORDER: Status Conference set for 6/14/2013 09:15 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 6/12/2013.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/13/2013)
481 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 6/14/2013. ORDERED that, on or before 6/21/2013, at 7:30 a.m., the parties shall submit a deadline by which the Sheriff and City will advise the Court of their intentions as set forth in document. (Reference: 12-859)(lag, ) (Entered: 06/17/2013)
482 Memorandum by Marlin N. Gusman (Reference: 12-0859)(Matthews, Freeman) (Entered: 06/17/2013)
483 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines to File Motion for Attorneys' Fees by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, Mark Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 06/18/2013)
484 ORDER granting 483 Motion for Extension of Deadlines; The Plaintiff Class shall file its application for interim attorney's fees and costs on or before 9/3/2013. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 6/19/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/19/2013)
485 Response/Reply by United States of America re 482 Memorandum (Reference: 12-cv-859)(Dean, Kerry) Modified on 6/20/2013 (lag, ). (Entered: 06/19/2013)

06/19/2013 06/19/2013 06/19/2013 06/19/2013 06/20/2013
06/20/2013 06/24/2013 06/24/2013
06/24/2013

486 MOTION Supplement Witness List by New Orleans City. Motion set for 7/10/2013 09:00 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Reference: 12-859)(Bowdler, Bryan) (Entered: 06/19/2013)
487 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Submission of Motion to Supplement Witness List by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Bowdler, Bryan) (Entered: 06/19/2013)
488 Response/Reply by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, Mark Walker re 482 Memorandum (Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) Modified on 6/20/2013 (lag, ). (Entered: 06/19/2013)
489 Response/Reply by New Orleans City to 482 Memorandum of Marlin N. Gusman Regarding Funding (Reference: 2:12-cv-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 06/19/2013)
490 ORDER granting 487 MOTION to Expedite. FURTHER ORDERED that the Sheriff of Orleans Parish shall respond to the 486 motion to supplement on or before 6/21/2013, at 3:00 p.m., at which time the motion shall be taken under advisement without oral argument. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 6/20/2013.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/20/2013)
491 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 6/20/2013. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 6/21/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/21/2013)
492 ORDER granting 486 City's Motion to Supplement Witness List. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 6/20/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 06/24/2013)
493 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Funding Hearing held on 6/24/2013. ORDERED that counsel shall produce documents, as discussed in open court, no later than 6/26/2013 at 5:00 p.m. Court recessed to reconvene 7/24/2013 at 8:30 a.m. (Court Reporter Susan Zielie.) (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Removal of Exhibits) (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/25/2013)
494 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 6/24/2013. ORDERED that a supplementary hearing is scheduled to commence on 7/24/2013, at 8:30 a.m. Counsel to comply with deadlines stated herein. Telephone Status Conference set for 7/2/2013 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M

07/02/2013 07/03/2013 07/09/2013 07/10/2013 07/10/2013 07/11/2013 07/12/2013 07/17/2013
07/17/2013

Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 7/25/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/25/2013)
495 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 7/2/2013. Parties to comply with deadlines as stated herein. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 7/3/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 07/03/2013)
496 Supplemental Exhibit List by Marlin N. Gusman. (Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) Modified on 7/5/2013 (lag, ). (Entered: 07/03/2013)
497 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Exhibit List by Marlin N. Gusman. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibit List)(Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 07/09/2013)
498 ORDER granting 497 Motion for Leave to File supplemental exhibit list. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 7/10/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 07/10/2013)
499 Supplemental Exhibit List by Marlin N. Gusman. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 07/10/2013)
500 Letter to the Court from counsel for the Sheriff dated July 11, 2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 07/12/2013)
501 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Telephone Conference held on 7/12/2013, re 500 Letter to the Court. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 7/12/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 07/12/2013)
502 MOTION to Compel Discovery by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America, Mark Walker. Motion set for 8/7/2013 09:00 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit 8, # 11 Notice of Submission)(Reference: 12-859)(Dean, Kerry) Modified on 7/18/2013 (blg). (Entered: 07/17/2013)
503 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Motion to Compel Discovery by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America, Mark

07/17/2013
07/18/2013
07/19/2013 07/23/2013 07/24/2013 07/24/2013
07/24/2013 07/24/2013 07/25/2013

Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12cv859)(Dean, Kerry) (Entered: 07/17/2013)
504 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 502 MOTION to Compel Discovery; Filing attorney selected incorrect submission/hearing date and time. Corrected: 8/7/2013 09:00 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Clerk took corrective action. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 07/18/2013)
505 ORDERED that the 503 MOTION to Expedite is GRANTED. The City of New Orleans shall file a response to 502 Motion to Compel Discovery, on or before 7/19/2013 at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Stanwood R. Duval, Jr for Judge Lance M. Africk on 7/18/2013.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 07/18/2013)
506 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by New Orleans City re 502 MOTION to Compel Discovery . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 07/19/2013)
507 Proposed Pre-Hearing Order by City of New Orleans, United States of America, Plaintiff Class, and by Marlin N. Gusman(Sheriff, Orleans Parish) (Reference: 12-859)(Arcuri, Blake) Modified on 7/24/2013 (blg). (Entered: 07/23/2013)
508 Witness List by All Plaintiffs. (Reference: 12-859)(Sanders, Corey) (Entered: 07/24/2013)
509 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Funding hearing held on 7/24/2013. ORDERED that counsel shall produce documents, as discussed in open court, no later than Friday, July 26, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. Court recessed to reconvene Thursday, July 25, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. (Court Reporter Toni Tusa.) (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 07/24/2013)
510 Witness List by New Orleans City. (Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 07/24/2013)
511 Witness List by Marlin N. Gusman(Sheriff, Orleans Parish). (Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 07/24/2013)
512 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Funding hearing completed on 7/25/2013. (Court Reporter Toni Tusa.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List) (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 07/25/2013)

07/26/2013 07/26/2013 07/26/2013 07/26/2013 07/29/2013 07/29/2013 07/29/2013 07/29/2013
07/30/2013

513 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Protective Order by Marlin N. Gusman(Sheriff, Orleans Parish). (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Arcuri, Blake) Modified on 7/26/2013 (blg). (Entered: 07/26/2013)
514 ORDER granting 513 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 7/26/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 07/26/2013)
515 Memorandum by Marlin N. Gusman(Sheriff, Orleans Parish) Relative to Jail Design (Reference: 12-859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 07/26/2013)
516 ORDER granting 502 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 7/26/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 07/29/2013)
517 NOTICE by New Orleans City and Sheriff Gusman's Designations of Excerpts from June 14th, 2013 Deposition of Juliet Langham (City Exhibit 80). (Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 07/29/2013)
518 Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America, Mark Walker. (Reference: 12cv859)(Coon, Laura) (Entered: 07/29/2013)
519 NOTICE by Marlin N. Gusman(Sheriff, Orleans Parish) of Pages Intended to be Introduced from the Deposition of Julie Langham. (Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 07/29/2013)
520 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Telephone Conference held on 7/29/2013. ORDERED that the deadline for the submission of the Sheriff's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is extended to 8/1/2013, at 9:00 a.m. The deadline for the other parties' submissions is extended to 7/30, at 12:00 p.m. FURTHER ORDERED that a funding hearing is scheduled for 9/30/2013 08:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk, to address the consent judgment's future costs associated with the operation of the new OPP facility. FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall submit a proposed scheduling order, including a meet and confer date, for the 9/30 hearing on or before 8/2/2013. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 7/29/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 07/30/2013)
521 NOTICE OF APPEAL by New Orleans City as to 466 Consent Judgment. (Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 053L-4082781.)

07/30/2013 08/01/2013 08/01/2013 08/02/2013 08/05/2013
08/05/2013
08/06/2013 08/06/2013
08/06/2013 08/09/2013

(Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) Modified on 5/15/2014 (jdh). (Entered: 07/30/2013)
522 Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law by New Orleans City. (Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 07/30/2013)
523 Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law by Marlin N. Gusman(Sheriff, Orleans Parish). (Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 08/01/2013)
524 Final Witness List by All Plaintiffs. (Reference: 12-859)(Sanders, Corey) (Entered: 08/01/2013)
525 Proposed Scheduling Order for September 30 Hearing by All Parties. (Reference: 12-859)(Dean, Kerry) Modified on 8/2/2013 (blg). (Entered: 08/02/2013)
526 ORDER re 525 Proposed Scheduling Order; ORDERED that the agreed alterations to standard discovery limitations and the proposed schedule submitted by the Plaintiff Class, the United States of America, and the Sheriff of Orleans Parish shall apply with respect to the September 30, 2013 hearing. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 8/5/2013.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
527 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Funding hearing begun on 8/5/2013. Evidence entered. Court recessed to reconvene Tuesday, August 6, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. (Court Reporter Susan Zielie.) (Attachments: # 1 Notice for Removal of Exhibits) (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 08/06/2013)
528 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Funding hearing completed on 8/6/2013. (Court Reporter Jodi Simcox.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List) (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 08/06/2013)
529 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 8/6/2013, regarding selection of a Monitor. Parties to comply with deadlines as stated herein. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 8/6/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 08/07/2013)
555 Trial Exhibit List, re Funding Hearing (rec. docs. 527 and 528 ). (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 09/03/2013)
536 APPEAL TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by New Orleans City for proceedings held on 4/1/13 - 4/4/13 re 521 Notice of Appeal. (Reference: 12-859)(lag, ) (Entered: 08/16/2013)

08/09/2013 08/14/2013
08/14/2013
08/14/2013 08/14/2013 08/14/2013 08/14/2013 08/16/2013

537 APPEAL TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by New Orleans City for proceedings held on 4/1/13 - 4/4/13 re 521 Notice of Appeal. (Reference: 12-859)(lag, ) (Entered: 08/16/2013)
530 TRANSCRIPT of Funding Hearing held on July 24, 2013 before Judge Lance Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Toni Tusa, Telephone number 504-589-7778. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/12/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) (Entered: 08/14/2013)
531 TRANSCRIPT of Funding Hearing held on July 25, 2013 before Judge Lance Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Toni Tusa, Telephone number 504-589-7778. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/12/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) (Entered: 08/14/2013)
532 Proposed Witness List by New Orleans City. (Reference: 12859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 08/14/2013)
533 Witness List by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America, Mark Walker. (Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 08/14/2013)
534 Witness List by Marlin N. Gusman(Sheriff, Orleans Parish). (Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 08/14/2013)
535 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Amend/Correct 526 Order, by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America, Mark Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 08/14/2013)
539 ORDER granting 535 Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order; The parties shall designate experts on or before 8/16/2013, and the parties' expert reports are due on 8/26/2013. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 8/16/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 08/19/2013)

08/19/2013 08/19/2013 08/19/2013 08/20/2013
08/20/2013
08/20/2013 08/21/2013

540 ORDERED that the parties shall revise their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to include record citations on or before 8/23/2013, at 4:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 8/19/2013.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 08/19/2013)
541 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION to Continue deadlines previously set by the Court with respect to the selection of a Monitor by New Orleans City, Marlin N. Gusman. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Bowdler, Bryan) Modified on 8/19/2013 (blg). (Entered: 08/19/2013)
542 ORDER granting 541 Motion to Continue deadlines relative to the selection of a Monitor. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 8/19/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 08/20/2013)
543 TRANSCRIPT of Funding Hearing held on August 6, 2013 before Judge Lance Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Jodi Simcox, Telephone number 504-589-7780. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/18/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) (Entered: 08/20/2013)
544 TRANSCRIPT of Funding Hearing held on August 5, 2013 before Judge Lance Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Susan Zielie, Telephone number 504-589-7781. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/18/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) (Entered: 08/20/2013)
545 Memorandum by New Orleans City , Orleans Parish Sherrif's Office, Plaintiff Class, and United States of America Regarding Modifications to New Jail Facility (Reference: 12-859)(Bowdler, Bryan) (Entered: 08/20/2013)
546 TRANSCRIPT of Funding Hearing held on June 24, 2013 before Judge Lance Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Susan Zielie, Telephone number 504-589-7781. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of

08/23/2013 08/23/2013 08/23/2013
08/23/2013 08/23/2013 08/30/2013
08/30/2013 09/03/2013

Transcript Restriction set for 11/19/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) (Entered: 08/21/2013)
547 Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law by Marlin N. Gusman(Sheriff, Orleans Parish). (Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 08/23/2013)
548 Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America, Mark Walker. (Reference: 12859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 08/23/2013)
549 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Telephone Status Conference held on 8/23/2013. ORDERED that a Status Conference set for 9/3/2013 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Counsel may participate by telephone if the Court is provided with a telephone number two business days in advance. FURTHER ORDERED that the September 30, 2013 hearing is CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the status conference. (Reference: 12859)(lag, ) (Entered: 08/23/2013)
550 Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law by New Orleans City. (Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 08/23/2013)
551 Joint Statement re Status of New Jail Construction by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America, Mark Walker re 529 Status Conference. (Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) Modified on 8/26/2013 (blg). (Entered: 08/23/2013)
552 Statement by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, New Orleans City, Euell Sylvester, United States of America, Mark Walker re: Selection of Monitors (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit McCampbell CV, # 2 Exhibit Austin CV, # 3 Exhibit Patterson CV, # 4 Exhibit Greifinger CV, # 5 Exhibit Frasier CV, # 6 Exhibit Grenawitzke)(Reference: 2:12cv859)(Dean, Kerry) (Entered: 08/30/2013)
553 Statement by Marlin N. Gusman Regarding Monitor Selection (Reference: 12-859)(Arcuri, Blake) Modified on 9/3/2013 (lag, ). (Entered: 08/30/2013)
554 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 9/3/2013. ORDERED that the parties shall

09/03/2013 09/04/2013
09/04/2013

inform the Court no later than 9/5/2013, at 5:00 p.m. if they require additional documents from the Sheriff to further settlement discussions as to interim funding. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 9/3/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 09/03/2013)
558 ORDERED that the 392 motion to appoint receiver is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the City's right to re-urge its motion at a later date. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 9/3/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 09/04/2013)
556 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Interim Attorneys' Fees and Costs, in Excess of Page Limit by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, Mark Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Proposed Pleading Motion for Attorneys' Fees, # 4 Proposed Pleading Memo in Support of Motion for Attorneys' Fees, # 5 Proposed Order Proposed Order Awarding Fees, # 6 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 1, Schwartzmann Decl., # 7 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 2, Cumming Decl., # 8 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 3, Sheaman Decl., # 9 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 4, Coon Decl., # 10 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 5, Sun Decl., # 11 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 6, Bauer Decl., # 12 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 7, Zampierin Decl., # 13 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 8, Coco Decl., # 14 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 9, Yates Decl., # 15 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 10, Shaw Decl, # 16 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 11, Griffin Decl., # 17 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 12, Haedicke Decl., # 18 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 13, Johnson Decl., # 19 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 14, Wittmann Decl., # 20 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 15, Finger Decl., # 21 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 16, Boone Decl., # 22 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 17, Wilson Decl., # 23 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 18, Howell Decl., # 24 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 19, Fox 8, # 25 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 20, WWL, # 26 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 21, Bedi Decl., # 27 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 22, Breedlove Decl., # 28 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 23, Expense Spreadsheet)(Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) Modified on 9/4/2013 (blg). (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/4/2013: # 29 Proposed Pleading Notice of Submission) (blg). (Entered: 09/04/2013)
557 ERROR: ATTACHMENT TO DOC 556 . - Amendment/Supplement to Document by All Plaintiffs re 556 MOTION for Leave to File (Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) Modified on 9/4/2013 (blg). (Entered: 09/04/2013)

09/04/2013 09/04/2013 09/04/2013 09/04/2013 09/04/2013
09/04/2013 09/09/2013 09/09/2013

559 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 557 Amendment/Supplement to Document; Document was incorrectly filed as a separate document instead of as an attachment to document 556 Motion for Leave to File. Clerk took corrective action. No further action is needed. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 09/04/2013)
560 Joint Brief in Support of Monitor Candidates by Plaintiffs, United States of America, Marlin N. Gusman. (Reference: 12-859)(Dean, Kerry) Modified on 9/4/2013 (blg). (Entered: 09/04/2013)
561 Memorandum by New Orleans City In Response to Sheriff's Statement Regarding Dr. James Austin (Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) Modified on 9/5/2013 (blg). (Entered: 09/04/2013)
562 ORDER granting 556 Motion for Leave to File a memorandum in excess of the page limit. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 9/4/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 09/05/2013)
563 MOTION for Interim Attorneys' Fees and Costs by Plaintiffs Class. Motion set for 10/23/2013 09:00 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit 17, # 19 Exhibit 18, # 20 Exhibit 19, # 21 Exhibit 20, # 22 Exhibit 21, # 23 Exhibit 22, # 24 Exhibit 23, # 25 Notice of Submission, # 26 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 09/05/2013)
564 ORDER: Telephone Status Conference set for 9/9/2013 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 9/4/2013.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 09/05/2013)
565 ORDER AND REASONS: ORDERED that Ms. Susan W. McCampbell is appointed as lead monitor pursuant to the Consent Judgment. FURTHER ORDERED that the submonitors are appointed, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 9/9/2013.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 09/09/2013)
566 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Telephone Status Conference held on 9/9/2013. ORDERED that on or before 9/11/2013, at 12:00 p.m. the parties shall file any objection to the proposed allocation of the funding obligation for the Monitor for the remainder of 2013 and shall file any objections or suggestions relative to the Monitor's preliminary draft budget proposal. FURTHER ORDERED that on or before 9/23/2013, at 5:00 p.m. the parties shall inform the Court of any settlement, including a partial settlement,

09/12/2013
09/23/2013 09/27/2013 09/30/2013 10/03/2013

relative to funding Orleans Parish Prison through the end of the year. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 9/9/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 09/09/2013)
567 ORDERED that on or before 9/19/2013, the Sheriff and the City shall each provide $105,000.00 for the purpose of paying the monitoring costs through the end of the year. These funds shall be segregated in a single account, established and maintained by the Sheriff, that will be used solely for expenses and reimbursements related to the Monitor. FURTHER ORDERED that funds may only be disbursed from this account with the prior concurrence of the Sheriff and the City. The parties shall immediately inform the Court of any disagreement over a potential disbursement. FURTHER ORDERED that, absent a contrary order by this Court, the Sheriff shall forward a reimbursement check to the requesting monitor within five working days of the receipt of proper expense documentation. FURTHER ORDERED that the Court reserves ruling on the proper disposition of any funds that remain in the account at the end of the year. The Court also reserves ruling on which party or parties will be responsible for providing any additional funds that may be needed before the end of the year, notwithstanding the preliminary estimate provided by the Monitor. FURTHER ORDERED that each of the parties, the Monitor, and the Court shall have the ability to review any account activity. If the parties would like to suggest any additional accounting requirements, they shall agree among themselves to follow such requirements or, failing that, submit such proposals to the Court no later than 9/16/2013. FURTHER ORDERED that a Status Conference is set for 9/23/2013 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 9/12/2013.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 09/12/2013)
568 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 9/23/2013. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 9/23/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
569 Waiver by New Orleans City Waiver of Objections by All Parties to Court's Involvement With Settlement Discussions Regarding Certain Funding Issues (Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) Modified on 9/30/2013 (blg). (Entered: 09/27/2013)
570 ORDER: Status Conference set for 10/9/2013 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 9/30/2013.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 09/30/2013)
571 ORDERED that the status conference on Wednesday, October 9, 2013, shall take place in chambers, with each party's representative(s) participating in person and with full settlement authority. FURTHER

10/07/2013 10/09/2013
10/09/2013
10/09/2013 10/10/2013 10/10/2013 10/10/2013 10/15/2013 10/16/2013

ORDERED that the United States of America shall inform the Court on or before Friday, October 4, 2013, at 4:00 p.m. of the representative(s) who will be attending on its behalf. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/3/2013.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/03/2013)
572 ORDER that the designated portions of Armbrusters deposition are ADMITTED into evidence as Sheriff Exhibit 29. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk.(Reference: 12-859)(lag, ) (Entered: 10/07/2013)
573 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment by PLaintiff Class, Marlin N. Gusman. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Proposed Pleading Consent Judgment)(Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) Modified on 10/10/2013 (blg). (Attachment 3 replaced on 10/10/2013) (blg). Modified on 10/10/2013 - pursuant to 575 Order. (blg). (Entered: 10/09/2013)
574 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct 573 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment by Plaintiff Class, Marlin N. Gusman. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) Modified on 10/10/2013 (blg). (Entered: 10/09/2013)
579 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 10/9/2013. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/9/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/17/2013)
575 ORDER granting 574 Motion to Amend 573 proposed consent judgment relative to attorney's fees. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/10/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/10/2013)
576 ORDER granting 573 Motion to Approve Consent Judgment. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/10/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/10/2013)
577 CONSENT JUDGMENT on Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/10/2013.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/10/2013)
578 ORDER: Conference set for 10/16/2013 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/15/2013.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/15/2013)
580 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 10/16/2013. ORDERED that a hearing on the status of settlement efforts relative to interim funding is scheduled for Monday, 10/21/2013, at 9:00 a.m. in open court. Signed by Judge

10/21/2013 10/21/2013 10/21/2013
10/21/2013 10/21/2013 10/23/2013
10/24/2013

Lance M Africk on 10/16/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/17/2013)
581 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Hearing held on 10/21/2013. (Court Reporter Cathy Pepper.) (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/21/2013)
582 JOINT MOTION for Entry of Settlement Agreement by Marlin N. Gusman(Sheriff, Orleans Parish), New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Release and Settlement Agreement)(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/21/2013: # 2 Proposed Order) (blg). (Entered: 10/21/2013)
583 ORDER AND REASONS granting 582 MOTION for entry of settlement agreement; FURTHER ORDERED that the release and settlement agreement, which is attached to the joint motion, is acknowledged and made a part of the record in this case. FURTHER ORDERED that with the agreement of all of the parties and as a result of the consensual resolution of these issues by the Sheriff and the City, this Order authorizing the entry of the release and settlement agreement shall satisfy the condition precedent set forth in the definition of "Effective Date" in the Consent Judgment. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/21/2013.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/21/2013)
584 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 10/21/2013. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/21/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/21/2013)
585 ORDERED that the matter is ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/21/2013.(Reference: BOTH CASES)(blg) (Entered: 10/21/2013)
586 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Substitute Attorney. Attorney Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center to be substituted in place of Southern Poverty Law Center by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, Mark Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859; 12-138)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 10/23/2013)
587 ORDERED that, pursuant to his resignation, Dr. James Austin is REMOVED as classification submonitor. FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall work with the lead monitor, Ms. Susan McCampbell, to select a classification submonitor. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk

10/25/2013
10/29/2013 10/30/2013 10/30/2013 10/31/2013 10/31/2013 11/14/2013

on 10/24/2013.(Reference: BOTH CASES)(blg) (Entered: 10/24/2013)
588 ORDER granting 586 Motion to Substitute the Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center for the Southern Poverty Law Center as the representative firm for the Plaintiff Class as of 11/15/2013; FURTHER ORDERED that, as of 11/15/20013, the term "Plaintiffs' counsel" will be substituted in the Consent Judgment for "SPLC" pursuant to the terms of the Consent Judgment. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/25/2013. (Reference: ALL CASES)(blg) (Entered: 10/25/2013)
589 NOTICE by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, Mark Walker HIPAA Stipulation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit HIPAA Stipulation)(Reference: 12-cv859)(Cumming, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/29/2013)
590 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12cv859)(Coon, Laura) (Entered: 10/30/2013)
591 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Substitute Submonitor by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, Mark Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859; 12-138)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 10/30/2013)
592 ORDER granting 591 Motion to Substitute submonitor; Dr. Patricia Hardyman is appointed as classification submonitor pursuant to the Consent Judgment. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/31/2013. (Reference: BOTH CASES)(blg) (Entered: 10/31/2013)
593 ORDER granting 590 Motion to Enroll as Additional Counsel of Record for Attorney Sharon Brett for United States of America. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/31/2013. (Reference: BOTH CASES)(blg) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
594 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Katharine Schwartzmann as Attorney, MOTION for Leave to File motion to consolidate by Mark Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading Motion to Consolidate, # 2 Proposed Pleading Exhibits AB)(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 11/15/2013)

11/18/2013 11/18/2013 11/19/2013
11/22/2013 12/02/2013 12/19/2013

595 ORDER: Status Conference set for 11/19/2013 01:00 PM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 11/17/2013.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 11/18/2013)
596 ORDER re 594 MOTION to Withdraw Katharine Schwartzmann as Attorney and proceed pro se; ORDERED that counsel for the Plaintiff Class shall file a response on or before Friday, 11/22/2013. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 11/17/2013.(Reference: ALL CASES)(blg) (Entered: 11/18/2013)
597 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 11/19/2013. ORDERED: Status Conference set for 12/19/2013 10:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before 11/27/2013, the Sheriff shall provide the Court, the Monitor, and the other parties with a copy of Dr. Samuel Gore's staffing plan, including any underlying assumptions as to, for example, the estimated percentage of inmates with a serious mental illness. FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before 12/4/2013, the Sheriff shall provide the Court, the Monitor, and the other parties with a written report that identifies the individuals on the transition team relative to the new facility, sets forth the date by which the transition plan will be completed, and describes measures already established to ensure adequate preparation for the transition. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 11/19/2013. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 11/21/2013)
598 RESPONSE to Motion filed by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester re 594 MOTION to Withdraw Katharine Schwartzmann as Attorney MOTION for Leave to File . (Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 11/22/2013)
599 ORDER granting 594 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Elizabeth Cumming and Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann terminated; denying 594 Motion for Leave to File motion to consolidate. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 11/27/2013. (Reference: Both cases)(lag, ) (Entered: 12/02/2013)
600 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 12/19/2013. ORDERED that counsel shall maintain availability for 3/20/2014, and 3/21/2014, in the event that an evidentiary hearing becomes necessary relative to the implementation of the Consent Judgment. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 12/20/2013. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 12/23/2013)

12/20/2013 12/31/2013 01/13/2014 01/16/2014
01/30/2014
01/31/2014 02/05/2014
02/13/2014
02/13/2014 02/13/2014

601 MOTION to Compel counsel to serve pla Walker with pleadings and for notification via CM/ECF by Mark Walker. (Reference: 12859)(lag, ) Modified on 12/30/2013 (lag, ). (Entered: 12/26/2013)
602 ORDER denying 601 Motion to Compel counsel to serve pla Walker with pleadings and for notification via CM/ECF. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk. (Reference: 12-859)(lag, ) (Entered: 12/31/2013)
603 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Mark Walker as to 602 Order on Motion to Compel. (Reference: 12-859)(lag, ) (Entered: 01/14/2014)
604 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 1/16/2014. ORDERED that a Status Conference is set for 1/30/2014 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 1/16/2014. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 01/17/2014)
605 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 1/30/2014. ORDERED Status Conference set for 2/26/2014 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 1/30/2014. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 01/30/2014)
606 ORDER: Status Conference set for 2/5/2014 08:00 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 1/31/2014.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 01/31/2014)
607 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 2/5/2014. Status Conference set for 2/26/2014 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 2/6/2014. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 02/06/2014)
608 ORDERED that on or before 2/19/2014, the Sheriff and the City shall name a working group, as described in the forthcoming compliance report, to address issues relative to the docks. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 2/12/2014.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 02/13/2014)
609 Monitors' Report No. 1 (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 02/13/2014)
610 ORDERED that the compliance report be filed in the record re 609 Monitors' Report No. 1. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 2/13/2014.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 02/13/2014)

02/18/2014 02/21/2014 02/21/2014 02/24/2014 02/26/2014
03/03/2014 03/07/2014 03/07/2014

611 ORDERED that counsel shall appear in the undersigned U.S. District Judge's chambers for the 2/26/2014 status conference. Counsel for the United States of America may participate by telephone. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 2/18/2014.(Reference: ALL CASES)(blg) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
612 DEFICIENT: MOTION for Extension of Deadlines and Incorporated Memorandum in Support Thereof by Marlin N. Gusman. Motion set for 3/12/2014 09:00 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Submission)(Reference: 12-859)(Arcuri, Blake) Modified on 2/24/2014 (blg). (Entered: 02/21/2014)
613 NOTICE by United States of America and All Plaintiffs : Notice and Request to Maintain Scheduled Evidentiary Hearing. (Reference: 12859)(Coon, Laura) Modified on 2/21/2014 (lag, ). (Entered: 02/21/2014)
614 MOTION for Extension of Deadlines by Marlin N. Gusman. Motion set for 3/12/2014 09:00 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Reference: 12-0859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 02/24/2014)
615 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 2/26/2014. Hearing set for 3/20/2014 08:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Status Conference set for 3/17/2014 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Counsel to comply with all deadlines as stated herein. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 2/26/2014. (Reference: ALL CASES)(blg) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
616 RESPONSE to Motion filed by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America, Mark Walker re 614 MOTION for Extension of Deadlines . (Reference: 12cv859)(Coon, Laura) (Entered: 03/03/2014)
617 ORDERED that no later than 3/14/2014, counsel shall submit their bench books to chambers relative to the 3/20/2014 hearing. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/7/2014.(Reference: ALL CASES)(blg) (Entered: 03/07/2014)
618 Witness and Exhibit List by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America, Mark Walker. (Reference: 12cv859)(Coon, Laura) (Entered: 03/07/2014)

03/07/2014
03/07/2014 03/07/2014 03/07/2014 03/07/2014 03/10/2014
03/12/2014 03/12/2014 03/13/2014 03/14/2014 03/17/2014

619 Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America, Mark Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16)(Reference: 12cv859)(Coon, Laura) (Entered: 03/07/2014)
620 Witness and Exhibit List by New Orleans City. (Reference: 12859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 03/07/2014)
621 Witness and Exhibit List by Marlin N. Gusman. (Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 03/07/2014)
622 Supplemental Witness List by New Orleans City. (Reference: 12859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 03/07/2014)
623 Supplemental Witness List by Marlin N. Gusman. (Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 03/07/2014)
624 ORDERED that, with respect to the March 20 hearing, counsel shall file written objections to any exhibits no later than 3/12/2014. FURTHER ORDERED that no later than 3/14/2014, counsel shall submit copies of all expert reports to chambers or file them electronically. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/10/2014.(Reference: ALL CASES)(blg) (Entered: 03/10/2014)
625 OBJECTIONS to plas' exhibits by Marlin N. Gusman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) Modified on 3/13/2014 (lag, ). (Entered: 03/12/2014)
626 OBJECTIONS by New Orleans City to Plaintiffs' Proposed Exhibits (Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 03/12/2014)
627 Response/Reply by All Plaintiffs to 626 Objections (Reference: 12859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 03/13/2014)
628 Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law by New Orleans City. (Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 03/14/2014)
629 ORDER AND REASONS re 625 and 626 Objections to certain exhibits. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/17/2014.(Reference: ALL CASES)(blg) (Entered: 03/17/2014)

03/17/2014
03/18/2014 03/19/2014 03/20/2014 03/20/2014 03/24/2014 04/01/2014

631 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 3/17/2014. ORDERED that the Plaintiff Class, the United States of America, and the Sheriff shall file a joint motion relative to an extension of deadlines on or before 4/1/2014. FURTHER ORDERED that the 614 motion by the Sheriff for extension of deadlines is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FURTHER ORDERED that any party may amend its exhibit list by 5:00 p.m. on 3/18/2014, to include the memorandum prepared by the Lead Monitor relative to the parties' conversation with Secretary LeBlanc. FURTHER ORDERED that any party may amend its witness list by 5:00 p.m. on 3/18/2014, to include Secretary LeBlanc. FURTHER ORDERED that, if the Plaintiff Class and the United States of America intend to call Maggie Yates and Ada Phleger as witnesses, they shall advise the other parties of such intention by 5:00 p.m. on 3/18/2014. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/18/2014. (Reference: ALL CASES)(blg) (Entered: 03/19/2014)
630 Supplemental Witness List by New Orleans City. (Reference: 12859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
632 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 3/19/2014. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/19/2014. (Reference: ALL CASES)(blg) (Entered: 03/20/2014)
633 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Evidentiary Hearing held on 3/20/2014. (Court Reporter Karen Ibos.) (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Removal of Exhibits) (Reference: ALL CASES)(blg) (Entered: 03/21/2014)
634 Trial Exhibit List re 633 Evidentiary Hearing. (Reference: ALL CASES)(blg) (Entered: 03/21/2014)
635 Waiver by New Orleans City and by all Parties to Court's Involvement with Settlement Discussions Re Consent Decree and Related Issues and (Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 03/24/2014)
636 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION for Extension of Deadlines by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America, Mark Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12cv859)(Coon, Laura) (Entered: 04/01/2014)

04/02/2014 04/03/2014 04/07/2014 04/07/2014 04/07/2014
04/08/2014 04/08/2014 04/15/2014

637 ORDER granting 636 Motion for Extension of Deadlines. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 4/2/2014. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 04/02/2014)
638 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 4/3/2014. ORDERED that the 4/21/2014 hearing date remains intact. Parties to comply with deadlines as stated herein. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 4/3/2014. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 04/04/2014)
639 MOTION to Compel by New Orleans City. Motion set for 4/23/2014 09:00 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Notice of Submission, # 5 Rule 37 Certificate)(Reference: 12859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 04/07/2014)
640 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Submission of Motion to Compel by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 04/07/2014)
641 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Telephone Conference held on 4/7/2014. ORDERED that the Sheriff shall provide the Monitor and the other parties with any information necessary to draft a potential settlement agreement, no later than 4/9/2014, at 9:00 a.m. FURTHER ORDERED that the Sheriff and the City shall provide the Court with any proposed settlement agreement, including a proposed order, no later than 4/11/2014, at 3:00 p.m. FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are instructed to maintain availability for a hearing tentatively scheduled for 4/16/2014, at 7:30 a.m. relative to the submission of any settlement agreement, which will be considered by the Court. FURTHER ORDERED that immediately following the April 16 hearing or, if such hearing does not take place, on 4/16/2014, at 7:45 a.m., a status conference is scheduled to set a date for an expedited hearing in May 2014 relative to the Consent Judgment's medical and mental health requirements. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 4/8/2014. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 04/08/2014)
642 Witness and Exhibit List by New Orleans City. (Reference: 12859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 04/08/2014)
643 Witness and Exhibit List by Marlin N. Gusman. (Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 04/08/2014)
644 ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall maintain availability for a potential hearing scheduled to begin on Wednesday, June 25,

04/15/2014
04/15/2014 04/16/2014 04/17/2014 04/17/2014 04/17/2014 04/17/2014 04/17/2014
04/21/2014

2014, at 8:30 a.m. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 4/14/2014.(Reference: 12-859)(bwn) (Entered: 04/15/2014)
645 ORDERED that the Status Conference is CONTINUED to Wednesday, April 17, 2014, at 7:30 a.m. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Sheriff and the City shall submit a third draft of the proposed partial settlement agreement by Tuesday, April 16, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. It is FURTHER ORDERED that all counsel shall be prepared to proceed with the funding hearing on April 21, 2014, at 8:30 a.m. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk.(Reference: 12-859)(gec) (Entered: 04/15/2014)
646 AMENDED ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that the status hearing scheduled for tomorrow, April 16, 2014, is CONTINUED to Thursday, April 17, 2014, at 7:30 a.m. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk.(Reference: 12-859)(bwn) (Entered: 04/15/2014)
653 ORDER of USCA dismissing 603 Notice of Appeal. USCA Judge Name: Davis, Prado, and Higginson. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
647 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Hearing held on 4/17/2014. (Court Reporter Jodi Simcox.) (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 04/17/2014)
648 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION for Entry of Settlement Agreement by Marlin N. Gusman, New Orleans City. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 04/17/2014)
649 ORDER granting 648 Joint Motion for Entry of Settlement Agreement. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 4/17/2014. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 04/17/2014)
650 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT by Marlin N. Gusman, New Orleans City. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 04/17/2014)
651 ORDERED that, should the Sheriff or the City anticipate a shortfall relative to funding deputy salaries, either party shall file a motion relative to such a shortfall no less than 7 weeks before the projected shortfall. FURTHER ORDERED that the April 21 hearing is CANCELLED. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 4/17/2014.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 04/17/2014)
652 ORDER dismissing as moot 639 Motion to Compel and 640 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 4/18/2014. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 04/21/2014)

04/22/2014 04/24/2014 04/24/2014 04/25/2014 04/28/2014
04/29/2014
05/01/2014 05/01/2014 05/01/2014

656 MOTION to insert the attached documentary exhibit/evidence into record for upcoming hearing by Mark Walker. (Reference: 12859)(lag) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
654 ORDER re 608 Order, 609 Monitors' Report No. 1; ORDERED that the working group's compliance report shall be provided to the Court no later than 5/1/2014. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 4/23/2014.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
655 ORDER: Status Conference set for 4/28/2014 07:15 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 4/24/2014.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
657 ORDER denying 656 Motion to supplement the record by Mark Walker. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 4/25/2014. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 04/25/2014)
658 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 4/28/2014. Ordered that pla class and USA may file expedited motion by 4/29/2014 at noon; other parties may file response by 5/1/2014 at noon; Evidentiary Hearing set for 5/5/2014 01:00 PM before Judge Lance M Africk. All parties shall file witness and exhibit lists by 5/1/2014 at 5:00 PM; parties shall submit 4 copies of bench books to chambers by 5/1/2014 at 5:00 PM as set forth in document. (Reference: 12-859)(lag) (Entered: 04/28/2014)
659 MOTION for Order to Show Cause by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America. Motion set for 5/5/2014 01:00 PM before Judge Lance M Africk. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Notice of Submission)(Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
660 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Marlin N. Gusman re 659 MOTION for Order to Show Cause . (Reference: 12859)(Matthews, Freeman) (Entered: 05/01/2014)
661 Witness and Exhibit List by New Orleans City. (Reference: 12859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 05/01/2014)
662 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by New Orleans City re 659 MOTION for Order to Show Cause . (Reference: 12859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 05/01/2014)

05/01/2014 05/01/2014 05/01/2014 05/02/2014 05/02/2014
05/02/2014
05/05/2014 05/07/2014

663 Witness and Exhibit List by Marlin N. Gusman. (Reference: 12859)(Matthews, Freeman) (Entered: 05/01/2014)
664 Witness and Exhibit List by All Plaintiffs. (Reference: 12-cv859)(Cumming, Elizabeth) (Entered: 05/01/2014)
665 STATUS REPORT of the Docks Working Group filed Jointly by Marlin N. Gusman (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit)(Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 05/01/2014)
666 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue Hearing on Motion to Show Cause by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America. (Reference: 2:12cv859).(Dean, Kerry) Modified on 5/2/2014 (blg). (Entered: 05/02/2014)
667 ORDER granting 666 MOTION to Continue May 5, 2014 Hearing on Motion to Show Cause. FURTHER ORDERED that a Status Conference is set for 5/16/2014 08:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' 659 MOTION for Order to Show Cause is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to their right to re-urge their motion at a later date. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 5/2/2014.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 05/02/2014)
668 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Telephone Status Conference held on 5/2/2014. ORDERED that the Docks working group shall submit a follow-up report on or before 6/2/2014, as stated herein. FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before 5/7/2014, the City and the Sheriff shall advise the Court of their joint selection for chair of the budgetary working group. If the City and the Sheriff cannot agree on a chair, on 5/7/2014, they shall each submit the name or names of their nominees for chair as well as those individuals' resumes to the Court for resolution of the issue. FURTHER ORDERED that on or before 5/19/2014, the City and the Sheriff shall each advise the Court of the names of the three individuals who will participate as members of the mental health working group on behalf of those parties. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 5/5/2014. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 05/06/2014)
669 Return of Service of subpoena served on Bobby Pellegrin on 5/1/2014 by All Plaintiffs.(Reference: 12-859)(lag) (Entered: 05/06/2014)
670 STATUS REPORT of the Docks Working Group, AS AMENDED, filed Jointly by Marlin N. Gusman(Sheriff, Orleans Parish), New

05/08/2014 05/09/2014 05/16/2014 05/20/2014 05/20/2014 05/20/2014
05/21/2014 05/28/2014 05/28/2014

Orleans City. (Reference: 12-859)(Arcuri, Blake) Modified on 5/7/2014 (blg). (Entered: 05/07/2014)
671 ORDER that the Court has been advised of members of the budgetary working group. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk.(Reference: 12859)(lag) (Entered: 05/08/2014)
672 ORDER re members of the mental health working group; the deadline re other 6 members of working group remains intact. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 5/8/2014.(Reference: 12-859)(lag) (Entered: 05/09/2014)
673 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 5/16/2014. Parties to comply with deadlines, as stated herein. Status Conference set for 6/9/2014 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 5/16/2014. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 05/19/2014)
674 ORDER: Telephone Status Conference set for 5/21/2014 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 5/20/2014.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 05/20/2014)
675 ORDER: Status Conference, in open court, set for 5/28/2014 09:00 PM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 5/20/2014.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 05/20/2014)
676 ORDER: The Sheriff of Orleans Parish has advised the Court that his designees for the mental health working group are Blake Arcuri, Chief Michael Tidwell, and Dr. William Lo. The City of New Orleans has advised the Court that its designees are Charlotte Parent, the Honorable Calvin Johnson, and Dr. Katherine Smith. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 5/20/2014.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 05/20/2014)
677 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Telephone Status Conference held on 5/21/2014. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 5/21/2014. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 05/21/2014)
678 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 5/28/2014. (Court Reporter Jodi Simcox.) (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 05/28/2014)
679 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 5/28/2014. ORDERED: Telephone Status Conference set for 5/30/2014 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M

05/30/2014
06/02/2014 06/03/2014 06/06/2014 06/06/2014 06/09/2014 06/18/2014

Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 5/28/2014. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 05/28/2014)
680 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Telephone Status Conference held on 5/30/2014. Parties to comply with deadlines, as stated herein. ORDERED that a Hearing is set for 6/25/2014 08:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. FURTHER ORDERED that by 5/30/2014, at 5:00 p.m., the Sheriff shall advise the Court and opposing counsel as to whether there is any objection to the request by the City of New Orleans for certain blueprints, subject to a protective order. If necessary, a telephone conference will be held on 6/2/2014, at 10:00 a.m. to discuss any such objection. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 5/30/2014. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 05/30/2014)
681 STATUS REPORT Number Two of the Docks Working Group filed Jointly by Marlin N. Gusman, New Orleans City (Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
682 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Evidentiary Hearing by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America, Mark Walker. (Reference: 12859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) Modified on 6/4/2014 (blg). (Entered: 06/03/2014)
683 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Protective Order Relative to Jail Plans by Marlin N. Gusman(Sheriff, Orleans Parish). (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) Modified on 6/6/2014 (lag). (Entered: 06/06/2014)
684 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 683 MOTION for Protective Order Relative to Jail Plans ; Motion is no longer referred to the Magistrate Judge and will be decided by the District Judge. (Reference: 12-859)(lag) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
685 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 6/9/2014. Parties to comply with deadlines, as stated herein. ORDERED: Status Conference, in open court, set for 6/25/2014 08:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. FURTHER ORDERED: June 25 hearing is CONTINUED to 7/14/2014 08:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 6/9/2014. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/09/2014)
686 ORDERED that the 682 motion for an evidentiary hearing is DISMISSED AS MOOT. FURTHER ORDERED that the 683 motion

06/25/2014 06/25/2014 06/25/2014 06/27/2014
06/30/2014 07/03/2014

for a protective order is GRANTED without opposition and that any drawings, blueprints, or diagrams of secure jail facilities shall not be disclosed or provided to any other party other than the parties to the matter, their counsel, or any experts and/or consultants as necessary for purposes of this litigation. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 6/18/2014. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/18/2014)
687 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 6/25/2014. (Court Reporter Cathy Pepper.) (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/25/2014)
688 JOINT REPORT on the Status of Negotiations Related to the Medical/Mental Health Services by Marlin N. Gusman, New Orleans City. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/25/2014)
689 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 6/25/2014. Status Conference in open court set for 7/29/2014 08:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Parties to comply with deadlines, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 6/25/2014. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/26/2014)
690 ORDERED that the Sheriff of Orleans Parish shall file a detailed motion on or before 6/30/2014, proposing a short-term remedy relative to housing male and female inmates with acute and sub-acute mental issues. FURTHER ORDERED that the City of New Orleans shall file a response on or before 7/7/2014. FURTHER ORDERED that the United States of America and the Plaintiff Class shall file a response on or before 7/10/2014, at 12:00 p.m. FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file may-call witness and exhibit lists on or before 7/3/2014. FURTHER ORDERED that any objections to exhibits, with supporting memoranda, shall be filed on or before 7/7/2014. FURTHER ORDERED that bench books of all proposed exhibits shall be delivered to the Court on or before 7/7/2014. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 6/26/2014.(Reference: 12-859, 12138)(blg) (Entered: 06/27/2014)
691 PROPOSAL MEMORANDUM for Short-Term Housing of Acute and Sub-Acute Mental Health Populations by Marlin N. Gusman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment A, # 2 Exhibit Attachment B, # 3 Exhibit Attachment C)(Reference: 12-859)(Arcuri, Blake) Modified on 7/1/2014 (blg). (Entered: 06/30/2014)
692 Witness List by All Plaintiffs, United States of America. (Reference: 12-859)(Dean, Kerry) Modified on 7/3/2014 (blg). (Entered: 07/03/2014)

07/03/2014
07/03/2014 07/03/2014 07/07/2014 07/07/2014
07/07/2014 07/08/2014 07/09/2014

693 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Order Implementation of Sheriff's Proposal for Short term Housing of Acute and Sub Acute Inmates and for an Order Directing Third Party Defendant City of New Orleans to Pay for All Costs and Expenses Associated Therewith by Marlin N. Gusman(Sheriff, Orleans Parish). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading Motion, # 3 Proposed Pleading Memorandum, # 4 Proposed Pleading Notice of Submission, # 5 Proposed Pleading Exhibit A, # 6 Proposed Pleading Exhibit B, # 7 Proposed Pleading Exhibit C)(Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) Modified on 7/3/2014 (blg). (Entered: 07/03/2014)
694 Witness and Exhibit List by New Orleans City. (Reference: 12859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 07/03/2014)
695 Witness and Exhibit List by Marlin N. Gusman(Sheriff, Orleans Parish). (Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 07/03/2014)
696 ORDER granting 693 Motion for Leave to File motion; FURTHER ORDERED that the motion relative to short term housing of inmates with mental health issues will be taken under advisement at the conclusion of the 7/14/2014, hearing. All other deadlines associated with this hearing remain intact. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 7/7/2014. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 07/07/2014)
697 MOTION to Order Implementation of Sheriff's Proposal for Short term Housing of Acute and Sub Acute Inmates and for an Order Directing Third Party Defendant City of New Orleans to Pay for All Costs and Expenses Associated Therewith by Marlin N. Gusman. Motion set for 7/14/2014 08:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C)(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 07/07/2014)
698 Memorandum by New Orleans City re 697 MOTION to Order Implementation of Sheriff's Proposal for Short term Housing of Acute and Sub Acute Inmates and for an Order Directing Third Party Defendant City of New Orleans to Pay for All Costs and Expenses Associated Therewith (Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 07/07/2014)
699 ORDER: Status Conference set for 7/10/2014 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 7/8/2014.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 07/08/2014)
700 MEMORANDUM filed by all plaintiffs, United States of America, re 697 MOTION to Order Implementation of Sheriff's Proposal for

07/10/2014 07/11/2014
07/11/2014 07/11/2014 07/12/2014 07/14/2014 07/14/2014 07/14/2014 07/14/2014

Short term Housing of Acute and Sub Acute Inmates and for an Order Directing Third Party Defendant City of New Orleans to Pay for All Costs and Expenses Associated Therewith . (Reference: 12-859)(Brett, Sharon) Modified on 7/10/2014 (blg). (Entered: 07/09/2014)
701 Waiver by All Defendants Waiver of Objections by All Parties to Court's Involvement with Settlement Discussions Regarding Consent Decree and Related Issues (Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 07/10/2014)
702 MOTION to Quash by New Orleans City. Motion set for 8/6/2014 09:00 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Reference: 12-00859)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 07/11/2014)
703 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Motion to Quash by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 1200859)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 07/11/2014)
705 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Conference held on 7/11/2014. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 07/15/2014)
704 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Marlin N. Gusman(Sheriff, Orleans Parish) re 702 MOTION to Quash Testimony of Mayor Mitchell J. Landrieu. (Reference: 12-859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 07/12/2014)
706 ORDER granting 702 Motion to Quash. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 7/13/2014. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 07/15/2014)
707 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Conference held on 7/14/2014. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 07/15/2014)
708 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Evidentiary Hearing held on 7/14/2014. (Court Reporter Toni Tusa.) (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Removal of Exhibits) (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 07/15/2014)
709 ORDERED that the parties shall submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law relative to the July 14 hearing on or before 7/23/2014. FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall begin discussing solutions relative to"step down" care, the parties shall report to the Court on the progress of their discussions at the

07/14/2014 07/18/2014 07/18/2014
07/21/2014 07/25/2014
07/25/2014 07/25/2014 07/25/2014 07/29/2014

7/29/2014 status conference. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 7/14/2014.(Reference: BOTH CASES)(blg) (Entered: 07/15/2014)
717 Trial Exhibit List re 708 Minute Entry of Evidentiary Hearing held on 7/14/2014. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 07/28/2014)
710 Report regarding the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office's actions to implement the provisions of the Partial Settlement Agreement dated April 17, 2014 by Susan W. McCampbell. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 07/18/2014)
711 ORDERED that the deadline for the parties to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law relative to the July 14 hearing is CONTINUED to 7/25/2014. Counsel are reminded to cite to the record, including the hearing transcript. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 7/17/2014.(Reference: BOTH CASES)(blg) (Entered: 07/18/2014)
712 Report regarding the Mental Health Working Group dated July 17, 2014 by Susan W. McCampbell (Reference: 12-859)(lag) (Entered: 07/21/2014)
713 TRANSCRIPT of Evidentiary Hearing held on July 14,2014 before Judge Lance M. Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Toni Tusa, Telephone number 504-589-7778. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/23/2014. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) (Entered: 07/25/2014)
714 Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America. (Reference: 12859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 07/25/2014)
715 Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law by New Orleans City. (Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 07/25/2014)
716 Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law by Marlin N. Gusman(Sheriff, Orleans Parish). (Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 07/25/2014)
718 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 7/29/2014. Hearing set for 8/11/2014 08:30

07/29/2014
08/01/2014 08/01/2014 08/04/2014 08/05/2014 08/06/2014 08/06/2014 08/06/2014

AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Status Conference set for 8/28/2014 08:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. (Court Reporter Susan Zielie.) (Reference: 12-859)(jjs) (Entered: 07/29/2014)
721 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 7/29/2014. ORDERED that a hearing is set for 8/11/2014, at 8:30 a.m. FURTHER ORDERED that a status conference will be held in open court on 8/28/2014, at 8:30 a.m. FURTHER ORDERED that the Sheriff shall disclose any documents that have not yet been disclosed pursuant to the April 17 partial settlement agreement no later than 8/4/2014. FURTHER ORDERED that the Docks Committee shall submit a final report no later than 8/15/2014. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 7/30/2014. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 07/31/2014)
722 Memorandum by New Orleans City Regarding Long-Term Housing of Inmates (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Reference: 12-0859)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 08/01/2014)
723 Proposal for Long-Term Housing of Acute and Sub-Acute Mental Health Populations at the Orleans Parish Prison by Marlin N. Gusman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit G&H Programming, # 2 Exhibit CGL Part 1, # 3 Exhibit CGL Part 2)(Reference: 12-859)(Arcuri, Blake) Modified on 8/1/2014 (blg). (Entered: 08/01/2014)
725 ORDERED that the parties shall file a brief summary relative to their discussions of "step down" care on or before 8/6/2014. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 8/4/2014.(Reference: BOTH CASES)(blg) (Entered: 08/04/2014)
727 ORDERED that the August 11, 2014 hearing is CANCELLED. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 8/4/2014.(Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 08/05/2014)
729 Statement by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America, Mark Walker Summary of Parties' Step-Down Care Discussions (Reference: 12cv859)(Coon, Laura) (Entered: 08/06/2014)
730 Statement by Marlin N. Gusman (Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 08/06/2014)
731 Statement by New Orleans City Regarding Step-Down Populations (Reference: 12-859)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 08/06/2014)

08/07/2014
08/08/2014 08/08/2014 08/12/2014
08/12/2014 08/12/2014 08/13/2014
08/15/2014 08/18/2014

732 Response/Reply by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America, Mark Walker to 722 Memorandum, 723 Memorandum, Proposals for Long-Term Plans for Mental Health Housing (Reference: 12cv859)(Coon, Laura) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
733 Response/Reply by Marlin N. Gusman(Sheriff, Orleans Parish) To City of New ORleans' PRoposal on Long-Term Housing of All Inmates at the Orleans Parish Prison (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 08/08/2014)
734 Memorandum by New Orleans City re 730 Statement by Marlin Gusman Related to Long Term Housing (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Reference: 12-859)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 08/08/2014)
735 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Sheriff Gusman and the City of New Orleans' Response Briefs Regarding Individuals in Need of Specialized Mental Health Housing at Orleans Parish Prison by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Reference: 12-859)(Brett, Sharon) (Entered: 08/12/2014)
736 ORDER granting 735 Motion for Leave to File Reply. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 8/12/2014. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 08/12/2014)
737 REPLY by all plaintiffs, United States of America, to 733 Response by Marlin N. Gusman and 734 Memorandum by New Orleans City. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 08/12/2014)
738 ORDER AND REASONS granting in part, denying in part 697 MOTION to Order Implementation of Sheriff's Proposal for Short term Housing of Acute and Sub Acute Inmates and for an Order Directing Third Party Defendant City of New Orleans to Pay for All Costs and Expenses Associated Therewith. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 8/13/2014.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 08/13/2014)
741 JOINT REPORT by New Orleans City, Marlin N. Gusman, on behalf of the Docks Working Group (Reference: 12-859)(Williams, Sharonda) Modified on 8/18/2014 (blg). (Entered: 08/15/2014)
742 ORDERED that the Docks Working Group shall submit an additional report on or before 10/3/2014. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 8/18/2014.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 08/18/2014)

08/26/2014 08/28/2014 08/28/2014 09/02/2014
09/08/2014 09/22/2014 09/24/2014 10/03/2014 10/07/2014

744 MONITORS' REPORT NO. 2 by Susan W. McCampbell. (Attachments: # 1 Attachments, # 2 Attachments)(Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 08/26/2014)
745 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Hearing held on 8/28/2014. ORDERED that a status conference is set for 10/17/2014, at 8:30 a.m. (Court Reporter Jodi Simcox.) (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 08/28/2014)
746 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 8/28/2014. Status Conference set for 10/17/2014 08:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 08/28/2014)
748 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on July 29, 2014 before Judge Lance M. Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Susan Zielie, Telephone number 504-589-7781. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/1/2014. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) (Entered: 09/02/2014)
750 Report regarding the Mental Health Working Group dated September 6, 2014 by Raymond F. Patterson MD. (Reference: 12-859)(lag) (Entered: 09/08/2014)
751 ORDER: Status Conference set for 10/17/2014 is CONTINUED to 10/31/2014 08:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 9/22/2014.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 09/22/2014)
752 ORDERED that Darnley R. Hodge, Sr. is appointed as a submonitor pursuant to the Consent Judgment. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 9/24/2014.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 09/24/2014)
755 STATUS REPORT on Docks by New Orleans City (Reference: 12859)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
756 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record by Charles Ezeb, Samuel Gore, Marlin N. Gusman, Charles Higgins, Carlos Louque, Bonita Pittman, Jerrod Spinney, Kevin Winfield. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 10/07/2014)

10/08/2014 10/31/2014 11/04/2014 11/07/2014
11/07/2014
11/10/2014 11/12/2014 11/26/2014

757 ORDER granting 756 Motion to Enroll as Additional Counsel of Record for Attorney James McClendon Williams and Inemesit U. O'Boyle for defendants and defendant/third-party plaintiff, Sheriff Marlin N. Gusman. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/8/2014. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/08/2014)
759 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Hearing held on 10/31/2014. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/31/2014)
760 ORDER: Status Conference, in the courtroom, set for 12/17/2014 08:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 11/4/2014.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 11/05/2014)
761 MOTION Order City of New Orleans to Immediately Fund Jail Operations Through the End of 2014 and to Order Full Payment of FF&E Costs Associated with Phase II Facility by Marlin N. Gusman(Sheriff, Orleans Parish). Motion set for 12/3/2014 09:00 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit)(Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 11/07/2014)
763 ORDER re 761 MOTION Order City of New Orleans to Immediately Fund Jail Operations Through the End of 2014 and to Order Full Payment of FF&E Costs Associated with Phase II Facility ; ORDERED that the City of New Orleans shall file a response to Sheriff Gusman's motion on or before 11/13/2014 at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 11/7/2014.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 11/07/2014)
764 ORDER: Status Conference, in chambers, set for 11/12/2014 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 11/10/2014.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 11/10/2014)
766 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 11/12/2014. ORDERED that the Sheriff's 761 motion for funding is DISMISSED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 11/12/2014. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 11/12/2014)
770 ORDER: Telephone Status Conference set for 12/1/2014 08:00 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 11/26/2014.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 11/26/2014)

12/01/2014 12/17/2014
12/17/2014 12/17/2014 01/12/2015 01/16/2015
01/22/2015 01/22/2015

771 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Telephone Status Conference held on 12/1/2014. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
774 **REMOVED (per Court Order 775 ): STATUS REPORT regarding advancement towards Consent Decree compliance by Marlin N. Gusman (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9a, # 10 Exhibit 9b, # 11 Exhibit 10)(Reference: 12859)(Williams, James) Modified on 12/17/2014 (blg). (Main Document 774 replaced on 12/17/2014) (blg). (Entered: 12/17/2014)
775 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 12/17/2014. ORDERED that the Sheriff's 774 status report be removed from the record. (Court Reporter Mary Thompson.) (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 12/17/2014)
776 ORDER: Status Conference set for 1/22/2015 08:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. FURTHER ORDERED that, as discussed and agreed to at the 12/17/2014 status conference, the Sheriff shall, by 1/5/2015, comply with the Consent Judgment's periodic reporting requirement. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 12/17/2014.(Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 12/18/2014)
778 ORDER: The Sheriff of Orleans Parish has advised the Court of his replacement designees for members of the Mental Health Working Group. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 1/12/2015.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
779 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION for Settlement by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Marlin N. Gusman(Sheriff, Orleans Parish), Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
781 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Hearing held on 1/22/2015. (Court Reporter Toni Tusa.) (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 01/22/2015)
782 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: In Chambers Conference held on 1/22/2015. ORDERED that the Sheriff shall provide to the City once every two weeks a list of all inmates in custody, including any categorization data maintained by the Sheriff. FURTHER ORDERED that the 779 joint motion for entry of a

02/06/2015
02/06/2015 02/11/2015 02/25/2015 03/19/2015
03/19/2015 03/23/2015

stipulated order filed by plaintiffs, the government, and the Sheriff is DISMISSED with leave to refile after addressing the amendments suggested by the Monitor. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
785 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Settlement by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Marlin N. Gusman(Sheriff, Orleans Parish), Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 02/06/2015)
786 ORDER: Status Conference set for 3/26/2015 08:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 2/6/2015.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 02/06/2015)
787 ORDER granting 785 Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated Order. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 2/11/2015. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 02/11/2015)
790 MONITORS' REPORT NO. 3 by Susan W. McCampbell. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A, # 2 Attachment B, # 3 Attachment C)(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 02/25/2015)
791 MOTION Motion to Invalidate Contract or Alternatively to Terminate Contract by New Orleans City. Motion set for 4/15/2015 09:00 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Notice of Submission, # 13 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-00859)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 03/19/2015)
792 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by New Orleans City regarding 791 MOTION Motion to Invalidate Contract or Alternatively to Terminate Contract (Reference: 12-00859)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 03/19/2015)
793 MOTION to Issue Order Directing City to fund jail operations by Marlin N. Gusman(Sheriff, Orleans Parish). Motion set for 3/25/2015 09:00 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Reference: 12-00859)(O'Boyle, Inemesit) Modified on 3/24/2015 (lag). (Entered: 03/23/2015)

03/23/2015 03/23/2015 03/24/2015
03/24/2015 03/26/2015
03/26/2015 03/30/2015 04/06/2015

794 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by Marlin N. Gusman(Sheriff, Orleans Parish) regarding 793 MOTION to Issue Order Directing City to fund jail operations (Reference: 12-00859)(O'Boyle, Inemesit) Modified on 3/24/2015 (lag). (Entered: 03/23/2015)
795 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Hearing for Motion to Order City to Fund Jail Operations by Marlin N. Gusman(Sheriff, Orleans Parish). (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-00859)(O'Boyle, Inemesit) Modified on 3/24/2015 (lag). (Entered: 03/23/2015)
796 ORDER granting 795 MOTION to Expedite Hearing and 794 Request for Oral Argument on 793 MOTION Issue Order Directing City to fund jail operations : Motion set for 3/26/2015 08:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk at the Status Conference. FURTHER ORDERED that response to motion due 3/25/2015 9:00 AM. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk.(Reference: 12-859)(lag) (Entered: 03/24/2015)
797 ORDER denying 792 Request/Statement of Oral Argument re 791 MOTION to Invalidate Contract or Alternatively to Terminate Contract filed by New Orleans City. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk.(Reference: 12-859)(lag) (Entered: 03/24/2015)
798 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 3/26/2015. ORDERED that the 793 MOTION to Issue Order Directing City to fund jail operations filed by Marlin N. Gusman is WITHDRAWN. (Court Reporter Karen Ibos.) (Reference: 12-859)(blg) Modified on 4/2/2015 (blg). (Entered: 03/26/2015)
799 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: In Chambers Conference held on 3/26/2015. Counsel to comply as stated herein. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/26/2015)
800 ORDER: Status Conference, in the courtroom, set for 6/25/2015 08:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/30/2015.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/30/2015)
804 DEFICIENT: MOTION to Compel Production of Documents and Enforce Sections VIII.D-E of Consent Judgment by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America. Motion set for 4/29/2015 09:00 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Proposed Order, # 8 Notice of Submission,

04/07/2015
04/07/2015 04/07/2015 04/07/2015 04/09/2015 04/09/2015

# 9 Request for Oral Argument)(Reference: 12-cv-859)(Brett, Sharon) Modified on 4/7/2015 (blg). (Entered: 04/06/2015)
805 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents and Enforce Sections VIII.D-E of Consent Judgment by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America. Motion(s) referred to Michael North. Motion set for 4/29/2015 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Michael North. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Certificate stating matter cannot be amicably resolved, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Proposed Order, # 9 Notice of Submission)(Reference: 12-859)(Brett, Sharon) (Entered: 04/07/2015)
806 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America regarding 805 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents and Enforce Sections VIII.D-E of Consent Judgment (Reference: 12-859)(Brett, Sharon) (Entered: 04/07/2015)
807 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Marlin N. Gusman re 791 MOTION Motion to Invalidate Contract or Alternatively to Terminate Contract . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Reference: 2:12-cv-00859)(O'Boyle, Inemesit) (Entered: 04/07/2015)
808 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 807 Response/Memorandum in Opposition to Motion; Document contains incorrect Magistrate Judge. All future pleadings must reflect Magistrate Judge Michael B. North. Also, the name of attorney who electronically filed this document does not match name of signatory attorney on pleading. The user log-in and password serve as the required signature for purposes of Rule 11 of the FRCP. No further action is necessary. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 04/08/2015)
809 ORDER Setting Oral Argument on 805 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents and Enforce Sections VIII.D-E of Consent Judgment : Motion set for 4/29/2015 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Michael North. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael North on 4/8/2015.(Reference: 12-859)(lag) (Entered: 04/09/2015)
810 ORDER: Telephone Status Conference set for 4/14/2015 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 4/9/2015.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 04/09/2015)

04/13/2015 04/14/2015 04/14/2015 04/15/2015 04/15/2015 04/20/2015
04/21/2015 04/21/2015

812 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Invalidate Contract by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Exhibit 11, # 3 Exhibit 12, # 4 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-00859)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 04/13/2015)
813 ORDER that Hearing on 805 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents and Enforce Sections VIII.D-E of Consent Judgment is CONTINUED to 5/6/2015 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Michael North. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael North.(Reference: 12-859)(lag) (Entered: 04/14/2015)
814 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Telephone Status Conference held on 4/14/2015. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 04/14/2015)
816 ORDER granting 812 Motion for Leave to File Reply. FURTHER ORDERED that on or before 4/22/2015, the City and the Sheriff shall simultaneously file supplemental memoranda and exhibits, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 4/14/2015. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 04/15/2015)
817 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by New Orleans City re 791 MOTION Motion to Invalidate Contract or Alternatively to Terminate Contract . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 11, # 2 Exhibit 12)(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 04/15/2015)
818 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION for Entry of Stipulated Order by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America, Marlin N. Gusman. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12cv859)(Coon, Laura) Modified on 4/21/2015 (blg). (Entered: 04/20/2015)
819 ORDER that 805 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents and Enforce Sections VIII.D-E of Consent Judgment is continued to 5/13/2015 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Michael North. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael North.(Reference: 12-859)(lag) (Entered: 04/21/2015)
822 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Marlin N. Gusman re 805 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents and Enforce Sections VIII.D-E of Consent Judgment . (Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 04/21/2015)

04/22/2015 04/22/2015 04/22/2015 04/27/2015 04/28/2015
04/29/2015 04/29/2015
04/30/2015

823 Supplemental Memorandum filed by Marlin N. Gusman(Sheriff, Orleans Parish), in Opposition of 791 MOTION Motion to Invalidate Contract or Alternatively to Terminate Contract . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 04/22/2015)
824 ORDER granting 818 Motion for Entry of Stipulated Order and FURTHER ORDERED additional relief as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk. (Reference: 12-859)(lag) (Entered: 04/22/2015)
825 Supplemental Memorandum filed by New Orleans City, in support of 791 MOTION Motion to Invalidate Contract or Alternatively to Terminate Contract . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Reference: 12-859)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 04/22/2015)
826 Supplemental Memorandum filed by New Orleans City, in support of 791 MOTION Motion to Invalidate Contract or Alternatively to Terminate Contract Second Supplemental Memorandum. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Reference: 12-859)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 04/27/2015)
827 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America. Motion(s) referred to Michael North. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading Reply Brief, # 3 Proposed Pleading Exhibit)(Reference: 12859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 04/28/2015)
830 ORDER granting 827 Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael North. (Reference: 12-859)(bwn) (Entered: 04/29/2015)
831 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America re 805 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents and Enforce Sections VIII.D-E of Consent Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Reference: 12-859)(bwn) (Entered: 04/29/2015)
832 ORDER regarding request for funds directed to the City of New Orleans from the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 4/30/2015.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 04/30/2015)

05/13/2015
05/29/2015 06/05/2015 06/08/2015 06/24/2015 06/24/2015
06/24/2015
06/24/2015 06/24/2015 06/24/2015

835 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael North: Motion Hearing held on 5/13/2015 GRANTING 805 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents and Enforce Sections VIII.D-E of Consent Judgment. (Court Reporter Jodi Simcox.) (Reference: 12859)(bwn) (Entered: 05/14/2015)
837 ORDER AND REASONS denying 791 Motion to Invalidate Contract or Alternatively to Terminate Contract. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 5/29/2015. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 05/29/2015)
839 ORDER: Status Conference set for 6/8/2015 08:00 AM CST before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 6/5/2015.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/05/2015)
840 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 6/8/2015. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/08/2015)
843 Memorandum by New Orleans City Regarding Housing of Special Populations (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Reference: 12-859)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 06/24/2015)
844 MOTION to Strike by Marlin N. Gusman. Motion(s) will be submitted on 7/22/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Submission, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Proposed Pleading REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT, # 4 Exhibit)(Reference: 12-859)(Williams, James) Modified on 6/25/2015 (blg). (Entered: 06/24/2015)
845 MOTION for Declaratory Judgment by Marlin N. Gusman. Motion(s) will be submitted on 7/22/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 Proposed Pleading, # 4 Memorandum in Support, # 5 Exhibit)(Reference: 12-859)(Williams, James) (Entered: 06/24/2015)
846 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite by Marlin N. Gusman. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Memorandum in Support)(Reference: 12-859)(Williams, James) Modified on 6/25/2015 (blg). (Entered: 06/24/2015)
847 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by Marlin N. Gusman regarding 844 MOTION to Strike. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
848 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 844 MOTION to Strike; Filing attorney selected incorrect submission date. Correct date is 7/22/15. Clerk took corrective action. Also, filing attorney attached a Request/Statement for Oral Argument to this motion instead of filing

06/24/2015 06/24/2015
06/24/2015 06/25/2015 06/25/2015 06/25/2015 06/25/2015 06/26/2015

it as a separate entry. Clerk took corrective action by separating the request and docketing it as a separate entry, doc 847 . All future requests for oral argument must be filed separately. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
849 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by Marlin N. Gusman regarding 845 MOTION for Declaratory Judgment (Reference: 12859)(blg) (blg). (Entered: 06/25/2015)
850 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 845 MOTION for Declaratory Judgment; Filing attorney attached a Request/Statement for Oral Argument to this motion instead of filing it as a separate entry. Clerk took corrective action by separating the request and docketing it as a separate entry, doc 849 . All future requests for oral argument must be filed separately. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
851 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 846 MOTION to Expedite; Filing attorney should have selected 'Yes' at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motion Y/N?. Exparte/Consent motions are not set for submission. Clerk has removed submission date. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
852 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Adam J. Swensek by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-00859)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
853 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 6/25/2015. (Court Reporter Karen Ibos.) (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
856 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: In Chambers Conference held on 6/25/2015. Status Conference set for 8/6/2015 08:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. (Reference: 12859)(lag) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
863 Memorandum - documents referenced by the OPSO compliance coordinator at the 853 Status Conference held June 25, 2015. (Attachments: # 1 Progress Update Report)(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/29/2015)
854 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Document Motion for Declartory Judgment by Marlin N. Gusman. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12859)(Williams, James) (Entered: 06/26/2015)

06/26/2015 06/26/2015 06/26/2015 06/29/2015 06/29/2015 06/29/2015
07/06/2015 07/06/2015

855 ORDER granting 852 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record for Attorney Adam J. Swensek for New Orleans City. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk. (Reference: 12-859)(lag) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
857 NOTICE OF APPEAL by New Orleans City as to 837 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. (Credit Card not accepted or unavailable - payment of filing fee due within 2 business days) (Reference: 12-859)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
858 MOTION to Stay re 837 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by New Orleans City. Motion(s) will be submitted on 7/22/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Reference: 12-859)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
859 USCA Appeal Fee paid as to New Orleans City (Filing fee $ 505 receipt number 053L-4915459) re 857 Notice of Appeal filed by New Orleans City (Reference: 12-859)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 06/29/2015)
861 ORDER granting 854 Motion to Withdraw; withdrawing 845 Motion for Declaratory Judgment; dismissing as moot 846 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 6/29/2015. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/29/2015)
862 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Telephone Status Conference held on 6/29/2015, re 858 Motion to Stay pending appeal. ORDERED that on or before 7/6/2015, the City shall file a supplemental memorandum of law specifically articulating the facts and legal authority supporting the requested stay. FURTHER ORDERED that on or before 7/13/2015, the Sheriff shall file a response to the City's motion and supplemental memorandum, at which time the Court will decide whether oral argument is needed. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/29/2015)
865 ORDERED that Mark Walker is dismissed from this matter without prejudice for failure to prosecute. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to discontinue mail service to Walker until such time as he provides a current mailing address. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 7/6/2015.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 07/06/2015)
866 Supplemental Memorandum filed by New Orleans City, in support of 858 MOTION to Stay re 837 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief . (Reference: 12-859)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 07/06/2015)

07/13/2015 07/13/2015 07/14/2015 07/14/2015 07/14/2015 07/16/2015 07/21/2015
07/23/2015 08/06/2015 08/12/2015

868 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Marlin N. Gusman(Sheriff, Orleans Parish) re 858 MOTION to Stay re 837 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief . (Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 07/13/2015)
869 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 868 Response/Memorandum in Opposition to Motion; Document contains incorrect caption/header. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 07/14/2015)
870 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Stay by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 07/14/2015)
871 ORDER granting 870 Motion for Leave to File Reply. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 7/14/2015. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 07/14/2015)
872 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by New Orleans City re 858 MOTION to Stay re 837 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief . (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 07/14/2015)
873 ORDER AND REASONS denying 858 MOTION to Stay re 837 Order. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 7/16/2015.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 07/16/2015)
874 ORDER re 847 Request/Statement of Oral Argument as to the 844 MOTION to Strike filed by Marlin N. Gusman; The Court will be unable to hear oral argument at the time requested. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 7/21/2015.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 07/21/2015)
875 ORDER dismissing as moot 844 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 7/23/2015. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 07/24/2015)
876 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Hearing held on 8/6/2015. (Court Reporter Terri Hourigan.) (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 08/06/2015)
877 TRANSCRIPT of Status Hearing held on August 6, 2015 before Judge Lance M. Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Terri Hourigan, Telephone number 504-589-7775. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of

08/21/2015 08/26/2015 08/27/2015
09/09/2015 09/11/2015
09/11/2015
09/11/2015

Transcript Restriction set for 11/10/2015. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) (Entered: 08/12/2015)
878 ORDER of USCA denying appellant's opposed motion for stay pending appeal. USCA Judge Name: Clement, Elrod, and Southwick. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 08/21/2015)
879 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Telephone Status Conference held on 8/26/2015. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 08/27/2015)
880 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on December 17, 2014 before Judge Lance M. Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Mary Thompson, Telephone number 504-589-7783. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/25/2015. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) (Entered: 08/27/2015)
881 MONITORS' REPORT NO. 4 by Susan W. McCampbell. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 09/09/2015)
882 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on April 17, 2014 before Judge Lance M. Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Jodi Simcox, Telephone number 504-589-7780. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/10/2015. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) (Entered: 09/11/2015)
883 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on May 28, 2014 before Judge Lance M. Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Jodi Simcox, Telephone number 504-589-7780. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/10/2015. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) (Entered: 09/11/2015)
884 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on August 28, 2014 before Judge Lance M. Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Jodi Simcox, Telephone number 504-589-7780. Transcript may be viewed at the

09/11/2015 09/14/2015 09/14/2015
09/14/2015
09/14/2015 09/15/2015 09/17/2015

court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/10/2015. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) (Entered: 09/11/2015)
885 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order , MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by New Orleans City. Motion(s) will be submitted on 9/30/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C)(Reference: 12-859)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 09/11/2015)
886 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 09/14/2015)
887 ORDER re 885 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by New Orleans City; Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff Marlin Gusman is ORDERED to file a response on or before 9/16/2015 at 5:00 P.M. Any other party who wishes to do so may file a response by that same date and time. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 9/14/2015.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 09/14/2015)
888 ORDER granting 886 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum re 885 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Motion for Preliminary Injunction ; FURTHER ORDERED that the Sheriff's deadline to file a response, presently scheduled for 9/16/2015, is CONTINUED to 9/17/2015, at 5:00 p.m. Any other party who wishes to do so may file a response by that same date and time. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 9/14/2015.(Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 09/15/2015)
889 Supplemental Memorandum filed by New Orleans City, in Support of 885 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, MOTION for Preliminary Injunction . (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 09/15/2015)
890 ORDER: Status Conference set for 9/25/2015 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 9/15/2015.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 09/15/2015)
891 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief by Orleans Public Defenders. Motion(s) will be submitted on 10/14/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Proposed

09/17/2015 09/17/2015 09/17/2015 09/17/2015 09/18/2015 09/21/2015
09/21/2015

Pleading, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Reference: 12-859)Attorney Colin Reingold added to party Derwyn Bunton(pty:am).(Reingold, Colin) Modified on 9/18/2015 (blg). (Entered: 09/17/2015)
892 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite by Orleans Public Defenders. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12859)(Reingold, Colin) Modified on 9/18/2015 (blg). (Entered: 09/17/2015)
893 RESPONSE to Motion filed by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America re 885 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Reference: 12859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 09/17/2015)
894 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Marlin N. Gusman re 889 City's Supplemental Memorandum, 885 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Reference: 12-859)(O'Boyle, Inemesit) Modified on 9/18/2015 (blg). (Entered: 09/17/2015)
895 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Marlin N. Gusman re 886 MOTION for Leave to File , 885 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Reference: 12-859)(O'Boyle, Inemesit) (Entered: 09/17/2015)
896 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by Marlin N. Gusman regarding 885 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Williams, James) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
897 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on January 22, 2015 before Judge Lance M. Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Toni Tusa, Telephone number 504-589-7778. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/21/2015. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) (Entered: 09/21/2015)
898 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on October 31, 2014 before Judge Lance M. Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Toni Tusa, Telephone number 504-589-7778. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court

09/23/2015 09/23/2015 09/24/2015 09/24/2015 09/24/2015 09/24/2015 09/25/2015 09/25/2015

Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/21/2015. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) (Entered: 09/21/2015)
899 MOTION for Declaratory Judgment and Contempt by Marlin N. Gusman. Motion(s) will be submitted on 10/28/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Submission, # 4 Exhibit 1, # 5 Exhibit 2, # 6 Exhibit 3)(Reference: 12859)(Williams, James) (Entered: 09/23/2015)
900 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by Marlin N. Gusman regarding 899 MOTION for Declaratory Judgment and Contempt (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12859)(Williams, James) (Entered: 09/23/2015)
901 ORDER denying 891 Motion for Leave to File a brief as amicus curiae. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 9/24/2015. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 09/24/2015)
902 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 09/24/2015)
903 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Opposition by Marlin N. Gusman. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Proposed Pleading, # 4 Exhibit)(Reference: 12-00859)(Williams, James) (Entered: 09/24/2015)
904 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by Marlin N. Gusman regarding 903 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Opposition (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 1200859)(Williams, James) (Entered: 09/24/2015)
905 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 9/25/2015. ORDERED: an additional Status Conference is set for 10/2/2015 07:30 AM in the chambers of Judge Lance M Africk. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 09/25/2015)
906 ORDER granting re 902 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief, and 903 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Opposition; denying 904 Request/Statement of Oral Argument. Signed by Judge

09/25/2015 09/25/2015 09/28/2015 09/28/2015
09/28/2015 09/28/2015 09/30/2015 09/30/2015

Lance M Africk on 9/25/2015.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 09/28/2015)
907 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by New Orleans City re 885 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction . (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 09/28/2015)
908 Supplemental Memorandum filed by Marlin N. Gusman, in Opposition of 885 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 09/28/2015)
909 ORDER AND REASONS denying 885 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order; deferring ruling on 885 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. ORDERED that the Court's courtroom deputy shall schedule a date for a hearing on the City's motion for a preliminary injunction. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 9/28/2015. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 09/28/2015)
910 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by New Orleans City. Motion(s) will be submitted on 10/14/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # 3 Exhibit 1- Dec. CM Head, # 4 Exhibit 2- A. DeLong, # 5 Exhibit 3- D. Eichenthal, # 6 Notice of Submission, # 7 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 09/28/2015)
911 ORDER re 909 Order and Reasons on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction; AMENDING the sentence on page 13 of the Court's Order. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 9/28/2015.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 09/28/2015)
912 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by New Orleans City regarding 910 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 09/28/2015)
913 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Telephone Conference held on 9/30/2015. ORDERED: Evidentiary Hearing, with respect to the City's 885 motion for preliminary injunction, set for 12/9/2015 08:00 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/01/2015)
914 ORDER re 12/9/2015 Evidentiary Hearing as to the 885 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction; ORDERED that the City shall file proposed

10/02/2015 10/05/2015
10/06/2015 10/06/2015 10/06/2015 10/06/2015
10/09/2015

findings of fact and conclusions of law with the Court by 11/18/2015. The Sheriff shall file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by 11/25/2015. The City and the Sheriff shall also, by 11/25/2015, provide each other with a copy of any exhibits they intend to introduce into evidence at the hearing. No exhibit shall be introduced at the evidentiary hearing unless the exhibit was pre-marked and exchanged prior to the hearing in accordance with this order. FURTHER ORDERED that the City and the Sheriff shall provide each other with their witness lists no later than 12/2/2015. Any witness not on the lists shall not be permitted to testify absent a demonstration of good cause. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 9/30/2015.(Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 10/01/2015)
915 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 10/2/2015. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/02/2015)
916 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Local Inmate Transfer by New Orleans City. Motion(s) will be submitted on 10/28/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Notice of Submission)(Reference: 12-00859)(Williams, Sharonda) Modified on 10/6/2015 (blg). (Entered: 10/05/2015)
917 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Marlin N. Gusman re 910 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Reference: 12-859)(O'Boyle, Inemesit) (Entered: 10/06/2015)
918 ORDER: Status Conference set for 10/9/2015 10:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/6/2015.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/06/2015)
919 ORDER: Status Conference, in courtroom, set for 10/22/2015 08:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/6/2015.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/06/2015)
920 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Telephone Conference held on 10/6/2015. ORDERED that the Evidentiary Hearing as to the 885 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction is RESCHEDULED set for 2/1/2016 08:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/06/2015)
921 ORDER denying oral argument on 910 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment . Signed by Judge Lance M Africk.(Reference: as listed)(jrc) (Entered: 10/09/2015)

10/09/2015 10/09/2015
10/09/2015 10/16/2015
10/19/2015 10/20/2015 10/20/2015 10/20/2015 10/20/2015

922 ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that Judge Franz Zibilich is appointed as a member of the Docks Committee. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk.(Reference: 12-859)(bwn) (Entered: 10/09/2015)
923 ORDER re 910 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment . IT IS ORDERED that the Sheriff shall file a substantive opposition to the Citys motion on or before Friday, October 16, 2015. The Court will take the Citys motion under submission on Wednesday, October 21, 2015. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk.(Reference: 12-859)(bwn) (Entered: 10/09/2015)
926 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 10/9/2015. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/20/2015)
924 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Marlin N. Gusman(Sheriff, Orleans Parish) re 910 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Affidavit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts)(Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Attachment 5 replaced on 10/19/2015) (blg). (Attachment 4 replaced on 10/19/2015) (blg). (Attachment 6 replaced on 10/19/2015) (blg). (Attachment 9 replaced on 10/19/2015) (blg). Modified on 10/19/2015 - flatten pdfs (blg). (Entered: 10/16/2015)
925 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Bryan Edward Bowdler (La. Bar 32097) as Attorney of Record by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 10/19/2015)
927 ORDER granting 925 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Bryan Edward Bowdler terminated. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/20/2015. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/20/2015)
928 RESPONSE to Motion filed by New Orleans City re 899 MOTION for Declaratory Judgment and Contempt . (Reference: 12-cv859)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 10/20/2015)
929 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Reference: 12-859)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 10/20/2015)
930 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell

10/21/2015 10/21/2015 10/21/2015 10/22/2015 10/22/2015
10/22/2015

Sylvester, United States of America re 899 MOTION for Declaratory Judgment and Contempt . (Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 10/20/2015)
931 ORDER granting 929 Motion for Leave to File Reply. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/21/2015. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/21/2015)
932 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by New Orleans City re 910 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment . (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 10/21/2015)
933 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)Attorney Theodore R. Carter, III added to party United States of America(pty:intvp).(Carter, Theodore) (Entered: 10/21/2015)
934 ORDER granting 933 Motion to Enroll Theodore R. Carter as Additional Counsel of Record. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/22/2015. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/22/2015)
935 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 10/22/2015. ORDERED that the Orleans Parish Sheriff begin using the Docks to transport prisoners to and from Orleans Parish Criminal District Court. Compliance with this order shall occur within one week of this date. FURTHER ORDERED that the City will be financially responsible for paying increased costs, if any, resulting from added staffing necessary to accomplish this order. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/22/2015. (Court Reporter Toni Tusa.) (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/22/2015)
936 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael North: Following the status conference held this date in open court, this Court met with counsel for and representatives of the City of New Orleans (the "City") and the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office ("OPSO") along with the Lead Monitor and Judges of the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss a framework for the possible resolution of numerous pending disputes between the City and OPSO. In connection with those efforts, the City and the OPSO, through counsel, are to submit to this Court separate confidential memoranda identifying the various outstanding issues that are ripe for amicable resolution and proposals for so resolving those issues as set forth in document. (Reference: 12-859)(my) (Entered: 10/22/2015)

10/27/2015 11/02/2015 11/02/2015 11/10/2015 11/12/2015 11/13/2015
11/16/2015 11/16/2015 11/17/2015

937 ORDER re 900 Request/Statement of Oral Argument as to the 899 MOTION for Declaratory Judgment and Contempt filed by Marlin N. Gusman; the Court will be unable to hear oral argument at the time requested. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/27/2015.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/27/2015)
938 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Substitute Attorney. Attorney Rebecca H. Dietz to be substituted in place of Sharonda R. Williams by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-00859)(Swensek, Adam) (Entered: 11/02/2015)
939 ORDER granting 938 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Added attorney Rebecca H. Dietz for New Orleans City. Attorney Sharonda R. Williams terminated. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 11/2/2015. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 11/03/2015)
940 ORDER: In Chambers Conference set for 11/12/2015 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 11/9/2015.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 11/10/2015)
941 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 11/12/2015. Parties to comply, as stated herein. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 11/13/2015)
942 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Emily M. Washington by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 11/13/2015)
943 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION Order to Allow Sheriff to Utilize Excess Funds in Hunt MHU Account for Operations by Marlin N. Gusman(Sheriff, Orleans Parish). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 11/16/2015)
944 ORDER granting 942 Motion to Enroll as Additional Counsel of Record for Attorney Emily Mottiel Washington for plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 11/16/2015. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 11/17/2015)
945 FILED IN ERROR, SEE REC DOC. 877. TRANSCRIPT of Status Hearing held on August 6, 2015 before Judge Lance M. Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Terri Hourigan, Telephone number 504-589-7775. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) Modified on 11/17/2015 (rsg). (Entered: 11/17/2015)

11/17/2015
11/19/2015
11/24/2015 12/10/2015 12/11/2015 12/22/2015 12/23/2015

946 ORDERED that the 943 MOTION for an Order to Allow Sheriff to Utilize Excess Funds in Hunt MHU Account for Operations is GRANTED and that the Court's 738 Order and Reasons of 8/13/2014, is MODIFIED to authorize the Sheriff to use funds in the Hunt account in excess of those needed to operate the Hunt facility for other operational costs associated with the jail. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 11/17/2015.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 11/17/2015)
947 ORDER re February 1, 2016 Evidentiary Hearing: ORDERED that the City shall file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by 1/11/2016. The Sheriff shall file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by 1/18/2016. The City and the Sheriff shall also, by 1/18/2016, provide each other with a copy of any exhibits they intend to introduce into evidence at the hearing. FURTHER ORDERED that the City and the Sheriff shall provide each other with their witness lists no later than 1/25/2016. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 11/18/2015.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
948 ORDER AND REASONS denying 899 Motion for Declaratory Judgment. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk. (Reference: 12859)(bwn) (Entered: 11/24/2015)
949 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION for Extension of Deadlines by Marlin N. Gusman, New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Memorandum in Support)(Reference: 12-859)(Williams, James) Modified on 12/11/2015 (blg). (Entered: 12/10/2015)
950 ORDER granting 949 Motion for Extension of Deadlines; CONTINUED to 2/12/2016. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 12/11/2015. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 12/11/2015)
951 ORDER: Status Conference, in the courtroom, set for 2/2/2016 08:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 12/22/2015.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 12/22/2015)
952 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael North: Following this Courts status conference of October 22, 2015 and pursuant to its Minute Entry of that date (rec. doc. 936), the Court has, over the course of the preceding eight weeks, met and conferred with the principals and various representatives of the parties to this consent judgment, as well as other interested entities, for the purpose of fashioning an amicable resolution to many of the matters currently in dispute. To date, the undersigned has conferred separately and in various combinations with the entities noted herein. The Court and the parties have made progress toward resolution of a number of outstanding disputes and these efforts will continue in earnest over the

01/11/2016 01/11/2016 01/15/2016 01/19/2016
01/19/2016
01/19/2016 01/20/2016 01/20/2016

coming weeks and months. (Reference: 12-859)(bwn) (Entered: 12/23/2015)
953 ORDER AND REASONS granting in part, as set forth in document, 910 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 1/11/2016. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 01/11/2016)
954 Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law by New Orleans City. (Reference: 12-859)(Dietz, Rebecca) (Entered: 01/11/2016)
955 ORDERED that the amended pre-hearing deadlines shall apply with respect to the evidentiary hearing regarding the pending motion for a preliminary injunction to be held on 2/1/2016, as stated in document. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 1/15/2016.(Reference: ALL CASES)(blg) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
956 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on March 26, 2015 before Judge Lance M. Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Karen Ibos, Telephone number 504-589-7776. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/18/2016. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) (Entered: 01/19/2016)
957 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on June 25, 2015 before Judge Lance M. Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Karen Ibos, Telephone number 504-589-7776. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/18/2016. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) (Entered: 01/19/2016)
958 Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law by Marlin N. Gusman(Sheriff, Orleans Parish). (Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 01/19/2016)
959 Exhibit List by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 01/20/2016)
960 Exhibit List by Marlin N. Gusman(Sheriff, Orleans Parish). (Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 01/20/2016)

01/25/2016 01/25/2016 01/25/2016 01/26/2016 01/27/2016 01/29/2016 01/29/2016
02/01/2016

961 Supplemental Memorandum by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America to 885 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 01/25/2016)
962 Witness List by New Orleans City. (Reference: 12-859)(Rosenberg, Harry) (Entered: 01/25/2016)
963 Witness List by Marlin N. Gusman(Sheriff, Orleans Parish). (Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 01/25/2016)
964 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 962 Witness List. Document contains incorrect Magistrate Judge. All future pleadings must reflect Magistrate Judge Michael B. North. (Reference: 12859)(ajn) (Entered: 01/26/2016)
965 ORDER: Status Conference, in chambers, set for 1/29/2016 01:00 PM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 1/27/2016.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 01/27/2016)
966 DEFICIENT: EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Strike by Marlin N. Gusman. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Williams, James) Modified on 2/1/2016 (blg). (Entered: 01/29/2016)
967 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 1/29/2016. ORDERED that by 9:00 a.m. on 2/1/2016, the parties shall submit a joint written stipulation regarding their shared understanding of which categories of DOC inmates can be transferred to the DOC as well as the number of inmates in each category as of 1/29/2016. FURTHER ORDERED that with the agreement of all parties, the evidentiary hearing with respect to the City's 885 motion for a preliminary injunction is CONTINUED to 3/14/2016, at 8:30 a.m. FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will receive a note of evidence from the Sheriff or his designee(s) on 2/1/2016, at 2:00 p.m. with respect to (1) the Sheriff's revised staffing plan and (2) the transfer and return of Orleans Parish pretrial detainees. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
968 ORDER re 967 Status Conference; receipt of a note of evidence will take place in the courtroom on 2/1/2016 02:00 PM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 2/1/2016.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 02/01/2016)

02/01/2016 02/02/2016 02/02/2016 02/03/2016 02/03/2016 02/04/2016
02/05/2016 02/05/2016 02/05/2016

969 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Hearing held on 2/1/2016. Parties shall comply with deadlines as stated herein. Court recessed, to reconvene Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 8:30 a.m. (Court Reporter Donna Goree.) (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 02/01/2016)
970 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 2/2/2016. Parties shall comply with deadlines as stated herein. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 02/02/2016)
971 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Hearing held on 2/2/2016. (Court Reporter Donna Goree.) (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 02/02/2016)
972 DEFICIENT: EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue Hearing by Marlin N. Gusman. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) Modified on 2/3/2016 (blg). (Entered: 02/03/2016)
973 STIPULATION by New Orleans City , Marlin N. Gusman Joint Stipulation (Reference: 859)(Dietz, Rebecca) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
974 ORDERED that by 3/1/2016, the parties shall also jointly update the stipulation with respect to the remaining areas of disagreement, i.e., DOC work release inmates, DOC community service inmates, DOC "court ordered transfers," and DOC parole and probation violation holds. FURTHER ORDERED that any remaining areas of disagreement will be litigated at the evidentiary hearing presently scheduled for 3/14/2016. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 2/4/2016.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 02/04/2016)
975 ORDER re 969 Minute Entry - IT IS ORDERED that the monetary sanctions imposed on counsel representing Sheriff Marlin N. Gusman and the City of New Orleans are SUSPENDED. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk.(Reference: 12-859)(bwn) (Entered: 02/05/2016)
976 MOTION for Extension of Time to File by Marlin N. Gusman. Motion(s) will be submitted on 3/9/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Reference: 12-00859)(Williams, James) (Entered: 02/05/2016)
977 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Motion for Extension of Time by Marlin N. Gusman. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-00859)(Williams, James) (Entered: 02/05/2016)

02/08/2016 02/10/2016 02/10/2016 02/11/2016
02/16/2016
02/16/2016

978 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Marlin N. Gusman as to 953 Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (Filing fee $ 505, receipt number 053L-5226326.) (Reference: 12-00859)(Williams, James) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
979 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 978 Notice of Appeal. Document does not contain Magistrate Judge. All future pleadings must reflect Magistrate Judge (5). (Reference: 12-859)(ajn) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
980 ORDER granting 976 Motion for Extension of Time to File to 3/17/2016; finding as moot 977 Motion to Expedite. FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for the Sheriff, James M. Williams, Esq., shall provide a copy of this order to Sheriff Marlin N. Gusman. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 2/10/2015. (Reference: All Cases)(mmm) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
981 ORDER: The deadline to "arrive at an agreement regarding where acutelymentally ill inmates will be incarcerated when the Hunt facility is no longer available" is CONTINUED to Tuesday, April 12, 2016. FURTHER ORDERED that the February 12, 2016 deadline to "provide U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael North with a proposed written agreement regarding a framework for addressing future requests by the Sheriff for additional amounts of money not included in thebudget" is NOT CONTINUED. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 2/11/2016.(Reference: All Cases)(mmm) (Entered: 02/11/2016)
982 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on February 1, 2016 before Judge Lance M. Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Donna Goree, Telephone number 504-589-7781. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/16/2016. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) (Entered: 02/16/2016)
983 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on February 2, 2016 before Judge Lance M. Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Donna Goree, Telephone number 504-589-7781. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the

02/17/2016 02/18/2016 02/18/2016 02/22/2016 03/01/2016 03/07/2016 03/08/2016 03/08/2016 03/08/2016

Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/16/2016. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) (Entered: 02/16/2016)
985 USCA Case Number 16-30110 appealed to USCA, Fifth Circuit for 978 Notice of Appeal filed by Marlin N. Gusman. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
984 APPEAL TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Marlin N. Gusman re 978 Notice of Appeal. (No hearings) (Reference: 1200859)(Williams, James) (Main Document 984 replaced on 2/18/2016) (blg). (Entered: 02/18/2016)
986 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 984 Appeal Transcript Request; Filing attorney did not properly format the pdf. When using a FORM, fill in the applicable fields then click the red PRINT button at the bottom to print the document to pdf format. Clerk has taken corrective action. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
987 ORDER: Status Conference, in courtroom, set for 4/7/2016 08:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. FURTHER ORDERED that the Sheriff shall take immediate steps to address fire safety at OJC, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 2/22/2016.(Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 02/22/2016)
988 STIPULATION by Marlin N. Gusman re 974 Order, Second Joint Stipulation Between City of New Orleans & Sheriff Marlin Gusman Regarding Transfer of DOC Inmates (Reference: 12-859)(Williams, James) (Entered: 03/01/2016)
989 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue Hearing by Marlin N. Gusman. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 03/07/2016)
990 MOTION to Set Status Conference by Marlin N. Gusman. Motion(s) will be submitted on 3/23/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Submission, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit B)(Reference: 12-859)(O'Boyle, Inemesit) Modified text on 3/9/2016 (mmv). (Entered: 03/08/2016)
991 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by Marlin N. Gusman regarding 990 MOTION to Set Status Conference (Reference: 12859)(O'Boyle, Inemesit) (Entered: 03/08/2016)
992 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION to Continue Hearing by Marlin N. Gusman(Sheriff, Orleans Parish), New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 03/08/2016)

03/09/2016

993 ORDER granting 990 MOTION to Set Status Conference; Telephone Status Conference set for 3/9/2016 04:00 PM before Judge Lance M Africk. FURTHER ORDERED that the 991 Request/Statement of Oral Argument is DENIED. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/9/2016.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/09/2016)

03/09/2016

994 ORDERED that the 989 unopposed motion to continue is DENIED and that the 992 joint motion to continue is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that the evidentiary hearing is CONTINUED to be held following the status conference on 4/7/2016. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/9/2016.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/09/2016)

03/09/2016

995 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 3/9/2016. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/10/2016)

03/17/2016 996 MONITORS' REPORT NO. 5 by Susan W. McCampbell. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/18/2016)

03/21/2016

997 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Telephone Status Conference held on 3/21/2016 as set forth in document. (Reference: 12-859)(mmm) (Entered: 03/22/2016)

04/01/2016

998 STIPULATION by New Orleans City and Marlin N. Gusman Joint Stipulation (Reference: 12-859)(Dietz, Rebecca) Modified on 4/4/2016 (ajn). (Entered: 04/01/2016)

04/01/2016

999 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Document by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Dietz, Rebecca) (Entered: 04/01/2016)

04/01/2016

1000

Electronic Record on Appeal Access Granted to Adam J. Swensek, Rebecca H. Dietz re 978 Notice of Appeal. USCA Case Number 1630110. Instructions for access are posted on http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/default-source/forms/instructionsfor-electronic-record-download-feature-of-cm.pdf (Reference: 12-cv859)(adp) (Entered: 04/01/2016)

04/04/2016

1001

ORDERED that the 999 motion to withdraw is GRANTED and that the City's 885 motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FURTHER ORDERED that the evidentiary hearing with respect to the City's motion for a preliminary injunction, which hearing is presently scheduled for 4/7/2016, is CANCELED. FURTHER ORDERED that the City's 916 motion for partial summary judgment on local inmate transfer, which motion addresses overlapping questions related to the

status of DOC inmates in OPSO custody, is likewise DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 4/4/2016.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 04/04/2016)

04/04/2016

1002 ORDERED that the 4/12/2016 deadline is CONTINUED to 7/12/2016. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 4/4/2016.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 04/04/2016)

04/06/2016

1006 ORDER of USCA dismissing 857 Notice of Appeal, pursuant to appellant's motion. Signed by Deputy Clerk. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 04/19/2016)

04/07/2016 1003 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Hearing held on 4/7/2016. (Court Reporter Cathy Pepper.) (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 04/07/2016)

04/11/2016

1004

TRANSCRIPT of Status Hearing held on April 7, 2016 before Judge Lance M. Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Cathy Pepper, Telephone number 504-589-7779. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/11/2016. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) (Entered: 04/11/2016)

04/18/2016

1005

MOTION to Reopen Evidentiary Hearing by Marlin N. Gusman. Motion(s) will be submitted on 5/18/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Reference: 12-859)(Williams, James) (Entered: 04/18/2016)

04/25/2016

1007

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America, Mark Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Motion to Show Cause, # 2 Memo in Support, # 3 Exhibit 1 to Memo in Support, # 4 Exhibit 2 to Memo in Support, # 5 Exhibit 3 to Memo in Support, # 6 Exhibit 4 to Memo in Support, # 7 Exhibit 5 to Memo in Support, # 8 Exhibit 6 to Memo in Support, # 9 Exhibit 7 to Memo in Support, # 10 Exhibit 8 to Memo in Support, # 11 Notice of Submission Motion to Show Cause, # 12 Proposed Order to Show Cause, # 13 Proposed Order for Excess Pages)(Reference: 2:12-cv-00859)(Dean, Kerry) (Entered: 04/25/2016)

04/25/2016

1008 ORDER granting 1007 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 4/25/2016. (Reference: 12-859)(lag) (Entered: 04/25/2016)

04/25/2016

1009

MOTION for Order to Show Cause, MOTION to Appoint Receiver by Plaintiff Class and United States of America. Motion(s) will be submitted on 5/18/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Notice of Submission, # 11 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(lag) (Entered: 04/25/2016)

04/28/2016

1010

ORDER: 1009 MOTION for Order to Show Cause, MOTION to Appoint Receiver will be submitted on 5/25/2016. Evidentiary Hearing set for 5/25/2016 08:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. FURTHER ORDERED: 1005 MOTION to Reopen Evidentiary Hearing dismissed without prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED: Counsel are to fully comply with additional deadlines set forth in document. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 4/28/2016.(Reference: All)(mmm) Modified on 4/29/2016 (blg). (Entered: 04/28/2016)

05/03/2016

1011

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1009 MOTION for Order to Show Cause MOTION to Appoint Receiver, 1010 Order, Set/Reset Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings, Terminate Motions,,, by Marlin N. Gusman. Motion(s) will be submitted on 5/18/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Williams, James) (Entered: 05/03/2016)

05/03/2016

1012 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite by Marlin N. Gusman. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Williams, James) (Entered: 05/03/2016)

05/03/2016

1013

RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by New Orleans City re 1011 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply . (Reference: 12-859)(Dietz, Rebecca) Modified event/text on 5/4/2016 (mmv). (Entered: 05/03/2016)

05/04/2016

1014

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Amend/Correct 1011 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1009 MOTION for Order to Show Cause MOTION to Appoint Receiver, 1010 Order, Set/Reset Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings, Terminate Motions by Marlin N. Gusman. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12859)(Williams, James) Modified text on 5/5/2016 (mmv). (Entered: 05/04/2016)

05/04/2016

1015

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Additional Counsel of Record Matthew Fraser and Patrick Eagan by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-cv00859)(Swensek, Adam) Modified text on 5/5/2016 (mmv). (Entered: 05/04/2016)

05/04/2016

1016

ORDER GRANTING 1012 Motion to Expedite and 1014 Motion to Amend and DENYING 1011 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 5/4/2016. (Reference: 12-859)(lag) (Entered: 05/04/2016)

05/05/2016

1017

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael North: Telephone Status Conference held on 5/5/2016. After discussions with the District Judge and as discussed at the conference with counsel for the parties, the briefing schedule set forth in the District Judges Order of April 28, 2016 is hereby modified to allow for the filing of reply briefs by the City of New Orleans and the Orleans Parish Sheriffs Office no later than Monday, May 16, 2016. All parties are to file in the record their respective witness and exhibit lists no later than Wednesday, May 11, 2016. The witness lists shall be accompanied by a brief description of the subject matter of each proposed witnesss testimony. The parties may supplement their respective lists no later than May 13, 2016. The parties are to have exchanged proposed stipulations, if any, no later than Wednesday, May 18, 2016. A follow-up telephone status conference will be held with the undersigned by telephone at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 19, 2016 to finalize the parties witness and exhibit lists and to discuss any proposed stipulations and the estimated length of the evidentiary hearing. (Reference: 12-859)(bwn) (Entered: 05/06/2016)

05/10/2016

1018 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Support filed by New Orleans City re 1009 MOTION for Order to Show Cause MOTION to Appoint Receiver . (Reference: 12-859)(Dietz, Rebecca) (Entered: 05/10/2016)

05/10/2016

1019

ORDER granting 1015 Motion to Enroll as Additional Counsel of Record for Attorney Matthew David Fraser and Ewell Patrick Eagan for New Orleans City. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 5/10/2016. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 05/10/2016)

05/10/2016

1020

RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Marlin N. Gusman re 1009 MOTION for Order to Show Cause MOTION to Appoint Receiver . (Reference: 12-859)(Williams, James) (Entered: 05/10/2016)

05/11/2016

1021 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Witness and Exhibit Lists by Marlin N. Gusman. Motion(s) will be submitted on 6/1/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of

Submission, # 3 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Williams, James) Modified on 5/11/2016 to edit text. (clc). (Entered: 05/11/2016)

05/11/2016

1022

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Motion for Extension of Time to File Witness and Exhibit Lists by Marlin N. Gusman. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Williams, James) Modified on 5/11/2016 to edit text. (clc). (Entered: 05/11/2016)

05/11/2016

1023

Witness and Exhibit List by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America. (Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 05/11/2016)

05/11/2016 1024 Witness and Exhibit List by New Orleans City. (Reference: 12859)(Eagan, Ewell) (Entered: 05/11/2016)

05/12/2016

1025

ORDER REFERRING MOTION: 1021 MOTION for Extension of Time to File filed by Marlin N. Gusman, 1022 MOTION to Expedite Motion for Extension of Time to File Witness and Exhibit Lists filed by Marlin N. Gusman. Motion(s) referred to Michael North.. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 5/11/2016.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 05/12/2016)

05/12/2016 1026 Witness and Exhibit List by Marlin N. Gusman. (Reference: 12859)(O'Boyle, Inemesit) (Entered: 05/12/2016)

05/12/2016

1027 ORDER granting 1021 Motion for Extension of Time to File Witness and Exhibit Lists. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael North. (Reference: 12-859)(bwn) (Entered: 05/12/2016)

05/13/2016

1028

ORDER re 1022 MOTION to Expedite Motion for Extension of Time to File Witness and Exhibit Lists filed by Marlin N. Gusman. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael North on 5/12/2016.(Reference: 12859)(bwn) (Entered: 05/13/2016)

05/13/2016

1029

Supplemental Witness and Exhibit List by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America, Mark Walker. (Reference: 12cv859)(Coon, Laura) (Entered: 05/13/2016)

05/16/2016

1030 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United

States of America, Mark Walker re 1009 MOTION for Order to Show Cause MOTION to Appoint Receiver . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Reference: 2:12-cv-00859)(Dean, Kerry) (Entered: 05/16/2016)

05/16/2016 1031 Amended Witness and Exhibit List by New Orleans City. (Reference: 12-cv-00859)(Fraser, Matthew) (Entered: 05/16/2016)

05/16/2016

1032

REPLY to Response to Motion filed by New Orleans City re 1009 MOTION for Order to Show Cause MOTION to Appoint Receiver . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Reference: 12-859)(Dietz, Rebecca) (Entered: 05/16/2016)

05/16/2016 1033 Amended Witness and Exhibit List by Marlin N. Gusman. (Reference: 12-859)(O'Boyle, Inemesit) (Entered: 05/16/2016)

05/16/2016

1034

Response/Reply by Marlin N. Gusman to 1018 Response/Memorandum in Support of Motion by City of New Orleans re 1009 MOTION for Order to Show Cause MOTION to Appoint Receiver. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Reference: 12-859)(Williams, James) Modified on 5/17/2016 to edit docket text. (clc). (Entered: 05/16/2016)

05/17/2016

1035

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Eric A. Foley by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 2:12-cv-00859)(Washington, Emily) (Entered: 05/17/2016)

05/17/2016

1036

ORDER - A telephone status conference is scheduled in this matter at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 19, 2016 to finalize the parties witness and exhibit lists and to discuss any proposed stipulations and the estimated length of the evidentiary hearing. At the hearing, counsel for the parties are to be prepared specifically to address the following: (1) designating the witnesses listed on their respective witness lists as may-call and will-call witnesses; (2) whether there are any objections to witnesses listed by the parties; (3) stipulations regarding the authenticity and admissibility of exhibits listed by the parties; (4) whether there are objections to any exhibits listed by the parties; and (5) the process of streamlining the admission of unobjected-to exhibits, including transcripts of prior hearings in this matter. The parties are advised that, with the exception of true rebuttal witnesses or custodians of records whose testimony may be necessary solely to authenticate documents, no witness not listed specifically by name by a party on a witness list filed in the record will be allowed to testify.

Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael North.(Reference: 12-859)(bwn) (Entered: 05/17/2016)

05/17/2016

1037

ORDER granting 1035 Motion to Enroll as Additional Counsel of Record for Attorney Eric A. Foley for plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 5/17/2016. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 05/18/2016)

05/18/2016

1038

MOTION for Protective Order by New Orleans City. Motion(s) will be submitted on 6/15/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Reference: 12-00859)(Swensek, Adam) (Entered: 05/18/2016)

05/18/2016

1039 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-00859)(Swensek, Adam) (Entered: 05/18/2016)

05/18/2016 1040 STIPULATION by New Orleans City (Reference: 12-cv-859)(Fraser, Matthew) (Entered: 05/18/2016)

05/18/2016

1041 Memorandum by New Orleans City Proposing Logistics (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Reference: 12-859)(Dietz, Rebecca) (Entered: 05/18/2016)

05/18/2016

1042

ORDER granting 1039 MOTION to Expedite. The 1038 MOTION for Protective Order filed by New Orleans City will be heard by the undersigned during the phone conf sched for 5/19/2016 at 1:00PM. The Sheriff may file a memo in opp by noon on 5/19/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael North.(Reference: 12-859)(bbc) (Entered: 05/18/2016)

05/18/2016

1043

Brief by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America re 1009 MOTION for Order to Show Cause MOTION to Appoint Receiver (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12cv859)(Coon, Laura) (Entered: 05/18/2016)

05/18/2016

1044 Memorandum by Marlin N. Gusman regarding process of appointing a receiver (Reference: 12-859)(Williams, James) (Entered: 05/18/2016)

05/18/2016

1045

MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief by Orleans Parish Prison Reform Coalition (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Reference: 2:12-cv-00859)Attorney Anna Lise Lellelid-Douffet added to party Orleans Parish Prison Reform

Coalition(pty:am).(Lellelid-Douffet, Anna) Modified on 5/19/2016 (blg). (Entered: 05/18/2016)

05/18/2016

1046

ORDER REFERRING MOTION: 1038 MOTION for Protective Order filed by New Orleans City, 1039 MOTION to Expedite. Motion(s) referred to Michael North.. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 5/18/2016.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 05/19/2016)

05/19/2016

1047 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Marlin N. Gusman re 1039 MOTION to Expedite . (Reference: 12859)(Williams, James) (Entered: 05/19/2016)

05/19/2016 1048 ORDER denying 1045 Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 5/19/2016. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 05/19/2016)

05/19/2016

1049

Supplemental Exhibit List by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America. (Reference: 12cv859)(Coon, Laura) (Entered: 05/19/2016)

05/19/2016

1050 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael North: Telephone Conference held on 5/19/2016. (Reference: 12859)(bwn) (Entered: 05/20/2016)

05/20/2016

1051

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Marlin N. Gusman re 1050 Order on Motion for Protective Order, Telephone Conference (Attachments: # 1 ex 1, # 2 ex 2, # 3 ex 3)(Reference: 12859)(O'Boyle, Inemesit) (Entered: 05/20/2016)

05/23/2016

1052 ORDER TO PRODUCE EXPERT REPORT OF DONALD L. LEACH. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael North.(Reference: 12859)(bwn) (Entered: 05/23/2016)

05/23/2016 1053 Supplemental Witness List by Marlin N. Gusman. (Reference: 12859)(O'Boyle, Inemesit) (Entered: 05/23/2016)

05/23/2016

1054 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record by Marlin N. Gusman. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12859)(Williams, James) (Entered: 05/23/2016)

05/24/2016 1055 Supplemental Exhibit List by Marlin N. Gusman. (Reference: 12859)(O'Boyle, Inemesit) (Entered: 05/24/2016)

05/24/2016

1056 ORDER re 1050 Minute Entry. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael North. (Attachments: # 1 Email Notification from counsel for the OPSO)(Reference: 12-859)(bwn) (Entered: 05/24/2016)

05/24/2016

1057

ORDER granting 1054 Motion to Enroll as Additional Counsel of Record for Attorney Patrick R Follette and Ryan Paul Monsour for Marlin N. Gusman. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 5/24/2016. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 05/24/2016)

05/24/2016

1058

NOTICE by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America, Mark Walker re 1055 Exhibit List Objections to Supplemental Exhibits. (Reference: 2:12-cv-00859)(Dean, Kerry) (Entered: 05/24/2016)

05/25/2016

1059

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Evidentiary Hearing held on 5/25/2016. Court recessed to reconvene Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. (Court Reporter Toni Tusa.) (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 05/27/2016)

05/26/2016

1060

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Evidentiary Hearing held on 5/26/2016. Court recessed to reconvene Friday, May 27, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. (Court Reporter Jodi Simcox.) (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 05/27/2016)

05/27/2016

1061

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Evidentiary Hearing held on 5/27/2016. Court recessed to reconvene Monday, June 6, 2016 at 8:30 a.m.(Court Reporter Mary Thompson.) (Attachments: # 1 19th Judicial District Court) (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 05/27/2016)

05/31/2016

1062

TRANSCRIPT of Evidentiary Hearing-Day 1 held on May 25, 2016 before Judge Lance M. Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Toni Tusa, Telephone number 504-589-7778. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/29/2016. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) Modified on 5/31/2016 (rsg). (Entered: 05/31/2016)

05/31/2016

1063

TRANSCRIPT of Evidentiary Hearing-Day 2 held on May 26, 2016 before Judge Lance M. Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Jodi Simcox, Telephone number 504-589-7780. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for

8/29/2016. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) Modified on 5/31/2016 (rsg). (Entered: 05/31/2016)

05/31/2016

1064

TRANSCRIPT of Evidentiary Hearing-Day 3 held on May 27, 2016 before Judge Lance M. Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Mary Thompson, Telephone number 504-589-7783. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/29/2016. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) Modified on 5/31/2016 (rsg). (Entered: 05/31/2016)

06/01/2016 1065 Witness List by Marlin N. Gusman. (Reference: 12-859)(Williams, James) (Entered: 06/01/2016)

06/06/2016

1069

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Evidentiary Hearing held on 6/6/2016. Court recessed to reconvene Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:00 a.m. (Court Reporter Mary Thompson and Karen Ibos.) (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/09/2016)

06/07/2016

1070

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Evidentiary Hearing held on 6/7/2016. Court recessed to reconvene Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. (Court Reporter Cathy Pepper and Jodi Simcox.) (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/09/2016)

06/08/2016

1074

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Evidentiary Hearing held on 6/8/2016. Court recessed to reconvene Monday, June 13, 2016 at 8:30 a.m. (Court Reporter Lanie Smith and Karen Ibos.) (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/09/2016)

06/09/2016

1066

TRANSCRIPT of Evidentiary Hearing-Day 4 Morning Session held on June 6, 2016 before Judge Lance M. Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Mary Thompson, Telephone number 504-5897783. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/7/2016. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) (Entered: 06/09/2016)

06/09/2016

1067

TRANSCRIPT of Evidentiary Hearing-Day 4 Afternoon Session held on June 6, 2016 before Judge Lance M. Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Karen Ibos, Telephone number 504-589-7776. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased

through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/7/2016. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) (Entered: 06/09/2016)

06/09/2016

1068

TRANSCRIPT of Evidentiary Hearing-Day 5 Morning Session held on June 7, 2016 before Judge Lance M. Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Cathy Pepper, Telephone number 504-589-7779. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/7/2016. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) Modified on 6/9/2016 (rsg). (Entered: 06/09/2016)

06/09/2016

1071

TRANSCRIPT of Evidentiary Hearing-Day 5 Afternoon Session held on June 7, 2016 before Judge Lance M. Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Jodi Simcox, Telephone number 504-589-7780. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/7/2016. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) (Entered: 06/09/2016)

06/09/2016

1072

TRANSCRIPT of Evidentiary Hearing-Day 6 Morning Session held on June 8, 2016 before Judge Lance M. Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Lanie Smith, Telephone number 504-589-7782. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/7/2016. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) (Entered: 06/09/2016)

06/09/2016

1073

TRANSCRIPT of Evidentiary Hearing-Day 6 Afternoon Sesssion held on June 8, 2016 before Judge Lance M. Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Karen Ibos, Telephone number 504-589-7776. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/7/2016. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) (Entered: 06/09/2016)

06/10/2016

1075

ORDER that the evidentiary hearing presently scheduled to be reconvened on Monday, 6/13/2016, will be reconvened on Tuesday 6/14/2016 08:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 6/10/2016.(Reference: 12-859)(lag) (Entered: 06/10/2016)

06/13/2016

1076

ORDERED that the evidentiary hearing presently scheduled to be reconvened on Tuesday, June 14, 2016, at 8:30 a.m., will be reconvened on Wednesday, June 15, 2016, at 8:30 a.m. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 6/13/2016.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/13/2016)

06/14/2016

1077

ORDER of USCA as to 978 Notice of Appeal. USCA Judge Name: Davis, Jones, and Haynes. ORDERED that appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction is GRANTED. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/14/2016)

06/14/2016

1078 ORDER: Evidentiary Hearing reset for 6/17/2016 08:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 6/14/2016.(Reference: All)(mmm) (Entered: 06/14/2016)

06/16/2016

1079

ORDER: Evidentiary Hearing presently scheduled to be reconvened on 6/17/2016, will be reconvened on Tuesday, 6/21/2016, at 8:30 a.m. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 6/16/2016.(Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 06/16/2016)

06/20/2016

1080

ORDERED that the evidentiary hearing presently scheduled to be reconvened onTuesday, June 21, 2016, at 8:30 a.m., is CANCELED. FURTHER ORDERED that a status conference will be held in the courtroom on Tuesday, June 21, 2016, at 8:30 a.m. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 6/20/2016.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/20/2016)

06/21/2016

1081

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Hearing held on 6/21/2016. ORDERED that the 1009 MOTION for Order to Show Cause, MOTION to Appoint Receiver is dismissed as moot.(Court Reporter Lanie Smith.) (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/21/2016)

06/21/2016

1082 STIPULATED ORDER for Appointment of Independent Jail Compliance Director. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 6/21/2016.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/21/2016)

06/21/2016

1083 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION for Approval of Stipulated Order for Appointment of Independant Jail Compliance Director by All Parties. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/21/2016)

06/21/2016

1084

TRANSCRIPT of Status Hearing held on June 21, 2016 before Judge Lance M. Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Lanie Smith, Telephone number 504-589-7782. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/19/2016. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) (Entered: 06/21/2016)

06/22/2016

1085

ORDER re 1082 Stipulated Order for Appointment of Independent Jail Compliance Director; ORDERED that the Plaintiff Class, the Plaintiff in Intervention, and the City of New Orleans shall submit their nominees for the position of Compliance Director no later than 8/5/2016. FURTHER ORDERED that the Sheriff shall make the appointment of the Compliance Director from those nominees, and also advise the Court of the name of such individual for its consideration, no later than 8/19/2016. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 6/22/2016.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/22/2016)

06/22/2016

1086

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael North: Beginning May 25, 2016 and continuing over the following four weeks, this Court oversaw negotiations and discussions aimed at resolving the issues raised in the then-pending Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Defendant, Sheriff Marlin Gusman, Should Not be Held in Contempt and for Appointment of a Receiver to Implement the Consent Judgment. (Rec. doc. 1009 ). As a result of those negotiations and discussions, the parties reached an agreement, set forth in the Stipulated Order for Appointment of Independent Jail Compliance Director (rec. doc. 1082 ), that was approved and entered into the record by the District Judge on June 21, 2016. (Reference: 12859)(bwn) (Entered: 06/22/2016)

06/29/2016

1087 ORDER: Status Conference set for 7/6/2016 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 6/29/2016.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/29/2016)

07/06/2016

1088 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 7/6/2016. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 07/07/2016)

07/07/2016

1089 ORDERED that the July 12, 2016 deadline is VACATED, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 7/7/2016.(Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 07/07/2016)

08/02/2016 1090 MOTION for Writ of Injunction by Monitor Pete. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 08/05/2016)

08/04/2016

1091 ORDER dismissing without prejudice 1090 Motion for writ of injunction. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 8/4/2016. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 08/05/2016)

08/10/2016

1092 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael North: Status Conference held on 8/10/2016. (Reference: 12-859)(clc) (Entered: 08/10/2016)

08/11/2016

1093

ORDER: The Sheriff is hereby ordered to notify the Court and the other parties of his choice for Compliance Director no later than 12:00 p.m., August 26, 2016. The Court will thereafter inform all the parties whether the Sheriff's selection is approved. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael North.(Reference: All Cases)(cml) (Entered: 08/11/2016)

08/18/2016 1094 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Monotor M Pete as to 1091 Order on Motion. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 08/22/2016)

08/22/2016

1095 ORDER: Status Conference, in courtroom, set for 9/15/2016 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 8/22/2016.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 08/22/2016)

09/08/2016

1098 USCA Case Number 16-30945 appealed to USCA, Fifth Circuit for 1094 Notice of Appeal filed by Monotor M Pete. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 09/19/2016)

09/15/2016

1096

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Hearing held on 9/15/2016. ORDERED that the appointment of Gary D. Maynard as Independent Jail Compliance Director is APPROVED. FURTHER ORDERED that the next Status Hearing is set for 3/23/2017 at 7:30 A.M. (Court Reporter Mary Thompson.) (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 09/15/2016)

09/15/2016

1097

ORDERED that the appointment of Gary D. Maynard as Independent Jail Compliance Director is APPROVED. Director Maynard will begin full-time employment on 10/1/2016. FURTHER ORDERED that Director Maynard's salary and benefits are APPROVED by the Court. FURTHER ORDERED that the Court hereby AMENDS the stipulated order such that every date and deadline set forth in that order which is calculated from the date of appointment of the Compliance Director shall now be calculated from 10/1/2016. Status Hearing set for 3/23/2017 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 9/15/2016.(Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 09/15/2016)

09/22/2016 1099 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael North: Since the entry of the Stipulated Order on June 21, 2016, the

undersigned has been regularly meeting with the Parties and their counsel to assist in the process of nominating the Compliance Director, conferring with various stakeholders regarding appointment and approval of the Compliance Director, meeting with the Courtappointed Monitors concerning implementation of the Stipulated Order upon approval of the Compliance Director, discussing with the City and the Compliance Director the progress and status of negotiations regarding compensation of the Director, touring the Docks and courthouse facilities with the Compliance Director and discussing with counsel for the parties resolution of various issues concerning interpretation and implementation of the Stipulated Order. (Reference: 12-859)(bwn) (Entered: 09/23/2016)

10/14/2016

1100

USCA JUDGMENT issued as mandate on 10/13/2016 as to 1094 Notice of Appeal filed by Monotor M Pete. Under FED R. APP. P. 42(b), the appeal is dismissed as of October 13, 2016, pursuant to appellant's motion by USCA Clerk. (Reference: 12859)(bwn) (Entered: 10/14/2016)

10/25/2016 1101 MONITORS' REPORT NO. 6 by Susan W. McCampbell. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/25/2016)

11/30/2016

1102

ORDER re 1082 Stipulated Order for Appointment of Independent Jail Compliance Director; granting Director Maynard's request, the 12/1/2016 deadline by which "the City, the Sheriff, and the Compliance Director shall develop and finalize a plan for (1) appropriate housing for prisoners with mental health issues and medical needs, (2) addressing the housing needs of youthful offenders and (3) addressing the current conditions of the 'Docks' facility, consistent with the terms of the Consent Judgment," is CONTINUED to 1/3/2017. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 11/30/2016.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 11/30/2016)

12/01/2016

1103

ORDER amending 1102 Order; ORDERED that for good cause shown, Independent Compliance Director Gary Maynard's request for an extension of the 12/1/2016 deadline is GRANTED and that the 12/1/2016 deadline by which "the City, the Sheriff, and the Compliance Director shall develop and finalize a plan for... appropriate housing for prisoners with mental health issues and medical needs," is CONTINUED to 1/3/2017. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 12/1/2016.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 12/01/2016)

12/02/2016 1104 Compliance Action Plan by Gary D. Maynard. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 12/02/2016)

01/04/2017 1105 Initial Remedial Action Plan by Gary D. Maynard, Marlin N. Gusman. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 01/04/2017)

01/04/2017 1106 Supplemental Compliance Action Plan by Gary D. Maynard, Marlin N. Gusman. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 01/04/2017)

01/04/2017 1107 Letter to Judge Africk from Gary D. Maynard dated 1/4/2017. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 01/04/2017)

01/05/2017

1108

Request for Status Conference by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester, United States of America. (Reference: 12cv859)(Coon, Laura) Modified on 1/6/2017 to edit docket text(bwn). (Entered: 01/05/2017)

01/09/2017

1109

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael North: Since the appointment and approval of the Compliance Director pursuant to the Stipulated Order of June 21, 2016, the undersigned has been regularly meeting with the Parties and their counsel, the court monitors and the Compliance Director to assist in the process of the development and issuance of the remedial action plan (Section D.1 of the Stipulated Order) and the special populations plan (Section D.22). The undersigned will continue to meet and work with the parties and the Compliance Director to assist in implementation of those plans. (Reference: 12-859)(bwn) (Entered: 01/10/2017)

01/17/2017

1110

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael North: Status Conference held on 1/17/2017. The Court has been advised by counsel for Plaintiffs and the Compliance Director that they have conferred regarding those issues and will continue to work cooperatively toward their resolution. (Reference: All Cases)(mmm) (Entered: 01/17/2017)

02/01/2017

1111

ORDER re request for an additional 30 days to submit revised budget; ORDERED that for good cause shown, the request is GRANTED and that the 2/1/2017 deadline is CONTINUED to 3/3/2017. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 2/1/2017.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 02/01/2017)

03/02/2017

1112 March 1, 2017 Status Report by Gary D. Maynard and Marlin N. Gusman. (Reference: 12-859)(bwn) Modified on 3/2/2017 to edit text (bwn). (Entered: 03/02/2017)

03/08/2017 1113 ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that the status hearing presently scheduled for March 23, 2017 is CONTINUED with the new date to

be scheduled at a later time. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk.(Reference: 12-859)(bwn) (Entered: 03/08/2017)

03/22/2017

1115 ORDER: Status Hearing set for 6/8/2017 09:00 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/22/2017.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/22/2017)

05/01/2017 1119 May 1, 2017 Status Report by Gary D. Maynard and Marlin N. Gusman. (Reference: 12-859)(bwn) (Entered: 05/01/2017)

05/01/2017 1120 MONITORS' REPORT NO. 7 by Susan W. McCampbell. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 05/03/2017)

05/24/2017

1121

ORDER: In Chambers Conference set for 6/6/2017 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Counsel for the parties, the lead monitor, and the Compliance Director shall attend. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 5/24/2017.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 05/24/2017)

05/31/2017

1122

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Megan R. Marks by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12cv859)(Cowall, Laura) (Entered: 05/31/2017)

06/01/2017

1123

ORDER granting 1122 Motion to Enroll as Additional Counsel of Record for Attorney Megan R Marks for United States of America. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 6/1/2017. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 06/01/2017)

06/06/2017

1124 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: In Chambers Conference held on 6/6/2017. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/09/2017)

06/08/2017

1125 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Hearing held on 6/8/2017. (Court Reporter Toni Tusa.) (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/09/2017)

06/08/2017

1126 ORDER: Status Hearing set for 10/12/2017 09:00 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 6/8/2017.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/09/2017)

07/03/2017

1127

TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on June 8, 2017 before Judge Lance M. Africk. Court Reporter/Recorder Toni Tusa, Telephone number 504-589-7776. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the

Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/2/2017. (Reference: 12-859)(rsg) (Entered: 07/03/2017)

07/10/2017 1128 July 1, 2017 Status Report by Gary D. Maynard and Marlin N. Gusman. (Reference: 12-859)(ajn) (Entered: 07/10/2017)

09/20/2017 1129 INITIAL REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN by Gary D. Maynard, Marlin N. Gusman. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 09/20/2017)

09/27/2017

1130

ORDER: Status Conference set for 10/9/2017 in the chambers of Judge Lance M Africk. The Court will meet with the Monitors and Compliance Director from 2:00 pm to 2:45 pm. The remaining parties will join the meeting at 2:45 pm. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 9/27/2017.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 09/27/2017)

09/27/2017

1131

ORDERED that the status conference presently scheduled on 10/12/2017 is CONTINUED,and shall be rescheduled at a future date and time to be determined by this Court. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 9/27/2017.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 09/27/2017)

10/06/2017

1132 ORDERED that the status conference currently scheduled for October 9, 2017, is CANCELLED. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/6/2017.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/06/2017)

10/10/2017

1133

ORDER: Status Conference set for 10/25/2017 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. The Court will meet with the available Monitors and Compliance Director from 7:30 am to 8:15 am. The remaining parties will join the meeting at 8:15 am. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/10/2017.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/10/2017)

10/25/2017

1134 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 10/25/2017. Parties shall comply as stated herein. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/25/2017)

10/31/2017

1135 ORDER: Status Conference set for 11/9/2017 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/31/2017.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/31/2017)

11/01/2017

1136 STATUS REPORT - Initial Remedial Action Plan Filed by Gary D. Maynard and by Marlin N. Gusman (Reference: 12-859)(Arcuri, Blake) Modified on 11/2/2017 (blg). (Entered: 11/01/2017)

11/07/2017

1137 ORDERED that the status conference presently scheduled 11/9/2017 is CANCELLED. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 11/7/2017.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 11/07/2017)

11/16/2017

1138

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Conference held on 11/16/2017. Susan McCampbell is redesignated as the correctional practice/administrative monitor. The Court appoints Sheriff Margo Frasier as lead monitor. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 11/17/2017)

12/08/2017

1139

STATUS REPORT on Action Plans for Medical and MH Compliance by United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Action Plan Outlines)(Reference: 2:12cv859)(Dean, Kerry) (Entered: 12/08/2017)

12/29/2017

1140

STATUS REPORT: Initial Remedial Action Plan by Compliance Director Gary Maynard and by Marlin N. Gusman (Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) Modified on 1/2/2018 (blg). (Entered: 12/29/2017)

01/05/2018

1141 ORDER: In-Court Status Hearing set for 1/29/2018 08:00 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 1/5/2018.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 01/05/2018)

01/05/2018

1142

ORDERED that, after the conclusion of the in-court status hearing with the parties scheduled for 1/29/2018, a conference will be held in the Court's chambers to discuss appointments to the monitoring team. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 1/5/2018.(Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 01/05/2018)

01/18/2018 1143 MONITORS' REPORT NO. 8. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 01/18/2018)

01/22/2018

1144

MOTION to Continue Status Hearing by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Reference: 2:12-cv-00859)(Dean, Kerry) Modified on 1/22/2018 (blg). (Entered: 01/22/2018)

01/23/2018

1145 NOTICE by United States of America re 1144 MOTION to Continue Status Hearing Withdrawal of Motion. (Reference: 2:12-cv00859)(Dean, Kerry) (Entered: 01/23/2018)

01/23/2018

1146 ORDER dismissing as moot 1144 Motion to Continue. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 1/23/2018. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 01/23/2018)

01/24/2018

1147

MOTION to Continue deadline set forth in 1134 minute entry by Compliance Director Gary Maynard and by Marlin N. Gusman. Motion(s) will be submitted on 2/21/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Reference:

12-59)(Arcuri, Blake) Modified on 1/25/2018 (blg). (Entered: 01/24/2018)

01/24/2018

1148

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Amend/Correct Notice of Submission re 1147 MOTION to Continue deadline set forth in 1134 minute entry by Compliance Director Gary Maynard and by Marlin N. Gusman. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Reference: 12-859)(Arcuri, Blake) Modified on 1/25/2018 (blg). (Entered: 01/24/2018)

01/29/2018

1149 ORDER granting 1148 Motion to Amend/Correct Notice of Submission re 1147 MOTION to Continue. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 1/29/2018. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 01/29/2018)

01/29/2018

1150 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Hearing held on 1/29/2018. (Court Reporter Karen Ibos.) (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 01/29/2018)

01/29/2018

1151

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: In Chambers Conference held on 1/29/2018. ORDERED that Darnley R. Hodge, Sr., presently the Correctional Practice Monitor, be appointed Acting Compliance Director, effective Monday, February 19, 2018. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 01/29/2018)

01/29/2018

1152

ORDER granting 1147 Motion to Continue; the deadline by which to submit outstanding policy drafts is CONTINUED until 2/8/2018. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 1/29/2018. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 01/29/2018)

02/05/2018

1153

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Adam Swensek, Matthew Fraser and Christy Harowski as Attorney by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-00859)(Dietz, Rebecca) Modified on 2/5/2018 (blg). (Entered: 02/05/2018)

02/05/2018

1154

Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1153 MOTION to Withdraw Adam Swensek, Matthew Fraser and Christy Harowski as Attorney ; Filing attorney should have selected 'Yes' at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motion Y/N?. Exparte/Consent motions are not set for submission. Clerk has removed submission date. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 02/05/2018)

02/05/2018

1155 ORDER: Status Conference, in chambers, set for 2/28/2018 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 2/5/2018.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 02/05/2018)

02/08/2018 1156 ORDER granting 1153 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Adam J. Swensek; Matthew David Fraser and Christy C. Harowski

terminated. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 1/8/2018. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 02/08/2018)

02/28/2018

1158

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 2/28/2018. ORDERED that the 3/1/2018 deadline to submit a 60-day report is SUSPENDED. The next 60-day report shall be due on 5/1/2018. FURTHER ORDERED: Status Conference set for 5/24/2018 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk, in chambers. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 02/28/2018)

04/19/2018

1159 ORDERED that the status conference set for 5/24/2018 at 7:30 am is CANCELLED. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 4/18/2018.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 04/19/2018)

04/20/2018

1160 ORDER: Status Conference, in chambers, set for 6/12/2018 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 4/20/2018.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 04/20/2018)

04/20/2018

1161 ORDER: Status Hearing, in courtroom, set for 6/13/2018 08:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 4/20/2018.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 04/20/2018)

05/01/2018

1162

STATUS REPORT of Independent Compliance Director Darnley Hodge by Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office. (Attachments: # 1 Statement)(Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) Modified on 5/2/2018 (blg). (Entered: 05/01/2018)

06/12/2018

1163 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 6/12/2018. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/13/2018)

06/13/2018

1164 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Hearing held on 6/13/2018. (Court Reporter Sandra Minutillo.) (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 06/13/2018)

06/15/2018

1165

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Substitute Attorney. Attorney Sunni LeBeouf, Corwin M. St. Raymond to be substituted in place of Rebecca H. Dietz, Richard F. Cortizas, Ewell Patrick Eagan by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12859)(Taplin, Cherrell) (Entered: 06/15/2018)

06/18/2018

1166

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Sharon Brett, Jonathan M. Smith, and Corey M. Sanders as Attorney by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 00859)(Marks, Megan) (Entered: 06/18/2018)

06/19/2018

1167

ORDER granting 1165 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Added attorney Sunni Jones LeBeouf for New Orleans City. Attorney Ewell Patrick Eagan; Richard Felipe Cortizas and Rebecca H. Dietz terminated. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 6/19/2018. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 06/19/2018)

06/19/2018

1168

ORDER granting 1166 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Jonathan M. Smith; Sharon Brett and Corey M. Sanders terminated. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 6/19/2018. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 06/19/2018)

06/29/2018

1169 STATUS REPORT - 60 Day Update by Compliance Director Darnley Hodge by Marlin N. Gusman (Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 06/29/2018)

07/27/2018

1170

MOTION to Clarify Stipulated Order by Darnley R. Hodge, Sr. Motion(s) will be submitted on 8/22/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Reference: 12-00859) Attorney M. Rebecca Cooper added to party Darnley R. Hodge, Sr(pty:mov).(Cooper, M.) Modified event and text on 7/27/2018 (sbs). (Entered: 07/27/2018)

07/31/2018

1171

ORDER re 1170 MOTION to Clarify 1082 Stipulated Order filed by Darnley R. Hodge, Sr.; ORDERED that any party intending to file an opposition to the motion shall do so by 8/7/2018. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 7/31/2018.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 07/31/2018)

07/31/2018

1172

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Telephone Conference held on 7/31/2018. ORDERED that any party intending to file an opposition to Independent Jail Compliance Director Darnley R. Hodge, Sr.'s 1170 motion to clarify the Court's June 21, 2016 1082 stipulated order shall do so by 8/14/2018. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 08/01/2018)

08/10/2018

1173

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Laura C. Rodrigue by Marlin N. Gusman. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 08/10/2018)

08/10/2018

1174

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Clarify by Darnley R. Hodge, Sr. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Pleading Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order)(Reference: 2:12-cv-859)(Cooper, M.) Modified text on 8/10/2018 (sbs). (Entered: 08/10/2018)

08/10/2018

1175

ORDER granting 1173 Motion to Enroll as Co-Counsel of Record for Attorney Laura C Rodrigue for Marlin N. Gusman. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 8/10/2018. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 08/10/2018)

08/13/2018

1176 ORDER granting 1174 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 8/10/18. (Reference: 12-859)(sbs) (Entered: 08/13/2018)

08/13/2018

1177 Supplemental Memorandum filed by Darnley R. Hodge, Sr, in Support of 1170 MOTION to Clarify Stipulated Order. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Reference: 12-859)(sbs) (Entered: 08/13/2018)

08/14/2018

1178

RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester re 1170 MOTION to Clarify Stipulated Order. (Reference: 2:12-cv-00859)(Washington, Emily) (Entered: 08/14/2018)

08/14/2018

1179

**DEFICIENT** RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by William D. Short re 1170 MOTION to Clarify Stipulated Order or Alternatively William Short's Motion to Intervene For the Limited Purpose of Opposing the Motion. (Attachments: # 1 Request for Oral Argument)(Reference: 2:12-cv-00859)(Vogeltanz, Kevin) Modified text on 8/15/2018 (sbs). (Entered: 08/14/2018)

08/14/2018

1180 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by United States of America re 1170 MOTION to Clarify Stipulated Order. (Reference: 12-00859)(Marks, Megan) (Entered: 08/14/2018)

08/15/2018

1181

ORDER 1170 MOTION to Clarify Stipulated Order; ORDERED that Hodge shall file a reply to the plaintiffs' response by 8/24/2018. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 8/14/2018.(Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 08/15/2018)

08/20/2018

1182

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Clarify Stipulated Order, MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Darnley R. Hodge, Sr. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Paul, Matthew) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/21/2018

1183 ORDER granting 1182 Motion for Leave to File Reply in Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 8/20/2018. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 08/21/2018)

08/21/2018

1184 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Darnley R. Hodge, Sr re 1170 MOTION to Clarify Stipulated Order. (Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 08/21/2018)

08/21/2018

1185

MOTION to Intervene by William D. Short. Motion(s) will be submitted on 9/5/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 Proposed Pleading)(Reference: 2:12-cv00859)Attorney Kevin S. Vogeltanz added to party William D. Short(pty:mov).(Vogeltanz, Kevin) Modified text on 8/22/2018 (sbs). Modified on 8/22/2018 (clc). (Entered: 08/21/2018)

08/21/2018

1186

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Hearing on William Short's Motion for Leave to Intervene by William D. Short. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 2:12-cv00859)(Vogeltanz, Kevin) Modified on 8/22/2018 (clc). (Entered: 08/21/2018)

08/22/2018

1187

Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1185 MOTION to Intervene , 1186 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on William Short's Motion for Leave to Intervene. ** This motion will be decided by the District Judge. Clerktook corrective action.** (Reference: 12859)(clc) (Entered: 08/22/2018)

08/29/2018 1188 MONITORS' REPORT NO. 9. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 08/29/2018)

08/29/2018

1189

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Opposition to Short's Motion for Leave to Intervene (Doc. 1185) by Darnley R. Hodge, Sr. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Cooper, M.) Modified text on 8/30/2018 (sbs). (Entered: 08/29/2018)

08/30/2018

1190 ORDER granting 1189 Motion for Leave to File untimely opposition. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 08/30/2018. (Reference: 12859)(am) (Entered: 08/30/2018)

08/30/2018

1191 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Darnley R. Hodge, Sr re 1185 MOTION to Intervene . (Reference: 12-859)(am) (Entered: 08/30/2018)

09/04/2018

1192

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum in Support of His Motion for Leave to Intervene by William D. Short. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Reference: 12-00859)(Vogeltanz, Kevin) Modified text on 9/4/18 (sbs). (Entered: 09/04/2018)

09/05/2018

1193 ORDER granting 1192 Motion for Leave to File Reply. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 9/5/18. (Reference: 12-859)(sbs) (Entered: 09/05/2018)

09/05/2018

1194 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by William D. Short re 1185 MOTION to Intervene. (Reference: 12-859)(sbs) (Entered: 09/05/2018)

09/06/2018 1195 ORDER denying 1186 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 9/5/2018. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 09/06/2018)

09/06/2018

1196

ORDER REFERRING MOTION: 1170 MOTION to Clarify Stipulated Order filed by Darnley R. Hodge, Sr. Motion(s) referred to Michael North.. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 9/5/2018.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 09/06/2018)

09/12/2018 1197 STATUS REPORT by Darnley R. Hodge, Sr (Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 09/12/2018)

09/24/2018

1198

ORDER - Pursuant to this Court's June 21, 2016 stipulated order relative to the appointment of an Independent Jail Compliance Director, IT IS ORDERED that on or before October 2, 2018 the plaintiff class, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the City of New Orleans shall jointly provide the Orleans Parish Sheriff with their nomination(s) of the person(s) to be appointed Compliance Director. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that should the parties be unable to agree on the nomination(s) to be submitted to the Orleans Parish Sheriff by said date, the parties shall immediately schedule a status conference before this Court. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 9/24/2018.(Reference: 12-859)(cg) (Entered: 09/24/2018)

09/28/2018

1199

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1170 MOTION to Clarify Stipulated Order filed by Darnley R. Hodge, Sr. It is recommended that the Motion to Clarify Stipulated Order be denied. Objections to R&R due by 10/12/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael North on 9/28/2018. (NEF: Sect I)(Reference: 12-0859)(caa) (Entered: 09/28/2018)

10/02/2018

1200 ORDER: Status Conference set for 10/3/2018 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/2/2018.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/02/2018)

10/03/2018

1201

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 10/3/2018. ORDERED that Sheriff Gusman shall inform the Court in writing whether he agrees to the parties' nomination for Independent Jail Compliance Director by no later than 10/5/2018. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/03/2018)

10/12/2018

1202

ORDERED that Darnley R. Hodge, Sr. is appointed the Independent Jail Compliance Director pursuant to the previously entered June 21, 2016 stipulated order. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/12/2018.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/12/2018)

10/15/2018

1203

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1199 ; denying 1170 MOTION to Clarify Stipulated Order filed by Darnley R. Hodge, Sr. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/15/2018.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/15/2018)

10/15/2018

1204 ORDER dismissing as moot 1185 Motion to Intervene. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/15/2018. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/15/2018)

10/22/2018

1205 ORDER: In-Court Status Conference set for 1/17/2019 08:00 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/19/2018.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 10/22/2018)

11/26/2018

1206

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Katie Schwartzmann as Attorney by Kent Anderson, Steven Dominick, Anthony Gioustavia, Jimmie Jenkins, Lashawn Jones, Greg Journee, Richard Lanford, Leonard Lewis, Euell Sylvester. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 11/26/2018)

11/27/2018

1207

Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1206 MOTION to Withdraw Katie Schwartzmann as Attorney. **The title of the attached proposed order should not include the word 'Proposed' but only reflect 'Order' on the actual document.** (Reference: All Cases)(sbs) (Entered: 11/27/2018)

11/27/2018

1208

ORDER granting 1206 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann terminated. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 11/27/2018. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 11/27/2018)

12/04/2018

1209 STATUS REPORT 60 Day Report for November, 2018 by Darnley R. Hodge, Sr (Reference: 12-859)(Arcuri, Blake) Modified text on 12/4/2018 (sbs). (Entered: 12/04/2018)

12/10/2018

1210

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Substitute Attorney Donesia D. Turner to be substituted in place of Cherrell S. Taplin by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Taplin, Cherrell) Modified text on 12/10/2018 (sbs). (Entered: 12/10/2018)

12/10/2018

1211

Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1210 MOTION to Substitute Attorney Donesia D. Turner to be substituted in place of Cherrell S. Taplin. **Filing attorney should have selected 'Yes' at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motion Y/N?'. Exparte/Consent Motions are not set for submission. Clerk modified docket text to reflect 'Exparte' and removed submission date.** (Reference: 12-859)(sbs) (Entered: 12/10/2018)

12/11/2018

1212

ORDER granting 1210 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Added attorney Donesia Diane Turner for New Orleans City. Attorney Cherrell Simms Taplin terminated. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 12/10/18. (Reference: All Cases)(sbs) (Entered: 12/11/2018)

01/03/2019

1213

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION Requesting Status Conference to Address Mental Health Housing Needs by Darnley R. Hodge, Sr. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12859)(Stanley, Richard) Modified event on 1/3/2019 (sbs). (Entered: 01/03/2019)

01/03/2019

1214

Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1213 MOTION Requesting Status Conference to Address Mental Health Housing Needs. **Filing attorney selected incorrect event. Correct event is 'Motion for Miscellaneous Relief.' Clerk took corrective action by changing the event and modifying docket text.** (Reference: 12-859)(sbs) (Entered: 01/03/2019)

01/07/2019

1215

ORDER granting 1213 MOTION Requesting Status Conference to Address Mental Health Housing Needs filed by Darnley R. Hodge, Sr. Status Conference set for 1/25/2019 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 1/7/2019.(Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 01/07/2019)

01/09/2019

1216

MOTION to Stay January 17 and 25 Status Conferences by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12cv859)(Cowall, Laura) Modified on 1/9/2019 (blg). (Entered: 01/09/2019)

01/11/2019

1217

ORDERED that the status conference scheduled on 1/17/2019 at 8:00 A.M. is CANCELLED to be rescheduled by this Court at a later date. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 1/11/2018.(Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 01/11/2019)

01/11/2019

1218

ORDER re 1216 motion to stay: ORDERED that, in light of the Court's order on this date cancelling the January 17th status conference, the request as to the January 17th conference is DISMISSED AS MOOT. FURTHER ORDERED that the request as

to the January 25th status conference is DENIED, reserving the United States' right to re-urge the motion closer to the January 25th conference. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 1/11/2019. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 01/11/2019)

01/22/2019

1219

MOTION to Stay January 25, 2019 Status Conference by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12859)(Cowall, Laura) Modified text on 1/22/2019 (sbs). (Entered: 01/22/2019)

01/22/2019

1220

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 1219 Motion to Stay; United States Department of Justice attorneys are permitted to participate telephonically. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 1/22/2019. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 01/23/2019)

01/25/2019

1221

Minute Entry: Status Conference held on 1/25/2019. ORDERED that the City of New Orleans, in collaboration with the Independent Jail Compliance Director Darnley R. Hodge, Sr. and after consultation with the monitors, shall submit by 2/25/2019 a specific written proposal regarding a short-term solution to the mental health-related issues discussed at the conference and set forth in this order. FURTHER ORDERED that the City shall direct the architect chosen to design the permanent facility to begin the programming phase of the Phase III facility as soon as possible and to update the Court on the progress of those efforts at the next scheduled status conference. FURTHER ORDERED that an in-chambers status conference is set for 3/14/2019 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. (Reference: 12-859)(sbs) (Entered: 01/28/2019)

02/25/2019

1222

Response/Reply by New Orleans City to 1221 Order, Status Conference. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Reference: 12-859)(Turner, Donesia) Modified on 2/26/2019 (blg). (Entered: 02/25/2019)

03/06/2019

1223 Letter to the Court by Darnley R. Hodge, Sr. re 1222 Response to 1221 Order, Status Conference. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/07/2019)

03/14/2019

1225

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 3/14/2019. ORDERED: in-chambers Status Conference set for 4/2/2019 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/15/2019)

03/15/2019

1224 STATUS REPORT by Darnley R. Hodge, Sr (Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) Modified on 3/15/2019 (blg). (Entered: 03/15/2019)

03/18/2019 1226 MONITORS' REPORT NO. 10. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/18/2019)

03/18/2019

1227

ORDERED that the City immediately initiate the planning, design, procurement, and renovation of the temporary accommodations described in its Short-Term Plan and the attachments thereto, as stated herein. FURTHER ORDERED that the City and the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office are directed to continue the programming phase of Phase III. FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are to work collaboratively to design and build a facility that provides for the constitutional treatment of the special populations, as stated herein. FURTHER ORDERED that, beginning on 4/18/2019 and continuing every 30 calendar days thereafter, the City shall timely submit a written statement to this Court advising it of the progress of the TDC renovation as well as any change in the projected date set forth in the City's response to the 1221 Court's 1/25/2019 order, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/18/2019.(Reference: 12859)(blg) (Entered: 03/18/2019)

03/18/2019

1228 ORDER: Status Hearing set for 5/7/2019 08:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/18/2019.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/18/2019)

03/27/2019

1229 ORDER: The Clerk is directed to file the attached correspondence into the record of this proceeding. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael North on 3/27/19.(Reference: 3/27/19)(clc) (Entered: 03/27/2019)

04/01/2019

1230 ORDERED that the in-chambers status conference scheduled for 4/2/2019 at 7:30 A.M. is CANCELLED. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 4/1/2019.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 04/01/2019)

04/18/2019 1231 STATUS REPORT by New Orleans City (Reference: 12859)(LeBeouf, Sunni) (Entered: 04/18/2019)

04/22/2019

1232 NOTICE: Court accepts the resignation of Monitor Susan McCampbell, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 4/22/2019.(Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 04/22/2019)

05/07/2019

1233 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Hearing held on 5/7/2019. (Court Reporter Jodi Simcox.) (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 05/08/2019)

05/17/2019

1234 STATUS REPORT by New Orleans City (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Reference: 12-00859)(Turner, Donesia) (Entered: 05/17/2019)

05/20/2019

1235

Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1234 Status Report. **Name of attorney who electronically filed this document does not match name of signatory attorney on pleading. The user log-in and password serve as the required signature for purposes of Rule 11 of the FRCP. No further action is necessary.** (Reference: 12-859)(sbs) (Entered: 05/20/2019)

06/05/2019

1236 ORDER - A status conference shall be held in chambers on 8/21/2019 at 7:30 A.M. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 6/5/2019.(Reference: 12-859)(sbs) (Entered: 06/05/2019)

06/18/2019

1237 **FILED IN ERROR. SEE R. DOC. 1238** STATUS REPORT by New Orleans City (Reference: 13-324)(Turner, Donesia) Modified text on 6/19/2019 (sbs). (Entered: 06/18/2019)

06/18/2019 1238 STATUS REPORT by New Orleans City (Reference: 13-324)(Turner, Donesia) (Entered: 06/18/2019)

06/19/2019

1239

Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1237 Status Report. **Duplicate entry of R. Doc. 1238. Document marked 'Filed in Error' and will be noted as such.** (Reference: All Cases)(sbs) (Entered: 06/19/2019)

07/16/2019

1240

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Substitute Attorney. Attorney Bryan C. Reuter to be substituted in place of M. Rebecca Cooper by Darnley R. Hodge, Sr. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 2:12-cv-859)(Cooper, M.) (Entered: 07/16/2019)

07/17/2019

1241

ORDER granting 1240 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Added attorney Bryan C. Reuter for Darnley R. Hodge, Sr. Attorney M. Rebecca Cooper terminated. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on July 16, 2019. (Reference: all cases)(mp) (Entered: 07/17/2019)

07/18/2019

1242 STATUS REPORT by Darnley R. Hodge, Sr (Reference: 12859)(Matthews, Freeman) Modified txt on 7/19/2019 (mp). (Entered: 07/18/2019)

07/18/2019 1243 STATUS REPORT by New Orleans City (Reference: 1200859)(LeBeouf, Sunni) (Entered: 07/18/2019)

08/14/2019

1244 STATUS REPORT by New Orleans City (Reference: 1200859)(LeBeouf, Sunni) Modified filer on 8/14/2019 (mp). (Entered: 08/14/2019)

08/14/2019 1245 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1244 Status Report. Filing attorney incorrectly selected 'All Defendants' as a filers. Correct filer

is New Orleans City. Clerk took corrective action. (mp) (Entered: 08/14/2019)

08/15/2019

1246

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record George Eppsteiner by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Enrolling George Eppsteiner as Counsel of Record)(Reference: 12cv859)(Cowall, Laura) (Entered: 08/15/2019)

08/19/2019

1247

ORDER granting 1246 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record for Attorney George E. Eppsteiner for United States of America. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 8/19/19. (Reference: 12-859)(ko) (Entered: 08/19/2019)

08/21/2019

1248 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 8/21/2019. (Reference: 12-859)(mp) (Entered: 08/21/2019)

09/18/2019 1249 STATUS REPORT by New Orleans City (Reference: 1200859)(LeBeouf, Sunni) (Entered: 09/18/2019)

09/24/2019

1250 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Megan Marks as Attorney by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12cv859)(Cowall, Laura) (Entered: 09/24/2019)

09/25/2019

1251 ORDER granting 1250 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Megan R Marks terminated. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 9/25/19. (Reference: 12-859)(ko) (Entered: 09/25/2019)

10/18/2019 1252 STATUS REPORT by New Orleans City (Reference: 00859)(LeBeouf, Sunni) (Entered: 10/18/2019)

11/19/2019 1253 STATUS REPORT by New Orleans City (Reference: 12859)(LeBeouf, Sunni) (Entered: 11/19/2019)

11/20/2019

1254

Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1253 Status Report. Document's signature line is either incomplete or blank. All future documents must reflect either an original signature or an electronic signature of the filing attorney following the format 's/ (attorney name)'. No further action is necessary. (Reference: 12-859)(mp) (Entered: 11/20/2019)

11/26/2019

1255 STATUS REPORT - 60 Day Report for November, 2019, by Darnley R. Hodge, Sr (Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 11/26/2019)

12/18/2019 1256 STATUS REPORT by New Orleans City (Reference: 12859)(LeBeouf, Sunni) (Entered: 12/18/2019)

01/17/2020 1257 STATUS REPORT by Darnley R. Hodge, Sr (Reference: 12859)(Arcuri, Blake) (Entered: 01/17/2020)

01/17/2020 1258 STATUS REPORT by New Orleans City (Reference: 12859)(LeBeouf, Sunni) (Entered: 01/17/2020)

01/22/2020 1259 MONITORS' REPORT NO. 11. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 01/22/2020)

02/05/2020

1260

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that an in-chambers Status Conference is set for 3/3/2020 at 8:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on February 5, 2020.(Reference: 12-859)(mp) (Entered: 02/05/2020)

02/21/2020 1261 STATUS REPORT by New Orleans City (Reference: 1227)(LeBeouf, Sunni) (Entered: 02/21/2020)

03/03/2020

1262 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: In Chambers Conference held on 3/3/2020. (Reference: 12-859)(blg) (Entered: 03/04/2020)

03/10/2020

1263

MOTION for Status Conference by Marlin N. Gusman(Sheriff, Orleans Parish). Motion(s) will be submitted on 4/1/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Reference: 12-00859)(Williams, James) Modified text on 3/10/2020 (mp). (Entered: 03/10/2020)

03/11/2020

1264

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the 1263 MOTION for Status Conference is GRANTED. A status conference shall be held by telephone on MARCH 24, 2020 at 8:45 A.M. with all parties participating. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on March 10, 2020.(Reference: 12-859)(mp) (Entered: 03/11/2020)

03/18/2020

1265

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the telephone status conference presently set for March 24, 2020 at 8:45 AM is still going forward. The call-in number and access code provided herein. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on March 18, 2020.(Reference: 12-859)(mp) (Entered: 03/18/2020)

03/18/2020 1266 STATUS REPORT by New Orleans City (Reference: 12859)(LeBeouf, Sunni) (Entered: 03/18/2020)

03/24/2020 1267 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference by telephone held on 3/24/2020. IT IS ORDERED

that Gusman shall file his motion to terminate the Compliance Directorship by APRIL 24, 2020. After Gusman's motion is filed, the Court will determine a reasonable time period within which the parties shall respond. (Reference: 12-589)(mp) (Entered: 03/24/2020)

04/17/2020 1268 STATUS REPORT by New Orleans City (Reference: 1200859)(LeBeouf, Sunni) (Entered: 04/17/2020)

04/22/2020

1269

DEFICIENT: EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File by Marlin N. Gusman(Sheriff, Orleans Parish). (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12-859)(Williams, James) Modified on 4/23/2020 (mp). (Entered: 04/22/2020)

04/23/2020

1270

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File by Marlin N. Gusman(Sheriff, Orleans Parish). (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12859)(Williams, James) (Entered: 04/23/2020)

04/24/2020

1271

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the 1270 Motion for Extension of Time to File a Motion to Terminate the Compliance Directorship is GRANTED, and that Gusman shall file his motion to terminate the Compliance Directorship by MAY 25, 2020. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on April 24, 2020. (Reference: 12-859)(mp) (Entered: 04/24/2020)

05/26/2020

1272

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Marlin N. Gusman(Sheriff, Orleans Parish). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 proposed ex 1, # 4 proposed ex 2, # 5 proposed ex 3, # 6 proposed ex 4, # 7 proposed ex 5, # 8 proposed ex 6, # 9 proposed notice of submission, # 10 proposed order re terminate, # 11 propose order re excess)(Reference: 12-859)(Williams, James) (Entered: 05/26/2020)

05/27/2020

1273 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the 1272 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on May 27, 2020. (Reference: 12-859)(mp) (Entered: 05/27/2020)

05/27/2020

1274

MOTION to Terminate Consent Decree and to Terminate the Stipulated Order for Appointment of Independent Jail Compliance Director by Marlin N. Gusman. Motion(s) will be submitted on 6/24/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Notice of Submission, # 9 Proposed Order)(Reference: 12859)(mp) (Entered: 05/27/2020)

05/28/2020

1275

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that any response to the 1274 MOTION to Terminate Consent Decree and the Stipulated Order for Appointment of Independent Jail Compliance Director filed by Marlin N. Gusman shall be filed by JUNE 17, 2020. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on May 28, 2020.(Reference: 12-859)(mp) (Entered: 05/28/2020)

05/31/2020 1276 STATUS REPORT by New Orleans City (Reference: 12859)(LeBeouf, Sunni) (Entered: 05/31/2020)

06/05/2020

1277

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 1274 MOTION to Terminate Consent Decree and to Terminate the Stipulated Order for Appointment of Independent Jail Compliance Director and REQUEST for Status Conference by United States of America, All Plaintiffs. Motion(s) will be submitted on 6/24/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Reference: 2:12-cv-00859)(Eppsteiner, George) Modified text on 6/5/2020 (mp). (Entered: 06/05/2020)

06/08/2020

1278

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the 1277 Motion for Status Conference is GRANTED. A video conference will be held on JUNE 10, 2020 at 9:30 A.M. with all parties participating. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on June 8, 2020.(Reference: 12-859)(mp) (Entered: 06/08/2020)

06/10/2020 1279 STATUS REPORT (UPDATED) by New Orleans City (Reference: 12-00859)(LeBeouf, Sunni) (Entered: 06/10/2020)

06/10/2020

1280

MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 6/10/2020. IT IS ORDERED that the U.S. Department of Justice and counsel for plaintiffs shall respond to the 1274 Motion to Terminate the Stipulated Order for Appointment of the Independent Jail Compliance Director on or before JULY 13, 2020. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Sheriff Marlin Gusman's 1274 Motion to Terminate the Consent Judgment is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, reserving Sheriff Marlin Gusman's right to re-urge such motion at a later date. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk. (Reference: 12-859)(mp) (Entered: 06/11/2020)

 
 . 1).S. Department of Jus!ice Civil Rights Division

Office of the Assistant Attorney General

Washington, D.C. 20530
SEP 1 1 2009

Marlin N. Gusman Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff 2800 Gravier Street New Orleans, LA 70119
Re: Orleans Parish Prison System New Orleans. Louisiana
Dear Sheriff Gusman:
I am writing to report the findings of the Civil Rights Division's investigation of conditions of confinement at the Orleans Parish Prison ("OPP"). On February 12, 2008, we . notified you of our intent to conduct an investigation of conditions at OPP pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act ("CRIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997. As we noted, CRIPA gives the Department of Justice authority to seek a remedy for a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the constitutional rights of inmates in adult detention and correctional facilities.
On June 23-27,2008, August 18-20,2008, and November 17-20,2008, we conducted on-site inspections at OPP with expert consultants in corrections, use of force, custodial medical and mental health care, and sanitation. 1 We interviewed administrative staff, security staff, medical and mental health staff, facilities management staff, training staff, and inmates. Before, during, and after our visits, we reviewed an extensive number of documents, including policies and procedures, incident reports, use of force reports, investigative reports, inmate grievances, disciplinary reports, unit logs, orientation materials, medical records, and staff training materials. In keeping with our pledge of transparency and to provide technical assistance where appropriate, we conveyed our preliminary impressions to OPPofficials and legal counsel for the Sheriff s Office at the close of each of our site visits.

1

Our corrections expert was the only expert who accompanied us on the August

on-site visit, and our medical health care expert was the only expert who accompanied us on the

November on-site visit.

-2 -
We remain sensitive to the fact that OPP is still recovering from the devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina and commend the Sheriff and his staff for their extraordinary efforts to structurally rebuild the facilities. We also note the tremendous strides and improvements that the Sheriff and his staff have made in light of the scope and depth of destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina.
We commend the OPP staff for their helpful and professional conduct throughout the course of the investigation. We received complete cooperation with our investigation and appreciate the receptiveness to our consultants' on-site recommendations. Accordingly, we have every reason to believe that the Sheriff, his office, and the City are committed to remedying all known deficiencies at OPP. We hope to be able to work cooperatively to such a resolution.
Prior to our investigation, many media reports, allegations, and even rumors Circulated regarding conditions at the Jail following the Hurricane. Our review of documents, investigative files, and interviews 9f staff and inmates has been to ascertain if the Constitution has been violated in a systemic manner. Again, commendably, we recognize the Sheriffs efforts in safely and efficiently evacuating the inmates and his efforts to secure the necessary funding to rebuild.
Consistent with the statutory requirements of CRIPA, we now write to advise you of the findings of our investigation, the facts supporting them, and the minimum remedial steps that are necessary to address the defiCienCies we have identified. 42 § U.S.C. 1997b. As described more fully below, we conclude that certain conditions at OPP violate the constitutional rights of inmates. In particular, we find that inmates confined at OPP are not adequately protected from harm, including physical harm from excessive use of force by staff and inmate-on-inmate violence. In addition, we find that inmates do not receive adequate mental health care, including proper suicide prevention. While OPP meets constitutionally required standards of medical care in many areas; however, we found specific defiCiencies in medication management. OPP inmates also face serious risks posed by inadequate environmental and sanitation conditions.
I. BACKGROUND
Located in downtown New Orleans, OPP is one of the largest correctional facilities in Louisiana. Despite its name, OPP operates like a county jail (Louisiana's parishes are equivalent to other states' counties). Like most county jails, OPP houses a large number of pre-trial detainees and inmates serving short misdemeanor sentences. Currently, OPP is able to accommodate 2,545 inmates and serves as overflow for the Louisiana Department of Corrections and the federal prison system.
Prior to its loss of physical plant space, due to damages sustained in Hurricane Katrina, OPP's capacity was 8,000 and the facility housed an average of 6,500 inmates daily. Again, it currently can house 2,545 inmates. OPP currently operates six of the original 12 jail buildings and is staffed by approximately 450 security officers. At the time of our visits, OPP housed inmates in the House of Detention ("HOD"), South White Street, Templeman V, Conchetta,

-3-
eight windowless tents constructed with FEMA financial assistance ("The Tents"), and the Broad Street work-release facility.
Recently, the Orleans Law Enforcement District ("LED") was statutorily created to provide financing to the Criminal Sheriffs Office. Further the LED is authorized to issue bonds for equipping and furnishing facilities for the Criminal Sheriff and for agencies where there is a use or benefit to the LED and the Sheriff. Of the $63,225,000 in bonds issued for the LED, $40,890,000 have been designated to the Sheriff for the jail and other facilities, which should impact the constructing, improving, renovating, and repairing of various facilities at 0 PP.

In making our findings, we acknowledge that there have been ongoing improvements at OPP during the course of our investigation. The damaged Intake Processing Center ("IPC") was demolished and a new IPC opened in June 2008. In addition, we are aware that the 80-year-old original Orleans Parish Prison Jail re-opened in February 2009. The refurbished jail is designed to hold more than 800 inmates. We understand that the Sheriff plans to occupy the jail with inmates currently housed in temporary facilities or facilities in need of work. Despite these commendable improvements, we believe there are serious constitutional deficiencies at OPP, as will be discussed in detail below.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS

CRIPA authorizes the Attorney General to investigate and, when necessary, initiate civil

action to obtain appropriate relief from egregious j ail conditions that subject inmates to a pattern

or practice of deprivation of their constitutionally protected rights. 42 U.S.C. § 1997. In

defining the scope ofjail inmates' Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, the Supreme Court

has held that corrections officials must take reasonable steps to guarantee inmates' safety and

provide "humane conditions" of confinement. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994);

Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (holding pre-trial detainees protected by Fourteenth

Amendment); Scott v. Moore, 85 F.3d230, 235 (5th Cir. 1996) (finding that a municipality

assumed a constitutional obligation under the Fomieenth Amendment to provide pre-trial

detainees with minimal levels of safety and security); Hare v. City· of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633, 639

(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), rev'd on other grounds, 135 F.3d 320, 324 (5th Cir. 1998) ("[T]he

State owes a duty to both [detainees and convicted prisoners] that effectively confers upon them

a set of constitutional rights that fall under the Court's rubric of 'basic human needs. "'). The

Fifth Circuit has held that the protection of pretrial detainees' rights under the due process clause

of the Fourteenth Amendment is "at least as great as the Eighth Amendment protections available

to a convicted prisoner." Id. (quoting City of Revere v. Mass. Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239,244

(1983)).

.

.

A jurisdiction's constitutional obligation to provide adequate medical care to inmates includes the duty to provide adequate psychological and psychiatric mental health care. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832; Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323,332 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding that "mental health needs are no less serious than physical needs"); Woodall v. Foti, 648 F.2d 268,272 (5th Cir.

-4 -
1981) (finding that an inmate stated a claim of deliberate indifference where prison officials refused to treat him and knew that he had been diagnosed as a pedophile and as a manic depressive wIth suicidal tendencies). Consequently, a prison's failure to take any steps to save a suicidal detainee from self harm may constitute a constitutional violation. Partridge v. Two Unknown Police Officers of the City of Houston, 791 F.2d 1182, 1187 (5th Cir. 1986).
The standard for adequate mental health care follows the standard for medical care, requiring a showing of both the subjective and objective components of "deliberate indifference." Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d at 333. The jail officer's subjective knowledge must be determined by the finder of fact through circumstantial evidence or the obviousness of the risk. Id. The Fifth Circuit emphasized "that the essential test is one of medical necessity and not one simply of desirability." Woodall v. Foti, 648 F.2d 268,272 (5th Cir. 1981). In determining the adequacy of mental health care, the Court makes a holistic assessment of the prisoner's conditions of confinement. Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d at 343 (acknowledging that "the isolation and idleness of Death Row combined with the squalor, poor hygiene, temperature, and noise of extremely psychotic prisoners create an environment 'toxic' to the prisoners' mental health.").
The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid prison officials from using excessive physical force against inmates and pre-trial detainees. See Hudson v. McMillian; 503 U.S. 1 (1992), Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832; see also United States v. Walsh, 194 F.3d 37, 48 (2d Cir. 1999) ("the right of pre-trial detainees to be free from excessive force amounting to punishment is protected by the Due Pro~ess Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.") (citing Bell, 441 U.S. at 535 [citations omitted] [emphases in the original]). The Fifth Circuit has held that this is true even when the use of force does not result in significant injury. Gomez v. Chandler, 163 F.3d 921,924 (5th Cir. 1999) (concluding that there is no categorical requirement for an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim to be supported by a prisoner's significant, serious, or more than minor physical injury).
The standard for measuring the appropriateness of the force used is "whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm." Hudson, 503 U.S. at 6 (quoting Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 (2d Cir. 1973». In determining whether force was used in good faith or in excess, courts examine a variety of factors, including:
"[T]he need for the application of force, the relationship between that need and the amount of force used, the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible officials, and any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response."
Id. at 7-8.
Prison officials have a duty, under the Eighth Amendment, to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other inmates. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832-833; Longoria v. Texas, 473 F.3d 586,592 (5th Cir. 2006). The standard for adequate protection from inmate violence is the

-5-
same as the standard for medical and mental health care, laid out in Fmmer and discussed above, requiring a showing of "deliberate indifference." Id. at 837-839. The Fifth Circuit has determined that prison officials can be held liable for their failure to protect an inmate if they are deliberately indifferent to a risk of serious harm posed by another inmate's violent acts. Cantu v. Jones, 293 FJd 839,843-844 (5th Cir. 2002) (affirming verdict against prison-guard defendants found to have manifested the requisite deliberate indifference when they left the door to inmate's cell open, allowing him to escape and assault another inmate).
Prison officials must minimize inmate exposure to unhygienic conditions. Palmer v. Johnson, 193 F.3d 346,352-353 (5th Cir. 1999) (finding that deprivation oftoilet privileges for 17 hours forcing prisoners to urinate and defecate in a-confmed area with 48 other inmates constituted cruel and unusual punishment); Gates, 376 FJd at 338 (holding that filthy cell conditions constituted an Eighth Amendment violation). Prisoners must be protected from both present and continuing exposure to harm caused by unsafe conditions, including mingling with inmates with contagious diseases. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33-34 (1993)(asserting that the Eighth Amendment protects against sufficiently imminent dangers as well as current Ulmecessary and wanton inflictions of pain and suffering).
The Fifth Circuit has held that both objective and subjective components are needed to establish an Eighth Amendment violation caused by unhygienic conditions. Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 720 (5th Cir. 1999). First, there must be an objective showing of conditions "so serious as to deprive prisoners ofthe minimal measure oflife's necessities." Id. (quoting Woods v. Edwards, 51 F.3d 577,581 (5th Cir. 1995». Second, there must be a subjective showing that the prison official was deliberately indifferent to such serious conditions. Id.
III. FINDINGS
We find that OPP fails to adequately protect inmates from harm and serious risk of harm from staff and other inmates; fails to provide iru:llates with adequate mental health care; fails to provide adequate suicide prevention; fails to provide adequate medication management; fails to provide safe and sanitary environmental conditions; mld fails to provide adequate fire safety precautions.
A. INADEQUATE PROTECTION FROM HARM
Corrections officials must take reasonable steps to guarantee inmates' safety and provide "humane conditions" of confinement. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832. Providing humane conditions requires that a corrections system must satisfy inmates' basic needs, such as their need for safety. Additionally, jail officials have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect inmates from physical abuse.
To reasonably ensure safe conditions, officials must take measures to prevent the use of UlIDecessary and inappropriate force by staff. Officials must also take reasonable steps to protect

-6-

inmates from violence at the hands of staff and other inmates. In addition, officials must provide adequate systems to investigate incidents ofharm, including staff misconduct and alleged physical abuse of inmates. Finally, a jail has an obligation to protect vulnerable inmates from harm, such as those who are at risk from other inmates. For the reasons set forth below, OPP fails to meet constitutional standards in all of these regards.

1. Unnecessary and Inappropriate Uses of Force

Although the violence present in a correctional setting necessarily permits the appropriate use of force, the Constitution forbids excessive physical force against inmates. A determination of whether force is used appropriately requires an evaluation of the need for the use of force, the relationship between that need and the amount of force used, the seriousness ofthe threat reasonably believed to exist, and efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992). Generally accepted correctional practices provide that appropriate uses of force in a given circumstance should include a continuum of interventions, and that the amount of force used should not be disproportionate to the threat posed by the inmate. Absent exigent circumstances, lesser forms of intervention, such as issuing disciplinary infractions or passive escorts, should be used or considered prior to more serious and forceful interventions.

Our investigation included an intensive examination of documents provided by OPP concerning the incidents listed below and various others occurring between January 2007 and August 2008. We also conducted a great many staff and inmate interviews. In many cases, our findings of inappropriate or excessive uses of force are in accord with OPP's own conclusions.

We believe that there is a pattern and practice of unnecessary and inappropriate uses of force by OPP correctional officers. Indeed, we found several examples where OPP officers openly engaged in abusive and retaliatory conduct, which resulted in serious injuries to inmates. According to our expert, in some instances, the officers' conduct was so flagrant it clearly constituted calculated abuse.

The following examples, derived from OPP's own internal documents, reflect disturbing evidence of officers openly engaging in retaliatory and abusive conduct:

•

In July 2008, A.A. and B.B. were ordered into an empty holding cell on the OPP

receiving docks.2 Once in the cell, an officer entered the cell and began hitting

and repeatedly beating both inmates. A.A. was beaten in the face, chest, and

stomach. After knocking A.A. to the ground, the officer continued to beat and

drag A.A. on the floor before finally choking and threatening to kill him. The

officer then began beating B.B. in the arm, chest, and stomach area. After beating

B.B., the officer placed his fist against B.B.'s jaw and stated, "I should break your

2

To protect inmates' privacy, we have used initials other than their own.

-7-
f------ jaw." Notably, this incident lasted for more than 10 minutes while several other officers observed the beatings without intervening or reporting the abuse. It was later determined that the officer beat the inmates because he believed that one of the inmates had robbed him several weeks earlier on the street. Defense attorneys for both A.A. and B.B. filed a formal complaint. OPP's Special Operations Division ("SOD") sustained allegations of abuse and recommended that the officer be suspended. After the officer's initial suspension, the Sheriff terminated the officer involved in the battery along with the four other officers who observed the beatings.

•

In September 2007, C.C. was beaten in the Tents. While lying on his bunk

smoking a cigarette, an officer ordered C.C. to go outside to the security area.

Once in the security area, the officer then ordered C.C. to "tie his shoes" (a code

we learned at opp is an invitation to fight). At which point, C.C. refused to fight

the officer. The officer then slapped C.C. in the face, knocked him to the ground,

and continued to punch him several times in his back. The officer then took C.C.

into a bathroom and continued to beat him. According to opp reports, this

incident was witnessed by another officer, yet the incident was never reported.

C.C.'s grandfather filed a complaint on his behalf. OPP's Internal Affairs

Division ("lAD") reviewed the incident and found that an assault did occur, but

only charged the officer with untruthfulness (for not reporting that he pushed C.C.

to the ground several times) and failure to keep the commanding officer informed

(for not reporting C.C.'s alleged smoking violation). The Sheriff placed the

officer on 90 days probation as a result ofthis incident.

•

In August 2007, D.D. was beaten by an officer in HOD. According to OPP

reports, D.D. was transferred to HOD after he exposed himselfto a female officer.

An HOD sergeant reported the incident to the female officer's boyfriend, an opp

corrections officer. The sergeant gave the boyfriend/officer the "green light" to

physically abuse the inmate. The officer went into D.D.' s cell and began

repeatedly punching and kicking him. The officer knocked D.D. to the floor then

he dragged D.D. out of the cell and continued to beat him on the tier. The officer

finally stopped beating him after D.D. started bleeding under his eye. D.D.

sustained bruising under both eyes and bruising to his body. This assault,

witnessed by at least one other officer, was unreported. D.D.' s injuries were

eventually observed by an uninvolved officer, who made a report of them. OPP's

SOD sustained allegations of abuse. The officer involved in the beating, the

sergeant, and the officer witness were all suspended for 14 days.

•

In August 2007, E.E. was beaten by two officers in his cell. While lying asleep in

. his bed, two officers entered E.E.' s cell and beat him for nearly 10 minutes, before

leaving the cell. E.E. sustained two black eyes and bruises on his upper, middle,

and lower back. Several inmates witnessed the beating. The officers failed to

- 8-
document the incident. Again, it was only after an uninvolved officer observed E.E.'s injuries that any report was made. When questioned by SOD investigators on why they failed to notify the Watch Commander of the incident with E.E., one of the involved officers replied, "the rank (referring to supervisors) does not like to be bothered." OPP's SOD sustained allegations of abuse and recommended that both officers be suspended for 14 days.

•

In April 2007, F.F. was severely beaten by two officers in IPC. While in IPC, two

officers placed F.F. in an empty cell and began beating him in his face and head

area. Even after F.F. requested medical attention, the officers returned to the cell

and continued to beat and kick him in his face and head area. F.F. received

serious trauma to his head and face. This incident was not reported by either OPP

officer. As soon as he was released from OPP, F.F. was taken to the emergency

room where he was treated for injuries sustained as a result of the beating. F.F.'s

brother reported the injuries to OPP's Internal Affairs Division ("IAD,,).3 After its

internal investigation, lAD sustained the allegations of abuse against both officers

involved. Despite lAD's findings, it was not until our expert consultant made

repeated inquiries related to the beating and the outcome that the Sheriffs office

took disciplinary action (the officers were terminated).

a. Inadequate Policies and Procedures

Adequate policies and procedures regarding the appropriate use of force are essential to ensuring that inmates are not abused by security staff. The policies should be comprehensive, clear, up-to-date, and reflect currently acceptable practices. OPP's policies and procedures are lacking in all respects.

OPP's current Use of Force policy requires that each officer and witness to a use of force file a report, however, the policy fails to define what constitutes a use of force. Without a definition, staff are left to their own subjective interpretations, which results in inconsistent use and reporting on the use of force. Furthermore, the policy does not provide guidance on levels of resistance versus levels of response - e.g., passive resistance versus active aggression and empty hands controls versus impact strikes. In addition, the policy fails to identify approved selfdefense tactics, approved less lethal weaponry, and fails to list general prohibitions - e.g., to punish, to retaliate, or to restrict respiration. Moreover, the policy does not contain any requirement to employ verbal strategies when appropriate and fails to require video of anticipated or calculated force. Further troubling on a systemic level, the current use of force policy does not require or have an established criteria for administrative review of investigations.

3

This incident was reported by F.F.'s brother, an Orleans Parish Sheriffs Office

Lieutenant.

-9b. Inadequate Use of Force Reporting

Although OPP's current Use of Force policy requires that each officer and witness to a use of force file a report, we found that the policy is not consistently followed. In our review of hundreds of use of force incident reports, it was clear that officers routinely fail to adequately document incidents. In many instances, use of force reports prepared by officers lacked sufficient detail necessary to determine what type of force was used and whether the force used was justified. Also, we reviewed several reports which mention several officers, but that contain only one officer-filed report. This is a stark contrast from what the reporting policy requires. Compounding the reporting problem, we found that opp does not have a standardized use of force form or format, resulting in a system in which the reporting officer has wide discretion in determining what details to include in the report. As a result, administrative review is limited and officer conduct is not effectively evaluated. We found that OPP's deficient reporting practices likely accounted for the dearth of incidents referred to lAD for investigation.

opp's deficient reporting practices are best illustrated by the examples noted below:

•

In the July 2008 incident involving A.A. and B.B., there is no indication that the

. incident occurred, no indication of theinmates, injuries, and no indication that

any officer reported the incident;

•

In the August 2007 case ofE.E., there is no indication of any injury in the opp

reports, no witness statements gathered, and no indication that the officers

reported the incident; and

•

In the August 2007 case ofD.D., there is no indication of any injuries D.D.

sustained, no indication that any officers reported the incident, and no indication

that any statements were taken.

These incidents were not reported, indicating either a recognition of officer wrongdoing or a failure to recognize and report officer conduct believed to be within policy. In all of the above-mentioned examples, the incidents were not reviewed until a third party reported the officers' conduct. An effective reporting system would provide more detailed use offorce and incident reports and ensure sufficient supervisory and administrative review.

c. Inadequate Management Review of Use of Force

The principal purpose of administrative review and investigation of each use of force is to ensure that no criminal activity has occurred, that facility procedures have been followed, that no remedial training is necessary, and that no review or change in policies is required. opp's current use of force policy does not include a provision for administrative review. Therefore, there is an apparent gap in the review process where officer misconduct is not captured and

- 10 -
reviewed. Incidents that typically should be referred to lAD and SOD for further review are not forwarded. This lapse of review does not comport with generally accepted correctional standards.

On the rare occasion where we found that an incident was referred for management review, it was apparent that reviewers were not adequately trained to review officer conduct and the reviewers operated without any criteria for determining whether the level of force used was appropriate. Again, appropriate referrals to lAD or SOD were not made. Moreover, we spoke to various Opp officials about self-initiated reviews and we were unable to determine what division, if any, was qualified or assigned the duty to review use of force incident reports other than lAD. We find this system inadequate.

d. Lack of Investigative Policies and Procedures

Generally accepted correctional practices require clear and comprehensive policies and

procedures governing the investigation of staff use of force and misconduct. Adequate policies

and procedures include, at a minimum, screening of all use of force and incident reports, specific

criteria for initiating investigations based upon the report screening, specific criteria for initiating

investigations based upon allegations from any source, timelines for the completion of internal

investigations, and an organized structure and format for recording and maintaining information

in the investigatory file. OPP's investigatory practices fail to comport with these generally

accepted correctional standards.

.

OPP does not have an lAD standard operations manual for use offorce investigations. In fact, the only guidance that investigators have is a two-page draft memo (dated January 3,2007) that offers vague descriptions of procedure, which include: "[i]f a complaint appears to be worthy of an investigation it is assigned to one of the lAD investigators." The memo fails to offer any guidance as to what constitutes a "worthy" complaint and fails to require lAD to gather essential documentation from use of force and incident reports. Virtually all of the investigations that we reviewed contained significant investigatory flaws. The deficiencies in OPP's practice is reflected in the following examples:

•

An lAD case file we reviewed indicates that in March 2007, an officer observed

another officer deliver a series of multiple closed fist strikes to G.G. in a holding

cell. The eyewitness officer observed the assaulting officer strike G.G. in the

face, knocking him to the floor. While on the floor, the officer continued to strike

G.G. even though the eyewitness officer yelled at the assaulting officer to "stop."

The eyewitness officer filed a report with lAD the next day detailing her

observations. The investigator concluded that only necessary force was used. The

investigator, however, failed to interview or attempt to interview G.G., failed to

locate and question additional witnesses, failed to collect incident reports, and

failed to determine if the officer filed a contemporaneous report. The investigator

- 11 -
based his findings on the absence of injury and G.G. not seeking medical treatment.

•

Another, lAD case file indicates that in January 2007, an inmate was beaten by

several officers in IPC. The investigation only contained the inmate's statement

and an undated memo from one of the officers involved. The officer

acknowledged during the investigation that he and three other officers had to

'~restrain" the inmate. The officer also states they escorted the inmate to "medical

with no injuries found." The lAD investigation failed to contain any incident

reports or interviews with the other officers, failed to contain medical reports, and

failed to determine if this was an unreported use of force.

2. Inadequate Classification System

An adequate classification system is a fundamental management tool to aid in providing a reasonably safe environment in a correctional instituti~n. The primary goal of a classification system is to determine the degree of supervision required to control each inmate and to maintain the safety and security ofthe institution and the community. The classification system at OPP contributes to its deficiencies in safety and security. Generally accepted correctional practices for classification systems utilize a variety of objective, behavior-based factors to determine the appropriate level of custody. Factors considered include: severity of offense, prior convictions, prior incarcerations, and personal characteristics such as age, residence, and employment. Typically, inmates are divided into high, medium, and low security classifications, and thereafter receive the appropriate level of freedom and staff supervision for that classification level.

In contrast to generally accepted practices, OPP relies on an antiquated charge-based classification scheme that uses the amount of an inmate's bond as the primary classification factor for general population inmates (aside from the obvious separation factors such as male or female). For example, inmates with bonds of$100,000 and over were housed in the HOD; federal inmates and bonds of$100,000 and less were housed in Templeman V; bonds of $75,000 and over were housed in the Tents; all females were housed at South White Street; and all workrelease inmates were housed at Broad Street.

The current classification system does not consider an inmate's prior convictions, prior assaultive behavior, or true potential for violence. Even after inmates are classified, we learned from various OPP officials that housing assignments were predicated on space availability. As a result, we found instances where inmates with differing classification levels were assigned to tenperson cells at HOD. Under this system, there is very little to safeguard against housing predatory inmates with vulnerable inmates. Not surprisingly, we found a disturbingly high number of assaultive incidents in the multiple-occupancy cells at HOD.

Although we identified incidents throughout the facility, we are particularly concerned with the seriousness and frequency of incidents in the HOD and the Tents. We reviewed the

- 12 -
emergency route tracking log for,1uly thm August 2008, which documents the referrals from OPP to the emergency room, and found a litany of serious injuries non;nally associated with assaultive behaviors including: blunt head trauma, facial fractures, jaw fractures, stab wounds, lip lacer~tions, and eye socket fractures. The majority of these injuries resulted from inmate-oninmate assaults.

3. Inmate-on-Inmate Assaults

The high incidence of inmate-on-inmate violence at the HOD and the Tents demonstrates OPP's inability to keep its inmates reasonably safe. The following examples, derived from our . review,ofOPP's own incident reports, illustrate our concerns:

•

In August 2008, an 18-year-old inmate housed in a ten-person cell with 10-13

other inmates, all of whom were older, was attacked and beaten. At least four

inmates assaulted him before officers arrived. The inmate sustained a fractured

jaw and loosened teeth from the beating. The inmate had to be transferred to the

medical floor as a result ofthe injuries he sustained.

•

In June 2008, a 50-year-old inmate, who was recently arrested for public

intoxication, was housed in a cell with 15-17 other inmates in the HOD. While in

the cell, he was jumped by three inmates and sustained an eye injury and a head.

wound that required sutures.

•

In June 2008, an inmate who was recently charged with a misdemeanor domestic

violence offense was beaten in the Tents by another inmate. The inmate sustained

a broken jaw and had to be taken to the emergency room for medical care.

•

In May 2008, an inmate charged with aggravated rape was attacked by multiple

inmates in a stairwell between the third and fourth floors of the HOD. The inmate

was later moved to protective custody.

•

In April 2008, another sex offender housed in HOD was beaten by several inmates

after they learned of his offense. The inmate sustained two black eyes and injuries

to his forehead and temple. After the beating, the inmate was moved to protective

custody.

•

In April 2008, an inmate was attacked by another inmate with a knife in the Tents

because of an argument over the television. We'learned from a tier representative

(inmate trustee) that the inmate with the knife was a "known trouble maker" and

had a history of assaultive behavior at the facility.

•

In April 2008, an inmate was seriously injured after a fight over cigarettes. An

officer observed the injured inmate washing blood from his face. The inmate was

- 13 -
immediately taken to the emergency room where he was treated for a fractured nose and injuries to his jaw, head, and back.

•

In March 2008, an inmate suffered injuries to his eye, shoulder, elbow, and knee

after multiple inmates jumped and beat him in a bathroom in the Tents.

•

In February 2008, while in the Tents, an inmate was beaten by another inmate.

We learned through OPP documents that the same two inmates were involved in a

prior altercation in which one inmate was stabbed. It was only after the second

incident that OPP placed the inmates in separate tents.

•

In May 2007, a sex offender housed in the HOD in a 10- person cell was attacked

and beaten by several other inmates and sustained a stab wound to his eye and a

fractured jaw.

The frequency and serious nature of injuries sustained by OPP inmates represent a systemic level of violence that poses a serious risk of harm to both inmates and correctional staff at the jail.

4. Inadequate Staffing and Inmate Supervision

Staffing levels at OPP are inadequate to protect inmates from harm. Correctional facilities must protect inmates from harm by providing adequate staff supervision. Because of the jail's size and the physical configuration of its most densely populated facility (HOD), we found instances where officers failed to conduct scheduled rounds and were required to supervise an entire floor because of staff shortages. We also noted instances at other jail facilities (The Tents) where officers were required to supervise an entire pod (more than 80 inmates) during shifts. In both examples, it appears that OPP failed to adequately staff the buildings with this highest frequency and nature of injuries by inmates.

Exacerbating the staffing shortages, we found that OPP operates its facility without a staffing plan or analysis to establish the minimum number of security staffneeded to safely manage OPP's population. Generally accepted professional standards provide that a staffing plan or analysis is vital in determining supervision posts, the span of control for each post, and what posts are essential to adequately staff OPP. Although we found staffing shortages throughout the facility, we are particularly concerned with the staffing levels at the HOD and ,the Tents - the two facilities where we found unacceptably high levels of serious inmate-on-inmate violence

We reviewed HOD's monthly squad status report for June 2008 and found that the total number of security staffing assigned to HOD for the month was 68 officers. During this same period, the average daily population was 868. In our expert's opinion, this 1: 13 officer-to-inmate ratio per month is clearly deficient for the largest facility in OPP. We also found several instances during January 2007 and June 2008 where the HOD average daily population was 900

- 14 -
and only 12 officers were on shift, a 1:75 officer-to-inmate ratio. On these occasions, the maj ority of the multiple occupancy cells housed more than 10 inmates and four of the eight floors had only one officer responsible for over 140 inmates. We found several instances where staff failed to conduct daily rounds in the HOD and one officer had to monitor and supervise an entire floor for extended periods. During our review, we foUnd the most densely populated facility (HOD) at OPP also was the most understaffed, which likely explains the high incidence of violence.
Similarly, we found deficient staffing levels at the Tents, the second largest facility in OPP. This facility comprises eight separate tent-like structures with metal framing and a polyester membrane covering. Each housing unit, known as a "pod," has a bed capacity for 88 inmates (44 double bunk beds). Each pod is equipped with an elevated officer station situated mid-way between the 44 beds. During our review of the June 2008 monthly squad staffing report, we found the total security staffwas 33 officers, while the average daily population was 528. Again, we found several instances during February 2007 thru May 2008 where the inmate average daily population was more than 580 and the facility only had seven officers on shift, allowing only one officer to each pod during the shift. This deficient staffmg places both inmates and staff at risk.
C. INADEQUATE MENTAL HEALTH AND MEDICAL CARE
1. Mental Health Care
OPP fails to provide inmates with adequate mental health care that complies with constitutional standards. Specifically,we found the following deficiencies: (a) inadequate suicide prevention; (b) inadequate intake and referral process; (c) inadequate staffmg; (d) inadequate assessment and treatment; and (e) inadequate quality assurance review.
a. Inadequate Suicide Prevention
Suicide prevention practices at OPP are grossly inadequate. Generally accepted professional standards of correctional mental health care mandate the development of suicide prevention measures, including evaluation by a psychiatrist and development of a management plan. While OPP's suicide prevention policy requires that all inmates with suicidal ideation be directly observed by staff immediately and at all times, our investigation revealed practices inconsistent with generally accepted standards and OPP's own policy.
OPP inmates with suicidal ideation are transferred to HOD-I0 and placed in five-point restraints before they are evaluated by a psychiatrist. The practice of initiating restraints, the most restrictive of suicide precautions, without medical or mental health review is inconsistent with generally accepted professional standards. Furthermore, we found that restraints are used as the first response to inmates with suicidal ideation and are seemingly used in a punitive fashion.

- 15 -
Moreover, we found that OPP fails to protect imnates from harm while in restraints. The following examples are illustrative:

•

On January 6, 2009, H.H., a 43-year-old woman, stopped breathing while in

restraints at OPP. H.H. was sent to HOD-I0 hours after intake because she was

considered hostile and suicidal. While in HOD-l 0, H.H. was placed in five-point

restraints even after she repeatedly complained of asthma and breathing distress.

H.H. did not receive physician or psychiatric care to determine if medication was

appropriate or if placing an asthmatic individual in a five-point restraint was

acceptable. Although she was under direct observation, H.H. was reportedly seen

attempting to get out of the restraints. As OPP staff intervened and placed her in

the restraints, H.H.'s body went limp. OPP medical staff responded to assess her

condition. She was sent to the emergency room, where she was later pronounced

dead.

•

In June 2008, 1.1. was placed in five-point restraints for more than 24 hours after

he reported suicidal ideation..1.1. had a history of mental illness and taking

psychotropic medications. Even though OPP staffreceived medical orders

prescribing a nine hour time-frame for restraints, OPP placed him in restraints for

over 24 hours without appropriate observation. OPP did not follow its own

suicidal ideation policy, failed to provide 1.1. with one-to-one observation, and

went beyond the medical orders for restraint usage.

•

On March 27,2008, J.J. was placed in five-point restraints for more than 35 hours

after he report~d suicide ideation. The restraints were intermittently maintained

by three consecutive orders from March 27, 2008 at 11 :20 a.m. to March 29,2008

at 5:00 a.m. Records showed that J.J. was neither agitated nor disruptive and OPP

did not follow its own suicidal ideation policy and provide J.J. with one-to-one

observation. We found that J.J.'s care and treatment was inconsistent with

generally accepted professional standards of care and, indeed, inhumane.

Compounding the risks inherent in these practices, OPP has neither a restraint chair nor a safe cell. Inmates are restrained to metal beds affixed to a cell wall. The positioning of the bed prohibits 360 degree access to the inmate and, ironically, is itself a suicide hazard as even ' restrained individuals can strangle themselves by affixing clothing or sheets to this type of bed.

b. Inadequate Intake and Referral Process for Inmates with Mental Illness

OPP fails to properly identify inmates with mental illness through adequate intake screening and referral. The identification and follow-up of known mental illness should be a key focus of intake screening. In addition, mental health screening information should be incorporated into an inmate's medical record. This ensures the prompt continuation of necessary

- 16 -

medication for all inmates with chronic mental health conditions. Persons with potentially serious chronic mental illness (i.e., active psychosis, suicidal) should be referred from screening for prompt mental health evaluation and examination by a psychiatrist. We found the systems for intake and referral at OPP to vary markedly from generally accepted correctional mental health . standards.

The average percentage of inmates receiving mental health services in city jails ranges from 18 to 30 percent. OPP's staff reported that 150 inmates were on the mental health case1oad, approximately 6% ofOPP's total inmate population, indicative ofthe failure to adequately identify and refer inmates with mental illness. This indicator was confirmed by our expert consultants' review of OPP medical records and inmate interviews which indicated that the numbers of OPP inmates referred for mental health services should be significantly higher.

We found OPP's intake and referral services inadequate and delayed. As a result, an alarmingly high number of inmates with mental health issues, including past mental health treatment; history of suicidal behavior or attempts, andlor being on psychotropic medications fail to consistently be referred to mental health service providers. In addition, we found that OPP does not have a formal referral process. As a result, inmates are not seen, as a matter of practice, on an emergent (immediate), urgent (within 24 hours), or routine basis (within five days) by the psychiatrist. Therefore, inmates who either received mental health services prior to incarceration or present with significant mental health concerns, typically have substantial delays before being referred to a mental health provider. Inmates who are not timely referred remain untreated and have suffered from a worsening of their symptoms, including suicidal and homicidal ideation. The deficient intake and referral process is illustrated in the following examples:

•

In April 2008, during intake, K.K. reported that he attempted suicide five times in

the last nine months. Even with this self-report, OPP staff failed to note his prior

history and failed to refer K.K. to a psychiatrist. Due to this failure, K.K was not

assessed for six weeks. When he was finally assessed, he was diagnosed with

Chronic Schizophrenia and was on a hunger strike. OPP's failure to properly note

his mental health status and history at intake, contributed to his delayed treatment

and degenerative mental health state.

•

In May 2007, L.L., a 57-year-old man, was sent to general population, even

though he suffered from a brain disease affecting his mental capabilities. While in

general population, L.L. showed signs of memory loss but did not receive any

mental health care or services. Five months after intake, L.L. was finally seen by

mental health staff and diagnosed with probable dementia. OPP's deficient intake

process failed to give L.L. adequate care and agitated his mental condition.

- 17 c. Inadequate Staffing

We found that OPP fails to employ sufficient mental health staff to ensure that inmates receive adequate services. The HOD-10 unit, which serves as the House of Detention crisis unit for all mental health inmates, has only one full-time psychiatrist and one part-time psychiatrist. HOD~10 also has four licensed practical nurses, supervised by one registered nurse. During our site visits, we noted that there were no licensed drug counselors or social workers on staff. We found inadequate mental health staffing resulting in delays in inmates being assessed and treated.

Inthe South White Street Facility, we found that female inmates were not receiving necessary and adequate mental health care because of inadequate staffing. Even though some of these inmates received previous community mental health treatment, psychotropic medications, or been placed on suicide watch, they received deficient mental health care. Without adequate mental health staffing, including social workers and drug counselors, many ofthese women will not receive needed mental health services, such as: group or individual therapy, substance or physical abuse counseling, and other services to address their underlying mental disorders. The following examples are illustrative ofOPP's failure to provide adequate mental health care because of inadequate staffing:

•

On May 20, 2008, M.M. was screened and sent to the segregation unit of the

women's facility. Despite reporting that she had been taking psychotropic

medication for depression and anxiety, the psychiatrist did not evaluate her for

three weeks. Like other inmates in OPP, M.M. was given her medication via the

"Keep on Person" program. This program allows inmates to keep medications in

their possession and self-administer these medications. Inmates are not given

appropriate instruction on use of the medications, nor are they adequately

monitored. M.M. reported that no one monitored her medication and that she

took it when she thought she needed it.

•

On Apri16, 2008, N.N. reported at intake that she had a history of depression and

that she had been taking antidepressants before incarceration. The psychiatrist

ordered an antidepressant via telephone but did not assess N.N. until over a month

after the initial medication order. During the psychiatric assessment, N.N.'s

antidepressant dosage was increased. In our expert's opinion, the psychiatrist

should have interviewed and assessed N.N. in person before prescribing the initial

medication. Further, N.N.'s second visit with the psychiatrist was more than two

months after her initial assessment. This is insufficient since she received an

increased dose of antidepressants during the psychiatric assessment.

d. Inadequate Assessment and Treatment

OPP fails to appropriately and timely assess and treat inmates with mental illnesses. Our investigation revealed a lack of attention to past mental health informationand a failure to

- 18 -

provide timely psychiatric assessment and treatment. These failures are inconsistent with. generally accepted professional standards and have resulted in mental health deterioration and unnecessary suffering The following examples are illustrative ofOPP's failure to adequately assess and treat mental health inmates resulting in mental health deterioration and unnecessary suffering:

•

On December 14,2007,0.0. was screened with a history of heroin use and past

psychiatric treatment. It took more than four months before he received a

psychiatric assessment. When 0.0. was finally assessed, he was suffering from

heroin dependence, cocaine and alcohol abuse, and symptoms of seasonal

affective disorder. He received treatment four months after intake.

•

On August 29,2007, P.P., a 43-year-old man, hung himself with a telephone

handset cord in OPP's HOD-4 unit. P.P. was referred to a psychiatrist at OPP, but

was never assessed. P.P. complained of insomnia and informed OPP that he had

been on psychotropic medications. His complaints were not addressed by a

psychiatrist and he committed suicide at OPP by hanging himself 22 days after the

psychiatric referral. While P.P.'s suicide does not appear foreseeable, the delay of

22 days is unacceptable even for a non-emergency referral within the correctional

system.

•

On August 17, 2006, Q.Q. was sent to the psychiatric unit after complaints of

homicidal ideation. It took OPP staff more than seven and a half months before

Q.Q. received an initial psychiatric assessment. When he finally began treatment

on March 3,2007, he had a number of mental health illnesses and disorders. OPP

should provide adequate mental health assessment and treatment in accordance

with generally accepted professional standards of mental health care. The delay in

Q.Q.'s initial psychiatric assessment is unacceptable.

Exacerbating the problem with assessment and treatment, we found that OPP lacks multidisciplinary treatment teams where other staff, with the exception of the nurses on HOD-10, participate in the care of inmates. Effective mental health treatment of inmates often involves services provided by a multi-disciplinary treatment team that includes psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, psychiatric rehabilitation professionals, drug counselors, and correctional officers. Under OPP's procedures, the psychiatrist writes a plan as part of the initial psychiatric evaluation, and discussions are later held with a nurse. By not having social workers as part of the treatment team, for example, inmates do not receive the benefit of group therapy. And, without the input of correctional officers, who experience daily contact with inmates, the mental health service providers will not have the benefit of the correctional officers' ongoing observations.

- 19 -
e. Inadequate Quality Assurance Review
Generally accepted correctional mental health standards call for adequate quality assurance review. Such review is necessary to examine the effectiveness of the mental health care delivered and to implement corrective action so that the quality of care is improved.
We found that OPP fails to engage in consistent, effective quality assurance review in order to monitor and assess the quality of mental health offered at the facility. During our site visits, we found that despite the existence ofOPP's Medical Quality Improvement Committee,· there is no formalized review and evaluation process for mental health services. It is essential that a consistent and effective quality assurance process exists to track and trend mental health
related deficiencies at the facility. OPP fails to conduct formal quality reviews of (1) effectiveness of the intal<:e and referral process; (2) management of psychotropic medications; (3) suicide prevention including assessment of suicide risk; (4) review and tracking of suicide attempts; (5) monitoring of inmates on suicide observation; (6) treatment planning and treatment interventions for inmates in the mental health program; (7) appropriate use of restraints and monitoring of inmates in restraints; (8) discharge planning for the effective management and continuity of care for inmates released from custody; and (9) review and audits of medical records for quality and appropriateness of documentation of services provi<;led.
2. Medical Care
Jail officials are responsible for providing adequate medical care to inmates. Our investigation revealed that medical care provided at OPP meets constitutionally required standards of medical care in many areas; however, we found specific deficiencies in OPP's medication management.
a. Inadequate Medication Management
Generally accepted correctional medical standards require that facilities administer medication and maintain adequate medication records to meet the medical needs of the inmates and to prevent medication errors and other risks of harm. We found that OPP's practices were inconsistent with generally accepted professional standards of care.
In particular, OPP's "Keep on Person" ("KOP") medications program is deficient. The KOP program allows inmates to keep medications in their possession and self-administer these medications. Both general population and mental health inmates are provided small, unmarked envelopes with four days of medications twice per week. This distribution process is deficient because it fails to consistently provide inmates with adequate instruction on how to take the medications, fails to monitor inmates' medication intake, and fails to give the name of the prescribed medications. This lack of basic information and supervision in the KOP program fails

- 20-
to protect inmates from improper use and harm. The following examples in which inmates obtained dangerous quantities of medication and overdosed are illustrative of this concern:

•

On August 21, 2008, RR. overdosed on his medication. He was rushed to the

emergency room after opp staff discovered that RR. had ingested six

antidepressant and four antipsychotic pills. We found that OPP failed to monitor

RR 's medication intake, and did not provide him with adequate instruction

regarding his medication, including informing him of the harm in ingesting high

amounts. When asked about overdosing on his medication, RR stated he missed

his earlier doses, so decided to take all of his pills at one time to "catch-up."

•

On January 20,2008, S.S. was neither screened as a mental health patient nor

prescribed an antipsychotic, yet he was rushed to the emergency room after he

ingested a dangerous amount of antipsychotic medication. Even though S.S.

survived, we found that OPP staff was unaware of the dosage S.S. ingested, or

how S.S. had obtained the medication.

•

On January 8, 2007, T.T. overdosed on 40 to 50 doses of psychotropic

medication. T.T. was rushed to the emergency room after OPP discovered that

she swallowed large quantities of medication. We found that OPP staff failed to

monitorT.T. and failed to provide adequate medication management.

In addition, we found many instances where OPP failed to maintain documentation contemporaneously with medication administration. Contemporaneous documentation of medication is the practice of maintaining records at the same time that medication is administered to inmates to ensure that errors do not occur. It provides a more accurate accounting of the time, date, and type of medication received.

We also found that opp's system for obtaining informed consent for medications substantially departed from generally accepted standards. During intake, inmates are required to sign a form that gives blanket consent for medications. This practice is not an informed consent because OPP is not also providing inmates with sufficient information about the medication and necessary treatment throughout an inmate's incarceration. Once a diagnosis is made and an . inmate is prescribed medication, there is responsibility on the part of the medical staff to address an inmate's treatment at appropriate intervals during incarceration. Furthermore such blanket inmate consent can deter the medical staff from appropriately monitoring chronic or life-saving medications.

D. INADEQUATE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH and SANITATION

Although several areas in the OPP have undergone recent renovations, OPP has serious environmental health and sanitation problems.

- 21 -
1. Inadequate Pest Control
opp has a visible pest problem. Although mice and cockroaches are nocturnal by nature, we observed both during our daytime visit, indicating there is a widespread presence. We also found other evidence of their presence in several of the buildings housing inmates, as well as in the food warehouse. Additionally, inmates complained about rodents and roaches in the facilities, and several work orders noted the presence of rodents in cells. Despite the obvious extent of these infestations, OPP was unable to produce a list of services or chemicals used for pest controL When asked about how often OPP sprayed or treated for pests, staff gave inconsistent responses, ranging from weekly to every three months.
2. Physical Plant and Housekeeping
With the challenges OPP faced after Hurricane Katrina, it is not surprising that the maintenance of the facilities presents an ongoing struggle. We are well aware that Hurricane Katrina rendered parts of OPP inhabitable and left others severely flood damaged. In a correctional setting where inmates and staff depend on maintenance staff for water, heat, lighting, and ventilation, however, these issues must be addressed in a timely manner in order to reduce the risks of illness and injury to inmates and staff.
We found that areas of OPP that housed inmates remain in a state of disrepair. The correctional staff generate work orders to the Facilities Department, which tracks the completed tasks. During our site visit, we observed hundreds of maintenance and repair needs, including approximately 60 broken or non-operational toilets, sinks, and drains in the HOD alone. We also observed a high number of broken, missing, or hazardous tiling, vents, and flooring in need of repair or replacement. Broken tiling and flooring is significant because these materials can be fashioned into weapons. We observed The work orders from 2007 and 2008 confirmed the problems we observed, including those of numerous work orders for broken toilets, sinks, and showers, as well as for water leaks.
Ventilation in many parts ofOPP is extremely poor. Air quality measurements within HOD indicated that the temperature exceeded 85 degrees for many of the cells. We observed ventilation fans covered with visible layers of dust and debris, which can contain toxic chemicals, rodent waste and insect parts. The thick layer of dust and debris obstructs proper ventilation and the circulation of these substances in the air increases the risk of transmitting and contracting airborne diseases to both inmates and staff.
During our visits, we also observed obvious electrical hazards throughout the facilities. Electrical panels were not locked in the kitchen or in the rooms adjacent to housing areas. The panels often were located in rooms scattered with litter. Many of the panels needed repair, and other panel door covers were missing altogether. These conditions pose a safety hazard to inmates and staff.

- 22-
"In addition, OPP does not properly store and control chemicals, cleaning agents, and other hazardous materials. Although several chemicals were stored in the appropriately labeled boxes, these chemicals were never opened or used. Our consultant noted other unlabeled chemicals stored in cells and other housing areas throughout the facilities. These chemicals are harmful if used in wrong concentrations or on the wrong surfaces. Furthermore, many inmates had unsupervised access to these chemicals, which if used improperly could cause serious harm or be used as a weapon.
While the lighting in common areas at OPP is adequate, inmates had covered many lighting fixtures with paper, cardboard and other materials in 30 percent of the individual cells. The covering oflight fixtures not only presents a fire and health hazard, but also compromises the security of those housed in the cells, especially in light of the problems with supervision and inmate violence at OPP.
Finally, the conditions in the OPP housing areas are generally unsanitary. Dirt, dust, and debris covered many parts ofthe facilities, including the floor, windows, and comers. The shower and toilet areas had problems with mold. In HOD, the floor drains in these areas had no . covers, and the shower vents were blocked with paper and other debris. The amount of refuse led our expert to recommend that all units in HOD "should be cleaned thoroughly."
3. Food Service
Food service practices at OPP place inmates at risk of harm. Approximately 7,200 meals are prepared in the food service area daily. Although a new kitchen had opened just days prior to our May 2008 tour, we observed improperly stored food, unattended cleaning materials and chemicals on the floor, and insects in the food preparation area. Furthermore, the kitchen had litter on the floors, and all kitchen employees did not have access to hand-washing facilities.
Food delivery at OPP is also inadequate. The facility delivers food to the housing areas by placing food in insulated containers for delivery. Generally accepted professional standards require that hot food be served at 140 degrees. Although when originally put in the insulated transpoliation containers, the food temperature measured well in excess of 140 degrees, it took as long as/our hours for food prepared in the kitchen to reach some of the housing units. For those housing units, food temperatures were well below 140 degrees when served. In some cases we measured the temperature at 88 degrees for some hot food. The range of temperature between 41 degrees and 140 degrees is typically called the food danger zone. Bacteria that causes food-borne illness multiply and grow at this temperature range.
Once the food arrives at the housing units, handling and service did not comport with generally accepted professional standards. As in many other correctional facilities, OPP relies primarily on inmates to serve food. During meal times, inmate workers placed food containers on dirty tables and did not wash their hands before serving food. We also observed instances where gloves were inconsistently used. For example, we observed a food handler at the facility

- 23 -
using his bare hands to serve noodles on the individual plates. These practices are unsanitary, can result in cross contamination, and greatly increase the risk of fciod-borne disease.
4. Fire Safety
While it appears that OPP has taken steps to protect inmates and staff in the event of fire or an emergency, they remain at serious risk ofharnl because of certain deficiencies in emergency preparedness in tenns of accessibility of fire equipment and consistency of conducting fire drills.
opp has an adequate number offire extinguishers, and emergency exit procedures were posted in each facility. Fire extinguishers were inspected regularly, but often were housed in locked compartments. When asked to locate fire extinguishers, some staff took an inordinate amount oftime to find the keys to unlock the compartments. In the new kitchen and intake areas, . it took the staff an unacceptable length of time to locate any of the three available fire extinguishers and find a key to unlock the compartment containing the fire extinguisher.
Although OPP appears to perfonn fire drills, they are not conducted in a manner consistent with generally accepted correctional standards, which require monthly fire drills. Monthly drills should rotate so that they are conducted quarterly on each shift. Drills should be conducted at differing times and under differing conditions, such as using different egress routes to confinn that officers have the necessary keys and know how to use them. Records of each drill should be maintained for at least one year. While staff reported that OPP conducts monthly fire drills, it remained impossible to discern when these drills actually occurred because opp did not document any of these drills. Some inmates claimed that the drills occurred weekly, others stated that drills took place every two months.
IV. REMEDIAL MEASURES
In order to address the identified deficiencies and protect the constitutional rights of inmates confmed at OPP, the Jail should implement, at a minimum, the following measures in accordance with generally accepted professional standards of correctional practice:
A. Protection from Harm
1. Use of Force
a. Develop and maintain comprehensive and contemporary policies and procedures regarding permissible use of force.
(l) Prohibit the use of force as a response to verbal insults or inmate threats.

- 24-
(2) Prohibit the use of force as a response to inmates' failure to follow instructions where there is no immediate threat to the safety of the institution, inmates, or staff, unless opp has attempted a hierarchy of nonphysical alternatives which are documented.

(3) Prohibit the use of force as punishment.

b. Establish effective oversight of the use of force.

(1) Develop and implement a policy to ensure that staff adequately and promptly report all uses of force.

(2) Ensure prompt management review of use of force reports. The review should include:

1.

case-by-case review of individual incidents of use of force;

and

11. systemic review in order to identify patterns of incidents.

(3) Ensure that incident reports, use of force reports and inmate grievances are screened for allegations of staff misconduct and, if the incident or allegation meets established criteria, that it is referred for investigation.

(4) Develop and maintain comprehensive policies, procedures, and practices for the timely and thorough investigation of alleged staff misconduct.

(5) Develop and implement a process to track all incidents of use of force that at a minimum includes the following information: the inmate{s) name, housing assignment, date and type of incident, injuries (if applicable), if medical care is provided, primary and secondary staff directly involved, reviewing supervisor, external reviews and results (if applicable), remedy taken (if appropriate), and administrative sign-off.

c. Develop an effective and comprehensive training program in the appropriate use of force.

(1) Ensure that staff receive adequate competency-based training in OPP's use of force policies and procedures.

- 25 -
(2) Ensure that staff receive adequate competency-based training in use offorce and defensive tactics.

(3) Ensure that SOD and lAD management and staff receive adequate competency-based training in conducting investigations of use of force allegations.

2. Safety and Supervision

a. Ensure that correctional officer staffing and supervision levels are appropriate to adequately supervise inmates.

b. Ensure that inmate work and housing areas are adequately supervised whenever inmates are present.

c. Ensure frequent, irregularly timed, and documented security rounds by correctional officers inside each housing unit.

d. Ensure that staff adequately and promptly report incidents.

e. Develop a process to track all serious incidents that captures all relevant information, including: location of incident, any injuries, if medical care is provided, primary and secondary staff involved, reviewing supervisor, external reviews and results (if applicable), remedy taken (if appropriate), and administrative sign-off.

f. Establish acprocedure to ensure that inmates do not possess or have access to contraband. Conduct regular inspections of cells and common areas of the housing units for contraband.

g. Conduct regular inspections of cells and common areas of the housing units to identify and prevent lUle violations by inmates.

h. Review, and revise as applicable, all security policies and Standard Operating Procedures ("SOPs") on an annual basis.

1. Review, and revise as applicable, all security post orders regularly.

J.

To the extent possible, taking into account the different security levels and

different physical layouts in the various divisions, standardize security

policies, procedures, staffing reports, and post analysis reports across the

divisions.

- 26-
k. Provide correctional officers transferred from one division to another formal training on division-specific post orders.
1. Implement specialized training for officers assigned to special management units, which include disciplinary segregation, and protective custody units. Officers assigned to these units should possess a higher level of experience and be regularly assigned to these units for stability purposes.
3. Classification
a. Develop and implement an objective classification system that separates inmates in housing units by classification levels.
b. Update facility communication practices to provide officers involved in the classification process with current information as to cell availability on each division.
c. Update the classification system to include information on each inmate's history.
d. Provide competency-based training and access to all supervisors on the full capabilities of the OPP classification and inmate tracking system (or any replacement system).
B. Mental Health Care
1. Use of Restraints
a. Develop and implement a policy for the use of restraints that is consistent with generally accepted professional standards, including the requirement of written approval by a qualified medical or mental health professional prior to the use of restraints.
b. Develop and implement a policy regarding monitoring restrained inmates that requires adequate checks of the physical condition of restrained inmates, and adequate documentation of the use of restraints, including the basis for and duration of the use of restraints and the performance and results of welfare checks on restrained inmates.
c. Ensure that restraints are not used to punish inmates for symptoms of mental illness and behaviors that are, because of mental illness, beyond their control.

2. Suicide Prevention

- 27-

a. Develop policies and procedures to ensure appropriate management of suicidal inmates and the establishment of a suicide prevention program.

b. Ensure that OPP suicide prevention policies include an operational description ofthe requirements for both pre-service ai1d annual in-service training.

c. Ensure that, prior to assuming their duties and on a regular basis thereafter, all staffwho work directly with inmates have demonstrated competence in identifying and managing suicidal inmates.

d. Ensure that any staff who are exempt from suicide prevention training have limited irunate contact.

e. Ensure that intake staff are sufficiently experienced and qualified to identify inmates that pose a risk for suicide, and conduct appropriate follow-up evaluations by mental health professionals of new inmates within 14 days of intake.

f.

Screen all inmates upon intake, including questioning to assess current and

past suicide risk.

g. Document inmate suicide attempts at OPP in the inmate's correctional record in the classification system, in order to ensure that intake staff will be aware of past suicide attempts if an inmate with a history of suicide attempts is admitted to opp again in the future.

h. Ensure that irunates on suicide precautions receive adequate mental status examinations by a mental health clinician.

i. Ensure that suicidal inmates are housed in an area that is safe for them with appropriate supervision and observation by staff.

J.

Ensure that 15- and 30-minute checks of inmates under observation for risk

of suicide are timely performed and appropriately documented.

k. Provide different levels.of supervision of inmates based on the presenting risk factors for suicide.

- 28-
1. Ensure that inmates placed on suicide watch are assessed adequately, monitored appropriately to ensure their health and safety, and released from suicide watch as their clinical condition indicates according to generally accepted standards of care.
m. Ensure a component of administrative review is implemented following a suicide or a suicide attempt to identify what could have been done to prevent the suicide.
3. Intake and Referral
a. Develop and implement an appropriate intake screening instrument that identifies mental health needs, and ensures timely access to a mental health professional when presenting symptoms require such care.
b. Ensure that inmates with potentially serious chronic mental health illness are referred for prompt mental health evaluations and examinations by a psychiatrist.
c. Ensure that OPP's intake evaluation process' includes a mental health screening that is incorporated into an i~ate's medical record.
4. Staffing
a. Provide 'staffing adequate for inmates' serious mental health needs.
b. Provide adequate on-site psychiatry coverage, including ensuring that psychiatrists see imnates in a timely manner.
5. Assessment and Treatment
a. Develop and implement policies and procedures for appropriate assessments of inmates with serious mental illness.
b. Provide adequate mental health assessment and treatment in accordance with generally accepted professional standards of mental health care.
c. Ensure that treatment plans adequately address inmates' serious mental health needs and that the plans contain interventions specifically tailored to the inmates' diagnoses and problems. Provide therapy services where necessary for inmates with serious mental health needs.

- 29-
d. Ensure that mental health evaluations done as part of the disciplinary process include recommendations based on the inmate's ment~l health status.
e. Ensure that inmates receive psychotropic medications in a timely maImer and that imllates have proper diagnoses for each psychotropic medication they receive.

d. Ensure that psychotropic medications are reviewed by a psychiatrist on a regular, timely basis and inmates are properly monitored.

6. Quality Assurance and Review

a. Develop and implement a quality assurance program to assist OPP in identifying and correcting serious deficiencies within the mental health system, prioritizing its efforts at reform, and developing appropriate remedies.

C. Medical Care

1. Medication Administration

a. . Ensure that treatment and administration of medication to inmates is implemented in accordance with generally accepted professional standards of care.

b. Ensure that administration of medication is accurate and adequately

documented. Develop policies and procedures for the accurate

administration of medication and maintenance of medication records.

Provide a systematic review of the use of medication to ensure that each

inmate's prescribed regimen continues to be appropriate and effective for

his condition.

(

c. Develop and implement an appropriate medication administration protocol that provides adequate direction on how to take medications, describes the name of prescribed medications, and identifies how inmates are monitored.

. D. Sanitation and Environmental Conditions

1. Sanitation and Maintenance of Facilities

a. Develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure adequate cleaning and maintenance of the facilities with meaningful inspection processes and documentation. Such policies should include oversight and

- 30-
supervision, as well as establish daily cleaning requirements for toilets, showers, and housirig units.
b. Ensure adequate pest control, including sufficient staffing for routine and follow-up pest control services.
c. Ensure proper ventilation and airflow in all cells and housing units.
d. Ensure adequate lighting in all housing units and prompt replacement and repair of malfunctioning lighting fixtures.
e. Ensure prompt and proper maintenance of shower, toilet, and sink units.
f. Develop and implement policies and procedures for cleaning, handling, storing, and disposing of biohazardous materials.
g. .Use cleaning chemicals that sufficiently destroy the pathogens and organisms in biohazard spills.
2. Environmental Control
a. Repair electrical panels; develop and implement a system for maintenance and repair of electrical panels, devices, and exposed electrical wires.
3. Food Service ,
a. Provide training for kitchen workers in the areas of food safety, proper food handling, and proper hygiene to reduce the risk of food contamination and food-borne illnesses.
b. Ensure that dishes and utensils, food preparation and storage areas, and vehicles and containers used to transport food are properly cleaned and sanitized.
c. Ensure that foods are served and maintained at proper temperatures.
E. Fire and Life Safety
1. Ensure that all facilities have adequate fire and life safety equipment which is properly maintained and inspected.
2. Implement competency based testing for staff regarding fire/emergency procedures;

- 31 -
3. Develop and implement adequate policies and procedures regarding fire prevention including emergency planning and drills.
4. Ensure that emergency keys are appropriately marked, available, and consistently stored in a quickly accessible location.
5. Inventory and store all flammable, toxic, and caustic materials in a well ventilated, but locked, compartment.
6. Ensure that emergency drills are conducted on a regular basis.
* * * * * * *
Please note that this findings letter is a public document. It will be posted on the Civil Rights Division's website. While we will provide a copy of this letter to any individual or entity upon request, as a matter of courtesy, we will not post this letter on the Civil Rights Division's website until ten calendar days from the date of this letter.
We hope to continue working with the City in an amicable and cooperative fashion to resolve our outstanding concerns regarding OPP. Assuming there is a continuing spirit of cooperation from the City, we also would be willing to send our consultants' evaluations under separate cover. These reports are not public documents. Although the consultants' evaluations and work do not necessarily reflect the official conclusions ofthe Department of Justice, their observations, analysis, and recommendations provide further elaboration on the issues discussed in this letter and offer practical technical assistance in addressing them. We hope that you will give this information careful consideration and that it will assist in your efforts at promptly remediating areas that require attention.
We are obligated to advise you that, in the event that we are unable to reach a resolution regarding our concerns, the Attorney General may initiate a lawsuit pursuant to CRlPA to correct deficiencies of the kind identified in this letter 49 days after appropriate officials have been notified of them. 42 U.S.C. § 1997b(a)(1). We would prefer, however, to resolve this matter by working cooperatively with you and are confident that we will be able to do so in this case. The lawyers assigned to this investigation will be contacting:the facility's attorney to discuss this matter in further detail.

.,. 32-
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please call Shanetta Y. CutIar, Chief of the Civil Rights Division's Special Litigation Section, at (202) 514-0195.
Sincerely,

cc: The Honorable C. Ray Nagin Mayor The City ofNew Orleans
T. Allen Usry, Esq. Counsel for the Sheriff's Office
Penya M. Moses-Fields, Esq. City Attorney The City of New Orleans
The Honorable Jim Letten United States Attorney Eastern District of Louisiana

Loretta King Acting Assistant Attorney General . Civil Rights Division

 
 JMS:LC:CMS:SJD:BJ:dj DJ 168-32-71

U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division
Special Litigation Section - PHB 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington DC 20530

April 23, 2012
Via Electronic and First Class Mail
Marlin N. Gusman Orleans Parish Sheriff 2800 Gravier Street New Orleans, LA 70119
c/o T. Allen Usry, Esq. Counsel for the Sheriff’s Office 2800 Gravier Street New Orleans, LA 70119
Re: Update to Letter of Findings United States’ Civil Rights Investigation of the Orleans Parish Prison System
Dear Sheriff Gusman:
Despite our findings and repeated attempts to encourage you to meaningfully address the numerous problems, the already troubling conditions in the Orleans Parish Prison (OPP or the Jail) are deteriorating. Since we issued our findings letter on September 11, 2009, which identified serious constitutional violations, you have failed to take basic steps to correct the systemic issues that we identified. As this letter demonstrates, urgent and substantial action is required.
We have attempted to work with your client to develop a comprehensive reform plan. Most recently, on November 8, 2011, we sent you a draft consent decree. Since that time, you have failed to seriously negotiate. In March, five months after our initial settlement offer, we finally received your first substantive response. In the interim, OPP prisoners have needlessly suffered and staff members’ safety has been at risk, contrary to the best interests of the people of New Orleans.
Given the seriousness of the problems in OPP, we urge your client to:
1. Take immediate steps to address the concerns raised in this letter regarding the most basic measures to ensure prisoner safety, health, and well-being; and
2. Engage in an aggressive schedule of negotiations with the Special Litigation team to reach an agreed-upon remedy embodied in a federal consent decree with a monitor.

-2-
As you are well aware, our investigation is being conducted pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (“CRIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997. CRIPA authorizes the Attorney General to sue in the United States District Court to remedy patterns or practices of Constitutional or federal law violations in prisons and jails. It is largely uncontestable that the deficiencies in the operation of OPP violate the Constitution. Rather than spend time, money, and effort in contested litigation, we believe that everyone – most especially the men and women in OPP, the staff, and the people of New Orleans that rely on the jail for public safety – will be best served by a negotiated resolution. But if you fail to immediately negotiate in good faith, we will be forced to consider whether litigation is appropriate.
This letter outlines the most urgent issues facing OPP, your staff, and prisoners. It is not intended to be a comprehensive recital of all issues. The draft consent decree that we provided you in November includes many common sense, sustainable remedies to unconstitutional conditions that may not be included below.
I. Executive Summary
A team of attorneys from the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section together with expert consultants in correctional operations and mental health care just re-inspected OPP on April 3 through 5, 2012.1 We found alarming conditions and were distressed that the problems we described in our initial findings letter persist or have worsened.2
Inadequate Protection from Violence and Sexual Assault
OPP is a violent and dangerous institution. Our inspection uncovered shockingly high rates of serious prisoner-on-prisoner violence and officer misconduct. We received reports of widespread sexual assaults, including gang rapes. The violence, sexual assaults, and pervasive atmosphere of fear are the direct result of inadequate staffing, deficient classification, use of prisoners to provide security supervision through “Tier Reps,” poor staff training, and failed systems of accountability.
1 As part of our April 2012 site visit, we interviewed administrative staff, security staff, investigative staff, medical and mental health staff, prisoners, and former prisoners. We reviewed a large volume of documents before, during, and after our visit. The documents that we reviewed included policies (draft and official), procedures, incident reports, use of force reports, investigation reports, prisoner grievances, sick calls, classification documents, orientation materials, mental health records, and training materials.
2 The Sheriff reports that he is making efforts to improve the facility. Less than one week after we conducted our April 2012 tour, Jail staff told us that OPP was closing the House of Detention, where some of the most atrocious physical plant deficiencies have existed. This closure marks a significant step forward but is a fraction of the comprehensive reform necessary to ensure that OPP provides protection, care, and treatment to prisoners in a manner that comports with the Constitution.

-3-
Inadequate Suicide Prevention
Suicide prevention measures at OPP are grossly inadequate, resulting in unnecessary suffering and very likely leading to at least five suicides since our findings letter in 2009. The Jail has inadequate mechanisms to identify suicidal prisoners, inadequate treatment and staffing, and poor training of officers. Prisoners identified as being at risk for self harm are subjected to inhumane treatment that discourages them from seeking help, including the placement of groups of prisoners in a cramped, filthy “suicide tank” with no bed or toilet.
Inadequate Mental Health Care and Access to Medical Care
OPP is deliberately indifferent to prisoners with serious medical and mental health needs. The Jail has inadequate mechanisms to identify prisoners with mental illness, and too few treatment staff members to address urgent and chronic conditions. Prisoners with physical illness, either emergent or chronic, experience unreasonable barriers in accessing care. As a result, prisoners suffer during their incarceration and are returned to the community, in far too many cases, sicker and less equipped to avoid future involvement with the criminal justice system than when they entered.
Concerns regarding Inadequate Services to Limited English Proficient Individuals
As a recipient of federal financial assistance, OPP has agreed to abide by terms of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin (including limited English proficiency). Our site visit revealed significant issues with respect to the ability of limited English proficient (“LEP”) prisoners to communicate their needs to facility staff. For example, we observed no mechanisms to identify LEP prisoners, track them during their incarceration, or ensure that they are protected and receive necessary services. OPP also has very few bilingual staff and none in Templeman V, where many Spanish-speaking LEP Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) detainees are housed. Monolingual Spanishspeaking prisoners also report being asked to sign documents in English without the benefit of a written translation or interpreter. OPP also lacks grievances forms in Spanish, hampering prisoners’ ability to voice concerns and complaints.
II. Urgent Unconstitutional Conditions Requiring Emergency Action
The conditions in OPP fail to meet the most basic obligation of prison officials to provide humane conditions of confinement. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). The conduct of officials at OPP evinces deliberate indifference to basic needs, including safety and necessary treatment for serious medical and mental health needs. Id. The conditions we found clearly meet both the subjective and objective components of the deliberate indifference test. OPP has long known of conditions – at a minimum, since our exit briefings following our 2008 site visits and our 2009 findings letter – and has disregarded the harm and risk of harm the conditions create. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833.

-4-
A. Inadequate Protection from Violence and Sexual Assault
Prisoners confined to OPP are unreasonably vulnerable to assault, including rape, by other prisoners, and excessive force by staff.
1. Prisoner-on-Prisoner Violence and Sexual Assault
OPP has failed to take reasonable measures to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners. Prison conditions may be restrictive and even harsh, but gratuitously allowing a prisoner to be beaten or raped “serves no ‘legitimate penological objective,’ any more than it squares with ‘evolving standards of decency.’” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833-34 (citing Rhodes v. Chapman,452 U.S. 337 (1981)). Further, being violently assaulted in prison is simply not “part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society.” Id. OPP officials have a duty to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832-833; Longoria v. Texas, 473 F.3d 586, 592 (5th Cir. 2006).
Consistent with our September 2009 letter, we found a high incidence of prisoner-onprisoner violence at OPP, particularly in the HOD and Tents units, creating a climate of fear that is tolerated by staff at all levels of the institution. For example, during our inspection, we met with one prisoner who described his housing unit as a “little warzone.” Another prisoner explained that deputies just “let fights happen.” He told us that another prisoner stabbed him after staff knowingly placed him in a “tank” or cell with another prisoner who had a disagreement with him and a shank. When he complained to the Warden, he was told that they were “grown men” and should not be complaining. Many other prisoners we met provided similar stories, and staff confirmed that OPP operates with a climate of fear and violence.
Further, sexual violence is pervasive throughout the jail. A recent report by the DOJ Office of Justice Programs (OJP) confirms this conclusion reached from interviews and records review (OJP).3 A survey of prisoners conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (“BJS”) revealed that 7.5% of OPP prisoners had experienced sexual assault while incarcerated.4 OJP’s Review Panel on Prison Rape singled out OPP and reported that it is “is deeply disturbed by the apparent culture of violence at OPP.” OJP PREA Report at 82. The OJP Panel heard testimony from OPP officials and interested parties, including one former prisoner who testified that he was orally and anally gang raped “so many times [he] lost count,” and his grievances reporting the rapes went unaddressed. OJP PREA Report at 76-78.
3 The Review Panel on Prison Rape of DOJ's Office of Justice Programs issued an April 2012 “Report on Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails” (“OJP PREA Report”). The OJP PREA Report is available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs/prea_finalreport_2012.pdf. In the OJP PREA Report, OJP explains that it selected OPP as a “high-incidence” facility in its effort to highlight female facilities and because the Bureau of Justice Statistics had also identified OPP as “having one of the highest rates of prisoner-on-prisoner sexual victimization.”
4 See OJP PREA Report at 4-5. See also Bureau of Justice Statistics Report, "Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Prisoners, 2008-2009 (January 2010) (A. Beck et al.), available at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/svpjri0809.pdf.

-5-
The high level of violence is confirmed by OPP’s Special Operations Division (“SOD”). In 2011, SOD conducted approximately 411 criminal investigations. Of the 411, at least 66 were related to physical altercations between prisoners. The 66 cases are further broken down as follows: 28 cases involving second degree battery, 16 for aggravated battery, 14 for sexual assaults, six for simple battery, one for second degree battery, and one for aggravated assault. There were also 15 cases involving the carrying of a weapon (typically related to a prisoner carrying a shank). This level of prisoner-on-prisoner violence is alarming, and these statistics only represent those cases that rose to the level of a crime or a suspected crime.
This climate of fear and violence is caused by systemic deficiencies that are set out below:
a. Staff Members Fail to Respond to Serious Violence
Staff at OPP exacerbate dangerous situations and ignore prisoner pleas for help. During our visit we heard startlingly similar stories from a diverse set of prisoners. Prisoners we interviewed consistently allege that they were seriously injured or witnessed other prisoners get seriously injured after staff ignored fights or requests for help or even exacerbated the problem by placing prisoners in dangerous situations. The following examples illustrate the problem:
 A prisoner reported that in late September/early October 2011 he witnessed a fight between two prisoners during which one prisoner stabbed the other. Allegedly, the injured prisoner kept yelling out to a deputy by name, but the deputy did not respond.
 When prisoners seek protection, some staff respond in a manner that places the prisoners in danger. Two prisoners reported that when they made verbal complaints about other prisoners, a security staff member yelled, “Stop snitching!” or “Stop ratting!” A white prisoner stated that when he approached a staff member, the staff member responded loudly calling him “Aryan Brotherhood” in front of other prisoners.
 At least two prisoners stated that when a fight or incident occurs a deputy on watch will say that he or she will not call a senior officer or that he or she does not want to be bothered with the “paperwork” required to document an incident. Another prisoner explained that a security staff member in a bubble told the unit, “I’m going to sleep so don’t knock on the window.”
 A prisoner explained that when he called for help after being stabbed, the deputy failed to respond for an extended period. When the deputy finally responded, he did not call for help or medical assistance. The injured prisoner never received medical care, only some Vaseline from another prisoner to stop the bleeding. Fortunately, the wound was not serious. The injured prisoner claimed that based on this incident he filed a grievance but never received a response. The prisoner who had stabbed him was eventually moved to another unit.
These incidents reveal serious deficiencies in policy, staff training and accountability.

-6-

b. Inadequate Staffing and Prisoner Supervision

Staffing levels at OPP continue to be inadequate to protect prisoners from harm. Consistent with our on-site inspections in 2008, we found instances in which a single officer was required to supervise an entire pod of more than 80 prisoners for a 12-hour shift. Despite being fully aware of the most problematic buildings, OPP fails to adequately staff buildings plagued by a high frequency of injuries to prisoners by other prisoners. This poses a serious threat to both prisoners and staff.

Exacerbating staffing shortages, we found that OPP continues to operate without a staffing plan. A staffing analysis and resulting staffing plan are vital in determining supervision posts, the span of control for each post, and what posts are essential to adequately staff OPP. During our April 2012 site visit, we visited various units on one day and observed the following unreasoned and dangerous staffing patterns:



The “Tents” are dormitory or “open-bay-style” housing with multiple double bunks. The

Tents house between 60-88 prisoners per unit. On one day during our tour, there were

417 prisoners housed in the various Tents. Each Tent had one deputy assigned to it. The

ratio of deputy to prisoners was approximately 1 to 60 to 88 prisoners.



HOD is a multi-story building that is several decades old and has approximately 10

floors. On the day of our visit, HOD had approximately 665 prisoners. Each floor has

four separate cellblocks in a linear style arrangement. Each cell block has multi-

occupancy cells. The typical staffing deployment consists of one deputy per floor. Each

floor has four individual cellblocks with up to 30 prisoners per cellblock. With the exception of the 10th and 8th floors, the ratio of deputies to prisoners is approximately one

deputy to 120 prisoners if all beds are filled.

 Old Parish Prison is a multi-story building that was built in 1927 and was the original facility. It has multi-occupancy cells and dormitories ranging from four to 48 beds and houses maximum security prisoners. This building has a maximum capacity of 831 and on the day of the visit, there were 701 prisoners housed there. There are 22 security staff (deputies and supervisors) during the 12-hour day shift and 18 security staff (deputies and supervisors) during the night shift. There is typically one deputy assigned to each cellblock consisting of 20 to 48 prisoners. The ratio of deputies to prisoners varies according to the style of the cellblock, ranging from one deputy to 20 to 48 prisoners. Contrary to expected practice, OPP continues to house maximum security prisoners in multi-occupancy cells in this facility.5

5 American Correctional Standards (“ACA”) guidelines are instructive regarding housing of various prisoner classifications. They specify that minimum security prisoners can be housed in dormitory styled housing, cubicles, or rooms. Medium security prisoners can be housed in rooms and/or multiple occupancy cells and/or dormitories. Finally, maximum security prisoners should be housed in single cells, very secure units with heavy duty hardware. Currently, OPP does not adhere to these prisoner classification and housing principles.

-7-

 The Temporary Detention Center (“TDC”) was opened on February 29, 2012. This facility has a capacity of 500 beds. During our tour, 386 prisoners were housed there. According to the facility Warden, there are 23 deputies and six watch commanders assigned to the TDC. Each building at TDC has two dormitories with one raised housing control center that can oversee two 64-66 prisoner dorms. Some of the dorms have four secure cells within the dormitory. There are typically two deputies assigned to each housing unit. The approximate ratio of deputy to prisoners at TDC is one deputy to 65 prisoners.

As a consequence of the inadequate staffing, deputies only walk into the housing units approximately twice a day during a 12-hour shift. When a fight or disturbance occurs, all the deputy can do is call for assistance and wait. Such inadequate staffing results in a failure by OPP to keep its prisoners reasonably safe. Due perhaps to the lack of staffing, OPP relies on the dangerous practice of “Tier Reps,” discussed further below, to control and watch prisoners.

c. Inappropriate Use of Tier Reps

A “Tier Rep” is a prisoner from a particular housing unit, tier, or floor who serves ostensibly as another pair of eyes and hands for OPP. This practice is dangerous and discouraged.6 Prisoners should never be used to replace the role of a security staff member. Tier Reps are used at OPP to maintain order, de-escalate fights, designate clean-up duties, and in some instances hand out grievance forms and sick call forms. Tier Reps thus have an inappropriate amount of power and control over other prisoners. The following are examples of the breadth of power a Tier Rep can wield and its consequences to other prisoners:



Tier Reps and their “crew” are tasked with dispensing food to the other prisoners because

OPP does not provide individual prisoner trays. This gives Tier Reps an inappropriate

amount of power over other prisoners.



Because OPP’s mechanisms to disburse and receive both sick call slips and grievance

forms are inadequate (discussed further below), some Tier Reps hoard blank forms and

disperse them to prisoners they favor but decline to provide the forms to others.



When arguments or violence breaks out between prisoners, a Tier Rep sometimes

intervenes to “keep the peace.” If the Tier Rep is unable to resolve the situation, a Tier

Rep can suggest which prisoner needs to be moved. Movement and housing of prisoners

should be determined by OPP staff only.

6 ACA 4-ALDF-2A-9. “No prisoner or group of prisoners is given control, or allowed to exert authority, over other prisoners.” See ACA 4-ALDF-2A-09.

-8-
d. Failure to Detect Weapons
Prisoners and staff report that OPP is awash in weapons. So far this year, through early April, SOD has recovered at least 47 shanks, according to their planned shakedown log. During this same time period, SOD found other items that could be used as weapons such as metal pipes and electrical cords in addition to contraband that had no place in a prison cell such as cell phones and lighters. Statements from prisoners indicate that weapons recovered are likely only a fraction of the weapons circulating through the facility. The volume of weapons in the facility and the level of violence reflect failures in procedures to prevent weapons from coming into OPP and in basic procedures, including sufficient shakedowns, to detect them and remove them from circulation.
Separately, our corrections expert noted that OPP has a false sense of security based on its use of a “BOSS III” chair in the Intake and Processing Center. The Boss III chair is designed to detect whether an individual is carrying a metal object. However, when our expert sat in the chair, the device failed to detect our expert’s cell phone and keys. Similarly, when a rank officer sat in the chair it did not detect his keys, cell phone, and other metal objects on his person. Consequently, OPP should consider replacing, repairing, or at the very least re-calibrating the chair and any other instruments it uses to detect metal.
e. Inappropriate Commingling of Violent and Non-Violent Prisoners
OPP fails to properly classify prisoners to reduce the risk of violence. Up until one month ago, OPP continued to use the same deficient classification system we found in 2009. Specifically, OPP relied on a charge-based classification scheme that used the amount of a prisoner’s bond as the primary classification factor for general population prisoners (aside from separation of prisoners based on gender). The prior system did not consider the prisoner’s prior convictions, prior assaultive behavior, or true potential for violence. As a result, prisoners with varying degrees of classification (low-level offenders and serious-violent offenders) were assigned to the same housing unit.
In March 2012, OPP revised its classification system to use two main questionnaires. First, the new OPP classification system uses a Prison Rape Elimination Act (“PREA”) survey and second, an OPP-specific “security” question form. While the new classification system is objective and thus an improvement, we remain concerned about prisoner safety because there is no existing mechanism to re-assess and re-classify individuals already at OPP. Accordingly, there remains a high risk of serious injury from prisoner-on-prisoner violence based on inadequacies of the prior classification system.
2. Failure to Prevent, Detect, and Correct Excessive Use of Force and Officer Misconduct
In 2009, we found a pattern or practice of unnecessary and inappropriate uses of force by OPP correctional officers, in violation of the Constitution’s requirement that any force used be proportionate to the threat posed by the prisoner. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992). We found several examples where OPP officers openly engaged in abusive and retaliatory

-9-

conduct, which resulted in serious injuries to prisoners. Our corrections expert found that the officers’ conduct was so flagrant it clearly constituted calculated abuse.

OPP does not appear to have implemented any new systems to prevent, detect, or correct patterns of excessive use of force. This failure permits the officer misconduct that contributes to the persistent dangerous conditions in OPP. For example:

•

In September 2011, a deputy forced a prisoner to perform oral sex. The prisoner alleged

that the deputy falsely claimed the prisoner had a sick call visit, placed him in handcuffs,

removed him from the cell, and escorted him into a closet outside the tier, where he

forced the prisoner to perform oral sex. The prisoner further stated that earlier that day,

the same deputy had asked two prisoners to have sex with each other so that the deputy

could watch.

•

In July 2011, officers beat a prisoner in the Tents. According to OPP reports, the

prisoner and OPP officers had a verbal altercation that escalated into a physical

confrontation. The officers involved in the battery indicated that the prisoner had

attacked them, but a video revealed that the officers beat the prisoner with closed fists.

SOD reviewed this incident and found that the officers used excessive force. The officers

involved in the battery and following cover-up were suspended then later fired for

beating the prisoner. However, OPP later rehired the officer fired for filing a false report.

•

In August 2010, a prisoner committed suicide one day after an officer beat him. The

prisoner was in his locked cell when an officer ordered him to move away from the gate.

When he refused, the officers sprayed chemical agents into his cell. The officer then

opened the prisoner’s cell door. Once the cell door was opened, the prisoner came out of

his cell. Once out of his cell, the prisoner was again sprayed with foam spray and

physically assaulted by several officers. The prisoner was then taken to HOD-10 for

medical attention. One day later, the prisoner killed himself. SOD confirmed the

officer’s assault on the prisoner.

a. Gaps in Investigations

Investigations of OPP staff are handled by two different offices, SOD, which investigates criminal misconduct, and the Internal Affairs Division (“IAD”), which is tasked with investigating administrative violations of OPP policies and procedures. This system as it currently works, however, results in OPP failing to adequately identify and investigate misconduct. SOD has the authority to initiate an investigation on its own based on documents it receives – medical referral forms, use of force reports, and incident reports – as well as after receiving a direct referral from the Warden. IAD, on the other hand, does not receive these documents, does not receive referrals from SOD, and does not have access to the same Jail Management System (“JMS”) as SOD.7 Consequently, IAD and SOD do not communicate at a level necessary to ensure that both administrative and criminal misconduct by staff is

7 Further, while Incident Reports (“IRs”) are on JMS, the newly created Use of Force (“UOF”) reports are not. Both IRs and UOF reports should be on JMS and available to SOD and IAD.

-10-
investigated and all responsible staff are held accountable. The current practice dictates that IAD does not receive any referrals from SOD that pertain to: (1) prisoner-on-prisoner violence, (2) sexual assaults, (3) suicides, or (4) use of force incidents. When SOD determines that an incident in one of these four areas does not rise to the level of a criminal investigation, IAD is not consulted and OPP misses a key opportunity to identify staff who may have violated OPP policies and should be subject to administrative review and discipline.
SOD also investigates prisoner-on-prisoner incidents, mainly violence, to determine if criminal charges against a prisoner would be appropriate, but it excludes many serious incidents.8 When investigating prisoner-on-prisoner violence, the threshold for conducting a criminal investigation is whether a “significant injury” has occurred. We were informed by OPP that this “significant injury” standard is interpreted to mean whether the injured prisoner received stitches. This standard is not documented or memorialized in any policy that we reviewed and is too narrow to capture all serious acts of violence. SOD also inappropriately closes cases in which the victim prisoner refuses to cooperate, regardless of the level of injury. It is not surprising that prisoners would refuse to cooperate because any kind of cooperation could put them in further physical risk. OPP needs to do more to ensure that all acts of violence are fully investigated and the perpetrators are not in a position to re-offend. OPP also fails to forward matters where the victim prisoner fails to cooperate to IAD. By failing to communicate and forward such information to IAD, SOD, and OPP as a whole fail to protect prisoners from further violence.
b. Failure to Track Staff Misconduct in an Efficient and Effective Manner
OPP’s investigatory deficiencies are compounded by its lack of a functional officer early warning system to identify patterns of conduct (example: high level of violence) or individuals (example: deputy who is involved in various incidents in a short period of time) and respond proactively. SOD tracks its criminal investigations on its “VANTOS” system. The system is a critical tool for SOD to quickly find information which relates to a particular deputy. However, VANTOS does not allow for filtering of information to easily identify how many times a particular deputy was the focus of an investigation. Nor does VANTOS have an automatic setting to alert SOD when a deputy has reached a predetermined number of complaints against him or her, has been investigated a certain number of times, has used forced against prisoners, or has been a witness to potential misconduct. In short, OPP fails to have any form of useable early warning system to identify any specific individuals or trends in shifts, housing units, or types of violence.
3. Failure to Provide a Functional Grievance System
As we found in 2009 and as highlighted in the OJP PREA Report, OPP continues to lack a functional prisoner grievance system. A prisoner grievance system is a fundamental mechanism for allowing prisoners to raise conditions of confinement related concerns and issues to administrative staff. If viewed as credible by prisoners, a grievance system can serve as a
8 SOD also investigates charges against prisoners that do not involve violence but a violation of OPP rules. For example, SOD would investigate if a prisoner was found to possess contraband (cell phone, weapon, or narcotics).

-11-
source of intelligence to security staff regarding potential security breaches as well as staff excessive force or other misconduct. The grievance system should be readily accessible to all prisoners and not dependent on staff to provide blank forms or pass the grievance along to the grievance coordinator. Prisoners should be able to file their grievances in a secure and confidential manner, without the threat of reprisals. Staff responsible for answering prisoner grievances should do it in a responsive and prompt manner.
The grievance process at OPP does not meet any of these criteria because: (1) there is no accountability or tracking of all grievances that are submitted; (2) grievances and requests for services are submitted on the same form; (3) grievance forms are not readily available to prisoners without going through either a staff member, the mail delivery person, or a Tier Rep; and (4) responses to grievances are not handled in a private manner. Consequently, the grievance system fails to provide prisoners with a safe avenue to voice their concerns or complaints. Similarly, OPP staff are unable to use the grievance system as a source of intelligence about possible staff misconduct, violence, or other issues at OPP.
B. Grossly Inadequate Suicide Prevention Practices
As we found in 2009, OPP is deliberately indifferent to the risk of prisoner suicide. The Constitution requires OPP to protect prisoners from suicide and self-harm. See Partridge v. Two Unknown Police Officers of the City of Houston, 791 F2d. 1182, 1187 (5th Cir. 1986) (holding that a failure to take action to save suicidal prisoners from self-harm may constitute a constitutional violation). In determining the adequacy of a mental health care program, the Fifth Circuit holistically assesses the prisoner’s conditions of confinement. Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 343 (5th Cir. 2004) (acknowledging that “the isolation and idleness of Death Row combined with the squalor, poor hygiene, temperature, and noise of extremely psychotic prisoners create an environment ‘toxic’ to the prisoners’ mental health.”). The suicide prevention practices at OPP are grossly inadequate and pose a grave risk of deadly harm to suicidal prisoners.
Treatment staff that we interviewed reported that there have been five completed suicides in the past two years. In two of these suicides, deficient monitoring contributed to the prisoners’ suicides. In one of these two, a prisoner was supposedly monitored by correctional officers using closed-caption camera, and in the other, the prisoner was supposedly under direct visual monitoring. Aside from OPP’s grossly inadequate monitoring practices, we also found that inhumane conditions for suicidal prisoners deter identification and exacerbate mental illness.
1. Inhumane Suicide Watch Conditions that Deter Identification and Exacerbate Mental Illness
OPP engages in a routine, punitive practice of placing suicidal prisoners in a “turtle suit”9 in a crowded, filthy confinement cell called a “suicide tank” with no toilet, beds, blanket, sink, or telephone – simply three long benches along the walls of the cell. We observed prisoners sleeping on the floors with no mattresses or covering, and we also learned that prisoners often
9 Every prisoner in the suicide tank was required to wear a “turtle suit,” although not required by OPP policy. A turtle suit is a tear-resistant single piece of garment that is used to reduce the likelihood of suicide.

-12-
urinated and defecated in cups because they did not have appropriate access to the toilet. Beyond this, we further noted that the living conditions inside the suicide tank were deplorable – dirty floors, trash under benches, handcuffs attached to the legs of benches, dirty windows, and a pungent smell throughout the suicide tank. When asked about the deplorable conditions and the utility for using the suicide tank, OPP staff members argued that prisoners were required to keep the suicide tank clean and that housing suicidal prisoners in such a manner created an environment for “support and encouragement.” OPP reportedly began housing prisoners in the “suicide tank” following an incident in which a suicidal prisoner attacked a correctional officer.
Neither medical nor mental health staff are consulted before a prisoner is placed in the suicide tank. Prisoners are not evaluated for level of suicide risk, level of supervision, or whether they need to be transferred to an outpatient mental health facility (which is apparently unavailable regardless of the need). Thus, prisoners housed in these horrific conditions are both over- and under-identified as compared to the population of prisoners requiring treatment and suicide watch.
Prisoners are placed in the suicide tank until mental health staff are able to conduct an evaluation, which typically occurs many hours later. This delay is especially prevalent when prisoners are sent to the suicide tank after the psychiatrist leaves for the day. On these occasions, prisoners typically wait prolonged periods before they assessment to determine if placement is necessary. OPP’s practice is anti-therapeutic and only enhances isolation, depriving prisoners of meaningful social interactions and increasing the risk of suicide. OPP’s practice of isolating prisoners can also contribute to the difficulty in obtaining critical information to determine the source of suicidal ideation, and creates an environment where prisoners are reluctant to communicate with medical staff. When interviewed, prisoners on the psychiatric floors of OPP reported that they were reluctant to report suicidal ideation because they did not want to be placed in the suicide tank. Prisoners view the suicide tank as a punishment rather than an acceptable option for mental health treatment.
Further troubling, we noted that once prisoners were placed on suicide watch, the mental health evaluations were cursory and rarely addressed suicide risk issues. Prisoners languish in the suicide tank while the psychiatrist focuses on determining whether they are malingering. We found examples of prisoners who remained on suicide precautions for more than five weeks. During these extended periods of isolation, we found that prisoners did not receive meaningful treatment, aside from being medicated and monitored. OPP also neither carefully evaluates prisoners before removing them from suicide watch, nor has any stepdown program. Instead, OPP inappropriately relies on “contracts for safety” in which prisoners agree not to harm themselves if they leave the suicide tank. This is clearly contrary to generally accepted correctional mental health care standards.
2. Failure to adequately monitor prisoners on suicide watch
In addition to deterring suicidal prisoners from seeking help due to the inhumane conditions provided for suicidal prisoners, we found that OPP fails to adequately monitor its prisoners on suicide watch. At a minimum, OPP should have “a basic program for the identification, treatment, and supervision of prisoners with suicidal tendencies.” See Ruiz v.

-13-
Estelle, 503 F. Supp. 1265, 1339 (S.D. Tex. 1990) aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 679 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir. 1982).
Although OPP’s policy requires correctional officers to directly observe and document prisoner activity every 15 minutes, we observed and found clear violations of this policy. While on site, we observed that only one officer was assigned to monitor everyone on suicide watch without anyone to relieve him. We further observed at least one instance when he left his assigned monitoring post in order to escort another prisoner, who was not on suicide watch. Once the correctional officer left, the prisoners on suicide watch were left unmonitored. This example is emblematic of the deep-rooted monitoring problems that we found at the jail. The following example best illustrates how lapses in monitoring have led to deadly harm:
 In August 2011, a 48-year-old man committed suicide by asphyxiation after swallowing toilet paper. He was evaluated and placed in general population before being placed on suicide watch. While on suicide watch, he was placed in a two-person cell with another prisoner, and a correctional officer was assigned to constantly observe his behavior to ensure that he did not attempt to cause self-harm. The correctional officer left him unmonitored for five hours, and it appears that no other officer or supervisor monitored or even conducted a check of his cell. During these five hours, he swallowed enough toilet paper to kill himself. This incident is an egregious example of OPP’s inadequate monitoring and supervision practices that contributed to his death.
These monitoring lapses magnify the need for OPP to ensure that correctional officers, responsible for constantly monitoring prisoners on suicide precautions, receive adequate training and understand the importance of monitoring suicidal prisoners. Moreover, these examples highlight the unacceptably low staffing levels at the facility that have contributed to the harm and risk of harm that we found throughout the facility.
C. Constitutionally Inadequate Mental Health Care and Access to Medical Care
OPP continues to lack the appropriate staff and structure to provide constitutionally adequate mental health care. OPP’s mental health services continue to be deficient in the following areas: (1) evaluation and screening; (2) staffing; (3) assessment and treatment; (4) treatment planning; and (5) quality assurance review. These deficient OPP practices cause prisoners serious harm and create an unreasonable risk of harm.
Prisoners have a constitutional right to adequate medical and mental health care, including psychological and psychiatric services. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832; Gates, 376 F.3d at 332 (holding that “mental health needs are no less serious than physical needs”). Jail officials violate the constitutional rights of prisoners if they are deliberately indifferent to their serious medical needs, including prisoners’ psychological needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 107 (1976); See Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633, 650 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

-14-
1. Inadequate mental health screenings and referrals
OPP fails to adequately identify prisoners who require mental health services. The Constitution protects prisoners from not only ongoing harms, but also from the risk of future harm. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993). The shockingly low number of prisoners receiving mental health care at OPP reflects a system-wide breakdown in identifying prisoners in need of treatment. During our review, we noted that just over 200 prisoners were on the mental health case load, approximately 6% of OPP’s prisoner population. In contrast, the national average for city jails with OPP’s population is 18-30%. Even though OPP’s mental health caseload is one-third the national average, we found that over half of the 200 prisoners under the psychiatrist’s care were prescribed solely antipsychotics. The absence of anti-depressant, antianxiety, and more commonly prescribed psychotropic medications – combined with the lack of any non-medication behavioral therapy - suggests that prisoners with serious depression, anxiety, and other serious mental illness simply are not being treated.
OPP gives untrained Licensed Practical Nurses (“LPNs”) the primary responsibility of completing initial medical screenings. During our tour, we found that LPNs were allowed to complete these screenings even though they did not have sufficient mental health training to adequately assess prisoners’ mental health needs. As a result, we found examples where prisoners who should have been identified during the screening process were not referred to the psychiatrist and later committed suicide:
 In August 2011, a prisoner was sent to general population even after he reported during his initial screening that he had a history of mental illness, had suicidal thoughts, and was currently taking anti-anxiety medications. Instead of referring him to the psychiatrist, he was placed in general population. Less than six hours after being placed in general population, he had to be placed on suicide watch. Less than one week later, he committed suicide.
 In April 2010, a prisoner committed suicide in the Intake Processing Center. Although he reported a history of drug use, including swallowing cocaine before he was arrested, OPP staff failed to refer him to a psychiatrist. Instead, he remained in the intake area and continued to behave erratically (running around intake and trying to walk out of the jail). He was later placed in an isolation/holding cell where he was supposed to be closely monitored by closed-caption camera. Less than 45 minutes after being placed in the isolation/holding cell, he hanged himself by tying his shirt around his neck. OPP’s failure to properly screen and monitor likely contributed to his death.
 In July 2010, less than 24 hours after being admitted, a prisoner committed suicide by tying a towel around his neck. Although he showed risk factors for suicide, he was placed in general population before being assessed by the psychiatrist. Before committing suicide, he reportedly screamed throughout the night and banged on his cell bars constantly, yet staff failed to respond. Even after multiple prisoners repeatedly pressed the intercom button, banged on the tier door, and jumped in front of the supervision camera, staff still did not respond to his cell. He reportedly attempted to harm himself multiple

-15-

times, before he was finally able to tie a towel around his neck and commit suicide. He had been dead for 10 minutes before staff finally came to his cell.

2.

Inadequate Mental Health Treatment

A major reason for OPP’s failure to deliver adequate mental health and suicide prevention is that there are simply too few staff to provide care. A correctional mental health program must include “the participation of trained mental health professionals, who must be employed in sufficient numbers to identify and treat in an individual manner those treatable prisoners suffering from serious mental disorders.” See Ruiz, 503 F. Supp. at 1339. At the time of our tour, OPP employed one full-time psychiatrist, one social worker, and four LPNs, who were supervised by one registered nurse. OPP’s mental health staff is grossly inadequate to handle OPP’s daily population of about 2,900 prisoners. According to OPP’s data, the psychiatrist reportedly works between 40-50 hour a week and has around 600 instance of care per month, excluding face-to-face visits. It is unsurprising that the psychiatrist simply does not have enough time to treat prisoners with serious mental illness.
In fact, we found that the psychiatrist is primarily writing prescriptions and monitoring prisoners on suicide watch. Even when prescriptions were ordered, we found that the psychiatrist had not evaluated prisoners before ordering or changing prescriptions. He instead reviewed previous incarceration records and prescribed similar medications consistent with past practices. This practice ultimately led to prisoners being prescribed medications with little regard to current mental health complaints. We also found examples where the psychiatrist had completely changed medication prescriptions and regimens without conducting a mental health evaluation.

Understaffing currently limits OPP to a reactive, overburdened mental health crisis program that fails to provide constitutionally required treatment. Through our discussions with prisoners, staff members, and record review, we found that staffing shortages have resulted in unreasonable delays in the delivery of care. OPP’s mental health program does not extend beyond administering medications. Nor does anyone monitor the approximately 80 prisoners receiving second-generation antipsychotics for metabolic syndrome, contrary to generally accepted standards of care. We further found examples where the psychiatrist could not complete mental health evaluations because of time restraints. This problem is further exacerbated by OPP’s lack of other mental health professionals to assist with evaluations, resulting in hundreds of prisoners not receiving the care they need.
Perhaps because of extreme short staffing, OPP also authorizes LPNs to perform duties far outside the scope of their training, expertise, or capacity for judgment. For example, LPNs are being authorized to administer involuntary intra-muscular medications pursuant to standing orders on an “as needed” basis. Absent a formal declaration of an emergency, intra-muscular medications should not be administered against a prisoner’s will. And even then, medications should only be administered under the direct supervision of a physician. OPP’s practice is dangerous and contrary to accepted standards.

Although OPP has a full-time social worker, the social worker is only able to devote half of his time working with prisoners suffering from mental illness. We found that OPP failed to

-16-
provide any mental health programs or counseling sessions designed to address substance or physical abuse, mental illness, or medication education. Furthermore, we noted that OPP did not offer group therapies or multi-disciplinary treatment planning. As a result, we found many instances where prisoners were unaware of specific medications prescribed, prisoners did not have any formal outlets to discuss problems, and prisoners did not have any programs that discussed successful return to the community. OPP was limited in offering such programs because there is insufficient staff to provide these services. Deadly harm has resulted:
 In October 2009, a prisoner reported a history of severe mental illness. Despite his history, it appears that his conditions steadily declined at the facility. As he lost weight, refused to eat, and refused medications, OPP staff took no action to address his deteriorating condition. Although alternative treatment options were available, staff simply watched as he continued to lose weight and become depressed. Still, OPP staff did not take any proactive steps to address his needs. Less than four months after admission, he died from physical complications of dehydration and inactivity, likely caused by OPP’s failure to take steps to manage his condition.
Although treatment planning is necessary for providing care to prisoners with mental illness and the National Commission on Correctional Health Care requires treatment plans for prisoners with mental illness, OPP has yet to implement this crucial treatment mechanism. During our review of medical records, we noted that none of the charts that we reviewed contained treatment plans. As a result, we found that OPP was unable to provide appropriate care to prisoners who required close supervision or multidisciplinary care. Treatment plans should be developed once a condition is identified and then updated as warranted. Treatment plans should also be individualized and created by a multidisciplinary team to ensure that prisoners’ needs are addressed. Most importantly, treatment plans should serve as the road map for determining what treatment and course of therapy is necessary to ensure that prisoners receive appropriate care. OPP does none of these things and fails to give prisoners access to a minimally acceptable range of mental health services.
3. Inadequate Access to Medical Care from Deficient Sick Call Process
OPP’s broken sick call process prevents prisoners from having timely and adequate access to health care. Delays of health care can constitute an Eighth Amendment violation “if there has been deliberate indifference that results in substantial harm.” Easter v. Powell, 467 F.3d 459, 463 (5th Cir. 2006). OPP’s sick call process fails to adequately collect, process, and track sick call requests. Indeed, there is no standardized process for accessing sick call requests. We instead found that prisoners received sick call request forms from deputies, Tier Reps, nursing staff, and even the mail lady. This antiquated request model inhibits prisoners from having access to health care. Unsurprisingly, we consistently heard complaints that requests still were not answered and appointments were never scheduled.
We also found that OPP did not review sick call requests on a daily basis. We noted that prisoners waited several days in many instances before their requests were reviewed. When questioned, nursing staff admitted that they were unable to review sick call requests at every housing unit because of staffing shortages. And we found that even when nursing staff went to different housing units to review sick call requests, nursing staff triaged the sick call request and

-17-
only responded to some requests. This is unacceptable and creates a culture where nursing staff select, without adequate training or professional judgment, which prisoners receive care. Because OPP does not have a system to track and log prisoner requests for health care, these problems with access to care will continue to persist.
We also learned that limited English proficiency prisoners experienced additional delays in access to care because OPP does not have staff to address their needs. Although OPP provides sick call requests forms in Spanish, we found that OPP did not have any nursing staff or a qualified interpreter who could discuss medical complaints or issues with this population at the Jail. We noted a practice at OPP where other prisoners assisted in answering questions and conveying medical complaints to OPP staff. This practice violates prisoner confidentiality, is unreliable, and needs to be discontinued to ensure that these prisoners receive appropriate access to health care.
4. Inadequate Quality Assurance Review
OPP continues not to have a consistent and effective process for quality improvement. Correctional facilities should have a structured process in place to identify areas that need improvement and to ensure accountability for errors that lead to grievous harm. See generally Helling, 509 U.S. at 33 (finding that prison authorities may not ignore a condition that is likely to cause future harm). OPP does not have a system that monitors high-risk, high-volume, or problem-prone aspects of mental health care at the Facility.
Although OPP has a Quality Improvement Committee, we were unable to find any evidence that it monitored the quality of mental health care or developed plans for improvement based on trends at the Jail. In fact, we noted that OPP failed to follow, measure, or document the quality or timeliness of critical mental health processes such as assessments, suicide prevention evaluations, suicide management, medication management, and treatment services. Because OPP is not tracking and analyzing critical data related to the provision of mental health care at the facility, we note that the reduction of future suicides or other crisis-related outcomes will be highly unlikely. These reviews are necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the mental health care and to implement corrective action so that the quality is improved.
III. Concerns Regarding Inadequate Services to Limited English Proficient Individuals
As noted, since the initiation of the instant investigation and the release of our letter of findings in 2009, additional concerns relating to OPP’s compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have come to our attention. Through this letter, we hope to advise OPP of its Title VI obligations and related corrective measures. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VI”) authorizes the United States to initiate civil litigation in federal court for injunctive relief against a recipient of federal assistance whose program or activity violates Title VI or its implementing regulations. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1; 28 C.F.R. § 42.108. A recipient violates Title VI by discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin. Language access procedures are deemed to violate Title VI if they are intentionally discriminatory on the basis of their national origin or if the procedures have a discriminatory effect. 28 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2); N.Y. Urban League, Inc. v. New York, 71 F.3d 1031, 1036 (2d Cir. 1995); Lau v. Nichols, 414

-18-
U.S. 563, 569 (1974); Sandoval v. Hagan, 197 F.3d 484, 510-11 (11th Cir. 1999), rev’d on other grounds, 532 U.S. 275 (2001); Almendares v. Palmer, 284 F. Supp. 2d 799, 808 (N.D. Ohio 2003) (; National Multi Housing Council v. Jackson, 539 F. Supp. 2d 425, 430 (D.D.C. 2008).
OPP, as a recipient of federal assistance from DOJ, is subject to the requirements of Title VI. Further, OPP has been on notice of its legal obligation to treat limited English proficiency (“LEP”) prisoners in a non-discriminatory manner. Pursuant to Executive Order 13166, each federal agency, in this case DOJ, that extends financial assistance is required to issue guidance explaining the obligations of their recipients to ensure meaningful access by LEP persons to their federally assisted programs and activities. See 65 Fed. Reg. 50,121 (August 16, 2000). In 2002, DOJ issued such guidance by providing non-discrimination/ LEP language access standards. These standards are applicable to correctional functions of law enforcement agencies receiving federal financial assistance, Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons, 67 Fed. Reg. 41,455 (June 18, 2002) (“DOJ LEP Guidance”). When accepting grants from DOJ, recipients such as OPP sign contractual assurances promising to abide by Title VI nondiscrimination provisions, including those relating to meaningful access for limited English proficient individuals.
Our observations and the allegations we have received regarding the lack of meaningful access for Latino and other national origin minority LEP prisoners to the intake, processing, housing, and medical services at each of the OPP facilities raise serious concerns about the extent to which OPP’s practices are consistent with its Title VI obligations.
According to U.S. Census Bureau, in 2010 the City of New Orleans had a total population of 325,543 individuals who are five years old and older.10 Approximately 10.2% of these residents (33,205 individuals) spoke a language other than English at home.11 When the 33,205 individuals were asked to rate how well they spoke English, approximately 11,987 (36.1%) answered that they spoke English “less than very well.” These individuals would be considered LEP.12
In 2010, there were 16,206 individuals in New Orleans, over the age of five, who spoke “Spanish or Spanish Creole” and 12,636 of these individuals were between the ages of 18 and 64. Forty-five percent of this subgroup stated that they speak English “less than very well.” Accordingly, they would also be considered LEP.13 Because OPP estimates that 80% of their
10 See http://factfinder2.census.gov (Last Visited April 12, 2012)
11 The 10.2% was further subcategorized into the following language groups: “Spanish or Spanish Creole” (5.0%), “Other Indo-European languages” (2.5%), “Asian and Pacific Island languages” (2.4%) and “Other languages” (.3%).
12 See U.S. Census Bureau website: www.http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xthml?pid=table (last visited April 12, 2012).
13 Id.

-19-
prisoners are local residents, there is a strong likelihood that OPP regularly encounters LEP individuals in their daily intake, processing, and housing of prisoners.
A. Lack of Competent Bilingual Staff and Interpreters
We did not observe LEP prisoners at OPP receiving meaningful access to programs and services. OPP has one bilingual classification staff member, very few, if any, bilingual security staff, and no bilingual medical or mental health staff. It does not appear that the language skills or competency of these self-identified staff members has been formally assessed or tested to ensure that they are competent in English and the target non-English language. Interpreter competency requires “more than self-identification as bilingual.” DOJ LEP Guidance at 41461. A competent interpreter must demonstrate “proficiency in and ability to communicate information accurately in both English and in the other language and identify and employ the appropriate mode of interpreting,” and have “knowledge in both languages of any specialized terms or concepts peculiar to the entity’s program or activity.” Id.
In many circumstances “other inmates or other detainees are not competent to provide quality and accurate interpretations...” DOJ LEP Guidance at 41462. Informal prisoner interpreters “should only be an option in unforeseeable emergency circumstances; when the LEP inmate signs a waiver that is in his/her language and in a form designed for him/her to understand; or where the topic of communication is not sensitive, confidential, important, or technical in nature and the prisoner is competent in the skill of interpreting.” Id. The special circumstances of confinement “may raise additional serious concerns regarding the voluntary nature, conflicts of interest, and privacy issues surrounding the use of inmates and detainees as interpreters, particularly where an important right, benefit, service, disciplinary concern, or access to personal or law enforcement information is at stake.” DOJ Guidance at 41462, n. 11.
Although the Templeman V building houses DHS ICE detainees who are nearly 100% LEP,14 OPP has made no provision for language services to ensure communication with this population. None of the OPP staff working there – medical or security – are bilingual. The Warden at Templeman V admitted that sometimes they rely upon other prisoners to serve as interpreters. Security staff there admitted that they rely on other prisoners, use hand motions, or have to guess at what the prisoner is trying to communicate. Prisoners at Templeman V confirmed inadequate and inappropriate communication. Two LEP prisoners indicated that they are routinely either ridiculed or ignored when they seek help or attention from staff and speak in Spanish. One prisoner stated that OPP staff members call Latino prisoners “monkeys.” Other former prisoners also confirmed that when they sought help, OPP staff completely ignored them.
The ability to communicate medical emergencies and needs is particularly essential. When we interviewed the nurse at Templeman V, she admitted that she does not speak Spanish and must rely on telephoning a doctor who is bilingual to interview prisoners. Based on our conversations with the nurse, however, it was unclear how regularly she contacts a bilingual doctor. We also observed that DHS ICE prisoners do not have ready access to sick call slips.
14 The DHS ICE detainee unit can house a maximum of 30 detainees. When we visited in April 2012, there were at first a total of 19 ICE detainees, 18 of whom were LEP. Later that same day, there were three ICE detainees, all of whom were LEP.

-20-
Instead they must ask deputies, who admit they cannot understand when LEP prisoners speak to them.
Consequently, LEP individuals at OPP cannot communicate with security or medical staff and may have been denied meaningful access to medical and other services available to other prisoners. Our investigation also revealed instances in which OPP may not have provided LEP prisoners with medical services, on account of their inability to communicate with the medical staff. At a minimum, OPP needs to provide immediate access to staff or qualified interpreters who are competent and can communicate with prisoners regarding medical and other important needs.
B. Intake System in English Only
The intake system at OPP is almost exclusively in English and does not provide all vital materials in any language other than English. OPP provides two videos to prisoners arriving at OPP, neither of which is available in a language other than English. The first video, which runs 14 minutes, explains the intake and classification process. The second video, which runs 12 minutes, explains the general rules at the Jail for prisoners. Each video is shown in different parts of the Intake and Processing Unit. While OPP has a Jail “Information Sheet” in English and Spanish, it needs to give sufficient information to LEP prisoners regarding classification and intake and other basic information about Jail rules and how to access medical, grievance, and other services.
C. Forty-Eight Hour Holds
OPP’s practices for processing 48-hour prisoner holds for U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Citizenship Enforcement (“DHS ICE”) are not tracked to ensure that holds do not exceed the maximum 48 hours. Instead, the OPP staff members responsible for managing these holds appear to rely upon memory or handwritten notes on files. While OPP may not receive many 48-hour hold requests in one day, the current OPP process is vulnerable to individuals “falling through the cracks.” Additionally, OPP’s current policy and procedure regarding processing the 48-hour holds time has not been memorialized into a written policy.
We spoke with former LEP prisoners who had been held by OPP beyond the maximum 48-hour hold period. They explained that when they attempted to ask staff about their 48-hour holds, they could not communicate because the staff could not understand what they were asking. Similarly, there was no available OPP staff person to interpret for them and explain what was occurring. OPP needs to implement a tracking mechanism and method for prisoners to report issues with 48-hour holds. Failure to adequately track these holds and provide staff who can communicate with LEP prisoners is inconsistent with OPP’s Title VI obligations.
D. Documents in English Only
In addition to language barriers in verbally communicating with monolingual staff, OPP fails to translate important documents into Spanish for LEP prisoners. LEP prisoners throughout OPP reported that they were regularly asked to sign important forms written in English without

-21-
the aid of appropriate language assistance. Documents that have potential important consequences on a prisoner's rights or access to benefits or services are considered vital and need to be translated into frequently encountered LEP languages. See DOJ LEP Guidance at 41463-4. Sight translations of these documents can only be provided by competent staff or interpreters.
At Templeman V, we observed that DHS ICE detainees do not have ready access to sick call slips. Instead they must ask deputies, who admit they cannot understand when LEP prisoners speak to them. Grievance forms did not appear to be available at all at Templeman V, and OPP does not have grievance forms in Spanish in any of the facilities. As explained in the DOJ LEP Guidance, sick call and grievance forms would be considered vital documents and should be translated and available to LEP prisoners to ensure they are provided meaningful access to programs and services. See DOJ LEP Guidance at 41463-4.
******** This letter is a public document. Accordingly, it will be posted on the Civil Rights Division's website. Please contact Special Counsel Laura Coon at 202-514-1089 or Trial Attorney Corey Sanders at 202-305-3229 to discuss the path forward. We remain committed to working with you to address these serious issues that affect the health, life, and safety of prisoners and staff and the public safety of the people of New Orleans.
cc: The Honorable Mitch Landrieu Mayor The City of New Orleans
Richard Cortizas, Esq. Acting City Attorney The City of New Orleans
The Honorable Jim Letten United States Attorney Eastern District of Louisiana