Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 107 Filed 03/28/2005 Page 1 of 4

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

Nathaniel Roberts, Individually and

)

CASE NO.: 4:03 CV 2329

On Behalf of the Certified Class, et al.

)

)

Plaintiff(s),

)

JUDGE DOWD

)

vs.

)

)

County of Mahoning, et al.,

)

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE

)

TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST

Defendant(s)

)

FOR A THREE JUDGE PANEL

)

NOW COME Plaintiffs and state that they are in agreement that a prisoner release order is necessary. Plaintiffs support and join in the request for the appointment of a Three-Judge Panel.
This Court is well aware of the fact that the unconstitutional conditions found to exist are the result of the combination of three factors: understaffing, lack of funding to provide sufficient staff, and an inmate population that far exceeds design capacity. The unconstitutional conditions which were found to exist because of these problems have become worse with the layoff of fifty (50) deputies which took place on April 27, 2005.1 A critical situation will become worse when the Sheriff lays off an additional 100 deputies in the next few weeks.
Plaintiffs contend that this Court has the authority to prevent the layoffs and further that this Court could order the hiring or placement of additional staff in the jail. However, this Court found that to grant an injunction to prevent layoffs would shortcut

1 Plaintiffs believe the evidence at trial established much lower staffing levels than the Defendants represent currently exist. Plaintiffs contend that the staffing situation is even more dire than represented by Defendants.

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 107 Filed 03/28/2005 Page 2 of 4
the remedial provisions of the P.L.R.A. and place the Court in a position of micromanaging the entire governmental organization of the county. Given the fact that there was not enough staff to operate the jail prior to the layoffs and, given the fact that the situation has become worse with layoffs, a prisoner release order is necessary to protect the health and safety of the Plaintiff class.
It should be noted that, although the Sheriff has attempted to reduce the population by moving some inmates (approximately 50) to correctional facilities in other counties, Defendants fully admit that there are not enough beds in other counties to remove a sufficient amount of inmates. Most inmates will remain incarcerated at the Mahoning County Jail.
Plaintiffs, at this point, are without any remedy absent a release order. The issues which have created the unconstitutional conditions, i.e., lack of funding, is what is now operating to prevent this Court from ordering an effective remedy. Lack of funding created the unconstitutional condition and now is the bar to allowing the Court to remedy the condition.
It should be noted in the case of Cummings v. Nemeth, the Court was faced with a similar situation. The county was forced to lay off a significant number of deputies who staffed the jail due to insufficient funding. The insufficient funding resulted because the voters failed to pass a sales tax. The Parties were able to agree to a remedy which provided that certain floors of the jail would be closed, reduced staffing levels for the jail, and an inmate release mechanism so that the jail population could be reduced to facilitate the floor closures. The agreement was approved by the Court and became the Order of the Court.
2

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 107 Filed 03/28/2005 Page 3 of 4
Plaintiffs contend that this Court must act now. Delay will only increase the harm to the Plaintiff class. The only viable solution being offered by the Defendants to cure the unconstitutional condition is the release of prisoners. The release of prisoners cannot be accomplished without an order of this Court.
Respectfully submitted,
S/Robert Armbruster ROBERT ARMBRUSTER (#0011623) 159 S. Main Street, Suite 720 Akron, Ohio 44308 Telephone (330) 434-2113
S/Thomas Kelley THOMAS KELLEY (#0016820) 159 S. Main Street, Suite 720 Akron, Ohio 44308 Telephone (330) 434-2113 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
3

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 107 Filed 03/28/2005 Page 4 of 4
PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 28th day of March, 2005, a copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Request for a Three Judge Panel has been filed electronically and the Parties will have access to same by means of the Court’s electronic filing system.
S/Thomas Kelley THOMAS KELLEY (#0011623) 159 S. Main Street, Suite 720 Akron, Ohio 44308 Telephone (330) 434-2113 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
4

 
 II
Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 1-1 Filed 11/14/2003 Page 1 of 16

.. ' -, "·~
l.--...J ·••

. '
'\· : ',' :· i.l: i j :J

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

NATHANIEL ROBERTS Individually and on behalf of all present and future inmates of the Mahoning County Jail and all persons committed to the custody of the Sheriff of the Mahoning County Jail, Mahoning Ohio, II 0 5th Avenue, Youngstown, Ohio 44503
and
JAMES JOSEPH MANCINI Individually and on behalf of all present and future inmates of the Mahoning County Jail and all persons committed to the custody of the Sheriff of the Mahoning County Jail, Mahoning Ohio, II 0 5th Avenue, Youngstown, Ohio 44503
and
JOSHUA BAIRD Individually and on behalf of all present and future inmates of the Mahoning County Jail and all persons committed to the custody of the Sheriff of the Mahoning County Jail, Mahoning Ohio, 110 5th Avenue, Youngstown, Ohio 44503
and
KEVIN WHITACKER Individually and on behalf of all present and future inmates of the Mahoning County Jail and

'J:O~~v 232

) )

JUDGE JUDGE DOWn

)

)

MAGISTRATE

)

)

) )

MAG. JUDGE LIMBER

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

COMPLAINT

)

CLASS ACTION

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

II
Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 1-1 Filed 11/14/2003 Page 2 of 16

all persons committed to the custody of the

)

Sheriff of the Mahoning County Jail, Mahoning )

Ohio, II 0 5'h Avenue, Youngstown, Ohio 44503 )

and

) )

MIKE HAMAD

) )

Individually and on behalf of all present and

)

future inmates of the Mahoning County Jail and )

all persons committed to the custody of the

)

Sheriff of the Mahoning County Jail, Mahoning )

Ohio, II 0 5th Avenue, Youngstown, Ohio 44503 )

)

and

)

RODNEY GRAY

) )

Individually and on behalf of all present and

)

future inmates of the Mahoning County Jail and )

all persons committed to the custody of the

)

Sheriff of the Mahoning County Jail, Mahoning, OH)

360 W. Commerce Street, Youngstown, Ohio 44503)

)

and

)

)

LELAND SCOTI

)

Individually and on behalf of all present and

)

future inmates of the Mahoning County Jail and )

all persons committed to the custody of the

)

Sheriff of the Mahoning County Jail, Mahoning, OH)

360 W. Commerce Street, Youngstown, Ohio 44503)

)

and

)

)

MAURICE BARNES

)

Individually and on behalf of all present and

)

future inmates ofthe Mahoning County Jail and )

all persons committed to the custody of the

)

Sheriff of the Mahoning County Jail, Mahoning, OH)

360 W. Commerce Street, Youngstown, Ohio 44503)

)

Plaintiffs

)

)

)

vs.

)

)

2

II
Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 1-1 Filed 11/14/2003 Page 3 of 16

COUNTY OF MAHONING, OHIO, A LOCAL )

GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY

)

21 West Boardman Street, Suite 200

)

Youngstown, Ohio 44503

)

)

and

)

)

DAVE LUDT, AS A MEMBER OF THE

)

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF

)

MAHONING COUNTY, OHIO

)

21 West Boardman Street, Suite 200

)

Youngstown, Ohio 44503

)

)

and

)

)

EDWARD J. REESE, AS A MEMBER OF THE )

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF

)

MAHONING COUNTY, OHIO

)

21 West Boardman Street, Suite 200

)

Youngstown, Ohio 44503

)

)

and

)

)

VICKI ALLEN SHERLOCK, AS A MEMBER )

OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF )

MAHONING COUNTY, OHIO

)

21 West Boardman Street, Suite 200

)

Youngstown, Ohio 44503

)

)

and

)

)

RANDALL A. WELLINGTON, IN HIS

)

OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SHERIFF OF

)

MAHONING COUNTY, OHIO

)

II 0 Fifth Avenue

)

Youngstown, Ohio 44503

)

)

Defendants

)

On behalf of themselves, and the class alleged herein, Plaintiffs state the following for their Complaint against Defendants:

3

II
Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 1-1 Filed 11/14/2003 Page 4 of 16

I.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT:

I.

This is a Class Action for equitable and declaratory relief brought on behalf of all

persons who are or will be confined to the Mahoning County Jail. Plaintiffs contend that the

totality of the conditions at the Mahoning County Jail (hereinafter "The Jail") fall below

standards of human decency, inflict needless suffering on prisoners, and create an environment

which threatens prisoners' mental and physical well-being, and results in unnecessary

deterioration of prisoners confined there. Plaintiffs contend that the totality of the conditions at

the jail violate the United States and Ohio Constitutions as well as the Statutory Law of the State

of Ohio, and the rules and regulations promulgated by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation

and Correction.

2.

The Mahoning County Jail consists of two buildings, with over 700 inmates being

housed at the main facility at II 0 Fifth Avenue, Youngstown, Ohio. The second building is

called the Minimum Security Mahoning County Jail (hereinafter M.S.M.J.). This building

houses over I00 inmates and is located at 360 W. Commerce Street, Youngstown, Ohio.

3.

The Mahoning County Justice Center is a relatively new building, however, it is

m disrepair and inadequately maintained. The facility is persistently understaffed and

overcrowded. The Defendants' knowing disregard for the conditions and staffing levels have resulted in the following dangerous threats to the health and safety of the inmates.

(a) The facility is overcrowded, which prevents the facility from properly

classifYing due to inadequate space, which prevents the Defendants from

segregating inmates based on their status as pretrial or sentenced, the

nature of their alleged or convicted offense, their history of violent

4

II
Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 1-1 Filed 11/14/2003 Page 5 of 16
behavior, the history of mental or physical illness, resultant victimization of inmates by other inmates as well as security threats from inmate unrest. (b) The facility is overcrowded. The Defendants have turned a number of ranges into "dorms" to allow for the housing of additional inmates. Said dorms are supervised with indirect supervision in violation of State and Federal standards. (c) Indoor or outdoor exercise facilities are available, but due to a lack of staff to transport inmates to indoor exercise, it is nearly non-existent. The outdoor exercise areas are adjacent to the housing areas, but are infrequently used due to a lack of staff. (d) The staffing levels in the jail are inadequate to provide for the security and safety of all inmates and to provide a safe and secure working environment for staff. Response time to inmate on inmate attacks and inmate on staff attacks is slow and below standards. (e) Inmates are locked down for inordinate amounts of time due to lack of staff. (f) There is insufficient staff to evacuate the facility in case of fire. (g) Maintenance of the facility is poor. (1.) The facility intercom systems, which operate as a link between
inmate cells and staff posts, are consistently broken. (2.) The toilets have been recently shut off for extended periods of time
due to problems with pumps.
5

II
Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 1-1 Filed 11/14/2003 Page 6 of 16

(3.) The correctional officers' radios operate poorly. Worn out batteries frequently result in the inability of guards to contact other security officers in the facility.
(h) There are insufficient funds to properly train guards and supervisory officials.

(i) Defendants have terminated a legal access program through the Akron Legal Clinic. No legal access is available to inmates.
G) Disciplinary procedures are inadequate, in that inmates are punished without proper due process procedures outline in the Ohio Revised Code being followed.

4.

The MSMJ is located at 360 W. Commerce Street, Youngstown, Ohio, and is a

relatively new building that is understaffed and poorly maintained.

(a) Many times a single guard is left to supervise well over I00 inmates. Said staffing level leaves inmates and guards in dangerous, life-threatening situations.

(I.) Fights between inmates are common. Said fights are often broken up by the inmates themselves, due to a lack of staff.
(2.) Proper disciplinary procedures are not followed. Inmates are punished without following Due Process procedures outlined in the Ohio Revised Code.
(b) Maintenance is poor.

(!.) C and D pods, only have two sinks with hot/cold running water.

6

I'
Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 1-1 Filed 11/14/2003 Page 7 of 16

(2.) C and D pods have only one working shower for 54 inmates with mold and peeling paint prevalent in the shower areas.
(3.) The camera on A-pod has been broken for some time. (4.) On B-pod, which houses 24 inmates, there are two urinals, one of
which has been broken for an extended period of time. (5.) Cockroach and insect infestation is common. 5. The Plaintiffs ask this court to declare that the combined effect of the living conditions at the Mahoning County Justice Center and at the Minimum Security Jail, the lack of adequate classification, overcrowding, understaffing, and other conditions result in a confinement that violates the United States and Ohio Constitutions and the Statutory and Regulatory Laws of the State of Ohio. Furthermore, Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief requiring Defendants to place the Plaintiffs and all other inmates in other institutions or community-based facilities which meet constitutional and statutory standards, until required alterations are made or a new facility is provided which meets constitutional and state statutory standards.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE:

6.

The first claim for relief is filed under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 to redress the

injuries suffered by the Plaintiffs and the class they represent for deprivation under color of state

law of rights secured by the First, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

States Constitution. The first claim also arises directly under the First, Eighth, Ninth and

Fourteenth Amendments. Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction over the first claim pursuant to

28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1343(3).

7

I I
Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 1-1 Filed 11/14/2003 Page 8 of 16

7. Plaintiffs' class Claim for additional relief is derived from a common nuclei of operative facts involving snbstantially identical issues of fact and law, such that the entire class action constitutes a single case which would ordinarily be expected to be tried in one judicial proceeding. In the interest of judicial economy, convenience and fairness, and in order to avoid unnecessary duplication and multiplicity of actions, this court's jurisdiction over additional claims, which are in part based upon Ohio Law, is pendant to this Court's jurisdiction over the first class claim.

8.

Venue in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division is proper: each of the

Defendants reside in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division and each of the claims for

relief arose in this district.

III. PARTIES:

9.

The Plaintiffs, Rodney Gray, Leland Scott, and Maurice Barnes, are incarcerated

m the Minimum Security Mahoning County Jail, located at 360 W. Commerce Street,

Youngstown, Ohio.

I 0. The Plaintiffs, Nathaniel Roberts, James Joseph Mancini, Joshua Baird, Kevin Whitacker, and Mike Hamad, are incarcerated in the Mahoning County Justice Center, located at 110 Fifth Avenue, Youngstown, Ohio.
II. Defendants are adult citizens and residents of the State of Ohio, and are sued in their capacity as officials of Mahoning County and the State of Ohio who are responsible for the administration of the jail and the care and custody of its inmates or who have the authority to alleviate the conditions in the jail but have not exercised that power. On the contrary, Defendants have exercised their power to create and maintain the deplorable conditions at the Mahoning County Justice Center and Minimum Security Jail.
8

II Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 1-1 Filed 11/14/2003 Page 9 of 16
12. Defendant Randall Wellington is the duly elected sheriff ofMahoning County and as such has the care and custody of the jail pursuant to Chapter 341 of the Ohio Revised Code and O.R.C. Section 2921.44(c). Section 341.01, Ohio Revised Code, grants the Defendant Sheriff the duty, inter alia, to provide for the health and safety of inmates and to regulate the jail according to the Minimum Standards for Jails in Ohio promulgated by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. The Sheriff is charged with responsibility of insuring that the jail does not become foul or unclean so that the health of a prisoner is endangered. Pursuant to Section 311.20 of the Ohio Revised Code, the Sheriff has the duty of preparing and submitting a budget for jail operations to the Board of County Commissioners.
13. Defendants Dave Ludt, Edward J. Reese, and Vicki Allen Sherlock constitute the Board of County Commissioners of Mahoning County (hereinafter, The Board) and as such are responsible for providing a jail the necessary funds, services and supplies to maintain and operate such facility in compliance with Chapter 341 of the Ohio Revised Code and the Minimum Standards for Jails in Ohio. As the elected officers of the county, the Commissioners have the authority, pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 305.07(A), to make any necessary order or enter any necessary contract regarding the building, furnishing and operation of public buildings. Section 307.01(A) of the Ohio Revised Code specifically vests the responsibility for providing a jail in the Board. Likewise, the power to provide equipment that is reasonably necessary for the proper and convenient conduct of county offices rest in the Board. Sections 305.16 and 305.17 of the Ohio Revised Code authorize the Board to employ such personnel as are necessary to insure the care and custody of the jail and fix the compensation for such personnel. The Board is given the authority to provide for the training of the Sheriff and his deputies under Ohio Revised Code Sections 307.72 and 307.75. The Board is required, under
9

II Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 1-1 Filed 11/14/2003 Page 10 of 16
Ohio Revised Code Section 341.19, to supply jail inmates, at county expense, a suitable means of heating the jail, clothing, food, and further, to supply such fixtures and such repairs as required by the Court of Common Pleas. The Board is further empowered by the Ohio Revised Code Section 5705.38 to appropriate funds raised pursuant to the County's taxing powers for such purposes.
14. The County of Mahoning is a local government entity empowered to operate, regulate and maintain the Mahoning County Justice Center and Minimum Security Jail, and to levy and collect taxes, maintain a treasury and expend revenue for the operation and maintenance of the Mahoning County Justice Center and Minimum Security Jail pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 5705.01, et seq. Governed by the Mahoning County Board of Commissioners, the County of Mahoning has adopted policies, practices, customs and usages for the operation and maintenance of the Mahoning County Jail under color of State law, which have resulted in or caused Plaintiffs to be subjected to the deprivation of rights and liberties secured by the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Ohio.
15. The Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies pnor to filing this action. Each named Plaintiff has filed at least one grievance asking for redress of all the listed complaints and have received no response from the administration. Plaintiffs have filed some sort of formal written grievance with the staff of the facility, copies of all written grievances filed are available from Plaintiffs counsel. Plaintiffs allege that the staff of the facility has not given one written answer to any of the Plaintiffs in regard to any kind of plans or actions to redress the wrongs alleged here.
10

II
Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 1-1 Filed 11/14/2003 Page 11 of 16

IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS:

16. This is a class action under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(1), (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs are representative parties of the class which is composed of all persons presently confined at the Mahoning County Justice Center and Minimum Security Jail, Youngstown, Ohio, or who may be so confined in the future.
17. Plaintiffs are members of the class and their claims are typical of the claims of all class members. Plaintiffs are represented by competent counsel, experienced in the handling of many of these types of cases and will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class.
18. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. 19. The questions of fact and law presented by the Plaintiffs are common to the class. 20. The Defendants have acted and 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.

V. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AS TO THE CLASS:

21. The totality of the conditions of confinement at the jail violate the constitutional and statutory rights of the Plaintiffs and has caused and is causing the Plaintiffs irreparable harm.

22. habitation:

The two facilities that constitute the Mahoning County Jail are unfit for inmate

(a) The main jail is poorly maintained and in a state of disrepair. The intercom systems are unreliable and do not work. The pumping stations that control toilets have been shut down on many occasions in the last ten days, allowing waste to accumulate in the toilets, which cannot be flushed away. Inmates have been locked down

II

II
Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD ' '

Document 1-1

Filed 11/14/2003

Page 12 of 16

in these same cells with no regard for dealing with the stench and bacteria contamination that has resulted.
(b) The conditions at the minimum security facility are also in disrepair. Toilets are not in working order and one shower must be used by over 50 inmates. Cleaning supplies are rarely passed out. Inmates are without detergent to wash their uniforms or personal belongings. Inmates complaints about lack of cleanliness, cleaning utensils and toilet paper have continually gone unanswered.
(c) Both facilities are inadequately staffed. Staffing levels are well below that necessary to secure the safety and security of inmates and those established by Minimum Standards for Jails in Ohio. Most days, many officers assigned to staff the facility are pulled from the jail to perform functions outside the jail, such as transportation of inmates. The lack of staffing resulted in a high level of violence in the jail including attacks on guards and inmate on inmate fights. Due to the inadequate numbers of staff, guards are unable to respond to attacks in a timely manner. Because of a lack of staff, inmates cannot be properly supervised so inmates are constantly locked in their cells.
(d) Due to inadequate staff, exercise facilities are not used. (e) Due to overcrowding, classification of inmates is impossible. Defendants have received permission from the State of Ohio to convert certain ranges into dorm areas. Defendants, however, have failed to abide by state regulations in the operation of those dorms.
(f) The legal access program at the facility has been discontinued, leaving inmates with no access to the courts.

12

II
Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 1-1 Filed 11/14/2003 Page 13 of 16
(g) Inmates are locked down during all visitation periods due to a limited number of staff.
(k) MSMJ is infested with cockroaches and other vermin. G) The facilities themselves is a serious fire risk to inmates who are incarcerated there <'S there are an inadequate number of staff to properly evacuate the facility in case of fire.
(k) Due to inadequate number of staff, some inmates have no access to religious services on Sunday or any other day during the week. 23. Defendant Commissioners and Sheriff have failed to provide adequate numbers of personnel to insure the safety of all inmates. There is an insufficient number of guards, which means the prisoner cannot get the attention of personnel quickly in an emergency. VI. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF:
24. Paragraphs 1-23 above are incorporated herein by reference. 25. The totality of the conditions at the Mahoning County Jail, including the facilities, overcrowding, understaffing, lack of classification, lack of programs, and the practices and policies under the control or authority of Defendants, subjects inmates to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF:
26. Paragraph 1-25 above are incorporated herein by reference. 27. The totality of conditions at the Mahoning County Justice Center and the MSMJ make the treatment and rehabilitation of the inmates impossible, and the totality of the conditions of confinement at the jail, including the facilities, overcrowding, understaffing, lack of
13

II
Cas'e! 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 1-1 Filed 11/14/2003 Page 14 of 16

classification, lack of programs, and the practices and policies, subject prisoners to cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

VII. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF:

28. Paragraph 1-27 above are incorporated herein by reference.
29. Defendants have failed and refused to support and operate the Mahoning County Justice Center and MSMJ in accordance with the guarantees established by the Constitution of the State of Ohio, the statutory provisions of the laws of the State of Ohio, and the rules and regulations promulgated by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections. VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF:

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court:

1.

Determine, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that this

action is a proper class action, and that the Plaintiffs are proper class representatives;

2.

Adjudge and declare that the totality of the conditions of confinement above

described are in violation of the right of Plaintiffs and the class they represent, under the

Constitution of the United States and the laws of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Ohio and the laws of the State of Ohio and that their rights under Title 42, U.S.C. §1983 have been and are being violated;

3.

Declare that the Defendants have been and are carrying on an unlawful and

unconstitutional facility known as the Mahoning County Justice Center and the MSMJ, in

violation of the statutes and standards established by the laws of the State of Ohio;

14

II
Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 1-1 Filed 11/14/2003 Page 15 of 16

4.

Permanently enjoin the Defendants from operating and maintaining the Mahoning

County Justice Center anrl the MSMJ in a manner infringing upon the Constitutional and

statutory rights of the Plaintiffs and the class they represent;

5.

Order the Defendants, Board of County Commissioners, to provide at the expense

of Mahoning County all services and supplies necessary to maintain the Mahoning County

Justice Center and the MSMJ in a manner that does not infringe upon the constitutional and

statutory rights of the Plaintiffs and the class they represent, pursuant to §341.1 9 of the Ohio

Revised Code;

6.

Order Defendant Randall A. Wellington, Sheriff of Mahoning County, to present

a plan to this Court under which the Mahoning County Justice Center and MSMJ will enforce the

rules and regulations promulgated by the State of Ohio;

7.

Adjudicate and delineate a set of standards for the incarceration and detention of

prisoners which will protect the rights and privileges of Plaintiffs and the class they represent;

8.

Order Defendants to close the Mahoning County Justice Center and the MSMJ

until such time as it can be made safe for its inmates, and, in the meantime, to designate a

suitable alternate jail facility in which the conditions complained of do not exist;

9.

Enjoin Defendants from transferring Plaintiffs or any other member of the class

they represent to any other facility where similar conditions exist and further enjoin them from

incarcerating additional prisoners in the Mahoning County Justice Center and MSMJ until

further order of this Court;

I0. Issue an Order permanently enjoining Defendants, their agents, employees, and those acting in concert with them from failing to perform their statutory obligations to inmates to provide suitable clothing and to provide medical and mental health services when required.
15

II
Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 1-1 Filed 11/14/2003 Page 16 of 16
II. Order Defendants to pay the costs, expenses and attorneys' fees of this action, as authorized by the Civil Rights Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. §1988;
12. Grant such other and further relief, at law and in equity, as this Court may find just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,

A~

:r/c

ROBERT ARMBRUSTER (#0 11623)

159 S. Main Street, Suite 720

Akron, Ohio 44308

Phone (330) 434-2113

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

16

 
 Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 15-1 Filed 01/30/2004 Page 1 of 15

-. r .

r.,.
-J·"l'

,

' "
;,,

..'

"r.'

J:---

{',; •. •. .,_..,)

,:;[~ :-; j

i ; 'ol

I' •

/"Li:G,t

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

NATHANIEL ROBERTS, et al. Plaintiffs
VS.
COUNTY OF MAHONING, et al. Defendants

)

CASE NO.: 4:02 CV 2329

)

)

JUDGE JAMES DOWD

)

)

)

)

MOTION FOR CLASS

)

CERTIFICATION

)

)

NOW COME Plaintiffs, by and through counsel, and hereby move for a determination that this action be maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2) F.R.C.P. and that Attorneys Robert Armbruster and Thomas Kelley be appointed to represent the class pursuant tc' Rule 23(g) F.R.C.P.
The proposed class is defined as all persons in the care or custody of the Mahoning County Sheriff and incarcerated on or after November 14, 2003 at the Mahoning County Justice Center, 11 ~ Fifth Avenue, Youngstown, Ohio or the Mahoning County Minimum Security Jail, 360 W. Ccmmerce Street, Youngstown, Ohio.

" Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 15-1 Filed 01/30/2004 Page 2 of 15
The grounds for this motion are set forth in the attached memorandum in support. Respec.tfully submitted,
USTER (#0011623) 159 S. Main Street, Suite 720 Akron, Ohio 44308 Phone (330) 434-2113
~,__,4
T AS KELLEY (#00 168 159 S. Main Street, Suite 720 Akron, Ohio 44308 Phone (330) 434-21 13 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CLASS
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT Mahoning County maintains two jail facilities to incarcerate persons charged with or convicted •)f crimes. The facilities are the Mahoning County Justice Center (Justice Center) and the Mahorring County Minimum Security Jail (MSJ). The Mahoning County Sheriffs Department-Corrections Division operates and staffs both facilities. 1 Th'~ Justice Center is a relatively new facility opened in the 1990's. It is a high rise facility with inmate housing located on floors two through six. The jail, as originally built, consisted mostly of singled celled housing units with a few dormitory style units. Recently, the Sheriff ha!; started double-ceiling inmates in many of the housing units. The double-ceiling is accomplished by placing mattresses (sometimes contained in a plastic box) on the floor of certain
1 See Exhibit A, the Sheriffs Standard Operating Policies supplied to Plaintiffs pursuant to this Courts Order of December 1'1, 2003.
2

II
Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 15-1 Filed 01/30/2004 Page 3 of 15
cells. The _jail is a full service facility housing both pre-trial and sentence servicing inmates and inmates charged with all types of offenses from misdemeanors through all grades of felonies. The jail regularly houses over 600 individuals.2
The Minimum Security Jail is also a relatively new facility. It is divided into four dormitory ~tyle pods, each pod consisting of twenty-four (24) beds. A and B pods are located in one wing at the opposite side ofthe building from C and D pods.3 The jail regularly houses more inmates tht:n ninety-six (96). The additional inmates sleep on mattresses on the floor of the housing unts.
The operation and staffing of both facilities is directed by the Sheriff through the Correctiom; Division. All individuals assigned to the Corrections Division are under the Chief of Correction~; and are governed by the same set of policies and procedures. The booking of inmates is done at the Justice Center and at that point, the determination is made at which location the inmate will be housed. Frequently, inmates housed in the Justice Center are transferred to the MSJ and sometimes inmates housed in the MSJ are transferred to the Justice Center. All inmate meals are prepared at the Justice Center and some of those meals are taken to the MSJ for the inmates housed there. Medical staff and facilities are at the Justice Center, but medical personnel regularly leave the Justice Center to attend to inmates at the MSJ. In essence, there is om: operation that governs both facilities.
At :he time the lawsuit was filed, all of the named Plaintiffs were in the custody of the Defendant Sheriff. All were either pre-trial detainees or sentence serving inmates. Plaintiffs
2 See Exhibi': B-Inmate Population and Staffing Report supplied pursuant to this Court's order of December 17 2003. 3 See Exhibi1 C, which is selected pages from the report of Gerry D. Billy, a joint expert used by the parties in the first litigatior. who conducted a staffing analysis of both facilities in 1998.
3

II
Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 15-1 Filed 01/30/2004 Page 4 of 15
Roberts, Mancini, Baird, Whitacker, and Hamad were incarcerated in the Justice Center, and Plaintiffs Gray, Scott and Barnes were incarcerated at the MSJ, although all three had previously been incarcerated at the Justice Center. (See Affidavits attached).
The lawsuit challenges specific conditions of confinement and seeks declaratory and injunctive :elief to remedy the alleged unconstitutional conditions. The conditions challenged include a s•:vere lack of staffing. Lack of staffing when coupled with crowding and the inability to adequatdy classify and separate inmates according to their propensity for violence and other pertinent characteristics, creates conditions which result in dangerous and unsafe facilities. Plaintiffs claim that there are not enough guards to supervise the inmates and as a result, there are many f ghts and attacks involving both inmates and guards. Plaintiffs allege further that as a result of a lack of staff, fire safety is compromised as the facilities could not be evacuated in a timely fashion. A lack of sufficient staff also results in a restriction or denial of visitation, recreation opportunities and other programs and in the Justice Center, results in the locking down of inmates in their cells for inordinate periods of time.
Plaintiffs contend that due to a lack of funding or attention that both jail facilities are poorly maintained and are in a state of disrepair. Also, as a result of a lack of funding, the program wilich had been implemented to provide legal access to the inmates has been terminated and that the inmates are without adequate legal access. Rule 23(a) F.R.C.P. sets forth the requirements for class certification. A class action can only be maintained if the following criteria are met:
I) The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. 2) There are questions of law and fact common to the class.
4

II
Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 15-1 Filed 01/30/2004 Page 5 of 15
3) The claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and
4) The representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class.
In addition to the criteria outline in Rule 23(a), a class action can only be maintained if one of the additional three requisites contained in Rule 23(b) are satisfied. In the instant case, Plaintiffs are proceeding under Rule 23(b)(2) which states:
The party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.
Initial determination of class certification is solely a procedural issue which must not be based on the merits of the case; the Plaintiffs burden is limited to demonstrating that the proposed class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23. Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, Realty Corp 499 F. 2d 1197, 1200 (6th Cir. 1974), 7B Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practices and Procedures: Civil at §1785 p. 125 (1986). In ruling on the motion, the Court must take the substantive allegations contained in the complaint as true. Blackie v. Barrach, 524 F. 2d 891, 901 N. 17 (9th Cir. 1975).
A Hal court has broad discretion in determining whether a particular case shall proceed as a class action. In Re: American Medical Systems Inc. 75 F. 3d l 069, I 079 (6th Cir. 1996), Cross v. National Trust Life Insurance Co. 533 F. 2d I 026 (6th Cir. 1977). However, the requiremerts of the rule should be liberally construed in the context of civil rights suits. Neely v. United States 546 F. 2d l 059, I071 (3'd Cir. 1976); King v. Kansas City Southern Inds.. Inc., 519
5

r
Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 15-1 Filed 01/30/2004 Page 6 of 15

F. 2d 20, 2:i (7'h Cir. 1975); Jones v. Diamond, 519 F. 2d 1090, 1099 (5th Cir. 1975). Weathers v. Peter's Realty Com. 499 F. 2d 1197, 1200 (61h Cir. 1974).

1. 23(a)(l)

Numerousity

In t ~e instant case, Plaintiffs seek to have the class defined as all inmates in the care or

custody of the Defendant Sheriff at the time the complaint was filed and thereafter and who were

incarcerated at the Justice Center or the MSJ.

Plaintiffs have not yet engaged in formal discovery and therefore do not yet have all of

the inmate population and housing statistics that they would include herein. However, the

Defendant Sheriff, pursuant to this Court's order, presented some population information to

Plaintiffs counsel. If numerousity is contested or the Court requires further information to reach

its decision, Plaintiffs request leave to supplement this motion after receiving responses to

discovery.

Baoed on the information provided (Exhibit B) it is readily apparent that the Sheriff

houses between 600 and 820 inmates on a daily basis at his two corrections facilities. Indeed,

from Sepkmber 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003, the Sheriff never housed less than 697

inmates on any given day.

Tht' jail, by its very nature, is a short term holding facility. Individuals pour in and out of

the jail on a frequent basis. As a short term holding facility, its population is very fluid.

Plaintiffs estimate that thousands of people pass through the facilities each year.

Tht,re is no strict numerical test to determine whether the numerousity requirement has

been met. The inquiry focuses upon whether joinder is impracticable given the nature of the class. In Re: American Medical Systems Inc., supra at I079 (61h Cir. 1996), Senter v. General

6

"
Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 15-1 Filed 01/30/2004 Page 7 of 15

Motors Com, 532 F. 2d 511 at 523, 24 (61h Cir. 1976), Allen v. Lies, Jr. 204 F.R.D. 401, 406

(S.D. 2001 ), Retting v. Kent City School District, 94 F.R.D. 12, 14 (N.D. Ohio 1980).

The numbers in the instant case are more than sufficient to meet the numerousity

requiremert. Classes have been certified when they have numbered 35 or less. Cross v.

II National Trust Life Ins. Co., supra 1030, Cudnick v. Krieger 392 F. Supp. 305, 310 (N.D. Ohio
1974), Ohi~ American Patrolman's League v. Deuch, 503 F. 2d 294, 298 (61h Cir. 1974), Phillips

v.

Joint

Legislative

Committee

637

F.

2d

1014,

1022

(5

1 h

Cir.

1981),

Allen

v.

Leis,

Jr.,

supra

at

406, Hiatt v. County of Adams !55 F.R.D. 605 at 608 (S.D. 1994). The foregoing is especially

true where, as here, the Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief on behalf of future class members.

Jones v. Diamond, supra at 1100, Holland v. Steele 92 F.R.D. 58,63 (N.D. GA 1981). Horn v.

Associated Wholesale Grocers 555 F. 2d 270 (lOth Cir. 1977).

In 1he instant case, a joinder of all members of the class is extremely impracticable. The

class will be constantly changing. It will not remain static for any length of time. Pretrial

detainees unable to make bond will be tried in a speedy fashion. If found innocent, they will be

released. If found guilty of felonies, they will be transferred to a state penal institution. The

same can be said for those sentence service inmates in the custody of the Sheriff. Although their

sentence may vary, there will always be a constant turnover. The population will always be in a

state of flux. The jail facilities, by their very nature, are short term holding facilities.

Th~ transient and fluctuating nature of the jail population makes joinder impracticable.

Pabon v. Mcintosh 546 F. Supp. 1328 (E.D. PA 1982). Indeed, other courts have found that the

inevitable turnover of a jail population makes joinder impracticable and a class action a

necessity. Hiatt v. Adams County supra at 605, 608, Cudnick v. Krieger, supra at 310, Glover

v. Johnsor. 85 F.R.D. I, 4 (E.D. Mich. 1977) Holland v. Steele, supra 63.

7

,,
Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 15-1 Filed 01/30/2004 Page 8 of 15

The constant turnover of a jail population makes a case such as this only maintainable as

I i a class action. Due to the nature of short-term detention, the claims of any one individual would,

in all likelihood, become moot. Plaintiffs will be released from confinement prior to having their

claims heaJd by the Court. Jones v. Wittenburg 323 F. Supp. 93 at 99 (N.D. Ohio 1971), Hiatt v. County of Adams, supra, Inmates of San Diego County Jail v. Duffy 528 F. 2d 954, 956 (91h Cir.

1975). The individual Plaintiffs and the other inmates who follow them into the jail will suffer

repeated dt:privations. The claim is one that is distinctly capable of repetition yet one evading

judicial review. Gerstein v. Pugh 420 U.S. I 03 (1975). Therefore, a class action is the only

vehicle whereby the legality of the operation of the two jail facilities can be reviewed. Jones v.

Wittenbur~, supra.

2. 23(a)(2)

Common Questions of Law and Fact:

Tht: commonalty requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) requires that members of the class must

have allegedly been affected by a general policy of the Defendant and the general policy is the

focus of the litigation. In Re: American Medical Systems Inc., supra at 1080, Allen v. Leis, Jr.,

supra at 406, Sweet v, General Tire & Rubber Co. 74 F.R.D. 333, 335 (N.D. Ohio 1976). Dean

v. Coughlilll07 F.R.D. 311,333 (S.D. N.Y. 1985); Lawson v. Wainwright 108 F.R.D. 450,455

(S.D. Fla 1986). The commonalty requirement is satisfied when the actions challenged are

directed at the class generally and those actions affect all class members in a similar manner.

Jordan v. Global Natural Resources 102 F.R.D. 45 (S.D. Ohio 1984). It is not necessary that all

questions of law and fact be identical. Senter v. General Motors Corp., supra, Sweet v. General

Tire & Rubber Co., supra, Holland v. Steele, supra.

Th'~ "commonalty" requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) does not require that all questions of

law and fact raised by the dispute be shared in common among the members of the class; it

8

II
Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 15-1 Filed 01/30/2004 Page 9 of 15
simply req 1ires that a single issue is shared in common among all class members and that issue is the focu:; of the litigation. Allen v. Leis, Jr., supra at 406, Hiatt v. County of Adams, supra at 609; 7A Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and procedure: Civil § 1763; Weiss v. York Hospital, /'45 F. 2d 786, 809, cert. denied 470 U.S. 1060 (1984); Tonya v. Chicago Board of Education, 551 F. Supp. 1107 (D. Ill, 1982).
"Questions of law or fact common to the class" exist where, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant; have engaged in a common course of conduct towards them, have instituted a pattern or practice, or have effectuated some policy or procedure that affects the entire class. See Senter v. General Motors Corporation, supra; Sweet v. General Tire & Rubber Company, supra; Wright & Miller, § 1763. Courts have accorded the "commonalty" requirement of Rule 23(a) an expansive interpretation and have found common questions in a broad range of contexts. See id. Further, the fact that each class member's claim may in other aspects be unique does not affect the "commonalty" of the class action, so long as all the members of the class have allegedly been similarly affected by the policies of the Defendants, and so long as those policies remain the primary focus of the litigation. Allen v. Leis, Jr., supra at 406, citing Sterling v. Velsical Chemical Corn. 855 F. 2d 1188, 1197 (61h Cir. 1988).
Th~ commonalty requirement is met in this case. The Plaintiffs challenge policies and practices which are directed at all persons in the care or custody of the Sheriff. The claim of lack of adequate staffing effects all inmates in essentially the same way. There are not enough guards to supervi >e the inmates creating a dangerous and unsafe condition. It is a situation which is compounded by overcrowding and the inability to classify and properly segregate inmates of the same clas>ification. The lack of staffing also results in the inability to provide visitation,
9
l.i

"Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 15-1 Filed 01/30/2004 Page 10 of 15

r

recreation and other programs to inmates. Inmates in the Justice Center are locked in their cells for long pe·iods oftime, simply because there are not enough guards to supervise them.
The lack of funds resulting in the inability to maintain the facilities and to provide a legal access prouarn, also impacts all inmates. It is not limited to one inmate or one group of inmates. It impacts the entire operation.
In t1e absence of a class action, inmates who wished to challenge these living conditions at the jail would be put to the task of offering nearly identical evidence on the existing jail conditions, policies and practices. The lawsuits would be very repetitious. Class certification in this case wJuld serve the important interest ofjudicial economy and convenience.
Common questions of law are also the main focus of this litigation. The legal issue, succinctly stated, is whether the acts or omissions of the Defendants violate provisions of the Federal Ccnstitution and the laws of Ohio. The issues again, are essentially the same for all inmates housed at the jail. The fact that there are some differences between the rights of pre-trial detainees and sentenced inmates is of no consequence at the class certification stage. Holland v. Steele, sup-a at 63.
Th(: nature of the relief sought also demonstrates the commonalty involved in a suit such as this. As stated in Jones v. Wittenburg, supra at 99. A similar jail suit,
It i:; apparent also that this action can only be maintained realistically as a class action, the class consisting of those persons who at any given point of time are confined in the Lucas County Jail.. .It is also very difficult to demonstrate that any one individual has suffered a specific wrong which can be righted without regard to the totality of the wrongs in the system.

10

"
Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 15-1 Filed 01/30/2004 Page 11 of 15
3. Typicality of Claim or Defense F.R.C.P. 23(a)(3) requires that the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class. Fradkin v. Ernst 98 F.R.D. 478, 488 (N.D. Ohio 1983). Typicality is established where there is a sufficient nexus between the class representative's claim and the common questions of law and fact which unites the class. A sufficient rcexus is established if the claims of the class and the class representative arise from the same policy and are based on the same legal theory. In Re: American Medical Systems Inc., supra at 1082, Allen v. Leis, Jr., supra at 407, Lawson v. Wainwright, supra. A Plaintiffs claim is typical of the class claim where the focus of the action for the Plaintiff will be on proving a policy or rractice of the Defendant and not just on proving facts peculiar to Plaintiff. Sweet v. General Tire & Rubber Co.,_supra at 335, Myers v. Ace Hardware 95 F.R.D. 145, 151 (N.D. Ohio 1982). Moreover, the claims of a class representative are typical when each has been subjected to all or some of the general institution-wide deprivation alleged on behalf of the class. Slight factual differences among each class members' complaints do not mean the claims of the named Pla:ntiffs are not typical. Dean v. Coughlin, supra; Moncraview v. Dennis 89 F.R.D. 440 (W.O. Ark 1981).
In this case, the named Plaintiffs have suffered from the same conditions as all inmates and have suffered the same injury as all other inmates. (See affidavits attached as Exhibit D). All of the name Plaintiffs have been exposed to the under staffing and have been subjected to the dangerous and unsafe conditions created thereby. All named Plaintiffs have suffered from the dismal or restriction of visitation and recreation opportunities. The named Plaintiffs incarcerated in the Justice Center have been subjected to the lock downs, just the same as other inmates incarcerated therein.
11

II
Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 15-1 Filed 01/30/2004 Page 12 of 15

Similarly, by virtue of being housed at the facilities, the named Plaintiffs have been

subjected tJ the lack of maintenance and disrepair the same as all other inmates. The condition

is system wide and is not limited to a particular inmate or group of inmates.

Th<' same holds true for the denial of legal access claim. The program which has been

provided to all inmates for years was recently terminated due to a lack of funds. All inmates,

including :he named Plaintiffs have been deprived of the program. Plaintiff Mancini has

requested legal assistance and has been unable to receive the requested assistance. (See affidavit

attached).

4.

23(a)(4)

Adequate Representation:

Rule 23(a)(4) F.R.C.P. requires that the representative party will fairly and adequately

protect the interest of the class. When determining adequacy of representation the Court should

consider tLe experience and ability of counsel for Plaintiffs and whether there is any antagonism

between tre interest of Plaintiffs and other members of the class they seek to represent. Fradkin

v. Ernst, supra, 490. The two criteria focused upon are as follows:

1) The representative must have a common interest with unnamed members of the class, and
2) It must appear that the representative will vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through qualified counsel.

Senter v. General Motors Com., supra 525, Allen v. Leis, Jr., supra at 407, Bowens v.

General Motors Corporation 542 F. Supp. 94 (N.D. Ohio 1981 ).

In the instant case both prongs of the test of adequate representation are met. As

demonstrated previously, Plaintiffs do have a common interest with unnamed members of the

class. Their claims are typical of the class. Their interest in the outcome of the litigation is co-

extensive with all unnamed members of the class. Plaintiffs are seeking declaratory and

12

i i

11
Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 15-1 Filed 01/30/2004 Page 13 of 15

injunctive relief to remedy conditions from which all class members suffer. The relief sought

will be beneficial to all members of the class. No antagonism or conflict exists between the

interest of 'laintiffs and other members of the class. The named Plaintiffs do not have interests

divergent fi·om the rest of the class. The interest of each coincide.

The Plaintiffs and the named class are represented by qualified and competent counsel.

The Plaintiffs' attorneys, Robert Armbruster and Thomas Kelley, have been involved in over

twenty (20) cases concerning class action jail litigation. (See Affidavits attached as Exhibit E).

As this Court is aware, there was a previous "Mahoning County" class action jail case which

resulted in the closing of the old jail and resulted in the construction of the Justice Center.

Attorneys Armbruster and Kelley were appointed by this Court to represent the Plaintiff class in

that case. 1Cummings, eta!. v. Sheriff Nemeth, eta!. 4:92 CV 1838).

5.

23(b)(2)

Appropriateness oflnjunctive and Declaratory Relief

The final requirement for class certification is contained in Rule 23(b) F.R.C.P. If the

Court find:; that Plaintiffs have met all of the subparts of Rule 23(A), it must inquire further to

determine if one of the three criteria set forth in Rule 23(b) has been met.

In ·:his case, Plaintiffs rely on Rule 23(b)(2). That rule requires (I) that the class as a

whole is generally affected by an act or refusal to act or policy of the opposing party, and (2) the

primary relief sought is in the nature of injunctive relief. Sweet v. General Motors Corp., supra

at 336, Hiatt v. County of Adams, supra at 610, Fradkin v. Ernst, supra at 490, Moncraview v.

Dennis 89 F.R.D. 440,443 (W.D. Ark. 1981). "Moreover, Rule 23(b)(2) was intended primarily

to facilitate civil rights class actions, where the class typically sought broad injunctive or

declarator;' relief against discriminatory practices. Penson v. Terminal Transport Co., Inc. 634

F. 22 989,993 (S'h Cir. 1981)." Holland v. Steele, supra 64.

13

II
Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 15-1 Filed 01/30/2004 Page 14 of 15

There is no doubt that Plaintiffs meet the two-prong test set forth by Rule 23(b)(2)

F.R.C.P. :0irst, Plaintiffs have alleged that the policies and practices of Defendants and the

condition <'xisting at the jail affect the class as a whole. The Complaint alleges a continuous

course of conduct of Defendants which impacts on all inmates. Secondly, the relief sought is

declaratory and injunctive. The declaratory and injunctive relief sought would inure tot he

benefit of the entire class. Indeed, the remedy sought, to be effective, must be system wide

rather than individually oriented.

Conclusio!! Plaintiffs respectfully request that this case be certified as a class action on behalf of all

persons in the care and custody of the Mahoning County Sheriff and incarcerated at the Justice

Center or MSJ and all persons who may be so confined in the future. The requirements of Rule

23(a)(b)(2:t F.R.C.P. have been met.

Resp<;ctfullyS)Ibmitted,

/

/

/

./
/

R BERT ARM RUSTER (#0011623) 159 S. Main Street, Suite 720 Akron, Ohio 44308 Phone (330) 434-2 13
,-4

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CLASS
14

" Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 15-1 Filed 01/30/2004 Page 15 of 15

PROOF OF SERVICE
I he·eby certify that I have this !.i5!__ day o_f,._o~:::=-.._,- -, 2004, forwarded a copy of the

' foregoing by way of regular U.S. Mail to: Thomas Michaels, Esq., Assistant Prosecuting

Attorney, 21 West Boardman, Sixth Floor, Youngstown, Ohio 44503; Daniel T. Downey, Esq.

and Mark Landes, Esq., Isaac, Brant, Ledman & Teetor:!.:'~ 250 East Broad Street, Columbus,

Ohio4321S.

l~~J~(. \AA~

ROBERT ARMBRUSTER (#0011623)

T MAS KELLEY (#0016 0) ATTORNEYS FOR PLAI TIFF CLASS

15

 
 Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 212 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

CITY OF YOUNGSTOWN 26 SOUTH PHELPS STREET YOUNGSTOWN, OHIO 44503
Intervenor
vs.
NATHANIEL ROBERTS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE CERTIFIED CLASS, ET AL.
Plaintiffs
and
COUNTY OF MAHONING, ET AL.
Defendants

) CASE NUMBER 4:03 CV 2329 ) ) JUDGE BATCHELDER ) JUDGE DOWD ) JUDGE POLSTER ) ) COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Intervenor, the City of Youngstown, Ohio ("Youngstown"), for its complaint against Plaintiffs (the "Prisoners") and Defendants ("Mahoning County Government"), alleges as follows:

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 212 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 2 of 12
1. This is an action by Youngstown in opposition to the imposition of prisoner release orders pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3626 and for a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201 and 28 U.S.C. §2202 with respect to the claims described below.
2. The Prisoners are a group of people who were or are incarcerated inmates in the jails of Mahoning County, Ohio.
3. Mahoning County Government includes Mahoning County, the Mahoning County Commissioners and the Mahoning County Sheriff.
4. On November 14, 2003, the Prisoners filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 against Mahoning County Government under this case number.
5. On December 13-15, 2004, a trial was conducted between the Prisoners, who had been certified as a class, and Mahoning County Government.
6. On March 10, 2005, a single district court judge, Judge Dowd, found that the Prisoners had met their burden of proof; preponderance of the evidence, that their class members were being denied due process of law and/or not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, and were being denied their constitutional right of access to the courts, and therefore found against Mahoning County Government and found that the Prisoners were entitled to receive attorney fees and costs from Mahoning County Government.
7. On March 24, 2005, Mahoning County Government requested the appointment of a three-judge panel and the imposition of a prisoner release order.
2

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 212 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 3 of 12
8. On March 28, 2005, the Prisoners joined in Mahoning County Government's request for a three-judge panel and the imposition of a prisoner release order.
9. On March 28, 2005, Mahoning County Government sent a letter to the judges of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas asking them to put in place a judicial release mechanism as soon as possible because it was concerned that the federal court would not enter a prisoner release order quickly enough to allow it to avoid the cost of housing prisoners in other facilities pursuant to the requirements of Section 341.12 of the Ohio Revised Code.
10. On March 28, 2005, Vincent Nathan was appointed to serve as Special Master during the remedial phase of this litigation.
11. On March 30, 2005, the judges of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas, as a group, issued an Order adopting an "Emergency Release Policy" which ordered the release of prisoners, including prisoners sentenced or ordered held in lieu of bond by Youngstown's Municipal Court Judges, other area municipal court judges and county court judges.
12. Mahoning County Government released hundreds of prisoners, engaged in massive layoffs of jail personnel, closed down the Mahoning County Minimum Security Jail and most of the Mahoning County Justice Center, and entered into an agreement with the Prisoners to house only 296 inmates due to understaffing.
13. On May 3, 2005, a sales tax levy, the previous failure of which was the purported reason why Mahoning County Government had to engage in such draconian measures to avoid its obligation under
3

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 212 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 4 of 12
State law; Sections 341.01, 341.12, 341.13 and 341.14 of the Ohio Revised Code, to adequately provide for the confinement of all prisoners committed to the county jail who are charged with or convicted of violating the Ohio Revised Code, was passed by the voters of Mahoning County.
14. Special Master Vincent Nathan, however, reported to the Court in his Fourth Report of Special Master that merely directly addressing the particular problems that were the source of constitutional violations by requiring that the jail be adequately staffed and funded was insufficient, and that the focus of the litigation should be on solutions that address the underlying causes of crowding in the jail such as by permanently reducing the number of people jailed and, therefore, changes to the entire criminal justice system were needed.
15. In response to the Special Master’s fourth report, a Working Group was formed to examine options and propose solutions to the "dysfunctional criminal justice system" that Special Master Nathan had found existed in Mahoning County.
16. Mahoning County Government has still not adequately staffed the jail or opened up most of its closed jail facilities and there is no indication that the Mahoning County Commissioners intend to take action to provide sufficient funds for the operation of its two jail facilities including adequately staffing them.
17. On May 25, 2006, Judge Dowd issued an Order finding that because Youngstown and its municipal court judges would not consent to the prisoner release order issued by the common pleas judges of
4

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 212 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 5 of 12
Mahoning County and were considering continuing to challenge it in state court litigation, "...the central issue of population control to prevent future overcrowding remains unresolved" and, therefore, ordered the matter of determining a prisoner release order be referred to a three-judge court.
18. The jail facilities under the control of Mahoning County Government; the Mahoning County Justice Center and the Mahoning County Minimum Security jail, are capable of constitutionally housing 660 inmates when adequately staffed.
19. The jail facilities under the control of Mahoning County Government are not crowded at the present time as they contain far fewer inmates than they are capable of housing.
20. The jail facilities under the control of Mahoning County Government are currently understaffed, not overcrowded.
21. Municipal and county courts in Mahoning County that commit prisoners to the custody of the Mahoning County Sheriff have had no options so far in the remedial stage of this litigation other than to "voluntarily" consent to a prisoner release order issued by the common pleas judges of Mahoning County or face the prospect of a federal prisoner release order.
22. 18 U.S.C. §3626(a)(3)(F) grants standing to any unit of government whose jurisdiction or function includes the prosecution or custody of persons who may be released from or not admitted to a prison as a result of a prisoner release order to oppose the imposition or continuation in effect of such relief and to seek termination of such relief.
5

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 212 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 6 of 12
23. 18 U.S.C. §3626(a)(3)(F) grants a right to intervene in any proceedings relating to prisoner release orders to any unit of government whose jurisdiction or function includes the prosecution or custody of persons who may be released from or not admitted to a prison as a result of a prisoner release order to oppose the imposition or continuation in effect of such relief and to seek termination of such relief.
24. 18 U.S.C. §3626(a)(3)(F) creates a cause of action that may be asserted by any unit of government whose jurisdiction or function involves the prosecution or custody of persons who may be released from or not admitted to a prison as a result of a prisoner release order in any proceeding relating to prisoner release orders.
25 Youngstown is a unit of government in that it is a chartered municipality located in the County of Mahoning and State of Ohio.
26. This Court has already acknowledged and accepted jurisdiction of this case.
27. The jurisdiction and function of Youngstown includes the prosecution of individuals who are accused of or convicted for violations of criminal law and are sentenced or ordered held in the jail facilities of Mahoning County and committed to the custody of the Mahoning County Sheriff for confinement.
28. A prisoner release order regarding the jail facilities of Mahoning County, Ohio, may and likely would cause the release or non-admission to said jail facilities of persons who were
6

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 212 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 7 of 12
prosecuted by Youngstown. 29. Prisoner release orders are a form of prospective relief. 30. Prisoner release orders can only be issued by a three-
judge court that has been convened at the request of a party or a Federal judge.
31. The three-judge court cannot, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3626(a)(3)(E), enter a prisoner release order until and unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that crowding is the primary cause of the violation of a Federal right and that no other relief will remedy the violation of a Federal right.
32. The findings that are a prerequisite to a prisoner release order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3626(a)(3)(E) can only be made upon the demonstration of clear and convincing evidence in proceedings before the three-judge court in which intervenors may participate and oppose the imposition of a prisoner release order by contesting the establishment of any or all of the necessary criteria.
33. The three-judge court must make a de novo determination as to whether both of the criteria in 18 U.S.C. §3626(a)(3)(E) are satisfied based solely on evidence presented to the three-judge court.
34. The determination is to be based on whether the criteria is satisfied currently, not at the time of the original complaint or at the time of trial.
35. There have been no findings by clear and convincing evidence in this case that crowding is the primary cause of the
7

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 212 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 8 of 12
violation of a Federal right in the jails of Mahoning County and that no relief other than a prisoner release order will remedy the violation of a Federal right.
36. There have been no proceedings before the three-judge court in which any evidence was presented.
37. Understaffing is not a permissible basis for the imposition of a prisoner release order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3626.
38. Lack of funds may not be the main factor in determining the remedial measures to be used to remedy an underlying constitutional violation.
39. The simplest, least intrusive and narrowest method to correct the underlying constitutional violations in this matter is to order Mahoning County Government to adequately staff and fund the jail.
40. The imposition of a prisoner release order in this matter would extend further than necessary to correct the violation of a Federal right, is not the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is not narrowly drawn.
41. The entry of a prisoner release order in this matter would cause the Mahoning County Sheriff to violate State or local law and; federal law does not require that such relief be ordered, the relief is not necessary to correct the violation of a Federal right or other relief will correct the violation of a Federal
8

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 212 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 9 of 12
right. 42. The Court has not previously entered an order for less
intrusive relief that has failed to remedy the deprivation sought to be remedied through the prisoner release order.
43. Mahoning County Government has not had a reasonable time to comply with previous court orders.
44. The requirements and criteria necessary to permit the imposition or continuation in effect of prisoner release orders pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3626 have not been satisfied and, therefore, no prisoner order, regardless of how it is framed or characterized, may be entered in this matter and Youngstown is entitled, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3626, to demand that no prisoner release order be entered.
45. A three-judge court has been convened to consider imposing prisoner release orders.
46. Youngstown is an interested party to this action. 47. Youngstown opposes the imposition or continuation in effect of prisoner release orders in this case. 48. The Prisoners have requested or do not oppose the imposition or continuation in effect of prisoner release orders in this case. 49. Mahoning County Government has requested or does not oppose the imposition or continuation in effect of prisoner release orders. 50. An actual controversy exists between Youngstown and the Prisoners regarding prisoner release orders.
9

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 212 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 10 of 12
51. An actual controversy exists between Youngstown and Mahoning County Government regarding prisoner release orders.
WHEREFORE, Youngstown requests that a judgment be entered that:
That the Court declare and issue findings that the requirements of Subparagraph E of 18 U.S.C. §3626 of the United States Code for the issuance of a prisoner release order have not been established.
That the court declare and issue findings that it has not been shown by clear and convincing evidence that crowding is the primary cause of violation of a Federal right in this matter and no other relief will remedy the violation of the Federal right.
That the Court enter a finding that no release order may be entered absent an evidentiary hearing to determine if the requirements of 18 U.S.C. §3626 are met.
That the Court enter an order finding that the requirements of 18 U.S.C. §3626 for issuance of a prisoner release order are not met and that no prisoner release order may be entered.
That the Court enter an order for relief that is less intrusive than a prisoner release order, comports to State law and that is not impermissibly based mainly on considerations of what the Mahoning County Government represents it can afford.
That the Court enter an order for relief requiring that the Mahoning County Commissioners allocate sufficient funds to the Sheriff to adequately operate and staff the jail facilities under his control at full capacity.
10

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 212 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 11 of 12
Or in the alternative, that the Court order an evidentiary hearing before the three-judge panel and require Plaintiffs or any party seeking a prisoner release order to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the requirements of 18 U.S.C. §3626 for issuance of a prisoner release order are met.
That if Youngstown prevails on any of its claims, the Court enter an award of attorney fees against Mahoning County Government as the original suit in this matter was filed to vindicate the violation of Federal constitutional rights by Mahoning County Government and all subsequent proceedings in this case are the consequence of those underlying constitutional violations by Mahoning County Government.
That the Court order any and all additional relief to which Youngstown may be entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
_/s/ Anthony J. Farris ANTHONY J. FARRIS DEPUTY LAW DIRECTOR
/s/ Iris Torres Guglucello IRIS TORRES GUGLUCELLO LAW DIRECTOR CITY OF YOUNGSTOWN 26 SOUTH PHELPS STREET YOUNGSTOWN, OHIO 44503 (330) 742-8874 Atty. Reg. #0055695
11

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 212 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 12 of 12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION was electronically filed on this 2nd day of August, 2006. Notice of this filing will be sent by operation of the Court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system.
_/s/ Anthony J. Farris____ ANTHONY J. FARRIS DEPUTY LAW DIRECTOR
12

 
 "
Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 95-1 Filed 03/21/2005 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1.1 [:: S"FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

Plaintiffs
VS.
COUNTY OF MAHONTNG, OHIO. et al. Defendants

)

CASE NO.: 4:03 CV 2329

)

)

.JUDGEDOWD

)

)

)

)

MOTION FOR AN

)

INJUNCTION

)

)

Now comes Plaintiffs counsel m the above captioned action and states the

following.

I. On March I0, 2005, this Court issued a Memorandum Opinion in the

above captioned action.

2. The opinion included Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law.

3. The Findings of Fact indicated that the Mahoning County Jail was being

operated at staffing levels that were found to be unconstitutional. See

attached affidavit.

4. Plaintiffs counsel has learned that the Defendant Sheriff Wellington on

March 13, 2005 issued layoff notices to fifty (50) Deputies. Said layoff

notices are effective March 25, 2005. See attached affidavit.

5. In addition. Plaintiffs counsel has also learned that on March 25. 2005

Defendant Sheriff Wellington intends to issue ninety (90) additional layoff

notices to Deputies who work in Mahoning County. Said layoffs are to be

effective April I 0, 2005. See attached affidavit.

"
Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 95-1 Filed 03/21/2005 Page 2 of 3
Plaintitrs counsel represents that if these layotTs are allowed to occur the safety and security of the Plaintiffs class, and the remaining Deputies would be jeopardized.
Plaintiffs counsel asks from this Court to issue an Injunction preventing said layoffs. The Injunction should be effective until this Court can determine that the Defendants in the above captioned action will take no further actions to jeopardize the safety of the inmate class.
Respectfully Submitted,

ER (#0011623) !59 S. Main Street, Suite 720 Akron, Ohio 44308 Phone (330) 434-2113

THOMAS KELLEY (#0016820)

!59 S. Main Street, Suite 720

/

Akron, Ohio 44308

Phone (330) 434-2113

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

"
Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 95-1 Filed 03/21/2005 Page 3 of 3
i
I

PROOF OF SERVICE
~ I hereby certify that I have this'-""/ j day of ;f;<?,. 1
copy of the foregoing by way of regular U.S. Mail to:

, 2005, forwarded a

MARK LANDES 250 East Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43215
DANIEL T. DOWNEY 250 East Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43215

er 11:: l t:-
ROBERT ARMBRUSTER (#0011623) 159 S. Main Street, Suite 720 Akron, Ohio 44308 Phone (330) 434-2113, / ;
,A';~£1!1 1
T AS KELLEY (#0016820) 159 S. Main Street, Suite 720 Akron. Ohio 44308 Phone (330) 434-2113
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

 
 Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 160 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 1 of 1

VINCENT M. NATHAN

December 20, 2005

Honorable David D. Dowd United States District Court 402 United States Courthouse 2 South Main Street Akron, Ohio 44308

Dear Judge Dowd:

I filed my fourth report in Roberts v. County of Mahoning on August 10, 2005. In that report I made the following comment about a meeting I attended with the three members of the Youngstown Municipal Court:

Report at 15.

Without question, the Municipal Court judges feel that they have been ignored during this process and that the operation of the emergency release mechanism has left them powerless to operate an effective court. They complained that they see defendants who have been released pursuant to that mechanism repeatedly following their multiple releases and that these persons treat the court with overt contempt.

There continues to be no provision in the emergency release mechanism under which the jail is operating to accommodate misdemeanants guilty of direct contempt of court. Although one or more of the Municipal Court judges are endorsing their orders of incarceration “Do Not Release,” Sheriff Wellington finds himself in a difficult position. The emergency release criteria and the “Do Not Release” orders by Municipal Court judges are in direct conflict.

I bring this matter to your attention because it continues to create confusion and difficulty, both for the Municipal Court judges and for the Sheriff. Particularly in the case of defendants guilty of direct contempt of court, I believe that clarification to the sheriff would be helpful.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Vincent M. Nathan

Vincent M. Nathan Special Master

 
 Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 224 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Nathaniel Roberts, et al., Plaintiff(s),
v. Mahoning County, etc., et al.,
Defendant(s).

) ) CASE NO. 4:03 CV 2329 ) ) Judge Alice M. Batchelder ) Judge David D. Dowd, Jr. ) Judge Dan Aaron Polster ) ) ORDER ) ) )

On August 28, 2006, the three-judge court convened a status conference and a hearing on
the record to begin to address the question of whether a prisoner release order, as defined by 18
U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3), is required and permitted as a remedy in this case. As a result of those
proceedings, the Court hereby issues the following order and case management plan.
I. BACKGROUND
By Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 10, 2005, Judge Dowd, who presided
over the bench trial conducted in December 2004, found in favor of the plaintiffs. See Doc. No. 93, including Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.1 However, no final Judgment was
1 In a Summary Conclusion, the Court stated:
The Court hereby declares that the plaintiff class has met its burden of proof with respect to its claims that class members (1) are being denied their constitutional rights not to be punished without due process of law and/or not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, and (2) are being denied their constitutional right of access to the courts. As a result, the Court finds in favor of the plaintiff class and against the defendants.
(continued...)

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 224 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 2 of 9
(4:03 CV 2329) entered.2 Instead, with the assistance of a Special Master appointed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626(f)(1)(B), the parties have engaged in a complex and lengthy remedial phase aimed at reaching a final resolution. The details of this phase have been explained in prior orders and need not be repeated here. See Doc. No. 193.
On June 8, 2006, all parties and counsel were advised that, at Judge Dowd’s request, Chief Judge Danny J. Boggs had appointed a three-judge court for the purpose of considering whether there should be a prisoner release order.
By Order dated August 2, 2006, the City of Youngstown was permitted to intervene as a matter of right under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3)(F), which gives “standing to oppose the imposition . . . of [a prisoner release order]” to any “unit of government whose jurisdiction or function includes . . . the prosecution or custody of persons who may be released from, or not admitted to, a prison as a result of a prisoner release order[.]”
The three-judge court then scheduled the August 28th hearing to consider how to proceed.3
1 (...continued) Doc. No. 93, at 42-43. The Court also ruled that the plaintiff class was entitled to recover its attorneys fees and costs.
2 In fact, to date, there has been no entry of Judgment within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 54. Thus, there has been no final appealable order.
3 At the Court’s request, the parties filed briefs addressing questions and issues posed by the Court. See Doc. No. 218 (supplemented by Doc. No. 220); Doc. No. 221; and Doc. No. 222.
2

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 224 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 3 of 9
(4:03 CV 2329) II. BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRODUCTION
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), this three-judge court can enter a prisoner release order only if it finds 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. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3)(E).
Neither the plaintiff class nor the defendants have actually requested a prisoner release order. Judge Dowd initiated the current proceedings on his own motion having come to the conclusion it was unlikely, after all the time and effort to date, that the parties would be able to resolve the case.4 This raises an interesting question: who bears the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that overcrowding is the primary cause of the constitutional violations at the Mahoning County Jail and that there is no other available form of relief?
At the hearing on August 28, 2006, counsel for both the plaintiff class and the defendants asserted that they are not requesting a prisoner release order and that, but for the current intervention by the City of Youngstown, they believe they would have been able to work out a settlement of this case. As a result, they share the view that there is no burden on either of them to produce additional evidence; they believe they can rely on the findings already made by Judge
4 Shortly after the decision in the liability phase of this case, the defendants filed a motion for appointment of a three-judge panel (Doc. No. 103, inexplicably re-filed as Doc. No. 109) and plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion joining in that request (Doc. No. 107). While the remedial phase of the case proceeded, these motions remained pending and eventually appeared on the six-month report of pending motions. By that time, the work of the Special Master was well underway and Judge Dowd was considering the Master’s recommendation for the formation of a Mahoning County Criminal Justice Working Group. Therefore, on September 2, 2005, the motions were denied, for record purposes only, without prejudice to renewal or refiling. (Doc. No. 136). The motions were not re-filed.
3

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 224 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 4 of 9
(4:03 CV 2329) Dowd in March 2005, perhaps buttressed by their stipulations of fact regarding the current situation, and that the burden would be on the intervenor to challenge those findings and/or stipulations of fact.
The City is of the contrary view that a prisoner release order, if any, would be a remedial response to the defendants’ unconstitutional operation of the County Jail. Since the City plays no role in that operation and has not been found to be in violation of anyone’s constitutional rights, it takes the position that the party seeking a remedy has the burden of proof.
There is no doubt that the plaintiff class filed their lawsuit seeking (1) a declaration that the County Jail operates in an unconstitutional fashion and (2) an order permanently enjoining such unconstitutional operation. If a prisoner release order is the only way to stop the unconstitutional behavior, then any such order would be, in essence, a response to the plaintiffs’ complaint. Therefore, the burden would be on the plaintiff class to persuade the three-judge court that the two elements set forth in the statute have been met.
That having been said, “district courts enjoy wide latitude in matters concerning the ordering of proof and the presentation of evidence.” Morales Feliciano v. Rullan, 378 F.3d 42, 57 (1st Cir. 2004) (concluding that the district court’s decision to require the defendant, rather than the plaintiff, to go first in the order of presentation of evidence did not amount to a shifting of the burden of proof); see also Toth v. Grand Trunk R.R., 306 F.3d 335, 345 (6th Cir. 2002) (determinations regarding order of proof and scope of rebuttal are reviewed for abuse of discretion).
4

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 224 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 5 of 9
(4:03 CV 2329) In Morales Feliciano, the First Circuit was considering a challenge by Puerto Rico to the
district court’s denial of the Commonwealth’s request under the PLRA for termination of
injunctive relief relating to delivery of prisoner health care which had been put in place by way
of a consent decree. The district court, following an evidentiary hearing, refused to lift the
injunction, finding that the constitutional violations persisted even after several years under the
injunctive order. On appeal, the court noted:
The decision to require the Secretary to present his proof first was not an abuse of discretion. In arriving at its decision on the motion to terminate, the court was free to rely on any aspect of the record that tended to shed light on whether constitutional violations persisted. See Laaman v. Warden, N.H. State Prison, 238 F.3d 14, 17-18 (1st Cir.2001) (noting that the court’s familiarity with the record and its receipt of periodic reports may afford it “comprehensive knowledge of whether a prison is, or is not, continuing to violate the consent decree”). At the beginning of the hearing, the court had before it a full evidentiary record, developed over many years, together with a cache of periodic reports as to progress under the consent decree. This plethoric evidence was sufficient, if unrebutted, to support a finding that constitutional violations endured. With this in mind, it was sensible for the court to invite the Secretary to offer evidence to the contrary.
Morales Feliciano, 378 F.3d at 57.
In the instant case, there is a similarly “full evidentiary record” and “a cache of periodic
reports” developed both at trial in December 2004 and post-trial by way of the work of the
Special Master and the parties. Although the burden of proof is still on the plaintiff class to
establish the two prerequisites for injunctive relief in the form of a prisoner release order, the
Court is of the view that it is free, in light of that existing record, to require the intervening City
to go first in the order of presentation of evidence. The City’s burden of production is to show
that circumstances have so changed since Judge Dowd’s findings of March 2005 that there is
5

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 224 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 6 of 9
(4:03 CV 2329) currently no problem with overcrowding and/or that there is some other suitable form of relief to remedy the federal constitutional violation.
At this point it is premature to decide which party will go first in the presentation of evidence. However, the Court does make clear herein that plaintiffs bear the burden of proof (in that it is plaintiffs who seek relief for constitutional violations) even though the Court may ultimately decide that the City will be required to go first in the order of presentation of evidence.
III. SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS There is no doubt that this three-judge court will need to hear evidence to update the factfindings; it cannot rely solely on the findings Judge Dowd made on March 10, 2005, although those findings may still prove true. The Special Master appointed to assist the Court has filed several reports. The Mahoning County Criminal Justice Working Group, which was formed to try to reach a resolution, has also filed its report. None of the materials or information submitted in these various reports, however, was produced under oath nor was it subject to cross-examination. Although these reports are instructive and need not be ignored,5 the Court is of the view that, in order to determine by clear and convincing evidence whether crowding is the cause of constitutional violations at the County Jail, it needs information of an evidentiary nature regarding the current situation at the Jail.
5 All of the reports enjoy a certain reliability by virtue of their having been filed by attorneys who are officers of the court sworn to a level of ethical and professional accountability.
6

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 224 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 7 of 9
(4:03 CV 2329) Special Master Vincent Nathan, who was chosen by the parties to serve as the Special
Master because of his particular expertise in the area of criminal justice and jail operations, who was appointed as the agent of the Court to assist and guide during the remedial phase, and who has worked very closely with both parties and interested non-parties for over a year, has developed an intimate knowledge of the situation as it currently exists in Mahoning County with respect to the constitutional issues in this case. In the Court’s view, he is in a unique position to supply the evidence which the three-judge court requires regarding the current state of affairs.
Accordingly, the Court hereby appoints Mr. Nathan to serve as a court expert within the meaning of Fed.R.Evid. 706(a) for the express purpose of serving and filing an expert report collecting his findings relative to the question of whether crowding at the Jail is the cause of constitutional violations. If the answer is in the affirmative, Mr. Nathan shall also opine as to whether, in his view, there is any other viable form of relief, short of a prisoner release order, that could remedy the violations. Mr. Nathan’s expert report shall be served and filed by November 30, 2006.
Mr. Nathan may wish to make a site visit to collect current data for his report,6 in addition to drawing upon the data he has already collected over time in his role as Special
6 Mr. Nathan will be free to shape any such visit as he sees fit. However, it occurs to the Court that, at a minimum, the following might be helpful information: recent daily population figures, including statistics on double-celling; recent classification breakdowns; recent staffing levels; numbers of violence and/or incident reports; existing maintenance problems related to population levels. It might also be useful to know, if that information is gatherable, how the Common Pleas Court’s Emergency Release Mechanism has or has not affected the Jail population.
In the event such a visit is made, the Court will leave it to Mr. Nathan’s discretion whether or not to engage the services of his graduate assistant.
7

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 224 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 8 of 9
(4:03 CV 2329) Master. The parties will be required to cooperate completely with Mr. Nathan if he chooses to
conduct such a visit. The three-judge court will undoubtedly call upon him to testify with
respect to the findings and he will be subject to cross-examination at that time. Mr. Nathan will be compensated at the same rate as he was compensated for his Special Master duties;7 however,
he shall submit any itemized bills for expert services separately from his itemized bills for Special Master services.8
Any party, including the plaintiff class, may hire its own expert to address the same issue
Mr. Nathan will be addressing. The identity of any such expert must be disclosed in writing to
the three-judge court and all parties by December 29, 2006; in the alternative, there must be filed
a written statement that the party does not intend to engage a separate expert with respect to the
issue at hand. All reports of the parties’ experts must be served and filed by February 16, 2007.
Rebuttal reports, if any, shall be served and filed by March 9, 2007. All depositions of experts
(including any deposition of Mr. Nathan as the court’s expert) shall thereafter be completed by
April 13, 2007, and copies of the deposition transcripts filed with the Court by April 27, 2007.
7 The Court is under the impression that, as a court expert, Mr. Nathan is paid from local funds, whereas in his role as Special Master under the PLRA, he is paid from centralized funds.
8 For purposes of the task of the three-judge court, Mr. Nathan will be utilized as a court expert; however, that does not mean he is relieved of his duties as Special Master to Judge Dowd. Although those duties will be suspended for the time being due to the nature of the current task, it is highly likely that there may be need for Mr. Nathan’s services as a Special Master as the case proceeds beyond the convening of the three-judge court deciding the question of a prisoner release order.
The three-judge court expressly finds that there is no conflict since, in both roles, Mr. Nathan is the court’s agent providing assistance with respect to the remedial phase of the case.
Further, the Court is mindful that Mr. Nathan’s most recent projected budget has expired. However, since he will be functioning for the next few months primarily as the court expert, there will be no need to submit a new budget until further order to do so.
8

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 224 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 9 of 9
(4:03 CV 2329) There will be no extensions of any of these deadlines; therefore, parties should keep that fact in mind when engaging the services of any expert.
IV. HEARING The Court will conduct a two-day hearing on the question of whether to issue a prisoner release order beginning on May 16, 2007 and continuing through May 17, 2007. Each day’s proceedings will begin at 9:00 a.m. and continue until no later than 5:00 p.m., unless finished sooner. The Court will determine later whether it will require any kind of pre-hearing briefs.9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

September 7, 2006 Date

FOR THE COURT
s/ David D. Dowd, Jr. David D. Dowd, Jr. U.S. District Judge

9 All parties, including the intervenor, are strongly encouraged to continue their efforts to resolve this case on their own. It is the Court’s hope that the generous time frames set forth herein will permit settlement discussions to continue parallel with preparations for the scheduled hearing.
9

 
 Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 114-1 Filed 04/06/2005 Page 1 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Nathaniel Roberts, et al.,

*

*

Plaintiffs,

*

*

v.

*

*

County of Mahoning, Ohio, et al, *

*

Defendants.

*

______________________________*

CASE NO. 4:03 CV 2329

FIRST REPORT OF THE SPECIAL MASTER PURSUANT TO THE COURT’S ORDER OF
MARCH 28, 2005

Introduction The special master conducted his first face-to-face meeting with counsel and the principals in this case in Youngstown, Ohio on April 4, 2005. Present at the meeting were Sheriff Randall Wellington, and the following members of the Sheriff’s staff: Alki Santamas, Captain Jim Lewandowski, and Major Tom Scanlon. County Commissioners Anthony T. Traficanti, John A. McNally, and David Ludt also attended. Others in attendance were Jim Petaglia, the Mahoning County Human Resources Director, Linette Strafford, the Chief Assistant Civil Prosecutor, Paul Gains, the Mahoning County Prosecutor, and Robert Knight, a county employee responsible for overseeing the medical

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 114-1 Filed 04/06/2005 Page 2 of 12
care program at the Mahoning County Justice Center. Representing the plaintiff class were Robert Armbruster and Thomas Kelley, and Daniel Downey attended the meeting as counsel for the defendants. The special master and his administrative assistant, Cory Nafziger, completed the list of attendees.
The meeting commenced at 9:00 a.m. and concluded at approximately 2:00 p.m. Thereafter, jail administrators and counsel for the parties joined the special master and Mr. Nafziger for a tour of the medical area, the booking area, and several housing units in the Justice Center.
Prior to this meeting the special master reviewed several orders and numerous other documents in this case. He has cited some of these documents in connection with the findings set forth below.
This is the first report of the special master pursuant to the Court’s order of March 28, 2005. It contains both the special master’s findings and his recommendations. These findings are based on information provided to the special master at the meeting he has described, information he gained during the course of his tour, and knowledge he obtained from a review of the documents referred to in this report.
Findings 1. On March 30, 2005, the judges of the Court of Common Pleas for Mahoning County entered a judgment entry unanimously adopting an emergency release policy proposed by the Board of Mahoning County Commissioners. 2. The emergency release policy, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A to this report, establishes 12 categories of prisoners eligible for emergency release consideration.
2

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 114-1 Filed 04/06/2005 Page 3 of 12
3. The only categories of prisoners altogether excluded from early release consideration are pretrial inmates charged with violent felonies and prisoners convicted of violent felonies.
4. Jail officials anticipate that the full implementation of the emergency release mechanism will bring the population of the jail down to approximately 300 inmates by the end of day on April 8, 2005.
5. The purpose of the emergency relief mechanism is to ameliorate half of the problem plaguing the Justice Center facility: the number of prisoners held in the jail.
6. The second problem facing the Justice Center at this time relates to security staffing. As a result of prior layoffs the number of uniformed staff available for duty in the sheriff’s office was 166 on April 4, 2005.
7. Of these 166 deputies, assignments were as follows: 21 to provide security to Common Pleas Courts, 6 to provide services to the Juvenile Justice Center, 6 contract positions,120 deputies on long-term leave (e.g. medical disability), 6 deputies to provide services to area (non-Common Pleas) courts, and 8 deputies to provide services at the jail headquarters level. 2
8. As a result of these assignments, there were 99 deputies available to supervise 435 inmates in the Criminal Justice Center facility on April 4, 2005.
9. The Mahoning County Minimum Security Jail was not operating on April 4, 2005 and has been closed since mid-March 2005.
1 These six employees provide the following services: inmate classification & complaint supervisor (2); inmate discipline supervisor (1); laundry supervisor (1), laundry deputy (1); commissary deputy; and contracted services support and administrative deputy (1). 2 Headquarters-level deputies will provide law enforcement coverage for the unincorporated areas of Mahoning County, serve civil process, and perform other field work for the Sheriff’s department.
3

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 114-1 Filed 04/06/2005 Page 4 of 12

10. Additional layoffs scheduled at the end of April 10, 2005 will reduce the total number of deputies available to work in the jail itself to approximately 42.3

11. On April 17, 2005 the last of currently scheduled layoffs will bring the total number of deputies available for jail duty to approximately 20.4

12. The availability of the deputies available to work at the jail on April 4,

April 10, and April 17, 2005, as identified above, assumes that no deputies are required to

respond to emergency requests for law enforcement assistance in the unincorporated

areas of Mahoning County for which the Sheriff is responsible.

13. The parties, through counsel, have agreed that the maximum capacity of

the north tower of the Justice Center facility is 296 prisoners.

14. The partie s, through counsel, have agreed that the operation of the north

tower will require the posting of security officers as follows:

Housing Unit Posts

Housing Classification Total

Unit

Cells

S Pod

male/medium 36

Maximum Allowable Bunks/ Occupants 57

Shift 1 Security Staffing
1

Shift 2 Security Staffing
1

T Pod

male/medium 36

57

1

1

N/O Pods male/maximum 36

36

1

1

P Pod

male/maximum 36

36

1

1

F/G Pods female

36

36

1

1

H/I Pods male/medium 36

60

1

1

3 The additional positions listed in note 1, supra, will continue to be filled 4 The additional positions listed in note 1, supra, will continue to be filled.

4

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 114-1 Filed 04/06/2005 Page 5 of 12

B/C Pods medical

14

14

1

1

Total Housing Capacity & Posts

296

7

7

Other Fixed Posts

Position

Shift 1

Shift 2

Intake Deputy

3

3

Central Control

2

2

Internal Movement 2

2

Reception Deputy 1

0

Supervisor

1

1

Total Other Fixed 9

8

Posts

Total Housing Unit 16

15

& Other Fixed

Posts

15. Based on the use of two12- hour shifts, the numbers for total housing unit

and other fixed posts in finding 14, supra, must be multiplied by a shift relief factor of

2.71. Thus, the total housing unit and other fixed posts would be 44 on shift 1 and 41 on

shift 2, for a total of 85.

16. In addition the following jail command and contract posts must be filled

five days each week:

Positions

Number

Warden

1

5

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 114-1 Filed 04/06/2005 Page 6 of 12

Operations Captain

1

Inmate Classification & Complaint Supervisor

1

Inmate Classification & Complaint Deputy

1

Inmate Discipline Supervisor

1

Laundry Deputy

1

Commissary Deputy

1

Contracted Services Support & Administration Deputy

1

Jail Registrar Deputy

2

Inmate Worker Supervisory (Deputy)

2

Total jail command & support staff

12

No shift relief factor need be applied to these jail command and contract posts. 17. The combined housing unit, other fixed posts, and jail and support staff
posts require a total complement of 97 staff. This number assumes the continued use of two 12-hour shifts.
18. Since the parties reached the agreement reflected in the foregoing findings 13 through 17, the Sheriff has issued a special order reverting to three, 8-hour shifts. The result of this order, which is attached to this report as Exhibit B, will reduce the shift relief factor to approximately 1.9 or slightly less. The effect of the application of this lower shift relief factor will reduce the number of staff to fill total housing unit and other fixed posts would be reduced to a total of 80.
19. When these 80 staff are combined with the 12 jail command and contract posts described in finding 16, supra, the total staff complement required to operate the north tower becomes 92 rather than 97.

6

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 114-1 Filed 04/06/2005 Page 7 of 12
20. As of April 4, 2005, the total complement of uniformed staff assigned to the Justice Center facility was 98, enough to operate the north tower, but not both the north and south towers that were open on that date.
21. On April 10, 2005, a scheduled layoff of 62 deputies will reduce the number of security staff available to operate the Justice Center facility from 98 to approximately 40. This number does not include deputies assigned to the Court of Common Pleas, the Juvenile Justice Center, contract positions, long-term absentees, deputies assigned to area courts, and headquarters staff.
22. Forty deputies are not sufficient to operate the housing units in the north unit at a level of minimal safety for prisoners and staff. Moreover, although releases are proceeding apace pursuant to the emergency relief order, the reductio n of the jail’s population to 296 by April 10, 2005, is not a certainty.
23. On April 17, 2005, an additional 22 deputies are scheduled to be laid off. These scheduled layoffs will reduce number of security staff available to operate the Justice Center facility from 40 to approximately 20. This number does not include deputies assigned to the Court of Common Pleas, the Juvenile Justice Center, contract positions, long-term absentees, deputies assigned to area courts, and headquarters staff.
24. Twenty deputies are not sufficient to operate the housing units in the north unit at a level of minimal safety for prisoners and staff.
25. At the time of my tour of the Justice Center facility on the afternoon of April 4, 2005, only one correctional officer was stationed in the medical observation area. That officer was posted in the medical area’s control room and could not abandon that post without jeopardizing the safety and security of persons in the unit.
7

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 114-1 Filed 04/06/2005 Page 8 of 12
26. On April 4, 2005, Robert Knight, a county employee responsible for overseeing the medical care program at the Mahoning County Justice Center, informed me that he would not allow medical personnel (specifically, nurses) to enter housing units he deemed to be unsafe. Following the scheduled layoffs on April 10 and April 17, 2005, any occupied housing units in the Justice Center facility will be unsafe for medical staff, including nurses.
27. When I visited the intake/booking area on the afternoon of April 4, 2005, only one officer was posted in this area. Had police arrived with an arrestee, this officer would have been in severe jeopardy, particularly if the arrestee was improperly handcuffed in front rather than in back. In addition, there were inmates in holding cells at the time of my visit, and adequate staff surveillance and control of these prisoners, some of whom shared a cell, was impossible.
28. The current staffing level continues to result in lockdowns of inmates in their cells, and surveillance of inmates in double occupancy cells is dangerously inadequate, particularly when no officer is in the housing unit.
29. On the afternoon of my visit to H/I pod, only one deputy was assigned to the four housing areas in these two pods. A total of 108 prisoners were assigned to these pods. When I entered the first pod, it was dark and no deputy or other staff member was present in the housing unit.
30. If the layoffs scheduled for April 10 and April 17, 2005 occur as scheduled, the security staffing levels at the Justice Center facility will be below even what can be described as dangerously inadequate, and the lack of supervision of inmates and appropriate backup for staff are highly likely to result in serious injury or death to
8

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 114-1 Filed 04/06/2005 Page 9 of 12
prisoners and/or staff. Indeed, the effect of either, let alone both, of these layoffs will result in a meltdown of the operation of the north unit alone and the destruction of the jail’s administrative integrity as a correctional facility.
31. Although the court is thoroughly familiar with the history of the expansion of the capacity of the Justice Center facility, the design of that facility, historical statistics regarding population levels, funding difficulties encountered by the Sheriff’s office, and other relevant matters concerning the history of the facility, the special master hereby adopts as his own findings of fact the following paragraphs of the Stipulation of the Parties in this matter entered into on December 10, 2004. Paragraph 1 through 14, 19-21, 23-36, and 38. A copy of this stipulation is attached to this report of the special master as Exhibit C.
32. If the cost estimates provided by the Sheriff are correct, it would cost $1,700,000 to retain the staff currently scheduled to be laid off on April 10, 2005; likewise, it would cost $800,000 to retain the staff currently scheduled to be laid off on April 17, 2005. If the estimate of these costs provided to the special master by defendants’ counsel is correct, these total costs may be as high as $3,000,000.
33. By order entered on March 25, 2005, the Court denied a motion by the plaintiff class to enjoin the layoff of 50 deputies that occurred on or about March 27, 2005, and 90 more on or about April 10, 2005.
34. A May 3, 2005 ballot in Mahoning County will offer the voters an opportunity to approve a one-half cent addition to the existing county sales tax.
9

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 114-1 Filed 04/06/2005 Page 10 of 12
Recommendations 1. In view of the dire consequences that will result from the layoffs of deputies scheduled for April 10 and April 17, 2005, I recommend that the Court direct the defendants to maintain the current level of security staffing in the Justice Center facility without additional layoffs, specifically those now scheduled for April 10 and April 17, 2005 until further order of the Court. 2. I recommend that the Court direct the Sheriff to provide the special master with daily population counts in the north and south towers until such time as the south tower is closed and the population in the north tower is no greater than 296. 3. I recommend that the court direct the Sheriff to inform the special master whenever the population in the north tower exceeds 296 and/or when inmates begin again to be assigned to the south tower or the minimum security jail. 4. I recommend that the court direct the Sheriff to inform the special master on a weekly basis of the number of early releases, by category, accomplished pursuant to the March 30, 2005 Judgment Entry of the Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County. 5. I recommend that the court not enter an order prohibiting or otherwise affecting the staff layoffs that occurred on or about March 27, 2005, as the special master did not inquire into this matter during his April 4 meeting, and an injunction relating to those layoffs at this time in all likelihood would cause logistical problems of substantial magnitude. 6. I recommend that the court direct the Sheriff to provide all counsel with copies of all reports he submits to the special master pursuant to this order.
10

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 114-1 Filed 04/06/2005 Page 11 of 12

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 114-1 Filed 04/06/2005 Page 12 of 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A copy of the foregoing First Report of the Special Master was filed electronically this 6 day of April, 2005. Notice of this filing will be sent by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system.
GERI M. SMITH, CLERK OF COURT By /s/ Sharon K. Derivan Law Clerk to Judge David D. Dowd, Jr.
12

 
 Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 119 Filed 04/19/2005 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Nathaniel Roberts, et al.,

*

*

Plaintiffs,

*

*

v.

*

*

County of Mahoning, Ohio, et al, *

*

Defendants.

*

______________________________*

CASE NO. 4:03 CV 2329

SECOND REPORT OF THE SPECIAL MASTER April 19, 2005

In its order of April 7, 2005, the Court directed the special master to file reports to

the court during the process that order required the defendants to implement. This report

will advise the Court of the extent to which the defendants complied with its preliminary

injunction prohibiting layoffs of staff planned for April 10, 2005 and April 17, 2005. It

also will apprise the court of the reduction in population the defendants have achieved

pursuant to the emergency overcrowding release policy approved by the Court of

Common Pleas of Mahoning County.

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 119 Filed 04/19/2005 Page 2 of 3

Planned Layoffs

Upon inquiry by the special master, counsel for the defendants informed the

special master that the layoffs scheduled for April 10, 2005 and April 17, 2005 did not

occur. Thus, the defendants complied fully with numbered paragraph 1 of the Court’s

order of April 7, 2005

Population Levels

Commencing on April 8, 2005, the agents of the defendant Sheriff began to

provide the special master and counsel with copies of daily population reports for the

Justice Center facility. These reports reflect the following daily population levels:

DATE

POPULATION

April 8, 2005

339

April 9, 2005

323

April 10, 2005

338

April 11, 2005

340

April 12, 2005

334

April 13, 2005

286

April 14, 2005

280

April 15, 2005

278

April 16, 2005

285

April 17, 2005

294

April 18, 2005

293

April 19, 2005

294

2

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 119 Filed 04/19/2005 Page 3 of 3
Thus, the defendants achieved a population level of fewer than 296 prisoners on April 13, 2005. This is the number the parties have agreed is the maximum capacity of the North Tower of the Justice Center facility. See First Report of the Special Master Pursuant to the Court’s Order of March 28, 2005, finding number 13. The total inmate population in the jail has not exceeded that number since that date. In order to achieve these reductions, the defendants have released prisoners in categories 1 through 13 of the emergency overcrowding release policy approved by the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas. See First Report of the Special Master Pursuant to the Court’s Order of March 28, 2005, Exhibit A.
Closure of the South Tower As a result of these populations reductions the defendants were able to close the South Tower of the Justice Center facility at 11:40 a.m. on April 15, 2005, and they did so. The South Tower has remained closed since that date. Conclusion The defendants have moved promptly to comply with the Court’s order of April 6, 2005 and to implement the emergency overcrowding release policy approved by the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas. The special master will next meet with counsel for the parties and with representatives of the defendants shortly after the May 3, 2005 election, which will offer the voters of Mahoning County an opportunity to approve a one-half cent addition to the existing county sales tax.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Vincent M. Nathan Special Master
3

 
 Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 122 Filed 05/11/2005 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Nathaniel Roberts, et al.,

*

*

Plaintiffs,

*

*

v.

*

*

County of Mahoning, Ohio, et al, *

*

Defendants.

*

______________________________*

CASE NO. 4:03 CV 2329

THIRD REPORT OF THE SPECIAL MASTER In its Order and Preliminary Injunction of April 7, 2005 (Doc. No. 117), the Court indicated that it would revisit its preliminary injunction after the results of vote on the May 3, 2005 sales tax issue on the Mahoning County ballot became known to the court. The purpose of this brief report is to bring the Court up to date on developments since April 7, 2005. Unofficial results of the May 3, 2002 sales tax ballot issue reflect that voters approved the ballot measure by a substantial margin. The special master understands that official, certified results are not yet available, but defendants’ counsel has informed the special master that the former will provide the required notice to the Court, the special master, and counsel for the plaintiffs as soon as the Board of Elections issues its certification. The special master met with counsel, the County Commissioners, representatives of the sheriff’s office, and other Mahoning County officials on May 5, 2005. Present at that meeting were the following persons: Alki Santamas, Captain Jim Lewandlowski,

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 122 Filed 05/11/2005 Page 2 of 3
and Major Tom Scanlon of the Sheriff’s Office; County Commissioners Anthony T. Traficanti, John A. McNally, and David Ludt; James Petraglia, the Mahoning County Human Resources Director; Paul Gains, the Mahoning County Prosecutor and Linette Strafford, the Chief Assistant Civil Prosecutor; Robert Knight, a county employee responsible for overseeing the medical care program at the Mahoning County Justice Center; and George Tablack, the Mahoning County Auditor. Representing the plaintiff class were Robert Armbruster and Thomas Kelley, and Daniel Downey attended the meeting as counsel for the defendants. The special master chaired the meeting with the assistance of his graduate assistant, Cory Nafziger.
During the course of this meeting, all present agreed that the defendants would prepare a report no later than May 31, 2005, outlining any options County officials may have to accelerate the receipt of funds pursuant to the successful ballot issue. County Auditor Tablack will take the lead in preparing this report. In the meantime, jail officials will continue to abide by the emergency release policy approved by the Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County. When more information is available about the availability of funds to employ additional staff to permit an increase in the population of the Justice Center facility, the special master will convey this information to the Court.
All present at the meeting also agreed that the defendants would provide the special master and plaintiffs’ counsel with a report of progress made to provide adequate access to the courts for prisoners incarcerated in Mahoning County facilities. This report will be available no later than the end of May 2005.
In order to provide the special master with assurances that the current staffing level in the North Tower is sufficient to allow for out-of-cell activity by inmates, the
2

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 122 Filed 05/11/2005 Page 3 of 3
defendants agreed to provide the special master with notice of any future lockdown that occurs in the jail, as well as the reason for that lockdown. The only lockdown that has occurred since May 5, 2005 was from 2:00 to 1:30 p.m. on May 7, 2005.1 All pods were locked down for a shakedown following receipt of evidence that inmates might have access to a homemade weapon.
In conclusion, the special master is pleased to report that the parties and their counsel continue to work together in a cooperative fashion to resolve the outstanding issues in this case. In view of the progress that has occurred, the special master recommends that the court maintain the status quo by continuing in effect its order of April 7, 2005.
Respectfully submitted, Vincent M. Nathan Vincent M. Nathan Special Master
1 The report sheriff’s department staff submitted to the special master on May 9, 2005 inaccurately reflects the date of the lockdown as being May 17. This appears to be a typographical error.
3

 
 Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 132 Filed 08/10/2005 Page 1 of 21

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Nathaniel Roberts, et al.,

*

*

Plaintiffs,

*

*

vs.

*

*

County of Mahoning Ohio, et al., *

*

Defendants.

*

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -*

CASE NO. 4:03 CV 2329

FOURTH REPORT OF THE SPECIAL MASTER I. Introduction
The purpose of this report is to inform the Court of developments since the meeting the Court held in chambers on June 9, 2005.
A. Population Control The County has not been successful in maintaining a cap of 296 prisoners in the South Tower of the Mahoning County Justice Center. On the date of the conference the population at the jail was 299, reflecting a minimal overage of three inmates. Although as of August 1, 2005 the County had released 1,313 prisoners pursuant to the Emergency Release Plan, the population of the jail was consistently above 296 during the last half of June, through all of July, and into August 2005:

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 132 Filed 08/10/2005 Page 2 of 21

Jail Population Every Five Days Beginning June 15 and Ending July 30, 2005

DATE

POPULATION

OVERAGE

6/15/05

315

19

6/20

316

20

6/25

307

11

6/30

318

22

7/5/05

328

33

7/10

325

28

7/15

326

30

7/20

339

43

7/25

343

47

7/30

318

22

8/05/05

315

191

These numbers are a matter of concern, as the 296 cap assumes a high level of doublecelling throughout the jail. The prisoners in excess of 296 often will occupy a “boat” in a cell with two other inmates.
One of the factors contributing to the crowding reflected in this table is the exercise of discretion by Common Pleas Court judges to deny release to prisoners in step 11 of the Emergency Release Plan. Prisoners in this step are “inmates incarcerated while awaiting trial in lieu of bond for nonviolent felonies. The inmate shall be released on their own recognizance subject to any conditions imposed by the Trial Court with priority
1 As the Court will note, we may be seeing the beginning of a downward trend in the population overage.
2

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 132 Filed 08/10/2005 Page 3 of 21
being given to first-time offenders.” Pursuant to this language Common Pleas judges review all step 11 cases and may exercise their discretion to release or to retain the inmate at the jail. As of June 27, 2005 there were 40 step-11 inmates whose release a Common Pleas judge had not approved.
Other factors contributing to crowding at the jail include the delays encountered in obtaining orders for the transfer of convicted felons to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. I stumbled on one such case when I inquired about an inmate who required a high level of medical care. I learned that this inmate had been sentenced on July 7 to four years in prison. The Clerk of the Common Pleas Court did not receive the journal entry until July 28, the date I called jail officials to get information about the inmate’s medical needs. Jail officials made a special request to the clerk’s office and obtain a Warrant to Convey, which allowed transport to occur on July 29. Thus, this inmate filled a bed in the jail for 22 days between sentencing and delivery to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction. While some time will be required for necessary paperwork to be prepared and transferred to the Sheriff’s office, 22 days is excessive. Data on the scope of this phenomenon are not readily available at this time, but jail officials are beginning to keep this information from this point forward.
Jail officials also informed me that they are concerned that Youngstown and other local police officer may be charging arrestees in such a manner as to avoid releases or reduce the chances of release. This would result from charging an arrestee with a violent or non-violent felony.
3

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 132 Filed 08/10/2005 Page 4 of 21
B. Solutions Discussed by the Special Master and Counsel
In response to the consistent crowding at the jail the special master and counsel
have attempted to identify potential solutions to this problem. On July 5, 2005 I contacted
counsel suggesting an agenda for future actions to address crowding in a manner that will
be effective in the long term as well as the short term. The major steps I proposed were
the following:
• a meeting between the special master and the judges of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas, the Youngstown Municipal Court, and the part-time County Courts in outlying areas of the County;
• initiation of a study to identify any delays that add days to the period beginning with arrest and ending with the final disposition of a criminal case;
• a meeting between Mahoning County Officials and persons at the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction (ORDC) to discuss possible sources of funding, particularly for community corrections alternatives to incarceration; and
• identification of all potential outstanding issues in the case in addition to population control (access to courts, staff training, maintenance, and outdoor exercise) and development of compliance plans the issues counsel agree are within the scope of the litigation.2
C. Follow Up – Meeting With ODRC Officials
On July 15, 2005 Mahoning County officials and counsel met with several
representatives of the ODRC. Departmental officials included Assistant Director Terry
Collins, Deputy Director Charles Bailey (Bureau of Adult Detention), Deputy Director
Harry Hageman (Parole and Community Services), and Linda Janes (Bureau of
Community Sanctions). Representing Mahoning County were Commissioner John
McNally, Richard Billak (Chief Executive Officer of the Mahoning County Community
Justice Association responsible for community corrections in the county), Linette
2 Another issue I raised was defendants’ counsel’s suggestion that the parties consider opening two pods in the South Tower for the remainder of 2005 in order to reduce population pressures. Subsequently, counsel and I learned that funds were not available to exercise this option.
4

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 132 Filed 08/10/2005 Page 5 of 21
Stratford (First Assistant Civil Prosecutor in the Mahoning County Prosecutor’s Office), and three representatives from the jail: Jail Administrator Alki Santamas, Major Tom Scanlon, and Lieutenant Jim Lewandowski. Dan Downey (defendants’ counsel) and Robert Armbruster (plaintiffs’ counsel) also attended, as did Victoria Grunthaner (a law clerk for plaintiffs’ counsel), the special master, and the special master’s graduate assistant, Cory Nafziger.
A number of interesting ideas came out of that meeting. Before mentioning these, I wish to summarize the very strong statement Deputy Director Hageman made. It is his opinion that Mahoning County, like other metropolitan counties in Ohio (and throughout the United States), cannot build its way out of its crowding problem. Thus, even an infusion of funds that would permit the immediate reopening of all beds in the North and South towers would provide at most a brief interlude of relief. As a result, Mr. Hageman recommended, and the special master strongly agrees, that the focus in this litigation should be on solutions that will address the underlying causes of crowding in the jail, including increased reliance on community corrections, maximum efficiency in the operation of the criminal justice system, and on ongoing mechanism to develop and maintain a mutually supportive criminal justice system in the county based on cooperation among the police, Municipal Court judges, County Court judges, Common Pleas Court judges, clerks of courts, jail officials, the County Prosecutor’s office, the County Commissioners, community corrections officials, court administrators, the police, and others.
In the short term, however, there are steps that might contribute to temporary relief of the crowding problem. Some of the ideas suggested by ODRC officials included
5

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 132 Filed 08/10/2005 Page 6 of 21
the collection of fees from probationers, the use of release on the defendant’s own recognizance (ROR), earned credit releases, and shock probation. Mr. Hagerman suggested that releases based on the charges an inmate faces may not protect public safety as much as would the use of a creditable risk assessment instrument. There was additional discussion of pay-for-stay charges, as well as shifting some of the costs of medical care from the county to inmates.
Two particularly interesting ideas arose during the course of this meeting. The first is that the ODRC may be able to consider assigning more Adult Parole Authority officers to free up security positions for use in the jail. Even more wide-ranging is the possibility of the use of the former minimum security jail, which has 96 beds, for an expansion of community corrections options in Mahoning County. Although the ODRC is not able to increase its $200,000 allocation to Mahoning County community corrections this year, it is clear that ODRC officials have great respect for Mr. Billak and are favorably impressed by the operation of community corrections under the supervision of the Community Corrections Association. In this connection, it may be that greater involvement by the Community Corrections Board in the county would be helpful. All of these are ideas worthy of careful consideration.
D. Follow Up – Meeting with Mahoning County Common Pleas Judges The special master met with all of the members of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas on July 18, 2005. These judges are Honorable Maureen Cronin, Administrative Judge, Honorable R. Scott Krichbaum, Honorable John Durkin, Honorable James Evans, and Honorable Maureen Sweeney. Both Mr. McNally and Ms. Stratford attended this meeting. During the time the court graciously made available to
6

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 132 Filed 08/10/2005 Page 7 of 21
me, I thanked the judges for their assistance in approving the emergency release mechanism. I also informed them of the creeping increase in the population of the jail and expressed my concern about that issue. Perhaps most important, I shared with the judges the substance of the earlier meeting with ODRC officials.
The basic point I hoped to make in my meeting with these judges was the need to examine all aspects of the criminal justice system in Mahoning County to identify areas where increased efficiency might be possible. To this end, I asked the court for its support of the proposed study of docket efficiency in the county. I pointed out that such a study might well identify areas other than the jail where infusions of relatively small amounts of money might have a substantial and positive impact on reducing jail crowding. One idea, for example, would be the provision of law clerks for the court to assist in legal research and the preparation of written opinions, leaving the judges with more time to allocate to other duties.
Although they expressed their concerns about long-term, let alone indefinite, reliance on the emergency release program, the judges responded positively to the two actions I asked them to take. First, I requested that a member of the Common Pleas Court begin to attend meetings of a working group I hope the county will be able to develop to address both short-term crises and long-term solutions related to jail crowding. Judge Cronin assured me that the court would make one of its members available for this purpose. Second, I asked for the Court’s support of a docket efficiency study, which will require cooperation by the Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas, the Clerk of the Youngstown Municipal Court, and the court administrators of these two courts. Again,
7

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 132 Filed 08/10/2005 Page 8 of 21
Judge Cronin responded positively and directed the Common Pleas Court Administrator, Robert Rupeka, to cooperate in all respects with the conduct of such a study.
One of the most interesting ideas that arose during the meeting was Judge Durkin’s suggestion that cross-training sessions involving the various actors in the Mahoning County criminal justice system be instituted. This recommendation, as will be obvious, is entirely consistent with the recommendations I make at the conclusion of this report.
I believe that the participation of the Court of Common Pleas judges will be essential to the development of long-term strategies to limit the population of the jail. It also will contribute to the thoughtful and mutually cooperative solution of day-to-day issues that are likely to arise between now and the time more permanent solutions can be developed and implemented.
E. Follow-Up – Meeting with Counsel and Jail Officials Regarding Access to Courts, Outdoor Recreation, Staff Training, and Facility Maintenance
Following my meeting with the Common Pleas Court judges, I met on July 18 with counsel, jail officials, and other Mahoning County representatives on issues of access to courts, outdoor recreation, staff training, and facility maintenance at the jail. Apparently, the County Commissioners have executed a contract with the University of Akron for provision law students to assist jail inmates with needs relating to legal research and writing and have forwarded that contract to the law school. This contract will restore the situation to the status quo ante and should resolve the parties’ outstanding differences on this subject.
Jail officials also agreed to proceed with a contract to add small mesh screening to outdoor recreation areas that will prevent prisoners from using lines to “fish” for objects
8

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 132 Filed 08/10/2005 Page 9 of 21
through the chain link openings. As a result of this practice, outdoor recreation has not been available for inmates for a substantial period of time. Although this matter has been raised at previous meetings, it was only on July 18 that counsel and I learned for the first time that funds had been available to make these renovations even at the time of the trial in this case. Thus, inmates have been subjected to an altogether unnecessary delay in gaining access to outdoor recreation, and both counsel and I have spent unnecessary time attempting to find a source of funds to solve a problem for which funds were already available. With the installation of the required mesh screening, this issue should be completely resolved.3
The parties were unable to reach any agreement regarding the provision of inservice training to correctional officers at the jail. The Court referred to this subject in one of the findings in its Memorandum Opinion of March 10, 2005: “108. Due to a lack of funding and a lack of staff, there has been no in-service training for staff since 2001.” Memorandum Opinion at 33 (March 10, 2005). It is not clear whether the Court intended this shortcoming to be addressed in the remedial plan that the special master is to assist in developing, and further guidance from the Court may be necessary. Whatever the resolution of this issue may be, the use of untrained staff to supervise inmates in any correctional facility, including the Mahoning County Justice Center, is foolish and dangerous. The fact that virtually all current officers received pre-service training within their first year of employment makes the need for in-service training no less urgent.4
3 Estimates are that all outdoor recreation areas will be renovated within 90 days. I have suggested that each refurbished area be opened when work is completed on that area rather than waiting for the entire project to end.
4 American Correctional Standard 3-ALDF-1D-12 requires that “all new correctional officers receive 40 hours of training prior to entry on duty, an additional 120 hours of training during their first year
9

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 132 Filed 08/10/2005 Page 10 of 21
The last subject discussed at the July 18 meeting was the need for physical plant maintenance, particularly with respect to toilets. Again, the Court made findings of fact on this subject in its March 10, 2005 Memorandum Opinion. See Memorandum Opinion at 35. No agreement was reached regarding a comprehensive preventive and reactive maintenance program, which is fundamental to the proper operation of any correctional institution. Astonishingly, correctional officers responsible for supervising housing units are not required to complete daily maintenance and inspection forms that are critical to any successful effort to maintain equipment and fixtures throughout the jail. There was agreement, however, that recurring problems with toilets require some form of immediate remedy. Jail officials agreed to distribute equipment that would permit officers to eliminate vacuums in toilets the result in the shut-down of all toilets whenever a vacuum occurs in one toilet. Jail officials also agreed to schedule a maintenance employee on Saturdays and Sundays, thus insuring that someone will be on duty seven days each week.
The scope of maintenance problems at the jail at this time is unknown. Thus, it is unclear whether the parties’ agreement on this subject will be sufficient. Likewise, it is not clear whether the Court intended all matters that were the subject of findings on the subject of maintenance to be part of a remedial plan. Unless the parties can reach prompt agreement on this issue, it will be necessary for the Court to clarify its order on this subject.
of employment, and an additional 40 hours of training each subsequent year of employment. American Correctional Association Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities (3d ed. 1991).
10

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 132 Filed 08/10/2005 Page 11 of 21
F. Follow-UP – Meeting Between Jail Administrators and Police Officials
I mentioned earlier that jail officials expressed concern to me at one point that local police in some instances might be overcharging arrestees in order to avoid the application of the automatic emergency release mechanism. During the July 18 meeting I encouraged representatives from the jail to discuss this matter directly with police chiefs in the area.
As a result of this suggestion Sheriff Wellington, Warden Santamas, Major Scanlon, and Captain Lewandowski met with Chief Robert Bush of the Youngstown Police Department, Chief Jeff Patterson of the Boardman Police Department, and Chief Brian Kloss of the Austintown Police Department. At that meeting the chiefs assured jail personnel that overcharging to finesse an arrestee’s eligibility for emergency release is not occurring “and that any such attempt by officers to increase a charge would be unacceptable behavior.” Email correspondence from Sheriff Randall Wellington to the special master (August 8, 2005). “All agreed that the Sheriff should continue to apply the current Emergency Release (ER) policy in its present form.” Email from Sheriff Randall Wellington to the special master (July 22, 2005).
Even more encouraging, the police chiefs recommended that the Sheriff should seek the approval of the Court of Common Pleas judges for a new step 14 category that would be used when the current emergency release policy fails to keeping the population in the North Tower within the authorized cap of 292. This category would consist of inmates presently ineligible for emergency release who would be evaluated pursuant to a risk assessment tool. The risk assessment (conducted by an intelligence driven corrections assessment team) would include a criminal history check, an incarceration
11

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 132 Filed 08/10/2005 Page 12 of 21
history report, a report of any non-appearances in previous court proceedings, the results of the rating on the Risk Assessment Questionnaire and interview, and current police intelligence developed on the prisoner’s criminal activity. Each of the police departments represented agreed to commit an investigator to work with the Sheriff’s office to facilitate the risk assessment evaluation. If the inmate’s ultimate risk rating warranted it, Sheriff Wellington would make a recommendation for release to the court with jurisdiction over the inmate.
This initiative on the part of police and jail officials is extremely encouraging. I strongly recommend that the County Prosecutor and the County Commissioners support these efforts and attempt to gain the necessary approval for the amendment of the current emergency release plan to include step 14 inmates as described in the proposal I have discussed.
G. Follow Up – Evaluation of Data Maintained by the Court of Common Pleas, the Municipal Court, and the Jail
I returned to Youngstown on July 22 with Kasey Tucker, Ph.D., an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Toledo. The purpose of this July 22 trip was to identify what kind of docket-related information the clerks of courts and the jail maintain and the form in which those records exist. The object of this inquiry is to determine the feasibility of a study of the time elapsing between arrest and final disposition for a sample of inmates and, if necessary, the time that elapses between discrete segments of the criminal justice process, e.g., sentencing and transport to prison.
Dr. Tucker and I met with Robert Rupeka, the Court Administrator of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas. Mr. Rupeka was exceptionally helpful and is genuinely interested in addressing on a systemic basis the problems affecting the jail and
12

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 132 Filed 08/10/2005 Page 13 of 21
other elements of the criminal justice apparatus. In this respect, he is in full agreement with the advice all of us heard from ODRC officials; his attitude is also entirely consistent with the attitudes expressed by the members of the Common Pleas Court that only such a systemic solution will provide any meaningful, long-term relief.
Mr. Rupeka introduced Dr. Tucker and me to Anthony Vivo, the Mahoning County Clerk of Courts, Kathy Welch, the Chief Deputy Clerk of the Common Pleas Court, and Scott Grossen, the Administrator of that office. All expressed their willingness to make any contribution they could to the success of the contemplated evaluation. The same was true of the Clerk of the Municipal Court, Sarah Brown Clark, and her Court Administrator, Laura McLaughlin.
Mr. Rupeka and Ms. Welsh provided us with information concerning the electronic data system used by the Court of Common Pleas. It appears to be a modern system that contains all information regarding Common Pleas transactions that would be necessary for the study. The system, however, cannot transfer data electronically in the form of a database. Unless the vendor of the data system can develop new reports necessary for the docket efficiency study, something Mr. Rupeka agreed to explore, any study relying on information in the office of the Clerk of the Common Pleas Court will require a substantial amount of data entry, although it appears that Dr. Tucker and several graduate students could accomplish this from Toledo if that were determined to be the best approach to collection.
When we visited the office of the Clerk of the Municipal Court, Dr. Tucker and I learned that a conversion by that office to the Common Pleas Court system occurred in October 2005. Information before that date remains available but the retrieval of these
13

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 132 Filed 08/10/2005 Page 14 of 21
data will be quite difficult and time-consuming. This task would have to be accomplished in Youngstown.
Finally, when Dr. Tucker met with officials from the jail, all computers were down and she was unable to observe the actual operation of the jail’s information retrieval system. She learned, however, that booking sheets are completed for all inmates and entered into a computer system. Staff informed her that once an inmate is discharged from the jail, the information on the booking sheet can be brought up on a screen but cannot be printed. Subsequently, when Jail Administrator Santanas returned from his vacation, we learned that this is not the case. All booking sheets can be printed, and hard copies are available in the jail’s records archives.
The information on the booking sheet is quite important and, indeed, appears in itself be sufficient to accomplish a study of the gross number of days that elapse between arrest and final disposition. This information would be appropriate for comparison with similar data described in a recent Bureau of Justice Statistics study. Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties-2000 (NCJ 202021 December 2003).
In summary, much of what Dr. Tucker and I learned about the information system upon which the docket study will depend suggests that a study of possible delays in the operation of specific components of the Mahoning County criminal justice system may be quite difficult and time-consuming. On the other hand, a simpler and still quite useful study of the time elapsing between arrest and final disposition appears to be entirely feasible. I shall include a recommendation on this subject at the conclusion of this report.
14

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 132 Filed 08/10/2005 Page 15 of 21
H. Follow-Up – Meeting with Youngstown Municipal Judges While Dr. Tucker was interviewing jail officials about the jail’s information system, I met with the judges of the Youngstown Municipal Court, Honorable Elizabeth Kobley, Honorable Robert Millich, and Honorable Robert Douglas. My purpose in meeting with these judges was to bring them up to date on the developments that had occurred in this litigation since the appointment of a special master and to invite their participation in the development of a plan for addressing the problems I have described earlier in this report. Without question, the Municipal Court judges feel that they have been ignored during this process and that the operation of the emergency release mechanism has left them powerless to operate an effective court. They complained that they see defendants who have been released pursuant to that mechanism repeatedly following their multiple releases and that these persons treat the court with overt contempt. I have never encountered the level of frustration among public officials that I heard and saw during this meeting, and I am convinced that the conditions the judges described to me are symptoms of a thoroughly broken criminal justice system that no longer commands the basic respect of criminal defendants who appear before it. I have no doubt that the Common Pleas judges with whom I met earlier in the week share the frustration the Municipal Court judges expressed. One of the ideas I raised with the Municipal Court judges was the possibility that each court serving the county or its political subdivisions should have access to a fixed, though quite limited, number of cells. This would permit each court to maintain a
15

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 132 Filed 08/10/2005 Page 16 of 21
modicum of public respect and to shore up its part of the criminal justice system pending long-term resolution of the problems that plague that system at this time.
I. Follow Up: Meeting with County Judges On August 3, 2005, I met by telephone with the part-time County Judges serving in outlying areas of Mahoning County. These are Honorable Joseph Houser, Honorable David D’Apolito, Honorable Scott Hunter, and Honorable Diane Vettori. Commissioner John McNally and First Deputy Civil Prosecutor Linette Stratford were part of that meeting. Like the Municipal Court judges, the County Court judges feel strongly that the operation of the emergency release plan makes it impossible for their court to discharge its duties in criminal cases. These judges too have seen the same defendants time and again and are frustrated that they cannot even impose required minimum penalties in cases involving driving under the influence of alcohol. They also informed me that the “no-show” rate at initial preliminary hearings is quite high because inmates are released before their initial scheduled court appearance. These judges, like those serving on the Municipal Court believe that the credibility of their court requires that they have some power to impose jail time on carefully selected defendants. I am pleased to report that the County Court judges agreed that they would provide a representative to serve on a working group convened to identify and consider solutions to the underlying problems of the criminal justice system that have led to today’s unfortunate impasse. With this agreement, all three courts have agreed to participate in this process if county officials decide to initiate it.
16

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 132 Filed 08/10/2005 Page 17 of 21
J. Follow-Up -- Expansion of Community Corrections On July 22 I also met with Richard Billak, the Chief Executive Officer of Community Corrections Association, Inc. I first met Mr. Billak at the July 15 meeting with ODRC officials I have described earlier in this report. During our July 22 meeting Mr. Billak indicated his strong desire to contribute to the solution of the crowding problem at the jail. He and I discussed several possible expansions of the community corrections program in Mahoning County. First, Mr. Billak told me that he could double (from 50 to 100) the number of persons on electronic monitoring without additional funds. Defendants under this form of community control pay $5.00 per month to the Community Corrections Association. This income would be sufficient to pay the salary of one additional employee, which is the only increased cost Mr. Billak anticipates.5 Second, Mr. Billak indicated a willingness to approach the ODRC with a proposal to convert the former minimum security jail in Youngstown to a community corrections facility. This conversion would add 96 beds to the community corrections inventory in Mahoning County. According to Mr. Billak, the annual cost of operation would be approximately $1,500,000. Third, I raised with Mr. Billak the absence of any RORprogram in Mahoning County. Mr. Billak told me of earlier unsuccessful efforts to develop and implement such a program. Whatever the obstacles may have been, Mahoning County is out of step with
5 During my telephone conference with the County Court judges, one mentioned that the equipment currently used for the electronic monitoring program is inadequate and would not accommodate any expansion of the program. This is an issue (like many other inconsistencies I have heard in meetings with various county officials) that must be explored and addressed.
17

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 132 Filed 08/10/2005 Page 18 of 21
other counties, such as Lucas County, that rely heavily on an ROR program to limit the number of persons incarcerated in the county jail.
In summary, community corrections must be a part of any solution to the jail crowding problem in Mahoning County. Mr. Billak’s willingness and interest, as well as the participation of the Mahoning County Community Corrections Board, provide yet another piece of a mechanism needed to address the problem of jail crowding as well as the underlying systemic problems leading to population pressures.
K. Follow-Up -- Discussions with Counsel and Other County Officials I have met frequently with private counsel in this case. In addition to attending the formal meetings discussed earlier in this report, counsel and I have met by telephone on a regular (often weekly) basis. Without question, counsel for all parties are cooperating with each other and with the special master in an effort to develop a process for to solve the problems addressed in the Court’s memorandum opinion. In addition to remaining in frequent contact with counsel in this case, I have had a number of opportunities to speak with Commissioner John McNally and First Assistant Civil Prosecutor Linette Stratford. Both agree that the problems that led to this litigation are not amenable to a piecemeal solution. In particular, the county officials agree that focusing exclusively on getting funds into the jail budget to the exclusion of all other steps necessary to address underlying, systemic problems on the criminal justice system in the county will be ineffective, transitory, and wasteful. Commissioner McNally and Ms. Stratford have been supportive of my suggestion that only Mahoning County officials themselves can develop the solution to the complex criminal justice problems the county faces at this time. Beyond conducting the docket
18

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 132 Filed 08/10/2005 Page 19 of 21
efficiency study and continuing to offer my services as a mediator and facilitator, there is little if anything any special master can do to find and, more important, implement solutions.
When I first met with counsel and others about this case, I was told that this lawsuit is about money and nothing else. That is not the case. Money is an issue, but so are divergent political interests and differences of opinions on matters of public policy. Neither the Court nor the special master can provide the needed funds, let alone dictate the political and policy priorities, that must be part of any lasting solution. II. A Proposal for Action
As this report makes clear, I have concluded that any effort to define the problems in the criminal justice system in Mahoning County as relating solely to jail crowding will miss the point and be counterproductive. Rather, I believe that the problems at the jail are the end result of a dysfunctional criminal justice system in which the critical components tend to operate in a vacuum, unrelated to the needs and problems of other elements of the system. There is no ready means of electronic communication between the jail and the courts, and there is a perception at least that each unit of the criminal justice system operates independently without concern for that system’s other components.
I do not recommend that the Court seek the empanelling of a three-judge federal court at this time. So long as Mahoning County officials are able to achieve and maintain a cap of 296 prisoners in the Mahoning County Justice system, there is no need for additional federal relief on the subject of crowding. Overages at this time, though they are troublesome and cannot be allowed to increase to their June and July high points, are
19

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 132 Filed 08/10/2005 Page 20 of 21
not in my opinion sufficiently serious to warrant such extreme action; moreover, I am
optimistic that the recent actions of the Sheriff and the police chiefs to develop a step-14
category for release and the efforts of others with whom I have spoken to reduce delays
in releasing prisoners from the jail will have a positive impact on this problem.
Recommendations
1. A written remedial plan6 to accomplish a long-term systemic solution to the problems of overcrowding in the Mahoning County Jail offers the best opportunity for a long-range solution to the problems addressed in your opinion filed on March 10, 2005. To that end, I suggest that the Mahoning County officials, with the Court’s urging, form a group to convene regularly to identify problems at all levels of the County’s criminal justice system and to propose or implement solutions to those problems. I recommend that the membership of this working group include the following:
a. a representative of Mahoning County Common Pleas Court; b. a representative from the Youngstown Municipal Court; c. a representative of the County Courts located in Mahoning County; d. the court administrator from each of these courts; e. one of the members of the Mahoning County Board of
Commissioners; f. the Mahoning County Prosecuting Attorney; g. the Mahoning County Sheriff; h. a representative from the Mahoning County Sheriff’s Department,
to be designated by the Mahoning County Sheriff, with responsibilities for daily operation of the jail; i. a representative from each of the police departments of Youngstown, Boardman, and Austintown; j. the Chief Executive Officer of the Community Corrections Association; and k. the Mahoning County Auditor or his or her designee.
I further recommend that the working group, operating under whatever name it chooses, meet at the call of the chairperson (a person to be selected by the above membership), with the goal of proposing a remedial plan by the end of the calendar year, with interim reports to be filed by October 1, 2005 and November 15, 2005.
6 It seems appropriate for Mahoning County to look for funding sources to assist in developing an integrated criminal justice information system. Stark County, similar in size to Mahoning County, has such a program.
20

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 132 Filed 08/10/2005 Page 21 of 21
2. I recommend that I be given the responsibility to evaluate, and advise the Court with respect to, the remedial plans proposed by the working group.
3. I recommend that I be given the authority and the funding to conduct a docket efficiency study as earlier discussed in this report.7
4. I recommend that the Court request the Prosecuting Attorney of Mahoning County, the Mahoning County Sheriff, and the Chiefs of the three police departments to give high priority to the proposed step-14 plan. Respectfully submitted, /s Vincent M. Nathan Vincent M. Nathan
7 The Court should authorize and direct the special master to conduct the docket efficiency study discussed earlier in this report. The special master proposes to employ Eric Lambert, Ph.D., the Chairman of the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Toledo, and Kasey Tucker, Ph.D., an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice in that department, to conduct the study and prepare a report of findings. The special master further recommends that the costs of this study be treated as costs of the special master to be reimbursed from funds to which the Court has access to support the mastership. The special master recommends that Dr. Lambert be compensated at the rate of $60.00 per hour and that Dr. Tucker be compensated at the rate of $40.00 per hour, plus reasonable out-of-pocket expenses, for their participation in this study. Finally, with respect to this matter, the special master recommends that the Court direct Dr. Lambert and Dr. Tucker to prepare a proposed budget for this project, which the special master will file within 30 days following the Court’s approval of this recommendation.
21

 
 Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 140-1 Filed 09/23/2005 Page 1 of 19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Nathaniel Roberts, et al.,

*

*

Plaintiffs,

*

*

v.

*

*

County of Mahoning, Ohio,

*

*

Defendants.

*

______________________________*

CASE NO. 4:03 CV 2329
SPECIAL MASTER’S FIFTH REPORT -- LENGTH OF STAY AT THE MAHONING COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER

Data Source and Coding On August 10, 2005, Vincent Nathan, the Special Master in Roberts v. County of
Mahoning, initiated a telephone conference with Eric Lambert, Ph.D., Kasey A. Tucker, Ph.D., and Alki Santamas, the Administrator of the Mahoning County Justice Center (the Mahoning County jail or “jail”). Dr. Lambert is the Chairman of the Department of Criminal Justice at The University of Toledo and Dr. Tucker is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice in that Department. The purpose of the telephone conference was to determine how best to obtain information concerning all bookings into the jail during the year 2003. That year was selected because it was the most recent completed year that would not be significantly impacted by the early release mechanism that came into effect in early April 2005.
1

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 140-1 Filed 09/23/2005 Page 2 of 19
On or about August 12, 2005, jail officials working under Mr. Santamas’ direction provided what they believed were booking sheets for all inmates booked into the jail in 2003. In fact, after entering the data, the authors of this report discovered that the representatives of the company that provided the software for the jail’s computerized records system had inadvertently included all persons who had spent any time in the jail in 2003, regardless of the year in which they were booked. This information was an inappropriate basis for a scientific sample. Upon discovery of this error, the special master and Dr. Lambert spoke again with Mr. Santamas and arranged for a conference call with jail officials and representatives of the jail’s software vendor’s company. These representatives, as well as Mr. Santamas and his staff, cooperated fully with the special master’s request for new data and were able to produce a revised data file, which they e-mailed to Mr. Nathan and Dr. Lambert on approximately August 30, 2005.
This data file contained information for all individuals booked into the jail in 2003, including the following: a unique booking number, the name of the individual, a jail identification number, information regarding gender, race, date of birth, age at the time of booking, release date, incomplete information about the type of release (when available), the highest charge code, and a brief description of the highest charge. The data file was imported into a statistical analysis program entitled SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). An initial review of these data after their entry into SPSS determined that there were a number of cases that had been entered by mistake.1 Those cases were identified and removed from the data file so that an accurate analysis could be preformed. After removing these cases, there were 8,408
1 “Case” refers to each individual represented in the data file by his or her unique booking number.
2

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 140-1 Filed 09/23/2005 Page 3 of 19
unique cases remaining. That is, 8,408 individuals were booked in the jail during 2003. The revised data were reviewed and then cleaned. Cleaning the data is an important step
in the analysis process, as it identifies errors in the entry of data, including typographical errors and missing information. The booking dates were checked again to ensure that all of the cases represented individuals booked into the jail in 2003. It was determined that all of the dates ranged from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2003, the year and target population of the current study. Cory Nafziger, the Special Master’s graduate assistant, contacted jail personnel for those cases identified in the cleaning process as missing information on gender, race, charge number, information on charge, or release date. The requested information was provided and entered into the data file. In a few cases an individual who was booked in the jail during 2003 was still in the jail at the time of the data check on September 8, 2005. For those ten individuals who were still in the jail at that time the release date of September 8, 2005 was selected. This date was selected because it was the date the data were cleaned and an end date was required for data analysis purposes. Without release dates, the SPSS statistical program would have treated these ten cases as having missing values and would have excluded them from the analyses.
A numerical variable representing gender was created where females were coded as 0 and males were coded as 1. This is typically done for dichotomous measures (or data classified into two distinct categories) for use in a statistical analysis. In addition, a numerical variable was created to represent the race of the person where 1 = Black, 2 = Hispanic, 3 = White, and 4 = Other. For multi-variate analysis (where there were several different classifications or categories), the numerical measure was further collapsed (or broken down further into two categories) where 0 = Nonwhite and 1 = White. Age at the time of booking was left in its original
3

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 140-1 Filed 09/23/2005 Page 4 of 19
metric of continuous years. Based upon the highest charge code, a numerical variable was created to measure if the highest charge was a felony (coded 1), a misdemeanor (coded 2), or other (coded 0). Specifically, contempt of court, material witness, other municipality charge, other state charge, and local ordinances were coded as other. According to Mr. Santamas, all Aother federal charge” cases were felonies, and, as such, were coded as a felony (2).2 A numerical measure was created to indicate whether the highest charge was violent (coded as 1), non-violent (coded as 0), or unknown (coded as 3). Examples of highest charges coded as violent were aggravated assault, assault, domestic violence, and rape. Examples of highest charges coded as non-violent were driving under suspension, theft, petty theft, no operator’s license, and drug paraphernalia. Examples of highest charges coded as unknown were parole violation, probation violation, other state charge, “other federal charge,” and endangering children. Finally, length of stay at the jail in days was created by subtracting the booking date from the release date to allow for assessment by days, of each individual’s time spent in the jail in 2003.
Limitations Imposed by Data Provided by Jail Officials The data described above permitted analysis of the average length of stay broken down
into several categories: felony charge/misdemeanor charge; violent charge vs. non-violent charge; race; gender; and age. These analyses will be useful to planners attempting to identify categories of charges and prisoners who consume high numbers of days in the jail (at an
2 Although the jail housed federal inmates in 2003, it does not have a contract to house such inmates at this time.
4

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 140-1 Filed 09/23/2005 Page 5 of 19
approximate cost of $68 per day) and to determine whether some of these categories suggest practices that are leading to the inefficient use of the limited number of beds in the jail.
Data maintained by the jail, however, are not sufficient to permit analysis of the specific sources of inefficient use of jail beds. What is required for this more detailed analysis is information regarding date of arraignment, date of conviction or acquittal, length of sentence, if any, to the jail or to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction (ODRC), date of receipt by the Clerk of Court of sentencing information from the sentencing court, date of transmission to jail staff of a warrant for transportation to the ODRC, date of actual transfer from the jail, and date of other releases based on bond, acquittal, conviction, or other reason.
During their initial trip to Youngstown to identify the scope of available data, Mr. Nathan and Dr. Tucker learned of the limitations on the data maintained in the jail. Discussions with the court administrators for the Court of Common Pleas and the Youngstown Municipal Court indicated that much, and perhaps all, of the data needed for a more detailed study might be retrievable from data files maintained by the clerks’ offices. In particular, the data files maintained in the office of the Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas appeared to be complete and retrievable from Toledo. Because of several issues with the data source (e.g., a change of computer programs and other problems), the data required regarding misdemeanor defendants, while probably available and retrievable, would require a time-consuming and difficult retrieval effort in Youngstown.
Given the deadlines proposed by the special master in his Fourth Report for interim and final reports by the recommended Criminal Justice Taskforce, it became clear that it would be impossible to produce the more detailed report of docket efficiency in time for that report to be
5

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 140-1 Filed 09/23/2005 Page 6 of 19
useful to the task force in preparing its interim progress report by October 1, 2005.3 As a result, the special master informally recommended to the court that the docket evaluation project be divided into phases. The first, represented by the current report, could be produced relatively quickly and would offer some assistance to the task force; the next, if approved by the Court, will require more time and will be produced as quickly as possible after the completion of the current report. It is the special master’s intention to make the next report available to the task force and the Court in time to affect final decisions concerning the defendants’ final proposed remedial plan.
Descriptive Statistics Basic descriptive statistics (examples of descriptive statistics include an average [mean]
or percentage) were computed for the measures and the results are presented in Table 1 (see the Appendix for all tables). In terms of gender, 80% of those booked into the jail in 2003 were men and 20% were women. In one case the gender of the person was unknown. In terms of the race of those booked into the jail in 2003, 49% were Black, 2% were Hispanic, 48% were White, 0.2% were other, and 0.2% were unknown. The arithmetic mean age was 32.66, with a low standard deviation of 15.16. The median age was 31 and ranged from 16 to 81 years old.4 In terms of
3 There being no substantive objection by any party to the special master’s recommendations in his Fourth Report, the Court confirmed that report and adopted the special master’s recommendations by order of September 14, 2005.
4 The arithmetic mean is calculated by summing up all the values of the cases for the variable and dividing by the total number of cases. For example, in this study, the age of each person was added together and divided by the total number of cases with an age reported. The arithmetic means is commonly referred to as the average.
The standard deviation was calculated as well. The standard deviation represents the average spread of values/scores of the cases around the mean. The standard deviation is used to tell how accurate the mean is as the
6

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 140-1 Filed 09/23/2005 Page 7 of 19
level of the highest charge, 45% of the cases were booked on a highest charge of felony, 49% for a misdemeanor, and 6% for other type of charge. The frequency (or number of cases) of the highest charge for all the cases is presented in Table 2. The most frequent types of highest charge for those booked into the jail during 2003 were drug paraphernalia (180 cases), “other municipality charge” (181 cases), failure to appear - bail (189 cases), domestic violence (197 cases), assault (222 cases), receiving stolen property (223 cases), contempt of court (287 cases), probation violation (329 cases), “other federal charge” (449 cases), domestic violence (injury involved) (468 cases), theft (477 cases), driving under the influence (525 cases), and driving under suspension (844 cases).
With respect to violent versus non-violent crimes, 70% of those booked in the jail during 2003 had a highest charge that was coded as non-violent, 16% had a highest charge that was coded as violent, and 14% were coded as unknown. Finally, the average length of stay is presented in Tables 3a and 3b (Table 3a is the raw frequency distribution and Table 3b is an interval distribution of the data). The mean length of stay was 30.15 days, with a standard deviation 68.73, while the median length of stay by individuals booked into the jail in 2003 was 4 days. The minimum number of days spent in the jail by inmates booked in 2003 was 0 days and the maximum number of days spent in the jail by individuals booked in 2003 was 905 days.
typical value for all the cases on a particular measure. The smaller the standard deviation is as compared to the mean, the more tightly packed the cases are around the mean. This implies that the mean is a good representative single value for the data. The larger the standard deviation value is as compared to the mean value means that the scores are more spread out from the mean. This implies that the mean may not be a good representative single value for the data and maybe influenced by extreme scores/values.
The median represents the 50th percentile where half of the case values fall below the median value and the other half of the case values fall above the median value. The median value is often used because it is not influenced by extreme values or outliers. The mean, however, is often influenced by extreme values. The median is often compared to the mean to see if extreme values have influenced the mean.
7

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 140-1 Filed 09/23/2005 Page 8 of 19
About 19% of the individuals spent zero days in the jail (i.e., were booked and released from the jail in the same day). Forty-seven percent of all the cases spent three or less days in the jail. Only 8.5% of all the cases spent 100 or more days in the jail. Almost 60 cases spent more than a year (i.e., 366 or more days) in the jail. As previously indicated, ten individuals booked into the jail sometime in 2003 were still in the jail on September 8, 2005 when the final data set was created.
Further Analysis of Length of Stay The mean length of stay broken down by gender is presented in Table 4. The typical
female defendant spent almost 17 days in jail, while the typical male spent about 33 days. It is important to remember that the vast majority of individuals booked in the jail were men (80%) and the seriousness of the charge was not controlled for in this analysis. The mean length of stay was broken down by race, and the results are presented in Table 5. Black individuals spent on average 37 days in the jail. Hispanic individuals spent approximately 35 days in the jail. White individuals spend about 23 days in the jail. Those of another race spent about 18 days in the jail, and those whose race was unknown spent on average 17 days in the jail. The mean length of stay was further calculated using the collapsed measure of race (i.e., whether the individual was White or Nonwhite), and the results are presented in Table 6. On average, Nonwhite individuals spent 36 days in the jail, while White individuals stayed in the jail for 23 days. It is important to note that the breakdown of the mean length of stay in the jail for each measure of race did not control for the type of highest charge. The mean length of stay broken down by age is presented in Tables 7a and 7b. There appeared to be no discernable relationship between length of stay and age, except that the three individuals under 18 spent a long time in the jail. Specifically, one 16-
8

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 140-1 Filed 09/23/2005 Page 9 of 19
year old defendant charged with murder spent 639 days in jail. A 17-year old defendant charged with rape spent 270 days in jail. Finally, a 17-year old defendant who was charged with carrying a concealed weapon spent 323 days in jail.
The length of stay in the jail was broken down by the level of the highest charge. The results are reported in Table 8. Those who were charged with an “other offense” spent on average 12 days in the jail. Those charged with a misdemeanor spent an average of 21 days in the jail. Those charged with a felony spent about 43 days in the jail. It appears that those charged with a misdemeanor are spending almost half as long as those charged with a felony. As previously indicated, it is important to note that what is not known is the pre-conviction length of stay for misdemeanors versus the post-conviction length of stay (if any). As explained above, this information was not available in the current data set. Based on discussions with the Administrative Judge of the Youngstown Municipal Court, however, the special master concluded that it is likely that the length of stay for misdemeanors is so long because most of the misdemeanor cases in 2003 were serving a sentence rather than being in pre-trial status. Based on discussions with a wide range of county officials, Mr. Nathan has concluded that most of the felony cases held in the jail in 2003 were in pre-trial detention status and most misdemeanor cases were serving a sentence.
The length of stay also was broken down by the highest charge; in addition, violent crimes were distinguished from non-violent offenses. The results are presented in Table 9. Those cases coded as unknown spent an average of 38 days in the jail in 2003. Among the unknown cases, those spending the longest time in the jail tended to be those charged with a Afederal offense.” There were more than 60 cases in which a person charged with the a “federal offense”
9

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 140-1 Filed 09/23/2005 Page 10 of 19
spent more than a 100 days in the jail. Those coded as being charged with a non-violent crime spent about 25 days in the jail, and those who were charged with a violent crime spent on average 44 days in the jail. In other words, individuals charged with a non-violent offense spent about 56% as many days in the jail as those individuals charged with a violent offense. It appears that those with a highest charge for a non-violent crime are spending substantial time in the jail. Among those coded for a non-violent highest charge, the length of stay in pre-trial status and length of stay in the jail for serving a sentence are unknown.
Further Analysis of Average Stay For Highest Charged Offense The mean length of stay, the median length of stay, and the minimum and maximum
length of stay by offense for 2003 are presented in Table 10. As previously indicated and presented in Table 2, the most frequent type of highest charges for those booked into the jail during 2003 were the following: drug paraphernalia (180 cases), “other municipality charge” (181 cases), failure to appear - bail (189 cases), domestic violence (197 cases), assault (222 cases), receiving stolen property (223 cases), contempt of court (287 cases), probation violation (329 cases), “other federal charge” (449 cases), domestic violence (injury involved) (468 cases), theft (477 cases), driving under the influence (525 cases), and driving under suspension (844 cases).
The average length of stay for individuals charged with drug paraphernalia was about 21 days, and ranged from 0 to 278 days. Sheriff Randall Wellington informed the special master that the per-day prisoner cost at the Mahoning County Justice Center in 2003 was approximately $68
10

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 140-1 Filed 09/23/2005 Page 11 of 19
a day.5 Thus, in addition to exacerbating crowding, lengthy stays in the jail were very costly. For example, it cost about $1,400 to keep the typical person charged with drug paraphernalia in jail. (Again, we note that the average length of stay for this and all the offenses listed in Table 10 includes the length of time on pre-trial status and any sentenced stay.) It cost approximately $18,900 to house the one individual charged for drug paraphernalia who was held in the jail for 278 days. The average length of stay for those charged with “other municipality charge” was 10 days and ranged from 0 to 185 days. Thus, it cost about $680 to house the average person charged with other municipality charge, and it cost about $12,500 to house the defendant who was held 185 days. The average length of stay for those persons charged with Afailure to appear – bail” was 17 days and ranged from 0 to 269 days. Thus, it cost about $1,100 to house a person for 17 days, and it cost about $18,000 to hold the one person for 269 days. The average length of stay for domestic violence cases was 26 days and ranged from 0 to 260 days. The average cost was about $1,800, and for the maximum stay it cost almost $18,000. The average length of stay for assault cases was 30 days and ranged from 0 to 396. It cost about $2,000 to house a person for the average length of stay of 30 days and almost $27,000 to house the one person for 396 days.
Those charged with receiving stolen property spent on average 39 days in the jail in 2003, and the length of stay ranged from 0 to 410 days. The cost for 39 days was approximately $2,600 and the cost for 410 days was about $28,000. The typical person charged with contempt of court stayed about 13 days, and the length of stay ranged from 0 to 412 days. It cost about $2,600 to hold the typical person charged with contempt of court; it cost approximately $28,000 to hold the
5 As of the date of this report this figure had not been recalculated.
11

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 140-1 Filed 09/23/2005 Page 12 of 19
one person for 412 days. The average length of stay for those individuals charged with probation violation was 38 days and ranged from 0 to 905 days. Thus, it cost about $2,600 to house a person for 38 days, and it cost about $61,000 to house the one person for 905 days. The typical defendant charged with driving under the influence spent 11 days in the jail, and the length of stay ranged from 0 to 180 days. For 11 days, it cost about $750 to house a person, and it cost approximately $12,200 to house a person for 180 days.
The average length of stay in 2003 for those charged with domestic violence (injury involved) was 17 days and ranged from 0 to 400 days. Thus, the cost to house a person in the jail for 17 days was about $1,200 and the cost for 400 days was approximately $27,000. The typical person charged with theft spent on average 31 days, and the length of stay ranged from 0 to 524 days. It cost about $2,100 for the average stay of 31 days for theft, and it cost about $35,600 to house a person for 524 days. Finally, those individuals charged with driving under suspension spent on average 20 days in the jail, and the length of stay ranged from 0 to 779 days. The cost for a 20-day stay is about $1,400, and the cost for a 779-day stay is approximately $53,000.
More In-Depth Analysis of Length of Stay The length of stay was calculated for the various types of charges by whether they were
non-violent, violent, or unknown. The results are presented in Table 11. The average length of stay for all non-violent other charges was 12 days. The mean length of stay for non-violent misdemeanor was 18 days and the average length of stay for non-violent felony was 37 days. No “other” cases were coded as violent other charges. Violent misdemeanor cases spent on average 19 days. The mean length of stay for cases with violent felony charges was 68 days. Those with
12

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 140-1 Filed 09/23/2005 Page 13 of 19
an unknown other charge spent an average of 2 days in the jail. The mean length of stay for unknown misdemeanor charges was 38 days. Finally, the average length of stay for unknown felony cases was 39 days.
There is only a difference of one day separating the mean stays of non-violent and violent misdemeanor cases. There were 2,993 cases that were classified as non-violent misdemeanors. Based on the mean length of stay of 18 days, it cost an average of $1,200 to house a non-violent misdemeanor defendant, and it cost about $28,000 to keep the one non-violent misdemeanor person in the jail for 412 days. Combined, the 2,993 non-violent misdemeanor defendants spent a total of 54,472 days in the jail. This translates to a total cost of about $3,704,000.
There were 479 cases classified as non-violent “other” charge. To house a defendant charged with a non-violent other charge for the average length of stay (12 days) it cost about $800. The cost for holding the one non-violent “other” charge person for 412 days was $28,000. A total of 5,657 days in jail were spent by all the non-violent other charge defendants. The total cost was approximately $384,000.
There were 666 violent misdemeanor cases. It cost about approximately $1,300 to house a person for the average length of stay of 19 days, and it cost about $27,000 to keep the one defendant who was held for 400 days. When summed together, all the violent misdemeanors spent a total of 12,960 days in the jail, with a total cost of $881,000.
There were 698 cases which were classified as “felony unknown” charge. It cost about $2,600 to hold a “felony unknown” charge defendant for the average length of stay of 39 days, and the cost was approximately $37,600 to have held the one person for 554 days. All the “felony unknown” charge cases spent a combined total of 27,369 days in the jail, which cost the county
13

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 140-1 Filed 09/23/2005 Page 14 of 19
approximately $1,861,000. A total of 2,416 non-violent felony cases were housed in the jail. It cost about $2,500 to
hold the typical non-violent felony case for the average length of stay of 37 days, and it cost approximately $53,000 to hold the one defendant for 785 days. When summed together, nonviolent felony cases spent a total of 89,416 days in the jail, which cost about $6,080,000.
Finally, it cost about $4,600 to have held a defendant classified as a violent felon for the average length of stay of 68 days. The cost was $58,000 for holding the one person for 854 days. There were 674 individuals classified as violent felony cases. All the violent felony cases spent a total of 45,596 days in the jail. The total cost was slightly more than $3,100,000.
Multi-Variate Analysis To see the impact of variables on length of stay, while controlling for the shared effects,
Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression was computed. OLS regression allows for the direct effect of an independent variable to be calculated while holding constant the effects of the other independent variables. The dependent variable was length of stay in days. The independent variables were gender, race, age, level of charge, and if the charge was for a violent offense. Gender was coded as 0 = females and 1 = males. Race was coded as 0 = Nonwhite and 1 = White. Age was measured in continuous years. Level of charge was recoded so that 0 = misdemeanor and 1 = felony. A charge was coded as 0 = non-violent and 1 = violent. The results of the OLS regression equation are presented in Table 12. All the independent variables, but one (i.e., age), had a statistically significant effect on length of stay. Men, even when controlling for the other independent variables, spent on average longer in the jail than did women. Nonwhite
14

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 140-1 Filed 09/23/2005 Page 15 of 19
individuals also had longer stays in the jail than did white individuals. Age did not have a statistically significant effect on length of stay. Those charged with a felony spent longer in jail than those charged with a misdemeanor. Finally, those charged with a violent crime spent longer in jail than those charged with a non-violent crime.
Based upon the standardized regression coefficient (i.e., the numbers reported in the ß column in Table 12, level of charge (i.e., misdemeanor or felony) had the greatest magnitude of effect on length, when controlling for the other variables of gender, race, age, and the nature of the offense (violent vs. non-violent). It is no surprise that felony cases stay longer in the jail. The fact that the violent nature of the offense did not have as great an effect as expected was an interesting finding. Gender and race had slightly larger sized effects than the variable representing the violent or non-violent nature of the highest charge. The finding that race was related to the length of stay in the jail, even when controlling for gender, age, level of charge, and if the highest charge was for a violent or non-violent offense, is probably related to the release mechanism (posting of bail) typically used to release pre-trial offenders.
Conclusions Although many conclusions can be reached from the results of this study, we feel that
there are three primary conclusions the reader should note. First, it appears that there is an overuse of jail beds for misdemeanor cases, particularly
for non-violent misdemeanor cases. It is expensive to keep people incarcerated in the jail. According to conversations that Mr. Nathan has had with various county and municipal officials, many of the misdemeanor cases were housed in the jail serving a sentence. It would be more
15

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 140-1 Filed 09/23/2005 Page 16 of 19
financially efficient use of other sanctions, particularly community-based resources for these offenders. In general, community-based correctional resources tend to cost less than the cost of incarceration in a jail. Examples of more cost-effective community-based sanctions are probation, community service, seizure of property, evening reporting centers, half-way houses, work-release facilities, open/minimum security facilities, local treatment facilities and service, and home confinement with or without electronic monitoring. Based on information collected by Mr. Nathan, it does not appear that community-based correctional resources are being used as frequently as they should be to minimize unnecessary expense and crowding.
The second conclusion is that a warning system should be put in place so action can be taken when a person has spent an exceptionally lengthy period of incarceration in the jail. While not the majority, there are many cases that have spent more than 100 days in the jail. Given the fact that 100 days of incarceration costs $6,800, a system that notifies appropriate county officials of prisoners who exceed the selected length of stay in the jail could help reduce crowding and save substantial dollars. Pre-trial prisoners could be reconsidered for release on lower bail or transferred to a less expensive community setting, and convicted misdemeanants could be reviewed for shock probation or other forms of release. Such a system should be used to track both violent and non-violent misdemeanor and felony cases. Automatic review of such cases (the presumptive review point being a matter to be established by the Criminal Justice Taskforce) could result in substantial savings in terms of use of jail beds and money. Allowing defendants to remain in the jail for unnecessary extended periods of time wastes valuable resources. The development of an inter-agency information system like that in Stark County would make implementation of such an automatic notice and review relatively simple.
16

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 140-1 Filed 09/23/2005 Page 17 of 19
The third conclusion is that the criminal justice system should rely more heavily on release methods other than cash or property bail to allow release from the jail. Information relayed to Mr. Nathan indicates that there is little use of alternative pre-trial release methods in felony cases such as release on recognizance (ROR) in Mahoning County.6 Using still other forms of pre-trial release, such as pre-trial diversion, evening reporting centers, and house arrest with or without electronic monitoring are all effective pre-trial release mechanisms. Heavy reliance on monetary or property bond makes it more difficult for lower socioeconomic individuals to gain pre-trial release from a jail. As pointed out in the section of the multi-variate findings, this means a greater number of Nonwhite individuals will not be able to obtain release by posting bail, which means that they will remain in jail longer than their white counterparts. In the end, using other pre-trial release methods will save money, have a positive effect on crowding in the jail, and reduce the impact of structural disadvantages related to poverty and race.
Recommendations for Further Study The special master recommends that the court authorize further study of the efficiency of
the criminal justice system in Mahoning County. As has been noted, this study has limitations. The major limitation is that it is not possible to determine from jail records the length of stay during pre-trial and sentenced status for a random sample of inmates. As a result, the data were insufficient to support a comprehensive analysis of prisoners’ length of stays in each of these
6 For example, information obtained by Mr. Nathan from Community Corrections Association, Inc. indicates that only 16 felons were released to home confinement without bond during the 2003/2004 year. Of these, Common Pleas Court judges released 11, Municipal Court judges released 4, and a County Court judge released 1.
17

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 140-1 Filed 09/23/2005 Page 18 of 19
statuses. The incomplete information the jail was able to supply, however, contained examples of astonishingly long pre-trial incarcerations in the jail. For example, one prisoner entered the jail on March 18, 2003 charged with probation violation, rape, and gross sexual imposition. He remained in the jail as of September 22, 2005, the date this report was written. He was awaiting a suppression hearing that the court had reset from August 15 to October 25, 2005.7
Closely related to the issue of length of stay by pre-trial and sentenced inmates is the issue of the type of release by posting bond, completing a sentence, or acquittal. What is required for this more detailed analysis is information regarding the date of arraignment, the date of conviction or acquittal, the length of sentence, if any, to the jail or to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction, the date of receipt by the Clerk of Court of sentencing information from the sentencing court, the date of transmission to jail staff of a warrant for transportation to the ODRC, the date of actual transfer from the jail, and the date of other releases based on bond, acquittal, conviction, or other reason.
The special master recommends that the Court authorize a supplemental report that will identify the length of stay in the jail by pre-trial and sentenced felons, as well as the types of release that occur in felony cases. The special master is suggesting that this study be limited to persons charged with felonies for two reasons. First, he believes that information on which the instant report is based demonstrates that days spent in jail by misdemeanants are substantially weighted in favor of days spent serving a sentence rather than days awaiting trial. Second, earlier discussions with the Court Administrator of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas have indicated that case information for misdemeanants will be difficult to extract from the
7 http://courts.mahoningcountyoh.gov/ (Case No. 2003 CR 401)
18

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 140-1 Filed 09/23/2005 Page 19 of 19
computerized files in the clerk’s office; it appears, however, that the information needed for a study of persons charged with a felony is readily available and easily retrievable from the officer of the Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas directly by computer in Toledo. Thus, if limited to felony cases, the supplemental report the special master is recommending can be available much more quickly (and at less expense) than a broader report addressing length of stay by misdemeanant as well as felony cases.
This supplemental study and report will be a highly useful tool to county officials for future planning. Indeed, the proposed study should be a regular and routine part of the planning process in connection with the operation of the Mahoning County Criminal Justice system.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Eric G. Lambert Eric G. Lambert, Ph.D. Associate Professor and Chair Department of Criminal Justice The University of Toledo /s/ Kasey Tucker Kasey Tucker, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Criminal Justice The University of Toledo /s/ Vincent M. Nathan Vincent M. Nathan Special Master
19

 
 Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 148-1 Filed 10/12/2005 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Nathaniel Roberts, et al.,

*

*

Plaintiffs,

*

*

vs.

*

*

County of Mahoning Ohio, et al., *

*

Defendants.

*

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -*

CASE NO. 4:03 CV 2329 Sixth Report of the Special Master-Report on Days Elapsed Between Sentencing of Felons and Transportation to Prison

Introduction On September 26, 2005, the Court directed the special master in this cause to prepare a report concerning the number of days elapsing between the following dates and events as they affected felony defendants: (a) the date of sentencing; (b) the date of the issuance of a warrant to convey to the Sheriff by the Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas; and (c) the date of actual transport of the prisoner from the jail to prison.1 The Court directed that all prisoners sentenced to prison on or after June 1, 2005 be included in the study and that all such individuals be incarcerated in the Mahoning County Justice Center (“jail”) at the time of their sentencing. Methodology The special master assigned primary responsibility for gathering, entering, and analyzing date for this report to Cory L. Nafziger, the special master’s graduate assistant.

1 A “warrant to convey” is an order directing the Sheriff to transport the convicted defendant to a prison facility operated by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 148-1 Filed 10/12/2005 Page 2 of 6
Mr. Nafziger contacted Alki Santamas, the jail administrator, and obtained the following information with respect to 103 inmates Mr. Santamas concluded met the criteria the Court established for the study: name, gender, date of birth, social security number, charge code, charge, case number, arrest date, date of conveyance of the warrant to convey by the Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas to the Sheriff, the date the Sheriff received the warrant to convey, and the date of the prisoner’s transport to prison. According to Mr. Santamas, all of the prisoners for whom information was provided were housed in the jail at the time of their sentencing. The first eight items of information were intended to be descriptive and to assist in the identification of the individual on the docket maintained by the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas on its website at http://courts.mahoningcountyoh.gov. The remaining items were directly relevant to the substance of the report.
The list Mr. Santamas provided contained the names of 103 prisoners. Of this number, two were not in jail at the time of their sentencing and surrendered after their date of sentencing.2 As a result, Mr. Nafziger excluded these prisoners from the data base, reducing that base 101. In addition, Mr. Nafziger identified 13 inmates who were sentenced on the same dates on multiple charges and transported to prison on one date following the issuance of a warrant to transport. Mr. Nafziger collapsed these multiple charges and sentences into single events, thus reducing the data base to 88. There were two prisoners for whom Mr. Nafziger could not obtain a sentencing date from any file on the Court of Common Pleas’ website, and he excluded these prisoners from the data base, reducing the base to 86. Finally, the list from the jail contained the names of 11 inmates who were sentenced before June 1, 2005, and Mr. Nafziger excluded these inmates from
2 Jail officials refer to these prisoners as “walk-ons.”
2

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 148-1 Filed 10/12/2005 Page 3 of 6
the data base. As a result of these deletions, the data base ultimately contained the names of 75 prisoners.
In order to obtain a date of sentencing Mr. Nafziger entered the prisoners’ case number into the database on the website cited above. In a number of cases the date of sentencing did not appear on the “docket” section on the website. All sentencing dates, however, were available in another section (“events”). Mr. Nafziger learned from Court Administrator Robert Rupeka that the courtroom bailiff entered the sentencing dates in the “events” section and this date was several days earlier than the date entered in the “docket” section by a deputy clerk. Mr. Rupeka recommended, and Mr. Nafziger and the special master agreed, that all dates should be drawn from a single source, which – of necessity – was the “events” section on the website.
All data, as amended, were entered into an Excel© file. See Exhibit, below.3 Using this database, Mr. Nafziger was able to compute the days elapsing between the date of sentence and the clerk’s issuance of a warrant to convey, the days elapsing between the clerk’s issuance of a warrant to convey, and the date of the prisoner’s actual transport to prison. These calculations, in turn, also permitted Mr. Nafziger to measure the time elapsed between the date of sentencing and the date of transport to prison.
Findings Mr. Nafziger’s analysis of the final data base permitted him to make findings regarding the length of time elapsing between the critical events of sentencing, issuance
3 The exhibit does not contain all information in the original data base. Some data useful only for identifying an inmate on the docket (date of birth, social security number, ORC charge number, and arrest date) has been omitted. Should the Court or any party wish to review any of the deleted information, the special master will provide it.
3

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 148-1 Filed 10/12/2005 Page 4 of 6 of a warrant to transport, and transportation of the inmate to prison. The following charts set forth those findings:
4

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 148-1 Filed 10/12/2005 Page 5 of 6

Table 1 Days Elapsing Between Sentencing and Issuance of a Warrant to Convey

Total Days 693

Mean (average) 9.24

Median 7.00

Range 0-54

Table 2 Days Elapsing Between Issuance of a Warrant to Convey and Transport to Prison

Total Days

Mean (average)

Median

Range

439

5.85

5.00

0-88

Table 3

Days Elapsing Between Sentencing and Transport to Prison

Total Days 1132

Mean (average) 15.09

Median 13.00

Range 1-102

Conclusions Table 1 reflects that a total of 693 days elapsed between the sentencing and the
issuance of a warrant to transport for the 75 prisoners in the refined data base. Using a $68 per-prisoner-per-day cost for calculation, the total cost of these delays was $47,124. The mean or average number of days elapsing between these two events was 9.24, at a cost of $628.32 per prisoner. The median number of days between these two events was 7.00 at a cost of $476 per prisoner, and the range of days was 0 days to 54 days at costs ranging from zero to $3,672.
Table 2 reflects that a total of 439 days elapsed between the clerk’s issuance of a warrant to convey and the transport to prison of the 75 inmates included in this study. The total cost of these delays was $29,852. The mean or average number of days elapsing between these two events was 5.85, at a cost of $397.80 per prisoner. The median number of days between these two events was 5.00, at a cost of $340 per prisoner, and the range of days was 0 to 88, at costs ranging from zero $5,984.

5

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 148-1 Filed 10/12/2005 Page 6 of 6
Table 3 reflects that a total of 1132 days elapsed between sentencing and the date of the 75 prisoners’ transport to prison. The total cost of these delays was $76,976. The mean or average number of days elapsing between these two events was 15.09, at a cost of $1,026.12 per prisoners. The median number of days between sentencing and transport was 13.00, at a cost of $884 per prisoner, and the range of days was 1-102, at costs ranging from $68 to $6,936.
These numbers support two conclusions. First, increased efficiency between the events this report describes will significantly relieve population pressures on the jail. Second, speeding up the pace at which sentenced prisoners leave the jail for prison will result in a cost saving to the County.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Cory L. Nafziger Cory L. Nafziger Graduate Assistant /s/ Vincent M. Nathan Vincent M. Nathan Special Master
6

 
 Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-1 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 1 of 22

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Nathaniel Roberts, et al.,

*

*

Plaintiffs,

*

*

vs.

*

*

County of Mahoning Ohio, et al., *

*

Defendants.

*

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -*

CASE NO. 4:03 CV 2329

Seventh Report of the Special Master Report on Days Elapsed Between Major Events in Felony Cases in the
Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas

Executive Summary
The report that follows contains an analysis of felony cases processed through the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas. Using a random sampling of 187 cases representing bookings into the Mahoning County Criminal Justice Center in 2003, the authors measured the elapsed time between the following events (milestones): booking date; indictment date; arraignment date; disposition date (i.e., determination or plea of guilt, finding of not guilty, or dismissal); sentencing date; date of warrant to transfer to state prison; and date of transfer to state prison. These data were drawn from the automated docket system of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas.

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-1 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 2 of 22
The mean or average number of days between milestones in these cases was the following:
• Booking to Indictment – 37.79 days • Indictment to Arraignment – 21.65 days • Arraignment to final disposition – 186.38 days • Disposition to Sentencing – 76.95 days • Sentencing to Issuance of Warrant to Convey – 33.96 days • Warrant to Convey and Transport to Prison – 37.46 days Although not all defendants spent the entire time (average or otherwise) between milestones in jail, overall they spent a substantial number of days in jail during the course of their cases. Using an average daily cost of $68 per prisoner, one can calculate the cost of the average length of stay between milestones. • Booking to Indictment – 37.79 days @ $68 = $2,569 • Indictment to Arraignment – 21.65 days @ $68 = $1,472 • Arraignment to final disposition – 186.38 @$68 = $12,673 • Disposition to Sentencing – 76.95 @$68 = $5.232 • Sentencing to Issuance of Warrant to Convey – 33.96 @ $68 = $2,309 • Warrant to Convey and Transport to Prison – 37.46 days @ $68 = $2,547 To the extent that elapsed times (average of higher) between milestones reflect correctible inefficiencies in the operation of the Mahoning County criminal justice system, they contribute to the shortage of beds in the jail; moreover, as the dollar figures that
2

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-1 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 3 of 22 accompany the average numbers make clear, delays between milestones are quite costly to the county.
For these reasons, this report ends with a recommendation by the special master that the Sheriff initiate an early warning system to notify the Common Pleas Court or, in the case of the issuance of warrants to convey, the clerk’s office, when it appears that the time elapsing between milestones is approaching an excessive period of time. In order for the Sheriff to identify targeted time limits between milestones, the special master recommends that the Sheriff consult with the Court of Common Pleas, incorporate that court’s recommended time frames into the early warning system, and share the final version of the early warning system with the Criminal Justice Working Group for its comments.
3

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-1 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 4 of 22
Seventh Report of the Special Master Report on Days Elapsed Between Major Events in Felony Cases in the
Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas
Data Source and Coding The authors of this report are Eric Lambert, Ph.D., Kasey A. Tucker, Ph.D., Cory
Nafziger, M.A., and Vincent Nathan, the special master in Roberts v. County of Mahoning.1 The purpose of the report is to determine the length of time between major points in the process of a felony case through the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court system. It supplements the earlier Special Master’s Fifth Report – Length of Stay at the Mahoning County Justice Center (Doc. No. 140) and Sixth Report of the Special Master – Report on Days Elapsed Between Sentencing of Felons and Transportation to Prison (Doc. No. 148-1). The Fifth Report contained information regarding the length of stay of misdemeanor and felony defendants, both pre-trial and sentenced. The Sixth Report, which the Court directed the special master to prepare, measured the number of days elapsing between only two steps in the processing of convicted felons: the date of sentencing and the date of actual transportation from the jail to prison. The purpose of the current report is to providing greater detail regarding the progressive steps of felony cases in the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas.
Dr. Lambert is an Associate Professor and the Chairman of the Department of Criminal Justice at The University of Toledo. Dr. Tucker is an Assistant Professor in the Department Criminal Justice. Mr. Nafziger, who recently obtained his Master of Arts
1 Because Dr. Lambert, Dr. Tucker, Mr. Nafziger, and Mr. Nathan were responsible for identifying, capturing, and evaluating the data contained in this report, they will be referred to collectively throughout as “the authors.”
4

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-1 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 5 of 22
degree in criminal justice, has been an assistant to Mr. Nathan since the onset of the mastership in this case.
To achieve the objective of this report, Dr. Lambert and Dr. Tucker took a sample of people who were booked in the Mahoning County Justice Center (the Mahoning County jail; henceforth the jail) during the 2003 calendar year. Only people who spent ten or more days in the jail comprised the sample. The ten-day stay requirement was intended to omit from the study those persons who remained in jail only a few days awaiting the granting and posting of bail. The authors selected the year of 2003 because it was the most recent completed year that was not significantly affected by the early release mechanism that came into effect in early April 2005. The authors measured the number of days elapsing between the major points or milestones in a felony case:
Booking to Indictment Indictment to Arraignment Arraignment to Disposition (i.e., decision of dismissed, not guilty, guilty based on trial or plea) Disposition to Sentencing Sentencing to filing of the Warrant to Convey Warrant to Convey to prison to Transport to prison The authors selected these events because they are milestones in most felony cases and help identify points along the criminal process when delays tend to occur.2 The data files of all individuals booked into the jail during 2003 comprised the basis the
2 In addition to an analysis of the length of time between each milestone point, the authors analyzed elapsed time between each milestone and other milestones more than once removed from the original event (e.g., the length of time between indictment and sentencing). The authors present the results of these analyses in Appendix A.
5

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-1 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 6 of 22
authors used to create a sample of felony cases for this study.3 This data file contained information for all individuals booked into the jail in 2003, including the following: a unique booking number, the name of the individual, a jail identification number, information regarding gender, race, date of birth, age at the time of booking, release date, information about the type of release (when available), the highest charge code, and a brief description of the highest charge. Dr. Lambert imported the data file into a statistical analysis program entitled SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). An initial review of these data determined that there were a number of cases that contained errors preventing their use in this study. The authors identified and removed those cases from the data file to permit an accurate analysis to be preformed. After the removal of these cases there were 8,408 unique cases remaining (i.e., 8,408 individuals who were booked into the jail during 2003). Dr. Lambert then reviewed and cleaned the data. Cleaning the data is an important step in the analysis process, as it identifies errors in the entry of data, including typographical errors and missing information. Dr. Lambert checked booking dates again to ensure that all of the cases represented individuals booked into the jail in 2003. He concluded that all of the booking dates ranged from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2003, the year and target population of the current study. Mr. Nafziger contacted jail personnel in connection with those cases identified in the cleaning process as missing information such as charge number or information on charge. Jail personnel provided this data, which Mr. Nafziger then entered into the data file.
A numerical variable was created to measure whether the highest charge reflected in the charge code was a felony (coded 2), a misdemeanor (coded 1), or other (coded 0).
3 “Case(s)” refers to each individual represented in the data file by his or her unique booking number.
6

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-1 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 7 of 22
Specifically, contempt of court, material witness, other municipality charge, other state charge, and local ordinances were coded as “other.” According to Mr. Alki Santamas, the Administrator of the Mahoning County Justice Center, all federal charges were for felonies, and, as such, were coded as a felony (2).4 The authors removed all cases coded as “misdemeanor” or “other” from the data file because the focus of the current study is on state felony cases within the jurisdiction of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas. Of the original 8,408 cases in the file, there were only 4,589 cases in which the highest charge was felony. With the removal of the cases coded as being booked on a federal charge, 4,140 cases remained in the data file. Length of stay at the jail in days was determined by subtracting the booking date from the release date to allow for assessment, by days, of the time each individual spent in the jail in 2003. The removal of individuals who spent less than ten days in the jail left 1,360 cases in the data set.
Using the random select function Dr. Lambert selected 258 cases. The 258 cases represented about 19% of the total pool of 1,360 eligible cases. In order to obtain the criminal case number, Mr. Nafziger sent the booking date, the name of the person, and the charge information to Mr. Santamas, who, in turn, obtained the case number of these 258 cases and provided this information to Mr. Nafziger. Mr. Nafziger then went to the online database of cases found at the Mahoning County Integrated Justice System website (http://courts.mahoningcountyoh.gov/) to obtain information about the selected 258 cases. Mr. Nafziger entered the case number on this website and then went into the docket to retrieve the information. Specifically, he recorded the booking date, the indictment date (if applicable), the arraignment date, the disposition date, the sentencing
4 Although the jail housed federal inmates in 2003, it does not have a contract to house federal inmates at this time. There were 449 cases coded has having been booked on a federal charge.
7

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-1 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 8 of 22
date, the warrant to convey date, and the transport date for each of the 258 cases. For a few cases not all the dates were available on the docket journal on the website. In approximately half of the cases there was no information, because the person was booked into the jail in 2003 for appeal of a case previously decided in a year before 2002, the defendant was booked in the jail for a matter not involving a new crime, or the person originally charged with a felony was tried in a municipal court for a misdemeanor. The last occurred because many of the highest charges that were felonies either were reduced to misdemeanor charges or resulted in a plea of guilty to a lesser, misdemeanor charge. These cases were removed from the database because they did not meet the criteria set forth the study or lacked information to be used in the study.
In order to develop an adequate number of cases for analysis, Dr. Lambert drew a new sample from the original file of 1,360 individuals who had been charged with a felony (excluding federal charges), who were booked in the jail sometime in 2003 and who spent at least ten days in the jail sometime during 2003. Because 258 cases had been selected for the original sample, the remaining database included only 1,102 cases. In order to augment the original sample Dr. Lambert randomly selected 158 new cases (i.e., 14% of the remaining 1,102 individuals). Of these 158 cases, only 91 fit the criteria set forth for the study and had information for the necessary milestones in the online docket file. Mr. Nafziger then returned a file of 210 cases with the necessary data. Further review of these cases resulted in the exclusion of 23 cases because they had various problems that precluded them from the study. For example, in some of these 23 cases the defendant was originally charged in the middle to late 1990s but failed to appear at a scheduled court hearing. These individuals were arrested and incarcerated on bench
8

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-1 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 9 of 22
warrants in 2003 and their original cases then proceeded. Because the long delay from arraignment to disposition or from disposition to sentencing in these cases was not in the control of the court but rather was due to the flight of the defendant, these cases were removed from the data file. Had these cases been left in the data file, they would have skewed the results of the study. The final number of cases left in the data file for the study was 187, which is a sufficient sample for this report and for valid and meaningful results.
The demographic characteristics of the original file (i.e., 1,360) and the sampled file of 187 were similar in all respects. In terms of gender, the original population of 1,360 comprised 15% women and 85% men. The sample file of 187 individuals comprised 11% women and 89% men. In terms of race, the original file of 1,360 had 51% black individuals, 48% white individuals, and 1% Hispanic individuals. For the sample file of 187, 67% were black, 31% were white, and 2% were Hispanic. In the population file (i.e., 1,360 cases), the mean age was 34.35, with a standard deviation of 10.50. For the sampled group, the mean age was 29.30, with a standard deviation of 9.87. Finally, of the original population of 1,360, 71% were charged with a violent crime. For the sampled group of 187 cases, 69% were charged with a violent crime. Thus, overall the sample group is similar to the population group. Some differences are expected because sampling was used and there usually are small differences in measures between the sampled group and the larger population group.
9

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-1 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 10 of 22
Length of Time Between Booking Date and Indictment Date The authors calculated the time in days between booking date and indictment
date. Of the 187 cases, 14 were lacking an indictment date. These cases were excluded
from the analysis for length of time between booking date and indictment date. In
addition, 78 cases had a booking date after the indictment date. This was expected, as
some offenders will be indicted first and then booked into the jail. These 78 cases were
also excluded from the analysis of the length of time between booking date and
indictment date. Therefore, this analysis used 95 cases. The frequency distribution of the
number of days is presented in Table 1 (see Appendix B). The arithmetic mean number of
days between booking date and indictment was 37.79 days, with a standard deviation of 24.30.5 The median number of days was 33, with a range from 0 to 217 days. The median
value of 33 means that half of the cases had 33 or fewer days between booking and
indictment and half of the cases took more than 33 days from booking to indictment. In summary, it took more than a month for 65% of the analyzed cases to reach the
indictment milestone after being booked in the jail. This does not mean that all the
5 The arithmetic mean is the result of summing up all the values of the cases for the variable and dividing by the total number of cases. For example, in this study, the number of days between booking date and indictment date for the 95 valid cases were added together and divided by 95. The arithmetic means is commonly referred to as the average or mean.
The standard deviation was calculated as well. The standard deviation represents the average spread of values/scores of the cases around the mean. The standard deviation is used to tell how accurate the mean is as the typical value for all the cases on a particular measure. The smaller the standard deviation is as compared to the mean, the more tightly packed the cases are around the mean. This implies that the mean is a good representative single value for the data. The larger the standard deviation value is as compared to the mean value, the more spread out are the scores from the mean. This implies that the mean may not be a good representative single value for the data and may be influenced by extreme scores/values.
The median represents the 50th percentile where half of the case values fall below the median value and the other half of the case values fall above the median value. The median value is often used because it is not influenced by extreme values or outliers. The mean, however, is often influenced by extreme values. One should compare the median to the mean to see if extreme values have influenced the mean.
10

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-1 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 11 of 22
individuals were confined in the jail from time of booking to that of indictment.6 The calculation for total length of stay (booking to date of release) in these cases, however, reflects that overall these persons spent a substantial period of time in jail. The mean length of stay in jail for these 69 individuals was 181 days, with a standard deviation 145.22. The median number of total length of stay was 161, and ranged from 10 to 785 days. Length of Time Between Indictment Date and Arraignment Date
The authors calculated the time in days between indictment date and arraignment date. Of the 187 cases, 25 were lacking an indictment or arraignment date; for this reason, these cases were excluded from the analysis for length of time between indictment date and arraignment date. In addition, one case had an arraignment date before the indictment date. This case was also excluded from the analysis. Therefore, this analysis used 161 cases. The frequency distribution of the number of days from indictment date to arraignment date is presented in Table 2 (see Appendix B). The mean number of days between indictment date and arraignment date was 21.65 days, with a standard deviation of 30.90. The median number of days was 14, with a range from 5 to 251 days. The median value of 14 means that 50% of all the cases required 14 or more days from indictment to arraignment. Among the 89 cases that took 14 or more days from indictment to arraignment, many spent a substantial amount of time in the jail. Based upon the total length of stay in the jail (i.e., booking date to release date), the mean
6 This is true because some individuals’ length of stay in the jail were shorter than the period separating the booking date from the indictment date. It is not possible to determine how many days between booking and indictment these persons remained in the jail. This observation (that all lapsed time between milestones was not spent in jail) is true of all calculations of length of stay in the remainder of this report.
11

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-1 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 12 of 22
number of total days in the jail was 165.04, with a standard deviation of 154.10. The median total length of stay for these 89 cases was 150 and ranged from 6 to 785 days. Length of Time Between Arraignment Date and Disposition Date
The authors calculated the time in days between arraignment date and disposition date. Of the 187 cases, 20 were lacking disposition information, including disposition date, or were missing an arraignment date. These 20 cases were excluded from the analysis for length of time between arraignment date and disposition date. Therefore, this analysis used 167 cases. The frequency distribution of the number of days from arraignment date to disposition date is presented in Table 3 (see Appendix B). The mean number of days between arraignment date and disposition date was 186.38 days, with a standard deviation of 195.82. The median number of days was 122, with a range from 0 to 1,183 days. The median value of 122 indicates that half of the cases took more than four months arraignment to a disposition. Almost 20% of the cases analyzed took more than 300 days from arraignment to the disposition. Twenty-six of the 167 analyzed cases took more than a year from arraignment to disposition, and seven cases took almost two or more years. Many of these individuals spent substantial periods of time in jail. Forty percent of the 84 cases that took 122 or more days from arraignment to disposition spent 100 days or more total time in the jail (i.e., number of days from their booking date to ultimate release date from jail). The other 60% spent 100 or more days in the jail. The mean number of total spent days in the jail of the cases above the median of 122 days from arraignment to disposition (i.e., 84) was 201.61, with a standard deviation of 186.06. The median number of total days spent in the jail for this group was 168 and ranged from 6 to 781 days.
12

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-1 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 13 of 22
Length of Time Between Disposition Date and Sentencing Date The authors calculated the time in days between disposition date and sentencing
date. Of the 187 cases, 15 were lacking either a disposition date or a sentencing date. This was expected. Some of the dispositions were dismissed or found not guilty, and, thus, the court would not have sentenced these individuals. These 15 cases were excluded from the analysis for length of time between disposition date and sentencing date. Therefore, this analysis used 172 cases. The frequency distribution of the number of days from the disposition date to the sentencing date is presented in Table 4 (see Appendix B). The mean number of days between the disposition date and sentencing date was 76.95 days, with a standard deviation of 115.84. The median number of days was 57, and ranged from 0 to 693 days. The median value of 57 indicates that 50% of the cases took almost two months from disposition to sentencing. Almost 20% of the cases took three or more months from disposition to sentencing. For reasons stated above, not all of these 172 defendants spent the entire time from disposition to sentence in jail. Some received bail at some point during the process of the case through the court system. Many of these individuals, however, spent substantial time in jail. The mean length of total stay in jail (i.e., number of days from their booking date to ultimate release date from jail) for this group was 163.72 days, with a standard deviation of 154.50. The median length of total stay in the jail for this group was 134.50, with a range of 6 to 785 days. The 87 individuals who spent 57 or more days from disposition to sentence spent an average 170.91 total days in jail (i.e., number of days from their booking date to ultimate release date from jail), with a standard deviation of 177.06. The median number of total days in
13

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-1 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 14 of 22
jail for these 87 individuals was 120 days and ranged from 7 to 785. Almost one third of this group spent six months or more in jail, and 10% spent a year or more in the jail. Length of Time Between Sentencing Date and Warrant to Convey Date
The authors calculated the time in days between sentence date and date of warrant to convey. Of the 187 cases in the sample, 78 were lacking either a sentencing date or warrant to convey date. This was expected, as some of the cases would be dismissed or result in a finding of not guilty. In addition, other cases in which the person was found guilty (based on a plea or otherwise) would not necessarily result in a sentence to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. These 78 cases were excluded from the analysis for length of time between sentencing date and date of warrant to convey. Therefore, this analysis used 109 cases. The frequency distribution of the number of days from the sentence date to the warrant to convey date is presented in Table 5 (see Appendix B). The mean number of days between the sentence date and the warrant to convey date was 33.96 days, with a standard deviation of 99.38. The median number of days was 10, with a range from 0 to 683 days. The median value of 10 means that half of the cases took 10 or more days from the date of sentencing to the date of the warrant to convey. More than a quarter of the cases took two or more weeks. Approximately 10% of the cases took a month or longer from the sentence date to the warrant to convey date. In addition, this group of 109 individuals spent a good deal of total time in the jail. As has been noted earlier, the total time in the jail was calculated from the booking date to the ultimate release from the jail date. The mean total length of time in the jail for these 109 cases was 195.05 days, with a standard deviation of 173.34. The median total length of
14

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-1 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 15 of 22
stay in the jail was 154 days and ranged from 8 to 785 days. One third of the individuals spent 200 or more total days in jail, and 12% spent one year or more total time in the jail. Length of Time Between Warrant to Convey Date and Transport Date
The authors calculated the time in days between the warrant to convey date and the transport date. Of the 187 sampled cases, 83 were lacking either a warrant to convey date or a transport date. This was expected, since some of the cases would be dismissed or result in findings of not guilty. In addition, other cases in which the defendant was found guilty (based on a plea or a trial) would not necessarily result in a sentence to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, and, thus, would not have either a warrant to convey date or a transport date. These 83 cases were excluded from the analysis for length of time between date of warrant to convey and date of transport. Therefore, this analysis used 104 cases. The frequency distribution of the number of days from the warrant to convey date and the transport date is presented in Table 6 (see Appendix B). The mean number of days between the warrant to convey date and the transport date was 37.46, with a standard deviation of 35.35. The median number of days was 27 and ranged from 3 to 200 days. The median value of 27 indicates that 50% of the cases took about a month or more to be transported to a prison facility after the issuance of the warrant to convey. More than a quarter of the cases took six or more weeks from the date of the warrant to convey and the date of transport. In addition, this group of 104 individuals spent a good deal of time in the jail. The mean total length of time in the jail for these 104 cases was 194.50 days, with a standard deviation of 166.07. The median total length of stay in the jail was 162.50 days, and ranged from 8 to 785 days. One third
15

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-1 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 16 of 22
of the 104 individuals spent 200 or more days in jail and 12% spent one year or more in the jail. Summary of Results
The data described above permitted analysis of the average length of time between various salient points in the process in Common Pleas Court proceedings for felons: booking, indictment, arraignment, disposition, sentence, warrant to convey, and transport to prison. The summary of the length of time between each of the major points, the length of total time spent in jail, and the average cost per person are presented in Table 22 (see Appendix B). These analyses should be useful to planners attempting to identify length of time between various points in a felony case in the criminal justice system in Mahoning County. The results are helpful in identifying the points at which excessive delays occurred, as well as those at which the system operated more efficiently. Identifying the points at which many cases appear to be taking too long to reach the next decision stage allows planners to focus their attention on much narrower areas than the entire process to determine why there are delays and what can be done to alleviate unnecessary time spent in jail.
While the authors have noted that not all the individuals in this study spent every day between the various decision points in the jail, many defendants spent substantial periods of time in jail. Delays between milestones that result in additional jail time lead to an inefficient use of finite resources, especially in light of the per diem cost of $68 a day to house a person in the Mahoning County Justice Center. These delays also reduced the number of available beds for other prisoners. A few illustrations will suffice:
16

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-1 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 17 of 22
If a person spent 122 days (i.e., median number of days) between arraignment and disposition in the jail, it would cost $8,296 to keep this person in the jail. When multiplied by hundreds and thousands of cases in this category, this cost becomes enormous. Accordingly, a reduction in this the average length of time would result in very substantial savings. For example, if a case that took 180 days from arraignment to disposition were expedited and the defendant spent only 90 days in jail, the result would be a cost savings of $6,120 in per diem incarceration costs. Extremely long periods of incarceration in jail are astonishingly costly. For example, there were 31 cases in which 300 or more days elapsed from arraignment to disposition. If the person remained in jail for 300 days, the costs of incarceration were $20,400.
Another example of high costs is the length of time that elapses between disposition (finding of guilt) to sentencing. As previously indicated, the median length of time from the disposition of a case to sentencing was 57 days and ranged from 0 to 693 days. While not every person spent the entire length of time from disposition to sentencing in jail, this group cost the county a substantial amount of money. If a person spent 57 days in jail, it cost $3,876 to house this individual while he or she was awaiting sentencing.7 About 15% of the cases took 81 or more days from disposition to sentencing. If a person spent 81 days in jail after disposition awaiting sentence, the cost to the county for housing this individual in jail was $5,508. A number of cases (i.e., 8%) took 200 days. If a person remained in the jail for 200 days, the cost to the county was $13,600. Thus,
7 A significant part of this delay probably results from the time consumed in preparing a pre-sentencing report. Increasing the efficiency of this component of the criminal justice system would pay substantial dividends. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction officials have indicated a willingness to consider providing assistance to Mahoning County to address this problem.
17

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-1 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 18 of 22
this is another area in which substantial savings, both in jail beds and in dollars, could be realized.
There are additional costs (in money and beds) involved in housing a person in the jail between sentencing and the clerk’s issuance of a warrant to convey. For example, about 12% of the cases took a month or more from sentencing to obtain the warrant to convey. It costs over $2000 to house a person in the jail for a month. Likewise, there are unnecessary costs entailed in holding a person in jail from the date of the issuance of a warrant to convey to the actual transportation of the prisoner to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. As previously indicated, the median length of time from the warrant to convey date to the transportation date was 27 days, and 10% of the cases took 61 or more days. If a person remains incarcerated for the 27 days, the cost is $1,836. If the time elapsed between these two points is 61 days, the cost rises to $4,148. The impact of these delays on crowding are perhaps the least defensible this report has described.
While not the focus of this study, the average person in the study spent a mean of 161.53 days in jail. This means that it cost about $10,984 to house the typical person in this study in the jail using the mean of 161.53 days. When multiplied by the 187 people in the study, the total cost for the group using the mean number of days was over $2 million. One person spent a total of 785 days in the jail at a cost of $53,380. Putting aside the impact on the efficient use of jail beds, this individual cost the county enough to implement a significant reform in the operation of the criminal justice system.
18

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-1 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 19 of 22
Limitations Imposed by Data and Recommendations for Further Study The data used in this study did not permit the analysis of the specific reasons why
some cases took much longer than others to move through the various stages of the process. In order to do this, a more detailed analysis of a sample of cases processed through the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court system would be needed. The automated Mahoning County Integrated Justice System website, while valuable, does not contain enough detailed information to permit one to learn what is occurring at points in a case other than the major milestones the authors have addressed. In order to obtain more detailed information (for example, the extent to which continuances contribute to delays), the actual court files would need to be examined. Although the information such an analysis would provide would be extremely valuable, such a study would be both timeconsuming and expensive. The authors and the special master believe that the three studies they have submitted to the Court on the general subject of length of stay in the jail provide a sufficient basis for planning for enhanced efficiency through shorter periods of incarceration of misdemeanants and felons in Mahoning County.
The major limitation of this study is that it only sampled cases identified as felony cases. The special master’s Fifth Report established that half of the cases that were booked into the jail during 2003 represented persons charged with misdemeanor offenses. As previously indicated, 8,408 unique cases were processed through the jail in 2003. Of these cases, 4,140 had a misdemeanor as the highest charge, 3,788 had a felony as a highest charge, and 480 had other as the highest charge. In addition, many (up to onethird) of the felony cases were reduced to misdemeanor case. Those cases originally coded as a misdemeanor case spent a mean of 20.65 days in jail. While the length of time
19

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-1 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 20 of 22
appears to be low, the cost is high considering the number of misdemeanor cases that pass through the jail. Thus, county officials should be concerned about the efficiency of the processing of misdemeanor as well as felony cases and a study of the length of time elapsing between major milestones in these cases would be useful. Such a study, however, would be difficult (and perhaps impossible) to complete and would require a major expenditure of time and money.
During a trip to Youngstown to identify the scope of available data, Mr. Nathan and Dr. Tucker learned of the problems of data collection for misdemeanor cases. Because of several issues with the data source (e.g., a change of computer programs and other problems), the data required regarding misdemeanor defendants, while probably available and retrievable, would require a time-consuming and difficult retrieval effort in Youngstown. Unlike that for the felony cases discussed in the instant report, the data for misdemeanor cases cannot be collected using the internet. In order to collect the data a person would need to be in Youngstown to use a computer terminal in the office of the clerk of the Youngstown Municipal Court. In addition, many of the cases from 2003 are filed in an outdated computer program that the Municipal Court Clerk’s office no longer uses. Although the data could be obtained from the computer system of the Youngstown Municipal Court, the process would be an exceedingly slow one. In addition, data would need to be obtained for each individual case. Thus, while a study of the length of time between major decision points of misdemeanor cases would provide useful information, the cost of such a study appears to be prohibitive.
For all these reasons, the special master recommends against further studies of data relating to the length of incarceration of individuals in the Mahoning County Justice
20

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-1 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 21 of 22
System. If county officials, including municipal and common pleas judges, will take action to reduce the delays the special master’s fifth, sixth, and seventh reports have identified and make studies of the kind set forth in those reports a regular part of the planning and monitoring process, however, they will be able increase substantially the efficiency of the use of beds in the Mahoning County Justice Center; they also will be able to eliminate unnecessary costs associated with unduly lengthy periods of confinement during the pre-trial stage of adjudications. Substantive Recommendations
In addition to exacerbating crowding, unnecessarily lengthy stays in the jail are very costly. If the time between the major decision points can be reduced in the cases of incarcerated defendants, the effect will be to reduce jail overcrowding and to conserve limited financial resources. For this reason, the special master strongly recommends that the Sheriff initiate an early warning system to notify the Common Pleas Court or, in the case of the issuance of warrants to convey, the clerk’s office, when it appears that the time elapsing between milestones is approaching a targeted appropriate period of time. In order to identify targeted times elapsing between the various milestones, the special master recommends that the Sheriff consult with the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas and incorporate that court’s recommended time frames into the early warning system. The special master further recommends that the Sheriff present this early warning system to the Criminal Justice Working Group for its comments.
Respectfully submitted, s/ Eric Lambert Eric Lambert, Ph.D.
21

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-1 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 22 of 22 /s/ Kasey Tucker Kasey Tucker, Ph.D. /s/ Cory Nafziger Cory Nafziger, M.A. /s/ Vincent M. Nathan Vincent M. Nathan Special Master
22

 
 Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-2 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 1 of 24
Seventh Report of the Special Master APPENDICES
Appendix A – Further Analysis of Length of Time Between Milestones The data collected and used in the foregoing report permit an analysis of other lengths of stay between various milestones in the felony disposition process. Apart from the measurements discussed above, the available date required only simple manipulation to determine the following:
• Length of time between booking date and arraignment date; • Length of time between booking date and disposition date; • Length of time between booking date and sentencing date; • Length of time between booking date and warrant to convey date; • Length of time between booking date and transport date • Length of time between indictment date and disposition date • Length of time between indictment date and sentence date; • Length of time between indictment date and warrant to convey date; • Length of time between indictment date and transport date; • Length of time between arraignment date and sentence date; • Length of time between arraignment date and warrant to convey date; • Length of time between arraignment date and transport date; • Length of time between disposition date and warrant to convey date;
1

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-2 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 2 of 24

• Length of time between disposition date and transport date; and

• Length of time between sentence date and transport date.

This information, while perhaps not as useful as that in the body of this report, may be helpful to

judges and other county officials in their evaluation of problems within the criminal justice

system in Mahoning County. For this reason, this appendix presents these data, albeit in the

shortened form of the following table. The full set of results is presented in Tables 7 – 21 in

Appendix B.

Table-Appendix A

Points of Measurement

Number
of Cases1

Mean Number of Days + (Standard Deviation)

Booking Date to Arraignment Date

116

40.21 (30.32)

Median Number of Days + (Range)
44 (0-229)

Mean Length of Stay in Jail in Days + (Standard Deviation) 196.08 (162.44)

Median Length of Stay in Jail in Days + (Range)
164.00 (10-785)

Booking Date to

138

Disposition Date

Booking Date to

156

Sentencing Date

Booking Date to Warrant 104

to Convey Date

Booking Date to

100

Transport Date

Indictment Date to

161

Disposition Date

Indictment Date and

160

Sentence Date

Indictment Date and

109

Warrant to Convey Date

Indictment Date and

104

Transport Date

Arraignment Date and 164

Sentence Date

Arraignment Date and 102

Warrant to Convey Date

180.61 (167.07) 122.50 (0-856) 192.45 (158.14)

215.38 (194.49) 161.50 (0-856) 180.01 (159.34)

229.85 (195.10) 183.00 (6-862) 202.92 (173.57)

262.55 (185.27) 224.00 (25-892) 201.34 (165.72)

201.41 (182.42) 146.00 (0-981) 169.08 (156.41)

285.19 (200.42) 329.17 (217.08) 358.61 (206.63) 262.34 (213.96)

252.50 (271044) 284.00 (361057) 319.00 (581092) 210.50 (4-1183)

171.51 (159.74) 195.06 (173.34) 194.50 (166.07) 161.53 (156.01)

312.93 (219.10) 271.00 (241044)

193.26 (172.86)

164.00 (6-785) 153.00 (6-785) 164.00 (10-785) 164.50 (10-785) 139 (6-785) 140.50 (6-785) 154.00 (8-785) 162.50 (8-785) 126.00 (6-785) 157.50 (8-785)

1 This number reflects 187 days (the size of total sample) less the number of days ineligible for inclusion in a particular calculation.

2

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-2 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 3 of 24

Arraignment Date and 98

Transport Date

Disposition Date and

108

Warrant to Convey Date

Disposition Date and

104

Transport Date

Sentence Date to

105

Transport Date

338.61 (207.63) 119.66 (159.50)

301.50 (461079) 72 (1-738)

144.16 (152.79) 104 (0-784)

67.64 (98.27) 39 (0-729)

190.76 (165.13) 191.53 (170.20) 189.11 (162.67) 192.78 (166.21)

162.50 (8-785) 153.50 (8-785) 157.50 (8-785) 161.00 (8-785)

Appendix B – Tables

Table 1

Frequency Distribution of the Length of Time From Booking Date to Indictment Date

Number of Days Frequency (Number of Cases) Percent Cumulative Percent

0 to 10

5

5

5

11 to 20

1

1

6

21 to 30

29

30

37

31 to 40

38

40

77

41 to 50

8

8

85

51 to 60

6

6

92

61 to 70

3

3

95

71 to 80

2

2

97

81 and above

3

3

100

Note that the total number of valid cases was 95. Because of a missing indictment date or because the booking date came after the indictment date, 92 cases were excluded from the analysis.

3

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-2 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 4 of 24

Table 2

Frequency Distribution of the Length of Time From Indictment Date to Arraignment Date

Number of Days Frequency (Number of Cases) Percent Cumulative Percent

0 to 10

8

5

5

11 to 20

128

80

84

21 to 30

6

4

88

31 to 40

4

2

91

41 to 50

3

2

92

51 to 60

4

2

95

61 to 70

2

1

96

71 and above

6

4

100

Note that the total number of valid cases was 161. Because of a missing arraignment date, missing indictment date, or because the arraignment date came before the indictment date, 26 cases were excluded from the analysis.

4

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-2 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 5 of 24

Table 3

Frequency Distribution of the Length of Time From Arraignment Date to Disposition Date

Number of Days Frequency (Number of Cases) Percent Cumulative Percent

0 to 25

20

12

12

26 to 50

31

19

30

51 to 75

12

7

38

76 to 100

11

7

44

101 to 125

11

7

51

126 to 150

9

5

56

151 to 175

4

2

59

176 to 200

10

6

65

201 to 225

11

7

71

226 to 250

3

2

73

251 to 275

7

4

77

276 to 300

7

4

81

301 and above

31

19

100

Note that the total number of valid cases was 167. Because of a missing disposition or arraignment date, 20 cases
were excluded from the analysis.

5

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-2 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 6 of 24

Table 4

Frequency Distribution of the Length of Time From Disposition Date to Sentencing Date

Number of Days Frequency (Number of Cases) Percent Cumulative Percent

0 to 20

55

32

32

21 to 40

8

5

37

41 to 60

33

19

56

61 to 80

36

21

77

81 to 100

14

8

85

101 to 120

7

4

89

121 to 140

2

1

90

141 to 160

1

1

91

161 to 180

2

1

92

181 to 200

1

1

92

201 and above

13

8

100

Note that the total number of valid cases was 172. Because of a missing disposition or sentencing date, 15 cases were excluded from the analysis.

6

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-2 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 7 of 24

Table 5

Frequency Distribution of the Length of Time From Sentence Date to Warrant to Convey Date

Number of Days Frequency (Number of Cases) Percent Cumulative Percent

0 to 5

36

33

33

6 to 10

20

18

51

11 to 15

26

24

75

16 to 20

8

7

83

21 to 25

2

2

84

26 to 30

4

4

88

31 or above

13

12

100

Note that the total number of valid cases was 109. Because of a missing sentence or warrant to convey date, 78 cases were excluded from the analysis.

7

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-2 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 8 of 24

Table 6

Frequency Distribution of the Length of Time From Warrant to Convey Date to Transport Date

Number of Days Frequency (Number of Cases) Percent Cumulative Percent

0 to 10

10

10

10

11 to 20

26

25

35

21 to 30

25

24

59

31 to 40

12

12

70

41 to 50

10

10

80

51 to 60

3

3

83

61 to 70

8

8

90

71 and above

10

10

100

Note that the total number of valid cases was 104. Because of a missing warrant to convey or transport date, 83 cases were excluded from the analysis.

8

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-2 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 9 of 24

Table 7

Frequency Distribution of the Length of Time From Booking Date to Arraignment Date

Number of Days Frequency (Number of Cases) Percent Cumulative Percent

0 to 10

28

24

24

11 to 20

4

4

28

21 to 30

1

1

29

31 to 40

4

4

32

41 to 50

52

45

77

51 to 60

10

9

86

61 to 70

7

6

92

71 to 80

3

3

95

81 and above

6

5

100

Note that the total number of valid cases was 115. Because of a missing arraignment date, 72 cases were excluded from the analysis.

9

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-2 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 10 of 24

Table 8

Frequency Distribution of the Length of Time From Booking Date to Disposition Date

Number of Days Frequency (Number of Cases) Percent Cumulative Percent

0 to 30

14

10

10

31 to 60

14

10

20

61 to 90

28

20

41

91 to 120

12

9

50

121 to 150

11

8

58

151 to 180

8

6

64

181 to 210

7

5

69

211 to 240

7

5

74

241 to 270

11

8

82

271 to 300

5

4

85

301 and above

20

15

100

Note that the total number of valid cases was 137. Because of a missing disposition date, 50 cases were excluded from the analysis.

10

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-2 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 11 of 24

Table 9

Frequency Distribution of the Length of Time From Booking Date to Sentence Date

Number of Days Frequency (Number of Cases) Percent Cumulative Percent

0 to 30

22

14

14

31 to 60

8

5

19

61 to 90

16

10

29

91 to 120

14

9

38

121 to 150

13

8

47

151 to 180

14

9

56

181 to 210

9

6

62

211 to 240

8

5

67

241 to 270

6

4

70

271 to 300

6

4

74

301 to 330

12

8

82

331 to 360

0

0

82

361 to 390

5

3

85

391 and above

23

15

100

Note that the total number of valid cases was 137. Because of a missing disposition date, 50 cases were excluded from the analysis.

11

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-2 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 12 of 24

Table 10

Frequency Distribution of the Length of Time From Booking Date to Warrant to Convey Date

Number of Days Frequency (Number of Cases) Percent Cumulative Percent

0 to 40

14

14

14

41 to 80

9

9

22

81 to 120

12

12

34

121 to 160

14

14

47

161 to 200

8

8

55

201 to 240

11

11

65

241 to 280

8

8

73

281 to 320

4

4

77

321 to 360

4

4

81

361 to 400

4

4

85

401 to 440

3

3

88

441 and above

13

12

100

Note that the total number of valid cases was 104. Because of a missing warrant to convey date, 83 cases were excluded from the analysis.

12

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-2 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 13 of 24

Table 11

Frequency Distribution of the Length of Time From Booking Date to Transport Date

Number of Days Frequency (Number of Cases) Percent Cumulative Percent

0 to 50

9

9

9

51 to 100

10

10

19

101 to 150

10

10

29

151 to 200

16

16

46

201 to 250

11

11

57

251 to 300

14

14

71

301 to 350

4

4

75

351 to 400

5

5

80

401 to 450

7

7

87

451 to 500

3

3

90

501 and above

10

10

100

Note that the total number of valid cases was 99. Because of a missing transport date, 88 cases were excluded from the analysis.

13

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-2 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 14 of 24

Table 12

Frequency Distribution of the Length of Time From Indictment Date to Disposition Date

Number of Days Frequency (Number of Cases) Percent Cumulative Percent

0 to 40

20

12

12

41 to 80

35

22

34

81 to 120

15

9

44

121 to 160

15

9

53

161 to 200

9

6

58

201 to 240

18

11

70

241 to 280

8

5

74

281 to 320

12

8

82

321 to 360

4

2

84

361 to 400

3

2

86

401 to 440

4

2

88

441 and above

18

11

100

Note that the total number of valid cases was 161. Because of a missing indictment or disposition date, 26 cases were excluded from the analysis.

14

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-2 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 15 of 24

Table 13

Frequency Distribution of the Length of Time From Indictment Date to Sentence Date

Number of Days Frequency (Number of Cases) Percent Cumulative Percent

0 to 40

3

2

2

41 to 80

17

11

12

81 to 120

17

11

23

121 to 160

15

9

32

161 to 200

14

9

41

201 to 240

9

6

47

241 to 280

16

10

57

281 to 320

17

11

68

321 to 360

9

6

73

361 to 400

7

4

78

401 to 440

4

2

80

441 to 480

3

2

82

481 to 520

6

4

86

521 and above

23

14

100

Note that the total number of valid cases was 160. Because of a missing indictment or sentence date, 27 cases were excluded from the analysis.

15

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-2 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 16 of 24

Table 14

Frequency Distribution of the Length of Time From Indictment Date to Warrant to Convey Date

Number of Days Frequency (Number of Cases) Percent Cumulative Percent

0 to 40

1

1

1

41 to 80

10

9

10

81 to 120

3

3

13

121 to 160

15

14

27

161 to 200

13

12

38

201 to 240

4

4

42

241 to 280

7

6

49

281 to 320

11

10

59

321 to 360

8

7

66

361 to 400

4

4

70

401 to 440

4

4

73

441 to 480

1

1

74

481 to 520

6

6

80

521 and above

22

20

100

Note that the total number of valid cases was 109. Because of a missing indictment or warrant to convey date, 78 cases were excluded from the analysis.

16

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-2 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 17 of 24

Table 15

Frequency Distribution of the Length of Time From Indictment Date to Transport Date

Number of Days Frequency (Number of Cases) Percent Cumulative Percent

0 to 50

0

0

0

51 to 100

4

4

4

101 to 150

11

11

14

151 to 200

13

12

27

201 to 250

12

12

38

251 to 300

6

6

44

301 to 350

12

12

56

351 to 400

10

10

65

401 to 450

4

4

69

451 to 500

5

5

74

500 to 550

8

8

82

551 to 600

7

7

88

601 to 650

2

2

90

651 and above

10

10

100

Note that the total number of valid cases was 104. Because of a missing indictment or transport date, 83 cases were excluded from the analysis.

17

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-2 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 18 of 24

Table 16

Frequency Distribution of the Length of Time From Arraignment Date to Sentence Date

Number of Days Frequency (Number of Cases) Percent Cumulative Percent

0 to 50

22

13

13

51 to 100

16

10

23

101 to 150

24

15

38

151 to 200

17

10

48

201 to 250

12

7

56

251 to 300

21

13

68

301 to 350

11

7

75

351 to 400

6

4

79

401 to 450

6

4

82

451 to 500

6

4

86

500 to 550

7

4

90

551 to 600

3

2

92

601 to 650

2

1

93

651 and above

11

7

100

Note that the total number of valid cases was 164. Because of a missing arraignment or sentence date, 23 cases were excluded from the analysis.

18

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-2 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 19 of 24

Table 17

Frequency Distribution of the Length of Time From Arraignment Date to Warrant to Convey

Date

Number of Days Frequency (Number of Cases) Percent Cumulative Percent

0 to 50

5

5

5

51 to 100

8

8

13

101 to 150

16

16

28

151 to 200

12

12

40

201 to 250

6

6

46

251 to 300

10

10

56

301 to 350

10

10

66

351 to 400

6

6

72

401 to 450

3

3

74

451 to 500

6

6

80

500 to 550

6

6

86

551 to 600

3

3

89

601 to 650

1

1

90

651 and above

10

10

100

Note that the total number of valid cases was 102. Because of a missing arraignment or warrant to convey date, 85 cases were excluded from the analysis.

19

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-2 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 20 of 24

Table 18

Frequency Distribution of the Length of Time From Arraignment Date to Transport Date

Number of Days Frequency (Number of Cases) Percent Cumulative Percent

0 to 50

1

1

1

51 to 100

7

7

8

101 to 150

13

13

21

151 to 200

10

10

32

201 to 250

10

10

42

251 to 300

7

7

49

301 to 350

11

11

60

351 to 400

6

6

66

401 to 450

6

6

72

451 to 500

5

5

78

500 to 550

9

9

87

551 to 600

3

3

90

601 to 650

2

2

92

651 and above

8

8

100

Note that the total number of valid cases was 98. Because of a missing arraignment or transport date, 89 cases were excluded from the analysis.

20

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-2 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 21 of 24

Table 19

Frequency Distribution of the Length of Time From Disposition Date to Warrant to Convey Date

Number of Days Frequency (Number of Cases) Percent Cumulative Percent

0 to 40

33

31

31

41 to 80

31

29

59

81 to 120

20

18

78

121 to 160

5

5

82

161 to 200

3

3

85

201 to 240

1

1

86

241 to 280

2

2

88

281 to 320

2

2

90

321 to 360

0

0

0

361 to 400

1

1

91

401 to 440

0

0

0

441 and above

10

9

100

Note that the total number of valid cases was 108. Because of a missing disposition or warrant to convey date, 79 cases were excluded from the analysis.

21

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-2 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 22 of 24

Table 20

Frequency Distribution of the Length of Time From Disposition Date to Transport Date

Number of Days Frequency (Number of Cases) Percent Cumulative Percent

0 to 40

16

15

15

41 to 80

23

22

38

81 to 120

28

27

64

121 to 160

15

14

79

161 to 200

6

6

85

201 to 240

3

3

87

241 to 280

1

1

88

281 to 320

1

1

89

321 to 360

0

0

89

361 to 400

1

1

90

401 to 440

1

1

91

441 and above

9

9

100

Note that the total number of valid cases was 104. Because of a missing disposition or transport date, 83 cases were excluded from the analysis.

22

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 165-2 Filed 12/24/2005 Page 23 of 24

Table 21

Frequency Distribution of the Length of Time From Sentence Date to Transport Date

Number of Days Frequency (Number of Cases) Percent Cumulative Percent

0 to 10

2

2

2

11 to 20

7

7

9

21 to 30

28

27

35

31 to 40

17

16

51

41 to 50

14

13

65

51 to 60

5

5

70

61 to 70

8

8

77

71 to 80

5

5

82

81 to 90

4

4

86

91 to 100

3

3

89

101 and above

12

11

100

Note that the total number of valid cases was 105. Because of a missing disposition or transport date, 82 cases were excluded from the analysis.

23

Table 22 Summary of the Findings

Points in Process Booking to Indictment

Time Period between Major Points in Case

Time Spent in Jail between Major Points in Case

n Median Mean

SD Low High n Median Mean

SD

Low

High

Average cost

95 33 37.79 24.30 0 217 95 161 192.06 154.47 10 785 $10,948

Indictment to Arraignment 161 14 21.65 30.90 5 251 161 135 168.34 158.74 6 785 $9,180

Arraignment to Disposition 167 122 186.38 195.82 0 1183 167 134 163.50 155.59 6 785 $9,112

Disposition to Sentencing 172 57

Sentencing to Warrant to Convey Warrant to Convey to Transport

109 10 104 27

76.95 115.84 0 33.96 99.38 0 37.46 35.35 3

693 172 134.5 163.72 154.50 6 683 109 154 195.05 173.34 8 200 104 162.5 194.50 166.07 8

785 $9,146 785 $10,472 785 $11,050

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Note that “n” refers to the number of valid cases from the randomly selected sub-sample of 187 felons who spent more than 10 days in jail in 2003. Median represents the 50th percentile where half of the case values fall below the median value and the other half of the case values fall above the median value. As noted earlier in this report, the median value often is used because it is not influenced by extreme values or outliers. “Mean” refers to the arithmetic mean. It is calculated by summing up all the values of the cases for the variable and dividing by the total number of cases. The arithmetic means is commonly referred to as the average or mean. “SD” refers to standard deviation. The standard deviation represents the average spread of values/scores of the cases around the mean. The standard deviation is used to tell how accurate the mean is as the typical value for all the cases on a particular measure. The smaller the standard deviation as compared to the mean, the more tightly the cases are around the mean are packed. This implies that the mean is a good representative single value for the data. The larger the standard deviation value as compared to the mean value, the more the scores are spread out from the mean. This implies that the mean may not be a good representative single value for the data and maybe influenced by extreme scores/values.

24

 
 Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 225-1 Filed 09/12/2006 Page 1 of 2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Nathaniel Roberts, et al.,

*

*

Plaintiffs,

*

*

v.

*

*

County of Mahoning, Ohio, et al, *

*

Defendants.

*

______________________________*

CASE NO. 4:03 CV 2329
SPECIAL MASTER’S SUBMISSION OF ITEMIZED STATEMENT OF TIME AND EXPENSES

The special master in this cause hereby submits his statement of time and expenses for the period commencing August 27, 2005 through September 7, 2005. The special master represents to the Court that these hours were spent and these expenses were incurred in the performance of his duties as special master.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Vincent M. Nathan Vincent M. Nathan

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 225-1 Filed 09/12/2006 Page 2 of 2

DATE 8/27/06
8/28/06
08/29/06

ACTVITY

HOURS

Travel from Toledo to Akron; Review documents related 1.25

to hearing before 3-judge court

Conference with judges; Attend hearing; Conference with 6.00

judges; Travel to Toledo

Conference with graduate assistant; Telephone conference 1.50

with Derivan

8.75 hours @ $125 = $1,093.75

Expenses

August 27-28 (Toledo/Youngstown)Toledo)

285 miles @ 44.5¢ Hotel: Parking: Tolls: Meals Total Expenses

$126.82 77.35 5.00 8.50 25.27
$242.94

Expenses for meals and parking are on the attached hotel bill.

Summary
Total Fees Total Expenses

$1,093.75 242.94
$1,336.69

2

 
 Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 1 of 44

DOWD, J.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Nathaniel Roberts, Individually and on Behalf of )

the Certified Class, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiff(s),

)

)

v.

)

)

County of Mahoning, et al.,

)

)

Defendant(s).

)

)

CASE NO. 4:03 CV 2329
MEMORANDUM OPINION (Including Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law)

I. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
II. Findings of Fact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 A. The Duties of the Defendants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 B. Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 C. Description of the Justice Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 D. Description of the MSJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 E. Status of Prisoners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 F. Variances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 G. Non-Compliance With the Variances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 H. Population Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 I. Staffing Levels at the Two Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 J. Prior Litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 K. Financial Difficulties Facing Mahoning County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 L. Staffing Levels From Date This Action Was Filed (November 14, 2003) . . . . . . . . . 23 M. Discipline Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 N. Lockdowns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 O. Lack of Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 P. Security Breaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Q. Maintenance Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 R. Legal Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 2 of 44
(4:03 CV 2329)
III. Applicable Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 A. Conditions of Confinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 B. Legal Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
IV. Conclusions of Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 A. Conditions of Confinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 B. Legal Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
V. Summary Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 VI. Remedy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
I. Background On December 13-15, 2004, the above-captioned matter was tried to the Court. The parties have submitted their post-trial briefs and the matter is ripe for determination. In this matter, commenced on November 14, 2003 and brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the named Plaintiffs sued the County of Mahoning, its Sheriff and its Commissioners, alleging that conditions of confinement at the Mahoning County Justice Center (“Justice Center”) and the Minimum Security Jail (“MSJ”) violate the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits punishment without due process of law, and the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. The plaintiffs sought equitable and declaratory relief. The named Plaintiffs, both pretrial detainees and convicted prisoners being held in the custody of the defendant Sheriff at either the Justice Center or the MSJ, allege that these two facilities are understaffed and overcrowded, creating unsafe and dangerous conditions for the inmates. Plaintiffs allege that the lack of staff results in (1) the frequent lockdown of inmates for lengthy periods of time,
2

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 3 of 44
(4:03 CV 2329) (2) the inability to provide programs and services to the inmates, including but not limited to, recreation, visitation, religion, and inmate counseling programs, and (3) an inability to safely and securely house inmates. They further allege that the staff is not properly trained. Plaintiffs allege that the facilities are poorly maintained, creating unhealthy and dangerous conditions for the inmates. They assert that inmates are locked down in cells with toilets that accumulate human waste because they cannot be flushed and with intercoms that do not work, prohibiting the inmates from contacting staff during periods of lockdown. Plaintiffs also claim that the jail does not provide adequate legal resources or a legal access program, thus violating their constitutionally guaranteed right of access to the courts.
The Plaintiffs exhausted all administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit as a proposed class action. On March 5, 2004, the Court certified the following class:
all persons in the care or custody of the Mahoning County Sheriff and incarcerated on or after November 12, 2003 at the Mahoning County Justice Center, 110 Fifth Avenue, Youngstown, Ohio, (“Justice Center”) and also all persons in the care or custody of the Mahoning County Sheriff and incarcerated on or after November 12, 2003 at the Mahoning County Minimum Security Jail, 360 W. Commerce Street, Youngstown, Ohio (“MSJ”). On December 13-15, 2004, the case was tried to the Court. After the trial adjourned, the Court allowed an opportunity for the parties to file post-trial briefs. The matter is now ripe for determination and the Court hereby makes its findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a).1
1 Transcripts of the trial are contained in the record. See Doc. Nos. 87, 88, 89. All references to testimony are in the following form: “[Name of witness] Tr. [page number]”.
The parties also submitted a “proposed” Joint Stipulation of Facts (Doc. No. 73) which, at the (continued...)
3

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 4 of 44

(4:03 CV 2329)

II. Findings of Fact

A. The Duties of the Defendants

1. The Mahoning County Sheriff is charged with the duty of operating both the Justice

Center and the MSJ and with providing for the health and safety of the inmates incarcerated there.

(Complaint ¶ 12; Answer ¶ 12).

2. Mahoning County is empowered by the laws of Ohio to operate both facilities and is

required to collect and expend revenue to do so. (Complaint ¶ 14; Answer ¶ 14).

3. The Mahoning County Commissioners, on behalf of Mahoning County, are responsible

for funding the operation of the two facilities and for taking all other actions necessary for the operation

of the facilities. (Complaint ¶ 13; Answer ¶ 13).

B. Experts 4. There were four experts whose reports were used for this litigation. 5. Robert Pace, the former jail administrator for the Cuyahoga County Jail and currently a
jail consultant operating his own company, Managed Confinement, was approached by Glen Kountz, the president of the F.O.P., with a request to prepare a staffing analysis for the jail. Pace was reluctant to do so absent approval of Sheriff Wellington and the entire F.O.P. After meeting with the Sheriff and the F.O.P. in September 2003 and receiving assurances of support, Pace agreed to do the analysis.
1 (...continued) trial, were verified as having been consented to by all parties. See Tr. 2.
4

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 5 of 44
(4:03 CV 2329) (Pace Tr. 119, 126-28). In conjunction with the staffing analysis, Pace also drew conclusions regarding the inmate population. Pace’s report is contained in the record (Plaintiffs’ Exh. 35) and he testified at trial. (See Tr. 119-64). His conclusions are referenced in the appropriate sections of this opinion and, wherever so referenced, those opinions are expressly accepted by the Court.
6. Lois A. Ventura, Ph.D., currently employed as an assistant professor at the University of Toledo and the director of the University’s graduate program of criminal justice, was hired by the plaintiffs to make an assessment with respect to inmate safety at the jail. (Ventura Tr. 166). Ventura’s report is contained in the record (Plaintiffs’ Exh. 33) and she also testified at trial. (See Tr. 165-256). Her conclusions are referenced in the appropriate sections of this opinion and, wherever so referenced, those opinions are expressly accepted by the Court.2
7. James G. Ricketts, Ph.D., a correctional consultant, was hired as the Defendants’ expert to give opinions with respect to the major issues in the case. His report is in the record (Defendants’ Exh. S) and he testified at trial. (See Tr. 709-59). His opinions are not referenced herein as they were mostly rejected by the Court.
8. In addition, after the Justice Center first opened, a dispute arose regarding staffing levels and whether they were in compliance with a Consent Decree in earlier litigation relating to the
2 The Defendants filed a motion to exclude Ventura’s testimony (Doc. No. 61), arguing that she “lacks the required training, experience and education to provide expert testimony on issues of jail security and the physical conditions of the Mahoning County Jail in this case.” This motion is overruled, the Court finding that Dr. Ventura possesses the requisite credentials, see Plaintiffs’ Exh. 41, and that those credentials do provide an appropriate foundation for her opinions. See Fed. R. Evid. 702; Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1996); Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 (1999); Berry v. City of Detroit, 25 F.3d 1342 (6th Cir. 1994).
5

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 6 of 44
(4:03 CV 2329) Mahoning County Jail. The parties to that litigation agreed that the Court should appoint Gerry D. Billy, Sheriff of Licking County, Ohio, to conduct an in-depth staffing analysis. (Billy Tr. 88). Sheriff Billy’s report is contained in the record (Plaintiffs’ Exh. 34) and he testified at trial (see Tr. 75-118). His conclusions are referenced in the appropriate sections of this opinion and, wherever so referenced, those opinions are expressly accepted by the Court.
C. Description of the Justice Center 9. The Justice Center was newly constructed and opened in 1996. The building houses
the Sheriff’s department and the jail. (Joint Stipulation 1) [hereafter “Stip. #”]. 10. The facility is a multi-story high rise building, which has two towers, North and South.
Each tower is served by two elevators -- one for visitors and the other for staff. (Stip. 2). 11. The inmate intake/release area is located on the ground floor. It is referred to as A-
pod. All new inmates enter the jail and are processed here. All departing inmates are released from the area and it is also used as a staging location for inmates being transported to and from court. (Stip. 3). Central control is also located on the ground floor. (Lewandowski Tr. 67).
12. The medical unit is located on the first floor. It consists of 14 single cells; four of these are devoted to female inmates (referred to as B-pod) and the other ten are for male inmates (C-pod). (Stip. 4).
13. The Sheriff’s administrative offices are located outside the jail’s security perimeter on both the ground floor and the first floor. (Lewandowski Tr. 46).
6

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 7 of 44
(4:03 CV 2329) 14. Floors two through six contain the inmate housing units. (Stip. 5). Housing units are
located on those floors in both the North and South towers. There are a total of 432 general housing cells in the facility, i.e. 144 cells each on floors two, four, and six. (Lewandowski Tr. 49).
15. Floor six contains four housing pods. The pods on the this floor house male, medium security inmates. (Stip. 7). Pods R and U are located in the South tower. Pods S and T are located in the North tower. The four pods are identical. Each is two stories high and each occupies the sixth and seventh floors. There are 36 cells in each unit. The cells are located on the three outer walls of each unit. There are 18 cells on the first floor and 18 cells on the second floor of the unit. The cells are approximately 70.35 sq. ft. and contain a sink/toilet combination and at least one bunk. Each cell is equipped with an intercom, which is intended to allow two-way communication between the inmates housed in the cells and the guard or Central Control. (Stip. 14).
16. The cells surround a day area on the first floor, which contains tables, seats, a microwave oven, washer/dryer and shower. The day area of each housing unit is approximately 2,660.44 sq. ft., which includes an outdoor recreation area of 380.94 sq. ft.; however, the outdoor recreation areas have not been used since July 3, 2004. (Stips. 14; 38).
17. Located in the day area is a podium for the housing unit guard. The podium is equipped with a computer. The computer allows the guard to operate the cell doors of the unit, the lights and intercom. The guard also controls the ingress and egress to the unit from the computer. (Stip. 14).
7

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 8 of 44
(4:03 CV 2329) 18. An indoor gymnasium is located between all four pods for use by the inmates located in
those pods. There is also a large room between pods R and U and also between S and T. The room is used to provide programming to the inmates located in the adjacent pods. (Lewandowski Tr. 4750; Plaintiffs’ Exh. 28).
19. The Fourth Floor contains pods L, N/O, P and Q. All pods are two stories high and occupy both the fourth and fifth floors. The building footprint for these floors is similar to the sixth and seventh floors, with an indoor gymnasium and program areas between the pods. N/O and P are located in the North tower and pods Q and L are located in the South tower. Pods L, P and Q are identical to the pods located on the sixth floor. These pods house male, maximum security inmates. (Stip. 14).
20. N/O has the same basic design as the other pods, except that it is split down the middle by a solid wall. Pod N houses inmates in the mental health classification and pod O houses the male disciplinary classification. Each side has its own separate entrance. Each side consists of 18 cells (nine up and nine down). Each side has a day area with tables, seating, microwave, a washer and dryer, showers and toilet. The cells are identical to all other cells previously described. (Stip. 14; Plaintiffs’ Exh. 28).
21. There is a control booth located at one end of the unit between N and O. The control booth is framed by glass approximately halfway up so that the officer can observe both pods at the same time. The control booth contains a computer to control the range similar to that on the other pods. (Stip. 14; Plaintiffs’ Exh. 28).
8

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 9 of 44

(4:03 CV 2329) 22. The second floor contains pods D/E, F/G, H/I, and J/K. (Stip. 14).

23. The F/G pod is identical to the N/O pod as described above. (Stip. 14). It is

designated as the classification pod. Inmates are held in the unit until space becomes available in a

general housing unit consistent with their classification. (Santanamas Tr. 635-36). The F side is male,

non-violent and the G side is male, violent. (Stip. 14).

24. The pod design for D/E, H/I and J/K is the same as that of the sixth floor. The only

exception is that each pod has an area where six cells (three up and three down) are separated from the

rest of the unit by a block and glass wall. The six cell pod has its own small day space. There is one

podium for the housing officer located in the day area of the 30 cell unit, which serves both areas.

(Stip.14; Plaintiffs’ Exh. 28). The pods house the following inmates:

D -- 30 cells

E --

6 cells

H -- 30 cells

I

--

6 cells

J

--

6 cells

K -- 30 cells

-- Female medium -- Female trustees -- Male trustees -- Male admin. Segregation -- Juveniles -- Female disciplinary segregation -- Female maximum security

25. The jail was designed to be operated as a direct supervision jail. It was originally staffed so that it could be operated in that fashion. Direct supervision places an officer in the housing pod with all of the inmates and the officer interacts with the inmates throughout the day. The advantage of direct supervision is that the guard has more control over the inmates. All of the housing units in the jail are designed in the direct supervision style, with the exception of N/O and F/G, where the guard is

9

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 10 of 44
(4:03 CV 2329) stationed in a booth immediately at the end of, and in between, both ranges. This style of supervision is called podular remote. The same would be true for the small segregated areas on the second floor, i.e. J, I and K. (Billy Tr. 96; Lewandowski Tr. 53-56).
26. The housing capacity of the Justice Center when it was originally opened was 432, with a holding capacity of 24. (Stip. 8). The 24 represented the 14 medical cells and the 10 booking and holding cells. (Lewandowski Tr. 52). All of the cells on floors two, four and six were single occupancy cells. This capacity level was approved by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Bureau of Adult Detention. (Stips. 7; 8).
D. Description of the MSJ 27. The Sheriff also operates the Mahoning County Minimum Security Jail. The MSJ is
located one block away from the Justice Center. In approximately 1995, the County modified an existing building and converted it into MSJ. The MSJ originally only housed misdemeanor inmates; however, it is now permitted to house and does house minimum-security inmates. (Stip. 15).
28. The MSJ is a two-story building with two distinct wings for inmate housing. Each wing is at the end of a hall. There is a central control booth located off the hall between the two units. (Stip. 15). All of the housing units at the MSJ are dormitory-style housing. There are no cells. (Ventura Tr. 238).
29. The housing units are labeled A/B and C/D. The A/B units are separate housing units located adjacent to each other at the west end of the building. Each unit has 24 bunks, a day area and
10

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 11 of 44
(4:03 CV 2329) a bath/shower area. The units do not have intercoms. (Ventura Tr. 237). Immediately outside of the unit is a small guard area where an officer can observe both units through glass at the same time. There is also a small guard podium located in each unit. The C/D unit is actually one housing unit containing 48 bunks with a day area and bath/shower area (Stip. 16; Plaintiffs’ Exh. 33, pp. 34-36). The unit does not have an intercom. (Ventura Tr. 237).
30. The housing capacity at the MSJ is 96. The Sheriff has used boats/cots to house additional inmates at the MSJ. The highest number of inmates housed at one time in the MSJ during 2003 was 112. Only male inmates are housed at the MSJ. (Stip. 16).
31. The MSJ was also designed and staffed to be operated as a direct-supervision jail, with a guard being placed in each housing unit. (Lewandowski Tr. 41).
E. Status of Prisoners 32. Statistics on the breakdown between pretrial detainees and convicted prisoners at the
Justice Center are not kept. However, a one-day total for January 23, 2003 shows 454 prisoners. Of those, 313 (69%) were pretrial detainees; 141 (31%) were sentenced inmates. (Stip. 24).
33. The MSJ houses only sentenced inmates. (Stip. 24). 34. Many inmates incarcerated at the Justice Center and at the MSJ are incarcerated for several months, and sometimes over one year. (Baird Tr. 378; Scott Tr. 425; Baxter Tr. 489; Burton Tr. 354; Hamond Tr. 505).
11

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 12 of 44

(4:03 CV 2329) 35. The Sheriff, in addition to housing inmates in his custody, also house inmates in the
custody of the U.S. Marshal. The Sheriff has been housing federal inmates for several years. Pursuant to a contract entered into between the Sheriff and the U.S. Marshall in the summer of 2003, the Sheriff houses approximately 100 federal prisoners per day at the Justice Center. Many of the prisoners are pretrial detainees (Stip. 25).

F. Variances

36. On January 8, 2003, Sheriff Wellington asked the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation

and Correction to issue a variance to housing standard 5120:1-8-04 of Ohio’s Minimum Jail Standards,

which requires single occupancy cells. The Sheriff asked permission to double bunk in the following

areas, which house minimum and medium security inmates.

D pod E pod H pod R pod S pod T pod U pod

(female medium housing) (female minimum-workers) (Male medium-workers) (Male medium) (Male medium) (Male medium) (Male medium)

Double bunking was not to include maximum security and special needs inmates. (Stip. 9).
37. Sheriff Wellington requested double bunking for two reasons. First, the medium security housing units were overcrowded and inmate population was above the recommended capacity

12

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 13 of 44
(4:03 CV 2329) for the entire year of 2002. The additional inmates were accommodated by using cot/boat style bunks. The second reason for the request was the reduction of the Sheriff’s budget by four million dollars. The budget reduction affected the number of staff available to safely and efficiently cover housing units. The Sheriff indicated he could solve the problems by relocating existing prisoner population into shared space (Stip. 9; Plaintiffs’ Exh. 1).
38. On February 28, 2003, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction granted the variance to the following extent:
The Sheriff was permitted by the variance to add one additional bunk in 21 of the 36 cells on S, T, U, and R pods. Fifteen cells on each range were to remain single bunked. Thus, the housing capacity was increased from 36 to 57 on each pod under the variance.
The Sheriff was permitted by the variance to add one additional bunk in 24 of the 36 cells on D/E pod and 24 of the 36 cells on H/I pod. The housing capacity was increased from 36 to 60 on each pod under the variance (Stip. 10; Plaintiffs’ Exh. 2).
39. As a result of the variance, the inmate housing capacity of the jail was raised from 432 to 564, an increase of 132 (Stip. 11).
40. The additional beds in S, T, U, R, H, and D were added in the latter part of 2003 (Stip. 12).
41. As a condition of granting the variance, the State of Ohio required that the housing units be operated as “modified dorms.” The cell doors on the units were to be placed in a permanently open position and inmates were to have continuous access to the day area. The inmates were not to be
13

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 14 of 44
(4:03 CV 2329) locked in their cells. A guard was to be in each housing unit at all times. The state granted the variance with the understanding that it was helping the County to alleviate its crowding problem and that it expected the County to eliminate the housing of federal prisoners (Plaintiffs’ Exh. 2).
G. Non-Compliance With the Variances 42. Although the Defendants have taken advantage of the variance by adding the additional
bunks permitted, they have not complied with the terms of the variance. The pods are not operated as dorms. The cell doors have not been placed in permanent open position. Inmates are not granted 24hour access to the day area. Inmates are locked in their cells every night and many other times throughout the day. The Defendants admit that they have not complied with the requirements because they do not have enough staff to permit the operation of the units as modified dorms. (Santanamas Tr. 639, 655).
43. Not only have the Defendants added permanent bunks to 21 of the cells, they utilize cots/boats on these same ranges in the other cells. The cots/boats are placed on the floors of those cells in which an additional bunk has not been added. Cots/boats are used throughout the facility on a daily basis. (Santanamas Tr. 656).
44. At the time the beds were added, the Sheriff also added additional bunks to F/G pod. F/G pod is used to temporarily house inmates awaiting classification. The Sheriff added one bunk to each cell. The pod increased from 36 bunks to 72 bunks. The pod is normally filled with 72 inmates. (Santanamas Tr. 560). The Sheriff neither requested nor received a variance from the Ohio
14

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 15 of 44

(4:03 CV 2329) Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections to add the additional bunks to F/G pod. (Santanamas Tr. 635-36). The bunks replaced some cots. (Stip. 13).
45. The Defendants have not removed federal inmates from the facility as required by the variance. Even as they were applying for and implementing the variance, the Defendants were negotiating with the U.S. Marshal’s office to house additional federal inmates at the Justice Center. (Santanamas Tr. 637-38).

H. Population Trends 46. The average daily inmate population for both the Justice Center and the MSJ has
steadily increased over the last few years, as indicated below:

Year

Justice Center

MSJ

2001

430

68

2002

458

84

2003

509

85

(Plaintiffs’ Exh. 33, p. 6)

TOTAL 498 542 594

15

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 16 of 44

(4:03 CV 2329) 47. The largest increase in population has been at the Justice Center. The increase has
been dramatic since additional bunks were added. The inmate population has been as follows:

Month

Average

Low

High

Sept. 2003

750

726

776

Oct. 2003

740

705

788

Nov. 2003

775

727

810

(Plaintiffs’ Exh. 33, p.7; Stips. 19-23, containing various population statistics). 48. The population levels greatly exceed the current approved housing capacity for the
facilities, i.e. Justice Center -- 564; MSJ -- 96: combined housing -- 660. The combined housing capacity has been exceeded by as many as 160 inmates at one time.
The situation is even more aggravated at the Justice Center where the majority of the overcrowding occurs. Indeed, the highest one-day total of inmates housed at the Justice Center was 709 inmates. That constitutes 145 inmates more than the non-approved capacity of 564, and 277 inmates more than the capacity of 432 (which was the approved capacity when the jail was originally opened). That is 160% more than its original capacity (see Stips. 19-23).
49. Robert Pace conducted an assessment of the jail in the Fall of 2003. He found inmate populations that exceeded the physical and operational capacities of the facilities. In his opinion, inmate census figures, in conjunction with staffing and physical plant inadequacies, represent an unacceptable level of occupant safety. (Plaintiffs’ Exh. 35, p. 1). The Court agrees with Mr. Pace’s assessment.

16

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 17 of 44
(4:03 CV 2329) I. Staffing Levels at the Two Facilities
50. Despite significant increases in inmate population, staffing levels have decreased. At the time the law suit was filed, there were significantly fewer staff members operating the Justice Center and MSJ than when the facilities were originally opened. That fact remained true at the time of trial.
51. Chief Deputy James Lewandowski, on behalf of the Sheriff, oversaw the planning and approval process for both the MSJ and the Justice Center. He was the warden for the MSJ and the Justice Center for several years until July 2001. Warden Lewandowski developed the original staffing plan for both facilities and sought and obtained approval of the plans from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Bureau of Adult Detention (“BAD”), the state agency that oversees the planning and building of new jails in Ohio. (Lewandowski Tr. 33, 38; 44-45; Stip. 26; Plaintiffs’ Exh. 24).
52. The original staffing level for the Justice Center was 151. (Lewandowski Tr. 60). The plan included security staff as well as administrative staff. The plan included enough deputies to have each housing pod staffed with one officer on both the morning and afternoon shifts and one officer for 2 pods on the midnight shift. The plan allowed for direct supervision of inmates during the day and evening, and indirect supervision when they were in their cells during sleeping hours. (Lewandowski Tr. 61-63).
53. The plan also included several relief/float officers to provide backup for the pod officers in the event of emergencies, relief for the pod officers and the transport of inmates within the facility for inmate activities. (Lewandowski Tr. 63-64).
17

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 18 of 44
(4:03 CV 2329) 54. Officers assigned to the jail were never allowed to perform tasks outside of the jail.
Each staff post identified was to remain filled. No staff post was permitted to be abandoned, that is, no staff person could perform other duties, such as law enforcement duties or transportation duties outside the jail. To allow officers to perform duties other than that required by the staff post would adversely affect the safety and security of the inmates housed at the facility. Staff assigned to a post in the jail were expected to perform only the duties of that post. (Lewandowski Tr. 42-43, 64-65).
55. The staffing levels established by Warden Lewandowski and approved by the State allowed the facility to operate as a direct supervision facility. (Lewandowski Tr. 41).
56. In addition to the 151 staff at the Justice Center, Lewandowski also had additional staff who operated the MSJ. There were four staff posts each for the day and afternoon shifts and three staff posts for midnight. On days and afternoons there was a housing officer for each of the A/B and C/D pods. There was also a float officer and an officer assigned to base (central control). On midnights there was no float position. The total staff hired to operate the posts at the MSJ was 22. (Lewandowski Tr. 40-42). The total staff level was sufficient to allow the facility to staff those posts necessary to permit the facility to operate as it was designed, i.e. as a direct supervision facility. There were sufficient staff assigned so that there was one officer assigned per housing unit, A/B and C/D, 24 hours per day.
57. The total staff of both the MSJ and the Justice Center during this period was 173 (Lewandowski Tr. 68).
18

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 19 of 44
(4:03 CV 2329) J. Prior Litigation
58. The County, its Commissioners, and its Sheriff were sued in 1992 by inmates of the old County jail. The lawsuit alleged violations of the constitutional rights of the inmates. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and was styled William Cummings, et al. v. Sheriff Nemeth, et al., Case No. 4:92 CV 1838. As a result of the lawsuit the Justice Center was built and the lawsuit was resolved by a Consent Decree. The Consent Decree contained provisions relating to the operation of the new jail. The Consent Decree was in effect until terminated in 2001. (Stip. 27).
59. Subsequent to the opening of the Justice Center, issues developed between the parties regarding the existing staffing levels. With the parties in agreement, the Court appointed a joint expert to determine minimum staffing levels. Gerry D. Billy, the Sheriff of Licking County, Ohio, was the agreed-upon expert. (Stip. 28; Billy Tr. 87-88).
60. Sheriff Billy performed an in-depth staffing analysis of both the MSJ and the Justice Center. The analysis was performed over several weeks. Sheriff Billy talked to several staff members. He visited and toured the ranges of the jail on each shift of operation and he reviewed records pertinent to the operation thereto, including absentee records. At the time of the staffing analysis, the Justice Center was still operating as a single-celled facility. (Billy Tr. 112).
61. Based on all of the information gathered, Sheriff Billy determined the minimum number of staff posts necessary to operate the jail in a safe and secure manner. He then arrived at the number of staff necessary to fill the staff posts identified. (Billy Tr. 90-94; Stip. 28).
19

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 20 of 44

(4:03 CV 2329) 62. Sheriff Billy’s analysis was limited to security staff only. It did not include administrative
staff. The only supervisory staff considered was a shift supervisor for each shift. (Billy Tr. 89-90). 63. Sheriff Billy concluded that 150 security staff (not including administrative staff) were
necessary to operate the posts identified. (Stip. 28). The staffing of the posts, as identified, was necessary for the safety and security of the jail. (Billy Tr. 94, 97). Based on his post analysis, Sheriff Billy concluded that the minimum staff necessary for each shift was as follows:

SHIFT

1 Midnights (10:00 p.m - 6:00 a.m.)

2 Days

(6:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.)

3 Evenings (2:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.)

MINIMUM STAFF 22 32 30

(Billy Tr. 95; Plaintiffs’ Exh. 39). 64. Sheriff Billy’s analysis ensured that both facilities would be operated in the direct
supervision style during the day and evening shift, as one guard was posted on each pod during those times. At the Justice Center, Billy did allow for indirect supervision (one guard for two pods) on the midnight shift, while the inmates were sleeping. (Billy Tr. 96-97, 104-05).
65. Another set of critical staff posts, as determined by Sheriff Billy, were float positions. At the Justice Center, there was a float position for each floor of the building for each of the three shifts. (Billy Tr. 99-100). At the MSJ he provided for one float for each shift. (Billy Tr. 96). Float officers were to provide a variety of functions and were essential for the safe operation of the jail. One of the major functions of the float officers was to provide backup to the housing officers in the event of a fight

20

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 21 of 44
(4:03 CV 2329) on their range or other emergency. Floats also provided relief for the housing officers in the event that the pod officer needed to leave the range for any reason; and the floats were responsible for the internal movement of inmates throughout the facility. (Billy Tr. 98).
66. Sheriff Billy’s staffing analysis did not permit an officer to be removed from a post to perform a different function, such as road patrol or transportation of inmates outside of the jail. Established posts were meant to be filled with a staff person. It was essential to the safe and secure operation of the jail that designated posts were staffed. (Billy Tr. 97, 99, 105-06).
This concept is also true if a staff person calls off sick or is on vacation. The post must be filled by overtime or calling in an officer who is off duty. (Billy Tr. 110).
67. The parties in the then-pending Cummings lawsuit submitted Sheriff Billy’s staffing recommendation to the Court. The parties also agreed that an additional 12 administrative staff were necessary and required to supplement the 150 security staff recommended by Billy. The Court approved and adopted the staffing levels, ordering the Sheriff to maintain the staffing level of 150 and an administrative staff of 12. (Stip. 28; Plaintiffs’ Exh. 5).
K. Financial Difficulties Facing Mahoning County 68. Mahoning County has had consistent financial difficulties throughout the years.
(Scanlon Tr. 700-02; Stip. 29). The financial difficulties have resulted in significant staff cutbacks for the Justice Center and the MSJ.
21

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 22 of 44
(4:03 CV 2329) 69. The County sales tax was defeated in November 1997. The tax was placed on the
ballot as an emergency measure in May 1998. It passed. The tax was, however, defeated in the November 1998 election. The County faced a loss of one-third (1/3) of its revenue. Eventually, in 1999, the jail was forced to lay off 110 deputies. Several housing units of the jail were shut down and inmates were released as a result of the lay-offs. The Court modified its previous staffing order until funds were restored. (Stip. 29; Lewandowski Tr. 68-70).
70. Funding was eventually restored. At the time the Consent Order was terminated on November 30, 2001, the Justice Center and MSJ were staffed at the level recommended by Sheriff Billy and adopted by the Court. (Stip. 30; Lewandowski Tr. 71).
71. Subsequent to the termination of the Consent Decree, the Sheriff reduced staffing levels at the jail. Staffing levels fell below levels previously identified by Sheriff Billy and established by order of the Court in Cummings v. Nemeth. (Kountz Tr. 397).
72. The County again encountered financial difficulties. Even though the voters approved the passage of a sales tax in 2002, the Sheriff’s 2003 budget was reduced by four million dollars. In March of 2003, fifty-four corrections deputies were laid off. In June of 2003 the deputies were recalled, although eight did not return. (Stip. 31). The staffing levels remained below those recommended by Sheriff Billy. During this period of time the Defendants continued to use boats and cots at the facility and began adding permanent bunks to the cells identified in the variance previously obtained.
22

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 23 of 44
(4:03 CV 2329) 73. The County’s ½% sales tax was defeated in the Spring of 2004. It was placed on the
ballot again in November of 2004. It was again defeated. (Wellington Tr. 764-65). As a result of the loss of revenue, the 31 full-time staff hired were laid off effective November 5, 2004. (Kountz Tr. 405).
L. Staffing Levels From Date This Action Was Filed (November 14, 2003) 74. November 14, 2003, the date this action was filed, only 125 security staff were on the
Sheriff’s payroll to work at both the Justice Center and the MSJ. At least 10 of those individuals were on leave and were unavailable to work. As a result, available security staff was no more than 115, which is well below the 150 recommended by Sheriff Billy and previously approved by the Court and significantly below the 173 that were employed under Warden Lewandowski. (Stip. 32; Plaintiffs’ Exh. 6). Staffing remained at these low levels for the remainder of the year (Stip. 32; Plaintiffs’ Exh. 7).
75. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3 reflects the number of staff assigned and reporting to work each shift for each day of each month from July through December 2003. The exhibit also reflects the total inmate population for those days. The amount of staff reporting for duty each shift each day almost never equaled the number of staff assigned.
The exhibit also demonstrates that the number reporting was almost always below the number recommended by Sheriff Billy. During the six month period there were 184 days and 552 shifts to be staffed (184 days x 3 shifts per day = 552 shifts to be staffed). Only 13 of the 552 shifts were staffed as Billy recommended. The rest were staffed below Billy’s recommendation and most were not
23

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 24 of 44
(4:03 CV 2329) just a few off, but were significantly below. (Plaintiffs’ Exhs. 3; 16; 33, pp. 8-10). The chart below, taken from the numbers in Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3, demonstrates the following for the 30 days in the month of November 2003.

Day Shift (6:00 a.m. -2:00 p.m.)

Billy’s Recommended

# of Staff

# of Staff

Reporting for Duty

# of Days So Reported

32

18

1

32

20

2

32

21

1

32

22

2

32

23

5

32

24

4

32

25

4

32

26

4

32

27

4

32

28

3

32

29

0

32

30

0

32

31

0

32

32

0

24

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 25 of 44

(4:03 CV 2329)

Midnight Shift (10:00 p.m. - 6:00 a.m.)

Billy’s Recommended

# of Staff

# of Staff

Reporting for Duty

# of Days So Reported

22

11

2

22

12

1

22

13

6

22

14

5

22

15

9

22

16

5

22

17

2

22

18

0

22

19

0

22

20

0

22

21

0

22

22

0

76. Robert Pace conducted a staffing analysis of the facilities in the Fall of 2003. His staffing analysis, like Sheriff Billy’s, was limited to security staff and did not encompass administrative staff. (Pace Tr. 153-54; Plaintiffs’ Exh. 35, p 33).
77. In performing his analysis, Mr. Pace made several tours of the jail, talked to staff and reviewed records. (Pace Tr. 128-30, 133). Like Billy, he determined the staff posts that were necessary to operate the jail safely and securely. Based on the staff posts identified, he then determined the amount of staff needed to fill the posts. (Pace Tr. 130).

25

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 26 of 44
(4:03 CV 2329) 78. Mr. Pace found the Justice Center and the MSJ are staffed at levels considered
inadequate for daily confinement supervision and facilities operations. Incidents resulting in officer injury are excessive both in number and extent, resulting in a workplace deemed by the consultant to be unsafe. (Plaintiffs’ Exh. 35, p. 1).
79. The posts identified were very similar to Sheriff Billy’s. The ultimate number of staff necessary to fill the posts was also very similar. Mr. Pace recommended the staffing of 29 officers for both the day and evening shifts with three additional officers to work part of each shift. Mr. Pace also recommended 22 officers for the midnight shift. Mr. Pace also required two supervisors per shift, which was one more per shift than required by Billy. Pace determined that the minimum number of staff necessary to fill the identified posts critical to maintaining the safety and security of the jail was 165. (Pace Tr.154-55; Plaintiffs’ Exh. 35, pp. 33-35).
80. Between February 27, 2004 and August 31, 2004, the Defendants hired 31 full time staff to work in the Corrections division. (Plaintiffs’ Exh. 8). As of September 30, 2004, there were 147 security staff employed by the Defendant for both the Justice Center and the MSJ. (Plaintiffs’ Exh. 8A; Stip. 34).
81. Sometime after the lay-off and before the trial of this cause, the Sheriff assigned most of his staff, including the road patrol, to the jail. The only exception were the 25 staff assigned to provide Courthouse security. (Kountz Tr. 399). Also on the eve of the trial, the Sheriff called back 10 of the 31 laid-off staff. (Wellington Tr. 769-71; Santanamas Tr. 673). Although the Sheriff contends that there are 173 staff assigned to the jail (Santanamas Tr. 673-78), this number does not accurately reflect
26

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 27 of 44
(4:03 CV 2329) the staff who work posts dedicated to the jail. A certain number of the staff who report to the jail never work a post at the jail. For example, six to eight deputies are automatically assigned to other positions, such as the Juvenile Justice Center, County Court and federal transport. (Kountz Tr. 399; Guzzy Tr. 464-66, 473).3 Also, officers assigned to jail duty are frequently pulled off their post to perform law enforcement functions, or other non-jail duties. (Guzzy Tr. 466-68). Many posts at the jail go unfilled. The jail remains significantly understaffed and the jail continues to be a very dangerous place. (Ventura Tr. 210, 215, 222, 225, 226; Patterson Tr. 480; Guzzy Tr. 473).
82. Staff shortages create a lack of backup. There is not enough staff to respond to emergencies. (Guzzy Tr. 473; Patterson Tr. 480; Russo Tr. 335). Floats normally provide the backup; however, when there are staff shortages the floats are usually the first positions eliminated. The floats are used to fill other positions both outside and inside the jail. (Russo Tr. 336).
83. Due to staff shortages, staff fear for their safety and the safety of the inmates. (Patterson Tr. 480; Guzzy Tr. 473; Russo Tr. 333; Pace Tr. 157).
84. Frequently during 2003 and 2004 there were only two officers assigned to the MSJ. Indeed, that was the norm. One officer was assigned to the control booth and the other officer circulated between the housing units, which were located at either end of the building. (Russo Tr. 331;
3 Sheriff Wellington testified that he was required to supply the full 21-deputy contingent for security at the Mahoning County Court House on the day after Thanksgiving in 2004 even though, due to four deputies calling in sick for both the Court House contingent and the jail contigent, he was seriously short-staffed at the jail and even though there were only two judges working in the Court House on that day. (Wellington Tr. 770-71).
27

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 28 of 44
(4:03 CV 2329) Miles Tr. 303-05). The officer in the control booth was responsible to operate the doors which provided ingress and egress to the facility, to monitor the CCTV and to perform other tasks. (Russo Tr. 332).
85. Frequently during the course of a shift, the housing officer at the MSJ would be called out of the MSJ, leaving only one staff member in the control booth responsible for 96 inmates. (Russo Tr. 331-32; Miles Tr. 303-05).
86. In the event of an emergency at the MSJ, backup assistance was to be dispatched from the Justice Center. There have been times when the officer in the control booth has left the booth to assist the other officer in the MSJ with the emergency. Backup from the main jail could not immediately get into the facility because the doors were locked and there was no guard in the control booth to unlock the doors to the facility. (Miles Tr. 306-07; Russo Tr. 334).
87. There have been other times when the guard in the MSJ left the booth unattended and persons were either locked into or out of the facility. (Miles Tr. 309-10).
88. Due to the insufficient staff at the MSJ there have been occasions when civilians who provide programming for jail inmates have been asked to assist with security functions. (Miles Tr. 310).
M. Discipline Issues 89. Disciplinary logs for the year 2003 indicate that there were a total of 206 fight charges
and 38 assault charges lodged against inmates of the facilities. The months of October and November 28

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 29 of 44
(4:03 CV 2329) recorded the highest number of fighting and assault charges. For each month there were 30 fights charged and 5 assaults charged. (Stip. 36). Thirty-three percent (33%) of the incident reports occurred in October. Thirty-seven percent (37%) of inmate injuries from assaults occurred in October. (Ventura Tr. 218). The jail was a dangerous place that was out of control. (Ventura Tr. 218, 220).
90. Incident reports for 2003 (through October) reflected the following information: 41 “inmate-on-inmate” assaults 11 “inmate-on-staff” assaults 14 miscellaneous incidents of violence or uses of force
Incident reports only reflect fights and assaults that result in injury. (Stip. 36; Santanamas Tr. 642). Incident reports do not reflect fights that do not result in medical treatment for harm resulting to the inmate. (Santanamas Tr. 642).
91. There are fights and assaults which are not witnessed or observed by staff. (Ventura Tr. 214, 217, 226). Some are not reflected in the incident reports or disciplinary records because they were neither witnessed by staff, nor reported to staff by the inmates. (Scott Tr.437-39; Hamond Tr. 513). Plaintiff Leland Scott observed fights and assaults that took place at the MSJ in the bathroom out of sight of TV cameras and out of the presence of guards. (Scott Tr. 437-39). Fights occur in the day areas and while double-celled inmates are in lockdown. (Guzzy Tr. 472).
92. Plaintiffs’ expert, Lois Ventura, reviewed disciplinary and security logs for the period of July 2004 through December 2004. The incidents of fights, assaults and violence were similar to and even worse than what was observed in 2003. (Ventura Tr. 222-25).
29

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 30 of 44
(4:03 CV 2329) 93. All of the experts agree that there was no standard to determine what is an
acceptable/non-acceptable level of violence. (Billy Tr. 114; Pace Tr. 160; Ventura Tr. 221). The experts who testified in Plaintiffs’ case made it clear that the level of violence at the Justice Center and MSJ were higher than at other facilities with which they had experience. (Ventura Tr. 221-24; Pace Tr. 159-60; Billy Tr. 114).
94. The conditions at the Mahoning County Jail for 2003 and 2004 were unsafe and placed inmates as well as staff at a high and unreasonable risk of harm. (Ventura Tr. 226).
95. Staff shortages due to an insufficient number of staff on the payroll and the transferring of staff from an assigned jail post to perform non-jail-related functions created unsafe and dangerous conditions at the jail, subjecting inmates to an unreasonable risk of danger. (Ventura Tr. 193, 226; Plaintiffs’ Exh. 33, pp. 10-12). The lack of staff and/or reassignment of staff to non-jail duties created an inability to effectively monitor inmates and respond to critical incidents. (Pace Tr. 143-45).
96. Entries by staff in supervisors’ logs demonstrate that supervisory staff was concerned about safety due to the lack of adequate staffing. (Plaintiffs’ Exh. 19). An entry on October 5, 2003 states, “Nine deputies working, plus one overtime, unsafe working conditions.” (Plaintiffs’ Exh. 33, p. 18). An entry on October 22, 2003 states, “Unsafe working conditions due to only nine deputies working.” (Plaintiffs’ Exh. 33, p. 18).
30

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 31 of 44

(4:03 CV 2329) N. Lockdowns
97. As a result of a lack of staff or officers being reassigned from jail staff posts to perform non-jail functions, inmates at the Justice Center are frequently locked down for lengthy periods of time. (Ventura Tr. 193, 207-13; Plaintiffs’ Exh. 33, p. 12; Pace Tr. 143-45; Russo Tr. 335-37, 340; Miles Tr. 287-99; Patterson Tr. 481, 484, 485-86; Guzzy Tr. 473).
98. A review of supervisors’ logs for 2003 shows the frequency of lockdowns during the day and afternoon shifts for some or all of the pods.

March 2003 April 2003 March 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003

Pod lockdowns occurred 15 of 27 days Pod lockdowns occurred 19 days Pod lockdowns occurred 15 days Pod lockdowns occurred 16 days Pod lockdowns occurred 7 days Pod lockdowns occurred 15 days Pod lockdowns occurred 21 days Pod lockdowns occurred 18 days Pod lockdowns occurred 14 days

(Plaintiffs’ Exh. 33 pp. 13-14). 99. The periods of lockdowns varied, but inmates could be locked down in their cells for
several hours or up to three days at a time. (Russo Tr. 337, 339; Baird Tr. 379-81; Miles Tr. 297-99; Pace Tr. 142; Patterson Tr. 485).

31

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 32 of 44
(4:03 CV 2329) 100. Even though additional staff was hired, during 2004 lockdowns continued with similar
frequency and duration. (Ventura Tr. 212; Miles Tr. 297; Baxter Tr. 441-42; Burton Tr. 359-64; Hammond Tr. 507-09; Patterson Tr. 485; Guzzy Tr. 473; Defendants’ Exh. N). The situation became much worse in November 2004 after the lay-off of the 31staff members. (Baxter Tr. 491-92; Burton Tr. 359-64; Russo Tr. 343-44; Defendants’ Exh. N).
101. Lockdown logs were kept by jail staff beginning in July 2004. The logs continued to show a pattern of lockdowns due to staff shortages, including staff reassigned from jail positions to non jail duties. (Defendants’ Exh. N).4
102. The frequent lockdowns were exacerbated by the fact that toilets in the cells often did not work. Inmates were locked in their cells for hours, sometimes days, with toilets that accumulated the waste of the two inmates housed in each cell. The situation was unhealthy and created tension and anxiety among the inmates. (Russo Tr. 339; Knight Tr. 275, 277, 265; Burton Tr. 367; Baxter Tr. 416; Hammond Tr. 576; Ventura Tr. 229-30).
103. Mr. Knight testified about the smell of urine, body odor from the inmates, and fecal matter in the toilets. (Knight Tr. 265). He also testified about fecal matter exposing the inmates to the possible transmission of Hepatitis A. (Knight Tr. 265).
4 At trial, the Defendants tried to argue that lockdowns were for short periods of time and were done on a rotating basis. (Santanamas Tr. 568-69). It is clear that the testimony offered by Warden Santanamas was not accurate. The chart compiled by the Warden the night before trial was suspect and, on questioning, proved inaccurate. (Santanamas Tr. 644, 647-54).
32

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 33 of 44
(4:03 CV 2329) 104. Inmates were locked in cells with intercoms that often did not properly function.
(Patterson Tr. 485; Guzzy Tr. 472; Kountz Tr. 406-07; Ventura Tr. 233). Intercoms are the only way an inmate locked in a cell can communicate with staff.
105. As a result of lockdowns, inmates frequently missed programs that were scheduled during a lockdown period such as visitation, recreation, religion or various counseling programs. (Russo Tr. 342; Miles Tr. 295-99; Baird Tr. 380-83; Patterson Tr. 484; Baxter Tr. 495-96; Hamond Tr. 510).
106. Lockdowns created much tension and anxiety among the inmates. (Pace Tr. 134, 138; Russo Tr. 337, 341; Miles Tr. 300-01; Baxter Tr. 492-93; Patterson Tr. 484-85; Guzzy Tr. 471; Baird Tr. 385).
107. Due to lockdowns, inmates only had a limited period of time to use the phones, showers, microwaves and other amenities on the range. Often there was not enough time for everyone to use the amenities available. Inmates would argue and fight over the use of these items. (Russo Tr. 337, 341; Baxter Tr. 493; Hammond Tr. 511; Patterson Tr. 484-85; Scott Tr. 428-29).
O. Lack of Training 108. Due to a lack of funding and a lack of staff, there has been no in-service training for
staff since 2001. (Pace Tr. 150; Kountz Tr. 408).
33

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 34 of 44
(4:03 CV 2329) 109. No fire drills were conducted from 2001 until the Spring of 2004. The fire drill
conducted in 2004 involved only one shift and did not involve the movement of any inmates. (Ricketts Tr. 750, 752).
110. Plaintiffs’ expert, Robert Pace, found that staff assigned to the Justice Center and the MSJ have little or no training and policy direction to perform at levels compliant with minimum confinement standards. (Plaintiffs’ Exh. 35, p. 2).
P. Security Breaches 111. There are serious security breeches at both facilities. 112. In August of 2004, there was a successful escape attempt at the MSJ. (Johnson Tr.
451). A month earlier, there was almost a successful escape from the Justice Center. Civilians standing outside the building tied hacksaw blades to strips of material passed down to them through the fence of the outdoor recreation area on one of the pods. The inmate, over the next several days or weeks, used the hacksaw blades to saw through the fence. These acts went undiscovered until another inmate told authorities of the escape activities. The fence was almost completely sawed before the activities were discovered. (Santanamas Tr. 682-84).
113. Other security breeches include contraband in the facility, including tobacco, drugs, razors, hacksaw blades, and cell phones. (Johnson Tr. 451). Inmates at the MSJ broke out a window and were able to receive contraband through the window from family and friends. (Johnson Tr. 452). This continued for a lengthy period of time before being discovered.
34

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 35 of 44
(4:03 CV 2329) Q. Maintenance Issues
114. Maintenance issues, in addition to problems with the toilets and intercoms have plagued the facility.
115. Several computer touch screen units were not working and were replaced in 2004. (Kountz Tr. 406-07).
116. Several CCTV which had been broken were replaced in 2004. (Santanamas Tr. 68081).
117. Staff radios frequently stopped working, without warning, due to old and worn batteries. (Patterson Tr. 482; Kountz Tr. 406; Russo Tr. 351). The batteries were also replaced in 2004. (Kountz Tr. 406-07).
118. Each of these situations was remedied after the filing of this law suit. 119. Robert Pace found that the Justice Center and the MSJ have physical plant failures that affect adequate and consistent incident prevention and response. Such failures, in the opinion of the consultant, represent an unacceptable level of occupant safety. (Plaintiffs’ Exh. 35, p. 1). 120. Mr. Knight, while doing a spot inspection on November 11, 2003, found the jail environment to be hazardous to the health of the inmates, security staff and civilians working throughout the jail. (Plaintiffs’ Exh. 1, p. 1). Mr. Knight’s observation concerned the cleanliness of showers, washing machines, overflowing toilets and insufficient cleaning supplies. (Plaintiffs’ Exh. 9, pp. 1-2). His inspection was prompted by an outbreak of boils among the inmate population. (Plaintiffs’ Exh. 9, p. 3).
35

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 36 of 44
(4:03 CV 2329) R. Legal Access
121. The Defendants provided legal access to inmates through a program provided by the University of Akron School of Law legal clinic. This program operated until September of 2003 when it was terminated due to the fact that the Defendants stopped paying for the service. (Carro Tr. 282). When the program was in operation, two or more students, working under the supervision of an attorney, would meet with inmates at the jail on a weekly basis. (Carro Tr. 281). The students would provide information, but not advice, to inmates. (Carro Tr. 280). The program was particularly important to inmates with civil right and post-sentencing issues, as these inmates are not typically represented by counsel.
122. Since the program has been discontinued the only legal resources available to inmates are several copies of a state law book and a federal criminal statutes. (Santanamas Tr. 600; Burton Tr. 376). Many of the books are outdated. (Burton Tr. 376; Baxter Tr. 497).
123. Inmate Baird requested legal material, but could not get it. (Baird Tr. 383). 124. Inmate Scott requested legal materials to assist in the filing of a civil rights complaint and could not get assistance. (Scott Tr. 432). Inmate Scott ended up filing his action in Common Pleas Court. He stated his action was thrown out because he did not file request forms (grievance). (Scott Tr. 432). Due to a lack of legal access, Mr. Scott was not able to file an appropriate action.
36

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 37 of 44

(4:03 CV 2329)

III. Applicable Law

A. Conditions of Confinement

The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution place constraints on jail

officials. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the conditions of confinement for pretrial detainees cannot

amount to punishment, Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979); under the Eighth Amendment, the

conditions of confinement for sentenced inmates cannot amount to cruel and unusual punishment,

Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981).

Although the constitutional source of authority is different for pretrial detainees as compared to

sentenced inmates, when it comes to conditions of confinement, there is no significant distinction

between the interests of a pre-trial detainee and the interests of a convicted person. Both inmates want,

and are entitled to, humane conditions. If a court determines that conditions of confinement violate the

Eighth Amendment, it goes without saying that those conditions would also violate the Fourteenth

Amendment.

In order to establish an Eighth Amendment violation, two requirements must be met: (1) “a

prison official’s act or omission must result in the denial of ‘the minimal civilized measure of life’s

necessities,’ ” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (quoting Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347); and,

(2) “[i]n prison condition cases, . . . [a prison official must exhibit] ‘deliberate indifference’ to inmate

health or safety.” Id. (quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 302-03 (1991)). Ultimately,

a prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from

37

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 38 of 44
(4:03 CV 2329) which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.
Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837.5 When assessing conditions of confinement, a court must examine the totality of the
circumstances and “such conditions, ‘considered alone or in combination [with other conditions],’ . . . must amount to a deprivation of ‘life’s necessities,’ . . . before a violation . . . can be found.” Walker v. Mintzes, 771 F.2d 920, 925 (6th Cir. 1985) (quoting Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347). The court must also keep in mind that “the Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons,” Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 349, and any inquiry into conditions must “ ‘spring from constitutional requirements . . . , [not] a court’s idea of how best to operate a detention facility.’ ” Id. at 351 (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 539).
The Supreme Court has noted that the right to personal security constitutes a ‘historic liberty interest’ protected substantively by the Due Process Clause. Ingraham v. Wright, 430U.S. 651, 673, 97 S.Ct. 1401, 1413, 51 L.Ed.2d 711 (1977). And that right is not extinguished by lawful confinement, even for penal purposes. See Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 98 S.Ct. 2565, 57 L.Ed.2d 522 (1978). Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 315 (1982). It is “cruel and unusual punishment to hold convicted criminals in unsafe conditions.” Id. at 315-16.
5 Although many of the cited cases involved actions brought against individual officials for damages results from constitutional violations, in the instant lawsuit, that is not the case. No Mahoning County official is sued in his individual capacity and only injunctive and declaratory relief is being sought, not damages. Even so, the case law is instructive on the issues.
38

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 39 of 44
(4:03 CV 2329)
Although prisons and jails need not be “comfortable,” neither may they be inhumane. The
Constitution places on jail officials not only restraints, but also duties.
[Jail officials] must provide humane conditions of confinement; [they] must ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, and must “take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates,” Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526-527, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 3200, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984).
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 832.
[W]hen the State takes a person into its custody and holds him there against his will, the Constitution imposes upon it a corresponding duty to assume some responsibility for his safety and general well-being. See Youngberg v. Romeo, supra, 457 U.S., at 317, 102 S.Ct., at 2458 (“When a person is institutionalized -- and wholly dependent on the State[,] . . . a duty to provide certain services and care does exist”). [footnote omitted]. The rationale for this principle is simple enough: when the State by the affirmative exercise of its power so restrains an individual’s liberty that it renders him unable to care for himself, and at the same time fails to provide for his basic human needs--e.g., food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and reasonable safety -- it transgresses the substantive limits on state action set by the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause. See Estelle v. Gamble, supra, 429 U.S., at 103-104, 97 S.Ct., at 290-291; Youngberg v. Romeo, supra, 457 U.S., at 315-316, 102 S.Ct., at 2457-2458. The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State’s knowledge of the individual’s predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf. See Estelle v. Gamble, supra, 429 U.S., at 103, 97 S.Ct., at 290 (“An inmate must rely on prison authorities to treat his medical needs; if the authorities fail to do so, those needs will not be met”). In the substantive due process analysis, it is the State’s affirmative act of restraining the individual’s freedom to act on his own behalf -- through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty -- which is the “deprivation of liberty” triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause, not its failure to act to protect his liberty interests against harms inflicted by other means. [footnote omitted].
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Soc. Services, 489 U.S. 189, 199-200 (1989).
39

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 40 of 44
(4:03 CV 2329) The Eighth Amendment also protects against future harm. “[A] remedy for unsafe conditions
need not await a tragic event.” Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993). This Eighth Amendment analysis does not change merely because the conduct of some inmates
may have caused or contributed to the conditions. Blake v. Hall, 668 F.2d 52, 57-58 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 983 (1982).
B. Legal Access The Supreme Court has held that “the fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts
requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.” Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 328 (1977) (footnote omitted).
IV. Conclusions of Law A. Conditions of Confinement
1. The Court concludes that the conditions of confinement at both the Mahoning County Justice Center and the Mahoning County Minimum Security Jail violate the United States Constitution.
2. The Mahoning County Justice Center and the Mahoning County Minimum Security Jail are each well designed and constructed facilities for the incarceration of alleged felons awaiting trial, for the incarceration of sentenced felons awaiting transportation to the designated prison, be it state or federal, and for the incarceration of sentenced misdemeanants.
40

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 41 of 44
(4:03 CV 2329) 3. As long as the management of the two Mahoning County institutions were under federal
court supervision, the staffing of the two institutions was maintained in a way that protected the security of both staff and the incarcerated individuals.
4. Since federal court supervision ceased, the operation of the two facilities has been characterized by significantly insufficient staffing, with the result that both staff and inmates are subject to violence and unsafe conditions.
5. The insufficient staffing has been the direct result of an absence of funding to enable the elected Sheriff of Mahoning County to staff the two facilities with sufficient personnel to secure the safety of both the inmates and the staff.
6. The insufficient funding and staffing has resulted in frequent lockdowns of incarcerated individuals for periods up to 23 hours a day.
7. The incarcerated persons, most of whom have not yet been convicted but are simply awaiting trial, are being subjected to conditions that amount to punishment in that they are frequently in a lockdown condition for 23 hours a day in very small cells wherein two persons are housed.
8. The frequent lockdowns are the direct result of an insufficient number of deputies available to operate the two custodial institutions.
9. The population of the two institutions far exceeds their capacity as planned and the lack of sufficient staffing has placed the safety and security of the inmates and staff at risk.
41

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 42 of 44
(4:03 CV 2329) 10. The monies earned by Mahoning County as a result of housing federal prisoners are
under the control of the Board of Commissioners of Mahoning County, and the Board has chosen not to use all the monies for the operation of the two institutions.
11. There is no indication that the Board of Commissioners of Mahoning County or the citizens of Mahoning County intend to take action to provide sufficient funds for the operation of the two institutions and the other activities of the Sheriff’s Department.
B. Legal Access 12. In light of the loss of the services of the Akron University Legal Clinic and the
unavailability of other legal resources, e.g., books, the Court concludes that inmates are being denied their constitutionally protected right of access to the courts.
13. Although the Court concludes that legal access has been denied, in the Court’s view, lack of legal access, like the poor conditions of confinement, has been caused by lack of funding to pay the Akron University Legal Clinic which had in the past provided the necessary services to meet the constitutional requirement. The Court, however, finds it unnecessary to address legal access separate and apart from including it as one of the issues subject to consideration when fashioning a remedy.
V. Summary Conclusion The Court hereby declares that the plaintiff class has met its burden of proof with respect to its claims that class members (1) are being denied their constitutional rights not to be punished without due
42

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 43 of 44
(4:03 CV 2329) process of law and/or not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, and (2) are being denied their constitutional right of access to the courts. As a result, the Court finds in favor of the plaintiff class and against the defendants.
The Court further concludes that, as the prevailing party, the plaintiff class is entitled to recover from the defendants attorney fees and costs in an amount to be determined at a later date.6
VI. Remedy The remedy in this case is subject to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). The Court finds that the remedial phase of this case is sufficiently complex to warrant the appointment of a Special Master consistent with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(f). The Court shall follow the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(f)(2)(A), (B) and (C) in the selection of the Special Master. The plaintiff class and the Board of Commissioners of Mahoning County, through counsel, may each submit a list of not more than five (5) persons to serve as a Special Master. The list shall be filed with the Court by 4:00 p.m. on Monday, March 21, 2005. For each name submitted, the party submitting the name shall provide a short biographical sketch of the person, outlining his or her experience that would justify appointment as a Special Master in this case.
6 These costs shall include, but not be limited to, the cost of having the court reporter prepare and file a transcript of the bench trial.
43

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 93 Filed 03/10/2005 Page 44 of 44
(4:03 CV 2329) Consistent with 18 U.S.C. § 3626(f)(2)(B), each party shall have the opportunity to remove up
to three (3) persons from the opposing party’s list. The time for removal shall expire by 4:00 p.m. on Monday, March 28, 2005.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 10, 2005 Date

s/ David D. Dowd, Jr. David D. Dowd, Jr. U.S. District Judge

44

 
 Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 162 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 2

DOWD, J.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Nathaniel Roberts, et al, Plaintiff(s),
v. Mahoning County, et al,
Defendant(s).

) ) CASE NO. 4:03 CV 2329 ) ) ) ORDER ) ) ) ) )

The Court has received a communication from the Special Master, Vincent M. Nathan,

dated December 20, 2005, which states in part that judges of the Municipal Courts in Mahoning

County are being treated with direct contempt as a result of the emergency release mechanism

which has been established for the operation of the Mahoning County Jail after this Court, by an

opinion filed on March 10, 2005, found that the plaintiff class members, inmates at the

Mahoning County Jail, were being denied their constitutional rights as inmates.

It is apparent that the limitation on the number of inmates that can be housed in the

Mahoning County Jail by reason of the emergency release mechanism, designed to limit the

number of inmates at the Mahoning County Jail, has resulted in numerous instances of direct

contempt of both municipal court judges and county court judges in Mahoning County.

As a consequence, the Court directs the defendant Sheriff Randall Wellington, to

incarcerate any person or persons found, by any of the Municipal Court Judges in Mahoning

County or any of the County Court Judges in Mahoning County or any of the Judges of the

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 162 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 2 of 2

(4:03 CV 2329) Common Pleas Court of Mahoning, County by judgment entry to have been in direct contempt of said judge and without regard to the provisions of the emergency release mechanism in place.
The judgment entry directing the incarceration of such a person in direct contempt shall set forth a summary of the action of the person constituting the direct contempt. The Sheriff shall be under no duty to so incarcerate such a person until the signed order is either directly delivered to the Sheriff or faxed to the Sheriff.
The Court requests that the Special Master monitor and report to this Court on the number of persons so incarcerated so that this Court will be advised of the number of persons being so incarcerated.
The Court directs that Paul Gains, the Prosecuting Attorney of Mahoning County and counsel for the defendants, to provide a copy of this order forthwith to each of the Judges of the Common Pleas Court of Mahoning County, to each of the Judges of the Municipal Courts in Mahoning County, to each of the Judges of the County Court in Mahoning County and to Sheriff Randall Wellington.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

December 21, 2005 Date

/s/ David D. Dowd, Jr. David D. Dowd, Jr. U.S. District Judge

 
 Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 104 Filed 03/25/2005 Page 1 of 2

DOWD, J.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Nathaniel Roberts, et al., Plaintiff(s),
v. County of Mahoning, Ohio, et al.,
Defendant(s).

) ) CASE NO. 4:03 CV 2329 ) ) ) ORDER ) ) ) (Resolving Doc. No. 95) ) )

Counsel for the plaintiff class seek an injunction to prevent Sheriff Wellington from laying off 50 deputy sheriffs on or about March 27, 2005, and 90 more on or about April 10, 2005.1 (See Doc. No. 95). Counsel have also filed a brief in support of the motion for injunction (Doc. No. 99) and defendants’ counsel have filed a memorandum in opposition (Doc. No. 101).
In the interim, the Court has already put in place a process to appoint a special master under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3626. The Court intends to appoint said master as soon as possible.
The Sheriff of Mahoning County is faced with what appears to the Court to be an impossible situation, given the reduced budget approved by the Board of Commissioners of Mahoning County. The Board of Commissioners is faced with a similar problem because the electorate fails to respond to the request to vote a sales tax that would help alleviate the situation.
1 It appears from other recent filings that this latter number may actually be 100. See Doc. No. 103 at 2.

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 104 Filed 03/25/2005 Page 2 of 2

(4:04 CV 2329) The motion for an injunction, if granted, has the effect of short-cutting the remedial provisions of
18 U.S.C. § 3626 and places the Court in the position of micro-managing the operation of the entire governmental organization of Mahoning County. It is possible that a judicial order resulting in a reduction in the number of inmates to be housed in the Mahoning County Jail will be the ultimate result of this litigation. But, in the interim, it has been represented to the Court that Sheriff Wellington, faced with an insufficient number of deputies to man the jail and also take care of other mandated duties (such as providing the obvious need for protection for the Common Pleas Judges), as well as other statutory responsibilities (such as providing law enforcement personnel in the unincorporated parts of the County), has already undertaken measures to move inmates from the Mahoning County Jail to other county jails so as to alleviate the overcrowding and understaffing problem.
Against that background, the Court denies the motion of the plaintiff class for an injunction prohibiting the planned layoff of deputy sheriffs in Mahoning County.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 25, 2005 Date

s/ David D. Dowd, Jr. David D. Dowd, Jr. U.S. District Judge

2

 
 Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 124 Filed 05/26/2005 Page 1 of 2

DOWD, J.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Nathaniel Roberts, et al., Plaintiff(s),
v. County of Mahoning, Ohio, et al.,
Defendant(s).

) ) CASE NO. 4:03 CV 2329 ) ) ) ORDER ) ) ) ) )

On May 11, 2005, the Special Master filed his Third Report (Doc. No. 122), wherein the

recommendation was made that the Court maintain the status quo by continuing in effect the Order and

Preliminary Injunction of April 7, 2005. By order dated May 13, 2005, the Court indicated that,

absent any objections by May 20, 2005, the recommendation would be adopted.

There have been no objections. Therefore, the recommendation of the Special Master in his

Third Report is adopted and the Order and Preliminary Injunction of April 7, 2005 (Doc. No. 117) will

continue in effect, in particular, the following from that Order:

Having carefully considered the dictates of Section 3626(a)(1)(A) and the Court’s own Findings of Fact issued on March 10, 2005 (Doc. No. 93) along with the Findings in the First Report of the Special Master (Doc. No. 114), and taking into consideration that no party has substantively objected to any of the Findings or Recommendations in the First Report of the Special Master, and further concluding that the safety of the remaining inmates in the Justice Center and the safety of the local community in the City of Youngstown, Mahoning County, Ohio absolutely requires this injunction, the Court orders as follows:

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 124 Filed 05/26/2005 Page 2 of 2

(4:03 CV 2329)
1. That defendants maintain the current security staffing in the Justice Center without additional layoffs; specifically, the Court enjoins the layoffs presently scheduled for April 10, 2005 and April 17, 2005, until further order of the Court;
2. That the Sheriff of Mahoning County provide the Special Master and counsel of record with daily population counts in the north and south towers of the Justice Center until such time as the south tower is closed and the population in the north tower is no greater than 296;
3. That the Sheriff of Mahoning County inform the Special Master in writing, with copies to counsel of record, whenever the population in the north tower exceeds 296 and/or when inmates begin again to be assigned to the south tower or the Minimum Security Jail;
4. That the Sheriff of Mahoning County report on a weekly basis in writing to the Special Master, with copies to counsel of record, as to the number of early releases, by category, accomplished pursuant to the March 30, 2005 Judgment Entry of the Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County (see Doc. No. 114, Exhibit A); and
5. That the Special Master file Reports to the Court as he deems necessary throughout this process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

May 26, 2005 Date

s/ David D. Dowd, Jr. David D. Dowd, Jr. U.S. District Judge

 
 Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 69-1 Filed 12/10/2004 Page 1 of 9

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

NATHANIEL ROBERTS, eta!. Plaintiffs
vs. COUNTY OF MAHONING, eta!.
Defendants

)

CASE NO.: 4:03 CV 2329

)

)

JUDGEDOWD

)

)

)

)

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED

)

FINDINGS OF FACT AND

)

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

)

I. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT

1. This action was commenced on November 14, 2003 by inmates at the Mahoning County

Justice Center and the Minimum Security Jail asking this Court to find that conditions of

confinement are unconstitutional.

2. In addition, the inmates state that conditions of confinement in November of2004 are

unconstitutional. Staffing is inadequate. A remedial order in necessary to correct this problem.

3. This action was certified as a class action pursuant to Rule 23, Fed. R. Civ. P. and the

class was defined as, "All persons who are confined or will be confined at the Mahoning County

Justice Center and the Minimum Security Jail.

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 69-1 Filed 12/10/2004 Page 2 of 9
4. The jail was designed and originally operated as a podular-direct supervision facility.
Direct supervision staffing requires officers to provide supervision and security while being in continuous contact with the inmates supervised.
5. The Minimum Security facility has a housing capacity of96 inmates. The Sheriff uses
boats/cots to house additional inmates at the facility. The highest numbers in inmates housed at one time during 2003 was 112. 6. The housing capacity for the Justice Center when it was originally opened was 432 with a holding capacity of 24. In 2003 the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction permitted the Sheriff to double bunk certain cells. Up to 132 bunks were permitted, increasing the general capacity to 564. The Sheriff installed and utilized alll32 approved bunks. In addition the Sheriff double-bunked 36 other cells and used those 36 bunks to house inmates. Finally, the Sheriff utilized boats/cots to house even more inmates. The boats/cots are placed in singlebunked cells, thus tuming them into double-bunked cells. 7. The Bureau of Adult Detention oversaw the opening and operations at the Mahoning County Justice Center and the Minimum Security Jail. Both facilities were opened only after submitting staffing plans for approval to the State, said plan required direct supervision and a security staff of 151 personnel for the Justice Center and 22 personnel for the Minimum Security Jail.
8. In 1998 the Federal Court appointed expert Sheriff Gerry Billy to establish the minimum
number of staff to safely and securely operate the facility. The Court ordered correctional staffing of 151, with an administrative staff of 12 for both facilities.
9. Security posts within the jail must be continuously manned when inmates are out of their
cells for safety and security purposes. As a general principal, the Defendants lock down ranges
2

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 69-1 Filed 12/10/2004 Page 3 of 9
when a staff member is pulled off of a range, or one is not available to man a security post within that range.
10. Floaters, if on duty, are used to fill in vacant security posts, provide back up in
emergencies, transport inmates and food.
11. Locking down ranges, denies inmates access to programs including recreation. Lock
downs generally last for periods of time of two (2) hours to as much as three (3) days. Lock downs create tension and anxiety in the inmate class. This is especially true as most cells in the Mahoning County Jail are now double-bunked.
12. When inmates are released from lock down, inmates let out steam, get into arguments
over use of phones, what they watch on TV and little things normally taken for granted.
13. Pre-trial inmates who are locked down miss progran1ming and are exposed to an
environment of danger.
14. Statistics for 2003 indicate that the Mahoning County Jail has a high incidence of
violence.
15. Safety and security of guards and inmates for 2003 fell below acceptable levels for this
type of institution.
16. Both testimony and records show that during the Fall of2003 and November of2004
staffing of security posts in the jail fell below a level, to allow forthe safe and secure operation of the facility.
17. Testimony and records for the Fall of 2003 and November of 2004 show that staffing of
security posts in the jail caused inmates to be locked down for an unreasonable amount of time, which amounts to punishment for pre-trial inmates.
3

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 69-1 Filed 12/10/2004 Page 4 of 9
18. During these lock down periods, pre-trial inmates were forced to forego showers, phone
calls, recreation, visitation and other programs, such as anger management, GED classes, alcohol and drug counseling. 19. Close to one half of the inmates incarcerated at any one time in the Mahoning Cmmty Jail are pre-trial inmates.
20. Both inmates and guards fear for their safety in the Mahoning County Justice Center due
to insufficient staff. Many incidents of violence go unreported due to a lack of staff presence or lack of time to fill out reports.
21. Inmates housed in the Minimum Security facility cannot be locked down. The Minimum
Security facility must use direct supervision to safely and securely house inmates in the facility. Staff in the facility must provide proper backup for responding to fights and emergency situations.
22. The Defendants have chosen to operate the Minimum Security facility with, at most
times, two (2) guards, who provide indirect supervision, no proper back up for responding to fights. In many instances as few as one (I) guard is left at the facility, creating an extremely dangerous situation.
23. Intercom systems, elevators, touch screen computer control systems and the toilet
systems for the Mahoning County facility are often broken down. 24. Inmates are double-celled with toilets that often do not flush, exposing those inmates to Hepititis. Inmates are double-bunked in cells with intercoms that do not work, on ranges with indirect supervision, providing no opportunity to call for help. 25. Up until August of2003, Mahoning County employed the University of Akron Legal Clinic to provide legal access for inmates.
4

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 69-1 Filed 12/10/2004 Page 5 of 9
26. The Legal Clinic stopped visiting the facility after 13 years of service when their bills went unpaid. Mahoning County is violating the constitutional rights of inmates by failure to provide for their legal access needs.
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW l. The Fourteenth Amendment governs the conditions of confinement relating to pre-trial detainees. Since pre-trial detainees have not yet been convicted of a crime, they have a due process right not to be punished. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979). If the condition complained of amounts to punishment, it constitutes a violation of the inmate's constitutional rights. Condition of confinement amounts to punishment if there is direct proof of an expressed intent to punish. Courts may infer a punitive purpose if the challenged condition or restriction is not reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective. 2. The Eighth Amendment, which applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment on those convicted of crimes. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294,296 (1991). The prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment applies to deprivations not only relating to sentence, but also to conditions of confinement. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 103 (1976). 3. When the state restrains an individual's liberty through incarceration, the state has an affirmative obligation to provide for the basic human needs of the individual including food, clothing, shelter, medical care and reasonable safety. The United States Constitution imposes a duty on the state to assume responsibility for the safety and general well-being of persons taken into custody and detained against their will. Deshaney v. Winnebago County Social Services Department, 489 U.S. 189, 200 (1989).
5

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 69-1 Filed 12/10/2004 Page 6 of 9
4. At least one of the conditions of confinement, in and of itself, mnst arise to a constitutional violation. Thompson v. County of Medina, Ohio 29 F. 3d 238,242 (61h Cir. 1994). However, a constitutional violation may exist when multiple conditions, viewed together, have a, "mutually enforcing effect that produces the deprivation of a single, identifiable human need," such as food, warmth, exercise, medical care and reasonable safety. Wilson v. Seiter supra at 304. 5. Prison officials must take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of inmates. Farmer v. Brennan 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). The Constitution protects against cu!Tent, as well as, future harm to inmates. Helling v. McKinney 509 U.S. 25 (1993). 6. To establish liability under the Eighth Amendment, it must be demonstrated that prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious hann to a prisoner. Farmer v. Brennan supra at 834. 7. The concept of deliberate indifference encompasses both a subjective and an objective component. The objective component requires that the deprivation be sufficiently serious, i.e. that the inmate is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of harm. Fanner v. Brennan, supra. To satisfy the subjective component, plaintiff must show that prison officials have a sufficiently culpable state of mind. A sufficiently culpable state of mind is one in which the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety. The official must both be aware of facts from which the inference can be drawn that a substantial risk exists and he must also draw the inference. The fact finder may infer actual knowledge through circumstantial evidence. Fanner v. Brennan, supra. 8. A subjective approach to deliberate indifference does not require a prisoner seeking a remedy for unsafe conditions to await a tragic event, such as an actual assault, before obtaining
6

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 69-1 Filed 12/10/2004 Page 7 of 9
relief. Farmer v. Brennan, supra at 845. It is enough that a substantial risk of serious ham1 exists and the official knows of and disregards the risk. 9. The Justice Center and the Minimum Security Jail are significantly understaffed. As a result of the understaffing, the inmates are not properly supervised, emergencies can not be properly responded to, and there is a substantial risk that inmates may not be evacuated in case of fire.
With respect to the Justice Center, the understaffing results in inmates being locked in their cells on a frequent basis and when locked down, they have often been deprived of visitation, recreation and other inmate programs. They are ofien locked in cells with toilets that do not work. I0. Even though the Defendant Sheriff has not been able to maintain sufficient staff, he has added permanent bunks to several cells and utilizes boats at both the Justice Center and the Minimum Security Jail. The population of the jail has significantly increased while staffing levels have decreased.
There is a high degree of violence at the Justice Center and at the Minimum Security Jail. There is both inmate-on-inmate violence and inmate-on-guard violence.
The violence is unreasonably high and constitutes a substantial risk of serious harm to inmates incarcerated at the Justice Center and the Minimum Security Jail.
The violence is the direct result of inadequate staff. 11. The Defendants are aware of the facts giving rise to the substantial risk of harm and are aware that those facts create the substantial risk of harm to the inmates incarcerated at the Justice Center and the Minimum Security Jail.
7

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 69-1 Filed 12/10/2004 Page 8 of 9
12. With respect to pre-trial detainees, the acts of the Defendants amount to punishment in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. With respect to convicted inmates, the acts of the Defendants constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment, in that the Defendants are acting with deliberate indifference to the safety of the inmates incarcerated at both facilities. 13. Prisoners have a fundamental right to access to the Courts, which requires prison officials to provide prisoners with access to the Courts that is adequate, effective and meaningful. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 822 (1977). Prison authorities must assist inmates in preparing and filing meaningful legal papers and provide inmates with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law. Inmates must be provided with the tools required in order to attack their sentences, directly or collaterally, and in order to challenge the conditions of their confinement. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1995). 14. Defendants do not maintain a legal access program which complies with the requirements of the law. 15. As a result of the foregoing findings and conclusions, this Court determines that prospective relief is necessary. The Court finds that prospective relief is necessary to correct the constitutional violations that are found. The Court also finds that the prospective relief ordered 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 violated right. Title Eighteen U.S.C. §3626 (a)(l ). 16. The Defendants shall hire and maintain 150 persmmel to staff security posts essential to the safety and security of the Justice Center and Minimum Security Jail. The 150 staff persons are exclusive of administrative and certain supervisory positions. The posts are identified in
8

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 69-1 Filed 12/10/2004 Page 9 of 9
Exhibit 1, attached hereto, and they shall be staffed in accordance to the requirements set forth in Attachment 1. In addition to the 150 staff, the Defendants shall hire 12 staff for administrative positions, including inmate classification and records. 17. Within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Order, the Defendants shall submit to the Court a plan outlining a program that the Defendants will implement to provide constitutionally sufficient legal access to the inmates. 18. The Court hereby appoints a special master, who shall monitor the Defendants' compliance with the terms of this Order and who shall file periodic reports with the Court.
Ro~m/?2- ~'t-:
ROBERT ARt\1BRUSTER #0011623 159 South Main Street, Suite 720 Akron, Ohio 44308 (330) 434-2113
THOMAS KELLEY #0 16820 159 South Main Street, Suite 720 Akron, Ohio 44308 (330) 434-2113
9

 
 Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 72-1 Filed 12/10/2004 Page 1 of 7

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

NATHANIEL ROBERTS, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs. COUNTY OF MAHONING, OHIO, et al.,
Defendants.

:

:

Case No. 4:03CV2329

:

Judge David D. Dowd, Jr.

:

Magistrate Judge Limbert

:

DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Facilities. 1. The Mahoning County Justice Center Facility was built in 1996. 2. The facility is made up of two buildings-the main jail facility and the Minimum Security Mahoning County Jail. The main jail facility houses an average of approximately 600 inmates, while the Minimum Security facility houses approximately 80 inmates. Both facilities are located in the City of Youngstown. 3. The Minimum Security facility houses non-violent and low level misdemeanor inmates. It is an unlocked facility where inmates are satisfying sentences for non-violent crimes. 4. The facility has at least 17 different housing areas for use in classifying inmates, which allows them to keep violent and nonviolent inmates apart. 5. The facility has the benefit of 153 cameras to monitor security. 6. Inmates are provided with any number of privileges, including: cable television; use of a washer and dryer in the day area; use of showers; use of bathrooms and sinks outside of

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 72-1 Filed 12/10/2004 Page 2 of 7
their cells; indoor recreation facilities which include basketball, an exercise bike and a place to perform individual exercises; commissary privileges each Monday and Wednesday; visitation with friends and relatives who are properly identified on a weekly basis; programming through CCA, a subcontractor that provides GED training, domestic violence training and other programs. 7. A number of inmates are have roommates or are “double bunked.” 8. The average length of stay for inmates is less than 30 days. Staff. 9. The number of staff has varied over time depending upon the financial constraints on the county. While at one time the county had been ordered to keep 151 staff on hand at the facility in the positions of guards or administration, since the county has been relieved from that order, the county has used 130 to 190 to staff in the facility. 10. The Sheriff and Jail Administrator have a policy in place to protect staff and inmates by locking down inmates for their own safety and the safety of guards when required. 11. Fewer acts of violence occur when inmates are locked down than when they are permitted to use the day area. 12. The Mahoning County Sheriff’s Department provides services to its community in addition to the incarceration and rehabilitation of inmates, including the service of subpoenas, transports to and from many of the county courts, security to the Mahoning County Courthouse and emergency calls from many of the outlying communities of Mahoning County. 13. When necessary, the Sheriff orders Deputies away from the other services provided to the community and orders that these Deputies take up duties in the Justice Center.

::ODMA\GRPWISE\IBLT_DOM.IBLT_PO.IBLT Document Library:236490.1

2

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 72-1 Filed 12/10/2004 Page 3 of 7
14. When there are not a sufficient number of deputies to open all of the pods so that the inmates may access the common areas, the Jail Administrator orders a lock down for the inmates’ protection and for the protection of the deputies.
15. During times of financial difficulty for the county, inmates are locked down with greater frequency than they are in times when there are not budgetary concerns.
16. The administration rotates lock downs so that the same pods are not locked down on consecutive days.
17. The number of incidents of violence per inmate have stayed steady over the time period of 2000 to 2003, even though the staffing levels have varied, and even though the facility has come out from a federal court order for its operation.
18. The timing of deputies arriving for backup have not harmed inmates. 19. The union representing the deputies has historically requested additional numbers for
their membership. Maintenance. 20. The maintenance of the facility is accomplished by three experienced staff members who
have been trained in facility maintenance. 21. The plumbing system is sabotaged by inmates by the flushing of towels, bags, pillow
cases and the like. 22. The maintenance workers respond when called by the security staff and typically fix
problems within two or three hours. 23. The maintenance workers are on call on the weekends and respond to security staff
promptly to fix plumbing problems reported to them. 24. The maintenance staff has suggested improvements to the plumbing system to attempt to

::ODMA\GRPWISE\IBLT_DOM.IBLT_PO.IBLT Document Library:236490.1

3

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 72-1 Filed 12/10/2004 Page 4 of 7
make it less susceptible to sabotage from inmates. The suggested improvements have been funded by the County when requested and include new parts and upgrades to the design of the system. 25. Elevator and locking systems are repaired by the maintenance staff when requested. 26. The Sheriff has dedicated one deputy to fix any problems with the computer system and communication systems. 27. Television cameras are stationed throughout the facility for security purposes. The Sheriff replaced 26 cameras and added new cameras in the day areas, hallways, and outside the building. 28. All of the touch screens for the computers in the pods have been replaced in 2004. Legal Access. 29. The plaintiffs have not produced an inmate with a story of obstruction to the access to the courts for a nonfrivolous claim to challenge his or her sentence or the conditions of confinement. 30. Presentenced inmates have access to attorneys to assist them with access to the courts concerning their expected sentence. 31. Postsentenced inmates have access to attorneys to assist them with access to the courts to challenge their sentence. 32. In addition, the staff responds to inmate requests for assistance, or “kites,” by obtaining legal information when requested. 33. The plaintiffs have access to the courts to challenge the conditions of confinement, as evidenced by this suit. 34. The University of Akron Law School billed the facility $60,000 in its last year in the

::ODMA\GRPWISE\IBLT_DOM.IBLT_PO.IBLT Document Library:236490.1

4

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 72-1 Filed 12/10/2004 Page 5 of 7
facility to have law students talk with inmates about their legal problems.
Proposed Conclusions of Law
1. The Court is without jurisdiction to order any of the relief requested because plaintiffs have failed to prove a current and ongoing constitutional violation. 18 U.S.C. sec. 3626(b)(3).
2. The Court is without jurisdiction to order the relief requested because the relief is not narrowly drawn, fails to extend no further than necessary to correct a violation of any federal right, and is not proven to be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of any federal right. 18 U.S.C. sec. (a)(1)(A).
3. Although the source of authority is different for pre-trial detainees than for sentenced inmates (i.e. due process and Eighth Amendment), the standards are the same. Northington v. Sherrard, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 3333 (6th Cir. 1992).
4. Defendants are not deliberately indifferent to the serious needs of the inmates at the Mahoning County Jail. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 50 L. Ed. 251, 97 S.Ct. 285 (1976); Walker v. Fails, 917 F.2d 1449 (6th Cir. 1990).
5. The plaintiffs have failed to prove that any deprivation was, objectively, sufficiently serious to pose a substantial risk of serious harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed. 2d 811 (1994).
6. The plaintiffs have failed to prove that the defendants have a sufficiently culpable state of mind. In prison-conditions cases that state of mind is one of deliberate indifference to inmate health or safety. Id. at 834.

::ODMA\GRPWISE\IBLT_DOM.IBLT_PO.IBLT Document Library:236490.1

5

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 72-1 Filed 12/10/2004 Page 6 of 7
7. The conditions of confinement for plaintiffs do not deprive them of the "minimal civilized measure of life's necessities." Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 69 L.Ed. 2d 59, 101 S. Ct. 2392 (1981).
8. Defendant furnishes its inmates with reasonably adequate food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care and personal safety. Id.
9. While the inmates may not have the access to programming that they may have enjoyed in the past, there exists a fundamental difference between depriving a prisoner privileges he may enjoy and depriving him of the basic necessities of life.
10. The practice of “double bunking” inmates--that is, putting more than one inmate in a cell does not deprive inmates of their constitutional rights. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 69 L.Ed. 2d 59, 101 S. Ct. 2392 (1981) (although double bunking may result in discomfort, that is not sufficient to rise to the level of a constitutional violation); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S. Ct. 1861, 60 L. Ed. 2d 447 (1979) (pretrial detainees have no due process right to private cells).
11. Plaintiffs have not shown a constitutional violation for double bunking because there is no evidence that the practice subjected them to the unnecessary or wanton infliction of pain or led to a deprivation of essentials such as safety or sanitation. An infrequent lack of programming is insufficient for a constitutional violation. Rhodes, supra.
12. No plaintiff has demonstrated an “actual injury,” which cannot be shown by a theoretical deficiency in access to legal resources or legal aid. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 135 L.Ed 606, 116 S. Ct. 2174 (1996).

::ODMA\GRPWISE\IBLT_DOM.IBLT_PO.IBLT Document Library:236490.1

6

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 72-1 Filed 12/10/2004 Page 7 of 7
13. No plaintiff has demonstrated that the alleged shortcomings in the legal assistance program hinder his efforts to pursue a non-frivolous legal claim. Id.
14. Inmates do not have the right to select the methods by which access is provided. Penrod v. Zavaras, 94 F.3d 1399, 1403 (10th Cir. 1996).

/s/ Daniel T. Downey

Daniel T. Downey

(0063753)

email: danieldowney@isaacbrant.com

Mark Landes

(0027227)

email: marklandes@isaacbrant.com

ISAAC, BRANT, LEDMAN & TEETOR, LLP

250 East Broad Street

Columbus, Ohio 43215

(614) 221-2121

Fax (614) 365-9516

Attorneys for Defendants

County of Mahoning, Ohio, David Ludt,

Edward J. Reese, Vicki Allen Sherlock and

Randall Wellington

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on December 10, 2004, a copy of the forgoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system.
/s/ Daniel T. Downey Isaac, Brant, Ledman & Teetor, LLP

::ODMA\GRPWISE\IBLT_DOM.IBLT_PO.IBLT Document Library:236490.1

7

 
 Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 73 Filed 12/10/2004 Page 1 of 16

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

NATHANIEL ROBERTS, et al. Plaintiffs
vs. COUNTY OF MAHONING, et al.
Defendants

)

CASE NO.: 4:03 CV 2329

)

)

JUDGE DOWD

)

)

)

)

STIPULATION OF THE

)

PARTIES

)

)

1. The Mahoning County Justice Center (Justice Center) is located at 110 Fifth Avenue, Youngstown, Ohio. The Justice Center was newly constructed and opened in April 1996. The building houses the County’s Sheriff Department and jail.

2. The Justice Center is a multi-story high rise building, which has two towers north and south. Each tower is served by two elevators; one for visitation, and one used by staff.

3. The inmate intake/release area is located on the ground floor. It is referred to as A-pod. All new inmates enter the jail and are processed here. All departing inmates are released from the area and it is also used as a staging location for inmates being transported to and from court.

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 73 Filed 12/10/2004 Page 2 of 16

The area has ten cells of varying size. Newly arriving inmates are held in this area until they are booked into the jail and a housing location is assigned to them. Most of the cells include a sink/toilet combination unit and benches.
4. The medical unit is located on the first floor of the jail. It consists of 14 single cells. Female inmates in the medical unit have four cells and this area is called B-pod. Males have 10 medical cells and this area is called C-pod.
5. Floors two, four and six contain inmate housing units.
6. The housing units are designed to allow a staff officer to be stationed in the housing unit with direct and continuous contact with the inmate population.
7. The inmate housing units were originally designed as follows:

POD NAME

FLOOR/ TOWER

D (2 South→ West) E (2 South→ West)

F (2 North→ West) Violent
G (2 North→ West)

H (2 North→ East)

I

(2 North→ East)

CELLS (all single cells)

CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION

30

Female Medium Security

6

Female Trustees (Post-Trial)

18

Male Temp. Classification Non-

18

Male Temp. Classification Violent

30

Male Trustees (Post-Trial)

6

Male Administrative Segregation

::ODMA\GRPWISE\IBLT_DOM.IBLT_PO.IBLT Document Library:236073.1 2

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 73 Filed 12/10/2004 Page 3 of 16

J (2 South→ East) K (2 South→ East) L (4 South→ West) N (4 North→ West) O (4 North→ West) P (4 North→ East) Q (4 South→ East) R (6 South→ West) S (6 North→ West) T (6 North→ East) U (6 South→ East)

6

Female Disciplinary Segregation

30

Female Maximum Security

36

Male Maximum Security

18

Mental Health Classification

18

Male Disciplinary Segregation Violent

36

Male Maximum Security

36

Male Maximum Security

36

Male Medium Security

36

Male Medium Security

36

Male Medium Security

36

Male Medium Security

8. The housing capacity of the Justice Center when it was originally opened was 432 with a holding capacity of 24. These capacity levels were approved by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Bureau of Adult Detention.
9. On January 8, 2003, Sheriff Randall A. Wellington requested the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction to issue a variance to housing standard 5120:1-8-04 of Ohio’s

::ODMA\GRPWISE\IBLT_DOM.IBLT_PO.IBLT Document Library:236073.1 3

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 73 Filed 12/10/2004 Page 4 of 16

Minimum Jail Standards. The Sheriff requested that he be permitted to double bunk in the following areas which house minimum and medium security inmates.

D pod E pod H pod P pod S pod T pod U pod

(Female medium housing) (Female minimum-workers) (Male medium-workers) (Male medium) (Male medium) (Male medium) (Male medium)

Double bunking was not to include maximum security and special needs inmates. Sheriff Wellington requested double bunking for two reasons. First, the medium security housing inmates were overcrowded and inmate population was above recommended capacity for the entire year of 2002. The additional inmate population was accommodated by using cot/boat style bunks. The second reason for the request was the reduction of the Sheriff’s budget by four million dollars. The budget reduction affected the number of staff available to safely and efficiently cover housing units. The Sheriff indicated he could solve the problems by relocating existing prisoner population into shared space. The January 8, 2003 letter of the Sheriff is attached hereto as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1. The parties stipulate to its authenticity and admissibility.

10. On February 28, 2003, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction granted the variance to the following extent:
The Sheriff was permitted by the variance to add one additional bunk in 21 of the 36 cells on S, T, U and R pods. Fifteen cells on each range were to remain single bunked. Thus, housing capacity was increased from 36 to 57 on each pod under the variance.

::ODMA\GRPWISE\IBLT_DOM.IBLT_PO.IBLT Document Library:236073.1 4

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 73 Filed 12/10/2004 Page 5 of 16
The Sheriff was permitted by the variance to add one additional bunk in 24 of the 36 cells on D/E pod and 24 of the 36 cells on H/I pod. Thus, housing capacity was increased from 36 to 60 on each pod under the variance. The letter of 02/28/03 from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction to Sheriff Wellington attached hereto is Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2, and its authenticity and admissibility is stipulated to by the parties.
11. As a result of the variance, the inmate housing capacity of the jail was raised from 432 to 564, an increase of 132.
12. The additional beds in S, T, U, R, H, and D were added in the middle to latter part of 2003.
13. At the time the beds were added, the Sheriff also added additional bunks to F/G pod. F/G pod is used to temporarily house inmates awaiting classification. The Sheriff added one bunk to each cell. The pod increased from 36 bunks to 72 bunks. The Sheriff neither requested nor received a variance from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections to add the additional bunks to F/G pod. The bunks replaced some cots.
14. The 12 housing pods have three basic designs. The first pod design exists on pods Q, R, S, and T. Each pod is two stories high. There are 36 cells in each unit; 18 on the first floor and 18 on the second floor, arranged on three of the outer walls of the facility. The cells are approximately 70.35 sq. ft. and contain a sink/toilet, and at least one bunk. Twentyone of the 26 cells contains two bunks. Each cell is equipped with an intercom. The cells surround a day area on the first floor, which contains tables with fixed seats, television, phones, a microwave, washer/dryer and showers. There is also a podium for the housing
::ODMA\GRPWISE\IBLT_DOM.IBLT_PO.IBLT Document Library:236073.1 5

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 73 Filed 12/10/2004 Page 6 of 16
officer located in the day room. On the podium is the computer from which the guard can operate all cell doors, control lighting and respond to intercom use. The day area of each housing unit is 2,660.44 sq. ft, which includes an outdoor rec. area of 380.94 sq. feet.
The second pod design exists on three pods: D/E, H/I, and J/K. Each is also two stories high. There are 18 cells up and 18 down. In the unit, the housing layout is the same as the first pod design except that six of the cells (three up and three down), at one end of the unit, are separated from the rest of the unit by a block and glass wall. The six cell area has its own small day area and the 30 cell area has its own larger day area similar to the first design, only lacking the space taken out for the 6-cell portion of the unit. There is one podium for the housing officer located in the day area of the 30-cell unit, which serves both areas.
The third pod design is utilized for F/G and N/O pods. Each pod is also two stories. It is essentially the same as the first design except the pod is split down the middle by a solid wall with 18 cells (9 up and 9 down) on each side. There is a control booth at the end of the pod, which serves as the staff post. Staff in the post can observe both sides of the unit or pod from the post.
15. The Sheriff also operates the Mahoning County Minimum Security Jail (“M.S.J.”) located at 360 W. Commerce Street, Youngstown, Ohio. It is one block away from the Justice Center. In approximately 1995, the County modified an existing building and converted it into a jail. The jail is permitted to house sentenced minimum-security inmates. The jail is a two-story building with two distinct wings for inmate housing. Each wing is at the end of a hall and there is a central control unit located in-between.
::ODMA\GRPWISE\IBLT_DOM.IBLT_PO.IBLT Document Library:236073.1 6

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 73 Filed 12/10/2004 Page 7 of 16

16. The housing units of the M.S.J. are labeled A/B, C/D. The A/B units are separate housing units located adjacent to each other in the west end of the building. Each unit has 24 bunks, a day area and a bath/shower area. The C/D unit is actually one housing unit containing 48 bunks with a day area and a bath/shower area. The housing capacity for the M.S.J. is 96. Only males are housed at the M.S.J.

17. The Sheriff has used boats/cots to house additional inmates at the M.S.J. The highest number of inmates housed at one time in the M.S.J. during 2003 was 112.

18. Combined daily inmate population figures for both jails for each day for the period of July 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003 are attached hereto as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3. Its authenticity and admissibility are stipulated to.

19. For each month of 2003, the average daily inmate population for the Justice Center

was:

January: February: March: April: May: June: July: August: September: October: November: December:

Male 451, Female 29 Male 489, Female 37 Male 475, Female 35 Male 478, Female 34 Male 494, Female 37 Male 444, Female 76 Male 487, Female 82 Male 528, Female 90 Male 560, Female 94 Male 562, Female 81 Male 583, Female 89 Male 554, Female 74

20. For each month of 2003, the average daily inmate population (male only) for the M.S.J. was:

::ODMA\GRPWISE\IBLT_DOM.IBLT_PO.IBLT Document Library:236073.1 7

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 73 Filed 12/10/2004 Page 8 of 16

January: 86

February: 79

March:

80

April:

76

May:

76

June:

76

July:

82

August:

81

September: 90

October: 90

November: 104

December: 95

21. The highest and lowest numbers housed at the Justice Center for the following years
was:
2003: High 709, low 439 2002: High 485, Low 423 2001: High 472, Low 403

22. The highest and lowest numbers housed at the M.S.J. for the following years was:
2003: High 112, Low 66 2002: High 93, Low 74 2001: High 82, Low 61

23. The total number of inmates booked at the Justice Center in the following years was: 2003: 8,484 2002: 8,402 2001: 7,939
24. The Sheriff does not keep statistics for the Justice Center on the number or percentage of inmates that fall into the category of pre-trial detainees and sentenced inmates. In response to an Interrogatory request, the Sheriff provided a one-day total for January 23,

::ODMA\GRPWISE\IBLT_DOM.IBLT_PO.IBLT Document Library:236073.1 8

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 73 Filed 12/10/2004 Page 9 of 16
2003. On that date, 454 total prisoners were housed at the Justice Center; 313 (69%) were pre-trial detainees and 141 (31%) were sentenced inmates. The parties stipulate that most of the inmates in the custody of the Sheriff at the Justice Center are pre-trial detainees.
25. The Sheriff has entered into a contract with the Federal Marshall’s Office to house federal prisoners at the Justice Center. The Sheriff houses approximately 100 federal prisoners per day at the Justice Center. Many of the federal prisoners are Pre-Trial detainees.
26. At the time the Justice Center was opened, Chief Deputy James M. Lewandowski was the warden. At that time, he established the posts to be staffed for the jail and the staffing levels for each pod. The posts and staffing levels were submitted to and approved by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections in March 1996. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4 contains the post designated and staffing levels established by Lewandowski. The authenticity and admissibility of Exhibit 4 are stipulated.
27. The County, its Commissioners, and its Sheriff had been sued in 1992 by inmates of the old County jail. The lawsuit alleged violations of the constitutional rights of the inmates. The case was filed in the United States District Court, for the Northern District of Ohio, and styled William Cummings, et al. v. Sheriff Nemeth, et al. As a result of the lawsuit, a new jail was built and the lawsuit was resolved by a Consent Decree. The Consent Decree contained provision relating to the operation of the new jail. The Consent Decree was in effect until terminated in 2001.
::ODMA\GRPWISE\IBLT_DOM.IBLT_PO.IBLT Document Library:236073.1 9

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 73 Filed 12/10/2004 Page 10 of 16
28. Subsequent to the opening of the Justice Center, issues developed between the parties to the then existing lawsuit regarding staffing levels. The parties agreed to the appointment of a joint expert to determine staffing levels. Gerry D. Billy (the Sheriff of Licking County, Ohio) was the agreed upon expert. Sheriff Billy performed a staffing analysis. He recommended 150 security staff for the operation of the Justice Center and the M.S.J. On May 12, 1998, the Court issued an order that required the Sheriff to maintain a security staff of 150 and an administrative staff of 12. The Order is attached hereto as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 5 and its authenticity is stipulated.
29. Subsequent to the opening of the Justice Center, the County encountered financial difficulties. The County sales tax was defeated in November 1997. The tax was placed on the ballot as an emergency measure in May of 1998. It passed. The tax was, however, defeated in the November 1998 election. The County faced a loss of one-third (1/3) of its revenue. Eventually in 1999, the jail was forced to lay off 110 deputies. Several housing units of the jail were shut down and inmates were released as a result of the lay-offs. The Court modified its previous staffing order until funds were restored.
30. Funding was eventually restored. At the time the Consent Order was terminated on November 30, 2001, the Justice Center and M.S.J. were staffed at the level recommended by Sheriff Billy and adopted by the Court.
31. For the year 2003, the Sheriff’s budget was reduced by four million dollars. 54 correction deputies were laid off in March 2003. All were recalled in June 2003, although 8 did not return.
::ODMA\GRPWISE\IBLT_DOM.IBLT_PO.IBLT Document Library:236073.1 10

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 73 Filed 12/10/2004 Page 11 of 16
32. Plaintiff’s filed this lawsuit on Friday, November 14, 2003. At that time, payroll records demonstrate that 125 security staff were employed by the Defendant for the Justice Center and the M.S.J. At least 10 of the staff employed were on various forms of leave including administrative leave, sick leave, leave of absence, injury leave, and workers compensation leave. These employees were reflected on the payroll records but did not work the jail. On November 14, 2003, 19 staff were scheduled for duty on first shift (10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.) only 14 reported to work. On November 14, 2003, 31 security staff were scheduled for second shift (6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.) and only 24 reported for duty. On November 14, 2003, 29 staff were scheduled for third shift (2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) only 24 reported. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6 is the payroll sheet for November 14, 2003, and the parties stipulate to the authenticity and admissibility of the Exhibit. Staffing remained at the 125 level (including those on leave) through December 31, 2003. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 7 is the payroll sheet for December 31, 2003. The authenticity and admissibility of Exhibit 7 are stipulated.
33. The number of security staff assigned to the Justice Center and M.S.J. for each shift each day from July 1, 2003 until December 31, 2003 is attached hereto and contained in Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3.
34. Between February 27, 2004 and August 31, 2004, the Defendants hired 31 full time staff to work in the Corrections division (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 8, whose authenticity and admissibility is agreed to by the parties). As of September 30, 2004, there were 147 security staff (excluding leaves) employed by the Defendant for the Justice Center and M.S.J.
::ODMA\GRPWISE\IBLT_DOM.IBLT_PO.IBLT Document Library:236073.1 11

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 73 Filed 12/10/2004 Page 12 of 16

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 8A. The parties stipulate to the authenticity and admissibility of Exhibit 8A.

35. The County’s one-half percent (1/2%) sales tax was defeated on November 2, 2004. As a result of the loss of revenue, the 31 full-time staff hired were laid off effective November 5, 2004.

36. The Sheriff’s department promulgated a “Prisoner Rules and Conduct Handbook.”

Rule 6.5 prohibits fighting. Rule 6.4 prohibits assaults. Based on the disciplinary logs

maintained by the Sheriff for the year 2003, the following is a breakdown of reported

fighting and assaults charged for each month of 2003.

Month

Fighting Charges Assault Charges

(6.5 Rule)

(6.4 Rule)

January

12

0

February

5

1

March

8

0

April

13

3

May

10

4

June

15

2

July

26

2

August

19

6

September

22

3

October

30

5

November

30

5

December

16

7

Total

206

38

The following is a statistical summary of the Ohio Incident Reports received from Mahoning County regarding use of force:

Year 2000 (beginning March 1) 47 inmate on inmate assaults 17 inmate on staff assaults 5 other/miscellaneous incidents of violence or use of force 1 suicides/attempted suicides (inmate Datillo)

::ODMA\GRPWISE\IBLT_DOM.IBLT_PO.IBLT Document Library:236073.1 12

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 73 Filed 12/10/2004 Page 13 of 16
Year 2001 60 inmate on inmate assaults 17 inmate on staff assaults 10 other/miscellaneous incidents of violence or use of force 5 suicides/attempted suicides (inmates Bricker, Bode, Hamad, Minogue and Evans) Year 2002 80 inmate on inmate assaults 12 inmate on staff assaults 21 other/miscellaneous incidents of violence or use of force 3 suicides/attempted suicides (inmates Simer, McKee and Stephenson) Year 2003 (through October) 41 inmate on inmate assaults 11 inmate on staff assaults 14 other/miscellaneous incidents of violence or use of force 3 suicides/attempted suicides (inmates Olivera, Mock and Samad)
37. Prior to the summer of 2003, the Defendants contracted with the University of Akron, School of Law, to provide inmates with legal advice. The program was under the supervision of Professor J. Dean Carro of the University of Akron Law School. Law students would visit the facility twice a month and meet with inmates to discuss legal issues. The law students would provide the inmates with desired forms, copies of cases, and other legal materials and aid. The program had been in existence for several years and was terminated in the summer of 2003 for lack of funds.
38. Most housing pods at the jail have an outdoor recreation area. The outdoor recreation areas were used in conjunction with indoor gyms to provide exercise and recreational opportunities for inmates. All outdoor areas have not been used since July 3, 2004 because staff discovered a plan by inmates to use the outdoor area of one of the pods to escape. A plan of action has been developed with the Bureau of Adult Detention to modify the outdoor
::ODMA\GRPWISE\IBLT_DOM.IBLT_PO.IBLT Document Library:236073.1 13

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 73 Filed 12/10/2004 Page 14 of 16
recreation area. An architect has be retained to develop plans to modify the outdoor recreation.
39. The parties stipulate to the authenticity of the following exhibits except the Defendants reserve the right to object to admissibility based on relevance.
1. Letter 01-08-2003 from Wellington to Blough. 2. Letter 02-28-2003 from Connors to Wellington. 3. Inmate population and staffing reports for the Justice Center and the M.S.J.
07-2003 through 12-2003. 4. Letter 03-15-1996 from Lewandowski to Williams. 5. Interim Order 05-12-1988, William Cummings, et al., v. Sheriff Nemeth, et al.
U.S. District court, N.D. Ohio, Case No.: 4:92 CV 1838. 6. Payroll sheet for 11-14-2003. 7. Payroll sheet for 12-31-2003. 8. List of employees hired after November 2003 and assigned to the Corrections
Division. 8A. Payroll sheet for 09-30-2004. 9. Letter 11-12-2003 from Robert Knight to Wellington. 14. Standard Operating Procedure-organizational structure 15. Special order number 01-036 issued 11-26-2001. 18. Payroll sheet for 02-12-1999. 19. Supervisor’s logs. 20. Hearing Officer log of inmate disciplinary charges 2003. 21. Incident reports 01-2003 through 02-2003, 04-2003 through 10-2003. 22. Incident report 09-05-2003. 23. Incident report 09-12-2003. 24. Incident report 10-01-2003. 25. Incident report 10-12-2003. 26. Incident report 10-19-2003. 27. Incident report 10-28-2003.
::ODMA\GRPWISE\IBLT_DOM.IBLT_PO.IBLT Document Library:236073.1 14

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 73 Filed 12/10/2004 Page 15 of 16
28. Justice Center Floor plan. 29. Supervisor log-July, August, September 2004. 30. Hearing Officer’s Disciplinary Log-July, August, September 2004. 31. Supervisor log-November 2004. 32. Disciplinary logs -November 2004. 34. Report of Gerry D. Billy, as to authenticity only. 35. Report of Robert B. Pace, as to authenticity only. 38. Payroll logs November 2004.
40. The parties stipulate to the authenticity and admissibility of the following defense exhibits unless otherwise noted:
A. Complaint B. Mahoning County Justice Center and Minimum Security Jail Manual of Policies and
Procedures (Revised April 29, 1999) C. (1) Mahoning County Sheriff’s Office Directive No. 609.00: Classification/Inmate
(2) Booking Screens D. Mahoning County Sheriff’s Office Directive No. 614.03: Administrative Segregation E. (1) Mahoning County Sheriff’s Office Directive No. 612.01:
Sanitation/Environmental/Fire Safety (March, 2004) (2) Mahoning County Sheriff’s Office Directive No. 612.01:
Sanitation/Environmental/Fire Safety (January, 2003) F. Mahoning County Sheriff’s Office Directive No. 612.02: Sanitation/Environmental
Condition/Evacuation G. (1) Mahoning County Jail Pre-Plan
(2) Interoffice Memo regarding fire drill of June 23, 2004 not stipulated as to admissibility
H. Prisoner Rules of Conduct and Handbook I. Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections/Minimum Standards for Jails in Ohio
::ODMA\GRPWISE\IBLT_DOM.IBLT_PO.IBLT Document Library:236073.1 15

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 73 Filed 12/10/2004 Page 16 of 16
J. Mahoning County Jail Statistics 2003 stipulated as to admissibility with the exception of the segment addressing allowed capacity for holding area
K. Summary of ODRC reports from Mahoning County Regarding Incident Reports for 2000 through 2003
L. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections/Bureau of Adult Detention Certificate of Recognition Regarding Compliance with the Minimum Standards for Jails in Ohio, dated March 24, 2004 not stipulated as to admissibility
M. Reports of Fire Inspections conducted by the Youngstown Fire Department N. Reports of Inmate Lock Downs O. Staffing Report regarding Posts at the Mahoning County Justice Center and the
Misdemeanor Facility not stipulated as to admissibility P. Blueprints of the Mahoning County Justice Center Q. Inmate Kite Request T. Video of Current Conditions of the Mahoning County Justice Center and
Misdemeanor Facility

/s/ Mark Landes Mark Landes, Esq. (#0027227) Isaac, Brant, Ledman & Teetor LLP 250 East Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43215
/s/ Daniel T. Downey Daniel T. Downey, Esq. (#0063753) Isaac, Brant, Ledman & Teetor LLP 250 East Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43215

/s/ Robert Armbruster Robert Armbruster, Esq. (#0011623) Armbruster, Kelley, Kot, Honeck & Baker 159 S. Main Street, Suite 720 Akron, Ohio 44308-1337
/s/ Thomas Kelley Thomas Kelley, Esq. (#0016820) Armbruster, Kelley, Kot, Honeck & Baker 159 S. Main Street, Suite 720 Akron, Ohio 44308-1337

::ODMA\GRPWISE\IBLT_DOM.IBLT_PO.IBLT Document Library:236073.1 16

 
 Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 108 Filed 03/28/2005 Page 1 of 2

DOWD, J.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Nathaniel Roberts, et al., Plaintiff(s),
v. County of Mahoning, Ohio, et al.,
Defendant(s).

) ) CASE NO. 4:03 CV 2329 ) ) ) ORDER APPOINTING ) SPECIAL MASTER ) ) ) )

On March 10, 2005, this Court issued its Memorandum Opinion, including Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, determining that conditions at the Mahoning County Jail violate the constitutional rights of the plaintiff class. See Doc. No. 93.
The Court also found that the remedial phase of this litigation will be “sufficiently complex to warrant the appointment of a Special Master consistent with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(f).” Id. at 43. The Court asked the attorneys to engage in the process outlined in the statute for suggesting appropriate persons for possible appointment. This process is now complete. Both sides and the Court are in agreement as to an appropriate appointee.
Accordingly, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626(f)(2)(C), the Court hereby appoints Vincent M. Nathan to serve as Special Master for the remedial phase of this litigation. Compensation for Mr. Nathan shall be governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(f)(4).

Case 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Document 108 Filed 03/28/2005 Page 2 of 2
(4:04 CV 2329) The Court requests that Mr. Nathan provide the Court with a preliminary interim report by
April 15, 2005. IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 28, 2005 Date

s/ David D. Dowd, Jr. David D. Dowd, Jr. U.S. District Judge

2

 
 intervened. Hereinaf ter Plaintiffs, Defendants, and Intervenor are colle ctively referred to as “Parties”. 3. The Mahoning County Justice Center consists of two buildings, with close to 800 inmates being housed at the time of trial. The main facility is located at 110 Fifth Avenue, Youngstown, Ohio (“Justice Center”). The second building is called the Minimum Security Mahoning County Jail located at 360 W. Commerce Street, Youngstown, Ohio (“MSJ”). This building housed over 100 inmates and was closed in the sp ring of 2005. Its reopening is a ddressed later in this order. For purposes of this order the Ju stice Center and MSJ will be co llectively referred to as “County Jail Facilities.” CLASS CERTIFICATION 4. The Plaintiffs in their Com plaint moved this Court to c ertify this as a Class A ction pursuant to Civil Rule 23(a) an d 23 (b) (2 ). The Partie s hereto stipulate and agree to the following:
A. This action was certified as a class action pur suant to Rule 23(a) and 23 (b)(2) of the Fed. R. Civ.P on March 5, 2004.
B. That there are questions of la w and fact common to the class. The Parties agree th at: The named Plaintiffs claim and allege th at Defendants have engaged in a comm on course of conduct toward them, and have instituted a pattern or practice of conduct, or effectuated policy and procedure all of which affect the entire class as a whole. The factual allegations made by the named Plaintiffs, by their very natu re, are the type of allegations and claims which are common to other inmates at the Mahoning County Jail, past, present, and/or future. Common questions of law arise from these facts.
2

C. The claims of the representativ e Parties are typ ical of th e claims of the class. The claims are typical sin ce they arise from the same event or practice o r course of conduct which gives rise to the claim s of other class m embers. The claim s of the named representatives are based on the sam e legal th eories as those of the entir e class. Due to the fact that there is a commonality and typicality between the claims of the named Plaintiffs and the class, d eclaratory and injunctive relief is appropriate for the entire class.
D. The representative Parties have fairly and adequately protected the interest of the class. The interests of the nam ed Plaintiffs are not and have never been antagonistic to those of the class. Counsel for the na med Plaintiffs, Robert P. Armbruster and Thomas Kelley, have dem onstrated their competence to vigorously prosecute the interest of the class and are experienced in the handling of cases of this type.
E. On March 5, 2004, the Court certified the following class: All persons in the care or custody of the Ma honing County Sheriff and incarcerated on or after Novem ber 12, 2003 at the Mahoni ng County Justice Center, 110 Fifth Avenue, Youngstown, Ohi o, (“Justice Center”), and also all persons in the care or custody of the Ma honing County Sheriff and incarcerated on or after Nove mber 12, 2003 at the Ma honing County Minimum Security Jail, 360 W. Commerce Street, Youngstown, Ohio (“MSJ”).
F. The Plaintiff class has made no claims for damages.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3

5. The Court has jurisdiction over the Parties a nd subject matter of this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343(3). Venue is properly before this Court. 6. On December 13 through 15, 2004, the abov e captioned matter was tried to this Court. The named Plaintiffs, both pre-tria l detainees and convicted prisone rs being held in the custody of the Defendant Sheriff at the Justice Center , alleged the facilities were understaffed and overcrowded, creating unsafe and da ngerous conditions for the inm ates. Plaintiffs alleged that the lack of staff resulted in (1) the frequent lockdown of inmates for lengthy periods of time, (2) the inability to p rovide programs and se rvices to the inmates, including but no t limited to, recreation, visitation, religion, and inmate counseling programs, and (3) an inability to safely and securely house inmates. The inm ates further alleged that the staf f was not prop erly trained. Plaintiffs also alleged that the facilities were poorly m aintained, creating unhealthy and dangerous conditions for the inmates. They also asserted that inmates were locked down in cells with toilets that accum ulate human waste because they could not be flushed. They alleg ed that intercoms in cells did not work, prohibiting the inmates from contacting staff during periods of lockdown. Plaintiffs also claim ed that the jail does not provide adequate legal resources or a legal access program, thus violatin g their con stitutionally guaranteed right of ac cess to the courts. 7. The Parties agree that the Pl aintiffs have exhausted all ad ministrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit as a proposed class action. FINDINGS 8. As a result of the trial, the Court made extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the testim ony of inmates, experts, staff members and ad ministrators who work at the jail. Said findings of fact and conclusions of law are contained in the Mem orandum Opinion
4

issued by this Court dated March 10, 2005. (D oc. No. 93). That Me morandum Opinion is adopted as if it was fully rewritten here. PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT COMPLIANCE 9. The Court, in com pliance with 18 U.S.C. §3626(f)(2)(A), (B), and (C), appointed a Special Master (Doc. No. 108). Upon the recomm endation of the Special Master, the District Court directed the Defendants to create a Criminal Justice Working Group to develop a remedial plan consistent with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996). The District Court’s Or der constituted an order for le ss intrusive relief in com pliance with 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1) of the PLRA (Doc. No. 193). On May 1, 2006, the Criminal Justice Working Group issued its final repo rt (Doc. No. 191) but w as unable to arrive at a solution that would solve the unconstitutional conditions at the jail created by overcrowding. 10. The District Court has previously entered or ders in this case that have failed to rem edy the deprivation of Plaintiffs’ constitu tional rights. Defendants have had a reasonable am ount of time to comply with the previous court orders . Thus, the prerequisites for convening a threejudge court as set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3626(a)(3)(A) have been satisfied. 11. In accordance with the District Cou rt’s May 25, 2006 Order (Doc. No. 193), this T hree Judge Court was empaneled on June 8, 2006. (Doc. No. 194). 12. On July 27, 2006, the City of Youngstown moved to intervene (Doc. No. 207) and was granted intervention (Doc. No. 209). Subsequently this Court set the m atter for trial on May 16, 2007 (Doc. No. 224). 13. The Three Judge Court appointed S pecial Master Vince Nathan as the Court’s expert for this phase of the litigation (Doc. No. 191). Mr. Nathan was charged with the task of collecting data and preparing an expert re port of his findings and his opini on with respect to (1) whether
5

crowding at the jail is the cause of constitutional violations, and, if so, (2) whether there is any other viable for m of relief, short of a prisoner release order, that could rem edy the violations. Pursuant to this Court’s Orde r, Mr. Nathan investigated th e issues, and on December 3, 2006, filed a report containing his findings and his c onclusions with this Court (Doc. No. 229). The findings and conclusions set forth by this Court’s expert demonstrate that the jail is overcrowded resulting in violence to inm ates and staff, th at crowding is therefore the root cause of a constitutional violation and that there is no other viable remedy to cure the constitutional violation. (Doc. No. 229). 14. As a result of Mr. Nathan’s report, Plaint iffs filed a Motion for I mmediate Injunctive Relief on Decem ber 18, 2006 (Doc. No. 232). This Court set th e matter for an em ergency hearing to be held on December 28, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. (Doc. No. 234). The City of Youngstown filed a Response to Motion for Immediate In junctive Relief (Doc. No. 237), and Mahoning County Defendants filed a Brief in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Immediate Injunctive Relief (Doc. No. 239). 15. At the hearing, Mr. Nathan authenticated his own expert report and this Court adopted his report and m ade it part of the r ecord. Mr. N athan answered preliminary questions from the panel and counsel for the Parties. In add ition, all Parties agreed and s tipulated that based o n current staffing and population as highlighted in Mr. Nathan’s Expert Report the conditions of the Jail are unconstitutional. Af ter consideration of the briefs and arguments at the hearing, the panel confirmed that it would take the m atter of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Immedi ate Injunctive Relief under advisem ent (Doc. No. 245). In the in terim, the Court direct ed Judge Polster to engage in m ediation. Judge Polster m et with the Parties on January 3, 2007 at which tim e a tentative agreement was reached.
6

16. On February 28, 2007 the Three Judge Panel issued an Interim Stipulated Population Order (Doc. No. 251). Said order was issued with the purpose of immediately addressing overcrowding in the facility. PARTIES
All Parties agree that: 17. The provisions of this Consent Order shal l apply and be binding upon the Parties to this action, their agents, officers, employees, assigns, successors in interest and any persons acting in concert or privity with any of the Parties. 18. This Order shall in no way limit the Parties’ claims or defenses in other actions, and shall not be inter preted as an admission to the valid ity of any ot her claims filed by m embers of the inmate class. 19. This Order shall govern as an order addres sing those findings m ade in the m emorandum opinion of this Court, the findings and conclusi ons raised in Mr. Nathan’s Expert Report and those findings made in the Interim Stipulated Population Order. The Parties agree that this Order is narrowly drawn and intended to address only those factual findings and conclusions of law mentioned herein. Th e Parties agree and certify they are aware of no less intrusive way to address these findings and conclusions of law. 20. Now therefore, and upon consent of the Parties, based upon the need to address the above findings and conclusions of law, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: 21. The Court has jurisdiction over the Parties and subject matter of this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343(3) and 28 U.S.C. §3626. Venue is properly before this Court.
7

22. The District Court has previously entered or ders in this case that have failed to rem edy the deprivation of Plaintiffs’ cons titutional rights that are remedied with this Order. Defendants have had a reasonable am ount of tim e to comply with the previ ous court orders. Thus, the prerequisites for convening a three-judge court as set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3626 (a)(3)(A) have been satisfied. 23. This Court finds that this relief is narrowl y drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Fe deral rights found violated, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct tho se violations of Federal rights. 18 U.S.C. §3626(a)(1)(A). Moreover, this Court has considered and weighed any adverse im pact on public safety and the effect on the operation of a criminal justice system in Mahoning County. 18 U.S.C. §3626(a)(1)(A). 24. This Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the terms of the Interim Stipulated Population Order strike a balanc e between the interest in public safety and the interest in maintaining a constitutional jail as it provides f or the incarceration of all violent felons and for the reopening to m aximum occupancy of all the jail facilities under the control of Mahoning County, while at the sam e time protecting the constitutional rights of inmates in the County Jail Facilities. 25. This Court finds by clear and convincing evidence based on the entire record that (1) crowding is the primary cause of the vio lation of a Fede ral right, and (2) no o ther relief will remedy the violation of the Federal right. 18 U.S.C. §3626(a)(3)(E)(i) and (ii). 26. Thus, this Court finds that the factual predicate for imposition of a prisoner release order, as set forth in 18 U.S.C. §3626(a)(3)(E), has been established. AGREEMENT TO MEDIATE DIFFERENCES
8

27. It is anticipated that this Consent Order will be m onitored by Plaintiffs’ counsel, or by any monitor subsequently named by the Court, acco rding to terms outlined later in this Ord er. The Parties hereby agree that any alleged violat ions of this agreem ent found by the Parties, before being brought to the attention of this C ourt, shall be m ediated. Such mediation shall consist of a m eeting of Plaintiffs’ counsel and the appropriate Defendants and Intervenor. The complaining Party’s counsel shall state in wri ting any alleged violati on necessitating a meeting and give Defendants and Intervenor notice to investigat e and then m eet with counsel. If, after the meeting, the Pa rties indicate that they cannot resolve by way of agreement the problem discussed, any Party shall have th e right to b ring the a lleged violation to the attention of this Court to either enforce the provis ions of this Or der or seek relief from the provisions of this Order. INMATE POPULATION/RELEASE ORDER 28. Now, therefore, upon stipulation of the Pa rties, based upon a need to address the population issue imm ediately, the Three Judge Panel orders th at the Overcrowding Release Policy attached as Exhibit A in Doc. No. 251 be adopted to effectuate the following population limits and housing classifications designations.
POPULATION 29. Decisions on capacity are based on standards which include square footage of cells and square footage of day-areas with suf ficient programming for inmates. The Defendants agree to abide by these housing capacities. 30. All inmates classified as Maximum Security shall be single celled. All other medium and minimum security inmates may be double celled.
9

31. The Sheriff has adopted the practice of using boats (tem porary beds) and placing mattresses on cell f loors to cr eate additional capacity. The Parties he reby agree that all boa ts shall be removed from general housing and inmates should only be housed on bunks affixed in cell units with the exception of medical housing. 32. The Parties agree to the following population/ho using plan for the Justice Center. S aid plan is based on the Sheriff properly classifyi ng inmates as provided in paragraph 43 below and placing inmates in housing pods that are consistent with the classification. Nothing in this order shall forbid the Parties f rom meeting at a la ter time to agree to changes in the clas sification of housing units in the Mahoning County Jail.

SIXTH FLOOR

POD R

CELLS IN USE 36

TOTAL BEDS AVAILABLE FOR USE
52

S

36

52

CLASSIFICATION
Medium Male
All Medium Male or All Minimum Male

T

36

52

All Medium Male

or All Minimum

Male

U

36

52

Medium Male

Total beds available for use are subject to a 10% classification factor FOURTH FLOOR

10

POD
P Q L N
O

CELLS IN USE 36

TOTAL BEDS AVAILABLE FOR USE
36

36

36

36

36

18

18

18

18

CLASSIFICATION
Max Male
Max Male
Max Male
Minimum/Medium Intake Classification Disciplinary Male

Total beds available are subject to a 10% classification factor

Minimum/Medium-classification range maximum stay is five days

SECOND FLOOR

POD F

CELLS IN USE 18

TOTAL BEDS AVAILABLE FOR USE
18

CLASSIFICATION Max Female

G

18

28

Medium /

Minimum Female

Total beds available are subject to a 10% classification factor

POD
H I

CELLS IN USE 30

TOTAL BEDS AVAILABLE FOR USE
48

6

6

CLASSIFICATION
Male Mental Health Special Needs
Male Segregation

Total beds on H Pod are subject to a 10% classification factor

POD

CELLS IN USE TOTAL BEDS CLASSIFICATION AVAILABLE

11

FOR USE

J

6

6

Male Juvenile Bind

over as Adults

K

30

30

Male Maximum

Total beds on K Pod are subject to a 10% classification factor

POD D E

CELLS IN USE 30

TOTAL BEDS AVAILABLE FOR USE
48/54

6

6

CLASSIFICATION
Minimum Security Inmates/Male Inmate Workers Male Administration Segregation

Total beds on D Pod are subject to a 10% classification factor

Defendants may choose to use D Pod to house one of two groups of inmates -- either

inmate workers or minimum security inmates

Minimum Security Facility (MSJ) 33. The Parties agree that a m aximum of ninety-six (96) inmates can be housed in the MSJ. All are to be sentenced non- violent misdemeanant inmates, or non-violent sentenced 4 th and 5th degree felons. 34. The Parties acknowledge that the National Institute of Corrections has undertaken a study of the County Jail Fac ilities. The National In stitute of Corrections has recommended that the facility be run at 90% of capacity to allow for proper classification of inmates. 35. The Parties agree that w ithin the Justice Center, all units cl assified as minimum security pods shall house no m ore than 90% of the total usable beds allotte d to that classification. The Parties agree that all medium security ranges sh all house no m ore than 90% of the total usable

12

beds allotted to that classification. The Parties have agreed that all maximum security pods shall house no more than 90% of total usable beds allotted to that classification. 36. When arrests are undertaken in such a m anner that the Sheriff is unable to plan for an influx of inmates to protect the public, the Sheriff may fill each pod up to the total available beds for use not to exceed a p eriod of 24 hours on we ekdays, 48 hours on weekends and 7 2 hours on holiday weekends. However, in no event shall the population in any pod exceed the total number of usable beds. The Sheriff shall have 24/ 48/72 hours to reduce the population back to said figure 10% below the total beds available for use which allows for the proper classification. 37. When numbers exceed those set forth, th e Sheriff shall implem ent the Overcrowd ing Release Policy approved by all Pa rties and this Court which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated as if fully written herein. The Overcrowding Release Policy shall not apply to City Prisoners held pursuant to the Boarding of Pris oners Agreement entered into by Defendants and Intervenor and attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated as if fully written herein. Th e granting or revoking of bail shall not be constr ued to prevent release under this Order. The Sheriff shall have a right and au thority to release any and all pr isoners regardless of any order from any other state or municipal court in order to maintain a population cap consistent with this Order except as provided in the Boarding of Prisoners Agreement attached as Exhibit B. STAFFING 38. This Court, on March 10, 2005, found that st affing levels at the County Jail Facilities were insufficient. The Court went into an exte nded analysis of studies done at the jail and its history of staffing levels. 39. The Parties agree that these studies will be us ed as a basis for staffing at the County Jail Facilities. These stud ies broke staffing down accord ing to posts at each facility. The Parties
13

hereby agree to use a direct supervision m odel requiring that all posts identified throughout the County Jail Facilities to be staffed on a 24/7-hour basis. When fully open, the Sheriff shall employ 168 line officers to posts which include floats (147 for Justice Center and 21 for MSJ). 40. It is also agreed when fully opened that the Defendants shall employ 18 supervisory staff. 41. It is finally agreed when fully opene d the D efendants shall em ploy 23 jail clerical, support, administrative, and command staff. 42. It is the Parties’ intent that upon the opening of any new pods , that the Parties reach an agreement that there are suffici ent staff to open those pods and properly staff each identified post. It shall be the Defendant s’ responsibility to demonstrate that sufficient staff are em ployed and trained prior to filling all posts on a 24/7 basis prior to the opening of any additional housing areas. This includes posts for floats and supervisory staff as identified. CLASSIFICATION 43. The Sheriff has developed and adopted a population/classification plan that will allow the Sheriff to com ply with capacity standards sp ecified herein and class ification guidelines recommended by the National In stitute of Corrections. Said p lan allows the f acility to b e operated in compliance with th ese standards. S aid plan is attached h ere as Exhibit C. The Sheriff may find it neces sary to change or amend said plan from time to time with the approval of Plaintiffs’ counsel. TABLES 44. Defendants acknowledge that some pods do not have sufficient table space for all inmates to sit at meal time. Sufficient tables shall be added to day rooms to allow all in mates to sit at meal time. TRAINING
14

45. The Court made findings that staff training was deficient since 2001. It was found that the staff assigned to the Correct ions Division had little or no tr aining in policy direction to perform at levels com pliant with minimum confinement standards. The Court also found since 2001, only one fire drill had been conducted and that did not involve the movement of inmates. 46. Defendants agree to fully train all staff in compliance with minimum standards for jails in Ohio. 47. The Parties agree that the Sheriff will im plement training programs and put in place an active fire drill program that invo lves the m ovement of inmates. All activ ities involving fire safety and training sh all be logged in writing and made available to m onitor/Plaintiffs’ counsel for verification purpose. 48. The Parties agree and understand that th e Defendants are hiring up to at least 60 additional deputy sheriffs. These new deputy sheri ffs shall be given comp lete correction officer training prior to being stationed alone in the facility. LEGAL ACCESS 49. The Defendants at one tim e had a l egal access program provided by the University of Akron’s Law School Legal Clinic. The program was suspended due to lack of funds in September 2003. The program has been re-institute d and is presently oper ational. The Parties recognize that, because of the prior agreem ent to keep the population at 300 inm ates, said legal access program is running at on e-half of its inte nded capacity. Defend ants agree to make said program fully operational prior to the re-opening of the final pod in the jail. The Parties agree that said program meets constitutional requirements for providing legal materials to inmates. 50. The Parties agree that notices about the legal access program shall be posted on each pod throughout the jail.
15

DISCIPLINARY ISSUES 51. The Court in its findings of fact, found an unusually high number of inmate-on-inmate assaults, inmate-on-staff assaults and miscellaneous incidents of violence and use of force. The Court found that these statistics are a direct result of insuffici ent staffing and overcrowding. Parts of this Order are meant to address those co ncerns. The Parties agree that Sheriff shall keep incident reports documenting all inm ate-on-inmate assaults, inmate-on-staff assaults and miscellaneous incidents of violence and use of for ce. Said reports shall be m ade available when requested to Plaintiffs’ counsel. If unusually high numbers of assaults are found, the Parties agree to meet to mediate this problem. MAINTENANCE ISSUES 52. This Court has m ade numerous findings in regards to m aintenance issues at the County Jail Facilities. 53. The Defendants agree that to keep the County-Jail-Facilities systems operational and limit breakdowns, a m inimum number of m aintenance people need to be em ployed in order to assure seven-day-a-week day turn, five-day-a-week afternoon turn, and weekend call out ability. 54. Staff radios have had a histor y of frequent problem s due to old and worn out batteries. Defendants agree to keep an adequate supply of new batteries available to prevent staff radios from breaking down. 55. An intercom unit is located in each cell th roughout the facility. The intercom provides communication with each guard s tation on each range to each cell. The in tercom also provides communication from cells to the jail’s central control. Intercoms have been a prevalent source of breakdowns. The Parties agree that said intercoms are a vital part of providing for the safety and security of inmates and deputy sheriffs throughout the facility. The Parties agree that Defendants
16

shall keep all intercoms fully operational and maintain a written l og monitoring inspection, breakdown and repair of the intercoms. This log shall be available to monitor/Plaintiffs’ counsel for review. 56. Defendants agree to buy and m aintain sufficient inmate mattresses, linen, clothing, and food trays. 57. The Court f ound numerous instances of CCTV cameras being broken, and com puter screens which do not work. The Sheriff has i mplemented a program of inspection and agrees to upgrade and m aintain the integrat ed security system s, including hardware and software within the next six (6) months. The Sheriff has maintained and will continue to maintain a maintenance log that records inspections, all reported cam era/computer screen breakdowns throughout the facility, and repairs made thereto. Said maintenance logs shall be available to Plaintiffs’ counsel for inspection. 58. The Court made findings as to the general cl eanliness of the facility and found it to be hazardous to the health of inmates, security staff, and civilian workers in the jail. The Sheriff has implemented a prog ram to m ake daily inspections and Defendants will con tinue to insure that showers are clean, washing machines are operational, and all facility fixtures are operational and the sufficient cleaning supplies ex ist. The Sherif f has recorded and will continu e to record inspections in a log. 59. The Defendants agree to properly m aintain cell doors, locks, visitation phones, computer software systems, elevators, ai r handling systems, heating system s, and all other system s and components regulating life-safety, security, and safety of the C ounty Jail Facilities and their occupants. Defendants shall regu larly inspect each of these systems, making necessary repairs. All inspections and repairs shall be kept in a log.
17

60. The Defendants agree that the MSJ physical facility shall be assessed for all maintenance defects and addressed prior to re-opening. Upgr ades and maintenance prior to opening shall be discussed and explained to Plaintiffs’ counsel. 61. Defendants agree to provide a security upgrade for the inmate/public visitation areas. LOCKDOWNS 62. This Court made findings that as a result of lack of staff, the inmates at the Justice Center were frequently locked down for lengthy periods of time. The Sheriff agrees that lockdown logs shall be kept indicating any unscheduled lockdow ns that occur in the facility, length of the lockdown and the reason for said lockdowns. These logs shall be maintained and made available to Plaintiffs’ counsel for inspection. RECREATION 63. Due to safety and security issues with fencing in outdoor recreation areas, the Defendants suspended all outdoor recreation at the Justice Center. Th e Defendants have undertaken a study to insure that these outdoor recreation areas could be operating in the future in a safe and secure manner. In order to accomplish this goal, certain structural changes must be made to the fencing in the outdoor recreation area s. Defendants agree to m ake said changes for the outdoor recreational areas so that they will be operational by August 1, 2007. The Sheriff agrees to properly supervise outdoor and indoor recreation. MONITORING 64. During the pendency of this Order, Plai ntiffs’ counsel shall m onitor and review Defendants’ compliance with the te rms of this Order. Said monitors sh all visit at least monthly and no more than twice a month to review compliance.
18

65. The Sheriff agrees to continue to make av ailable to Plaintiffs’ counsel by way of e mail daily population figures indicating the total number of inm ates in the facility. Defendants shall also furnish a breakdown of inmates housed by pod.
ATTORNEYS FEES 66. The Plaintiffs and Defe ndants have reached an agreement in regards to the paym ent of attorneys fees associated with th e trial of this m atter. Said fees were agreed paid through May 28, 2006. Since that tim e, Plaintiffs counsel ha s on a quarterly basis filed hours reflecting attorneys fees. Defendants shall have the right to review and question the accuracy of said hours but nonetheless agree to pay Plaintif fs counsel said fees within thir ty (30) days of the signing of this Order at a rate of $186.00 per hour. 67. The Plaintiffs and Defendants anticipate that additional attorneys’ fees will be associated with monitoring and enforcement of this Order. Said costs of m onitor/Plaintiffs counsel and/or Plaintiffs’ counsel shall be paid on a yearly ba sis. Defendants shall pay costs for reasonable monitoring fees/reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses ap proved by this Court on an annual basis. Monitoring rates are to be billed at an office rate not to exceed $150.00 an hour. The rates for actual legal work including in court or out of court brief writing are to be billed at a rate of $186.00. CONTINUING JURISDICTION 68. The Parties understand and agree that the Count y Jail Facilities shall be fully operational and at maximum capacity as defined in this Order by August 1, 2007.
19

 
 495 F.Supp.2d 784 (2007)
Nathaniel ROBERTS, et al., Plaintiff(s), v.
COUNTY OF MAHONING, OHIO, et al., Defendant(s).
No. 4:03 CV 2329.
United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division.
June 4, 2007.
785 *785 Robert P. Armbruster, Armbruster, Kelley, Kot, Honeck & Baker Akron, OH, for Plaintiffs.
Sharon K. Hackett, Linette M. Stratford, Paul J. Gains, Office of the Prosecuting Attorney, Youngstown, OH, Thomas N. Michaels, Cleveland, OH, for Defendants.
ORDER
DOWD, District Judge.
This lawsuit began on November 14, 2003, when Nathaniel Roberts and other inmates housed in the Mahoning County Justice Center (MCJC) filed an action on behalf of all prisoners then confined or who would in the future be confined in the MCJC. After conducting a hearing on December 13 through 15, 2004, the Court entered its Memorandum Opinion containing findings of fact and conclusions of law on March 10, 2005. (Doc. No. 93). The Court concluded that conditions and practices then ongoing in the MCJC violated the rights of the members of the plaintiff class.
The Court appointed Vincent M. Nathan as Special Master pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626(f)(2)(A), (B), and (C) on March 28, 2005 (Doc. No. 108). The Court directed the Special Master "to assist the parties, specifically the Defendants, in attempting to find a solution to the problems which created the unconstitutional conditions at the jail." See Order of May 25, 2006 at 1 (Doc. No. 193). During the period of his service, the Special Master filed seven reports containing findings and recommendations.
The first two of these reports (Doc. Nos. 114 and 119) addressed a narrowly avoided crisis that would have resulted from massive layoffs of security staff in the MCJC scheduled as a result of a budget shortfall in Mahoning County. The Special Master's third report, filed after the passage of a successful ballot issue increasing revenues available for the funding of the MCJC, described the parties' continued cooperation in attempting to resolve the problems facing the jail, in particular, the need for accelerated collection of the proceeds from the successful bond issue (Doc. No. 122). The fifth report (Doc. No. 140) was the first of three in which the Special Master examined some of the most important underlying causes of crowding at the MCJC. That report provided detailed information concerning the length of stay in the MCJC of prisoners booked into that facility. The sixth report provided similar information on the number of days that elapsed between the sentencing of felons and their transportation from the MCJC to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction (Doc. No. 148), and the Special Master's seventh and final report provided information on the number of days that elapsed between major events in felony cases in the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas (Doc. No. 165). These reports, to which no party filed any objection, were instrumental in establishing an informational foundation for discussions of possible remedies to the phenomenon of chronic and serious crowding in the jail.
The report that established a mechanism for the actual resolution of this litigation was the Special Master's fourth report in which he recommended the formation of a group of Mahoning County officials to convene regularly, to prepare a written remedial plan "to accomplish a long-term systemic solution to the problems of overcrowding" in the MCJC, and to submit that plan to the Court. Fourth Report of the Special Master at 20. (Doc. No. 132) The Court adopted this recommendation in its Order of September 13, 2005 (Doc. No. 139). Pursuant to that Order,

786 the defendants *786 created the Mahoning County Criminal Justice Working Group, which met regularly for approximately eight months before filing its final status report on May 1, 2006 (Doc. No. 191).
Because the Working Group's final status report failed to contain a commitment by the judges of the Youngstown Municipal Court to abide by a prisoner release order to which the parties, the Court of Common Pleas judges, and the County Court judges in jurisdictions other than Youngstown in Mahoning County had agreed, the Court requested the convening of a three judge court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3)(D) to determine whether a prisoner release order by the federal court was appropriate. See Order of May 25, 2006 at 5. (Doc. No. 193) The Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit appointed the three judge court on June 7, 2006. The three judge court subsequently entered an Order on August 2, 2006 approving the City of Youngstown's earlier motion to intervene as a party defendant. (Doc. No. 297 and Doc. No. 209).
The three judge court convened a status conference and a hearing to "begin to address the question of whether a prisoner release order . . . is required and permitted as a remedy in this case." See Order of September 7, 2006 (Doc. No. 224). In that order the court scheduled a two-day hearing on this question on May 16 through May 17, 2007. Id. at 9.
Ultimately, however, with the assistance of Honorable Dan Aaron Polster, a member of the three-judge court who acted as a mediator between the parties, on May 12, 2007, the plaintiffs, the defendants, and the defendantintervenor submitted a proposed Consent Judgment Entry with a Stipulated Population Order. (Doc. No. 258). By Order of April 12, 2007, the three judge court ordered that notice of the proposed compromise be given to members of the public and to members of the plaintiff class (Doc. No. 259) and scheduled a fairness hearing to be held on May 17, 2007 (Doc. No. 260). After receiving only two objections to the proposed order, the threejudge court convened the previously scheduled hearing on May 17, 2007. The court found that the defendants had given the required notice, that the two written objections were not germane to the issue of the approval of the proposed order, and that the proposed order was fair and equitable and in the best interests of the class. Subsequently, pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 23(e), the three judge court approved the proposed stipulated order by Consent Judgment Entry filed on May 17, 2007 (Doc. No. 266).
Thus, the appointment of the Special Master in this case has accomplished the Court's original objective. His reports and other actions have fulfilled the requirement that he "assist the parties, specifically the Defendants, in attempting to find a solution to the problems which created the unconstitutional conditions in the Jail." See Order of May 25, 2006 at 1 (Doc. No. 193). At the May 17, 2007 hearing, described above, the three judge court expressed its appreciation to the Special Master for his efforts in this case, and this Court is pleased to reiterate that expression of appreciation. The Court also wishes to express its gratification that the original parties to this action and the City of Youngstown were able and willing to resolve this complex local problem without the need for a federal prisoner release order.
Accordingly, based on the above, the Court hereby terminates the appointment of the Special Master in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Doc #: 113 Filed: 04/06/05 1 of 2. PageID #: 1856

DOWD, J.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Nathaniel Roberts, et al., Plaintiff(s),
v. County of Mahoning, Ohio, et al.,
Defendant(s).

) ) CASE NO. 4:03 CV 2329 ) ) ) ORDER RE: COMPENSATION ) FOR SPECIAL MASTER ) ) ) )

On March 28, 2005, the Court appointed Vincent M. Nathan as Special Master under 18

U.S.C. § 3626(f)(1)(B) to assist the Court with the remedial phase of this litigation. See Doc. No.

108. Compensation for the Special Master is governed by § 3626(f)(4), 1 which provides:

The compensation to be allowed to a special master under this section shall be based on an hourly rate not greater than the hourly rate established under section 3006A for payment of court-appointed counsel, plus costs reasonably incurred by the special master. Such compensation and costs shall be paid with funds appropriated to the Judiciary.

The current hourly rate approved by the Judicial Conference under § 3006A is $125.00.

Accordingly, the Court determines that Mr. Nathan’s hourly rate shall not exceed $125.00,

plus costs reasonably incurred. Mr. Nathan shall be required to submit a monthly bill on or near the

1 In another order (see Doc. No. 112), the Court suggested that the compensation might also be subject to the interpretation of Hadix v. Johnson, 398 F.3d 863 (6th Cir. 2005). However, more careful consideration has convinced the Court that Hadix does not apply.

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Doc #: 113 Filed: 04/06/05 2 of 2. PageID #: 1857
(4:03 CV 2329) first day of every month during his appointment as Special Master, beginning with May 2005. Each monthly bill will then be reviewed and approved by the Court prior to payment.
Since the funds for payment of the Special Master come from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, in order that the AO might be able to obligate an appropriate amount, Mr. Nathan is asked to submit to the Court by April 8, 2005, his reasonable estimate as to anticipated hours and costs for the next six months. 2
Mr. Nathan has already filed a motion seeking leave to employ a graduate assistant at a rate of $25/hour. (Doc. No. 110). That request is granted. The amounts paid to the graduate assistant shall be part of the “costs” permitted, with the understanding that all such costs will be subject to monthly review and approval by the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

April 6, 2005 Date

s/ David D. Dowd, Jr. David D. Dowd, Jr. U.S. District Judge

2 Section 3626(f)(5) requires that this Court review the appointment every six months. 2

 
 Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Doc #: 193 Filed: 05/25/06 1 of 6. PageID #: 3184

DOWD, J.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Nathaniel Roberts, Individually and on Behalf of the Certified Class, et al.,
Plaintiff(s), v. County of Mahoning, et al.,
Defendant(s).

) ) CASE NO. 4:03 CV 2329 ) ) ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) )

On March 10, 2005, this Court issued a Memorandum Opinion (Doc. No. 193), including Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. This Court found that the Class members (1) are being denied their constitutional rights not to be punished without due process of law and/or not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, and (2) are being denied their constitutionallyprotected right of access to the courts.
This Court found the remedy in this case is subject to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. §3626(a). This Court appointed Vincent Nathan as Special Master (Doc. No. 108) consistent with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. §3626(f)(2)(A), (B) and (C). Recognizing that deference to defendants to develop a remedial plan in the first instance is consistent with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 362-63 (1996), this Court directed the Special Master to assist the parties, specifically the Defendants, in attempting to find a solution to the problems which created the unconstitutional conditions at the jail. The Special Master in his Fourth Report (Doc. No. 132) formally recommended that the Defendants form a

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Doc #: 193 Filed: 05/25/06 2 of 6. PageID #: 3185
(4:03 CV 2329) working group to develop a remedial plan to deal with the constitutional issues raised regarding the jail and to examine the justice system in Mahoning County to see how changes in the system could alleviate the overcrowding component of the unconstitutional conditions in the jail. There being no objection to this recommendation, this Court’s Order of August 10, 2005 (Doc. No. 132) adopted the recommendations of the Special Master’s Fourth Report. This Court’s August 10, 2005 Order constituted an order for a less intrusive relief in compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 3636(a)(1) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
Pursuant to this Court’s Order (Doc. No. 133), the Criminal Justice Working Group (“CJWG”) was formed and began meeting in August of 2005. Over the next ten months, the CJWG met and made multiple reports of its progress. (See, Doc. Nos. 142, 154, 166 and 175). On May 1, 2006, the CJWG submitted its Final Report to this Court. (Doc. No. 191). This Court appreciates the great amount of effort and work that has gone into the formation of this final report and the CJWG’s attempt to solve those problems outlined in the Memorandum Opinion of March 10, 2005. Further, the Defendants have reported that progress has been made toward resolving a number of the findings in that Memorandum Opinion including legal access, maintenance, outdoor recreation, and training. However, the central issue of population control to prevent future overcrowding remains unresolved.
By way of agreement between the Plaintiffs and Defendants, in May of 2005 the population at the Mahoning County Jail was limited to no more than 296 inmates during the remedial phase of this action. This Court recognized this agreement in its Order of April 7, 2005. (Doc. No. 117). Thereafter, due to the Common Pleas Court Ordered Release Mechanism
2

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Doc #: 193 Filed: 05/25/06 3 of 6. PageID #: 3186
(4:03 CV 2329) (“Release Mechanism”), the population cap was implemented. See CJWG First Interim Report (Doc. No. 142, Exhibit G). After implementation of the Release Mechanism, the population crept from 296 to upwards of 400. During this interim period, the parties attempted to regain control of the population by implementing additional procedures. See CJWG Second Interim Report (Doc. No. 154, pp. 12-13 and Exhibit K). These procedures fell short, in part as a result of judicially imposed “Do Not Release” (“DNR”) Orders by the misdemeanant, county, and common pleas courts for certain inmates who would have otherwise been released pursuant to provisions of the Release Mechanism. This left the Sheriff in a predicament of violating such DNR orders, the Common Pleas Court Ordered Release Mechanism, and/or the parties’ agreed population limit in this case.
The Defendants reported that, on January 10, 2006, the Sheriff’s Department released an inmate with a DNR Order issued by a Youngstown Municipal Court Judge who then sought to have the Sheriff held in contempt. Such action prompted the Defendants to file a writ of prohibition in the Seventh District Court of Appeals seeking to have the appellate court determine the jurisdiction of the lower courts to issue “Do Not Release” Orders in violation of the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court Ordered Release Mechanism. The Seventh District Court of Appeals granted the writ of prohibition on May 22, 2006 by a vote of 2 to 1.1 The decision, favorable to the Defendants, gives the Sheriff the ability to control the population using the Common Pleas Court Ordered Release Mechanism and prohibits the individual misdemeanant courts from affecting the population with DNR orders. However, in a newspaper
1 A copy of the Opinion and Dissent are attached hereto as Appendix 1. 3

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Doc #: 193 Filed: 05/25/06 4 of 6. PageID #: 3187
(4:03 CV 2329) article in The Vindicator, dated May 23, 2006, counsel for the City of Youngstown indicated that the City was contemplating filing an appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court or seeking a writ of prohibition regarding the Emergency Release Mechanism.2 Therefore, the possibility of a continuing challenge to the Sheriff’s ability to control the population with the Common Pleas Court Release Mechanism remains troubling to the Court.3
In order to attempt to maintain a constitutional facility and remedy the population issue created by the DNRs, the Sheriff made the decision to open two additional pods. See CJWG Fourth Interim Report. (Doc. No. 175, Exhibit B). The Sheriff represented to this Court that these two additional pods are being run in the same constitutional fashion as the tower which was agreed to hold 296 inmates. Imperative to the issue of population control is staffing. However, due to the increasing jail population, in-service training has been delayed in 2006 in order to insure that adequate staffing levels are being properly maintained.
Defendants, through the CJWG, have attempted to implement a plan to deal with the overpopulation; but this plan remains dependent on factors beyond the parties’ control. In order to maintain population levels, the Sheriff must have the ability to release inmates to prevent overcrowding based on his staffing levels available on any particular day. This requires a commitment from all common pleas, municipal, and county judges to maintain an agreed-upon
2 A copy of the article, obtained from the newspaper’s website, is attached as Appendix 2.
3 An editorial published on May 25, 2006 in The Vindicator, the major newspaper in Mahoning County, encouraged the City of Youngstown to challenge the opinion taken by the majority in the prohibition action as set forth in Appendix 1. A copy of that editorial, clipped from the online digital version of the newspaper, is attached as Appendix 3.
4

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Doc #: 193 Filed: 05/25/06 5 of 6. PageID #: 3188
(4:03 CV 2329) population cap. But, to date, only the Common Pleas and County Court Judges have agreed by Court Order to an Overcrowding Release Mechanism. See CJWG Final Report (Doc. No. 191, Exhibit E).
Since the Sheriff has redirected staff hired as relief for training in order to maintain security to open additional pods to accommodate the DNRs, at some point he will have to close pods and reduce the population to accomplish training. Thus, without a mechanism to release inmates to accomplish training and to maintain population caps based on the number of staff available to provide adequate staffing, the Defendants are unable to control the jail population and to prevent unconstitutional overcrowding.
As of May 5, 2006, the jail population stood at 463 inmates.4 Consequently, this Court finds that it is unlikely that the plan to maintain constitutional population levels at the jail will be effective without some intervention by this Court in the form of a prisoner release mechanism.
Accordingly, this Court, in compliance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and the holding in Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 362-63 (1996), finds that the Defendants have been given an opportunity to correct the problem of jail overcrowding and have been unable to do so without further intervention by this Court.
It is hereby ordered, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §3626(a)(3)(D), that the matter of determining a prisoner release order be referred to a three-judge panel in due course in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2284.5
4 See attached Appendix 4. 5 The responsibility to appoint a three-judge panel rests with the Chief Judge of the Sixth
(continued...) 5

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Doc #: 193 Filed: 05/25/06 6 of 6. PageID #: 3189
(4:03 CV 2329) Notwithstanding this decision and pending the convening of a three-judge district court,
this Court encourages the CJWG to continue its efforts to achieve a resolution of all issues in this lawsuit without further intervention by this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

May 25, 2006 Date

s/ David D. Dowd, Jr. David D. Dowd, Jr. U.S. District Judge

5 (...continued) Circuit, Danny Boggs. Under the law, the three-judge panel must include at least one circuit judge. The Court is in the process of requesting Chief Judge Boggs to appoint the panel by Friday, June 30, 2006.
6

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Doc #: 193-1 Filed: 05/25/06 1 of 12. PageID #: 3169 APPENDIX 1

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Doc #: 193-1 Filed: 05/25/06 2 of 12. PageID #: 3170

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Doc #: 193-1 Filed: 05/25/06 3 of 12. PageID #: 3171

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Doc #: 193-1 Filed: 05/25/06 4 of 12. PageID #: 3172

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Doc #: 193-1 Filed: 05/25/06 5 of 12. PageID #: 3173

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Doc #: 193-1 Filed: 05/25/06 6 of 12. PageID #: 3174

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Doc #: 193-1 Filed: 05/25/06 7 of 12. PageID #: 3175

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Doc #: 193-1 Filed: 05/25/06 8 of 12. PageID #: 3176

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Doc #: 193-1 Filed: 05/25/06 9 of 12. PageID #: 3177

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Doc #: 193-1 Filed: 05/25/06 10 of 12. PageID #: 3178

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Doc #: 193-1 Filed: 05/25/06 11 of 12. PageID #: 3179

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Doc #: 193-1 Filed: 05/25/06 12 of 12. PageID #: 3180

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Doc #: 193-2 Filed: 05/25/06 1 of 2. PageID #: 3182

APPENDIX 2

Court sides with sheriff

Date

May 23, 2006

City and county officials will discuss a plan today to share county jail space.

By DEBORA SHAULIS

VINDICATOR STAFF WRITER

YOUNGSTOWN -- The 7th District Court of Appeals has ruled that municipal courts and common pleas courts aren't equals when it comes to managing the county jail and its inmates.

In a 2-1 opinion issued Monday, appellate judges granted a writ of prohibition as sought by Mahoning County Sheriff Randall A. Wellington against Judge Elizabeth A. Kobly of Youngstown Municipal Court.

That means Judge Kobly cannot order Wellington to attend a show-cause hearing that could have led to a contempt-of-court charge.

Ronald Tomlin of Youngstown, whom Judge Kobly sentenced last November to seven days in county jail for misdemeanor domestic violence, received emergency release despite the judge's order to the contrary. Wellington said the part of the judge's journal entry with her handwritten "do not release" instructions was not received by jail personnel.

The case also concerned the county's emergency release mechanism, which common pleas court judges devised to limit jail population. A federal judge declared the jail to be unconstitutional in March 2005 because of overcrowding and staffing shortages.

How this is done

Inmates who qualify, depending on the seriousness of their crimes, either serve time when jail space is available or have their sentences converted or suspended by judges.

Judge Kobly had argued that the release mechanism was modifying her sentence orders.

Appellate judges Gene Donofrio and Joseph Vukovich ruled otherwise. "The release mechanism ordered by the common pleas court provides a logical mechanism to furlough inmates until such time as there is room for them to serve the remainder of their sentences and to bring the jail into constitutional compliance," Judge Donofrio wrote in the majority opinion.

Furthermore, the General Assembly long ago gave common pleas courts exclusive authority over jail operations. There is "no such statutory or case law that gives a municipal court such specific identical authority," Judge Donofrio wrote.

In her dissenting opinion, Judge Mary DeGenaro said the appellate court shouldn't stop Judge Kobly "from exercising her lawful contempt powers, even if we believe that it is unlikely that [she] will be able to find [Wellington] in contempt."

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Doc #: 193-2 Filed: 05/25/06 2 of 2. PageID #: 3183
County Prosecutor Paul J. Gains, who filed court motions on Wellington's behalf, said he wasn't surprised that the appeals court ruled in the county's favor.
"We are weighing our options at the moment," said Atty. Anthony J. Farris, the city's chief assistant prosecutor. The city could file an appeal with Ohio Supreme Court or seek a writ of prohibition regarding the emergency release mechanism, he said.
Neither path will need to be taken if the city and county can come to terms on jail bed allocations. That's supposed to be the topic of a meeting today between county officials and Mayor Jay Williams.
The county Criminal Justice Working Group has proposed reserving 96 beds for city prisoners at a rate of $25 per day, plus meals and medical expenses, and giving municipal judges the right to create their own release mechanism over the city's portion of the jail. The city says it will pay for defendants who are charged with breaking municipal ordinances but not state statutes.
"We would really like to work this out with the city," Gains said.
"We've never been adverse to an agreement," Farris said. "It's the terms that are at issue." Ssh
shaulis@vindy.com
© 2006 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator. 103 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Doc #: 193-3 Filed: 05/25/06 1 of 1. PageID #: 3181 APPENDIX 3

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Doc #: 193-4 Filed: 05/25/06 1 of 1. PageID #: 3168
APPENDIX 4
Mahoning County Sheriff's Department
Justice Center and MSJ Daily Inmate Count

May 5, 2006
Booking***

Pod Total Bunks Current Count

A

10

0

Medical Housing

B

4

1

C

10

11

Medical Housing Totals

14

12

North Tower

F

36

32

G

36

27

H

54

60

I

6

6

N

18

18

O

18

15

P

36

44

S

57

59

T

57

58

North Tower Totals

318

319

South Tower

D

54

0

E

6

0

J

6

0

K

30

0

L

36

0

Q

36

0

R

57

66

U

57

66

South Tower Totals

282

132

Minimum Security Jail

A

24

0

B

24

0

C

24

0

D

24

0

Total MSJ

96

0

TOTAL INMATE POPULATION

Booking

0

Medical Housing

12

North Tower

319

South Tower

132

Minimum Security Jail

0

TOTAL ***

463

***Booking (12hrs.) Rated Capacity 44

 
 Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Doc #: 194 Filed: 06/08/06 1 of 1. PageID #: 3190

DOWD, J.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Nathaniel Roberts, et al., Plaintiff(s),
v. Mahoning County, etc., et al.,
Defendant(s).

) ) CASE NO. 4:03 CV 2329 ) ) ) ORDER ) ) ) ) )

The Court has been notified that Chief Judge Danny J. Boggs of the Sixth Circuit has

designated Sixth Circuit Judge Alice M. Batchelder and District Court Judge Dan A. Polster, of

this court, to serve with the undersigned as the three-judge panel in this case. A copy of the

official designation is attached hereto as Appendix A.

It is apparent to this branch of the court that the schedule of the three judges will delay an

informal meeting of the judges until the week of June 19. After such a meeting has been

conducted, the Court anticipates that additional orders will be published.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 8, 2006 Date

s/ David D. Dowd, Jr. David D. Dowd, Jr. U.S. District Judge

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Doc #: 194-1 Filed: 06/08/06 1 of 1. PageID #: 3191 APPENDIX A

 
 Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Doc #: 203 Filed: 06/29/06 1 of 5. PageID #: 3238

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Nathaniel Roberts, et al., Plaintiff(s),
v. Mahoning County, etc., et al.,
Defendant(s).

) ) CASE NO. 4:03 CV 2329 ) ) Judge Alice M. Batchelder ) Judge David D. Dowd, Jr. ) Judge Dan Aaron Polster ) ) ORDER ) )

A three-judge district court has been convened pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626. Several

matters are now before the Court and are addressed herein.

Doc. No. 195 -- Motion to Intervene On June 15, 2006, the City of Youngstown, Ohio (“the City”) filed a motion to intervene
in the proceedings before the three-judge court being convened to consider the issuance of a prisoner release order. (Doc. No. 195). At the Court’s request, the parties have filed responses. The defendants’ response is in the form of a motion to dismiss the motion to intervene or, in the alternative, for instructions to the City. (Doc. No. 198). The City has opposed this motion. (Doc. Nos. 199, 202). The plaintiffs also filed a response to the motion to intervene (Doc. No. 200), joining in the defendants’ request to either deny the motion or issue instructions. The City filed a reply. (Doc. No. 201).
The gravamen of defendants’ argument is that the City has not followed proper procedure for intervention since its motion does not include the proposed pleading of the intervenor. See

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Doc #: 203 Filed: 06/29/06 2 of 5. PageID #: 3239
(4:03 CV 2329) Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(c). The City argues that it need not follow the procedure set forth in the Rule
because it is attempting to intervene under 18 U.S.C. § 3626 for the limited purpose of
participating in the remedial stage of these proceedings and, particularly, for an opportunity to
weigh in on the question of whether a prisoner release order should be entered by the Court.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 provides in relevant part as follows:
(a) Intervention of Right. Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action : (1) when a statute of the United States confers an unconditional right to intervene; or (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties.
* * *
(c) Procedure. A person desiring to intervene shall serve a motion to intervene upon the parties as provided in Rule 5. The motion shall state the grounds therefor and shall be accompanied by a pleading setting forth the claim or defense for which intervention is sought. The same procedure shall be followed when a statute of the United States gives a right to intervene. . . .
Now that a three-judge district court has been convened, the City is attempting to
intervene pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3)(F) which provides:
Any State or local official including a legislator or unit of government whose jurisdiction or function includes the appropriation of funds for the construction, operation, or maintenance of prison facilities, or the prosecution or custody of persons who may be released from, or not admitted to, a prison as a result of a prisoner release order shall have standing to oppose the imposition or continuation in effect of such relief and to seek termination of such relief, and shall have the right to intervene in any proceeding relating to such relief.
2

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Doc #: 203 Filed: 06/29/06 3 of 5. PageID #: 3240
(4:03 CV 2329) By its express terms, Rule 24 requires the City to supply a pleading even though it is
attempting to intervene under a federal statute, not under Rule 24 itself. Section 3626(a)(3)(F) merely establishes that the City, arguably, has standing to intervene. Rule 24 supplies the procedure by which any application to intervene is made.
The Court concludes that the City has not followed the appropriate procedure. Therefore, the motion to intervene (Doc. No. 195) is DENIED without prejudice to re-filing in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. To the extent the defendants’ response (Doc. No. 198) can be construed as a motion, it is DENIED as moot. Intervention Generally
The City of Youngstown moved to intervene and, presumably, will renew that motion which has now been denied for failure to follow the correct procedure. It may be that other entities, such as the cities of Struthers and/or Campbell as well as the County Courts, may also have an interest in intervening. Therefore, the Court directs that any and all motions to intervene must be filed by July 28, 2006 and must comply, at a minimum, with the following directives.
An intervenor becomes a party to the action and thereby opens itself to having a judgment rendered against it. Therefore, any entity seeking to intervene, in addition to complying with Rule 24, must also either supply the Court with evidence authorizing such intervention or show why such evidence is not required. For example, the original motion to intervene filed by the City of Youngstown contained no mention that City Council had endorsed the action by way of resolution or ordinance. The motion was signed and filed by only a deputy
3

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Doc #: 203 Filed: 06/29/06 4 of 5. PageID #: 3241
(4:03 CV 2329) law director. This Court will require any intervening entity to prove that the attorney filing the application to intervene actually has requisite authority from the entity he or she represents.
The statute under which Youngstown sought to intervene gives standing to the City “to oppose the imposition or continuation in effect of such relief [a prisoner release order].” Any such order would be part of the remedial phase of these proceedings. However, the City’s motion suggested that it would also attempt to challenge the original fact-findings of this Court regarding the constitutionality of the Mahoning County Jail operations, that is, that it would attempt to challenge the liability phase of the lawsuit.
Any entity seeking to intervene must make crystal clear in its motion to intervene what aspect of the case it seeks to challenge and why it believes it has standing to make such a challenge. Further, any entity seeking to intervene for purposes of challenging the liability phase of this lawsuit, must set forth its reason(s) for delaying its application to intervene. Ultimately, when deciding any motion to intervene, the Court will identify the permissible scope of such intervention. Status Conference
The three-judge court will conduct a status conference at 10:00 a.m. on Monday, August 14, 2006. The conference will take place in Courtroom 442 at 2 South Main Street, Akron, Ohio. It will be on the record. Counsel for all parties and for all intervenors will be required to attend.1 The Special Master is encouraged to attend and, if any representatives from the defendants wish to attend, they are also encouraged to do so.
1 The Court will resolve any pending motions to intervene prior to the status conference. 4

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Doc #: 203 Filed: 06/29/06 5 of 5. PageID #: 3242

(4:03 CV 2329) Service of this Order
Parties shall receive service of this Order via the Clerk’s electronic filing system. The Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this order by certified mail on the following, who may have an interest in intervening:

Iris Guglucello, Law Director 4th Floor, City Hall 26 South Phelps Street Youngstown, OH 44503
Carol Clemente-Wagner, Law Director 6 Elm Street Struthers, OH 44471

Brian J. Macala, Law Director 351 Tenney Avenue Campbell, OH 44405
Judge Joseph M. Houser Administrative Judge County Courts of Mahoning County 127 Boardman-Canfield Road Youngstown, OH 44512

IT IS SO ORDERED.
June 29, 2006 Date

FOR THE COURT
s/ David D. Dowd, Jr. David D. Dowd, Jr. U.S. District Judge

5

 
 Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Doc #: 209 Filed: 08/02/06 1 of 1. PageID #: 3273

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Nathaniel Roberts, et al., Plaintiff(s),
v. Mahoning County, etc., et al.,
Defendant(s).

) ) CASE NO. 4:03 CV 2329 ) ) Judge Alice M. Batchelder ) Judge David D. Dowd, Jr. ) Judge Dan Aaron Polster ) ) ORDER ) )

Before the Court is the motion to intervene filed by the City of Youngstown pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3)(F). (Doc. No. 207). The motion is granted.

Counsel for the City of Youngstown is directed to file the Complaint in Intervention

which was attached to the motion,1 taking care to use the event “Intervenor’s Complaint” when

making this electronic filing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 2, 2006 Date

FOR THE COURT
s/ David D. Dowd, Jr. David D. Dowd, Jr. U.S. District Judge

1 Counsel should also be sure to file a clean copy, not the one currently attached to the motion, which contains an automatic header labeling it as Doc. No. 207-3. The ECF system will attached a new header once the new document is filed.

 
 Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Doc #: 245 Filed: 12/29/06 1 of 2. PageID #: 3987

DOWD, J.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Nathaniel Roberts, et al., Plaintiff(s),
v. Mahoning County, et al.,
Defendant(s).

) ) CASE NO. 4:03CV2329 ) ) JUDGE ALICE M. BATCHELDER ) JUDGE DAVID D. DOWD, JR. ) JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER ) ) ORDER ) )

On December 28, 2006, the panel conducted a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Immediate

Injunctive Relief (Docket No.232). Prior to the hearing, the Intervener City of Youngstown filed a

brief in response (Docket No. 237) and the Mahonnig County Defendants also filed a response brief

(Docket No. 239). Plaintiffs also filed a supplem ent in support of the mot ion for injunctive relief

(Docket No. 240).

At the hearing, the Court’s expert, Mr. Vincent Nathan, authenticated his own expert report

and answered pr eliminary questions from the panel and counsel for the parties. Further, the

Intervener City of Youngstown conifrmed that it intended to select its own experts to subimt a report

consistent with the dictates of the panel’s casemanagement plan. The City of Youngstown has also

filed its Notice of Identity of Expert Witnesses. See Docket No. 243.

After consideration of the briefs and arguments at the hearing, the panel confirmed that it

would take the m atter of Plaintiffs’ m otion fo r Im mediate Injunctive Re lief under advisem ent.

However, the panel designated Judge Polster to engage in an attempt to mediate a resolution of the

dispute acceptable to all of those interested in th e outcome. The panel reiterated its view that the

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Doc #: 245 Filed: 12/29/06 2 of 2. PageID #: 3988
problem, and the solution, is fundamentally a local one and urged all interested parties to engage in negotiations toward a mutually agreeable resolution.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Polster,with the encouragement of his fellow panel members, commenced efforts to seek a resolutionof this matter. Judge Polster’s orders concerning scheduling of and attendance at mediation sessions shall have the same force and effect as those of the panel. The case management schedule previously adopted by the panel also remains in effect as this matter is scheduled for a full hearing on May 16-17, 2007.
The transcript of the hearing has been ordered (Docket No.241) and interested parties may purchase it by contacting the court reporter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
December 29, 2006 Date

FOR THE COURT,
/s/ David D. Dowd, Jr. David D. Dowd, Jr. U.S. District Judge

2

 
 Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Doc #: 292 Filed: 05/18/10 1 of 2. PageID #: 4659

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Nathaniel Roberts, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. County of Mahoning, Ohio, et al.,
Defendants, v. City of Youngstown,
Intervenor.

) ) CASE NO. 4:03 CV 2329 ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) )

On May 17, 2007, this three-judge panel (Panel) entered a Consent Judgment Entry

(Consent Entry) with a stipulated population order and retained jurisdiction over the Consent

Entry for three years. ECF 266. The Panel’s jurisdiction, by the terms of the Consent Entry,

expired on May 17, 2010.

One month before the scheduled expiration of the Panel’s jurisdiction over the Consent

Entry, plaintiffs filed a motion to hold defendant Mahoning County (County) in contempt of the

Consent Entry and to extend the Consent Entry for one year. ECF 283. Initially, the County

opposed the motion to extend the Consent Entry. ECF 285. However, on the eve of the

expiration of this Panel’s jurisdiction, the County withdrew its opposition and also moved the

Panel for a one-year extension of the Consent Entry. ECF 290. Intervenor City of Youngstown

(City) opposed both the plaintiffs’ and the County’s motion to extend the Consent Entry.

ECF 284 and 289.

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD Doc #: 292 Filed: 05/18/10 2 of 2. PageID #: 4660

(4:03 CV 2329) The Panel has reviewed the parties’ briefs regarding the motions to extend the Consent
Entry and concludes that there is no basis upon which the Panel may do so. Accordingly, both plaintiffs’ motion and the County’s motion to extend the Consent Entry are DENIED. This Panel’s jurisdiction over the Consent Entry expired by its terms on May 17, 2010.
However, the Panel retains jurisdiction to rule on plaintiffs’ motion for contempt against the County for violation of the Consent Entry during the time the Consent Entry was in effect. Similarly, the Panel acknowledges the motion of plaintiffs’ counsel for attorney fees (ECF 290) during that time period and its jurisdiction to rule on that motion. The Panel will publish a separate order regarding plaintiffs’ motions for contempt and attorney fees.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
May 18, 2010 Date

s/ Alice M. Batchelder Judge Alice M. Batchelder Chief Circuit Judge
s/ David D. Dowd, Jr. Judge David D. Dowd, Jr. U.S. District Judge
s/ Dan Aaron Polster Judge Dan Aaron Polster U.S. District Judge

2

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Nathaniel Roberts, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. County of Mahoning, Ohio, et al.,
Defendants, v. City of Youngstown,
Intervenor.

) ) CASE NO. 4:03 CV 2329 ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

With agreement of the parties, a Consent Entry was ordered on May 17, 2007 by a

three-judge panel composed of Judge Alice M. Batchelder, Judge David D. Dowd, Jr., and

Judge Dan Aaron Polster, as a result of a lawsuit filed by plaintiffs alleging unconstitutional

prison conditions at the Mahoning County Jail. ECF 266. On May 18, 2010, the three-judge

panel determined that there was no basis upon which to extend the Consent Entry, which

expired by its terms on May 17, 2010. ECF 292. However, before the Consent Entry expired,

plaintiffs filed a motion for contempt against the defendants for violation of the Consent Entry

during the time it was in effect (ECF 283), and a motion for attorney fees (ECF 290). The Court

retains jurisdiction to decide these motions. See ECF 292.

(4:03 CV 2329)

A. MOTION FOR CONTEMPT

Plaintiffs assert that the defendants failed to comply with the following provisions of the

Consent Entry while it was in effect: 1) in-service training requirements (Consent Entry, par.

46); 2) staffing requirements (Consent Entry, par. 30); 3) outdoor recreational requirements

(Consent Entry, par. 63); 4) facility maintenance requirements (Consent Entry par. 57, 59 and

61); and 5) dining table requirements (Consent Entry. par. 44).

It is the defendants’ position that they are not in contempt because they have complied, or

substantially complied, with the Consent Entry, and have taken all reasonable steps within their

power to comply. ECF 285. Where compliance may be incomplete due to lack of funds,

defendants argue that any non-compliance does not rise to the level of contempt requiring the

imposition of monetary fines or punitive sanctions. In their reply, plaintiffs question the level

of compliance and the manner in which Mahoning County has chosen to allocate funds to the

Mahoning County Sheriff and the Mahoning County Jail. ECF 286.

The purpose of a court’s contempt power is to preserve the court’s authority and enforce

the message that the court’s orders are to be taken seriously. Adcor Indus., Inc. v. Bevcorp, LLC,

411 F. Supp. 2d 778, 793 (N.D. Ohio 2005) (quoting Elec. Workers Pension Trust Fund v.

Gary’s Electric Serv. Co., 340 F.3d 373, 379 (6th Cir. 2003)). The power to punish for contempt

should not be used lightly and lies within the sound discretion of the Court. Adcor Indus., 411 F.

Supp. 2d at 793.

2

(4:03 CV 2329) In order to succeed in their contempt motion, plaintiffs must produce clear and
convincing evidence that the defendants violated the Consent Entry. Elec. Workers Pension Trust Fund, 340 F.3d at 379. If the plaintiffs satisfy this initial burden, the burden shifts to the defendants to establish that they are presently unable to comply, and in that context, the Court may consider whether defendants took all reasonable steps within their power to comply with the Consent Entry. Id.; Satyam Computer Services Ltd. v. Venture Global Engineering, LLC, 323 Fed. Appx. 421, 431 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Elec. Workers Pension Trust Fund, 340 F.3d at 379).
In this case, the Court found at the outset that the conditions at the Mahoning County Jail were such that plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were being violated, and the Consent Entry was entered on May 17, 2007 to address those conditions and restore the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. The Court will assume, for the purpose of this analysis, that plaintiffs have established a violation of the Consent Entry by clear and convincing evidence.
The defendants’ response to the motion for contempt reflects that significant effort and expense has been undertaken by the defendants to rectify the conditions at the Mahoning County Jail, and plaintiffs’ motion for contempt does not assert that unconstitutional conditions now exist at the Mahoning County Jail as a result of defendants’ alleged violations of the Consent Entry. Although the defendants may have struggled with certain requirements of the Consent Entry due to budget issues similar to those which have strained city and county governments across the nation, the Court cannot conclude that the defendants have not taken all reasonable
3

(4:03 CV 2329) steps to comply with the Consent Entry, nor can the Court conclude that defendants have not taken the Consent Entry seriously or have flouted compliance with the Consent Entry.
Accordingly, the Court declines to find the defendants in contempt of the Consent Entry, and plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.
B. MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES Plaintiffs’ counsel has filed a final billing invoice for monitoring and court hours. ECF 290. Paragraphs 66 and 67 of the Consent Entry provide for the payment of attorney fees for monitoring and enforcement of the Consent Entry by plaintiffs’ counsel. ECF 266. The invoice appears to be in compliance with the attorney fee compensation provisions of the Consent Entry, and defendants have not challenged the invoice. Accordingly, the motion for payment of the final invoice of plaintiffs’ counsel is GRANTED, and defendants are directed to pay said fees within thirty (30) days of this Order.
4

(4:03 CV 2329)

C. CONCLUSION

For the reasons contained herein, plaintiffs’ motion for contempt is DENIED. Further,

the motion for payment of the final invoice of plaintiffs’ counsel is GRANTED, and defendants

are directed to pay said fees within thirty (30) days of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 23, 2010 Date

s/ Alice M. Batchelder Judge Alice M. Batchelder Chief Circuit Judge
s/ David D. Dowd, Jr. Judge David D. Dowd, Jr. U.S. District Judge
s/ Dan Aaron Polster Judge Dan Aaron Polster U.S. District Judge

5

 
 Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD As of: 07/03/2014 04:57 PM EDT 1 of 29
Cat03,ClassAction,LC1,Limbert,Termed
U.S. District Court Northern District of Ohio (Youngstown) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:03−cv−02329−DDD

Roberts et al v. County of Mahoning, Ohio, A Local Government Entity et al Assigned to: Judge David D. Dowd, Jr Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 11/14/2003 Date Terminated: 05/17/2007 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Nathaniel Roberts Individually and on behalf of all present and future inmates of the Mahoning County Jail and all persons committed to the custody of the Sheriff of the Mahoning County Jail

represented by Robert P. Armbruster Armbruster, Kelley, Kot, Honeck & Baker Ste. 720 159 South Main Street Akron, OH 44308 330−434−2113 Fax: 330−434−2158 Email: robattarm@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Kelley Armbruster & Kelley 720 Key Bldg. 159 South Main Street Akron, OH 44308 330−434−2113 Fax: 330−434−2158 Email: tkelley1@neo.rr.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
James Joseph Mancini Individually and on behalf of all present and future inmates of the Mahoning County Jail and all persons committed to the custody of the Sheriff of the Mahoning County Jail

represented by Robert P. Armbruster (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Kelley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Joshua Baird Individually and on behalf of all present and future inmates of the Mahoning County Jail and all persons committed to the custody of the Sheriff of the Mahoning County Jail

represented by Robert P. Armbruster (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Kelley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kevin Whitacker Individually and on behalf of all present and future inmates of the Mahoning County Jail and all persons committed to

represented by Robert P. Armbruster (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD As of: 07/03/2014 04:57 PM EDT 2 of 29

the custody of the Sheriff of the Mahoning County Jail

Thomas Kelley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Mike Hamad Individually and on behalf of all present and future inmates of the Mahoning County Jail and all persons committed to the custody of the Sheriff of the Mahoning County Jail

represented by Robert P. Armbruster (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Kelley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Rodney Gray Individually and on behalf of all present and future inmates of the Mahoning County Jail and all persons committed to the custody of the Sheriff of the Mahoning County Jail

represented by Robert P. Armbruster (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Kelley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Leland Scott Individually and on behalf of all present and future inmates of the Mahoning County Jail and all persons committed to the custody of the Sheriff of the Mahoning County Jail

represented by Robert P. Armbruster (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Kelley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Maurice Barnes Individually and on behalf of all present and future inmates of the Mahoning County Jail and all persons committed to the custody of the Sheriff of the Mahoning County Jail

represented by Robert P. Armbruster (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Kelley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
County of Mahoning, Ohio, A Local Government Entity

represented by Sharon K. Hackett Office of the Prosecuting Attorney Mahoning County 120 Market Street Youngstown, OH 44503 330−740−2330 Fax: 330−740−2366 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD As of: 07/03/2014 04:57 PM EDT 3 of 29
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel T. Downey Fishel Hass Kim Albrecht Ste. 200 400 South Fifth Street Columbus, OH 43215 614−221−1216 Email: ddowney@fishelhass.com TERMINATED: 10/26/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gina DeGenova Bricker Office of Prosecuting Attorney Mahoning County 6th Floor 21 W. Boardman Street Youngstown, OH 44503 330−740−2330 Fax: 330−740−2008 Email: gbricker@mahoningcountyoh.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linette M. Stratford Office of the Prosecuting Attorney − Mahoning County 6th Floor 21 West Boardman Street Youngstown, OH 44503 330−740−2330 Fax: 330−740−2336 Email: lstratford@mahoningcountyoh.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark D. Landes Isaac Wiles Burkholder & Teetor − Columbus Ste. 700 Two Miranova Place Columbus, OH 43215 614−221−2121 Fax: 614−365−9516 Email: mlandes@isaacwiles.com TERMINATED: 10/26/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul J. Gains Office of the Prosecuting Attorney 21 West Boardman Street Youngstown, OH 44503 330−740−2330 Fax: 330−740−2008 Email: pgains@mahoningcountyoh.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas N. Michaels 839 Southwestern Run Youngstown, OH 44514 330−726−7777 Fax: 330−726−7779 Email: tnmichaels@yahoo.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD As of: 07/03/2014 04:57 PM EDT 4 of 29

Dave Ludt As a member of the Board of Commissioners of Mahoning County, Ohio

represented by Sharon K. Hackett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel T. Downey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/26/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gina DeGenova Bricker (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Linette M. Stratford (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark D. Landes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/26/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul J. Gains (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas N. Michaels (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Edward J. Reese As a member of the Board of Commissioners of Mahoning County, Ohio

represented by Sharon K. Hackett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel T. Downey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/26/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gina DeGenova Bricker (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Linette M. Stratford (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark D. Landes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/26/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul J. Gains (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas N. Michaels (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD As of: 07/03/2014 04:57 PM EDT 5 of 29

Vicki Allen Sherlock As a member of the Board of Commissioners of Mahoning County, Ohio

represented by Sharon K. Hackett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel T. Downey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/26/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gina DeGenova Bricker (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Linette M. Stratford (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark D. Landes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/26/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul J. Gains (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas N. Michaels (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Randall A. Wellington in his official capacity as Sheriff of Mahoning County, Ohio

represented by Sharon K. Hackett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel T. Downey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/26/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gina DeGenova Bricker (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Linette M. Stratford (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark D. Landes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/26/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul J. Gains (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas N. Michaels (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD As of: 07/03/2014 04:57 PM EDT 6 of 29

City of Youngstown

represented by Anthony J. Farris City of Cleveland Heights Department of Law 40 Severance Circle Cleveland Heights, OH 44118 216−291−4314 Fax: 216−291−3731 Email: afarris@clvhts.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Iris Torres Guglucello City of Youngstown Law Department 26 South Phelps Street Youngstown, OH 44503 330−742−8874 Fax: 330−742−8867 Email: irisg@cityofyoungstownoh.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Interested Party Clifford West

represented by Clifford West #1080 Mahoning County Jail 110 Fifth Avenue N−1 Youngstown, OH 44503 PRO SE

Interested Party Dyahiann L. Morris

represented by Dyahiann L. Morris PRO SE

Special Master
Vincent M Nathan TERMINATED: 09/10/2007

represented by Vincent M. Nathan University of Toledo Department of Criminal Justice Mail Stop 119 Toledo, OH 43606 419−530−4676 Fax: 419−530−2153 Email: vnathan@utnet.utoledo.edu TERMINATED: 09/10/2007

Cross−Claimant
County of Mahoning, Ohio, A Local Government Entity

represented by Gina DeGenova Bricker (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Linette M. Stratford (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul J. Gains (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross−Claimant
Dave Ludt As a member of the Board of

represented by Gina DeGenova Bricker (See above for address)

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD As of: 07/03/2014 04:57 PM EDT 7 of 29

Commissioners of Mahoning County, Ohio

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linette M. Stratford (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul J. Gains (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross−Claimant
Edward J. Reese As a member of the Board of Commissioners of Mahoning County, Ohio

represented by Gina DeGenova Bricker (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linette M. Stratford (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul J. Gains (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross−Claimant
Vicki Allen Sherlock As a member of the Board of Commissioners of Mahoning County, Ohio

represented by Gina DeGenova Bricker (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linette M. Stratford (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul J. Gains (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross−Claimant
Randall A. Wellington in his official capacity as Sheriff of Mahoning County, Ohio

represented by Gina DeGenova Bricker (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Linette M. Stratford (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul J. Gains (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Cross Defendant City of Youngstown

represented by Anthony J. Farris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Iris Torres Guglucello (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD As of: 07/03/2014 04:57 PM EDT 8 of 29

Date Filed 11/14/2003
11/14/2003 11/14/2003 11/24/2003 11/24/2003
12/01/2003 12/08/2003 12/08/2003 12/12/2003 12/12/2003 12/17/2003 12/18/2003
01/29/2004 01/29/2004 01/30/2004

# Docket Text
1 Complaint against County of Mahoning, Ohio, A Local Government Entity, Dave Ludt, Edward J. Reese, Vicki Allen Sherlock, Randall A. Wellington (5 summons and Magistrate Consent Forms issued). Filed by Joshua Baird, Maurice Barnes, Rodney Gray, Mike Hamad, James Joseph Mancini, Nathaniel Roberts, Leland Scott, Kevin Whitacker. Filing fee paid; receipt number 514597. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(P, A) (Entered: 11/17/2003)
2 Random Assignment of Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert (P, A) (Entered: 11/17/2003)
3 Notice of Placement of case in the CM/ECF Docketing System (P, A) (Entered: 11/17/2003)
4 Notice of Magistrate Consent form (M, D) (Entered: 11/24/2003)
5 Case Management Conference Scheduling Order placing case in electronic case filing system with case management conference to be held on 12/16/2003 at 02:30 PM at Chambers 402. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 11/24/2003. (Attachments: # 1 E−Mail Notification# 2 Discovery Plan# 3 Rule 30.1# 4 Manual# 5 Map)(M, D) (Entered: 11/24/2003)
6 Return of Service Executed upon Vicki Allen Sherlock, Edward J. Reese, Dave Ludt, Mahoning County, Ohio and Randall A. Wellington by certified mail on 11/17/03, filed by all plaintiffs Related document(s) 1 . (P, G) (Entered: 12/01/2003)
7 Answer to Complaint (Related Doc # 1 ) filed by County of Mahoning, Ohio, A Local Government Entity, Dave Ludt, Edward J. Reese, Vicki Allen Sherlock, Randall A. Wellington. (Michaels, Thomas) (Entered: 12/08/2003)
8 Certification of Service of Initial Disclosures on 12/2/03, filed by all plaintiffs. (P, G) (Entered: 12/09/2003)
9 Notice of Service of Initial Disclosures filed by all defendants. (Michaels, Thomas) (Entered: 12/12/2003)
10 Report of Parties' Planning Meeting/Discovery Plan, filed by all parties. (P, G) (Entered: 12/12/2003)
11 Minutes of proceedings. Case Management Conference held on 12/16/2003 before Judge David D. Dowd Jr. Time: 1 hour. (M, D) (Entered: 12/17/2003)
12 Order that by January 12, 2004, the Sheriff of Mahoning County is directed to provide plaintiffs' counsel with (1) a statement of staffing requirements for the jail; and (2) a statistical breakdown of actual daily staffing and daily inmate populations over the last six months. Thereafter, counsel shall use the remainder of January 2004 to attempt to draft a consent decree for the Court'ssignature. Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification by January 31, 2004; in the alternative, the parties can submit for the Court's signature a stipulated order of class certification. Discovery is stayed until 1/31/2004. If a consent decree has not been drafted, discovery will open and the Court will issue a Case Management Plan setting more specific dates. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 12/17/2003. (M, D) Modified Text on 12/18/2003 (M, D). Modified on 12/19/2003 (S, T). (Entered: 12/18/2003)
13 Attorney Appearance of Additional Counsel by Daniel T. Downey and Mark Landes filed by on behalf of all defendants. (Downey, Daniel) (Entered: 01/29/2004)
14 Attorney Appearance of Additional Counsel by Mark D. Landes and Daniel T. Downey filed by on behalf of all defendants. (Landes, Mark)(Duplicate filing see document # 13 )(P, G). (Entered: 01/29/2004)
15 Motion for class certification filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit E) Exhibit D complete document on file in the Clerk's Office consisting of 16 pages, not able to scan.(P, G) (Entered: 01/30/2004)

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD As of: 07/03/2014 04:57 PM EDT 9 of 29

02/02/2004
02/09/2004 02/11/2004 02/13/2004 02/17/2004
02/24/2004 02/27/2004 03/04/2004 03/05/2004 03/25/2004 04/28/2004 05/11/2004 05/11/2004
06/01/2004

16 Order directing defendants to respond to plaintiffs' motion for class certification (Related Doc # 15 ) by no later than noon on 2/9/2004; further, setting 4/30/2004 as the deadline for the initial phase of discovery; further, scheduling a status conference for 12:00 noon on Tuesday, 5/11/2004; SEE ORDER FOR OTHER DETAILS, INCLUDING DISCOVERY LIMITATIONS AND THE COURT'S CONCERNS RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 2/2/2004. (D, S) (Entered: 02/02/2004)
17 Response to Motion for class certification with memorandum in support, filed by all defendants. Related document(s) 15 . (Landes, Mark) Modified text on 2/10/2004 (P, G). (Entered: 02/09/2004)
18 Order scheduling a telephone status conference for 3:15 p.m. on Thursday, 2/12/2004 to briefly discuss 15 Motion for class certification filed by the plaintiffs and 17 Response filed by the defendants; the Court will place the call. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 2/11/2004. (D, S) (Entered: 02/11/2004)
19 Minutes of proceedings. Status Conference before Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 2/12/2004. Time: 1 hour. (M, D) (Entered: 02/13/2004)
20 Order that the Court directs counsel for the plaintiffs to submit a proposed order by no later than February 20, 2004. This should be delivered directly to the Court's chambers and not filed electronically. Defendants shall have until February 27, 2004 to file any response to the proposal and should be delivered to the Court's chambers and served on plaintiff's counsel simultaneously. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 2/13/2004. (M, D) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
21 Notice to take Deposition of Plaintiffs Nathaniel Roberts, James Joseph Mancini, Joshua Baird, Kevin Whitacker and Mike Hamad on February 27, 2004 filed by all defendants. (Downey, Daniel) (Entered: 02/24/2004)
22 Response to Motion for class certification filed by all defendants. Related document(s) 15 , 20 ). (Landes, Mark) Modified on 3/1/2004 to create link (P, G). (Entered: 02/27/2004)
23 Notice to take Deposition of Plaintiffs Leland Scott, Joshua Baird, Maurice Barnes, Rodney Gray, and Mike Hamad on March 9, 2004 filed by all defendants. (Downey, Daniel) (Entered: 03/04/2004)
24 Order granting motion for class certification (Related Doc # 15 ) and certifying a class as defined in the order; further, defining the claims of the class, appointing counsel to represent the class, and requiring notice to the class (SEE ORDER FOR SPECIFICS). Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 3/5/2004. (Attachments: # 1 Notice to Inmates)(D, S) (Entered: 03/05/2004)
25 Notice of Service of first set of interrogatories and first request for production of documents upon defendants, filed by all plaintiffs. (M, J) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
26 Notice of Service of Discovery Responses to plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents on 4/28/2004 filed by County of Mahoning, Ohio, A Local Government Entity, Dave Ludt, Edward J. Reese, Vicki Allen Sherlock, Randall A. Wellington. (Downey, Daniel) Modified text on 4/29/2004 (S, T). (Entered: 04/28/2004)
Minutes of proceedings(non−document). Status Conference held on 5/11/2004 before Judge David D. Dowd Jr. Time: 60 Minutes (Court Reporter none) (M, D) (Entered: 05/11/2004)
27 Order directing parties to identify their expert(s) to opposing counsel by no later than June 18, 2004. Expert reports shall be exchanged by no later than July 9, 2004. Depositions of experts shall commence and shall be completed by August 31, 2004. By September 3, 2004, each side shall declare in writing to the Court, copied to opposing counsel, whether they intend to file for summary judgment and, if so, what time frame they would suggest for motions practice. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 5/11/2004. (M, D) (Entered: 05/11/2004)
28 Notice of hours counsel have expended on this case through 5/31/2004, filed by all plaintiffs. (M, J) (Entered: 06/01/2004)

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD As of: 07/03/2014 04:57 PM EDT 10 of 29

06/03/2004 06/18/2004 06/21/2004 06/21/2004 06/23/2004
08/02/2004 08/03/2004 08/03/2004
08/16/2004 08/16/2004 08/19/2004 08/19/2004
08/19/2004
08/23/2004

29 Notice of Service of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Dcouments filed by County of Mahoning, Ohio, A Local Government Entity, Dave Ludt, Edward J. Reese, Vicki Allen Sherlock, Randall A. Wellington. (Downey, Daniel) (Entered: 06/03/2004)
30 Motion to determine qualifications of expert and notice filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: #(1)Resume)(S, T) (Entered: 06/18/2004)
31 Order denying plaintiffs' Motion for an order qualifying their proposed expert, finding that such an order would be an advisory opinion outside the court's gatekeeping function (Related Doc # 30 ). Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 6/21/04.(D, S) (Entered: 06/21/2004)
32 Motion for extension of time until 9/7/2004 to submit expert report of Lois A. Ventura, filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support)(M, J) (Entered: 06/21/2004)
33 Order granting plaintiff's Motion for extension of time (Related Doc # 32 ), with the understanding that this means there will be no chance that the case will get to trial this year; expert reports are now due on 9/7/04; expert depositions shall be completed by 10/29/04; the Court will conduct a status conference at 12:30 p.m. on 12/7/04 to decide how to proceed with the case. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 6/22/04.(D, S) Modified on 6/23/2004 to correct signature date (D, S). (Entered: 06/23/2004)
34 Motion for sanctions and Motion for discovery, filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support)(M, J) (Entered: 08/02/2004)
35 Order in re Electronic Filing requesting Plaintiff's counsel to file documents electronically rather than on paper. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 8/3/2004. (Attachments: # 1 Manual)(M, D) (Entered: 08/03/2004)
36 Order directing Defendants to respond no later than 12:00 noon on 8/16/2004 re 34 Plaintiffs' Motion for sanctions. Status Conference set for 8/19/2004 at 12:30 p.m. in Chambers 402 before Hon. David D. Dowd Jr. Counsel to attend as well as Marshal Peter Elliott or his designee. Copy of order issued to U.S. Marshal. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 8/3/2004. (M, D) (Entered: 08/03/2004)
37 Opposition to Motion for Sanctions and For Discovery filed by all defendants. Related document(s) 34 . (Attachments: # 1 Valentine Sugars, Inc. v. Sudan)(Downey, Daniel) Modified on 8/18/2004 (R, Ci). (Entered: 08/16/2004)
38 Motion for protective order filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Affidavit of Daniel T. Downey# 2 Exhibit Affidavit of Scott O. Sheets# 3 Valentine Sugars, Inc. v. Sudan)(Downey, Daniel) (Entered: 08/16/2004)
Minutes of proceedings(non−document). Status Conference held on 8/19/2004 before Judge David D. Dowd Jr. Time: 30 Minutes. (Court Reporter none) (M, D) (Entered: 08/19/2004)
39 Order granting plaintiffs' Motion for an unimpeded inspection of the relevant facilities with their expert witness (Related Doc # 34 ), denying Motion for sanctions but with leave to renew the motion if the inspection does not proceed as will later be ordered (Related Doc # 34 ); granting in part and denying in part defendants' Motion for protective order (Related Doc # 38 ); further, directing the parties to file by 8/27/04 a jointly−proposed order outlining the protocol for the plaintiffs' jail inspection; and setting 9/10/04 and 11/19/04 as deadlines for plaintiffs to identify witnesses and 10/1/04 as the deadline for the exchange of expert reports; see order for additional deadlines and specifics. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 8/19/04.(D, S) (Entered: 08/19/2004)
40 Trial Order scheduling Bench Trial on a standby basis for the two−week period beginning 12/13/2004 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 442 before Hon. David D. Dowd Jr. Final Joint Fact Stipulation due 12/6/04. Trial will be on the clock with each side having 600 minutes to put on its case; see order for specifics. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 8/19/04. (D, S) (Entered: 08/19/2004)
41 Proposed Agreed Entry re plaintiffs' experts tour of jail filed by all defendants. Related document(s) 39 . (Downey, Daniel) Modified on 8/25/2004 (R, Ci). (Entered: 08/23/2004)

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD As of: 07/03/2014 04:57 PM EDT 11 of 29

08/24/2004
08/24/2004
09/01/2004
09/01/2004 09/02/2004 09/10/2004 10/01/2004 10/19/2004 10/25/2004 11/10/2004 11/15/2004
11/15/2004 11/19/2004
11/23/2004
11/23/2004 12/01/2004 12/02/2004 12/02/2004
12/02/2004 12/06/2004 12/06/2004

42 Agreed Entry of parties and at the direction of the Court, the plaintiffs' expert will tour the Mahoning County Jail under set conditions. (See order for specifics). Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 8/24/2004. (M, D) (Entered: 08/24/2004)
43 Order directing plaintiffs to file by 9/3/2004, a written notice as to the date and time agreed upon by counsel and by the U.S. Marshal for the jail inspection. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 8/24/2004. (M, D) (Entered: 08/24/2004)
44 FILING ERROR (formatting pdf documents.) Document to be re−filed. Notice of Filing Hours filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Pleading # 2 Pleading) (Kelley, Thomas) Modified text on 9/1/2004 (P, S). (Entered: 09/01/2004)
45 Notice of Filing Hours filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Hours worksheet) (Kelley, Thomas) (Entered: 09/01/2004)
46 Notice: upon agreement of the all parties, jail inspection to occur on 9/3/04 filed by all plaintiffs. (Kelley, Thomas) Modified on 9/3/2004 (R, Ci). (Entered: 09/02/2004)
47 Notice that list of witnesses have been provided to defendants filed by all plaintiffs. (Kelley, Thomas) Modified on 9/13/2004 (N, D). (Entered: 09/10/2004)
48 Notice of Service of Expert Report filed by all defendants. (Downey, Daniel) (Entered: 10/01/2004)
49 Notice of Service of Discovery Responses filed by all defendants. (Downey, Daniel) (Entered: 10/19/2004)
50 Notice to take Deposition of Lois Ventura, Ph.D. on October 26, 2004 filed by all defendants. (Downey, Daniel) (Entered: 10/25/2004)
51 Motion for conference/hearing filed by all plaintiffs. (Kelley, Thomas) (Entered: 11/10/2004)
52 Order granting Motion for conference (Related Doc # 51 ). Status Conference set for 11/23/2004 at 2:30 p.m. in Chambers 402 before Hon. David D. Dowd Jr. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 11/15/2004.(M, D) (Entered: 11/15/2004)
53 Letter dated 11/15/2004 to Peter J. Elliott from Judge Dowd in re status conference set for 11/23/2004. (M, D) (Entered: 11/15/2004)
54 Motion to continue trial scheduled 12/13/04 filed by all defendants. Related document(s) 51 . (Downey, Daniel) Modified on 11/24/2004 to edit text (B, T). (Entered: 11/19/2004)
Minutes of proceedings (non−document). Status Conference held on 11/23/2004 before Judge David D. Dowd Jr. Time: 1 hour. (Court Reporter Rich Delmonico) (M, D) (Entered: 11/23/2004)
55 Order denying defendants' Motion to continue trial(Related Doc # 54 ). Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 11/23/2004.(M, D) (Entered: 11/23/2004)
56 Order canceling status conference previously set for 12/7/2004 (Related Doc # 33 ). Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 12/1/2004. (D, S) (Entered: 12/01/2004)
57 Motion for writ of habeas corpus ad testifcandum as to Joshua Baird filed by all plaintiffs. (Kelley, Thomas) Modified on 12/3/2004 (R, Ci). (Entered: 12/02/2004)
58 Motion for writ of habeas corpus ad testifcandum as to class members Brian Baxter, Michelle Burton and Jeffery Hammond filed by all plaintiffs. (Kelley, Thomas) Modified on 12/3/2004 (R, Ci). (Entered: 12/02/2004)
59 Notice of hours expended thus far on case filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1) (Kelley, Thomas) Modified on 12/3/2004 (R, Ci). (Entered: 12/02/2004)
60 Trial Brief filed by all plaintiffs. (Kelley, Thomas) (document unsigned, filer notified) Modified on 12/8/2004 (R, Ci). (Entered: 12/06/2004)
61 Motion for of Defendants to Exclude Lois A. Ventura as an Expert Witness filed by County of Mahoning, Ohio, A Local Government Entity. (Downey, Daniel) Modified on 3/10/2005 to term the motion (D, S). (Entered: 12/06/2004)

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD As of: 07/03/2014 04:57 PM EDT 12 of 29

12/06/2004 12/06/2004 12/07/2004 12/07/2004 12/07/2004 12/07/2004 12/07/2004 12/08/2004 12/10/2004 12/10/2004 12/10/2004
12/10/2004 12/10/2004 12/10/2004

62 Trial Brief filed by County of Mahoning, Ohio, A Local Government Entity. (Downey, Daniel) Modified on 12/8/2004 (R, Ci). (Entered: 12/06/2004)
63 Notice of Filing Deposition Transcripts of Dr. Lois A. Ventura PhD filed by County of Mahoning, Ohio, A Local Government Entity. (Downey, Daniel) Modified on 12/8/2004 (R, Ci). (Entered: 12/06/2004)
Order (non−document) granting Defendants' Motion for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum as to Joshua Baird(Related Doc # 57 ), and granting Defendants' Motion for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum as to Brian Baxter, Michelle Burton and Jeffery Hammond(Related Doc # 58 ). Entered on behalf of Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 12/7/2004.(M, D) (Entered: 12/07/2004)
64 Writ of Testificandum of Joshua Baird in custody at Madison Correctional Institution to testify on 12/14/2004 at trial before Judge Dowd. (M, D) Original and 3 certified copies mailed to Madison Correctional Institution and Copy to U.S. Marshal on 12/7/2004. Modified text on 12/7/2004 (M, D). (Entered: 12/07/2004)
65 Writ of Testificandum of Brian Baxter in custody at Mahoning County Jail to testify on 12/14/2004 at trial before Judge Dowd. (M, D) Original and 3 certified copies mailed to Mahoning County Jail and Copy to U.S. Marshal on 12/7/2004. Modified text on 12/7/2004 (M, D). (Entered: 12/07/2004)
66 Writ of Testificandum of Michelle Brown in custody at Mahoning County Jail to testify on 12/14/2004 at trial before Judge Dowd. (M,D) Original and 3 certified copies mailed to Mahoning County Jail and Copy to U.S. Marshal on 12/7/2004. Modified text on 12/7/2004 (M, D). Modified on 12/8/2004 to indicate document filed in error−(see correct document #68)(M, D). (Entered: 12/07/2004)
67 Writ of Testificandum of Jeffrey Hammond in custody at Mahoning County Jail to testify on 12/14/2004 at trial before Judge Dowd. Original and 3 certified copies mailed to Mahoning County Jail and Copy to U.S. Marshal on 12/7/2004. (M, D) (Entered: 12/07/2004)
68 Writ of Testificandum of Michelle Burton in custody at Mahoning County Jail to testify on 12/14/2004 at trial before Judge Dowd. Original and 3 certified copies mailed to Mahoning County Jail and Copy to U.S. Marshal on 12/8/2004. (M, D) (Entered: 12/08/2004)
69 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Staffing Summary by Post/Assignment)(D, S) (Entered: 12/10/2004)
70 Statement of Contested Issues filed by all plaintiffs. (D, S) (Entered: 12/10/2004)
71 Notice of Filing Deposition Transcripts filed by County of Mahoning, Ohio, A Local Government Entity, Dave Ludt, Edward J. Reese, Vicki Allen Sherlock, Randall A. Wellington. (Attachments: # 1 Deposition of Kevin Whittaker# 2 Whittaker Deposition (continued)# 3 Deposition of Joshua Baird# 4 Baird Deposition (continued)# 5 Deposition of Leland Scott# 6 Scott Deposition (continued)# 7 Deposition of James Mancini# 8 Mancini Depo (continued)# 9 Mancini Depo (continued)# 10 Deposition of Dorothy Guzzy# 11 Deposition of Robert Knight# 12 Deposition of Michelle Burton# 13 Deposition of Patricia Patterson# 14 Patterson Depo (continued)# 15 Patterson Depo (continued)# 16 Deposition of Brian D. Baxter# 17 Baxter Depo (continued)# 18 Deposition of Jeffrey Hammond# 19 Deposition of Pamela Miles# 20 Deposition of James Johnson, Jr.# 21 Deposition of Lois Ventura, Ph.D.# 22 Ventura Depo (Continued)# 23 Ventura Depo (Continued)# 24 Ventura Depo (Continued)# 25 Ventura Depo (Continued)) (Downey, Daniel) (Entered: 12/10/2004)
72 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Unreported Case)(Downey, Daniel) (Entered: 12/10/2004)
73 Proposed Stipulation of the Parties filed by all parties. (Downey, Daniel) (Entered: 12/10/2004)
74 Writ of Testificandum Returned Un−executed as to Michelle Brown. Related document(s) 66 . (S, T) (Entered: 12/14/2004)

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD As of: 07/03/2014 04:57 PM EDT 13 of 29

12/13/2004 12/14/2004 12/14/2004 12/15/2004 12/15/2004 12/15/2004 12/15/2004 12/16/2004
01/07/2005 01/11/2005 01/14/2005
01/26/2005 01/27/2005
02/03/2005 02/04/2005 02/10/2005
02/11/2005
02/11/2005

76 Minutes of proceedings. Bench Trial begun and held on 12/13/2004 before Judge David D. Dowd Jr. Trial continued to 12/14/2004 at 9:00 a.m. Time: 6.0 Hours. (Court Reporter Sue Trischan) (M, D) (Entered: 12/14/2004)
75 Order designating trial time used and remaining. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 12/14/2004. (D, S) (Entered: 12/14/2004)
Minutes of proceedings(non−document). Bench Trial before Judge David D. Dowd Jr. held on 12/14/2004 and continued to 12/15/2004 at 8:45 a.m. Time: 5.0 Hours (Court Reporter Sue Trischan) (M, D) (Entered: 12/14/2004)
77 Order (second) designating trial time used and remaining. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 12/15/2004. (D, S) (Entered: 12/15/2004)
Minutes of proceedings(non−document). Bench Trial completed on 12/15/2004 before Judge David D. Dowd Jr. Time: 7.0 Hours. (Court Reporter Sue Trischan) (M, D) (Entered: 12/15/2004)
79 Exhibit List of plaintiffs exhibits admitted at trial. (M, D) Modified filing date on 12/16/2004 (M, D). (Entered: 12/16/2004)
80 Exhibit List of defendants exhibits admitted at trial. (M, D) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
78 Order directing counsel for the defendants to submit by January 7, 2005 a current report on the status of funding for the Sheriff's Department. The Court will delay any post−trial briefing until after that report is received and considered. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 12/15/2004. (M, D) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
81 Status Report Regarding Funding of the Mahoning County Sheriff's Department for 2005 filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)Related document(s) 78 . (Downey, Daniel) (Entered: 01/07/2005)
82 Response to defendants filing regarding funding filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 81 . (Kelley, Thomas) Modified on 1/12/2005 (G, D). (Entered: 01/11/2005)
83 Order that the financial status reports 81 , 82 leave unclear whether there will be increased funding for the jail; unless the parties can submit a consent decree by 1/31/05, they shall file post−trial briefs by 2/14/05 (see order for details as to the briefs). Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 1/14/05. (D, S) (Entered: 01/14/2005)
84 Request for instructions filed by all plaintiffs. (Kelley, Thomas) Modified on 1/27/2005 (R, Ci). (Entered: 01/26/2005)
85 Order re 84 Request for Instructions filed by plaintiff class counsel, that the court reporter is directed to forthwith file a transcript of the bench trial conducted in December 2004 and to supply a copy of the transcript to counsel for both sides; the court will decide who will pay the cost of these transcripts after the case concludes. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 1/27/05. (D, S) (Entered: 01/27/2005)
86 Request for extension of time to 2/21/05 to file post trial briefs filed by all plaintiffs. (Kelley, Thomas) Modified on 2/4/2005 (R, Ci). (Entered: 02/03/2005)
Order (non−document) re 86 request for extension filed by plaintiffs, granting until 2/21/05 to file post−trial briefs. Entered on behalf of Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 2/4/05. (D, S) (Entered: 02/04/2005)
87 Transcript of Trial Proceedings held on 12/13/04 before Judge David D. Dowd, Jr. filed manually. To obtain a bound copy of this transcript please contact Court Reporter Susan K. Trischan at 440−570−6950. Complete document on file, 289 pages. (Volume 1) (L, T) (Entered: 02/10/2005)
88 Transcript of Trial Proceedings held on 12/14/04 before Judge David D. Dowd, Jr. filed manually. To obtain a bound copy of this transcript please contact Court Reporter Susan K. Trischan at 440−570−6950. Complete document on file, 235 pages. (Volume 2) (L, T) (Entered: 02/11/2005)
89 Transcript of Trial Proceedings held on 12/15/04 before Judge David D. Dowd, Jr. filed manually. To obtain a bound copy of this transcript please contact Court Reporter Susan Trischan at 440−570−6950. Complete document on file, 260 pages. (Volume 3)

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD As of: 07/03/2014 04:57 PM EDT 14 of 29

02/21/2005 02/22/2005 03/02/2005 03/10/2005
03/18/2005 03/21/2005 03/21/2005 03/22/2005 03/22/2005
03/23/2005 03/23/2005 03/23/2005 03/24/2005 03/24/2005 03/25/2005 03/25/2005

(L, T) (Entered: 02/11/2005)
90 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Unreported Case − Northington v. Sherrard)(Downey, Daniel) (Entered: 02/21/2005)
91 Post Trial Brief filed by all plaintiffs. (Kelley, Thomas) Modified text on 2/24/2005 (G, D). (Entered: 02/22/2005)
92 Revised Status Report Regarding Funding of the Mahoning County Sheriff's Department for 2005 filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B) (Downey, Daniel) Modified on 3/3/2005 (R, Ci). (Entered: 03/02/2005)
93 Memorandum, Opinion and Order, including Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, finding in favor of the plaintiff class and against the defendants and declaring that the plaintiff class members are being denied their constitutional rights as set forth fully in the opinion; further, entitling the plaintiff class to recover attorney fees and costs from the defendants; finally, pursuant to 18 USC 3626(a), finding the remedial phase sufficiently complex to warrant appointment of a special master and directing each side, through counsel, to submit by 4:00 pm on 3/21/05 that side's list of not more than 5 persons to serve as special master (see opinion for more detail); time for filing for removal of names pursuant to 18 USC 3626(f)(2)(B) shall expire by 4:00 pm on 3/28/05. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 3/10/05. (D, S) (Entered: 03/10/2005)
94 Notice filing of plaintiffs attorney hours and expenses filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5) (Kelley, Thomas) (Entered: 03/18/2005)
95 Motion for an injunction filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 93 . (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(P, G) (Entered: 03/21/2005)
96 Joint Motion for extension of time until March 24, 2005 to Submit a list of special masters filed by all defendants. (Downey, Daniel) (Entered: 03/21/2005)
97 Marginal Order granting 96 motion for extension of time to 3/24/05 to submit list of special masters. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 3/22/05.(D, S) Modified on 3/24/2005 (R, Ci). (Entered: 03/22/2005)
98 Order re 95 plaintiffs' Motion for injunction, directing plaintiffs to file a brief by 12:00 noon on 3/23/05 wherein they identify case law or statutes that supply the court with the authority to take the requested action, and directing defendants to file a response by 4:00 p.m. on 3/23/05. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 3/22/05. (D, S) (Entered: 03/22/2005)
99 Brief in support of Motion for injunction filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 95 98 . (Kelley, Thomas) Modified on 3/25/2005 (R, Ci). (Entered: 03/23/2005)
100 Notice of submission of proposed special masters filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 93 . (Kelley, Thomas) Modified on 3/25/2005 (R, Ci). (Entered: 03/23/2005)
101 Opposition to Motion for Injunctive Relief filed by all defendants. Related document(s) 95 . (Downey, Daniel) (Entered: 03/23/2005)
102 Notice of Submission of Candidates to Serve as Special Master filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 # 2) (Downey, Daniel) Modified on 3/25/2005 (R, Ci). (Entered: 03/24/2005)
103 Notice of Request to Appoint a Three Judge Panel filed by all defendants. (Downey, Daniel) Modified on 3/25/2005 (R, Ci). (Filing Error, should be a Motion, filer notified) Modified on 3/28/2005 (R, Ci). (Entered: 03/24/2005)
104 Order denying Motion for an injunction preventing layoff of county deputies (Related Doc # 95 ). Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 3/25/05.(D, S) (Entered: 03/25/2005)
105 Notice/Motion to strike plaintiff's proposed Special Masters filed by all defendants. (Downey, Daniel) Modified on 3/29/2005 (R, Ci). (Entered: 03/25/2005)

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD As of: 07/03/2014 04:57 PM EDT 15 of 29

03/25/2005 03/28/2005 03/28/2005
03/29/2005 03/31/2005 03/31/2005
04/04/2005
04/06/2005
04/06/2005 04/06/2005 04/07/2005 04/07/2005
04/12/2005 04/19/2005 05/06/2005 05/10/2005

106 Notice in response and motion to strike defendants submission of candidates to serve as special master filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 102 , 93 . (Kelley, Thomas) Modified on 3/29/2005 (R, Ci). (Entered: 03/25/2005)
107 Motion for and response in support of defendant's request for three judge panel filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 103 . (Kelley, Thomas) Modified on 3/29/2005 (R, Ci). (Entered: 03/28/2005)
108 Order appointing Vincent M. Nathan to serve as Special Master for the remedial phase of this litigation, with compensation to be governed by 18 USC 3626(f)(4); further requesting that Mr. Nathan provide the court with a preliminary interim report by 4/15/05. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 3/28/05. (D, S) (Entered: 03/28/2005)
109 Motion / Request to Appoint a Three Judge Panel filed by all defendants. Related document(s) 103 . (Downey, Daniel) Modified on 3/31/2005 (R, Ci). (Entered: 03/29/2005)
110 Motion for Court's permission to employ graduate assistant filed by Special Master Vincent M Nathan. (M, D) (Entered: 03/31/2005)
111 Order that any subsequent letters will not be made part of the record or considered in any way. Copy of order mailed to Edward Anderson on 3/31/2005. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 3/31/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Letter 1# 2 Letter 2# 3 Letter 3)(M, D) (Entered: 03/31/2005)
112 Order of clarification that the rate of compensation for the Special Master being reported by a local media outlet is incorrect; the compensation rate is set by statute and is subject to both periodic increases by the Judicial Conference of the United States and the interpretation given the statute by Sixth Circuit case law. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 4/4/05. (D, S) (Entered: 04/04/2005)
113 Order setting the compensation rate for the special master and granting the special master's motion for leave to employ a graduate assistant (Related Doc # 110 ); see order for specific directives. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 4/6/05.(D, S) (Entered: 04/06/2005)
114 First Report of the Special Master filed by Vincent M Nathan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A # 2 Exhibit B # 3 Exhibit C)(D, S) (Entered: 04/06/2005)
115 Order directing counsel to file any objections to the findings or recommendations contained in 114 First Report of Special Master by no later than 11:00 am Thursday 4/7/05. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 4/6/05. (D, S) (Entered: 04/06/2005)
116 Notice of response/comments to report of Special Master filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 114 , 115 . (Kelley, Thomas) Modified on 4/8/2005 (R, Ci). (Entered: 04/07/2005)
117 Order and Preliminary Injunction that, as recommended by the special master (Related Doc # 114 ), defendants must maintain the current staffing in the Justice Center without additional layoffs; further, the court will revisit this order and injunction with respect to staffing levels after the results of the 5/3/05 election are reported; see order for several additional directives. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 4/7/05. (D, S) (Entered: 04/07/2005)
118 Notice of Special Master's Estimate of Costs filed by Vincent M Nathan. Related document(s) 113 . (Nathan, Vincent) (Entered: 04/12/2005)
119 Notice of Second Report of the Special Master filed by Vincent M Nathan. (Nathan, Vincent) (Entered: 04/19/2005)
120 Notice of Special Master's Submission of Itemized Statement of Time and Expenses filed by Vincent M Nathan. (Nathan, Vincent) (Entered: 05/06/2005)
121 Order re 120 Notice filed by Vincent M Nathan, authorizing an interim payment in the amount of $7016.56 to cover fees and expenses for the period 3/28/2005 through 5/5/2005. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 5/10/2005. (D, S) Modified text on 5/23/2005 to reflect payment of $7,016.56, check number 00341900 was paid to Special Master Vincent M. Nathan on 5/20/05 (M, T). (Entered: 05/10/2005)

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD As of: 07/03/2014 04:57 PM EDT 16 of 29

05/11/2005 05/13/2005
05/26/2005
06/03/2005 06/07/2005 06/09/2005 06/10/2005
06/15/2005 07/01/2005 07/05/2005 07/27/2005 08/01/2005 08/09/2005 08/10/2005 08/10/2005
08/11/2005 08/23/2005 09/02/2005

122 Third Report of Special Master filed by Vincent M Nathan. Related document(s) 117 . (Nathan, Vincent) Modified on 5/17/2005 (R, Ci). (Entered: 05/11/2005)
123 Order re 122 Report of Special Master filed by Vincent M Nathan, that any objections to the recommendation to continue the 117 Order and Preliminary Injunction of 4/7/2005 shall be filed by 5/20/2005. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 5/13/2005. (D, S) (Entered: 05/13/2005)
124 Order adopting the recommendation of the Special Master in his Third Report (Related Document # 122 )and the Order and Preliminary Injunciton of 4/7/05 (Related Document # 117 ) will continue in effect (Read order for particularities). Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 5/26/05. (M, D) (Entered: 05/26/2005)
125 Notice of Certification of Election Results filed by all defendants. (Downey, Daniel) (Entered: 06/03/2005)
126 Notice of filing attorney hours filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5) (Kelley, Thomas) (Entered: 06/07/2005)
Minutes of proceedings (non−docment). Status Conference held on 6/9/05 before Judge David D. Dowd Jr. Time: 1.0 Hour (Court Reporter none) (M, D) (Entered: 06/10/2005)
127 Order that the case continue under the supervisioon of the Special Master, Vincent Nathan. The Court encourages all concerned to engage in broad−based cooperative efforts to find solutions to the serious problems discussed in general during the conference. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 6/10/05. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(M, D) (Entered: 06/10/2005)
Financial Transaction in the amount of 7,016.56 paid to Special Master Vincent M. Nathan, Check #341900, dtd 5/20/05. (C, B) (Entered: 06/15/2005)
128 Report of Special Master Itemized Statement of Time and Expenses filed by Vincent M Nathan. (Nathan, Vincent) Modified on 7/8/2005 (R, Ci). (Entered: 07/01/2005)
129 Order authorizing payment to Special Master Vincent M. Nathan in the total amount of $2,872.97. Order with original signature issued to finance in Cleveland, Ohio on 7/6/05. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 7/5/05. (M, D) (Entered: 07/05/2005)
Financial Transaction in the amount of $2,872.97 payed to the Special Master. Receipt # 05−466001340, Check #343751 (C, B) (Entered: 07/28/2005)
130 Order memorializing a series of letters and e−mails. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 8/1/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A # 2 Appendix B # 3 Appendix C # 4 Appendix D)(D, S) (Entered: 08/01/2005)
131 Report of Special Master: Special Master's Submission of Itemized Statement of Time and Expenses filed by Vincent M Nathan. (Nathan, Vincent) Modified text on 8/15/2005 (M, L). (Entered: 08/09/2005)
132 Fourth Report of Special Master filed by Vincent M Nathan. (Nathan, Vincent) Modified text on 8/15/2005 (M, L). (Entered: 08/10/2005)
133 Order re 132 Fourth Report of Special Master, directing the Mahoning County Prosecuting Attorney and counsel for the defendants to supply copies of the report to persons specified in the order and further directing the parties to file any objections, reservations or observations regarding the report's recommendations by Friday, 8/26/05. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 8/10/05. (D, S) (Entered: 08/10/2005)
134 Order authorizing payment to Special Master Vincent M. Nathan in the total amount of $8,790.31. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 8/10/05. Original Mailed to Financial in Cleveland, Ohio on 8/11/05. (M, D) (Entered: 08/11/2005)
135 Objection observations of counsel to report of special master filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 133 . (Kelley, Thomas) (Entered: 08/23/2005)
136 Order denying without prejudice, and for record purposes only, both plaintiffs' Motion for order for 3−judge panel (Related Doc # 107 ) and defendants' Motion for order for 3−judge panel (Related Doc # 109 ). Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 9/2/05.(D, S) (Entered: 09/02/2005)

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD As of: 07/03/2014 04:57 PM EDT 17 of 29

09/07/2005 09/09/2005 09/12/2005 09/12/2005 09/13/2005 09/14/2005 09/23/2005 09/27/2005 10/03/2005 10/03/2005
10/05/2005 10/07/2005
10/10/2005 10/10/2005 10/12/2005 10/14/2005

137 Report of Special Master Submission of Itemized Statement of Time and Expenses filed by Vincent M Nathan. (Nathan, Vincent) Modified on 9/12/2005 to edit text (B, T). (Entered: 09/07/2005)
138 Order authorizing payment to Special Master Vincent M. Nathan in the total amount of $5,195.00. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 9/9/05. Original Mailed and copy e−mailed to Financial in Cleveland, Ohio on 9/9/05 along with report 137 . Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 9/9/05. (M, D) (Entered: 09/09/2005)
Financial Transaction− payment in the amount of 5,195.00 to Special Master. # P2 05466001658 (C, B) (Entered: 09/19/2005)
Financial Transaction, payment to the Special Master in the amount of $8,790.31. Check # 345870, DOC ID #P2 05466001591 dated 8/29/05. (C, B) (Entered: 09/19/2005)
Financial Transaction, payment to the Special Master in the amount of $5,195.00. Document ID # 05466000658. Check #346357 dated 9/13/05 (C, B) (Entered: 09/19/2005)
139 Order adopting recommendations in the Fourth Report of the Special Master 132 . Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 9/13/05. (M, D) (Entered: 09/14/2005)
140 Fifth Report of Special Master filed by Vincent M Nathan. (Attachments: # 1 Tables)(D, S) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
141 Order adopting Special Master's recommendation 140 . Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 9/27/05. (M, D) (Entered: 09/27/2005)
142 Interim Report of Special Master First Interim Report of Defendants, Mahoning County Sheriff, Mahoning County Commissioners and Criminal Justice Working Group filed by all defendants. (Stratford, Linette) (Entered: 10/03/2005)
143 Appendix of Exhibits to First Interim Report of Defendants filed by all defendants. Related document(s) 142 . (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit A; #(2) Exhibit B − D; #(3) Exhibit E − H; #(4) Exhibit I − L; #(5) Exhibit M − N; #(6) Exhibit O − R; #(7) Exhibit S − T; #(8) Exhibit U; # 9 Exhibit V (scanned copy illegible, original document on file in the Clerk's office))(R, Li). (Entered: 10/04/2005)
144 Report of Special Master: Special Master's Submission of Itemized Statement of Time and Expenses filed by Vincent M. Nathan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Receipts for Expenses on Special Master's Fifth Itemized Statement of Fees and Expenses) (Nathan, Vincent) Modified on 10/7/2005 (B, T). (Entered: 10/05/2005)
145 Order authorizing payment to Special Master Vincent M. Nathan in the total amount of $8,081.59 and reserving payment of the additional $3,485.00 until the Court can review a new six−month cost estimate. The Special Master shall submit by 10/17/05 a new six−month budget which shall include his fees and expenses including graduate assistant and estimated expenses for Drs. Tucker and Lambert. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 10/7/05. (Attachments: # 1 Summary Page)(M, D) (Entered: 10/07/2005)
146 Report of Special Master Letter to Court re Mahoning County Working Group's Interim Report of October 3, 2005 filed by Vincent M Nathan. Related document(s) 143 , 142 . (Nathan, Vincent) (Entered: 10/10/2005)
147 Report of Special Master Second Estimate of Costs (October 3, 2005 Through March 31, 2006) filed by Vincent M Nathan. (Nathan, Vincent) Modified on 10/13/2005 (B, T). (Entered: 10/10/2005)
148 Report of Special Master: Sixth Report on Days Elapsed Between Sentencing of Felons and Transportation to Prison filed by Vincent M. Nathan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit: Database for Special Master's Sixth Report (Nathan, Vincent) Modified on 10/13/2005 (B, T). (Entered: 10/12/2005)
149 Order authorizing Clerk's Finance Office to budget amounts for payment of the Special Master over the next six months out of funds appropriated to the Judiciary. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 10/14/05. (M, D) (Entered: 10/14/2005)

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD As of: 07/03/2014 04:57 PM EDT 18 of 29

10/14/2005 10/21/2005 10/25/2005 10/26/2005
10/26/2005 11/08/2005 11/15/2005
11/15/2005 11/16/2005 11/23/2005 11/23/2005 11/25/2005 11/28/2005 12/12/2005 12/19/2005

150 Order authorizing payment in the amount of $3,485.00, which had been previously deferred to the Special Master, Vincent Nathan for his last billing for services of Drs. Lambert and Tucker. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 10/14/05. (M, D) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
151 Judgment Entry that all attorneys fees and costs associated with the filing of this case through the entry of the Final Appealable Order have been settled. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 10/21/05. (M, D) (Entered: 10/21/2005)
152 Motion to withdraw as attorney Mark Landes and Daniel T. Downey filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Order Permitting Withdrawal of Counsel for Defendants)(Downey, Daniel) Modified on 10/27/2005 (B, T). (Entered: 10/25/2005)
Order (non−document) granting Defendants County of Mahoning, Ohio; Mahoning County Commissioners Ludt, McNally, Traficanti; and Wellington, Mahoning County Sheriff's Motion to withdraw as attorney. Attorney Daniel T. Downey and Mark D. Landes removed from case. (Related Doc # 152 ). Approved by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 10/26/05.(M, D) (Entered: 10/26/2005)
Financial Transaction: check in the amount of $3,485.00, paid to Special Master. Check # 348276, dated 10/21/05 Related document(s) 150 . (C, B) (Entered: 10/26/2005)
153 Request for information by 12/6/05 from municipal and county court judges; see document for specifics. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 11/8/05. (Attachments: # 1 Response Form)(D, S) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
154 Interim Status Report (Second) of Defendants, Mahoning County Sheriff, Mahoning County Commissioners and Criminal Justice Working Group filed by County of Mahoning, Ohio, A Local Government Entity, Dave Ludt, Edward J. Reese, Vicki Allen Sherlock, Randall A. Wellington. (Stratford, Linette) Modified on 11/30/2005 (G, D). (Entered: 11/15/2005)
155 Notice of manual filing of Appendix of Exhibits to Second Interim Report filed by County of Mahoning, Ohio, A Local Government Entity, Dave Ludt, Edward J. Reese, Vicki Allen Sherlock, Randall A. Wellington. Exhibits A through O on file in the Clerk's office (116 pages). Related document(s) 154 . (R, Li) (Entered: 11/16/2005)
Financial Transaction: Check# 348450 in the amount of 8081.59 paid to Special Master. Doc ID# P2 064660000175 dated 10/27/05. Related document(s) 145 . (B, De) (Entered: 11/16/2005)
156 Order scheduling a Status Conference for 12/15/2005 at 2:30 p.m. in Chambers 402 before Hon. David D. Dowd Jr. The Special Master is to attend. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 11/22/05. (M, D) (Entered: 11/23/2005)
157 Order rescheduling status conference from 12/15/2005 to 12/12/2005 at 01:00 PM in Chambers 402 before Hon. David D. Dowd Jr. (Related Doc # 156 ). Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 11/23/05. (D, S) (Entered: 11/23/2005)
158 Motion for extension of Request for Informationi until December 20, 2005 filed by County of Mahoning, Ohio, A Local Government Entity, Dave Ludt, Edward J. Reese, Vicki Allen Sherlock, Randall A. Wellington. (Stratford, Linette) (Entered: 11/25/2005)
Order (non−document) granting 158 Motion to Extend Deadlines to supply information requested in document 153 issued on 11/8/05; defendants' counsel asked to communicate the extension to the relevant judges. Entered on behalf of Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 11/28/05.(D, S) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
Minutes (non−document) of proceedings. Status Conference held on 12/12/05 before Judge David D. Dowd Jr. Time: 2.0 Hours. (Court Reporter none) (M, D) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
159 Itemized Statement of Time and Expenses filed by Vincent M Nathan. (Nathan, Vincent) Modified text on 12/20/2005 (S, T). (Entered: 12/19/2005)

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD As of: 07/03/2014 04:57 PM EDT 19 of 29

12/20/2005 12/21/2005 12/21/2005
12/22/2005 12/24/2005 12/24/2005 12/28/2005 12/30/2005 01/17/2006 01/18/2006 01/18/2006 01/18/2006 01/25/2006 01/26/2006

160 Letter to Judge Dowd filed by Vincent M Nathan. (Nathan, Vincent) Modified text on 12/21/2005 (S, T). (Entered: 12/20/2005)
161 Response to Request for Information filed by County of Mahoning, Ohio, A Local Government Entity. (Stratford, Linette) Modified text on 12/22/2005 (S, T). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
162 Order re 160 directing the defendant Sheriff Randall Wellington to incarcerate any person or persons found by any of the Municipal Court Judges, County Court Judge or Judge of the Common Pleas Court, all of Mahoning County by judgment entry to have been in direct contempt of said Judge and without regard to the provisions of the emergency release mechanism (see Order for details). Court requests the Special Master to monitor and report to this Court on the number of persons so incarcerated. The Court directs Paul Gains, Mahoning County Prosecuting Attorney, to provide a copy of this order forthwith to each of the Judges of the Common Pleas Court, Municipal Court and the County Court, all of Mahoning County, and to sheriff Randall Wellington. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 12/21/05. (R, J) Modified text on 12/22/2005 (S, T). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
163 Notice of Compliance filed by County of Mahoning, Ohio, A Local Government Entity. (Stratford, Linette) (Entered: 12/22/2005)
164 FILED IN ERROR − SEE # 165 Report of Special Master Seventh Report of Special Master filed by Vincent M Nathan. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Nathan, Vincent) Modified on 12/25/2005 to STRIKE and REPLACE with # 165 . (D, S). Modified text on 12/27/2005 (S, T). (Entered: 12/24/2005)
165 Seventh Report of Special Master filed by Vincent M Nathan. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix) (REPLACING # 164). (D, S) Modified on 12/25/2005 to correct filing date. (D, S). (Entered: 12/25/2005)
166 Motion for extension of time until February 3, 2006 to File Criminal Justice Working Group's Final Report filed by County of Mahoning, Ohio, A Local Government Entity, Dave Ludt, Edward J. Reese, Vicki Allen Sherlock, Randall A. Wellington. Related document(s) 133 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Stratford, Linette) (Entered: 12/28/2005)
167 Order granting 166 Motion for extension of time until February 3, 2006 to File Criminal Justice Working Group's Final Report. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 12/30/05.(M, D) (Entered: 12/30/2005)
168 Order directing the filing of information received from Municipal Courts. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 1/17/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Letter from Struthers Municipal Court # 2 Letter from Campbell Municipal Court)(D, S) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
169 Order directing Clerk to file Letter from James White requesting relief and the Court's response to the letter. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 1/18/06. (M, D) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
170 Letter to Judge Dowd received on 1/13/2006 from James White. (M, D) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
171 Letter dated 1/18/06 from Judge Dowd to James White in response to letter (related document # 170 ). (M, D) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
172 Order scheduling Status Conference for 2/22/2006 at 2:30 p.m. in Chambers 402 before Hon. David D. Dowd Jr. All counsel of record are asked to attend in person. The Special Master may attend the conference by telephone. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 1/25/06. (M, D) (Entered: 01/25/2006)
173 Order authorizing payment to the Special Master Vincent M. Nathan in the amount of $5,075.00 in fees plus $5,116.20 in expenses, which includes expenses for the Special Master's assistant, for a total payment of $10,191.20 for the period of 10/6/2005 through 12/7/2005. (Related documents 147 and 159 ) (Copy issued to financial/Debbie Barath on 1/26/06). Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 1/25/06. (M, D) (Entered: 01/26/2006)

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD As of: 07/03/2014 04:57 PM EDT 20 of 29

02/01/2006 02/03/2006 02/06/2006 02/17/2006
02/22/2006 02/23/2006 02/23/2006
02/27/2006 02/27/2006 02/27/2006 03/01/2006 03/02/2006
03/02/2006 03/03/2006
03/03/2006

Financial Transaction: check in the amount of $10,191.20 paid to Special Master. Check #352596 dated 1/30/06. Related document(s) 173 . (B, De) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
174 Motion for extension of to File Final Report until February 17, 2006 filed by County of Mahoning, Ohio, A Local Government Entity, Dave Ludt, Edward J. Reese, Vicki Allen Sherlock, Randall A. Wellington. (Stratford, Linette) (Entered: 02/03/2006)
Order (non−document) granting 174 Motion to Extend Deadline for Final Report to 2/17/2006. Approved by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 2/6/2006.(D, S) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
175 Interim Status Report MAHONING COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE WORKING GROUP'S FOURTH REPORT AND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION TO FILE FINAL REPORT filed by County of Mahoning, Ohio, A Local Government Entity, Dave Ludt, Edward J. Reese, Vicki Allen Sherlock, Randall A. Wellington. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−D# 2 Exhibit E# 3 Exhibit F−N) (Stratford, Linette) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
Minutes (non−document) of proceedings. Status Conference held on 2/22/2006 before Judge David D. Dowd Jr. Time: 1.5 Hours. (Court Reporter none) (M, D) (Entered: 02/23/2006)
Order (non−document) granting leave until 5/1/06 for the Working Group to file its final report. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 2/23/06. (D, S) (Entered: 02/23/2006)
176 DOCUMENT WITHDRAWN DUE TO ERRORS (SEE REPLACEMENT DOC # 178 ). Report of Special Master Special Master's Submission of Itemized Statement of Time and Expenses filed by Vincent M Nathan. Related document(s) 149 , 147 . (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Expense Receipts)(Nathan, Vincent) Modified on 2/27/2006 to note withdrawal. (D, S). (Entered: 02/23/2006)
177 Motion (Request) to Withdraw Document Number 176 filed by Vincent M Nathan. Related document(s) 176 . (Nathan, Vincent) Modified text on 2/28/2006 (S, T). (Entered: 02/27/2006)
178 Report of Special Master Special Master's Submission of Itemized Statement of Time and Expenses filed by Vincent M Nathan. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Expense Receipts)(Nathan, Vincent) (Entered: 02/27/2006)
Order (non−document) granting 177 request to withdraw 176 Report of Special Master due to typographical errors. Approved by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 2/27/2006. (D, S) (Entered: 02/27/2006)
179 Order with 8 branches requesting a written report from defendant Randall Wellington, through counsel, by 4/7/2006; see order for specifics. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 3/1/2006. (D, S) (Entered: 03/01/2006)
180 Order authorizing payment to the Special Master Vincent M. Nathan in the total amount of $10,842.18 for the period of 12/10/05 through 2/23/2006. (Related document # 178 ). Copy of order issued to Debbie Barath on 3/2/2006. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 3/2/2006. (M, D) Modified text on 3/2/2006 (M, D). (Entered: 03/02/2006)
181 Order requesting Special Master to project a budget for the period 4/1/2006 through 9/20/2006, to be filed by 3/17/2006. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 3/1/2006. (M, D) (Entered: 03/02/2006)
182 Order requesting that the judges of the various county and municipal courts of Mahoning County supply certain information requested by the court by 4/7/2006 (see order for details); further directing that defendants' counsel forthwith supply a copy of this order to each such judge. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 3/3/2006. (D, S) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
183 Financial Report of Special Master Special Master's Third Estimate of Monthly Costs filed by Vincent M Nathan. Related document(s) 181 , 147 . (Nathan, Vincent) (Entered: 03/03/2006)

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD As of: 07/03/2014 04:57 PM EDT 21 of 29

03/09/2006
03/10/2006 03/17/2006 03/29/2006
04/07/2006
04/10/2006 04/11/2006
04/14/2006 05/01/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/25/2006
06/08/2006 06/15/2006

184 Order regarding Third Six−Month Estimate of Costs for Special Master and authorizing the Clerk's Finance Office to budget amounts for payment of the Special Master over the next six months out of funds appropriated to the Judiciary (Related document # 183 ). Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 3/8/2006. (M, D) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
Financial Transaction in the amount of $10,842.18 paid to Special Master. Check # 354012 for Doc #P2 06466000817 dated 03/07/06. Related document(s) 180 . (B, De) Modified text on 3/20/2006 (S, T). (Entered: 03/10/2006)
185 Order directing the filing of Judge Evans' letter re 182 Order. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 3/17/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Copy of Letter of 3/13/06)(D, S) (Entered: 03/17/2006)
186 Order indicating receipt of a letter from inmate Jones, signed by several other inmates, and the court's response, both attached for record purposes. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 3/29/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Letter from Inmate Jones to the court (3/24/06) # 2 Letter from the court to Inmate Jones (3/29/06))(D, S) (Entered: 03/29/2006)
187 Status Report Budget and Staffing Report filed by Randall A. Wellington. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit F# 8 Exhibit G# 9 Exhibit H# 10 Exhibit I# 11 Exhibit J# 12 Exhibit K1−3# 13 Exhibit K−4# 14 Exhibit K−5# 15 Exhibit L# 16 Exhibit M# 17 Exhibit N# 18 Exhibit O# 19 Exhibit P) (Stratford, Linette) (Entered: 04/07/2006)
188 Order directing the parties and counsel to the attached article. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 4/10/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Article from "For the Record")(D, S) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
189 Order summarizing the responses to 182 Order (see order for detail) and setting Status Conference with counsel and the special master on 5/4/2006 at 01:00 PM in Chambers 402 before Hon. David D. Dowd Jr.; directing the clerk to mail copies to various judges. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 4/11/2006. (D, S) (Entered: 04/11/2006)
190 Order that this Court will not release the actual letters referred to in 189 Order, but individual letter−writers are free to do so upon request. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 4/14/2006. (D, S) (Entered: 04/14/2006)
191 Final Status Report of Mahoning County Criminal Justice Working Group's May 1, 2006 Final Report filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − N# 2 Exhibit O − X) (Stratford, Linette) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
192 Order making part of the record a letter and its attachments received by fax from Jason T. Whitehead, Youngstown Mayor's Chief of Staff, re 191 Final Status Report filed by the Criminal Justice Working Group. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 5/4/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Letter (5/3/06) and Attachments)(D, S) (Entered: 05/04/2006)
Minutes of proceedings [non−document].Status Conference held on 5/4/2006 before Judge David D. Dowd Jr. time: 60 Minutes. (Court Reporter none) (M, D) (Entered: 05/04/2006)
193 Order referring the matter of determining a prisoner release order to a three−judge panel in accordance with 18 USC 3626(a)(3)(D) and 28 USC 2284, subject to selection of the panel by Sixth Circuit Chief Judge Danny Boggs. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 5/25/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Opinion and Dissent (Ohio 7th Dist.) # 2 05−23−06 Vindicator Article # 3 05−25−06 Vindicator Editorial # 4 05−05−06 Jail Population)(D, S) (Entered: 05/25/2006)
194 Order advising the parties and counsel of the appointment of the three−judge district court (Related Doc # 193 ). Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 6/8/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Designation for Service)(D, S) (Entered: 06/08/2006)
195 Motion to intervene as a party filed by City of Youngstown. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit−Affidavit/attachments)(H, L) (Entered: 06/15/2006)

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD As of: 07/03/2014 04:57 PM EDT 22 of 29

06/15/2006 06/19/2006 06/21/2006
06/23/2006 06/26/2006 06/26/2006 06/26/2006 06/29/2006
06/29/2006 07/03/2006 07/05/2006 07/27/2006 07/31/2006 08/02/2006 08/02/2006

196 Notice of failure to file electronically, pursuant to Local Rule 5.1(c). Non−compliant document: 195 Motion to intervene as a party filed by City of Youngstown. (H, L) (Entered: 06/15/2006)
197 Order re 195 Motion to intervene as a party filed by City of Youngstown, directing parties to file responses by 4:00 p.m. on Monday, 6/26/06. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 6/19/06. (D, S) (Entered: 06/19/2006)
198 Motion to dismiss or, Alternatively, Request for Instructions to Intervenor City of Youngstown to File a Pleading Pursuant to Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. Rule 24(c) filed by County of Mahoning, Ohio, A Local Government Entity, Dave Ludt, Edward J. Reese, Vicki Allen Sherlock, Randall A. Wellington. Related document(s) 197 . (Stratford, Linette) (Entered: 06/21/2006)
199 Response to Motion to dismiss or, Alternatively, Request for Instructions to Intervenor City of Youngstown to File a Pleading Pursuant to Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. Rule 24(c) filed by City of Youngstown. Related document(s) 198 . (Farris, Anthony) (Document not signed) (P, G). (Entered: 06/23/2006)
200 Response to Motion to intervene as a party filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 195 . (Kelley, Thomas) (Entered: 06/26/2006)
201 Reply to Plaintiff's Response filed by City of Youngstown. Related document(s) 200 . (Farris, Anthony) (Entered: 06/26/2006)
202 Reply to response to Motion to intervene as a party filed by County of Mahoning, Ohio, A Local Government Entity, Dave Ludt, Edward J. Reese, Vicki Allen Sherlock, Randall A. Wellington. Related document(s) 195 . (Stratford, Linette) Modified text on 6/27/2006 (P, G). (Entered: 06/26/2006)
203 Order denying without prejudice City of Youngtown's Motion to intervene as a party (Related Doc # 195 ) and denying as moot defendants' Motion to dismiss (Related Doc # 198 ); all motions to intervene shall be filed by 7/28/2006 following directives in the order; Status Conference will be conducted on the record on 8/14/2006 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 442 before Hon. Alice M. Batchelder, Hon. David D. Dowd Jr., and Hon. Dan Aaron Polster (three−judge court). Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. for the court on 6/29/2006.(D, S) Copy of order mailed on 6/29/2006 by certified mail to individuals on page 5 of this order. Modified text on 6/29/2006 to indicate mailing of order as directed(M, D). (Entered: 06/29/2006)
204 Certificate of Mailing of Order #203 on 6/29/2006. (M, D) (Entered: 06/29/2006)
205 Certified mail receipt returned; Addressed to Iris Guglucello and delivered on 6/30/06 re Order. (Related documents 203 , 204 ) (P, G) Modified text on 7/5/2006 (P, S). (Entered: 07/03/2006)
206 Certified mail receipts returned, addressed to Carol Clemente−Wagner and delivered on July 3, 2006; addressed to Brian J. Macala and delivered on July 3, 2006; addressed to and Judge Joseph M. Houser and delivered on June 30, 2006. Related document(s) 203 , 204 . (P, S) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
207 Motion to intervene as a party filed by City of Youngstown. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Exhibit A# 2 Pleading Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit Exhibit C, Resolution)(Farris, Anthony) (Entered: 07/27/2006)
208 Motion to continue Hearing set for August 14, 2006 filed by County of Mahoning, Ohio, A Local Government Entity, Randall A. Wellington. Related document(s) 193 . (Stratford, Linette) (Entered: 07/31/2006)
209 Order granting Motion to intervene as a party pursuant to 18 USC 3626(a)(3)(F) (Related Doc # 207 ) and directing City of Youngstown to file the complaint in intervention using the event "Intervenor's Complaint". Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. for the court on 8/2/2006.(D, S) (Entered: 08/02/2006)
210 Order granting defendants' Motion to continue the status conference (Related Doc # 208 ); Status Conference set for 8/28/2006 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 442 before Hon. Alice M. Batchelder, Hon. David D. Dowd Jr., and Hon. Dan Aaron Polster. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. for the court on 8/2/2006.(D, S) (Entered: 08/02/2006)

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD As of: 07/03/2014 04:57 PM EDT 23 of 29

08/02/2006 08/02/2006 08/03/2006 08/04/2006
08/04/2006 08/11/2006
08/22/2006 08/23/2006 08/23/2006 08/23/2006
08/24/2006 08/25/2006 08/25/2006
08/28/2006
08/28/2006
08/31/2006 09/07/2006

211 Report of Special Master Eighth Itemized Statement of Fees and Expenses filed by Vincent M Nathan. (Nathan, Vincent) (Entered: 08/02/2006)
212 Intervenor's complaint. Filed by City of Youngstown. (Farris, Anthony) (Entered: 08/02/2006)
213 Order regarding letter of Alfie Sloan. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 8/2/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix I−Letter# 2 Appendix II−Court's Response)(M, De) (Entered: 08/03/2006)
214 Order authorizing payment to Special Master Vincent M. Nathan in the total amount of $4,708.90 for the period of 2/28/06 through 7/7/06 (Related Doc # 211 ). Copy of order issued to Debbie Barath on 8/4/06. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 8/3/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Chart of Expenses)(D, S) Modified on 8/4/2006 to note issuance to the finance department. (D, S). (Entered: 08/04/2006)
Financial Transaction in the amount of $4,708.90 paid to Special Master. Check # 358954 dated 8/4/06. Related to document 214. (B, De) (Entered: 08/29/2006)
215 Order that, in preparation for the 8/28/06 status conference before the 3−judge court, parties are required to respond to questions and submit briefs on specified legal issues by 12:00 noon on Friday, 8/25/06 (see order for specifics). Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. for the court on 8/11/06. (D, S) (Entered: 08/11/2006)
216 Answer to Intervenor Complaint of City of Youngstown (Related Doc # 212 ), Crossclaim against City of Youngstown filed by all defendants. (Gains, Paul) Modified text on 8/23/2006 (P, G). (Entered: 08/22/2006)
217 Answer to Intervenor Complaint (Related Doc # 212 ) filed by all plaintiffs. (Kelley, Thomas) Modified text on 8/24/2006 (P, G). (Entered: 08/23/2006)
218 Response To Questions Posed By The Court filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 215 . (Kelley, Thomas) (Entered: 08/23/2006)
219 Motion for Request for Instructions and Motion to limit Intervention filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 218 , 215 . (Kelley, Thomas) Modified text on 8/24/2006 (P, G). Modified on 9/7/2006 to term motion in view of 224 (D, S). (Entered: 08/23/2006)
220 Supplement to response to questions posed by the court filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 218 . (Attachments: # 1 Consent Order−−Occoquan v. Barry)(D, S) (Entered: 08/24/2006)
221 Response to Court's Questions filed by City of Youngstown. Related document(s) 215 . (Attachments: # 1Statement) (Farris, Anthony) Modified text on 8/28/2006 (P, G). (Entered: 08/25/2006)
222 Response to Court Request for Information Prior to Status Hearing filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−C# 2 Exhibit D# 3 Exhibit D (pages not rotated)# 4 Exhibit E−G)Related document(s) 215 . (Gains, Paul) Modified text on 8/28/2006 (P, G). (Entered: 08/25/2006)
Minutes of proceedings [non−document]. Status Conference held on 8/27/2006 before United States Circuit Judge Alice Batchelder, Judge David D. Dowd Jr. and Judge Dan A. Polster. (Court Reporter Rich DelMonico) (M, De) Modified text on 8/28/2006 (M, De). (Entered: 08/28/2006)
Minutes of proceedings [non−document]. Status Conference held on 8/27/2006 before United States Circuit Judge Alice Batchelder, Judge David D. Dowd, Jr. and Judge Dan Aaron Polster. (Court Reporter Rich DelMonico) (M, De) (Duplicate minutes filed for statistical purpose) Modified text on 8/28/2006 (M, De). (Entered: 08/28/2006)
223 Answer to Defendants' Pleading Labeled as a Cross−Claim filed by City of Youngstown. Related document(s) 216 . (Farris, Anthony) (Entered: 08/31/2006)
224 Order declaring that plaintiffs have the burden of proof under 18 USC 3626(a)(3)(E), but the court may require the intervenor to go first in the order of production; further appointing Vincent M. Nathan as the three−judge court's expert, with compensation at

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD As of: 07/03/2014 04:57 PM EDT 24 of 29

09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/13/2006
09/18/2006 11/21/2006 12/03/2006 12/03/2006
12/04/2006 12/18/2006 12/18/2006 12/19/2006
12/21/2006 12/26/2006 12/27/2006

the same rate as for his Special Master duties; requiring that his expert report be served and filed by 11/30/06; disclosure of the identity of any party's expert required by 12/29/06, with these expert reports served and filed by 2/16/07; rebuttal reports due 3/9/07; depositions of all experts thereafter completed by 4/13/07; deposition transcripts filed by 4/27/07; a hearing on the question of a prisoner release order will be conducted before the three−judge court beginning on 5/16/07 and continuing through 5/17/07 (see order for additional directives). Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. for the court on 9/7/06. (D, S) Modified on 9/8/2006 (D, S). (Entered: 09/07/2006)
225 Report of Special Master Ninth Itemized Statement of Time and Expenses filed by Vincent M Nathan. (Attachments: # 1)(Nathan, Vincent) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
226 Notice of filing attorney hours filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1Attorney hours) (Kelley, Thomas) Modified text on 9/13/2006 (P, G). (Entered: 09/12/2006)
227 Order authorizing payment. The Court authorizes payment to Special Master Vincent M. Nathan in the amount of $1093.75 in fees plus $242.94 in expenses for the period of 8/27/06 through 9/7/06 for a total authorized payment of $1336.69. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 9/13/06. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(R, N) Modified on 9/14/2006, to note issuance of this order to the finance department on 9/13/06 (R, N). (Entered: 09/13/2006)
Financial Transaction in the amount of $1336.69 paid to Special Master. Check # 360343 dtd 09/18/06. Related document(s) 227 . (B, De) (Entered: 09/18/2006)
228 Order granting the court−appointed expert's oral motion for a brief extension of the expert report deadline (Related Doc # 224 ); report and supporting exhibits are due no later than 12/4/06; all other deadlines in 224 Order remain in force. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 11/21/06. (D, S) (Entered: 11/21/2006)
229 Report of the Court's Expert Witness filed by Vincent M Nathan. (Nathan, Vincent) Modified on 1/11/2007 to correct event (D, S). (Entered: 12/03/2006)
230 Exhibit 1 to Report of Court Appointed Expert filed by Vincent M Nathan. Related document(s) 229 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2# 2 Exhibit 3# 3 Exhibit 4# 4 Exhibit 5# 5 Exhibit 6# 6 Exhibit 7# 7 Exhibit 8# 8 Exhibit 9# 9 Exhibit 10# 10 Exhibit 11# 11 Exhibit 12# 12 Exhibit 13# 13 Exhibit 14# 14 Exhibit 15# 15 Exhibit 16# 16 Exhibit 17# 17 Exhibit 18# 18 Exhibit 19# 19 Exhibit 20# 20 Exhibit 21)(Nathan, Vincent) Modified docket text on 12/4/2006 (R, N). (Entered: 12/03/2006)
231 Exhibit(s) 9 in support of Report of Court Appointed Expert filed by Vincent M Nathan. Related document(s) 229 , 230 . (B, T) Modified on 12/4/2006 (D, S). (Entered: 12/04/2006)
232 Motion for relief for immediate injunctive relief filed by all plaintiffs. (Kelley, Thomas) Modified docket text on 12/19/2006 (R, N). Modified on 2/28/2007 to term motion (Related Doc # 251 ) (D,S). (Entered: 12/18/2006)
233 Notice of filing attorney hours filed by all plaintiffs. (Kelley, Thomas) (Entered: 12/18/2006)
234 Order setting a hearing on 232 Plaintiffs' Motion for immediate injunctive relief; hearing set for 12/28/06 beginning at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 442 before the Three−Judge Court; briefs are due by noon on 12/27/06 (see order for details). Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. for the Three−Judge Court on 12/19/06. (D, S) (Entered: 12/19/2006)
235 DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR (WRONG CASE) Exhibit List of Plaintiff's Exhibits admitted for the Jury. (M, De) Modified text on 12/21/2006 (M, De). (Entered: 12/21/2006)
236 Order granting request that copies of briefs on Plaintiffs' Motion 232 for immediate injunctive relief may be submitted to Judges' chambers via telefax. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 12/26/2006. (M, De) (Entered: 12/26/2006)
237 Response to Motion for immediate injunctive relief filed by City of Youngstown. Related document(s) 232 . (Farris, Anthony) Modified text on 12/27/2006 (S, T). (Entered: 12/27/2006)

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD As of: 07/03/2014 04:57 PM EDT 25 of 29

12/27/2006
12/27/2006
12/27/2006 12/28/2006
12/28/2006 12/28/2006 12/29/2006 12/29/2006 12/29/2006
01/03/2007 01/17/2007 01/24/2007 02/12/2007 02/13/2007
02/14/2007

238 Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Immediate Injunctive Relief filed by County of Mahoning, Ohio, A Local Government Entity, Dave Ludt, Edward J. Reese, Vicki Allen Sherlock, Randall A. Wellington, County of Mahoning, Ohio, A Local Government Entity, Dave Ludt, Edward J. Reese, Vicki Allen Sherlock, Randall A. Wellington. Related document(s) 234 . (Stratford, Linette) (Entered: 12/27/2006)
239 Amended Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Immediate Injunctive Relief filed by County of Mahoning, Ohio, A Local Government Entity, Dave Ludt, Edward J. Reese, Vicki Allen Sherlock, Randall A. Wellington, County of Mahoning, Ohio, A Local Government Entity, Dave Ludt, Edward J. Reese, Vicki Allen Sherlock, Randall A. Wellington. Related document(s) 234 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − B) (Stratford, Linette) Modified text on 12/28/2006 (S, T). (Entered: 12/27/2006)
240 Supplement to Plaintiffs' Motion for Immediate Injunctive Relief filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 232 . (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Plaintiffs)(Kelley, Thomas) (Entered: 12/27/2006)
Minutes of proceedings [non−document]. Motion Hearing held on 12/28/2006 re 232 Motion for immediate injunctive relief before Judge Alice Batchelder, U.S. Circuit Judge, Judge David D. Dowd Jr., U.S. District Judge and Judge Dan Polster, U.S. District Judge. Time: 60 Minutes. (Court Reporter Rich DelMonico) (M, De) Modified text on 12/28/2006 (S, T). (Entered: 12/28/2006)
241 Order requesting transcript of hearing and directing submission of copies to each of the three judges. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 12/28/2006. (M, De) (Entered: 12/28/2006)
242 Non−Appeal Transcript Order Form for proceedings held on 12/28/2006 before Judges Batchelder, Dowd and Polster, re 241 Order. Court Reporter: Rich DelMonico. (M, De) (Entered: 12/28/2006)
243 Notice of Identity of Expert Witness filed by City of Youngstown. (Farris, Anthony) (Entered: 12/29/2006)
244 Designation of Expert filed by all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 224 . (Kelley, Thomas) (Entered: 12/29/2006)
245 Order signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 12/29/06. Judge Polster's order concerning scheduling of and attendance at mediation sessions shall have the same force and effect as those of the panel, the case management schedule previously adopted by the panel remains in effect as this matter is scheduled for a full hearing on May 16−17−2007; the transcript of the hearing has been ordered and interested parties may purchase it by contacting the court reporter. (L, T) (Entered: 12/29/2006)
246 Expert witness's submission of itemized statement of time and expenses filed by Vincent M Nathan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Total Expense Receipts)(Nathan, Vincent) Modified text on 1/4/2007 (S, T). (Entered: 01/03/2007)
247 Order directing the Clerk to disburse funds in the amount of $ 35,909.62 from the registry to Mr. Vincent M. Nathan. (Related documents # 224 and # 246 ). Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 1/12/2007. (M,De) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
Financial Transaction in the amount of 35,909.62 paid to Court−Appointed Expert Vincent M. Nathan. Check# 366723 issued 1/24/07. Related document(s) 247 . (B,De) Modified on 1/26/2007 (Barath, Deborah). (Entered: 01/26/2007)
248 Joint Motion for extension of Expert Report until March 1, 2007 filed by City of Youngstown and County of Mahoning, Ohio. (Farris, Anthony) Modified text on 2/15/2007 (S, T). (Entered: 02/12/2007)
249 Order granting 248 Joint Motion to Extend Deadline for filing expert reports (Related Doc # 224 ); expert reports are due 3/1/2007; rebuttal expert reports, if any, are due 3/16/2007; all other deadlines in 224 Order of 9/7/2006 remain in force; no further extensions will be granted. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. for the 3−Judge Court on 2/13/2007.(D,S) (Entered: 02/13/2007)
250 Notice of filing of plaintiffs counsels' hours for December 2006 and January 2007 filed by all plaintiffs. (Kelley, Thomas) Modified text on 2/15/2007 (S, T). (Entered: 02/14/2007)

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD As of: 07/03/2014 04:57 PM EDT 26 of 29

02/26/2007 02/28/2007 03/05/2007
03/12/2007 03/13/2007 04/05/2007 04/07/2007 04/12/2007 04/12/2007 04/12/2007 04/12/2007 04/12/2007
04/19/2007 05/01/2007 05/02/2007 05/17/2007

Minutes of Proceedings (non−document). Telephone Conference held on 2/26/07. Agreement being circulated. Follow−up Telephone Conference set for 3/12/2007 at 8:30 AM before Hon. Dan Aaron Polster, using the District Court's bridge line.(P,R) Modified text on 2/27/2007 (S, T). (Entered: 02/26/2007)
251 Interim Stipulated Population Order. Signed by Judge Alice M. Batchelder, Judge David D. Dowd Jr. and Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 2/27/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Overcrowding Release Policy # 2 Agreement for Boarding of Prisoners # 3 RES 07−02−029 # 4 ORD−07−31) (Related Doc # 232 ). (D,S) (Entered: 02/28/2007)
252 Transcript of hearing on motion for injunctive relief held on 12/28/2006 before Judge Batchelder, Judge Dowd and Judge Polster filed manually. To obtain a bound copy of this transcript please contact Court Reporter Rich DelMonico at 330−252−6021. Complete document on file, 63 pages. Related document(s) 242 . (S,T) (Entered: 03/06/2007)
Minutes of Proceedings (non−document). Telephone Conference held on 3/12/07. Amendments to proposed agreement discussed. Follow−up Telephone Conference set for 3/20/2007 at 2:00 p.m. before Hon. Dan Aaron Polster, using the District Court's bridge line. Time: 30 Minutes.(Court Reporter none) (M,De) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
253 Notice of filing plaintiffs attorney hours filed by all plaintiffs. (Kelley, Thomas) Modified text on 3/14/2007 (P, G). (Entered: 03/13/2007)
254 Order − Final Settlement Telephone Conference set for 4/11/2007 2:30 PM, before Hon. Dan Aaron Polster. If not settled, Settlement Conference set for 4/12/2007 9:00 AM in Chambers 18B before Hon. Dan Aaron Polster. Signed by Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 4/5/07.(P,R) (Entered: 04/05/2007)
255 Notice of filing attorney and clerks hours filed by all plaintiffs. (Kelley, Thomas) (Entered: 04/07/2007)
256 FILING ERROR; DOCUMENT WITHDRAWN, TO BE RE−FILED. Proposed Order Joint Motion to approve Notice to Class of Proposed Settlement and Joint Motion to Approve proposed settlement agreement filed by all parties. (Kelley, Thomas) Modified on 4/12/2007 (Derivan, Sharon). (Entered: 04/12/2007)
257 Joint Motion for an Order Approving Notice to Class and Approving Proposed Class Action Settlement filed by all parties. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Notice to Class # 2 Proposed Order).(D,S) (Entered: 04/12/2007)
258 Proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement filed by all parties. Related document(s) 257 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A # 2 Exhibit B # 3 Exhibit C)(D,S) (Entered: 04/12/2007)
259 Order granting Motion for order approving notice to the class regarding the proposed class action settlement (Related Doc # 257 ). Signed by Judge Alice M. Batchelder, Judge David D. Dowd Jr. and Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 4/12/2007.(D,S) (Entered: 04/12/2007)
260 Order that a fairness hearing will be held on 5/17/2007 at 12:00 PM at Courtroom 442 (Akron) re 258 Proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement; objections, if any, must be received by the clerk, as stated in the notice to the class, by no later than 5/11/2007. Signed by Judge Alice M. Batchelder, Judge David D. Dowd Jr., and Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 4/12/2007. (D,S) (Entered: 04/12/2007)
261 Objection filed by Clifford West. (Related document 260 ) (L,T) (Entered: 04/20/2007)
263 Objection filed by Dyahiann L. Morris. (Related document 260 ) (L,T) (Entered: 05/02/2007)
262 Notice of filing April's attorneys fees filed by all plaintiffs. (Kelley, Thomas) (Entered: 05/02/2007)
Minutes of proceedings [non−document] of Fairness Hearing. Three Judge Court Hearing held on 5/17/2007 before the Honorable David D. Dowd Jr., the Honorable Dan Poster, and the Honorable Alice Batchelder presiding. Time: 20 Minutes. (Court Reporter Rich DelMonico ) (M,De) (Entered: 05/17/2007)

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD As of: 07/03/2014 04:57 PM EDT 27 of 29

05/17/2007 05/17/2007 05/17/2007 06/04/2007 06/04/2007 09/07/2007 09/07/2007 11/21/2008 11/25/2008 12/01/2008 12/02/2008
01/15/2009
01/15/2009 01/26/2009 02/20/2009 03/11/2010

264 Joint Exhibit List regarding Fairness Hearing held 5/17/2007. (M,De) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
265 Notice of Filing of Resolution 07−04−012 of the Board of Mahoning County Commissioners. (Attachments: # 1 RES 07−04−012)(D,S) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
266 Consent Judgment Entry. Signed by Judge Alice M. Batchelder, Judge David D. Dowd Jr. and Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 5/17/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C)(M,De) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
267 Notice of filing attorneys fees for May 1, 2007 through June 1, 2007 filed by all plaintiffs. (Kelley, Thomas) (Entered: 06/04/2007)
268 Order terminating the services of Vincent M. Nathan as Special Master and as Court Expert (Related Doc. # 108 , 224 ). Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 6/1/2007. (D,S) (Entered: 06/04/2007)
269 Order regarding inmate letter and directing that letter and its attachments be filed under seal. A copy of the letter and its attachments were mailed to plaintiffs' counsel on 9/7/2007. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd Jr. on 9/7/2007.(M,De) (Entered: 09/07/2007)
270 Letter and attachments (FILED UNDER SEAL #4283). Copy to plaintiffs' counsel on 9/7/2007. Related document(s) 269 . (M,De) Modified to assign document number on 9/10/2007 (S, S). (Entered: 09/07/2007)
271 Motion for status conference filed by Defendant County of Mahoning, Ohio, A Local Government Entity. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Letter)(Stratford, Linette) Modified text on 11/25/2008 (M,KR). (Entered: 11/21/2008)
272 Order Scheduling a status conference in this case for 12/1/2008 at 10:00 a.m. in Chambers 18B of the Honorable Dan A. Polster. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd, Jr on 11/25/2008 on behalf of the the three Judge Panel. (M,De) (Entered: 11/25/2008)
Minutes of proceedings [non−document] before Circuit Judge Alice M. Batchelder, Judge Dan A. Polster and Judge David D. Dowd, Jr. Status Conference held on 12/1/2008. (Court Reporter: none) Time: 2 hours. (M,De) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
273 Order regarding status conference conducted on 12/1/2008. The parties are directed to file by 1/15/2009, a comprehensive audit of the Mahoning County Justice Center's operations since 5/17/2007. (See order for details). Related documents # 266 . Signed by Circuit Judge Alice M. Batchelder, Judge David D. Dowd, Jr. and Judge Dan A. Polster. (M,De) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
274 Mahoning County Jail Facilities Audit filed by City of Youngstown. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit One, # 2 Exhibit Two, # 3 Exhibit Three, # 4 Exhibit Four, # 5 Exhibit Five, # 6 Exhibit Six, # 7 Exhibit Seven, # 8 Exhibit Eight, # 9 Exhibit Nine, # 10 Exhibit Ten, # 11 Exhibit Eleven, # 12 Exhibit Twelve, # 13 Exhibit Thirteen, # 14 Exhibit Fourteen, # 15 Exhibit Fifteen, # 16 Exhibit Sixteen, # 17 Exhibit Seventeen)Related document(s) 266 , 273 .(Farris, Anthony) Modified text on 1/15/2009 (H,KR). (Entered: 01/15/2009)
275 Comprehensive audit of Mahoning County Justice Center operations since May 17, 2007 filed by County of Mahoning, Ohio, A Local Government Entity. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit)(Stratford, Linette) Modified text on 1/16/2009 (H,KR). (Entered: 01/15/2009)
277 1/26/09 Letter from Judge Polster to Attorneys Linette Stratford and Anthony Farris. (P,R) (Entered: 02/23/2009)
276 Supplement to 275 Response, filed by County of Mahoning, Ohio, A Local Government Entity. Related document(s) 275 . (Stratford, Linette) (Entered: 02/20/2009)
278 Attorney Appearance by Gina DeGenova Bricker filed by on behalf of County of Mahoning, Ohio, A Local Government Entity, Dave Ludt, Edward J. Reese, Vicki Allen Sherlock, Randall A. Wellington. (Bricker, Gina) (Entered: 03/11/2010)

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD As of: 07/03/2014 04:57 PM EDT 28 of 29

03/15/2010
03/17/2010 03/18/2010
03/29/2010 03/30/2010 04/05/2010 04/09/2010 04/09/2010
04/16/2010 04/20/2010 04/22/2010 04/23/2010 04/30/2010 05/12/2010

279 Order that upon request of the parties for an informal conference and at the request of Judge Batchelder and Judge Dowd, Judge Polster agreed to conduct an informal conference with the parties on 3/17/2010 at 9:00 a.m The informal conference is informational only. Signed by Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 3/15/2010. (M,De) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
Minutes of proceedings [non−document] before Judge Dan Aaron Polster. Informal Status Conference held on 3/17/2010. (Court Reporter: none) Time: 4.0 Hours. (M,De) (Entered: 03/18/2010)
280 Order that the informal status conference was continued to provide the parties with time to further explore their alternatives, and will resume on March 29, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. before Judge Polster. As before, no action will be taken in this case when the informal status conference resumes on March 29, 2010. By 12:00 noon on March 26, 2010, the parties are directed to fax a joint status report to the Court regarding the progress of their discussions. Signed by Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 3/18/2010. (M,De) (Entered: 03/18/2010)
Minutes of proceedings [non−document] before Judge Dan Aaron Polster. Informal Status Conference held on 3/29/2010. (Court Reporter: none) Time: 3.0 Hours. (M,De) (Entered: 03/30/2010)
281 Order scheduling a Status Conference for 4/9/2010 at 12:00 noon to be held telephonically before Judge Dan Aaron Polster. Signed by Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 3/30/2010. (M,De) (Entered: 03/30/2010)
Minutes of proceedings [non−document] before Judge Dan Aaron Polster. Status Conference held on 4/5/2010. (Court Reporter: none) Time: 25 Minutes. (M,De) (Entered: 04/06/2010)
Minutes of proceedings [non−document] before Judge Dan Aaron Polster. Status Conference held on 4/9/2010. (Court Reporter: none) Time: 15 Minutes. (M,De) (Entered: 04/09/2010)
282 Order regarding status conference held. Plaintiffs' counsel advised the Court that a motion for contempt of the Consent Decree will be filed. Plaintiffs' motion should be filed by April 16, 2010, and Mahoning County's response by April 23, 2010. Any reply should be filed by April 30, 2010. The Court expects that a ruling will most likely take place on the briefs without the need for a hearing, and the Court will endeavor to rule before May 17, 2010. No further status conferences will be scheduled unless requested by the parties. Signed by Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 4/9/2010. (M,De) (Entered: 04/09/2010)
283 Motion for contempt, and, added Motion to extend Consent Judgment Entry filed by Joshua Baird, Maurice Barnes, Rodney Gray, Mike Hamad, James Joseph Mancini, Nathaniel Roberts, Leland Scott, Kevin Whitacker. (Kelley, Thomas). Modified event and text for on 4/19/2010 (M,TL). (Entered: 04/16/2010)
Minutes of proceedings [non−document] before Judge Dan Aaron Polster. Status Conference held on 4/20/2010. (Court Reporter: none)Time: 25 minutes. (M,De) (Entered: 04/26/2010)
284 Response in opposition to 283 Motion to extend Consent Judgment Entry filed by City of Youngstown. (Farris, Anthony) Modified text on 4/23/2010 (H,KR). (Entered: 04/22/2010)
285 Opposition to 283 Motion for contempt and Motion to extend Consent Judgment Entry filed by County of Mahoning, Ohio, A Local Government Entity, Dave Ludt, Edward J. Reese, Vicki Allen Sherlock, Randall A. Wellington. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Bricker, Gina) (Entered: 04/23/2010)
286 Reply to 284 Response in Opposition to 283 Motion for contempt and Motion to extend Consent Judgment Entry filed by All Plaintiffs. (Kelley, Thomas) Modified to create link on 5/3/2010 (S,He). (Entered: 04/30/2010)
287 Final Monitoring Report filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Kelley, Thomas) Modified text on 5/13/2010 (S,He). (Entered: 05/12/2010)

Case: 4:03-cv-02329-DDD As of: 07/03/2014 04:57 PM EDT 29 of 29

05/16/2010 05/17/2010 05/17/2010 05/17/2010 05/18/2010
06/24/2010

288 Motion to Modify and Extend Consent Judgment Entry filed by County of Mahoning, Ohio, A Local Government Entity, Dave Ludt, Edward J. Reese, Vicki Allen Sherlock, Randall A. Wellington. Related document(s) 283 , 285 . (Bricker, Gina) Document contains s/signature of attorney Paul J. Gains but was filed under the login of attorney Gina Bricker. Attorney emailed. Modified on 5/17/2010 (S,He). (Entered: 05/16/2010)
289 Response in Opposition to 288 Motion to Modify and Extend Consent Judgment Entry filed by City of Youngstown. (Farris, Anthony) Modified text on 5/18/2010 (S,He). (Entered: 05/17/2010)
290 Motion for Filing Final Billing Invoice filed by all plaintiffs. (Kelley, Thomas) Modified text and filers on 5/18/2010 (S,He). (Entered: 05/17/2010)
291 Reply to 289 Opposition to 288 Motion to Modify and Extend Consent Judgment Entry filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Bricker, Gina) Modified text and created link on 5/18/2010 (S,He). M (Entered: 05/17/2010)
292 Order regarding (Related Doc # 283 and 288 ). The Panel has reviewed the parties' briefs regarding the motions to extend the Consent Entry and concludes that there is no basis upon which the Panel may do so. Accordingly, both plaintiffs' motion and the County's motion to extend the Consent Entry are DENIED. This Panel's jurisdiction over the Consent Entry expired by its terms on May 17, 2010. However, the Panel retains jurisdiction to rule on plaintiffs' motion for contempt against the County for violation of the Consent Entry during the time the Consent Entry was in effect. Similarly, the Panel acknowledges the motion of plaintiffs' counsel for attorney fees (ECF 290 ) during that time period and its jurisdiction to rule on that motion. The Panel will publish a separate order regarding plaintiffs' motions for contempt 283 and attorney fees 290 . Signed by United States Circuit Judge Alice Batchelder, Judge Dan A. Polster and Judge David D. Dowd, Jr. on 5/18/2010. (M,De) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
293 Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying Motion for contempt (Related Doc # 283 ); and Granting Motion for attorney fees (Related Doc # 290 ). The defendants are directed to pay said fees within thirty (30) days of this Order. Signed by Chief Circuit Judge Alice M. Batchelder, Judge David D. Dowd, Jr. and Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 6/23/2010. (M,De) (Entered: 06/24/2010)