Case: 2:16-cv-397 As of: 07/30/2020 06:19 PM EDT 1 of 28
U.S. District Court Southern District of Indiana (Terre Haute) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:16−cv−00397−JMS−MJD

CLOSED

HUERTA v. PLASSE et al Assigned to: Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson Referred to: Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 10/13/2016 Date Terminated: 03/24/2020 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 555 Prisoner Petitions − Prison Condition Jurisdiction: Federal Question

JAUSTON HUERTA Individually and o/b/o present and future inmates of Vigo County Jail

represented by Kenneth J. Falk ACLU OF INDIANA 1031 E. Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46202 (317) 635−4059 x104 Fax: (317) 635−4105 Email: kfalk@aclu−in.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael K. Sutherlin MICHAEL K. SUTHERLIN & ASSOCIATES, PC 403 E. Wabash Avenue Crawfordsville, IN 47933 317−634−6313 Fax: 317−631−8818 Email: msutherlin@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
THOMAS BOLTON, JR. Individually and o/b/o the Present and Future Inmates of Vigo County Jail

represented by Kenneth J. Falk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael K. Sutherlin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
CURTIS GILLIE Individually and o/b/o the Present and Future Inmates of Vigo County Jail

represented by Kenneth J. Falk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael K. Sutherlin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
CARL SHERB Individually and o/b/o the Present and Future Inmates of Vigo County Jail

represented by Kenneth J. Falk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael K. Sutherlin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

represented by

Case: 2:16-cv-397 As of: 07/30/2020 06:19 PM EDT 2 of 28

DEREK HICKS Individually and o/b/o the Present and Future Inmates of Vigo County Jail
Plaintiff DURAND RANDLE Individually and o/b/o The Present and Future Inmates of Vigo County Jail

Kenneth J. Falk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael K. Sutherlin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kenneth J. Falk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael K. Sutherlin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant JOHN PLASSE Individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Vigo County
Defendant VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Defendant VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL

represented by Craig Morris McKee WILKINSON, GOELLER, MODESITT, WILKINSON & DRUMMY 333 Ohio Street Terre Haute, IN 47807 (812) 232−4311 Fax: (812) 235−5107 Email: cmmckee@wilkinsonlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David P. Friedrich WILKINSON GOELLER MODESITT WILKINSON AND DRUMMY 333 Ohio Street P.O. Box 800 Terre Haute, IN 47808−0800 (812) 232−4311 Fax: (812) 235−5107 Email: dpfriedrich@wilkinsonlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael James Wright MICHAEL J. WRIGHT, ATTORNEY AT LAW 605 Ohio Street Suite 312 Terre Haute, IN 47807 812−201−9562 Email: wrightlawfirm812@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David P. Friedrich (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael James Wright (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by

Case: 2:16-cv-397 As of: 07/30/2020 06:19 PM EDT 3 of 28

Defendant BRAD ANDERSON In official role as Vigo County Commissioner
Defendant JUDY ANDERSON In official role as Vigo County Commissioner
Defendant BRENDAN KEARNS In official role as Vigo County Commissioner
Defendant MIKE MORRIS In official role as Vigo County Council
Defendant AARON LOUDERMILK In official role as Vigo County Council
Defendant JIM MANN In official role as Vigo County Council

David P. Friedrich (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael James Wright (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David P. Friedrich (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael James Wright (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David P. Friedrich (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael James Wright (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David P. Friedrich (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael James Wright (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David P. Friedrich (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael James Wright (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David P. Friedrich (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael James Wright (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David P. Friedrich (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael James Wright (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:16-cv-397 As of: 07/30/2020 06:19 PM EDT 4 of 28

Defendant LISA SPENCER−BUNNETT In official role as Vigo County Council
Defendant CHRIS SWITZER In official role as Vigo County Council
Defendant DAVID THOMPSON In official role as Vigo County Council
Defendant VICKI WEGER In official role as Vigo County Council

represented by David P. Friedrich (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael James Wright (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David P. Friedrich (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael James Wright (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David P. Friedrich (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael James Wright (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David P. Friedrich (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael James Wright (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/13/2016
10/13/2016 10/13/2016 10/14/2016
10/14/2016 10/14/2016

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by JAUSTON HUERTA. Receipt No. 0756−4084838 in the amount of $400.00 for filing fee (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Summons)(Sutherlin, Michael) Modified on 10/13/2016 to include Receipt (DJH). (Entered: 10/13/2016)
2 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael K. Sutherlin on behalf of Plaintiff JAUSTON HUERTA. (Sutherlin, Michael) (Entered: 10/13/2016)
3 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael K. Sutherlin on behalf of Plaintiff JAUSTON HUERTA. (Sutherlin, Michael) (Entered: 10/13/2016)
4 Summons Issued as to BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, MARK D. BIRD, RICK BURGER, TIMOTHY CURLEY, GREG EWING, JAUSTON HUERTA, JON MARVEL, KATHY MILLER, MIKE MORRIS, ED PING, BILL THOMAS, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL. (RSF) (Entered: 10/14/2016)
5 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (RSF) (Entered: 10/14/2016)
6 NOTICE of Appearance by Bradley C. Lohmeier on behalf of Plaintiff JAUSTON HUERTA. (Lohmeier, Bradley) (Entered: 10/14/2016)

Case: 2:16-cv-397 As of: 07/30/2020 06:19 PM EDT 5 of 28

11/03/2016 11/17/2016 11/17/2016 11/21/2016 11/21/2016 11/21/2016 11/22/2016
11/22/2016
11/22/2016
12/05/2016
12/06/2016 12/16/2016 12/16/2016

7 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael James Wright on behalf of Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, MARK D. BIRD, RICK BURGER, TIMOTHY CURLEY, GREG EWING, JON MARVEL, KATHY MILLER, MIKE MORRIS, ED PING, BILL THOMAS, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL. (Wright, Michael) (Entered: 11/03/2016)
8 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by All Plaintiffs.(Sutherlin, Michael) (Entered: 11/17/2016)
9 MOTION for Leave to file re 8 of Amended Complaint by JAUSTON HUERTA (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Sutherlin, Michael) Modified on 11/18/2016 (DW). (Entered: 11/17/2016)
10 MOTION to Certify Class , filed by Plaintiff JAUSTON HUERTA. (Lohmeier, Bradley) (Entered: 11/21/2016)
11 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 10 MOTION to Certify Class , filed by Plaintiff JAUSTON HUERTA. (Lohmeier, Bradley) (Entered: 11/21/2016)
12 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , filed by Plaintiff JAUSTON HUERTA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lohmeier, Bradley) (Entered: 11/21/2016)
13 ORDER granting 9 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is deemed filed as of the date of this Order and pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Defendants' responses must be made within the time remaining to respond to the original pleading or within 14 day after service of the amended complaint, whichever is later. Signed by Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue on 11/22/2016. (LBT) (Entered: 11/22/2016)
14 AMENDED COMPLAINT against BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, MARK D. BIRD, RICK BURGER, TIMOTHY CURLEY, GREG EWING, JON MARVEL, KATHY MILLER, MIKE MORRIS, ED PING, BILL THOMAS, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL, filed by JAUSTON HUERTA, THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, CARL SHERB, DEREK HICKS, DURAND RANDLE. **DOCKETED PER NO. 13**(LBT) (Entered: 11/22/2016)
15 SCHEDULING ENTRY: Telephonic Status Conference set for 12/2/2016 at 9:00 AM (Eastern Time) before Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue. The purpose of the conference is to discuss Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 12 ) and to set a briefing schedule on said motion. Counsel will receive call−in information for the conference via separate email notification. Signed by Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue on 11/22/2016.(LBT) (Entered: 11/22/2016)
17 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue: Status Conference held on 12/2/2016 − Parties discussed case status and pending motions filed by Plaintiff. Defendants' Response to the Motion for Class Certification [Dkt. 10 ] and Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Dkt, 12 ] shall be filed on or before December 16, 2016. Any Reply shall be filed on or before December 23, 2016. The parties request a day and half evidentiary hearing in mid−January 2017. The conference concluded without further order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue. (REO) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
18 ENTRY SETTING HEARING − Evidentiary Hearing set for 1/17/2017 at 9:00 AM in room #131, United States Courthouse, 921 Ohio Street, Terre Haute, Indiana before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 12/6/2016.(RSF) (Entered: 12/06/2016)
19 NOTICE of consent to class action certification, filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, MARK D. BIRD, RICK BURGER, TIMOTHY CURLEY, GREG EWING, JON MARVEL, KATHY MILLER, MIKE MORRIS, ED PING, BILL THOMAS, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL (Wright, Michael) (Entered: 12/16/2016)
20 RESPONSE in Opposition re 12 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, MARK D. BIRD, RICK BURGER, TIMOTHY CURLEY, GREG EWING, JON MARVEL, KATHY MILLER, MIKE MORRIS, ED PING, BILL THOMAS, VIGO COUNTY

Case: 2:16-cv-397 As of: 07/30/2020 06:19 PM EDT 6 of 28

12/22/2016 12/27/2016 12/28/2016 12/29/2016 01/06/2017 01/09/2017 01/11/2017 01/12/2017
01/12/2017 01/18/2017

COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL. (Wright, Michael) (Entered: 12/16/2016)
21 NOTICE of Appearance by David P. Friedrich on behalf of Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, MARK D. BIRD, RICK BURGER, TIMOTHY CURLEY, GREG EWING, JON MARVEL, KATHY MILLER, MIKE MORRIS, ED PING, BILL THOMAS, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL. (Friedrich, David) (Entered: 12/22/2016)
22 ***PLEASE DISREGARD − WITHDRAWN AT 22 *** NOTICE of Parties' First Extension of Time, filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, MARK D. BIRD, RICK BURGER, TIMOTHY CURLEY, GREG EWING, JON MARVEL, KATHY MILLER, MIKE MORRIS, ED PING, BILL THOMAS, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL. (Friedrich, David) Modified on 12/29/2016 (RSF). (Entered: 12/27/2016)
23 MOTION to Withdraw 22 NOTICE of Parties' First Extension of Time , filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, MARK D. BIRD, RICK BURGER, TIMOTHY CURLEY, GREG EWING, JON MARVEL, KATHY MILLER, MIKE MORRIS, ED PING, BILL THOMAS, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Withdrawing Filing at 22)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 12/28/2016)
24 ORDER − granting 23 Motion to Withdraw 22 NOTICE of Parties' First Extension of Time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue on 12/29/2016. (RSF) (Entered: 12/29/2016)
25 SCHEDULING ORDER: Telephonic Status Conference set for 1/10/2017 at 12:00 PM (Eastern Time) before Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue. The purpose of the conference is to discuss readiness for upcoming preliminary injunction hearing. Counsel will receive call−in information for the conference via separate email notification. Signed by Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue on 1/6/2017.(REO) (Entered: 01/06/2017)
27 NOTICE of Appearance by Craig Morris McKee on behalf of Defendant GREG EWING. (McKee, Craig) (Entered: 01/09/2017)
28 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue: Status Conference held on 1/10/2017 − Parties discussed case status. Parties are directed to call−in for a status report (using the same call−in information used for this conference) on Wednesday, January 11, 2017, at 2:30 p.m., Eastern. The conference concluded without further order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue. (REO) (Entered: 01/11/2017)
29 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue: Status Conference held on 1/11/2017 − Parties discussed case status. Parties reported that Executive Session went well last night and Commissioners are agreeable to the most recent draft and stipulation prepared by Craig McKee. Attorney Sutherland has not had chance to review but it was reported that there were not any substantive changes. Attorney Sutherland will review tonight and report by 10 a.m. tomorrow on whether the January 17, 2017, Preliminary Injunction hearing can be vacated. Attorney Sutherland reported that the parties were far enough in substantial agreement on a draft stipulation that the Preliminary Injunction evidentiary could be vacated. The conference concluded without further order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue. (REO) (Entered: 01/12/2017)
30 ENTRY VACATING HEARING − Based on the telephonic status conference between the parties and the Magistrate Judge in which Plaintiffs' counsel advised that the Preliminary Injunction hearing is no longer necessary [dkt. 29 ], the Court VACATES the January 17, 2017 Preliminary Injunction Hearing. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 1/12/2017.(MRI) Modified on 1/13/2017 (DW). (Entered: 01/12/2017)
31 MOTION to Withdraw Attorney Appearance of Bradley C. Lohmeier, filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed

Case: 2:16-cv-397 As of: 07/30/2020 06:19 PM EDT 7 of 28

01/20/2017 02/27/2017 03/17/2017 03/27/2017 04/07/2017 04/07/2017
04/14/2017 04/21/2017
05/08/2017 05/09/2017 05/15/2017

Order)(Lohmeier, Bradley) (Entered: 01/18/2017)
32 ORDER granting 31 Motion to Withdraw Attorney Appearance. Attorney Bradley C. Lohmeier withdrawn on behalf of the class and Jauston Huerta. Signed by Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue on 1/20/2017. (DW) (Entered: 01/20/2017)
33 MOTION for Status Conference, filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sutherlin, Michael) (Entered: 02/27/2017)
34 ORDER granting 33 Motion for Status Conference. This matter is scheduled for a telephonic status conference on MONDAY, MARCH 27, 2017, AT 10:00 A.M., EASTERN. The purpose of this status conference is to discuss progress on the parties' stipulation. Counsel will receive call−in information for the conference via separate email notification. Signed by Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue on 3/17/2017.(DW) (Entered: 03/17/2017)
36 ***PLEASE DISREGARD−WITHDRAWN at 46 *** STIPULATION , filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Attachments: # 1 Notice to Class Members, # 2 Timeframe for Completion of Vigo County Security Complex, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Sutherlin, Michael) Modified on 3/28/2017 (DW). Modified on 5/19/2017 (MRI). (Entered: 03/27/2017)
37 Joint MOTION to Approve Joint Stipulation and Class Certification, filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Sutherlin, Michael) (Entered: 04/07/2017)
38 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue: Status Conference held on 3/27/2017 − Parties discussed case status. Plaintiffs reported the parties were able to resolve their differences and reach a joint stipulation: with proposed notice to class; proposed order, and proposed timeline. If approved by the Court, Plaintiff would then file a petition for attorneys' fees. The conference concluded without further order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue. (REO) (Entered: 04/07/2017)
39 ENTRY SETTING TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE − The above cause is set for a telephonic status conference on April 20, 2017 at 2:30 p.m. on the pending Joint Motion to Approve Joint Stipulation and Class Certification (filing no. 37 ). Counsel shall call 317−229−3670. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 4/14/2017.(DW) (Entered: 04/14/2017)
40 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson. The Court held a telephonic status conference in this matter on April 20, 2017. Plaintiffs were present by counsel Michael Sutherlin. Defendant Greg Ewing was present by counsel Craig McKee and Michael Wright, and the remaining Defendants were present by counsel Michael Wright. The Court and counsel discussed the parties' Stipulation, [Filing No. 36], and Joint Motion to Approve Joint Stipulation and Class Certification, [Filing No. 37]. The Court took the Joint Motion to Approve Joint Stipulation and Class Certification UNDER ADVISEMENT, and the telephonic conference concluded. If the parties would like to submit any revisions to the motion, or further information relating to the motion, they must do so by May 15, 2017. A hearing on the Joint Motion to Approve Joint Stipulation and Class Certification is scheduled for May 17, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 307 of the Birch Bayh Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 46 East Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson. (MRI) (Entered: 04/21/2017)
41 MOTION for assistance to transport inmates, filed by Plaintiff JAUSTON HUERTA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sutherlin, Michael) (Entered: 05/08/2017)
42 ORDER − Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Request for Assistance of the Court, [Filing No. 41 ], is DENIED (SEE ORDER FOR ADDTITIONAL INFORMATION). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 5/9/2017. (DW) (Entered: 05/09/2017)
43 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 37 Joint MOTION to Approve Joint Stipulation and Class Certification and Notice to the Class, filed by Plaintiffs

Case: 2:16-cv-397 As of: 07/30/2020 06:19 PM EDT 8 of 28

05/15/2017 05/15/2017 05/19/2017
05/22/2017 05/23/2017 05/23/2017 05/24/2017 06/01/2017 06/02/2017

THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Sutherlin, Michael) (Entered: 05/15/2017)
44 MOTION Proposed Joint Stipulation, filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Sutherlin, Michael) (Entered: 05/15/2017)
45 NOTICE of Filing of Certification of Class Action by All Plaintiffs (Sutherlin, Michael) (Entered: 05/15/2017)
46 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson: On May 17, 2017, the Court held a hearing on the parties' Joint Motion to Approve Joint Stipulation and Class Certification, [Filing No. 37 ]. Plaintiffs were present by counsel Michael Sutherlin. Defendant Sheriff Greg Ewing was present in person and by counsel Craig McKee, David Friedrich, and Michael Wright. The remaining Defendants were present by counsel David Friedrich and Michael Wright. The court reporter was Jean Knepley. The Court DENIES IN PART WITH EXPLANATION the Joint Motion to Approve Stipulation and Class Certification to the extent it requests approval of the Joint Stipulation. [Filing No. 37 ] The Court, therefore, ACCEPTS the Proposed Joint Stipulation, [Filing No. 44 ] The Court GRANTS IN PART the Joint Motion to Approve Joint Stipulation and Class Certification, [Filing No. 37 ], to the extent that it seeks class certification, and likewise GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, [Filing No. 10 ]. The joint stipulation filed on March 27, 2017 [Filing No. 36 ] is WITHDRAWN. Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, [Filing No. 12 ], remains pending. (SEE ORDER FOR MORE DETAILS.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson. (Court Reporter Jean Knepley.) (Attachments: # 1 Class Notice)(MRI) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
47 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Hearing, filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Sutherlin, Michael) (Entered: 05/22/2017)
48 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE − Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 137 and Local Rule 40−1(f), this matter has been reassigned to Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. Judge Denise K. LaRue is no longer assigned to the case. Please include the new case number,2:16−cv−00397−JMS−MJD, on all future filings in this matter. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 5/23/2017. (NLR) (Entered: 05/23/2017)
49 ORDER (Marginal Notation): Given the parties' Stipulation in which Defendants agree that "the Vigo County Jail does not meet constitutional standards for reasons of overcrowding, understaffing, and inadequate space" [dkt. 44 ], the Court wonders how the requested hearing would or should take 3 days. Plaintiffs are ordered to supplement their motion explaining the need for such a lengthy hearing. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 5/23/2017.(DW) (Entered: 05/23/2017)
50 SCHEDULING ORDER: Telephonic Status Conference set for 6/1/2017 at 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. The purpose of the conference is to discuss case status. Counsel shall attend the conference by calling the designated telephone number, to be provided by the Court via email generated by the Court's ECF system. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 5/24/2017.(RSF) (Entered: 05/24/2017)
52 NOTICE of Appearance by Eric A. Frey on behalf of Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Frey, Eric) (Entered: 06/01/2017)
53 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 6/1/2017. Parties discussed status & committed to reporting on status of efforts to reach agreement regarding Agreed Preliminary Injunction by June 9, 2017 as previously ordered. [Dkt. 46 at 6.] Parties instructed to meet−and−confer & report on total amount of time expected for any preliminary injunction hearing, including amount of time for argument at conclusion of any evidentiary submission. *See Order for Additional Requirements & Information.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 06/02/2017)

Case: 2:16-cv-397 As of: 07/30/2020 06:19 PM EDT 9 of 28

06/09/2017 06/16/2017 06/19/2017
06/19/2017 06/23/2017 06/26/2017 06/30/2017
07/05/2017
07/26/2017 07/27/2017 08/08/2017

54 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report by All Defendants. (Wright, Michael) (Entered: 06/09/2017)
55 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to 06/23/2017 , filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, MARK D. BIRD, RICK BURGER, TIMOTHY CURLEY, GREG EWING, JON MARVEL, KATHY MILLER, MIKE MORRIS, ED PING, BILL THOMAS, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL. (McKee, Craig) (Entered: 06/16/2017)
56 Submission of Proposed Order , re 55 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to 06/23/2017 , filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, MARK D. BIRD, RICK BURGER, TIMOTHY CURLEY, GREG EWING, JON MARVEL, KATHY MILLER, MIKE MORRIS, ED PING, BILL THOMAS, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL. (McKee, Craig) (Entered: 06/19/2017)
57 ORDER GRANTING PARTIES' REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME − The Parties filed a Request for Extension of Time 55 , and the Court, being duly advised, now GRANTS the motion. Agreed Preliminary Injunction pleadings shall be due June 23, 2017. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 6/19/2017. (RSF) (Entered: 06/19/2017)
58 MOTION for Extension of Time to June 30, 2017 , filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sutherlin, Michael) (Entered: 06/23/2017)
59 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME − The plaintiff filed a request for Extension of Time, and the Court, being duly advised, now GRANTS the motion. Agreed Preliminary Injunction pleadings shall be due on the 30th day of June, 2017. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 6/26/2017. (RSF) (Entered: 06/26/2017)
60 MOTION for Pretrial Conference Status Conference, filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, MARK D. BIRD, RICK BURGER, TIMOTHY CURLEY, GREG EWING, JON MARVEL, KATHY MILLER, MIKE MORRIS, ED PING, BILL THOMAS, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(McKee, Craig) (Entered: 06/30/2017)
61 ORDER granting 60 Motion for Pretrial Conference. The Court, being duly advised, hereby GRANTS Defendants' Motion and sets this matter for an in person pretrial conference on Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. (Eastern) in Courtroom 131, United States Courthouse, 921 Ohio Street, Terre Haute, Indiana before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. The parties are ordered to provide the Court a Word version of the most current draft of an agreed preliminary injunction order by 10:00 a.m. (Eastern) on July 31, 2017 (SEE ORDER). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 7/5/2017.(DW) (Entered: 07/05/2017)
62 MOTION to Withdraw Attorney Appearance , filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Frey, Eric) (Entered: 07/26/2017)
63 ORDER granting 62 Motion to Withdraw Attorney Appearance. Eric A. Frey's Appearance on behalf of the Plaintiffs is WITHDRAWN and TERMINATED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 7/27/2017. (DW) (Entered: 07/27/2017)
64 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Pretrial Conference held on 8/2/2017. Court & parties discussed status & Plaintiff's pending motion for preliminary injunction. Plaintiff to file amended motion for preliminary injunction by 8/16/2017. Parties to notify Court regarding agreement as to communication of notice to class by 8/18/2017. Initial Pretrial Conference set for 9/5/2017 at 1:30 PM (Eastern Time) in room #131, United States Courthouse, 921 Ohio Street, Terre Haute, Indiana before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. Parties to file proposed Case Management Plan no fewer than 7 days prior to pretrial conference. *See Order.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 08/09/2017)

Case: 2:16-cv-397 As of: 07/30/2020 06:19 PM EDT 10 of 28

08/18/2017 08/18/2017 08/18/2017 08/22/2017 08/24/2017
08/25/2017 08/29/2017 09/08/2017

65 ***WITHDRAWN per 87 *** Amended MOTION to Amend/Correct , filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Sutherlin, Michael) Modified on 12/18/2017 (GD). (Entered: 08/18/2017)
66 MARGINAL ENTRY denying as moot 47 Motion for Preliminary Injunction − In light of Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 65 , the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Hearing, 47 . The Court may reconsider if necessary. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 8/18/2017. (JRB) (Main Document 66 replaced on 8/18/2017) (JRB). (Entered: 08/18/2017)
67 MARGINAL ENTRY denying as moot 12 Motion for Preliminary Injunction − Because Plaintiffs have filed an Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 65 , their Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 12 , is DENIED AS MOOT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 8/18/2017. (JRB) (Entered: 08/18/2017)
68 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information Relocation of Plaintiff Counsel's Office, filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB (Sutherlin, Michael) Modified on 8/23/2017 (DW). (Entered: 08/22/2017)
69 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: The in person initial pretrial conference currently scheduled for September 5, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. (Eastern) is hereby CONVERTEDTelephonic Initial Pretrial Conference. Counsel shall attend the conference by calling the designated telephone number, to be provided by the Court via email generated by the Court's ECF system. All other requirements of the Court's order dated August 8, 2017 [Dkt. 64 ] remain in effect, and the parties are reminded to file a proposed Case Management Plan no fewer than seven days in advance of the initial pretrial conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 8/24/2017.(RSF) (Entered: 08/25/2017)
70 NOTICE of parties agreement on notification of class members, filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, MARK D. BIRD, RICK BURGER, TIMOTHY CURLEY, GREG EWING, JON MARVEL, KATHY MILLER, MIKE MORRIS, ED PING, BILL THOMAS, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL (Wright, Michael) (Entered: 08/25/2017)
71 ORDER (Marginal Notation) − The court approves the parties agreement re 70 Notice of parties agreement on notification of class members. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 8/29/2017.(DW) (Entered: 08/29/2017)
73 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Initial Pretrial Conference held on 9/5/2017. Hearing on Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction 65 shall be consolidated with trial on the merits. Plaintiffs' remaining claims triable to jury shall be prepared for resolution pursuant to Case Management Order entered contemporaneous with this order. Plaintiffs' brief in support of 65 Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction due on or before 10/13/2017. Defendants' responsive brief due on or before 11/13/2017 & Plaintiffs' reply brief due on or before 11/8/2017. On or before 12/8/2017, parties' shall file list of witnesses to be called & list of exhibits to be offered at hearing on Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Parties' pre−hearing briefs also due on or before 12/8/2017. In Person Pre−Hearing Conference set for 12/11/2017 at 4:00 PM (Eastern Time) in room #131, United States Courthouse, 921 Ohio Street, Terre Haute, Indiana before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. In advance of conference, parties should endeavor to stipulate in writing to any relevant facts to which there is no dispute. Court anticipates Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and consolidated trial on the merits of all issues triable to the Court, will be ready for hearing on or after January 8, 2018. Telephonic Status Conference set for 9/18/2017 at 1:30 PM (Eastern Time) before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. Settlement Conference set for 2/26/2018 at 12:30 PM (Eastern Time) in room #131, United States Courthouse, 921 Ohio Street, Terre Haute, Indiana before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. *SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL DEADLINES & INFORMATION.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 09/11/2017)

Case: 2:16-cv-397 As of: 07/30/2020 06:19 PM EDT 11 of 28

09/08/2017
09/08/2017 09/18/2017 09/21/2017 10/10/2017 10/11/2017
10/18/2017 11/29/2017 12/07/2017 12/08/2017 12/18/2017

74 ORDER REGARDING PROTECTIVE ORDERS − In the event an agreed protective order is required in this matter, the parties shall file a motion seeking the entry of such an order, attaching thereto the proposed protective order. The parties shall either use the Court's Uniform Protective Order http://www.insd.uscourts.gov/court−info/local−rules−and−orders or explain in the motion why a different form of order is being proposed (SEE ORDER). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 9/8/2017.(DW) (Entered: 09/11/2017)
75 ORDER: CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN − Discovery due by 3/16/2018. Dispositive Motions due by 4/13/2018 (SEE ORDER). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 9/8/2017.(DW) (Entered: 09/11/2017)
77 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 9/18/2017. Parties discussed status & acknowledged agreement with schedule set forth by Court ( 73 & 75 .) Telephonic Status Conference set for 10/17/2017 at 12:30 PM (Eastern Time) before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. *SEE ORDER.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 09/18/2017)
78 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information. Consistent with Local Rule 5−3, Michael James Wright hereby notifies the Clerk of the court of changed contact information. (Wright, Michael) (Entered: 09/21/2017)
79 First MOTION for Extension of Time to November 6, 2017 , filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Attachments: # 1 Motion for Extension of Time)(Sutherlin, Michael) (Entered: 10/10/2017)
80 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 79 Motion for Extension of Time − 73 is hereby amended as follows: Plaintiffs shall file a brief in support of their Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction 65 on or before October 20, 2017. Defendants shall file a responsive brief on or before November 20, 2017, and Plaintiffs shall file any reply brief on or before December 8, 2017. All other requirements and deadlines set forth in 73 remain in effect and no further enlargements of the deadlines set forth in 73 will be granted to any party. SEE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 10/11/2017. (JRB) (Entered: 10/12/2017)
82 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 10/17/2017. Parties discussed preliminary injunction briefing schedule. In Person Prehearing Conference remains on calendar for 12/11/2017. Parties were reminded to timely file all submissions required in advance of conference. *SEE ORDER.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 10/18/2017)
83 Letter from Joshua Goodpaster re: Class Action Lawsuit. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (MAC) (Entered: 11/30/2017)
84 MOTION to Convert Status Conference to Telephone Conference, filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, MARK D. BIRD, RICK BURGER, TIMOTHY CURLEY, GREG EWING, JON MARVEL, KATHY MILLER, MIKE MORRIS, ED PING, BILL THOMAS, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McKee, Craig) (Entered: 12/07/2017)
85 ORDER granting 84 Defendants' Motion to Convert to Telephonic Conference: In Person Status Conference set for 12/11/2017 hereby CONVERTED to Telephonic Status Conference & Court changes time to 12:30 PM (Eastern Time). *SEE ORDER.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 12/8/2017. (GD) (Entered: 12/08/2017)
87 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 12/11/2017. Plaintiffs' counsel orally moved to withdraw 65 Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Plaintiffs' motion GRANTED; Clerk is directed to show 65 Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction as WITHDRAWN. Approved Case Management Order 75 hereby amended: Parties' Initial Disclosures due 12/22/2017; Plaintiffs' Preliminary Witness & Exhibit Lists due 12/22/2017; Defendants' Preliminary Witness & Exhibit Lists due 12/29/2017. Telephonic Status Conference set for 1/2/2018 at 12:20 PM (Eastern

Case: 2:16-cv-397 As of: 07/30/2020 06:19 PM EDT 12 of 28

12/21/2017 12/21/2017 12/21/2017 01/02/2018 01/04/2018
01/11/2018 01/16/2018 01/16/2018 01/19/2018
01/25/2018 01/25/2018 01/29/2018

Time) before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. *SEE ORDER.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 12/18/2017)
88 NOTICE of Service of Initial Disclosures , filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, MARK D. BIRD, RICK BURGER, TIMOTHY CURLEY, GREG EWING, JON MARVEL, KATHY MILLER, MIKE MORRIS, ED PING, BILL THOMAS, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL. (Friedrich, David) (Entered: 12/21/2017)
89 Witness List Preliminary, filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, MARK D. BIRD, RICK BURGER, TIMOTHY CURLEY, GREG EWING, JON MARVEL, KATHY MILLER, MIKE MORRIS, ED PING, BILL THOMAS, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL. (Friedrich, David) (Entered: 12/21/2017)
90 Exhibit List Preliminary, filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, MARK D. BIRD, RICK BURGER, TIMOTHY CURLEY, GREG EWING, JON MARVEL, KATHY MILLER, MIKE MORRIS, ED PING, BILL THOMAS, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL. (Friedrich, David) (Entered: 12/21/2017)
92 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Telephonic Status Conference set for 1/2/2018 at 12:20 PM is hereby RESCHEDULED to 1/4/2018 at 9:30 AM (Eastern Time) before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. Counsel will be provided with new teleconference call−in information. *SEE ORDER.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 1/2/2018. (GD) (Entered: 01/02/2018)
94 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 1/4/2018. Parties discussed status of & future plans for discovery. Plaintiffs' initial disclosures and preliminary witness & exhibit lists due 1/12/2018. Telephonic Status Conference set for 2/1/2018 at 5:00 PM (Eastern Time) to discuss case status & parties' readiness for upcoming settlement conference. *SEE ORDER.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 01/05/2018)
95 First MOTION for Appointment of Three Judge Panel, filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Sutherlin, Michael) (Entered: 01/11/2018)
96 NOTICE of Service of Initial Disclosures ,Witness and Exhibit Lists, filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Sutherlin, Michael) (Entered: 01/16/2018)
97 ***WITHDRAWN PER 102 ORDER*** First MOTION to Amend Complaint, filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Sutherlin, Michael) Modified on 1/30/2018 (DW). (Entered: 01/16/2018)
98 SCHEDULING ORDER − Therefore, the Court orders Plaintiffs' counsel to file a proposed second amended complaint on or before January 25, 2018. Thereafter, any response to the Plaintiffs' Motion shall be due on or before January 29, 2018. Any reply in support of Plaintiffs' Motion shall be due on or before February 1, 2018 (SEE ORDER). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 1/19/2018.(DW) (Entered: 01/19/2018)
99 Second MOTION , filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sutherlin, Michael) (Entered: 01/25/2018)
100 PROPOSED ORDER re 95 First MOTION for Appointment of Three Judge Panel , filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Sutherlin, Michael) Modified on 1/26/2018 (DW). (Entered: 01/25/2018)
102 ORDER − This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Request to Withdraw Motion to Amend Complaint. [Dkt. 99 .] The Court, being duly advised, hereby GRANTS the motion. The Clerk is directed to reflect Plaintiffs' Motion to Add Lloyd Thomas a Named Plaintiff in the Vigo County Jail Class Action [Dkt. 97 ] as

Case: 2:16-cv-397 As of: 07/30/2020 06:19 PM EDT 13 of 28

02/01/2018 02/02/2018 02/05/2018 02/05/2018
02/08/2018 02/28/2018
03/01/2018 03/27/2018 03/29/2018 04/04/2018

WITHDRAWN from the docket. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 1/29/2018. (DW) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
104 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 2/1/2018. Parties discussed status of discovery & readiness for upcoming settlement conference. Conference concluded without further order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 02/02/2018)
103 MOTION to Take Deposition from Jauston Huerta , filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, MARK D. BIRD, RICK BURGER, TIMOTHY CURLEY, GREG EWING, JON MARVEL, KATHY MILLER, MIKE MORRIS, ED PING, BILL THOMAS, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order to take deposition)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 02/02/2018)
105 ORDER − This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' motion for leave to take the deposition of Jauston Huerta, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(B). [Dkt. 103 .] The Court, being duly advised, hereby GRANTS the motion. Defendants are authorized to take the deposition of Jauston Huerta at the Putnamville Correctional Facility on February 9, 2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 2/5/2018. (DW) (Entered: 02/05/2018)
106 ORDER TO MAKE INMATE AVAILABLE − You or your designee(s) are ORDERED to make Jauston Huerta available to participate telephonically in a settlement conference at the time and date specified in this Order. Putnamville Correctional Facility shall provide a call−in number to the Court. Inmate: Jauston Huerta 954787 Date: February 26, 2018 Time: 12:30 p.m. (Eastern) Expected Duration of Court Proceeding: 3−4 hours Any questions or information concerning this Order should be brought to the attention of Judge Dinsmore's Courtroom Deputy at 317−229−3901. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 2/2/2018.(DW) (Entered: 02/05/2018)
107 ORDER − For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for the Appointment of a Three Judge Panel, 95 . To the extent that circumstances change which would support the appointment of a three−judge panel, Plaintiffs may re−file their motion (SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 2/8/2018. (DW) (Entered: 02/08/2018)
108 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Settlement Conference held on 2/26/2018. Settlement was not achieved. Court amends approved Case Management Order 75 . Dispositive Motions due by 6/22/2018. Discovery due by 5/25/2018. Parties are directed to plan for & complete all case−related activities pursuant to schedule. Parties should not anticipate any further revision of the case deadlines. Telephonic Status Conference set for 3/29/2018 at 12:00 PM (Eastern Time) before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. *SEE ORDER FOR DEADLINES.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 03/01/2018)
109 Defendants ANSWER to 14 Amended Complaint , filed by All Defendants.(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 03/01/2018)
111 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER (TIME ONLY): This matter is currently set for a Telephonic Status Conference on 3/29/2018 at 12:00 PM. The Court now changes the time to 10:00 AM (Eastern) on that same date. All other requirements of the Court's order dated 2/28/2018 108 remain in effect, and the teleconference call−in information issued by the Court on 3/27/2018 110 remains unchanged. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 3/27/2018. (GD) (Entered: 03/27/2018)
112 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 3/29/2018. Parties discussed status of discovery. Telephonic Status Conference set for 9/4/2018 at 10:20 AM (Eastern Time) before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. *SEE ORDER.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 03/30/2018)
113 First MOTION to Appoint Counsel , filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE,

Case: 2:16-cv-397 As of: 07/30/2020 06:19 PM EDT 14 of 28

04/05/2018
04/09/2018 05/30/2018 06/22/2018 06/22/2018
06/22/2018 07/12/2018 07/13/2018
07/17/2018 07/27/2018 07/30/2018

CARL SHERB. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sutherlin, Michael) (Entered: 04/04/2018)
114 ORDER − This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Appoint Kenneth J. Falk as Additional Class Counsel for the Purpose of Seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. [Dkt. 113 .] The Court, being duly advised, and finding that Kenneth J. Falk is an appropriate person to appoint as additional counsel for the class in this case, hereby GRANTS the motion. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), Kenneth J. Falk is appointed as additional counsel for the class in this case for the purpose of pursuing injunctive and declaratory relief. Plaintiffs' counsel Michael K. Sutherlin shall serve a copy of this Order upon Kenneth J. Falk, and Mr. Falk shall enter his appearance for Plaintiffs in this matter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 4/5/2018. (DW) (Entered: 04/06/2018)
115 NOTICE of Appearance by Kenneth J. Falk on behalf of Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 04/09/2018)
116 NOTICE of Claims and Defenses, filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/30/2018)
117 STIPULATION as to Photographs, filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2−person cell, # 2 Exhibit 4−person cell, # 3 Exhibit prisoner in "boat", # 4 Exhibit prisoner not in "boat", # 5 Exhibit outside cell area)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/22/2018)
118 MOTION for Summary Judgment −PARTIAL−, filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ewing deposition, # 2 Exhibit Whipker declaration, # 3 Exhibit Bill Thomas deposition, # 4 Exhibit Huerta deposition, # 5 Exhibit Riley declaration, # 6 Exhibit Dockery declaration, # 7 Exhibit Thomas declaration, # 8 Exhibit Marvel deposition, # 9 Exhibit Smith declaration, # 10 Exhibit Lloyd Thomas deposition)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/22/2018)
119 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 118 MOTION for Summary Judgment −PARTIAL− , filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/22/2018)
120 NOTICE of Filing Expert Witness Disclosure by All Plaintiffs (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/12/2018)
121 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply to August 3, 2018 re 118 MOTION for Summary Judgment −PARTIAL− , filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, MARK D. BIRD, RICK BURGER, TIMOTHY CURLEY, GREG EWING, JON MARVEL, KATHY MILLER, MIKE MORRIS, ED PING, BILL THOMAS, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
122 ORDER granting 121 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply to 8/3/2018 re 118 MOTION for Summary Judgment −PARTIAL−.. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 7/16/2018. (DWH) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
123 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to August 17, 2018 , filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, MARK D. BIRD, RICK BURGER, TIMOTHY CURLEY, GREG EWING, JON MARVEL, KATHY MILLER, MIKE MORRIS, ED PING, BILL THOMAS, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Second)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
124 ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME − Granting 123 Motion for Extension of Time to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment 118 . The time within which said Defendants are required to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment is extended to August 17, 2018. (See Order.) Signed by

Case: 2:16-cv-397 As of: 07/30/2020 06:19 PM EDT 15 of 28

08/03/2018 08/07/2018
08/08/2018 08/13/2018 08/13/2018 08/15/2018
08/16/2018
08/29/2018 08/30/2018 09/03/2018 09/04/2018

Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 7/30/2018. (DMW) (Entered: 07/30/2018)
125 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to October 12, 2018 to File Final Witness and Exhibit Lists, filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/03/2018)
126 ORDER − The Court hereby GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the 125 Motion for Extension of Time to File Final Witness and Exhibit Lists, and the approved Case Management Order as amended [Dkts. 75 , 87 & 108 ], is hereby further amended as follows: All parties shall file and serve their final witness and exhibit lists on or before September 4, 2018. The parties are once again reminded that they should not anticipate any further revision of the case deadlines. [See Dkt. 108 at 2.] (See Order.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 8/7/2018. (DMW) (Entered: 08/07/2018)
127 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information. Consistent with Local Rule 5−3, Kenneth J. Falk hereby notifies the Clerk of the court of changed contact information. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/08/2018)
128 STIPULATION as to Photographs−REVISED−, re 117 Stipulation, filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/13/2018)
129 STIPULATION as to Cell Measurements, filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Attachments: # 1 Cell measurements)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/13/2018)
130 Stipulation of Exhibits in Support of 131 Response in Opposition to 118 MOTION for Summary Judgment −PARTIAL− , filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, MARK D. BIRD, RICK BURGER, TIMOTHY CURLEY, GREG EWING, JON MARVEL, KATHY MILLER, MIKE MORRIS, ED PING, BILL THOMAS, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A National Institute of Corrections Local Systems Assessment, # 2 Exhibit B−1 Preliminary Design Packets, # 3 Exhibit B−2 Preliminary Design Packets, # 4 Exhibit C Vigo County, Indiana Jail and Criminal Justice System Assessment)(Friedrich, David) Modified docket text on 8/15/2018 (JD). (Entered: 08/15/2018)
131 RESPONSE in Opposition re 118 MOTION for Summary Judgment −PARTIAL− , filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, MARK D. BIRD, RICK BURGER, TIMOTHY CURLEY, GREG EWING, JON MARVEL, KATHY MILLER, MIKE MORRIS, ED PING, BILL THOMAS, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Bill Thoma Deposition, # 2 Exhibit Jon R. Mavel Affidavit)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 08/16/2018)
132 REPLY in Support of Motion re 118 MOTION for Summary Judgment −PARTIAL− , filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/29/2018)
133 MOTION for Oral Argument, filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/30/2018)
135 Witness List −Final−, filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB, Exhibit List −Final−, filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/03/2018)
136 Witness List Final, filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, MARK D. BIRD, RICK BURGER, TIMOTHY CURLEY, GREG EWING, JON MARVEL, KATHY MILLER, MIKE MORRIS, ED PING, BILL THOMAS, VIGO

Case: 2:16-cv-397 As of: 07/30/2020 06:19 PM EDT 16 of 28

09/04/2018 09/04/2018 09/05/2018 09/05/2018 09/10/2018
09/10/2018 09/11/2018 09/18/2018 09/24/2018

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL. (Friedrich, David) (Entered: 09/04/2018)
137 Exhibit List Final, filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, MARK D. BIRD, RICK BURGER, TIMOTHY CURLEY, GREG EWING, JON MARVEL, KATHY MILLER, MIKE MORRIS, ED PING, BILL THOMAS, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL. (Friedrich, David) (Entered: 09/04/2018)
140 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 9/4/2018. Parties discussed status of matter. Conference concluded without further order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 09/07/2018)
138 PROCEDURES AND PRACTICES before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson. (MRI) (Entered: 09/05/2018)
139 Order / Notice of Hearing − Granting 133 Motion for Oral Argument. Oral argument on plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. 118 ) shall be held on September 21, 2018, at 10:00 A.M. in Room 131, United States Courthouse, 921 Ohio Street, Terre Haute, Indiana, before Judge Jane Magnus− Stinson. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 9/5/2018. (DMW) (Entered: 09/05/2018)
141 ENTRY SETTING TRIAL AND FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: This cause is hereby set for a Jury Trial before Chief Judge Jane Magnus− Stinson on April 15, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 131 of the U.S. Courthouse, 921 Ohio Street, Terre Haute, Indiana. A Final Pretrial Conference is also set for March 15, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. in Room 307 of the Birch Bayh Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 46 East Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. Counsel are reminded of the required pretrial preparation deadlines set forth in the case management plan. Counsel are further reminded to review the undersigned's Practices and Procedures, available at dkt 138 . Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 9/10/2018. (DMW) (Entered: 09/10/2018)
142 First MOTION to BE EXCUSED FROM SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING, filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sutherlin, Michael) Modified on 9/11/2018 (DWH). (Entered: 09/10/2018)
143 ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO BE EXCUSED FROM SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING − The Court having considered the Request of Counsel Sutherlin to be excused from the Summary Judgment hearing and being otherwise duly advised on the matter, hereby grants said request 142 . Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 9/11/2018. (DMW) (Entered: 09/11/2018)
144 ENTRY RE−SETTING HEARING − The hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is RESET as to location only. It will take place on September 21, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 307 of the Birch Bayh Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 46 East Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 9/18/2018.(DWH) (Entered: 09/18/2018)
145 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson: On September 21, 2018, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs were present by counsel Kenneth Falk. Defendant Sheriff Greg Ewing was present by counsel Craig McKee, David Friedrich, and Michael Wright. Defendants the Vigo County Commissioners, the Vigo County Council, and the named individual Vigo County Commissioners and Vigo County Council members were present by counsel David Friedrich and Michael Wright. The Court will require the parties to report to the Court on a periodic basis regarding construction of the new jail and efforts to minimize constitutional violations in the meantime through the hiring of additional staff, increased recreation, and increased medical and safety checks. The first such report will take place at a hearing on November 13, 2018 at 1:00 p.m. in Room 131 of the United States Courthouse, 921 Ohio Street, Terre Haute, Indiana. The Sheriff, the Presidents of the Vigo County Commissioners and the Vigo County Council, and any other individuals who possess information necessary to provide a complete report to the Court are ORDERED to be present at the hearing.The Court also ORDERED that, to the extent elections in November affect which individuals should be named as defendants in this case, the

Case: 2:16-cv-397 As of: 07/30/2020 06:19 PM EDT 17 of 28

10/10/2018 10/15/2018 11/06/2018 11/09/2018 11/09/2018 11/13/2018 11/13/2018 11/13/2018 11/15/2018
11/15/2018

parties must confer and file a notice reflecting which parties should be substituted in as defendants. (SEE ORDER FOR MORE DETAILS.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson. (Court Reporter Jean Knepley.)(MRI) (Entered: 09/25/2018)
146 ORDER granting 118 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment − SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 10/10/2018. (JRB) (Entered: 10/10/2018)
147 ENTRY RESETTING HEARING TO INDIANAPOLIS − The November 13, 2018 hearing on plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment at 1:00 p.m. is moved to Room 307, U.S. Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. Recent developments prevent the Court from travelling to Terre Haute that day. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 10/15/2018. (DMW) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
148 REPORT Periodic Report Pursuant to Court's Order by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 11/06/2018)
149 MOTION to File Response to Defendants' Periodic Report, filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Response to Periodic Report, # 3 Exhibit to Response− Population Reports, # 4 Exhibit to Response− RJS Final Report)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/09/2018)
150 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to November 16, 2018 to File Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs, filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/09/2018)
151 ORDER − granting 149 Motion to File Response to Defendants' PeriodicReport. The plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Periodic Report is deemed FILED [149−2]. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 11/13/2018. (RSF) (Entered: 11/13/2018)
152 RESPONSE re 148 Defendants' Periodic Report, filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (RSF) (Entered: 11/13/2018)
153 ORDER − Granting 150 Unopposed Motion to Extend Time for One Week to File Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. The plaintiffs' shall file their motion for attorneys' fees and costs on, or before, November 16, 2018. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 11/13/2018. (DMW) (Entered: 11/13/2018)
154 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson: On November 13, 2018, the Court held a hearing to discuss Defendants' periodic report regarding construction of a new jail and efforts to minimize constitutional violations in the meantime. Plaintiffs were present by counsel Kenneth Falk. Defendant Sheriff Greg Ewing was present by counsel Craig McKee and Michael Wright. Defendants the Vigo County Commissioners, the Vigo County Council, and the named individual Vigo County Commissioners and Vigo County Council members were present by counsel Michael Wright. The Court Reporter was Jean Knepley. The Court heard Defendants' report regarding the hiring of 27 new staff members and the potential re−zoning of land for the new jail. It also heard Plaintiffs' response to the report, including certain concerns they have regarding staffing at the Vigo County Jail and the design of a new jail.Based on the parties' statements, the Court ORDERED Defendants to file a Report by December 19, 2018 setting forth the status of the zoning issue involving the land for the new jail. The next status hearing shall take place on February 13, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 131 of the United States Courthouse, 921 Ohio Street, Terre Haute, Indiana. The Defendants should be prepared to report on the progress of the additional staffing and its impact on the issues of prisoner safety, recreation, and classification. The Sheriff, the Presidents of the Vigo County Commissioners and the Vigo County Council, and any other individuals who possess information necessary to provide a complete report to the Court are ORDERED to be present at the hearing. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson. (Court Reporter Jean Knepley.)(MRI) (Entered: 11/15/2018)
155 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs, filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE,

Case: 2:16-cv-397 As of: 07/30/2020 06:19 PM EDT 18 of 28

11/15/2018 11/29/2018
11/30/2018 12/07/2018
12/11/2018 12/17/2018
12/19/2018 12/19/2018
12/26/2018 01/14/2019 01/15/2019 01/16/2019

CARL SHERB. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Michael Sutherlin, # 2 Declaration of Kenneth Falk, # 3 Declaration of Bradley Lohmeier, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/15/2018)
156 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 155 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs , filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/15/2018)
157 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to December 10, 2018 re 155 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs , filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, MARK D. BIRD, RICK BURGER, TIMOTHY CURLEY, GREG EWING, JON MARVEL, KATHY MILLER, MIKE MORRIS, ED PING, BILL THOMAS, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order order)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 11/29/2018)
158 ORDER granting 157 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to 155 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs to 12/10/18. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 11/30/2018. (JRB) (Entered: 11/30/2018)
159 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to December 17, 2018 re 155 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs Unopposed, filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, MARK D. BIRD, RICK BURGER, TIMOTHY CURLEY, GREG EWING, JON MARVEL, KATHY MILLER, MIKE MORRIS, ED PING, BILL THOMAS, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Second Motion)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 12/07/2018)
160 ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME − Granting 159 second unopposed motion for extension of time to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs. The time within which said Defendants are required to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs is extended to December 17, 2018. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 12/11/2018. (DMW) (Entered: 12/11/2018)
161 STIPULATION Concerning Payment of Attorneys Fees and Costs, re 155 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs, filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, MARK D. BIRD, RICK BURGER, TIMOTHY CURLEY, GREG EWING, JON MARVEL, KATHY MILLER, MIKE MORRIS, ED PING, BILL THOMAS, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 12/17/2018)
162 STATUS REPORT Pursuant to Court's November 15, 2018 order by All Defendants. (Friedrich, David) (Entered: 12/19/2018)
163 ORDER − The parties, having filed their Stipulation Concerning Payment of Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and the Court having read the motion, and being duly advised, finds that good cause exists to grant it 161 . $75,000 will be paid to resolve plaintiffs' claims for attorneys' fees and costs through the date of filing the Stipulation. These sums shall be paid no later than December 31, 2018. In the event that payment is not made by that time the defendants are ordered to pay the sum of $90,700.13 to be distributed as noted in the Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed in this case on November 15, 2018. (Dkt. No. 155 ). (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 12/19/2018. (DMW) (Entered: 12/19/2018)
164 MARGINAL ENTRY on 162 Status Report − Defendants shall provide the status of determining an alternate location on or before January 14, 2019. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 12/26/2018.(JRB) (Entered: 12/26/2018)
165 STATUS REPORT on determining an alternate site by All Defendants. (Wright, Michael) (Entered: 01/14/2019)
166 MARGINAL ENTRY − The Defendants' Status Report is acknowledged and appreciated 165 . Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 1/15/2019. (DMW) (Entered: 01/15/2019)
167 ***PLEASE DISREGARD. WITHDRAWN AT 169 .*** First MOTION to Appoint Counsel , filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK

Case: 2:16-cv-397 As of: 07/30/2020 06:19 PM EDT 19 of 28

01/16/2019 01/17/2019 01/29/2019
02/08/2019 02/11/2019 02/13/2019 02/22/2019 02/25/2019 02/26/2019
02/27/2019

HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sutherlin, Michael) Modified on 1/17/2019 (DMW). (Entered: 01/16/2019)
168 First MOTION to Withdraw 167 Motion to Appoint Kenneth J. Falk as Additional Class Counsel for the Purpose of Seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sutherlin, Michael) Modified on 1/17/2019 to add link to Dkt. 167(DMW). (Entered: 01/16/2019)
169 ORDER − Granting 168 Plaintiffs' motion requesting withdrawal of their second motion to appoint Ken Falk as additional class counsel. The Clerk is directed to show Plaintiffs' second Motion to Appoint Kenneth J. Falk as Additional Class Counsel [Dkt. 167 ] as WITHDRAWN from the docket. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 1/17/2019. (DMW) (Entered: 01/17/2019)
170 SCHEDULING ORDER − SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: Settlement Conference set for 2/25/2019 at 12:30 PM (Eastern Time) in room #131, United States Courthouse, 921 Ohio Street, Terre Haute, Indiana before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. Unless excused by order of the court, clients or client representatives with complete authority to negotiate and communicate a settlement shall attend the settlement conference along with their counsel. (See Order for additional information and deadlines.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 1/29/2019. (DMW) (Entered: 01/30/2019)
171 MOTION to Substitute Party , filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, MARK D. BIRD, RICK BURGER, TIMOTHY CURLEY, GREG EWING, JON MARVEL, KATHY MILLER, MIKE MORRIS, ED PING, BILL THOMAS, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 02/08/2019)
172 ENTRY − In light of the upcoming February 25, 2019 settlement conference, the February 13, 2019 status conference will be VACATED and reset at a date following the settlement conference. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 2/11/2019. (DMW) (Entered: 02/11/2019)
173 ORDER to Make Inmate Available − via Telephone. Warden of Putnamville Correctional Facility ordered to make Jauston Huerta 954787 Available − via Telephone for court proceeding on 2/25/2019 at 12:30 p.m. (Eastern). (See Order.) Copy via U.S. Mail pursuant to distribution list. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 2/13/2019. (DMW) (Entered: 02/13/2019)
174 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 2/21/2019. Court confirmed that all remaining issues will be discussed at upcoming settlement conference. Conference concluded without further order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 02/22/2019)
175 STIPULATION for Court to Enter Final Judgment as to All Claims for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(b), filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/25/2019)
176 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Settlement Conference held on 2/25/2019. Claims of Plaintiff Jauston Huerta ONLY have been resolved. Therefore, all pending motions with regard to Plaintiff Jauston Huerta ONLY are DENIED AS MOOT & all previouslyordered dates with regard to Plaintiff Jauston Huerta ONLY are VACATED. Within 30 days, parties shall file for dismissal with regard to Plaintiff Jauston Huerta ONLY. Telephonic Status Conference set for 3/4/2019 at 1:30 PM (Eastern Time) to further discuss resolution of any remaining claims in this matter. *SEE ORDER.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 02/27/2019)
177 MOTION to Order Parties to Appear before the Court to Make a Periodic Report, filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS,

Case: 2:16-cv-397 As of: 07/30/2020 06:19 PM EDT 20 of 28

02/28/2019
03/01/2019 03/01/2019 03/04/2019
03/04/2019
03/04/2019 03/05/2019 03/07/2019

JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/27/2019)
178 Final Judgment as to All Claims for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(b) − In this action the named Plaintiffs sought individual damages against defendants and they also, on behalf of a class of those similarly situated, sought injunctive and declaratory relief. Based on the Court's findings as set out in its Order of October 10, 2018 (Dkt. 146 ) the Plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief is granted and IT IS DECLARED that conditions in the Vigo County Jail violate both the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. THE DEFENDANTS ARE THEREFORE PERMANENTLY ENJOINED ASFOLLOWS AND THEY ARE ORDERED AS FOLLOWS. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 2/27/2019.(RSF) (Entered: 02/28/2019)
180 First MOTION for Continuance , filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sutherlin, Michael) (Entered: 03/01/2019)
181 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: The Court, sua sponte, hereby RESCHEDULES the Telephonic Status Conference currently scheduled for March 4, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. to Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 3:00 p.m. (Eastern). All other requirements of the Court's order dated February 26, 2019 [Dkt. 176 ] remain in effect, and the teleconference call−in information issued by the Court on February 28, 2019 [Dkt. 179 ] remains unchanged. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 3/1/2019. (DMW) (Entered: 03/01/2019)
182 FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER − The final pretrial conference in this action, currently scheduled for March 15, 2019, is VACATED and RE−SET for 9:30 a.m. on March 22, 2019 in Room 307, United States Court−house, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204. Additionally, a settlement conference before Judge Mark J. Dinsmore is set for 10:30 a.m. on March 22, 2019 in Room 257, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204. To facilitate the final pretrial conference, and ultimately the trial, the Court now OR−DERS as follows. (See Order for additional information and deadlines.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 3/4/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1− Proposed Voir Dire, # 2 Exhibit 2− Proposed Preliminary Instructions, # 3 Exhibit 3− Proposed Final Instructions)(DMW) (Entered: 03/04/2019)
183 ORDER − The Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiffs' Motion, 177 , to the extent that it requests that the Court order Defendants to appear periodically before the Court to provide updates regarding the steps being taken to address the constitutional violations at the Jail. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion, 177 , to the extent that it sets a status hearing for March 22, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 307, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio St., Indianapolis, IN 46204. The Sheriff, the Presidents of the Vigo County Commissioners and the Vigo County Council, and any other individuals who possess information necessary to provide a complete report to the Court are ORDERED to be present at the hearing. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 3/4/2019. (DMW) (Entered: 03/04/2019)
184 MARGINAL ENTRY − On March 1, 2019, the Court sua sponte rescheduled the March 4, 2019 telephonic status conference to March 6, 2019 at 3:00 p.m. (Eastern). [See Dkt. 181 .] Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion to Continue Status Conference [Dkt. 180 ] is hereby DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 3/4/2019. (DMW) (Entered: 03/05/2019)
185 ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF PARTIES − granting 171 Defendants' Motion for Substitution of Parties. The Clerk is directed to update the caption of this matter as set forth. (See Order.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 3/5/2019. (DMW) (Entered: 03/06/2019)
186 SCHEDULING ORDER − The status hearing in this action, currently scheduled for March 22, 2019, is VACATED and RE−SET for 3/19/2019 at 9:00 AM in room #307, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson. The Sheriff, the Presidents of the Vigo County Commissioners and the Vigo County Council, and any other individuals who possess information

Case: 2:16-cv-397 As of: 07/30/2020 06:19 PM EDT 21 of 28

03/07/2019
03/07/2019
03/07/2019 03/07/2019 03/08/2019 03/11/2019 03/11/2019 03/12/2019 03/15/2019 03/15/2019

necessary to provide a complete report to the Court are ORDERED to be present at the hearing. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 3/7/2019.(RSF) (Entered: 03/07/2019)
187 AMENDED FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER − The final pretrial conference in this action, currently scheduled for March 22, 2019, is VACATED and RE−SET for 3/19/2019 at 9:30 AM in room #307, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson. All parties shall appear in person for the conference. Failure to appear by any Plaintiff may result in dismissal of his claims. (See Order for additional deadlines.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 3/7/2019.(RSF) Modified on 3/7/2019 − correction to time of conference (RSF). (Entered: 03/07/2019)
188 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 3/6/2019. Parties discussed status of remaining Plaintiffs' efforts to quantify their alleged damages. Settlement Conference set for 3/22/2019 is hereby RESCHEDULED to 3/19/2019 at 10:30 AM (Eastern Time) in room #257, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. Court will issue separate order to Graham Correctional Center for Plaintiff Thomas Bolton to appear by telephone. Remaining Plaintiffs are ordered to appear in person with Plaintiffs' counsel. In addition, Defendants' insurance adjuster is ordered to appear in person with Defendants' counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 03/07/2019)
189 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to April 15, 2019 to File for Attorneys' Fees and Costs, filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/07/2019)
190 ORDER to Make Inmate Available − via Telephone. Warden of Graham Correctional Center ordered to make Thomas Bolton, Jr. K98739 Available − via Telephone for court proceeding on 3/19/2019 at 10:30 AM (Eastern) / 9:30 AM (Central). (See Order.) Copy via U.S. Mail pursuant to distribution list. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 3/7/2019. (DMW) (Entered: 03/07/2019)
191 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to 04/10/19 to File for Attorneys' Fees and Costs on behalf of Jauston Huerta , filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sutherlin, Michael) Modified on 3/11/2019 to edit document title(DMW). (Entered: 03/08/2019)
192 ORDER − Granting 189 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. The time within which plaintiffs must petition for attorneys' fees and costs following this Court's Judgment of February 28, 2019 (Dkt. 178 ), is extended to, and including, April 15, 2019. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 3/11/2019. (DMW) (Entered: 03/11/2019)
193 ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE FEE PETITION − Granting 191 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. The time within which Plaintiff must petition for attorneys' fees and costs following this Court's Judgment of February 25, 2019, on the individual claim for damages, is extended to, and including, April 8, 2019. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 3/11/2019. (DMW) (Entered: 03/11/2019)
194 STATUS REPORT by All Defendants. (Friedrich, David) (Entered: 03/12/2019)
195 Exhibit List , filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, BRENDAN KEARNS, AARON LOUDERMILK, JIM MANN, MIKE MORRIS, JOHN PLASSE, LISA SPENCER−BUNNETT, CHRIS SWITZER, DAVID THOMPSON, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL, VICKI WEGNER. (Friedrich, David) (Entered: 03/15/2019)
196 ***PLEASE DISREGARD. DOCKETED IN ERROR.*** Witness List , filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, BRENDAN KEARNS, AARON LOUDERMILK, JIM MANN, MIKE MORRIS, JOHN PLASSE, LISA SPENCER−BUNNETT, CHRIS SWITZER, DAVID THOMPSON, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL, VICKI WEGNER. (Friedrich,

Case: 2:16-cv-397 As of: 07/30/2020 06:19 PM EDT 22 of 28

03/15/2019 03/15/2019 03/15/2019 03/18/2019 03/19/2019
03/20/2019 04/02/2019 04/03/2019 04/04/2019

David) Modified on 3/15/2019 (DMW). (Entered: 03/15/2019)
197 Witness List , filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, BRENDAN KEARNS, AARON LOUDERMILK, JIM MANN, MIKE MORRIS, JOHN PLASSE, LISA SPENCER−BUNNETT, CHRIS SWITZER, DAVID THOMPSON, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL, VICKI WEGNER. (Friedrich, David) (Entered: 03/15/2019)
198 ***PLEASE DISREGARD. SEE CORRECTED FILING AT 199 .*** MOTION to File Response to Defendants' Periodic Report, filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Response to Defendants' Periodic Status Report)(Falk, Kenneth) Modified on 3/18/2019 (DMW). (Entered: 03/15/2019)
199 MOTION to File Response to Defendants' Periodic Report with Corrected Caption, filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Periodic Status Report)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/15/2019)
200 ORDER − granting 199 Motion to File Response to Defendants' PeriodicReport. The plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Periodic Report is deemed FILED. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 3/18/2019. (RSF) (Entered: 03/18/2019)
202 MINUTE ENTRY − On March 19, 2019, the Court held a Status Conference and a Final Pretrial Conference in this matter. Plaintiffs were present by counsel Kenneth Falk and Michael Sutherlin. Defendant Sheriff John Plasse was present in person and by counsel Craig Mckee, David Friedrich, and Michael Wright. The remaining Defendants were present by counsel David Friedrich and Michael Wright, and Defendants Brad Anderson and Aaron Loudermilk were present in person. The Court ORDERED Defendants to file a Status Report on the last business day of each month, which provides certain information that will be set forth in a separate Order. In the meantime, counsel for Plaintiffs will file a report by close of business on March 20, 2019 set−ting forth what information they would like Defendants' monthly status reports to contain. The Court also held a final pretrial conference on Plaintiffs' individual personal injury claims, which are set for trial on April 15, 2019. Counsel advised that the parties have reached a settlement on all of the Plaintiffs' individual personal injury claims. Accordingly, the April 15, 2019 trial in this matter is VACATED and the settlement conference scheduled with the Magistrate Judge for March 19, 2019 is VACATED. All pending motions, if any, are now DENIED AS MOOT and all previously ordered dates relating to discovery, filings, schedules, conferences, and trial, if any, are VACATED. The parties are ORDERED to file stipulations of dismissal regarding the remaining Plaintiffs' individual personal injury claims within 60 days of this Order. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson. (Court Reporter Jean Knepley.)(DMW) (Entered: 03/20/2019)
201 MOTION Concerning Topics for Monthly Reporting, filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) Modified on 3/20/2019 − motion terminated in error (DMW). (Entered: 03/20/2019)
204 Correspondence REQUESTING COPY of Case Docket Sheet, filed by Non−Party Anthony Bussie. Copy/Copies provided via US Mail. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope, # 2 Docket Sheet) (LBT) (Entered: 04/03/2019)
203 MOTION for Extension of Time to April 12, 2019 to File Monthly Status Report, filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, BRENDAN KEARNS, AARON LOUDERMILK, JIM MANN, MIKE MORRIS, JOHN PLASSE, LISA SPENCER−BUNNETT, CHRIS SWITZER, DAVID THOMPSON, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL, VICKI WEGER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 04/03/2019)
205 ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME − Granting 203 Motion for extension of time to file a monthly status report. The time within which said Defendants are required to file their monthly status report is extended to April 12, 2019. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 4/4/2019. (DMW) (Entered: 04/04/2019)

Case: 2:16-cv-397 As of: 07/30/2020 06:19 PM EDT 23 of 28

04/08/2019 04/12/2019 04/12/2019 04/15/2019
04/16/2019
04/17/2019 04/24/2019
04/25/2019 04/25/2019
04/26/2019 04/30/2019 05/01/2019

206 First MOTION for Attorney Fees PLAINTIFF JAUSTON HUERTA'S PETITION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO 1983§1988, filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Sutherlin, Michael) (Entered: 04/08/2019)
207 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs Following Final Judgment, filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Michael Sutherlin, # 2 Affidavit Kenneth Falk)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 04/12/2019)
208 STATUS REPORT by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Recreation log for Vigo County Jail)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 04/12/2019)
209 ORDER − Plaintiffs, having filed their Motion Concerning Topics for Monthly Reporting, and the Court having reviewed the motion 201 now enters the following order. IT IS ORDERED that no later than April 5, 2019 and the last business day of each month thereafter, beginning with April 30, 2019, defendants shall file a report with the Court containing the following information. (See Order for additional information.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 4/15/2019. (DMW) (Entered: 04/15/2019)
210 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to April 30, 2019 filed by the Plaintiff and, filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, BRENDAN KEARNS, AARON LOUDERMILK, JIM MANN, MIKE MORRIS, JOHN PLASSE, LISA SPENCER−BUNNETT, CHRIS SWITZER, DAVID THOMPSON, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL, VICKI WEGER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Joint Order)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 04/16/2019)
211 ORDER FOR JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME − Granting 210 Motion for Extension of Time. The time within which the Plaintiff is required to file a brief in support of his petition for attorney fees and costs is extended to April 30, 2019. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 4/17/2019. (DMW) (Entered: 04/17/2019)
212 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to May 10, 2019 re 207 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs Following Final Judgment , filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, BRENDAN KEARNS, AARON LOUDERMILK, JIM MANN, MIKE MORRIS, JOHN PLASSE, LISA SPENCER−BUNNETT, CHRIS SWITZER, DAVID THOMPSON, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL, VICKI WEGER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 04/24/2019)
213 ORDER FOR MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME − Granting 212 Motion for Extension of Time. The time within which the Defendants are required to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees and costs following final judgment is extended to May 10, 2019. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 4/25/2019. (DMW) (Entered: 04/25/2019)
214 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to May 7, 2019 , filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, BRENDAN KEARNS, AARON LOUDERMILK, JIM MANN, MIKE MORRIS, JOHN PLASSE, LISA SPENCER−BUNNETT, CHRIS SWITZER, DAVID THOMPSON, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL, VICKI WEGER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 04/25/2019)
215 ORDER FOR SECOND JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME − Granting 214 Motion for Extension of Time. The time within which the Plaintiff is required to file a brief in support of his petition for attorney fees and costs is extended to May 7, 2019. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 4/26/2019. (DMW) (Entered: 04/26/2019)
216 STATUS REPORT Monthly by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Recreation log)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 04/30/2019)
217 MARGINAL ENTRY re 216 Status Report − The Court orders the defendants to provide an update on site selection on or before May 8, 2019. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 5/1/2019. (DMW) (Entered: 05/01/2019)

Case: 2:16-cv-397 As of: 07/30/2020 06:19 PM EDT 24 of 28

05/07/2019 05/10/2019
05/13/2019 05/23/2019
05/24/2019
05/28/2019 05/30/2019 05/30/2019 05/31/2019 06/05/2019 06/06/2019

218 STATUS REPORT Update on Jail Site Selection by All Defendants. (Friedrich, David) Modified on 5/8/2019 to correct document title(DMW). (Entered: 05/07/2019)
219 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to May 20, 2019 re 207 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs Following Final Judgment , filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, BRENDAN KEARNS, AARON LOUDERMILK, JIM MANN, MIKE MORRIS, JOHN PLASSE, LISA SPENCER−BUNNETT, CHRIS SWITZER, DAVID THOMPSON, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL, VICKI WEGER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 05/10/2019)
220 ORDER FOR SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME − granting 219 Motion for Extension of Time. The time within which the Defendants are required to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees and costs following final judgment is extended to May 20, 2019. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 5/13/2019. (DMW) (Entered: 05/13/2019)
221 STIPULATION Concerning Payment of Attorneys Fees and Costs Following Final Judgment, re 178 Order, filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, BRENDAN KEARNS, AARON LOUDERMILK, JIM MANN, MIKE MORRIS, JOHN PLASSE, LISA SPENCER−BUNNETT, CHRIS SWITZER, DAVID THOMPSON, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL, VICKI WEGER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 05/23/2019)
222 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to June 7, 2019 re 206 First MOTION for Attorney Fees PLAINTIFF JAUSTON HUERTA'S PETITION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO 1983§1988 , filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, BRENDAN KEARNS, AARON LOUDERMILK, JIM MANN, MIKE MORRIS, JOHN PLASSE, LISA SPENCER−BUNNETT, CHRIS SWITZER, DAVID THOMPSON, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL, VICKI WEGER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 05/24/2019)
223 ORDER FOR MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME − granting 222 Motion for Extension of Time to respond to Jauston Huerta's Petition for Attorney Fees and Costs. The time within which the Defendants are required to respond to Jauston Huerta's Petition for Attorney Fees and Costs is extended to June 7, 2019. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 5/28/2019. (DMW) (Entered: 05/28/2019)
224 ORDER − The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs following Final Judgment, 207 , consistent with the parties' Stipulation, 221 . Defendants are ORDERED to pay $10,130.85 in attorneys' fees and costs as follows: (1) $4,737.60 to the Law Office of Michael Sutherlin; and (2) $5,393.25 to the ACLU of Indiana. The amount shall be paid within 14 days of this Order. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 5/30/2019. (DMW) (Entered: 05/30/2019)
225 MOTION for Extension of Time to June 5, 2019 to File May Status Report, filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, BRENDAN KEARNS, AARON LOUDERMILK, JIM MANN, MIKE MORRIS, JOHN PLASSE, LISA SPENCER−BUNNETT, CHRIS SWITZER, DAVID THOMPSON, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL, VICKI WEGER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 05/30/2019)
226 ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME − granting 225 Motion for Extension of Time. The time within which said Defendants are required to file their monthly status report is extended to June 5, 2019. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 5/31/2019. (DMW) (Entered: 05/31/2019)
227 STATUS REPORT for May 2019 by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 06/05/2019)
228 MARGINAL ENTRY re 227 Status Report − The Court acknowledges the report 227 and directs the Plaintiffs to file any response, though none is necessary, on or before June 20, 2019. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 6/6/2019. (DMW) (Entered: 06/06/2019)

Case: 2:16-cv-397 As of: 07/30/2020 06:19 PM EDT 25 of 28

06/07/2019
06/10/2019 06/14/2019
06/19/2019 06/28/2019 07/12/2019 07/15/2019 07/31/2019 08/01/2019 08/02/2019 08/08/2019 08/09/2019

229 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to June 14, 2019 re 206 First MOTION for Attorney Fees PLAINTIFF JAUSTON HUERTA'S PETITION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO 1983§1988 , filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, BRENDAN KEARNS, AARON LOUDERMILK, JIM MANN, MIKE MORRIS, JOHN PLASSE, LISA SPENCER−BUNNETT, CHRIS SWITZER, DAVID THOMPSON, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL, VICKI WEGER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 06/07/2019)
230 ORDER FOR MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME − granting 229 Motion for Extension of Time. The time within which the Defendants are required to respond to Jauston Huerta's Petition for Attorney Fees and Costs is extended to June 14, 2019. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 6/10/2019. (DMW) (Entered: 06/10/2019)
231 RESPONSE in Support of Motion re 206 First MOTION for Attorney Fees PLAINTIFF JAUSTON HUERTA'S PETITION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO 1983§1988 , filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, BRENDAN KEARNS, AARON LOUDERMILK, JIM MANN, MIKE MORRIS, JOHN PLASSE, LISA SPENCER−BUNNETT, CHRIS SWITZER, DAVID THOMPSON, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL, VICKI WEGER. (Friedrich, David) Modified on 6/17/2019 to edit docket text(DMW). (Entered: 06/14/2019)
232 RESPONSE to 227 Defendants' Monthly Status Report, filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Falk, Kenneth) Modified on 6/20/2019 to add link to Dkt. 227(DMW). (Entered: 06/19/2019)
233 STATUS REPORT for June by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
234 Joint MOTION to Delay Ruling on Attorney Fees , filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sutherlin, Michael) Modified on 7/15/2019 to edit document title (DMW). (Entered: 07/12/2019)
235 ORDER − The Parties having filed a Joint Motion to Delay Ruling on Attorney Fees in the above captioned matter, and the Court is now informed that the Parties are negotiating to settle the matter of attorney fees, hereby GRANTS the request 234 and will defer ruling on this matter until after August 1, 2019. The parties are to inform the Court by that date if a settlement has been reached. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 7/15/2019. (DMW) (Entered: 07/15/2019)
236 STATUS REPORT for Juy 2019 by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 07/31/2019)
237 MARGINAL ENTRY re 236 Status Report − Defendants shall advise the Court of the outcome of the Terre Haute City Council's vote on the rezoning petition on or before August 8, 2019. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 8/1/2019. (DMW) (Entered: 08/01/2019)
238 NOTICE as to Court's August 1, 2019 Marginal Entry, filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, BRENDAN KEARNS, AARON LOUDERMILK, JIM MANN, MIKE MORRIS, JOHN PLASSE, LISA SPENCER−BUNNETT, CHRIS SWITZER, DAVID THOMPSON, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL, VICKI WEGER (Friedrich, David) (Entered: 08/02/2019)
239 STIPULATION of Attorney Fees for Jauston Huerta's Personal Injury Claim, filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, BRENDAN KEARNS, AARON LOUDERMILK, JIM MANN, MIKE MORRIS, JOHN PLASSE, LISA SPENCER−BUNNETT, CHRIS SWITZER, DAVID THOMPSON, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL, VICKI WEGER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 08/08/2019)
240 ORDER − The parties having filed their Stipulation concerning Payment of Attorney Fees related to Jauston Huerta's personal injury claim and the Court being duly advised

Case: 2:16-cv-397 As of: 07/30/2020 06:19 PM EDT 26 of 28

08/28/2019
08/29/2019 09/03/2019 09/04/2019 09/30/2019 10/01/2019 10/15/2019 10/17/2019
10/31/2019 11/01/2019 11/04/2019
11/04/2019

in the premises now GRANTS in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees 206 consistent with said stipulation 239 . IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants pay $16,000.00 to the law office of Michael Sutherlin to resolve the claim for attorney fees related to Jauston Huerta's personal injury claim within 7 days of this order. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 8/9/2019. (DMW) (Entered: 08/09/2019)
241 MOTION for Extension of Time to September 3, 2019 to File Monthly Report , filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, BRENDAN KEARNS, AARON LOUDERMILK, JIM MANN, MIKE MORRIS, JOHN PLASSE, LISA SPENCER−BUNNETT, CHRIS SWITZER, DAVID THOMPSON, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL, VICKI WEGER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Friedrich, David) Modified on 8/29/2019 to edit document title(DMW). (Entered: 08/28/2019)
242 ORDER MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME − granting 241 Motion for Extension of Time. The time within which the Defendants are required to file their August monthly report is extended to September 3, 2019. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 8/29/2019. (DMW) (Entered: 08/29/2019)
243 STATUS REPORT for August 2019 by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Recreation Log)(Friedrich, David) Modified on 9/4/2019 to edit docket text(DMW). (Entered: 09/03/2019)
244 MARGINAL ENTRY re 243 Status Report − The Court encourages the defendants to continue their diligent pursuit of the construction of the new facility, and the hiring of sufficient staff. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 9/4/2019. (DMW) (Entered: 09/04/2019)
245 STATUS REPORT by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 09/30/2019)
246 MARGINAL ENTRY on 245 Status Report − Plaintiff shall file any response on or before 10/15/19. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 10/1/2019.(JRB) (Entered: 10/01/2019)
247 RESPONSE to Defendants' Monthly Status Report and Motion for Parties to Appear to Discuss Status, filed by Plaintiffs THOMAS BOLTON, JR, CURTIS GILLIE, DEREK HICKS, JAUSTON HUERTA, DURAND RANDLE, CARL SHERB. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/15/2019)
248 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference set for 11/6/2019 at 3:00 PM in room #131, United States Courthouse, 921 Ohio Street, Terre Haute, Indiana before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson. The Vigo County Sheriff, President of the Vigo County Council, President of the Vigo County Commissioners, any other individuals who possess information necessary to provide a complete report SHALL appear to discuss the status of this case. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 10/17/2019.(RSF) (Entered: 10/17/2019)
249 STATUS REPORT by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit October Recreation Log)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 10/31/2019)
250 MARGINAL ENTRY re 249 Status Report − Given the correction of the September jail census and the construction schedule contained herein, the parties should advised the Court by noon on November 4, 2019 whether the November 6, 2019 status conference remains necessary. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 11/1/2019.(LBT) (Entered: 11/01/2019)
251 Joint MOTION to Vacate 250 Order, 248 Scheduling Order Status Hearing, filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, BRENDAN KEARNS, AARON LOUDERMILK, JIM MANN, MIKE MORRIS, JOHN PLASSE, LISA SPENCER−BUNNETT, CHRIS SWITZER, DAVID THOMPSON, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL, VICKI WEGER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Vacating Status Conference)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 11/04/2019)
252 ORDER − granting 251 Motion to Vacate Status Conference. The November 6, 2019 Status Hearing is VACATED. The Defendants next monthly Status Report is due on November 29, 2019. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 11/4/2019.(RSF)

Case: 2:16-cv-397 As of: 07/30/2020 06:19 PM EDT 27 of 28

12/02/2019 12/03/2019 12/31/2019 01/02/2020 01/31/2020 02/03/2020 02/07/2020
02/21/2020
02/28/2020 03/02/2020 03/24/2020 03/24/2020
03/31/2020

(Entered: 11/04/2019)
253 STATUS REPORT by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 253−1 Recreation Log)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 12/02/2019)
254 MARGINAL ENTRY acknowledging 253 Status Report. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 12/3/2019.(JRB) (Entered: 12/03/2019)
255 STATUS REPORT by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Recreation Log)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 12/31/2019)
256 MARGINAL ENTRY − Report acknowledged 255 . Either party may notify the Court if Court action is necessary. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 1/2/2020.(KAA) (Entered: 01/02/2020)
257 STATUS REPORT by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 01/31/2020)
258 STATUS REPORT by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 258−1)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 02/03/2020)
259 ORDER SETTING TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE: The above cause is set for an attorney only telephonic status conference on February 21, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. (Eastern) The purpose of the conference is to discuss the Status Report, dkt 258 . Counsel shall attend the status conference by calling the designated telephone number, to be provided by the Court via email generated by the Courts ECF system. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 2/7/2020.(MRI) (Entered: 02/07/2020)
261 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson: On February 21, 2020, the Court held a telephonic status conference in this matter. Plaintiffs were present by counsel Kenneth Falk and Michael Sutherlin. Defendant Sheriff John Plasse was present by counsel David Friedrich and Michael Wright. The remaining Defendants were present by counsel David Friedrich and Michael Wright. The Court Reporter was Jean Knepley. On March 19, 2019, the parties reported a settlement of plaintiffs individual personal injury claims. the Court ordered the parties to file a stipulation of dismissal within 60 days. [Dkt. 202]. To date, no dismissal documents have been filed. Counsel advised that there have been issues with two plaintiffs that are unresolved, but that defendants have upheld their obligations under the terms of the settlement. If dismissal documents are not submitted by March 20, 2020, the Court will dismiss the personal injury claims with prejudice. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson. (Court Reporter Jean Knepley.)(MRI) (Entered: 02/21/2020)
262 STATUS REPORT by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Recreation Log)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 02/28/2020)
263 MARGINAL ENTRY − Report 262 reviewed andacknowledged. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 3/2/2020.(KAA) (Entered: 03/02/2020)
264 ORDER − The Court DISMISSES the Plaintiffs' individual personal injury claims but, upon further consideration, does so WITHOUT PREJUDICE to re−open them for purposes of effectuating settlement only. Final judgment as to Plaintiffs' individual personal injury claims shall enter accordingly. See Order. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 3/24/2020.(KAA) (Entered: 03/24/2020)
265 FINAL JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 58 − For the reasons set forth in the Court's Order entered this day, the Court now enters FINAL JUDGMENT against Plaintiffs and in favor of Defendants on Plaintiffs individual personal injury claims. Plaintiffs' individual personal injury claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to re−open for purposes of effectuating settlement only. The Court has previously entered judgment with respect to the class claims for injunctive relief, Filing No. 178 . That judgment is hereby also deemed final. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 3/24/2020.(KAA) (Entered: 03/24/2020)
266 STATUS REPORT by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 266−1)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 03/31/2020)

Case: 2:16-cv-397 As of: 07/30/2020 06:19 PM EDT 28 of 28

03/31/2020 04/30/2020 05/01/2020 05/29/2020
06/01/2020 06/01/2020 06/01/2020 06/30/2020 07/01/2020

267 MARGINAL ENTRY − Monthly report re 266 Status Report acknowledged. Defendants are encouraged to use best efforts to continue hiring necessary staff. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 3/31/2020.(RSF) (Entered: 03/31/2020)
268 STATUS REPORT by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Recreation Log 268−1)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 04/30/2020)
269 MARGINAL ENTRY − Report acknowledged 268 . Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 5/1/2020.(KAA) (Entered: 05/01/2020)
270 MOTION for Extension of Time to June 1, 2020 to file monthly report, filed by Defendants BRAD ANDERSON, JUDY ANDERSON, BRENDAN KEARNS, AARON LOUDERMILK, JIM MANN, MIKE MORRIS, JOHN PLASSE, LISA SPENCER−BUNNETT, CHRIS SWITZER, DAVID THOMPSON, VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL, VICKI WEGER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order)(Friedrich, David) Modified on 6/1/2020 − added docket text to title (RSF). (Entered: 05/29/2020)
271 ORDER − 270 MOTION for Extension of Time to June 1, 2020 to file monthly report is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 6/1/2020. (TMC) (Entered: 06/01/2020)
272 STATUS REPORT by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Recreation Log)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 06/01/2020)
273 MARGINAL ENTRY − 272 Status Report is acknowledged. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 6/1/2020.(TMC) (Entered: 06/01/2020)
274 STATUS REPORT by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Friedrich, David) (Entered: 06/30/2020)
275 MARGINAL ENTRY, re 274 Status Report − Report acknowledged. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 7/1/2020.(KAA) (Entered: 07/01/2020)

Case #: 2:16−cv−00397−JMS−MJD

 
 Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 14 Filed 11/22/16 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 87

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

Jauston Huerta, Durand Randle,

)

Carl Sherb, Thomas Bolton, Jr.,

)

Curtis Gillie, Derek Hicks,

)

Individually And On Behalf Of The

)

Present And Future Inmates Of

)

Vigo County Jail,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

GREG EWING, Individually

)

And In His Official Capacity As

)

Sheriff of Vigo County; The

)

VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: )

Brad Anderson, Judy Anderson,

)

and Jon Marvel, In Their Official

)

Capacity; The VIGO COUNTY

)

COUNCIL: Mike Morris, Mark D. Bird, )

Rick Burger, Timothy Curley,

)

Kathy Miller, Ed Ping, and Bill Thomas )

In Their Official Capacity,

)

)

Defendants.

)

CAUSE NO. 2:16-cv-397-JMS-DKL

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES -- CLASS ACTION AND INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. This is a class action for declaratory judgment, preliminary and permanent injunction, and damages, brought on behalf of all present and future inmates of the Vigo County Jail, Terre Haute, Indiana, against officials of Vigo County who are responsible for the custody and care of said inmates. This complaint seeks correction of unlawful prevailing conditions of
1

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 14 Filed 11/22/16 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 88
the Vigo County Jail such as chronic overcrowding and unconstitutional procedures regarding inmates’ rights to adequate protection against exposure to disease, and to remedy continuing violations of due process of law at the Vigo County Jail. Former Assistant Jail Commander, Kim Hawkins, will substantiate the history of overcrowding and the lack of adequate staff. The Indiana Department of Correction jail inspector has reported overcrowding and understaffing in each of the sixteen (16) years since the initial litigation was filed in federal court.
2. In 2000, a class action complaint was brought against the Vigo County Sheriff and the Vigo County Commissioners under the complaint captioned David Costa, et. al. v. William R. Harris, et. al. No. TH0-081-C Y/H. The complaint was brought as a class action and alleged overcrowding and unsanitary conditions that violated both the U.S. Constitution and Indiana law. On February 14, 2002, the Vigo County Sheriff and Vigo County Commissioners entered into a binding contract, in the form of a private settlement agreement, which resolved the federal class action lawsuit. For over eleven (11) years the county refused to take positive steps to address the overcrowding, compelling the Plaintiffs in the federal class action, through the efforts of the Indiana ACLU, to bring a complaint for breach of contract and specific performance and individual damages in Vigo Superior Court under the caption Aaron Hos, individuals and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Vigo County Sheriff; Vigo County Commissioners under cause number 84D01-1308-PL7173. A class was successfully certified in both of these actions. The case was assigned to a special judge who has overseen the litigation. However, the county has taken minor steps since 2013 and still has not to build a new jail.
3. Preliminary estimates including architectural fees suggest the total cost may be around $60 million.
2

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 14 Filed 11/22/16 Page 3 of 18 PageID #: 89
II. JURISDICTION 4. The jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and (4), this being a suit authorized by 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 1988 to redress the deprivation of rights, privileges and immunities secured by 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Declaratory relief is authorized pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201 and 2202, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 57.
III. VENUE 5. Venue is proper in the Southern District of Indiana under 28 U.S.C. §1391, allowing an action to be brought in the district in the state where the defendants reside or where the cause of action arose. All defendants reside and the cause of action arose in the Southern District of Indiana.
IV. PLAINTIFFS 6. Jauston Huerta has been detained in the Vigo County Jail at all times relevant. 7. Durand Randle has been detained in the Vigo County Jail at all times relevant. 8. Carl Sherb has been detained in the Vigo County Jail at all times relevant. 9. Thomas Bolton, Jr. has been detained in the Vigo County Jail at all times relevant. 10. Curtis Gillie has been detained in the Vigo County Jail at all times relevant. 11. Derek Hicks has been detained in the Vigo County Jail at all times relevant.
V.
3

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 14 Filed 11/22/16 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 90
CLASS ACTION 12. The named plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The members of the class are those persons who are, or may be in the future, confined at the Vigo County Jail, Terre Haute, Indiana. 13. The requirements of Rule 23 are met: a. The class consists of at least two hundred and sixty-eight (268) persons; the agreed capacity pursuant to agreement of the Vigo County Jail is two hundred and sixtyeight (268) persons. See Exhibit A. b. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, to-wit:
(i)whether the conditions, practices and policies of the defendants deprive plaintiffs and the class of due process of law as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. (ii)whether the conditions, practices, and policies of the defendants deprive plaintiffs and the class of their right to be free from cruel and inhuman punishment as guaranteed by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. (iii)whether the conditions, practices, and policies of the defendants deprive plaintiffs and the class of rights and privileges guaranteed to them by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. (iv)whether the conditions, practices and policies of the defendants, deprive plaintiffs and the class of equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
4

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 14 Filed 11/22/16 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 91
Constitution. c. The representative plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, inasmuch as they have no interests which are antagonistic to the interests of other class members, and they are represented by counsel. d. Finally, the parties opposing the class have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.
VI. DEFENDANTS 14. Defendant Greg Ewing is the duly elected Sheriff of Vigo County, Terre Haute, Indiana. He is the official with the statutory responsibility for maintaining and managing the Vigo County Jail. Ewing is responsible for the care, treatment and protection of the basic rights of the inmates of the Vigo County Jail. He has willfully and wantonly failed to provide and maintain the minimum constitutional standards and continues to do so. 15. The remaining defendants serve on the Vigo County Board of Commissioners and the Vigo County Council which are responsible for the funding, construction, furnishing and maintenance of the Vigo County Jail. These defendants have repeatedly failed to provide adequate funding to maintain minimum constitutional standards in the Jail and they continue to do so, despite repeated notices from the Indiana State Jail Inspector and most importantly contrary to the requests of Defendant Sheriff Ewing.
VII. INDIVIDUAL CLAIM AND ALLEGATIONS OF PLAINTIFFS
JAUSTON HUERTA
5

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 14 Filed 11/22/16 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 92
16. Jauston Huerta brings an individual claim for violation of his Fourteenth, Fourth, and Eighth Amendment rights.
17. Mr. Huerta slept on the ground in the Vigo County Jail for several months leading up to and including the night of September 15, 2016.
18. Mr. Huerta was the fifth man forced to sleep on the floor in a four-man cell in ABlock of the Vigo County Jail on or about the night of September 15, 2016.
19. At approximately 5:00 a.m. EST on September 15, 2006, inmate Carl Sherb, who was assigned the top bunk and was still under the influence of a nine (9) day methamphetamine binge, attempted to get down from the bunk to use the toilet and fell on Mr. Huerta causing extensive injuries.
20. As a result, Mr. Huerta suffered shoulder and severe head injuries including a concussion, laceration to his head, and lingering headaches. He woke up in a wheelchair covered in his own blood and urine, possibly the result of a seizure, before being transported to a hospital.
21. On this night, A-Block capacity was twenty-three (23) inmates and the maximum capacity is eighteen (18).
22. Mr. Huerta filed a Tort Claim Notice with the State of Indiana on the same day as this complaint and will amend this complaint after the required ninety (90) days have passed to add Mr. Huerta’s state law claims.
23. Mr. Huerta filed grievances relating to the incident that occurred on September 15, 2016, his injuries from that incident, and the lack of medical care he was receiving. The only response Mr. Huerta was given to these grievances, which he filed up the chain of command at the Vigo County Jail, was that his matter had already been addressed.
6

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 14 Filed 11/22/16 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 93
24. Mr. Huerta filed a grievance on April 8, 2016 requesting shower shoes because the Jail did not provide any and complaining that the showers are filled with germs and bacteria of all kinds. The Vigo County Jail’s only response was that Mr. Huerta could purchase them off commissary.
DURAND RANDLE 25. Mr. Randle was booked into the Vigo County Jail on August 23, 2016 and assigned to B Block cell 2. 26. On August 23, 2016, four inmates were already assigned and housed in B Bock cell 2 when Mr. Randle was assigned to B Block cell 2. 27. Mr. Randle was the fifth-man assigned to B Block cell 2 and was forced to sleep on the floor for at least the first three days and was repeatedly walked over and walked on by other inmates. 28. On September 5, 2016, Mr. Randle was transported to Parke County Jail due to the overcrowding. As a result of being transferred to another county, Mr. Randle’s family was unable to visit him due to the distance. 29. On September 20, 2016, Mr. Randle was transported back to the Vigo County Jail and assigned Block B-2 and was forced to sleep on the floor again. He was told to sleep on the floor until someone found him another spot, but no one ever did. He slept on the floor for four nights this time. 30. Mr. Randle was aware of what happened to other inmates as a result of the overcrowding and feared for his safety and health as a result of witnessing other incidents. 31. Mr. Randle became a trustee in the Vigo County Jail on September 24, 2016. As a trustee, on October 17, 2016, at around 2:15 a.m., Mr. Randle was forced to clean up human
7

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 14 Filed 11/22/16 Page 8 of 18 PageID #: 94
waste in another cell as an inmate had defecated on himself inside of a four-man cell in which five inmates were housed and sleeping. The four other inmates had to be housed in the Bench Room until Mr. Randle cleaned up the mess.
32. Mr. Randle is also a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic and suffers from severe depression, and the Vigo County Jail has refused to provide him his medicine.
33. Mr. Randle has been unable to sleep or had difficulty sleeping every night that he has slept on the floor.
CARL SHERB 34. Mr. Sherb was booked into the Vigo County Jail on September 9, 2016 and assigned to A-block cell 4. 35. On September 15, 2016, Mr. Sherb was sleeping in the top bunk and Jaustin Huerta, another named plaintiff, was sleeping on the floor. At approximately 5:00 a.m. that morning, Mr. Sherb fell off the top-bunk and landed on Mr. Huerta. Mr. Sherb’s back was injured as a result, and he still suffers from numbness and tingling in his fingers and toes as well as pain in his lower back. 36. Mr. Sherb filed medical requests as a result. When Mr. Sherb requested the pain medication the doctor prescribed for his back, the Nurse gave him the wrong medication. Mr. Sherb was given blood pressure medication which he was not prescribed. After complaining to the Nurse, the Nurse laughed and told Mr. Sherb “at least your blood pressure is right.”
THOMAS BOLTON, JR. 37. Mr. Bolton, Jr. was booked into the Vigo County Jail on October 31, 2015 and assigned to H Block and told to sleep on the floor. 38. Mr. Bolton, Jr. slept on the floor of H block for two weeks due to the
8

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 14 Filed 11/22/16 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 95
overcrowding. 39. Mr. Bolton, Jr. was then assigned a bunk, but when the jail staff realized he was in
a top bunk, Mr. Bolton, Jr. who is epileptic and has seizures, was told to go back to sleeping on the floor. Instead of switching the cellmate in the bottom-bunk to the top so that Mr. Bolton, Jr. could sleep off the floor, the Vigo County Jail staff told Mr. Bolton, Jr. to sleep on the floor knowing that Mr. Bolton, Jr. had a serious medical condition.
40. Mr. Bolton, Jr. was then forced to sleep on the floor from the middle of November 2015 until June 5, 2016, almost seven (7) months until he was released on house arrest.
41. On October 13, 2016, Mr. Bolton, Jr. was arrested again for violating house arrest and was forced to sleep on the floor of “J-Pod” for four days.
42. On October 17, 2016, Mr. Bolton, Jr. was moved to “K-Pod” and again required to sleep on the floor because bottom-bunks were full, and he was not allowed on a top bunk.
43. Mr. Bolton, Jr. continues to sleep on the floor due to the overcrowding. CURTIS GILLIE
44. Mr. Gillie was arrested and booked into the Vigo County Jail on August 10, 2016. 45. Mr. Gillie was assigned to E Block cell 2 and was the fifth man required to sleep on the floor of a four-man cell. 46. Mr. Gillie slept on a mat on floor in E-Block Cell 2 because that cell is too small for an “EZ Boat.” 47. One of the other four inmates in Mr. Gillie’s cell, potentially with the last name Livingston, fell off the top bunk, landed where Mr. Gillie sleeps, and suffered a head injury. Mr. Gillie was not sleeping on the floor at this time, but he was sitting on the bottom bunk holding a cup of coffee that was knocked out of his hand by the falling inmate who was subsequently
9

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 14 Filed 11/22/16 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 96
released after this incident. Mr. Gillie was afraid to sleep on the floor after witnessing this incident.
48. Mr. Gillie alleges that the entire cell block has been very tense and frustrated because of the overcrowding and potential health and medical problems that result.
49. K-Pod in the Vigo County Jail and is a trustee in the jail. 50. Mr. Gillie continues to be housed in overcrowded cells. 51. Mr. Gillie receives little to no recreation at the Vigo County Jail and complains that it suffers from sanitary problems.
DEREK HICKS 52. Mr. Hicks was transported to the Vigo County Jail on a probation violation on February 19, 2015 and was immediately told he would have to sleep on the floor. 53. Mr. Hicks was initially placed in “J-Pod” on the new side of the jail and told to sleep on the floor because the jail was overcrowded. 54. Later that same day, February 19, 2015, Mr. Hicks was assigned to A-block cell 1 on the old side of the jail and told to sleep on the floor again. Mr. Hicks slept on the floor for ten (10) days. 55. One year and seven months later, on September 25, 2016, Mr. Hick was transported to the Vigo County Jail again and told by the same officer that he would have to sleep on the floor because the jail was still overcrowded. This time, Mr. Hicks spent three nights sleeping on the floor. 56. Mr. Hicks has experienced difficulty sleeping on the floor because of the constant fear of someone stepping or falling on to him as Mr..Hick’s is aware that this has happened to other inmates who were required to sleep on the floor.
10

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 14 Filed 11/22/16 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 97
VIII. CLASS ALLEGATIONS WHICH IN TOTAL CONSTITUTE CRUEL AND INHUMANE PUNISHMENT 57. The Vigo County Jail (“Jail”) is located in Terre Haute, Indiana. 58. The facility was constructed in 1981 and was partially expanded in 2002. The Jail serves as a detention facility for pretrial detainees. 59. The elected Sheriff at the time, reached a consent agreement in 2002 to hold a maximum of two hundred and sixty-eight (268) persons. Both adult males and females are held in the Jail. According to Jauston Huerta, the Jail has been consistently overcrowded between April 2016 and September 2016. Persistent and daily overcrowding in Vigo County Jail is a breach of a 2002 agreement to keep the Vigo County Jail from further overcrowding. That agreement established two hundred and sixty-eight (268) inmates as the capacity limit. Throughout August and September of 2016 the Vigo County Jail exceeded this amount. During that period, up to two hundred and ninety-five (295) inmates were housed in Vigo County Jail. As recently as October 11, 2016, as many as three hundred and twenty-eight (328) inmates were housed in Vigo County Jail. One former inmate, Lloyd Thomas, is aware of occasions in which dozens of inmates were required to sleep on the floor for extended periods of time. 60. Frequent overcrowding is a constant and systemic problem and is especially apparent on weekends, as the Jail lacks a sufficient number of beds for all incarcerated inmates. Inmates are sometimes transferred to other facilities due to the lack of adequate bed space resulting in a county expenditure of over $1,000,000 per year. This overcrowding places inmates forty to fifty (40-50) miles away in surrounding counties and potentially two hundred and twenty-nine (229) miles away from Vigo County, which among other problems, places inmates
11

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 14 Filed 11/22/16 Page 12 of 18 PageID #: 98
at a disadvantage in meeting with their public defenders or defense attorneys and families. 61. Many plumbing fixtures in the jail are in need of extensive repairs. Toilets require
constant maintenance and overflow on the floor and into other cells several times a month. These conditions create a hazardous situation due to many inmates sleeping on the floor and wet surfaces causing inmates to slip and injure themselves entering or exiting the shower area. Additionally, such conditions enable contagious diseases and bacteria to be spread to the population. One such leak resulted in toilet overflow contaminating Mr. Huerta’s “EZ Boat” which he uses to sleep on the floor.
62. Toilet and shower facilities throughout the facility fail to meet recommended standards. Mold and mildew are constantly present. Attempts at cleaning it are limited to watered-down cleaning products that are ineffective. Unsanitary conditions, create an unreasonable risk of exposure to diseases.
63. Inmates are not given shower shoes and have been required to shower without shower shoes for several months. At least one inmate contracted the highly contagious skin disease known as scabies.
64. By transferring Vigo County inmates to other counties, the Public Defenders (“PDs”) for those in the care and custody of Vigo County are forced to travel some distance to meet with their clients. On many occasions, the inmates report that the PDs do not visit them at all while they are removed from the Vigo County Jail, but rather wait until they are scheduled for a court hearing and transported back to Vigo County in order to meet with them.
65. The current jail has a unconstitutional policy and practice of requiring the individual defendants to participate in their initial hearing by video conferencing. This process deprives the individual defendants of the privacy and confidential legal representation that they
12

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 14 Filed 11/22/16 Page 13 of 18 PageID #: 99
are entitled to, because the public defender or defense attorney is in court and the defendant remains in the jail facility, unable to have a private conversation. The court should require the public defender to stand with the defendant at all proceedings including bond hearings. Former inmate Christopher Payne had not met with his public defender when he was required to appear in a video conference in Vigo County Superior Court 1 on or about March 12, 2016. When Mr. Payne complained that he had never seen his public defender since being arrested in December 2015, approximately four months, and complained about the ineffectiveness of his counsel and his counsel’s inability to meet privately with his public defender, the court sentenced Mr. Payne to an extra sixty (60) days in jail and held him in contempt.
66. The Jail’s policies and practices for classification and segregation of inmates falls far short of state and constitutional standards. For example, Carl Sherb, who fell on Jauston Huerta, was at risk to himself and others as a result of still being under the effects of a nine (9) day methamphetamine binge and should never have been assigned a top bunk but should have been segregated and given proper medical treatment and observation.
67. Vigo County has failed to provide adequate medical care, isolation, and treatment to inmates. For example, inmate Jerry Shake contracted scabies, a contagious skin disease and was first ignored. Then he received inadequate treatment and was not isolated from the general population. Another example of inadequate medical staff is former inmate Lloyd Thomas was given the wrong medication twice.
68. Vigo County has failed to provide adequate outdoor recreation space and the limited indoor recreation space is too small to meet the needs of all the inmates. The amount of recreation time is also far below the recommended standard of time. These practices expose detainees to less than adequate living conditions and unsafe and unhealthy environment.
13

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 14 Filed 11/22/16 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 100
69. The design of the Jail facility is unsafe for both staff and detainees. There is no secured area for outside recreation and inside recreation is seldom provided; individuals detained for long periods of time are deprived of exercise and sunlight.
70. The design of the facility is unsafe for detainees because some of the cells in the Jail (specifically A-Block) are too small for temporary beds on the floor, known as “EZ Boats,” only allowing one and a half feet of floor space at night during lockdown between the “EZ Boat” and the cell toilet for all inmates in a single cell. The bunks on both sides of the cell overhang the “EZ Boat” on the floor, completely taking up the available floor space to get down from the top bunk. This was the cause of Jauston Huerta’s injury on September 15, 2016 around 5:00 a.m. EST.
71. The Jail has also failed to provide educational programs for inmates. These policies cause deterioration of physical and mental health, and cannot be supported by necessary security needs. Many inmates are detained for over a year. The Sheriff has also removed the law library.
72. The jail inmates are denied necessary psychiatric and mental health services when there is a diagnosed condition which should be treated psychotropically or with counseling. Because in some instances inmates are kept for over a year, their condition worsens and this constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
73. The prevailing conditions and practices of the Vigo County Jail collectively cause cruel and inhuman punishment, unrelated and unnecessary to accomplish the intended purpose of detention
74. The due process clause accords pretrial detainees rights not enjoyed by convicted inmates. The totality of conditions and practices at the Vigo County Jail effectively punish
14

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 14 Filed 11/22/16 Page 15 of 18 PageID #: 101
pretrial detainees, in clear violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
IX. CAUSE OF ACTION 75. The above-described conditions and practices at the Vigo County Jail collectively deprive plaintiffs and the class of due process of law as guaranteed to them by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution in that plaintiffs are deliberately subjected to punitive and oppressive incarceration which is not reasonably related to any legitimate non-punitive governmental objective. 76. The above-described conditions and practices at the Vigo County Jail subject plaintiffs and the class to punishment and deprivations in excess of that required for the lawful purpose of ensuring their presence at trial. These conditions and practices deprive plaintiffs and the class of equal protection of law guaranteed to them by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in that they are subjected to far more punitive and oppressive incarceration than sentenced inmates held in the Indiana Department of Correction institutions. 77. The above-described conditions, practices and policies run contrary to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The named defendants have deliberately deprived plaintiffs and the class of a safe, decent and humane jail environment and deliberately chosen to punish each inmate by forcing them to be housed in an overcrowded jail. 78. Plaintiffs and the class have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable and immediate harm until such time as the court orders the Vigo County Jail closed and replaced, or substantially remodeled.
15

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 14 Filed 11/22/16 Page 16 of 18 PageID #: 102
79. The named plaintiffs are entitled to damages because of the punishment inflicted upon him due to unconstitutional conditions of the Vigo County Jail, and the injury he sustained.
XV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, that the court: 80. Assume jurisdiction of this action and set this cause down promptly for a hearing. 81. Determine by order as soon as practicable, pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that this action may be maintained as a class action. 82. Enter a final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201 and §2202 and Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, declaring that the conditions, rules and polices of defendants as set forth in this complaint deprive plaintiffs and the class of the right to due process of law as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 83. Enter a preliminary injunction, to be later made permanent, prohibiting defendants, their employees, agents, successors in office, and all other persons in active concert with them from continuing to deprive plaintiffs and the class, as set forth in this complaint, of their rights to due process of law as guaranteed to them by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitutional; of the rights guaranteed to plaintiffs and the class under the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and the rights and privileges guaranteed to plaintiffs under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 84. Mandate the Vigo County Commissioners and the Vigo County Council to appropriate sufficient funds to repair the present Jail or in the alternative, to mandate the Vigo
16

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 14 Filed 11/22/16 Page 17 of 18 PageID #: 103
County Commissioners, and County Council members, to alleviate the present conditions in the Jail or construct a new jail in conformity with recommendations to be made by the Indiana Department of Corrections.
85. Award damages to named plaintiffs. 86. Grant plaintiffs the costs of this action, attorney’s fees, and such other further relief as is just and proper in the premises.
Respectfully submitted,
s/Michael K. Sutherlin Michael K. Sutherlin, Atty. #508-49 MICHAEL K. SUTHERLIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. P.O. Box 441095 Indianapolis, IN 46244-1095 s/Bradley C. Lohmeier Bradley C. Lohmeier, Atty. #34098-49 Lohmeier Law LLC P.O. Box 441813 Indianapolis, IN 46244
17

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 14 Filed 11/22/16 Page 18 of 18 PageID #: 104 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of the foregoing was served on the following persons via the ECF/CM system this 17th day of November, 2016: Michael Wright Vigo County Attorney for the Defendants Wrightlawfirm812@gmail.com
s/Michael K. Sutherlin Michael K. Suterlin Attorney for Plaintiffs
18

 
 Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 46 Filed 05/19/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 216

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

JAUSTON HUERTA, THOMAS BOLTON, JR.,

)

CURTIS GILLIE, CARL SHERB, DEREK HICKS, )

and DURAND RANDLE,

)

Plaintiffs,

) 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-DKL

)

vs.

)

)

GREG EWING, ET AL.,

)

Defendants.

)

ORDER On May 17, 2017, the Court held a hearing on the parties’ Joint Motion to Approve Joint Stipulation and Class Certification, [Filing No. 37].1 Plaintiffs were present by counsel Michael Sutherlin. Defendant Sheriff Greg Ewing was present in person and by counsel Craig McKee, David Friedrich, and Michael Wright. The remaining Defendants were present by counsel David Friedrich and Michael Wright. The court reporter was Jean Knepley. The Court outlined its continuing concerns with the Joint Motion to Approve Joint Stipulation and Class Certification, and counsel discussed those concerns. Based on that discussion and on the parties’ filings, the Court makes the following rulings:

1 Plaintiffs filed a Joint Stipulation on March 27, 2017, [Filing No. 36], and then filed the Motion to Approve Joint Stipulation and Class Certification on April 7, 2017, [Filing No. 37]. After an April 20, 2017 telephonic status conference in which the Court invited the parties to submit any revisions to the Motion to Approve, Plaintiffs filed a Proposed Joint Stipulation on May 15, 2017, [Filing No. 44]. The Court assumes the Motion to Approve relates to the most recent Joint Stipulation, filed on May 15, 2017, [Filing No. 44], and considers the initial Joint Stipulation, [Filing No. 36], WITHDRAWN.
- 1 -

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 46 Filed 05/19/17 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 217
A. Joint Stipulation The Court DENIES IN PART WITH EXPLANATION the Joint Motion to Approve Stipulation and Class Certification to the extent it requests approval of the Joint Stipulation. [Filing No. 37.] The parties’ statements at the hearing clarified that they have differing opinions regarding whether the Joint Stipulation is a consent decree, a private settlement agreement, or something else altogether. If it were the former, it must comply with the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act and it does not. If it were the latter, then the Court’s approval is not necessary or appropriate. As the parties could not agree on how it should be treated, the Court will treat it as a reflection of the parties’ agreement as to certain facts, and future plans with respect to resolution of the issues in this litigation. The Court, therefore, ACCEPTS the Proposed Joint Stipulation, [Filing No. 44],2 save for the following language: Plaintiffs’ counsel will petition the Court for fees from time to time, in the course of monitoring the progress of construction and compliance with the time line. The County reserves the right to object to any fee applications for any reason and the Court retains its discretion regarding approval of fees. The County agrees to pay any fees ordered by the Court within 30 days of the order. When counsel’s fees exceed the Cap, the County is free to argue that [the] PLRA rate (or a lower hourly rate) should apply to an award of plaintiffs’ attorney fees. [Filing No. 44 at 3.] As the Court stated at the hearing, the parties may privately agree to whatever arrangement they would like regarding attorneys’ fees. But the Court will not entertain interim fee petitions, nor order payment of such fees on an interim basis, pursuant to anything short of a merits adjudication, which has not been entered here.
2 Filing No. 36 and Filing No. 44 are not motions, and the Clerk is directed to TERMINATE them as such on the docket.
- 2 -

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 46 Filed 05/19/17 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 218
The language of the Proposed Joint Stipulation that the Court has accepted may be used to support Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, [Filing No. 12], a future dispositive motion, or for any other purpose for which a stipulation may legally be used.
B. Class Certification The Court GRANTS IN PART the Joint Motion to Approve Joint Stipulation and Class Certification, [Filing No. 37], to the extent that it seeks class certification, and likewise GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, [Filing No. 10]. The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, [Filing No. 10], along with Defendants’ Notice of Consent to Class Action Certification, [Filing No. 19], and finds that the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 are satisfied here. Specifically, the Court must find that the putative class satisfies the four prerequisite set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). If the putative class does satisfy these prerequisites, the Court must additionally find that it satisfies the requirements set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b), which vary depending on which of three different types of class is proposed. It is the plaintiffs’ burden to prove first that an identifiable class exists that merits certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). Oshana v. Coca-Cola Co., 472 F.3d 506, 513 (7th Cir. 2006). The four prerequisites under Rule 23(a) are: “(1) [that] the class is so numerous that joinder of all its members is impracticable; (2) [that] there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) [that] the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) [that] the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). Class certification is not appropriate unless the named plaintiff establishes all four prerequisites. Gen. Tel. Co. of the Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 156, 102 S. Ct. 2364, 72 L. Ed. 2d 740 (1982). In their Motion to Certify, Plaintiffs define the putative class as:
- 3 -

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 46 Filed 05/19/17 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 219
All individuals in the care and custody of Vigo County, Indiana, including the current and future inmates who are or will be incarcerated in the Vigo County Jail and all current and future individuals who were transported to other county jails as a result of the overcrowding in the Vigo County Jail. [Filing No. 11 at 1.] The Court finds that Plaintiffs have met their burden of showing that class certification is appropriate here. First, the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). Hundreds of individuals are incarcerated at the Vigo County Jail on any given day. Indeed, Sheriff Ewing stated at the hearing that three hundred and twenty seven individuals were incarcerated at the Vigo County Jail on May 17, 2017. Second, there are questions of law or fact common to the class. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). These common questions include: (a) whether Defendants are constitutionally required to provide a jail that is not overcrowded; (b) whether Defendants have systematically violated that mandate; (c) if Defendants are in violation of their duties, what efforts are required to remedy their constitutional violations; (d) whether the class members are entitled to a declaratory judgment; and (e) whether the class members are entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. Third, the Named Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the class claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). The Named Plaintiffs are all inmates at the Vigo County Jail, and are facing the same conditions as the putative class members. The Named Plaintiffs’ claims and the claims of the putative class members are all based on the same legal theories and the declaratory and injunctive relief sought would apply to both the Named Plaintiffs and the putative class members in the same way. Fourth, the Named Plaintiffs and their counsel will fairly represent the class. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). The Court has no basis to find that the Named Plaintiffs and their counsel will
- 4 -

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 46 Filed 05/19/17 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 220
not pursue the class’s interests, and notes that class counsel has experience litigating these types of cases.
Finally, Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendants have “acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants center on an alleged systematic failure to maintain adequate conditions for all Vigo County Jail inmates.
Because Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), the Court certifies the following class:
All inmates in the care and custody of Vigo County, Indiana from October 13, 2016 to the present, including the current and future inmates who are or will be incarcerated in the Vigo County Jail and all current and future individuals who were transported to other county jails as a result of the overcrowding in the Vigo County Jail. The Court clarifies, however, that it is not certifying a class with respect to any personal injury claims members of the class may have as a result of jail overcrowding. Because adjudicating those claims would necessarily involve highly individualized issues, class treatment is not appropriate. In any event, the Court does not read Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify to request certification of personal injury claims. The Court further APPROVES the Notice to Class Members that has been modified from the notice submitted by the parties, and which is attached as Exhibit 1 to this Order. To the extent any party objects to the Notice, it must file an objection by May 31, 2017. If no objection shall be filed, notice shall be provided in a manner agreed upon by the parties, and the parties shall file a report reflecting their agreement on or before June 14, 2017.
- 5 -

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 46 Filed 05/19/17 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 221 C. Motion for Preliminary Injunction Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, [Filing No. 12], remains pending. The Court
ORDERS the parties to file a Report by June 9, 2017 advising whether they have reached agreement regarding an Agreed Preliminary Injunction, and if so, the parties are ORDERED to submit a draft Agreed Preliminary Injunction by June 16, 2017. If not the parties shall propose a future course for resolving the motion by the same date.
May 19, 2017
Distribution via ECF only to all counsel of record
- 6 -

 
 Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 146 Filed 10/10/18 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 1148

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

JAUSTON HUERTA, ET AL., Plaintiffs,
vs. GREG EWING, ET AL.,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) No. 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD ) ) ) )

ORDER

This case is brought on behalf of past and present inmates at the Vigo County, Indiana Jail

(the “Jail”) who claim that the Jail is overcrowded, resulting in the violation of inmates’

constitutional rights. Plaintiffs bring their lawsuit against Vigo County Sheriff Greg Ewing, the

Vigo County Commissioners (the “Commissioners”), the Vigo County Council (the “Council”),

and several individual Commissioners and members of the Council. The Court certified a class of

Jail inmates from October 13, 2016 to the present, but did not certify a class with respect to any

personal injury claims members of the class may have as a result of overcrowding at the Jail.

[Filing No. 46.] Plaintiffs have moved for partial summary judgment on their declaratory and

injunctive relief claims, leaving the damages claims of the named plaintiffs for trial. That motion

is now fully briefed, and the Court held a hearing on the motion on September 21, 2018. The

motion is now ripe for the Court’s consideration.

This litigation is in a somewhat unusual posture. Plaintiffs present extensive facts in their

brief in support of their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to support their argument that

conditions at the Jail result in violations of their constitutional rights. [Filing No. 119 at 2-18.]

Defendants “concede the [Jail] does not meet constitutional standards because of overcrowding,

1

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 146 Filed 10/10/18 Page 2 of 20 PageID #: 1149
understaffing and inadequate space.” [Filing No. 131 at 5.] The Court recognizes that Vigo County’s challenges are shared by other Indiana counties already engaged in litigation over the status of their county jails. More litigation no doubt will follow, as the problem of jail overcrowding throughout Indiana is well known. Even this Court faces challenges because of county jail overcrowding and the reduction of available beds to house federal pre-trial detainees. That being said, the Court has a responsibility to ensure that conditions at the Jail are constitutional. To that end, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and grants certain injunctive relief, as discussed below.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW A motion for summary judgment asks the Court to find that a trial is unnecessary because there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and, instead, the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). As the current version of Rule 56 makes clear, whether a party asserts that a fact is undisputed or genuinely disputed, the party must support the asserted fact by citing to particular parts of the record, including depositions, documents, or affidavits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). A party can also support a fact by showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute or that the adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B). Affidavits or declarations must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant is competent to testify on matters stated. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4). Failure to properly support a fact in opposition to a movant’s factual assertion can result in the movant’s fact being considered undisputed, and potentially in the grant of summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
2

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 146 Filed 10/10/18 Page 3 of 20 PageID #: 1150
In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court need only consider disputed facts that are material to the decision. A disputed fact is material if it might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Hampton v. Ford Motor Co., 561 F.3d 709, 713 (7th Cir. 2009). In other words, while there may be facts that are in dispute, summary judgment is appropriate if those facts are not outcome determinative. Harper v. Vigilant Ins. Co., 433 F.3d 521, 525 (7th Cir. 2005). Fact disputes that are irrelevant to the legal question will not be considered. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
On summary judgment, a party must show the Court what evidence it has that would convince a trier of fact to accept its version of the events. Johnson v. Cambridge Indus., 325 F.3d 892, 901 (7th Cir. 2003). The moving party is entitled to summary judgment if no reasonable factfinder could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Nelson v. Miller, 570 F.3d 868, 875 (7th Cir. 2009). The Court views the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draws all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor. Darst v. Interstate Brands Corp., 512 F.3d 903, 907 (7th Cir. 2008). It cannot weigh evidence or make credibility determinations on summary judgment because those tasks are left to the fact-finder. O’Leary v. Accretive Health, Inc., 657 F.3d 625, 630 (7th Cir. 2011). The Court need only consider the cited materials, Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3), and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has “repeatedly assured the district courts that they are not required to scour every inch of the record for evidence that is potentially relevant to the summary judgment motion before them,” Johnson, 325 F.3d at 898. Any doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue for trial is resolved against the moving party. Ponsetti v. GE Pension Plan, 614 F.3d 684, 691 (7th Cir. 2010).
3

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 146 Filed 10/10/18 Page 4 of 20 PageID #: 1151
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS The following factual background is set forth pursuant to the standard discussed above. The facts stated are not necessarily objectively true, but as the summary judgment standard requires, the undisputed facts and the disputed evidence are presented in the light most favorable to “the party against whom the motion under consideration is made.” Premcor USA, Inc. v. American Home Assurance Co., 400 F.3d 523, 526-27 (7th Cir. 2005). Because, as noted above, Defendants concede that conditions at the Jail are unconstitutional, the Court’s recitation of the facts need not be exhaustive and is provided more for background. A. The Jail’s Capacity The old part of the Jail, which is linear in structure (all cells are in a row opening into an area outside of the cells), contains 129 beds, and the new part of the Jail, which is not linear but has a control room that looks into multiple units, has 138 beds. [Filing No. 118-1 at 5-7; Filing No. 118-1 at 101.] The Jail has two individual cells for segregation, three individual isolation cells in the booking area for suicide observation, and two cells for sick inmates. [Filing No. 118-1 at 9; Filing No. 118-1 at 101.] The rest of the cells contain either two, four, six, or eight permanent beds. [Filing No. 118-1 at 9; Filing No. 118-1 at 101.] Correctional experts recognize that a jail is overcrowded when it is above 80% capacity. [Filing No. 118-1 at 14; Filing No. 118-2 at 4.] Kenneth Whipker, Executive Liaison for Sheriff and County Jail Operations for the Indiana Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), explains: A jail is overcrowded long before it reaches its maximum capacity. That is because it is essential for the safety of prisoners and staff that a jail has sufficient space to classify prisoners. Obviously, there must be separate correctional space for male and female prisoners. But, there also has to be separate space to separate low-risk from high-risk prisoners as well as prisoners who need to be separated because of personal animosity or because they are co-defendants and the prosecution perceives a need to separate them. There are also certain offenses, e.g., sex offenses against
4

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 146 Filed 10/10/18 Page 5 of 20 PageID #: 1152
children, where alleged perpetrators are subject to an increased risk of harm from other prisoners. The Jail must have the flexibility to be able to move prisoners from their initial placement if there are reasons to do so. Having sufficient room in a facility so that these sort of classification decisions can be made is absolutely necessary so that the jail can be operated without excessive risk of harm to prisoners and to the staff who supervise the prisoners. [Filing No. 118-2 at 3-4.] Sheriff Ewing agrees that when the Jail rises above 80% of its capacity, the Jail is not able to properly classify inmates so that all inmates and staff are kept safe. [Filing No. 118-1 at 18-19.] The Jail rises above its capacity at times, and it is always above 80% of its capacity. [Filing No. 118-1 at 19.] B. The Effects of House Bill 1006 In 2015, the Indiana General Assembly passed House Bill 1006, which provides (among other things) that individuals with a sentence of less than two years cannot be housed in IDOC facilities but must remain in county jails. At the time the bill was passed, it “raised concerns among many Indiana sheriffs who said that without any money, they would see a 20 percent increase in their jail populations.” Kristine Guerra, House passes $80 million criminal justice bill, INDIANAPOLIS STAR, February 23, 2015. Although unclear exactly how many inmates are now housed in county jails instead of in IDOC facilities due to House Bill 1006, it was estimated in 2015 that “of the 14,000 people who were sent to [IDOC] last year, about half” would now be housed in county jails pursuant to House Bill 1006. Id. Today, the effects of House Bill 1006 are apparent. The Indiana Business Journal reported on the increase in county inmates just a few days ago: Taxpayers in dozens of Indiana counties will be paying for new jail beds years after sweeping state criminal code changes began sending more low-level offenders into local jails instead of state prisons.
5

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 146 Filed 10/10/18 Page 6 of 20 PageID #: 1153
At least 40 jails in Indiana are over capacity…. A recent state survey found that almost half of all jail inmates are Level 6 felons, the lowest-level felons. The state pays jails $35 daily for each of those inmates to cover food and staffing, but the money doesn’t pay for additional jail space. Dozens of Indiana’s 92 counties are studying, actively pursuing or developing expansion plans, or are in the midst of building new facilities. Huntington County Sheriff Terry Stoffel said he’s frustrated state lawmakers have passed on the expense of holding such offenders to local governments. “Indiana is so great at saying ‘we are so flush with money’ and just passed it on to us,” he said. The Huntington County Jail was built for 98 beds but recently was holding 156 inmates. Of those, 57 were Level 6 felons. Many Indiana counties face jail crowding after inmate shift, INDIANA BUSINESS JOURNAL, October 7, 2018. C. Increases in the Jail’s Population The Jail population has increased due to several factors, including House Bill 1006, a higher number of female inmates, and the opioid crisis. [Filing No. 118-1 at 23.] Due to the constant overcrowding, the Jail attempts to engage in rudimentary classification of inmates: keeping women separate from men, keeping extremely violent prisoners from being placed with ones who are not, and placing prisoners with disability issues together where they can hopefully be observed. [Filing No. 118-1 at 24-26.] Rudimentary classification results in prisoners being assigned to blocks where they do not have a permanent bed, and they are given a mattress and thin plastic liner within which to place their mattress on the floor. [Filing No. 118-1 at 26.] Each day, there are multiple prisoners on the floor throughout the Jail. [Filing No. 118-1 at 27.] D. Staffing at the Jail In 2013, Bill Wilson of the Indiana State Sheriff’s Association performed a staffing analysis of the Jail. [Filing No. 118-1 at 107-37.] He concluded that the Jail needed 66.5 staff
6

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 146 Filed 10/10/18 Page 7 of 20 PageID #: 1154
members, and it only had 40 at the time. [Filing No. 118-1 at 33.] Sheriff Ewing agrees that Mr. Wilson’s conclusions in 2013 regarding staffing hold true today. [Filing No. 118-1 at 9-22.] Currently, the Jail has 45 full time staff members and 6 part-time staff members. [Filing No. 1181 at 33-34.] Sheriff Ewing also agrees with Mr. Wilson’s conclusions that a lack of staffing contributes to deficiencies in controlling inmate behavior, managing inmate visitation, documenting jail events, releasing inmates in a timely manner, administering objective classification, providing inmate protection, providing routine jail checks, staff training, inmate observation, evacuation drills, handling emergency back-up, regulating inmate movement, performing random unannounced inspections, inmate contraband control, key and tool control, providing adequate back-up for staff, completing required documentation, and providing inmate recreation. [Filing No. 118-1 at 37-38.]
As for recreation, Sheriff Ewing agrees that there is a direct correlation between recreation and prisoners not getting into fights. [Filing No. 118-1 at 43.] Mr. Whipker opined that a minimum of one hour of recreation needs to be offered daily. [Filing No. 118-2 at 7.] Because of overcrowding, understaffing, and the physical structure of the Jail, many prisoners do not get to participate in regular recreation. [Filing No. 118-1 at 42.]
E. Physical Issues With the Jail Facility There are many physical issues with the Jail, which Defendants do not dispute, including: (1) the HVAC system, which is old and constantly in need of repair, [Filing No. 118-8 at 10]; (2) toilets and showers that are in need of repairs, [Filing No. 118-8 at 11]; (3) an insufficient number of toilets and showers, [Filing No. 118-2 at 7]; (4) inadequate lighting, [Filing No. 118-2 at 7]; (5) substandard air flow, [Filing No. 118-2 at 7]; (6) dirty air vents, [Filing No. 118-6 at 2]; (7) a leaky roof, which results in wet floors, [Filing No. 118-6 at 2]; (8) the existence of black mold, [Filing
7

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 146 Filed 10/10/18 Page 8 of 20 PageID #: 1155
No. 118-6 at 2]; and (9) a kitchen that is inadequate to serve the needs of the Jail population, [Filing No. 118-1 at 49-50].
F. Negative Effects of Overcrowding on Inmates Plaintiffs present numerous examples of the effects of overcrowding, lack of staff, lack of recreation, and the Jail’s physical structure on prisoners. These examples include: (1) prisoners being injured while sleeping on the floor by other inmates who jump off the upper bunk, [Filing No. 118-4 at 18-19]; (2) increased tension between prisoners due to overcrowding, and fights going unnoticed by staff, [Filing No. 118-2 at 8 (Mr. Whipker stating “the inability to properly supervise prisoners, combined with the tensions caused by the overcrowding, means that violence between the prisoners is a constant possibility and if this occurs, it will be difficult[ ] for the Jail staff to immediately respond”); Filing No. 118-5 at 2]; (3) endangering inmates because of the difficulty in providing attention to prisoners who need medical or similar treatment due to an emergency, [Filing No. 118-6 at 2]; (4) placing prisoners with other prisoners with whom they should not be placed, [Filing No. 118-1 at 10-12]; and (5) not being able to safely evacuate all prisoners in the event of a fire or other emergency, [Filing No. 118-2 at 7-8]. G. Previous Litigation Relating to Overcrowding at the Jail In 2000, the Vigo County Sheriff and the Commissioners were sued for injunctive and declaratory relief in a class action related to conditions at the Jail. Acosta v. Harris, No. TH 00081-C Y/H. The parties ultimately entered into a private settlement agreement that capped the population at the Jail at 268 and required that prisoners receive at least three hours of recreation a week outside of their immediate cell areas. [Filing No. 43-1.] The Jail has not been able to comply with either requirement. [Filing No. 118-1 at 40-41.]
8

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 146 Filed 10/10/18 Page 9 of 20 PageID #: 1156
H. Defendants’ Efforts to Address Overcrowding 1. Reducing the Inmate Population
Every day, Vigo County sends up to 50 prisoners to other Indiana jails for temporary housing at $35 a day per prisoner (not including the costs of transporting the prisoners), but Vigo County does not have places reserved at these other jails and must look for spaces every day. [Filing No. 118-1 at 20-21; Filing No. 118-1 at 103-06.] The annual cost to Vigo County to house inmates in other counties is approximately $1 million. [Filing No. 131-1 at 7; Filing No. 131-2 at 1.]
Law enforcement has suspended the incarceration of non-violent offenders on arrest warrants in an effort to reduce the population at the Jail. [Filing No. 118-1 at 93.] The Council also appropriated $200,000 to the public defender’s office to transfer indigent pre-trial detainees to the Community Corrections program. [Filing No. 131-1 at 10.] These indigent offenders are given 30 days to obtain employment, and those who have jobs reside at the Work Release Center and avoid incarceration. [Filing No. 131-1 at 10-11.] The Council also approved funding for additional Court staff so cases can be processed more quickly and the time for pre-trial detention will be decreased. [Filing No. 131-1 at 10.] The Council also funded a Drug Court in 2017 after eliminating it from the budget a year earlier. [Filing No. 131-1 at 10.]
2. Maintaining the Jail The HVAC system at the Jail was replaced in 2017 at a cost of $500,000. [Filing No. 1188 at 9-10; Filing No. 131-1 at 9.] The Council appropriated an additional $500,000 to replace the roof on the Jail. [Filing No. 118-8 at 47; Filing No. 131-1 at 9.]
9

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 146 Filed 10/10/18 Page 10 of 20 PageID #: 1157
3. Staffing the Jail The Council appropriated funds for Sheriff Ewing to hire part-time employees in response to Jail overcrowding and inadequate staffing. [Filing No. 118-1 at 33-34.] The funds allow for the hiring of six additional employees. [Filing No. 118-1 at 34.]
4. Building a New Jail Sheriff Ewing believes that a new jail must be built to solve the issues discussed above. [Filing No. 118-1 at 60.] The Commissioners agree. [Filing No. 118-8 at 13-14.] The Council acknowledges that the Jail is in an advanced state of deterioration, there are overpopulation pressures on the Jail, staff and prisoner safety is threatened by the current conditions at the Jail, and a new jail is needed to solve these problems. [Filing No. 118-3 at 3-4.] The Commissioners hired Garmong Construction Services (“Garmong”) to prepare a feasibility study and act as the construction manager for building a new jail, and DLZ Architect Engineers (“DLZ”), a firm specializing in prison architecture and design. [Filing No. 131-2 at 1.] A project team consisting of Garmong, DLZ, Sheriff Ewing, and the Commissioners have discussed design, location, and funding options for a new jail and conducted a series of workshops from October to November 2016. [Filing No. 130-2 at 4.] DLZ presented its preliminary design package to the Commissioners on December 6, 2016 and to the Council on December 13, 2016. [Filing No. 1302 at 1.] The DLZ design included 534 inmate beds with additional space for the Sheriff’s office, employee area, video visitation, intake/booking, medical, laundry, food service program area, and indoor/outdoor activity. [Filing No. 130-2 at 3.] The Council is Vigo County’s fiscal body, and funding of a new jail is the Council’s responsibility. [Filing No. 131-1 at 4-5.] The Council’s role is to implement a funding mechanism, and a jail could be funded through property taxes and a referendum or a local option income tax
10

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 146 Filed 10/10/18 Page 11 of 20 PageID #: 1158
(“LOIT”). [Filing No. 131-1 at 18.] The LOIT is the most likely funding source for a new jail. [Filing No. 131-1 at 18.] In 2017, the Commissioners proposed an ordinance which included a LOIT increase, but the ordinance was withdrawn because of a drafting defect and due to public opposition. [Filing No. 118-8 at 14; Filing No. 131-1 at 17; Filing No. 131-2 at 1.] The Council requested an independent needs assessment be performed to ensure a new jail was required, and made it clear that no action on the funding of a new jail would be taken until the needs assessment was completed. [Filing No. 118-8 at 16; Filing No. 131-1 at 14.]
The Commissioners hired RJS Justice Services (“RJS”) to perform the needs assessment. [Filing No. 118-8 at 15.] RJS issued the feasibility study on July 21, 2018. [Filing No. 130-4.] RJS agreed that a new jail is needed due to overcrowding, design issues, and failing structures and systems at the Jail. [Filing No. 130-4 at 18.] The RJS assessment also found that it was not economical, operationally feasible, or responsible to expand or renovate the existing Jail, and recommended constructing a new jail. [Filing No. 130-4 at 8-9.] RJS concluded that a new jail with 527 beds would be adequate to meet Vigo County’s needs to 2050, would allow Vigo County to operate within the facility’s operating capacity, and would eliminate the need for tax dollars to house inmates in neighboring counties. [Filing No. 130-4 at 9.] The RJS assessment also analyzed a number of Vigo County’s Alternatives to Incarceration (“ATI”), including pre-trial diversion, the Psychiatric Assertive Identification and Referral (“PAIR”) Program, the Adult Mental Health (“AMH”) Court, the Drug/Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated (“OVWI”) Court, and the Veterans Treatment Court. [Filing No. 130-4 at 31-33.] Finally, RJS analyzed Vigo County’s Community Corrections Programs, including community resource utilization, work release, home detention, community service restitution, expanded pre-trial release programming, and behavioral health diversion facilities. [Filing No. 130-4 at 33-36.] RJS acknowledged that Vigo County is
11

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 146 Filed 10/10/18 Page 12 of 20 PageID #: 1159
working through numerous programs to keep individuals with mental health and/or addiction issues out of jail while maintaining employment. [Filing No. 130-4 at 37-38.]
Earlier this year, the Commissioners proposed an ordinance raising Vigo County’s LOIT by .75%. [Filing No. 131-2 at 1.] The ordinance would increase the County’s LOIT to 2.0% effective January 1, 2019. [Filing No. 131-2 at 2.] The ordinance was approved by the Council on August 14, 2018, and the LOIT increase includes a .25% special purpose tax to construct a new jail which will terminate in 20 years, a .20% tax for new correctional and rehabilitation services which will also terminate in 20 years, a .1% public safety tax to fund jail operations and staff, and a .1% public safety rate for 911 dispatch. [Filing No. 131-2 at 2.] DLZ estimates the cost of a new jail at over $66 million. [Filing No. 130-2 at 5-7.] The Commissioner’s financial consultant advises that increasing the LOIT by .75% will allow Vigo County to build a 527-bed facility as well as satisfy the debt service for the bonds that will be issued to fund construction of a new jail. [Filing No. 131-2 at 2.]
I. The Lawsuit Plaintiffs initiated this action on October 13, 2016, [Filing No. 1], and filed the operative Amended Complaint on November 22, 2016, [Filing No. 14]. Plaintiffs assert claims for due process violations under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. [Filing No. 14 at 15-16.] They seek an injunction prohibiting Defendants from continuing to deprive them of their constitutional rights, a mandate that the Commissioners and the Council “appropriate sufficient funds to repair the present Jail or in the alternative, to mandate the Vigo County Commissioners, and County Council members, to alleviate the present conditions in the Jail or construct a new jail in conformity with recommendations to be made by the Indiana Department of Corrections,” and damages. [Filing No. 14 at 16-17.]
12

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 146 Filed 10/10/18 Page 13 of 20 PageID #: 1160
On May 19, 2017, the Court certified – only for the purposes of declaratory and injunctive relief, and not for any personal injury claims – a class of “[a]ll inmates in the care and custody of Vigo County, Indiana from October 13, 2016 to the present, including the current and future inmates who are or will be incarcerated in the Vigo County Jail and all current and future individuals who were transported to other county jails as a result of the overcrowding in the Vigo County Jail.” [Filing No. 46 at 5.] By agreement of the parties, the Court subsequently revised the class definition to “any and all persons currently confined, or who will in the future be confined, in the Vigo County Jail.” [Filing No. 145 at 3.] Plaintiffs now move for partial summary judgment on only their declaratory and injunctive relief claims. [Filing No. 118.]
III. DISCUSSION As noted above, this case is in an unusual posture. In their response brief, Defendants concede that the Jail “does not meet constitutional standards because of overcrowding, understaffing and inadequate space.” [Filing No. 131 at 5.] Defendants had no choice but to so concede, as the undisputed facts establish the constitutional violations. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants have violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments due to overcrowding, understaffing, and inadequate space at the Jail. The only issue that remains is what type of declaratory and injunctive relief the Court may afford to Plaintiffs for Defendants’ constitutional violations. The Court first sets forth the applicable law that shapes the relief it may provide, and then discusses that relief. A. Applicable Law The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) sets forth the parameters within which a court may grant injunctive relief in the corrections context. Westefer v. Neal, 682 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir. 2012). The PLRA reflects the principle that “prison officials have broad administrative and
13

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 146 Filed 10/10/18 Page 14 of 20 PageID #: 1161

discretionary authority over the institutions they manage.” Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 467

(1983); see also Westefer, 682 F.3d at 683 (the PLRA “enforces a point repeatedly made by the

Supreme Court in cases challenging prison conditions: prison officials have broad administrative

and discretionary authority over the institutions they manage”) (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted).

Specifically, the PLRA provides that:

(A) Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right. The court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief.

*

*

*

(C) 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, or to repeal or detract from otherwise applicable limitations on the remedial powers of the courts.
18 U.S.C. § 3626.

To the extent any prospective relief includes a requirement that the prison capacity be kept

at a certain number, courts have construed this as a population reduction order equivalent to a

prisoner release order, which is subject to the PLRA’s limitations. See, e.g., Coleman v. Brown,

952 F.Supp.2d 901, 906 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (reiterating earlier order explaining that “a population

reduction order is a ‘prisoner release order,’ as defined by the PLRA”). Specifically, the PLRA

provides that:

(3)(A) In any civil action with respect to prison conditions, no court shall enter a prisoner release order unless –

14

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 146 Filed 10/10/18 Page 15 of 20 PageID #: 1162
(i) a court has previously entered an order for less intrusive relief that has failed to remedy the deprivation of the Federal right sought to be remedied through the prisoner release order; and
(ii) the defendant has had a reasonable amount of time to comply with the previous court orders.
(B) In any civil action in Federal court with respect to prison conditions, a prisoner release order shall be entered only by a three-judge court in accordance with section 2284 of title 28, if the requirements of subparagraph (E) have been met. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3)(A)-(B). So, to the extent a plaintiff seeks prospective relief capping a
prison’s capacity, that relief can only be provided by a three-judge panel, which can only be
convened if a court has previously entered an order for less intrusive relief, and the defendant has
had a reasonable time to comply with the previous court order and has not done so. See Brown v.
Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 512 (2011).
B. The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Defendants are violating their Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights due to the conditions at the Jail. [Filing No. 119 at 29.] Plaintiffs acknowledge
that the PLRA prevents the Court from ordering Defendants to build a new jail, or to cap the
capacity of the Jail at 80% of the maximum capacity – at least at this stage of the litigation. [Filing
No. 119 at 30.] Because of the constraints the PLRA places on the Court, Plaintiffs request that:
• The Court “order the Sheriff, the President of the Vigo County Commissioners and the President of the Vigo County Council to appear personally before the Court on dates set by the Court, approximately 30 days apart, to report on the progress in finalizing plans for a new Vigo County Jail or any alternate plans to achieve a permanent resolution of the Jail’s constitutional deficiencies”;
• In the event plans are finalized, the Court “order the parties to file a schedule with the Court establishing relevant benchmark dates leading to the opening of the new Jail”; and
• “[O]rder the County, within thirty days from the grant of partial summary judgment, to file its plan to minimize unconstitutional conditions in the Jail until a new facility is constructed, assuming that the County determines to construct a new facility,” and “[t]he prisoners should be given thirty days to respond to
15

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 146 Filed 10/10/18 Page 16 of 20 PageID #: 1163
this proposal with the Court thereafter issuing, if necessary, further injunctive relief.” [Filing No. 119 at 31.] Plaintiffs request that the Court retain jurisdiction over this matter, even after the damages actions are resolved, which would “end once a new facility is opened and there is agreement that constitutional requirements are satisfied.” [Filing No. 119 at 31.] Defendants do not respond specifically to Plaintiffs’ requested relief, other than to state that “[a]s proposed by plaintiffs’ counsel, the Commissioners and members of the County Council will appear before the Court at regular intervals to provide updates on the location, design and construction of a new Vigo County Jail.” [Filing No. 131 at 14-15.] C. Appropriate Relief The Court notes at the outset that, as Plaintiffs concede, it is not able to order that Defendants keep the Jail at 80% of its capacity, nor can it order Defendants to comply with the portion of the Acosta Settlement Agreement that requires Defendants to maintain capacity at the Jail that does not exceed 268 inmates. As discussed above, this would be considered a prisoner release order under the PLRA, which the Court may not issue at this stage of the litigation – i.e., absent the requirements for the appointment of a three-judge panel being met, and absent an order from a three-judge panel. Plata, 563 U.S. at 512; Coleman, 952 F.Supp.2d at 906; 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3)(A)-(B). All parties – and the Court – agree that building a new jail is the only way to alleviate the violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights in the long term. The Court recognizes that the size, location, and scope of remodeled or newly constructed county jails inevitably stirs up local controversy and resistance. Significantly, the issues at the Jail are not new, and the failure to solve these issues spawns a number of collateral expenses that the public may not consider, including increased costs of supervision and health care for inmates, costs of transportation to other counties,
16

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 146 Filed 10/10/18 Page 17 of 20 PageID #: 1164
the demand for attorneys’ fees from the class, and the prospect of serial litigation. Vigo County’s tax dollars would be best spent on a long-term solution to unconstitutional conditions at the Jail, rather than on these collateral expenses.
The Court also notes that a significant percentage of the Jail’s population is pre-trial detainees – individuals charged with a crime but not subject to punishment unless and until their pending cases result in a conviction. The Court is mindful that the conditions at the Jail are particularly harsh on these individuals, who have not yet been convicted of a crime.
While the Court is not a party to public controversy in Vigo County, it does have a clear role in adjudicating the management and future of a county jail that it has found to be unconstitutional. To that end, and having found that the conditions at the Jail violate both the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Court finds that it is appropriate and necessary to enter permanent injunctive relief consistent with the requirements imposed by § 3626(a)(1) of the PLRA. In doing so, the Court is cognizant of the fact that Defendants have stated that it is their intent to construct a new jail. The below enumerated injunctive relief is predicated on Defendants abiding by their expressed statements that they will be building a new jail. In the event that Defendants do not follow through on their assurances that a new jail will be built, the Court, on motion from Plaintiffs or on its own motion, reserves the right to provide additional or alternative relief. The Court also notes that although, as set out below, reporting requirements are being imposed on Defendants, Plaintiffs’ counsel, as counsel for the certified class in this case, are expected to continue to monitor conditions at the Jail and shall have the right, as they deem fit, to petition the Court for further relief.
The Court therefore sets out the following injunctive relief, which addresses both the longterm solution of constructing a new jail and the short-term solution of attempting to ameliorate
17

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 146 Filed 10/10/18 Page 18 of 20 PageID #: 1165
unconstitutional conditions at the current Jail during the pendency of the construction. The Court
finds that the injunctive relief enumerated below is narrowly drawn and extends no further than
necessary to correct the violation of the federal rights here and is the least intrusive means
necessary to correct the violation of the federal rights. The Court ORDERS as follows:1
1. In order to ensure that Defendants remedy the ongoing constitutional violations at the Jail as quickly as possible, the parties are ORDERED to periodically appear before this Court to report as to steps being taken to address these violations. Unless otherwise ordered by this Court, the parties who must report on the dates ordered are the Vigo County Sheriff, the President of the Vigo County Council, the President of the Vigo County Commissioners, and any other individuals who possess information necessary to provide a complete report to the Court as discussed below. The first such report will take place at a hearing on November 13, 2018 at 1:00 p.m. in Room 131 of the United States Courthouse, 921 Ohio Street, Terre Haute, Indiana. Future hearings will be set by order of this Court.
2. Pending the opening of the new jail, Defendants are ORDERED to commit sufficient staff and take all other steps necessary to insure that all prisoners are offered, at a minimum, at least three hours a week of recreation outside of their cell areas and are further ORDERED to commit sufficient staff to make sure that the health and safety of prisoners is safeguarded.
3. At least seven days prior to the November 13, 2018 hearing, Defendants are ORDERED to file a report with the Court specifying: (a) the number of staff necessary to comply with the injunctive relief set out in the immediately preceding paragraph; (b) how the number noted was determined; (c) how the additional staff will be added; and (d) when the new staff will be added. The Court views this additional staff as a priority and a necessity to try to minimize the most egregious of the unconstitutional conditions existing in the Jail and therefore the Court anticipates that the new staff will be added in the immediate future, without delay.
4. At least seven days prior to the November 13, 2018 hearing, Defendants are ORDERED to submit a plan to this Court, in writing, detailing the anticipated dates that relevant construction benchmarks will be met, concluding with the opening of the new jail. Additionally, Defendants are ORDERED to submit to this Court relevant information including, among other things, the population capacity of the new jail and the staffing numbers that will be necessary in the
1 In a September 24, 2018 Order, the Court set forth a deadline of October 15, 2018 for the parties to file various reports with the Court. [Filing No. 145.] The Court VACATES the October 15, 2018 deadline and sets forth new deadlines below.
18

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 146 Filed 10/10/18 Page 19 of 20 PageID #: 1166
new jail. These reports shall include any and all documents submitted by architects, contractors, or other relevant persons that detail these dates, population capacity, and staffing numbers. Defendants are ORDERED to file supplements to these reports at least seven days prior to all future hearings scheduled by this Court until such time as this Court orders otherwise. The Court has determined that the above injunctive relief represents the least intrusive relief available to attempt to remedy the ongoing constitutional violations that have existed and continue to exist at the Jail, and in the event that they are not successful in remedying the violations Plaintiffs have the right to seek further relief, including a prisoner release order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3). Additionally, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are the prevailing parties on their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Even though final judgment in this matter will not enter at this time, as the individual damages claims of the named Plaintiffs remain to be resolved, Plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. See, e.g., Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U.S. 754, 758 (1980) (“Congress intended to permit the interim award of counsel fees only when a party has prevailed on the merits of at least some of his claims”); Richardson v. Penfold, 900 F.2d 116, 119 (7th Cir. 1990) (“Once a plaintiff obtains substantive relief that is not defeasible by further proceedings, he can seek interim fees and the district court has the power to award them”); see also Dupuy v. Samuels, 423 F.3d 714, 719 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing Hanrahan and Penfold). Plaintiffs shall have thirty days from the date of this Order to file their petition for attorneys’ fees and costs.
IV. CONCLUSION This litigation has been pending just a few days short of two years, and the issue of overcrowding has been in litigation for nearly a decade. The Court is mindful that the Indiana General Assembly compounded an already existing problem with the passage of House Bill 1006.
19

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 146 Filed 10/10/18 Page 20 of 20 PageID #: 1167
Nevertheless, until the recent passage of the LOIT ordinance, there had been minimal progress toward alleviating the unconstitutional conditions at the Jail. Defendants – and those who may succeed them on January 1 – should understand that the Court’s forbearance in the injunctive relief it has crafted is in express reliance on the passage of the ordinance and the stated intention to fund a new constitutionally adequate jail. The Court will continue in its restraint as long as the responsible elected officials, Defendants, perform their constitutional duty. But the time for a solution is now, not when financial circumstances have improved or until all of Vigo County’s citizens agree on the size and location of a new jail. Public officials are accountable to the citizens, but they also are accountable to an oath sworn to uphold the Constitution regardless of dissent or dispute from the public. The objective now is to make demonstrable progress toward a solution, without further delay. Delay risks the establishment of a three-judge panel and even more draconian outcomes such as mandated reduction in jail population or, at the extreme, closure of the Jail. Surely no public official desires such an outcome. The Court remains confident that Vigo County can solve this problem. But, if it fails to do so, the Court will do what the law permits to solve the problem for Vigo County.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, [118], as set forth above.
Date: 10/10/2018
Distribution via ECF only to all counsel of record
20

 
 Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 1 Filed 10/13/16 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

Jauston Huerta, Individually And

)

On Behalf Of The Present And Future

)

Inmates Of Vigo County Jail,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

GREG EWING, Individually

)

And In His Official Capacity As

)

Sheriff of Vigo County; The

)

VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: )

Brad Anderson, Judy Anderson,

)

and Jon Marvel, In Their Official

)

Capacity; The VIGO COUNTY

)

COUNCIL: Mike Morris, Mark D. Bird, )

Rick Burger, Timothy Curley,

)

Kathy Miller, Ed Ping, and Bill Thomas )

In Their Official Capacity,

)

)

Defendants.

)

CAUSE NO. 2:16-cv-397

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES -CLASS ACTION AND INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. This is a class action for declaratory judgment, preliminary and permanent injunction, and damages, brought on behalf of all present and future inmates of the Vigo County Jail, Terre Haute, Indiana, against officials of Vigo County who are responsible for the custody and care of said inmates. This complaint seeks corrections of unlawful prevailing conditions of the Vigo County Jail such as chronic overcrowding and unconstitutional procedures regarding inmate’s right to adequate protection against exposure to disease, and to
1

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 1 Filed 10/13/16 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 2
remedy continuing violations of due process of law at the Vigo County Jail. Former Assistant Jail Commander, Kim Hawkins, will substantiate the history of overcrowding and the lack of adequate staff. The Indiana Department of Correction jail inspector has reported overcrowding and understaffing in each of the sixteen (16) years since the initial litigation was filed in federal court.
2. In 2000, a class action complaint was brought against the Vigo County Sheriff and the Vigo County Commissioners under the complaint captioned David Costa, et. al. v. William R. Harris, et. al. No. TH0-081-C Y/H. The complaint was brought as a class action and alleged overcrowding and unsanitary conditions that violated both the U.S. Constitution and Indiana law. On February 14, 2002, the Vigo County Sheriff and Vigo County Commissioners entered into a binding contract, in the form of a private settlement agreement, which resolved the federal class action lawsuit. For over eleven (11) years the county refused to take positive steps to address the overcrowding, compelling the Plaintiffs in the federal class action, through the efforts of the Indiana ACLU, to bring a complaint for breach of contract and specific performance and individual damages in Vigo Superior Court under the caption Aaron Hos, individuals and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Vigo County Sheriff; Vigo County Commissioners under cause number 84D01-1308-PL7173. The case was assigned to a special judge who has overseen the litigation. However, again the county has taken minor steps and still has not resolved the size of the jail to be built, the location of the jail to be built, the funding process necessary, and to address adequate funds for adequate staffing for a jail with 650 beds.
3. Preliminary estimates including architectural fees suggest the total cost may be around $60 million.
2

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 1 Filed 10/13/16 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 3

II.

JURISDICTION

4.

The jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1343(3) and (4), this being a suit authorized by 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 1988 to redress the

deprivation of rights, privileges and immunities secured by 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Fourth,

Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Declaratory

relief is authorized pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201 and 2202, and the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, Rule 57.

III.

VENUE

5. Venue is proper in the Southern District of Indiana under 28 U.S.C. §1391,

allowing an action to be brought in the district in the state where the defendants reside or where

the cause of action arose. All defendants reside and the cause of action arose in the Southern

District of Indiana.

IV.

PLAINTIFF

6. Jauston Huerta has been detained in the Vigo County Jail at all times relevant.

V.

CLASS ACTION

7. The named plaintiff brings this action on his own behalf and on behalf of all

others similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The members of the class are those persons who are, or may be in the future, confined at the

Vigo County Jail, Terre Haute, Indiana.

3

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 1 Filed 10/13/16 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 4

8.

The requirements of Rule 23 are met:

a.

The class consists of at least two hundred and sixty-eight (268) persons; the

agreed capacity pursuant to agreement of the Vigo County Jail is two hundred and sixty-

eight (268) persons. See Exhibit A, B, and C.

b. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, to-wit:

(i)whether the conditions, practices and policies of the defendants deprive

plaintiffs and the class of due process of law as guaranteed by the Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

(ii)whether the conditions, practices, and policies of the defendants deprive

plaintiffs and the class of their right to be free from cruel and inhuman

punishment as guaranteed by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the

United States Constitution.

(iii) whether the conditions, practices, and policies of the defendants deprive

plaintiffs and the class of rights and privileges guaranteed to them by the First

Amendment to the United States Constitution.

(iv) Whether the conditions, practices and policies of the defendants,

deprive plaintiffs and the class of equal protection of the law as

guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution.

c. The representative plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the

class, inasmuch as he has no interests which are antagonistic to the interests of other

class members, and they are represented by counsel.

d. Finally, the parties opposing the class have acted or refused to act on grounds

4

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 1 Filed 10/13/16 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 5
generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.
VI. DEFENDANTS 9. Defendant Greg Ewing is the duly elected Sheriff of Vigo County, Terre Haute, Indiana. He is the official with the statutory responsibility for maintaining and managing the Vigo County Jail. Ewing is responsible for the care, treatment and protection of the basic rights of the inmates of the Vigo County Jail. He has willfully and wantonly failed to provide and maintain the minimum constitutional standards and continues to do so. 10. The defendants serve as members of the Vigo County Board of Commissioners and the Vigo County Council are responsible for the funding, construction, furnishing and maintenance of the Vigo County Jail. These defendants have repeatedly failed to provide adequate funding to maintain minimum constitutional standards in the Jail and they continue to do so, despite repeated notices from the Indiana State Jail Inspector and most importantly contrary to the requests of Defendant Sheriff Ewing.
VI. INDIVIDUAL CLAIM AND ALLEGATIONS OF JAUSTON HUERTA 11. Jauston Huerta brings an individual claim for violation of his Fourteenth, Fourth, and Eighth Amendment rights. 12. Mr. Huerta was the fifth man forced to sleep on the floor in a four-man cell in ABlock of the Vigo County Jail on the night of September 15, 2016. 13. At approximately 5:00 a.m. EST, inmate Carl Sherb, who was assigned the top bunk and was still under the influence of a nine (9) day methamphetamine binge, attempted to
5

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 1 Filed 10/13/16 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 6
get down from the bunk to use the toilet and fell on Mr. Huerta causing extensive injuries. 14. As a result, Mr. Huerta suffered shoulder and severe head injuries including a
concussion, laceration to his head, and lingering headaches. He woke up in a wheelchair covered in his own blood and urine, possibly the result of a seizure, before being transported to a hospital.
15. On this night, A-Block capacity was twenty-three (23) inmates and the maximum capacity is eighteen (18).
16. Mr. Huerta filed a Tort Claim Notice with the State of Indiana on the same day as this complaint and will amend this complaint after the required ninety (90) days have passed to add Mr. Huerta’s state law claims.
VII. CLASS ALLEGATIONS WHICH IN TOTAL CONSTITUTE CRUEL AND INHUMANE PUNISHMENT 17. The Vigo County Jail (“Jail”) is located in Terre Haute, Indiana. 18. The facility was constructed in 1981 and was partially expanded in 2002. The Jail serves as a detention facility for pretrial detainees. 19. The elected Sheriff at the time, agreed to hold a maximum of two hundred and sixty-eight (268) persons. Both adult males and females are held in the Jail. According to Jauston Huerta, the Jail has been consistently overcrowded between April 2016 and September 2016. Persistent and daily overcrowding in Vigo County Jail is a breach of a 2002 agreement to keep the Vigo County Jail from further overcrowding. That agreement established two hundred and sixty-eight (268) inmates as the capacity limit. Throughout August and September of 2016 the Vigo County Jail exceeded this amount. During that period, up to two hundred and ninetyfive (295) inmates were housed in Vigo County Jail. As recently as October 11, 2016, as many as
6

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 1 Filed 10/13/16 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 7
three hundred and twenty-eight (328) inmates were housed in Vigo County Jail. One former inmate, Lloyd Thomas, is aware of occasions in which dozens of inmates were required to sleep on the floor for extended periods of time.
20. The Vigo County Sheriff reached a consent agreement in 2002 to have a maximum capacity of two hundred and sixty-eight (268) inmates.
21. Frequent overcrowding is a constant and systemic problem and is especially apparent on weekends, as the Jail lacks a sufficient number of beds for all incarcerated inmates. Inmates are sometimes transferred to other facilities due to the lack of adequate bed space resulting in a county expenditure of over $1,000,000 per year. This overcrowding places inmates forty to fifty (40-50) miles away in surrounding counties and potentially two hundred and twenty-nine (229) miles away from Vigo County, which among other problems, places inmates at a disadvantage in meeting with their public defenders or defense attorneys.
22. Many plumbing fixtures in the jail are in need of extensive repairs. Toilets require constant maintenance and overflow on the floor and into other cells several times a month. These conditions create a hazardous situation due to many inmates sleeping on the floor and wet surfaces causing inmates to slip and injure themselves entering or exiting the shower area. Additionally, such conditions enable contagious diseases and bacteria to be spread to the population. One such leak resulted in toilet overflow contaminating Mr. Huerta’s “EZ Boat” which he uses to sleep on the floor.
23. Toilet and shower facilities throughout the facility fail to meet recommended standards. Mold and mildew are constantly present. Attempts at cleaning it are limited to watered-down cleaning products that are ineffective. Unsanitary conditions, create an unreasonable risk of exposure to diseases.
7

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 1 Filed 10/13/16 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 8
24. By transferring Vigo County inmates to other counties, the Public Defenders (“PDs”) are forced to travel some distance to meet with their clients. On many occasions, the inmates report that the PDs do not visit them at all while they are removed from the Vigo County Jail, but rather wait until they are scheduled for a court hearing to meet with them.
25. The current jail has a unconstitutional policy and practice of requiring the individual defendants to participate in their initial hearing by video conferencing. This process deprives the individual defendants of the privacy and confidential legal representation that they are entitled to, because the public defender or defense attorney is in court and the defendant remains in the jail facility, unable to have a private conversation. The court should require the public defender to stand with the defendant at all proceedings including bond hearings. Former inmate Christopher Payne had a confidential personal meeting with his public defender when he was required to appear in a video conference in Vigo County Superior Court 1. When Mr. Payne complained about the ineffectiveness of counsel and his inability to meet privately with his public defender, the court sentenced Mr. Payne to an extra sixty (60) days in jail and held him in contempt.
26. The Jail’s policies and practices for classification and segregation of inmates falls far short of state and constitutional standards. For example, Carl Sherb, who fell on Jauston Huerta, was at risk to himself and others as a result of still being under the effects of a nine (9) day methamphetamine binge and should never have been assigned a top bunk but should have been segregated and given proper medical treatment and observation.
27. Vigo County has failed to provide adequate medical care, isolation, and treatment to inmates. For example, inmate Jerry Shake contracted scabies, a contagious skin disease and was first ignored. Then he received inadequate treatment and was not isolated from the general
8

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 1 Filed 10/13/16 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 9
population. Another example of inadequate medical staff is former inmate Lloyd Thomas was given the wrong medication twice.
28. Vigo County has failed to provide adequate outdoor recreation space and the limited indoor recreation space is too small to meet the needs of all the inmates. The amount of recreation time is also below the required amount of time. These practices expose detainees to less than adequate living conditions and unsafe and unhealthy environment.
29. The design of the facility is unsafe for both staff and detainees. There is no secured area for outside recreation and inside recreation is not provided very often; individuals detained for long periods of time are deprived of exercise and sunlight.
30. The design of the facility is unsafe for detainees because some of the cells in the Jail (specifically A-Block) are too small for temporary beds on the floor, known as “EZ Boats,” only allowing one and a half feet of floor space at night during lockdown between the “EZ Boat” and the cell toilet for all inmates in a single cell. The bunks on both sides of the cell overhang the “EZ Boat” on the floor, completely taking up the available floor space to get down from the top bunk. This was the cause of Jauston Huerta’s injury on September 15, 2016 around 5:00 a.m. EST.
31. The Jail has also failed to provide educational programs for inmates. These policies cause deterioration of physical and mental health, and cannot be supported by necessary security needs. Many inmates are detained for over a year. The Sheriff has also removed the law library.
32. The jail inmates are denied necessary psyiatric and mental health services when there is a diagnosed condition which should be treated psychotropically or with counseling. Because in some instances inmates are kept for over a year, their condition worsens and this
9

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 1 Filed 10/13/16 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 10
constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. 33. The prevailing conditions and practices of the Vigo County Jail collectively
cause cruel and inhuman punishment, unrelated and unnecessary to accomplish the intended purpose of detention
34. The due process clause accords pretrial detainees rights not enjoyed by convicted inmates. The totality of conditions and practices at the Vigo County Jail effectively punish pretrial detainees, in clear violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
VII. CAUSE OF ACTION 35. The above-described conditions and practices at the Vigo County Jail collectively deprive plaintiff and the class of due process of law as guaranteed to them by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution in that plaintiffs are deliberately subjected to punitive and oppressive incarceration which is not reasonably related to any legitimate non-punitive governmental objective. 36. The above-described conditions and practices at the Vigo County Jail subject plaintiff and the class to punishment and deprivations in excess of that required for the lawful purpose of ensuring their presence at trial. These conditions and practices deprive plaintiffs and the class of equal protection of law guaranteed to them by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in that they are subjected to far more punitive and oppressive incarceration than sentenced inmates held in the Indiana Department of Correction institutions. 37. The above-described conditions, practices and policies run contrary to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
10

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 1 Filed 10/13/16 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 11
The named defendants have deliberately deprived plaintiff and the class of a safe, decent and humane jail environment and deliberately chosen to punish each inmate by forcing them to be housed in an overcrowded jail.
38. Plaintiff and the class have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable and immediate harm until such time as the court orders the Vigo County Jail closed and replaced, or substantially remodeled.
39. The named plaintiff is entitled to damages because of the punishment inflicted upon him due to unconstitutional conditions of the Vigo County Jail, and the injury he sustained.
VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all other person similarly situated, that the court: 40. Assume jurisdiction of this action and set this cause down promptly for a hearing. 41. Determine by order as soon as practicable, pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that this action may be maintained as a class action. 42. Enter a final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201 and §2202 and Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, declaring that the conditions, rules and polices of defendants as set forth in this complaint deprive plaintiff and the class of the right to due process of law as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 43. Enter a preliminary injunction, to be later made permanent, prohibiting defendants, their employees, agents, successors in office, and all other persons in active concert with them from continuing to deprive plaintiff and the class, as set forth in this complaint, of their rights to due process of law as guaranteed to them by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
11

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 1 Filed 10/13/16 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 12
to the United States Constitutional; of the rights guaranteed to plaintiff and the class under the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and the rights and privileges guaranteed to plaintiff under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
44. Mandate the Vigo County Commissioners and the County Council to appropriate sufficient funds to repair the present Jail or in the alternative, to mandate the Vigo County Commissioners, and County Council Members, to alleviate the present conditions in the Jail or construct a new jail in conformity with recommendations to be made by the Indiana Department of Corrections.
45. Award damages to named plaintiff. 46. Grant plaintiff the costs of this action, attorney’s fees, and such other further relief as is just and proper in the premises.
Respectfully submitted,
s/Michael K. Sutherlin Michael K. Sutherlin, Atty. #508-49 Bradley C. Lohmeier, Atty. #34098-49 MICHAEL K. SUTHERLIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. P.O. Box 441095 Indianapolis, IN 46244-1095
12

 
 Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 107 Filed 02/08/18 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 368

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

JAUSTON HUERTA, THOMAS BOLTON, JR.,

)

CURTIS GILLIE, CARL SHERB, DEREK HICKS, )

and DURAND RANDLE, individually and on

)

behalf of present and future inmates of Vigo )

County Jail,

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

SHERIFF GREG EWING, VIGO COUNTY

)

COMMISSIONERS, VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL, ET )

AL.,

)

Defendants.

)

2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD

ORDER

In October 2016, Plaintiff Jauston Huerta, an inmate at the Vigo County Jail (the “Jail”)

initiated this litigation as a putative class action against Vigo County Sheriff Greg Ewing, the Vigo

County Commissioners, and the Vigo County Council alleging that the Jail is overcrowded, does

not adequately protect inmates against exposure to disease, and does not provide adequate due

process to inmates in violation of the United States Constitution. The following month, Mr. Huerta

filed an Amended Complaint adding several additional named plaintiffs. After attempting without

success to reach an agreement with Defendants regarding overcrowding at the Jail, Plaintiffs have

moved for the appointment of a three-judge panel to address that issue, [Filing No. 95], and their

motion is now ripe for the Court’s decision.

I. BACKGROUND

Shortly after Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint, they also filed a Motion to Certify

Class and a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. [Filing No. 10; Filing No. 12.] In May 2017, the

Court certified a class of all inmates at the Jail from October 13, 2016 to the present, including 1

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 107 Filed 02/08/18 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 369
current and future inmates who are or will be incarcerated at the Jail and all current and future individuals who were transported to other county jails as a result of overcrowding at the Jail. [Filing No. 46 at 3-4.] Plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction, [Filing No. 65], only to withdraw it when it appeared that the parties had reached an agreement regarding overcrowding at the Jail, [Filing No. 87]. The parties, however, have not been able to reach agreement to date regarding an agreed preliminary injunction, and Plaintiffs filed a Motion for the Appointment of a Three Judge Panel on January 11, 2018. [Filing No. 95.]
II. DISCUSSION In their motion, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants, “in spite of many promises and hoped-for resolutions, have not committed to building a new jail, which is the only feasible solution in the long run to address the chronic overcrowding conditions.” [Filing No. 95 at 2.] Plaintiffs discuss a Private Consent Settlement Agreement that was reached in a different case related to overcrowding at the Jail, David Acosta, et al. v. William Harris, et al., Case No. TH00-081-C-Y/H (the “Acosta Agreement”). [Filing No. 95 at 2.] Plaintiffs contend that the Acosta Agreement required that the Jail capacity be kept at no more than 268 inmates, that “[t]he population reached the design capacity within a few years and has been overcrowded and continues to be overcrowded,” and that the Vigo County Sheriff, Vigo County Commissioners, and Vigo County Council “ignored” the Acosta Agreement. [Filing No. 95 at 2-3.] Plaintiffs note that the American Civil Liberties Union then brought an enforcement action related to the Acosta Agreement in Vigo County Superior Court, Hos v. Ewing, et al., Case No. 84D01-1308-PL-007173, which is currently pending in Sullivan Superior Court before a Special Judge. [Filing No. 95 at 3.] Plaintiffs assert that although no preliminary injunction has been entered in this case, “the Court should order the release of prisoners so as to ensure the jail population is not sleeping on the floor,” and that only a
2

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 107 Filed 02/08/18 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 370
three-judge panel can order the release of prisoners pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626. [Filing No. 95 at 3-4.] They request appointment of a three-judge panel “to address the continuing unconstitutional problems” at the Jail. [Filing No. 95 at 4.]
Defendants did not respond to Plaintiffs’ motion. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3) provides for the appointment of a three-judge panel to consider whether the release of prisoners should be ordered to remedy constitutional violations. To obtain a prisoner release order, the plaintiff must show that: (i) a court has previously entered an order for less intrusive relief that has failed
to remedy the deprivation of the Federal right sought to be remedied through the prisoner release order; and (ii) the defendant has had a reasonable amount of time to comply with the previous court orders. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3)(A). The term “prisoner release order” “does not necessarily mean an order requiring the release of inmates; instead, the [Prison Litigation Reform Act] broadly defines the term as including ‘any order, including a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunctive relief, that has the purpose or effect of reducing or limiting the prison population, or that directs the release from or nonadmission of prisoners to a prison.’” Plata v. Schwarzenegger, 2007 WL 2122657, *1 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(4)). Section 3626(a)(3)(C) provides that: A party seeking a prisoner release order in Federal court shall file with any request for such relief, a request for a three-judge court and materials sufficient to demonstrate that the requirements of subparagraph (A) [a prior court order for less intrusive relief that has failed to remedy the deprivation and a reasonable amount of time to comply] have been met. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3)(C). When considering whether a three-judge panel should be convened, the Court need not consider whether a prisoner release order is ultimately appropriate, which would require showing
3

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 107 Filed 02/08/18 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 371
by clear and convincing evidence that crowding is the primary cause of the violation of a Federal right, and no other relief will remedy the violation of the Federal right. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3)(E); Plata, 2007 WL 2122657 at *1.
Plaintiffs here have failed to meet the first requirement for appointment of a three-judge panel – that a court has “previously entered an order for less intrusive relief that has failed to remedy the deprivation of the Federal right sought to be remedied through the prisoner release order.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3)(A). Plaintiffs discuss failed negotiations with Defendants in this case, the Acosta Agreement, and the Hos enforcement action. But they do not point to a court order that has been entered in this case, in Acosta, or in Hos related to the claims raised in this litigation. This failure is fatal to their request for appointment of a three-judge panel at this point in the proceedings, and mandates that the Court deny their motion.
III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for the Appointment of a Three Judge Panel, [95]. To the extent that circumstances change which would support the appointment of a three-judge panel, Plaintiffs may re-file their motion.
Date: 2/8/2018
Distribution via ECF only to all counsel of record 4

 
 Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 148 Filed 11/06/18 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1170

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

Jauston Huerta, Durand Randle,

)

Carl Sherb, Thomas Bolton, Jr.,

)

Curtis Gillie, Derek Hicks,

)

Individually And On Behalf Of The

)

Present And Future Inmates Of

)

Vigo County Jail,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

)

GREG EWING, Individually

)

And In His Official Capacity As

)

Sheriff of Vigo County; The

)

VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: )

Brad Anderson, Judy Anderson,

)

and Jon Marvel, In Their Official

)

Capacity; The VIGO COUNTY

)

COUNCIL: Mike Morris, Mark D. Bird, )

Rick Burger, Timothy Curley,

)

Kathy Miller, Ed Ping, and Bill Thomas )

In Their Official Capacity,

)

)

Defendants.

)

CAUSE NO. 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD

DEFENDANTS’ PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO COURT’S OCTOBER 10, 2018 ORDER
The Defendants, Greg Ewing, Individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Vigo County, The Vigo County Commissioners: Brad Anderson, Judy Anderson and Jon Marvel in their official capacity, The Vigo County Council: Mike Morris, Mark D. Bird, Rick Burger, Timothy Curley, Kathy Miller, Ed Ping and Bill Thomas in their official capacity (“Vigo County”), by counsel, were ordered to file reports on steps taken to remedy the constitutional

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 148 Filed 11/06/18 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 1171
violations at the Vigo County Jail (“Jail”) as well as progress on the construction of a new
facility. Vigo County relies on the following in support of its report:
1. Vigo County Jail Staffing Plan 2013 2. Vigo County Jail Staffing Plan 2018 3. Sheriff/Jail: Full-time Correctional Officers External Position 4. Proposed Project Timeline
The October 10, 2018 order stated in part:
3…. The Defendants are ORDERED to file a report with the Court specifying: (a) the number of staff necessary to comply with the injunctive relief set out in the immediately proceeding paragraph; (b) how the number was determined; (c) how the additional staff will be added; and (d) when the new staff will be added.
The Court further ruled:
4…. Defendants are ORDERED to submit a plan to this Court, in writing, detailing the anticipated dates that relevant construction benchmarks will be met, concluding with the opening of the new jail. Additionally, Defendants are ORDERED to submit to this Court relevant information including, among other things, the population capacity of the new jail and the staffing numbers that will be necessary in the new jail. These reports shall include any and all documents submitted by architects, contractors, or other relevant persons that detail these dates, population capacity and staffing numbers.
STAFFING OF EXISTING JAIL
Vigo County contracted with Bill Wilson of Jail Services following receipt of the
Court’s summary judgment order. Mr. Wilson is familiar with the Jail and prepared a Jail
Staffing Analysis in October 2013. [Dkt. 148-1]. Mr. Wilson determined the Jail was
understaffed five years ago. [Dkt. 148-1, 17]. Mr. Wilson’s current Vigo County Jail Staffing
Plan was issued on October 2, 2018. [Dkt. 148-2].
Mr. Wilson proposed the following to adequately staff the Jail:

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 148 Filed 11/06/18 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 1172

Position
Jail Commander Matron Administrative Sergeant Shift Supervisor Court Personnel Transport Recreation Jail Officers
Total

Total Staff
1.00 1.00 1.00 4.74 8.00 3.00 4.74 47.40
70.88 Full-time staff

Mr. Wilson also reported on the current staffing at the Jail:

Position Jail Commander Jail Matron Administrative Sergeant Shift Supervisors Court Personnel Transport Recreation Jail Officers

Total staff 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 7.00 1.00 0 29

Total

43.00 Full-time staff

Mr. Wilson proposed an increase of 1.74 full-time jail supervisors, one courtroom

personnel employee, two transport personnel, 4.74 recreational staff and 18.4 full-time jail staff.

[Dkt. 148-2,17]. Mr. Wilson also determined full-time jail officers be increased from 29 to

47.40. Mr. Wilson recommended 27.88 full-time jail positions be hired. [Dkt. 148-2,16].

The addition of 27 full-time jail personnel will allow intermittent supervision of all

inmates to ensure the operation of the jail’s services, programs and activities. Additional staffing

will also allow consistent and scheduled out-of-cell recreation. Jail officers will also be able to

conduct regular health and safety checks and there will be enough qualified and trained staff to

conduct inmate transport and court escorts without disrupting routine jail operations. [Dkt. 148-

2,22].

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 148 Filed 11/06/18 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 1173
FUNDING FOR ADDITIONAL JAIL STAFF The Vigo County Council (“Council”) appropriated $41,000.00 on October 9, 2018 to fund three additional full-time jail positions for the remainder of 2018. The Council also discussed hiring an additional seven full-time positions in 2019. The Council scheduled a special call meeting following issuance of the Court’s October 10, 2018 order for October 22, 2018. The Council voted unanimously to fund 24 additional fulltime jail positions and included the positions in the County’s 2019 budget. The Council also passed ordinances transferring $109,000.00 to the 2018 budget to fund the immediate hiring of new jail staff positions. That transfer was in addition to the $41,000.00 the Council approved earlier in the month to hire three additional jail positions. The cost of the additional jail personnel is estimated at $1.6 million annually. The cost of the additional 27 full-time jail staff will be funded through a public safety tax effective on January 1, 2019. The public safety tax is expected to generate $2,000,000 in 2019.
HIRING OF ADDITIONAL STAFF Vigo County advertised for full-time correctional officers on October 23, 2018. [Dkt. 148-3]. Interviews of potential candidates began immediately following the job posting. Fulltime positions will also be filled by six or seven part-time staff positions. The Jail Commander anticipates a majority of the interviews and applicant background checks will be completed within the next two weeks. The Jail Commander believes most of the positions will be filled by the end of year depending on the applicant pool. All full-time positions should be staffed by January 2019.

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 148 Filed 11/06/18 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 1174
SIZE AND SITE OF NEW JAIL RJS Services recommended construction of a 527-bed jail. [Dkt. 130-4,96]. The Commissioners have proposed construction of a jail with 484 beds at an estimated cost of $45-50 million, excluding financing costs. The Commissioners have also selected the site of a former International Paper plant as the location for the new jail on State Road 63 southeast of downtown Terre Haute. [Dkt. 131-2,2]. The site is owned by Vigo County but is inside the city limits of Terre Haute. The Commissioners are seeking a variance from the Vigo County Board of Zoning Appeals to construct the jail on the proposed site. A hearing on the variance is scheduled on November 14.
CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE FOR NEW JAIL Garmong Construction (“Garmong”) is the construction manager for the new jail. [Dkt. 131-2,1]. Garmong submitted a proposed project timeline to the Commissioners on October 9, 2018. [Dkt.148-4]. The design phase started in October and will take seven months to complete. Site selection is anticipated to be completed this month but will depend on approval of the variance for the International Paper site. The Commissioners and the City of Terre Haute have also sought an outside legal opinion to determine whether the variance for the Jail is appropriate or if a rezoning petition must be filed and approved by the Terre Haute City Council. The issuance of the third party legal opinion is expected later this month. The design of the new Jail will be completed by April 2019 with bidding and the awarding of contracts in May and June 2019. Construction of the jail is scheduled to begin in July 2019 with completion in February 2021. The Sheriff’s Department will begin to occupy the facility in March with the jail being fully functional in April 2021. [Dkt.148-4].

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 148 Filed 11/06/18 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 1175
STAFFING OF THE NEW JAIL
Staffing of the new Jail was also a concern of the Court. Bill Wilson of Jail Services has
been hired to review the design and make staffing recommendations. Mr. Wilson’s staffing
recommendations will not be made until the jail design is finalized. The design of the jail will be
completed by the end of the year.
WILKINSON, GOELLER, MODESITT, WILKINSON & DRUMMY, LLP
333 Ohio Street Terre Haute, IN 47807 Telephone: (812) 232-4311 Fax: (812) 235-5107
FOR ALL DEFENDANTS
By:/s/ David P. Friedrich David P. Friedrich #15164-84
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned, attorney for the Defendants, certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served electronically to the following:
Kenneth Falk Michael Sutherlin Craig M. McKee Michael J. Wright
Dated this 6th day of November, 2018.
/s/ David P. Friedrich Attorney No. 15164-84

 
 Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 162 Filed 12/19/18 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 1709

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

Jauston Huerta, Thomas Bolton, Jr. Durand Randle, Carl Sherb, Curtis Gillie, Derek Hicks, Individually And On Behalf Of The Present And Future Inmates Of Vigo County Jail,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CAUSE NO. 2:16-CV-397-JMS- MJD

GREG EWING, Individually And In His Official Capacity As Sheriff of Vigo County; The VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: Brad Anderson, Judy Anderson, and Jon Marvel, In Their Official Capacity; The VIGO COUNTY COUNCIL: Mike Morris, Mark D. Bird, Rick Burger, Timothy Curley, Kathy Miller, Ed Ping, and Bill Thomas In Their Official Capacity,

Defendants.

DEFENDANTS PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO COURT’S NOVEMBER 15, 2018 ORDER

The Defendants, Greg Ewing, Individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Vigo

County, The Vigo County Commissioners: Brad Anderson, Judy Anderson and Jon Marvel In

their official capacity, The Vigo County Council: Mike Morris, Mark D. Bird, Rick Burger,

Timothy Curley, Kathy Miller, Ed Ping and Bill Thomas in their official capacity, by counsel,

file its Periodic Report and in support states:

The November 15, 2018 minute entry stated in part:

... The Court ordered Defendants to file a report by December 19, 2018 setting forth the

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 162 Filed 12/19/18 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 1710
status of the zoning issue involving the land for the new jail. STATUS OF REZONING OF SITE FOR PROPOSED VIGO COUNTY JAIL
The Terre Haute City Council rejected Vigo County’s request to rezone the site of the former International Paper plant on December 13, 2018. The rezoning petition had been approved by the Vigo County Area Plan Department.
The Vigo County Commissioners (“Commissioners”) are negotiating with multiple parties to purchase another site. The Commissioners anticipate signing a purchase agreement for another site for the jail within the next 2-3 weeks. The rejection of the rezoning petition will not impact the early stages of the design for the new jail.
STAFFING OF EXISTING JAIL The Vigo County Sheriff’s Department (“Sheriff’s Department”) has hired 11 full-time and 4 part-time jail officers. The jail officers began training on December 18, 2018. Job offers to 8 other applicants were rejected for various reasons. The Sheriff’s Department is reviewing 20 additional applications and will interview and hire additional jail officers before the end of the year. The Sheriff’s Department has advertised and will continue to advertise for jail officers until all positions are filled. Vigo County estimates the hiring and training of 27 new jail officers will be completed by the end of January.
WILKINSON, GOELLER, MODESITT, WILKINSON & DRUMMY, LLP
333 Ohio Street Terre Haute, Indiana 47807 DPFriedrich@wilkinsonlaw.com (812) 917-2815 phone (812) 235-5107 fax
By:/s/ David P. Friedrich David P. Friedrich Attorney No. 15164-84

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 162 Filed 12/19/18 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 1711
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned, attorney for Defendants, certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was served electronically to the following: Mr. Michael Sutherlin Mr. Craig M. McKee Mr. Michael J. Wright Mr. Kenneth Falk dated this 19th day of December, 2018.
/s/ David P. Friedrich David P. Friedrich Attorney No. 15164-84

 
 Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 165 Filed 01/14/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1715

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

Jauston Huerta, Durand Randle,

)

Carl Sherb, Thomas Bolton, Jr.,

)

Curtis Gillie, Derek Hicks,

)

Individually And On Behalf Of The

)

Present And Future Inmates Of

)

Vigo County Jail,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

John Plasse, Individually

)

And In His Official Capacity As

)

Sheriff of Vigo County; The

)

VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: )

Brad Anderson, Judy Anderson,

)

and Brendan Kearns, In Their Official

)

Capacity; The VIGO COUNTY

)

COUNCIL: Mike Morris, Vicki Weger )

Aaron Loudermilk, David Thompson,

)

Lisa Spence, Jim Mann, Chris Switzer

)

In Their Official Capacity,

)

)

Defendants.

)

CAUSE NO. 2:16-cv-397-JMS-MJD

STATUS REPORT
In compliance with the Court’s Marginal Entry Order of December 26, 2018 [Doc. No. 164], the Defendants, by counsel, hereby submit the following status report regarding the determination of an alternate location for the Vigo County Security Annex:
1. The Board of Commissioners of Vigo County have met with representatives of three (3) ownership groups who own property that would accommodate construction of the planned design for a new Vigo County Security Annex. These proposed sites are being analyzed

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 165 Filed 01/14/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1716

for jail construction suitability. Proposals for survey, elevation, and other issues related to site suitability have been approved for completion for those sites under consideration for which the owner could not provide that preliminary information. The commissioners are expediting that work both to meet the Court’s expectations and to make an informed selection on a final site. The defendants anticipate due diligence work should be completed by the next hearing date (February 13, 2019) and it is possible a final site will have been selected and the purchase transaction closed by that date.

Respectfully Submitted,

__/s/ Michael J. Wright_________

Michael Wright, Vigo County Attorney for all Defendants # 26654-84

WILKINSON, GOELLER, MODESITT,

WILKINSON & DRUMMY, LLP

333 Ohio Street

Terre Haute, IN 47807

Telephone: (812) 232-4311

Fax:

(812) 235-5107

FOR ALL DEFENDANTS

By: __/s/ David P. Friedrich David P. Friedrich # 15164-84
FOR JOHN PLASSE, SHERIFF

By: __/s/ Craig M. McKee Craig M. McKee #10245-82

 
 Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 178 Filed 02/28/19 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 1755

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

JAUSTON HUERTA, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
GREG EWING, et al,, Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

No. 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD

)

)

)

)

Final Judgment as to All Claims for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(b)

In this action the named Plaintiffs sought individual damages against defendants

and they also, on behalf of a class of those similarly situated, sought injunctive and

declaratory relief.

The class, as redefined by this Court’s Order of September 24, 2018, consists of:

any and all persons currently confined, or who will in the future be confined in the Vigo County Jail.

(Dkt. 145 at 3).

On October 10, 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiffs’ request for partial summary

judgment, finding they had demonstrated that conditions at the Vigo County Jail violate

the United States Constitution. (Dkt. 145 at 1). Consequently, the Court entered certain

relief that it termed final injunctive relief. (Dkt. 146 at 18-19).

The individual damages claims of the Plaintiffs are unresolved. However,

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), the Court finds that there is no just

reason for delay in entering final judgment as to all claims for declaratory and injunctive

[1]

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 178 Filed 02/28/19 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 1756
relief raised by the Plaintiffs on their own behalf and on behalf of the class and such final judgment should issue [175].
The Court further finds that the terms of the final judgment, as set out below, are consistent with its decision on partial summary judgment with additions agreed to by the defendants.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that based on the Court’s findings as set out in its Order of October 10, 2018 (Dkt. 146) the Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief is granted and IT IS DECLARED that conditions in the Vigo County Jail violate both the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
The Court finds that Defendants have represented an intention to replace the existing Vigo County Jail with a structure meeting all constitutional requisites at the earliest opportunity. Based on that representation, the Court orders the injunctive relief stated below consistent with the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1), in that it is narrowly drawn and extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the constitutional rights of Vigo County Jail detainees. The Court further finds that these findings and orders represent the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violations of the constitutional rights in question. The Court further finds that in ordering this relief it has considered, and given substantial weight to, any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by this relief.
THE DEFENDANTS ARE THEREFORE PERMANENTLY ENJOINED AS FOLLOWS AND THEY ARE ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
[2]

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 178 Filed 02/28/19 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 1757
1. To ensure that Defendants remedy the ongoing constitutional violations at the Jail as quickly as possible, the parties will be ORDERED to periodically appear before this Court, at least every three months, to report on action taken to address the constitutional violations, including detailed updates on site selection, planning, and construction of a new jail. Unless otherwise ordered by this Court, the parties who must report on the dates ordered are the Vigo County Sheriff, the President of the Vigo County Council, the President of the Vigo County Commissioners, and any other individuals who possess information necessary to provide a complete report to the Court as discussed below. The Court will, by separate orders, set the dates for these reports and appearances.
2. Pending the opening of the new jail, Defendants are ORDERED to commit sufficient staff and take all other steps necessary to ensure that all prisoners are offered, at a minimum, at least three hours per week of recreation outside of their cell areas and are further ORDERED to commit sufficient staff to make sure that the health and safety of prisoners is safeguarded.
3. At least seven (7) days prior to each hearing conducted pursuant to paragraph 1, above, the Defendants shall file a report with the Court specifying (a) the number of staff necessary to comply with this injunctive relief set out in the immediately preceding paragraph; (b) how the number noted was determined; (c) how the additional staff will be added (if staff must be added); and (d) when the new staff will be added. The Court views this additional staff as a priority and a necessity to try to minimize the most egregious of the unconstitutional conditions existing in the Jail and the Court recognizes that since the October 10, 2018, additional staff has been ordered. The Court anticipates that necessary staff will be added without delay and that required staffing levels will be maintained.
4. At least seven (7) days prior to each hearing conducted pursuant to paragraph 1, above, defendants are ORDERED to submit a plan to this Court, in writing, detailing the anticipated dates that relevant construction benchmarks will be met and concluding with an estimated date for opening the new jail. Additionally, Defendants are ORDERED to submit to this Court relevant information including, among other things, the population capacity of the new jail and the staffing numbers that will be necessary in the new jail. These reports shall include any and all documents submitted by architects, contractors, consultants, construction managers or other knowledgeable persons that detail these dates, population capacity, and staffing numbers. Defendants are ORDERED to file supplements to these reports at least seven days prior to all future hearings scheduled by this Court until such time as this Court orders otherwise and Plaintiffs may file responses to the reports as their counsel deems appropriate.
[3]

Case 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-MJD Document 178 Filed 02/28/19 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 1758
The Court has determined that the above injunctive relief represents the least intrusive relief available to attempt to remedy the ongoing constitutional violations that have existed and continue to exist at the Jail, and in the event that they are not successful in remedying the violations, plaintiffs have the right to seek further relief, including a prisoner release order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3).
The Court further finds that Plaintiffs’ counsel shall be expected to continue to monitor conditions at the Jail and shall have the right, as they deem fit, to petition the Court for further relief. To this end Plaintiffs’ counsel shall receive daily population reports from the Jail that shall differentiate between pretrial detainees and sentenced inmates, and shall receive on a regular basis, at least monthly, copies of incident reports in the Jail. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall have the right, at their expense, to periodically communicate with the class as a whole via letters that Jail staff will distribute to the prisoners. Plaintiffs’ counsel, of course, shall continue to have the right to communicate with class members through letters and personal visits.
The Court further ORDERS that it shall retain continuing jurisdiction over this matter.
Date: 2/27/2019
To: All ECF-registered counsel of record
[4]