Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 1 of 72

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

MACON DIVISION

________________________________

)

TIMOTHY GUMM, on behalf of

)

himself and a class of similarly

)

situated persons,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

CIVIL ACTION

v.

)

)

NO. 5:15-CV-41-MTT-CHW

TIMOTHY WARD, Assistant

)

Commissioner, Georgia Department )

SECOND AMENDED

of Corrections,

)

COMPLAINT

)

RICKY MYRICK, Assistant

)

CLASS ACTION

Commissioner, Georgia Department )

of Corrections,

)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

)

STEVE UPTON, Director of Field )

Operations, Georgia Department of )

Corrections,

)

)

RICK JACOBS, Former Director of )

Facilities Operations, Georgia

)

Department of Corrections,

)

)

RANDY TILLMAN, Former Director )

of Facilities Operations, Georgia

)

Department of Corrections,

)

)

ERIC SELLERS, Warden, Georgia )

Diagnostic & Classification Prison, )

)

BRUCE CHATMAN, Former Warden, )

Georgia Diagnostic & Classification )

Prison,

)

)

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 2 of 72

MICHAEL CANNON, Superintendent, )

Special Management Unit,

)

)

RODNEY MCCLOUD, Former

)

Superintendent, Special Management )

Unit,

)

)

WILLIAM POWELL, Deputy Warden )

of Security, Special Management Unit, )

)

JUNE BISHOP, Former Deputy

)

Warden of Security, Special

)

Management Unit,

)

)

RUFUS LOGAN, Former Unit

)

Manager, Special Management Unit, )

)

DWAIN WILLIAMS, Chief of

)

Security, Special Management Unit, )

)

MARGARET WASHINGTON,

)

Former Food Service Director,

)

Georgia Diagnostic & Classification )

Prison,

)

)

Defendants.

)

________________________________ )

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Timothy Gumm respectfully files this amended complaint for

damages and declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of himself and a class of

similarly situated prisoners. In support thereof, Gumm alleges the following:

2

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 3 of 72
INTRODUCTION 1. This is an action to stop prison officials from holding people in an extreme form of solitary confinement for years on end with no meaningful review and no clear way of getting out. 2. Timothy Gumm is a Georgia prisoner who has been held in isolation continuously for over seven years despite repeated findings by prison officials familiar with his record and behavior that he is fit to return to a normal prison environment. 3. Gumm is held in Georgia’s Special Management Unit, or “SMU,” a 192-bed facility that subjects prisoners to an extreme and prolonged form of solitary confinement. The SMU is Georgia’s most restrictive prison and the only facility of its kind in Georgia. It is also the site of an isolation-based behavior modification regimen known as the “Tier III Program.”1 4. On paper, the Tier III Program is an “incentive program” used to encourage “appropriate adjustments” so that prisoners “may be returned to a general population housing assignment.” In practice, people are assigned to isolation in the program indefinitely for years on end, regardless of their behavior and despite the serious health consequences of long-term solitary confinement.
1 “SMU” refers to the facility where Gumm is held, whereas “Tier III Program” refers to the policies governing conditions in the SMU on or after August 1, 2013. All prisoners in the SMU are in the Tier III Program, and all prisoners in the Tier III Program are housed in the SMU.
3

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 4 of 72
5. Prisoners assigned to the SMU are confined for 23 to 24 hours per day on average, with almost no human contact, in specially designed single cells that isolate them and deprive them of sensory stimuli. Metal shields cover exterior and cell-door windows to prevent prisoners from seeing outside. Solid metal doors with reinforced edges impede communication between cells.
6. The SMU’s six housing units, called “wings,” vary in the restrictions they impose on prisoners, but all are austere. At best, recreation consists of being placed alone inside an enclosed metal cage only slightly larger than a cell for up to five hours per week, divided into two 2.5-hour segments. In the most restrictive wing, recreation is prohibited and prisoners are confined continuously to their cells. Minor rule infractions can result in a prisoner being summarily returned to the most restrictive wing.
7. Half of the prisoners in the SMU are required to shower inside of their cells, while the other half receive up to three brief showers per week in small, secured stalls.
8. Visitation is nonexistent or severely restricted. It occurs in a closed booth behind a glass barricade, with all communication through a speaker-box.
9. As a result of Defendants’ policies and practices, people in the SMU are utterly isolated, many of them for years on end, with little if any meaningful human interaction.
4

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 5 of 72
10. Policies established by Defendants purport to determine who stays in the SMU and who is eligible for release. Defendants frequently change these policies, but, regardless of the written procedures and standards, prisoners in the SMU are consistently denied meaningful review of their placement and guidance about what they must do to leave the SMU.
11. Defendants’ failure to meaningfully review prisoners’ confinement or transfer them from the SMU after they have met all requirements for release violates the due process rights of Timothy Gumm and other prisoners. In addition, Defendants’ use of prolonged and indefinite solitary confinement deprives Timothy Gumm and other prisoners of basic human needs, creates a substantial risk of serious mental and physical harm, violates basic standards of decency, and constitutes grossly disproportionate punishment.
12. Gumm brings this action on behalf of himself and similarly situated prisoners to end Defendants’ unlawful practices and vindicate his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
13. In addition, Gumm brings claims on his own behalf against Defendants for denying him adequate food while he was assigned to the SMU, resulting in severe weight loss, extreme discomfort, and a substantial risk of serious medical harm, in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
5

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 6 of 72
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 14. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because it raises claims arising under the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 15. This judicial district is an appropriate venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), because all defendants are Georgia residents and at least one defendant resides in the Macon Division of the Middle District of Georgia; and under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), because a substantial part of the events giving rise to this action occurred in the Macon Division of the Middle District of Georgia.
PARTIES A. Plaintiff 16. Plaintiff Timothy Gumm is a 41-year-old man incarcerated by the Georgia Department of Corrections in the Special Management Unit (SMU) at Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Prison in Jackson, Georgia. He has been incarcerated since 1995 under a parole-eligible life sentence. B. Defendants 17. There are two categories of defendants in this case. The first category consists of officials assigned to the Department’s Central Office. The second category consists of officials assigned to Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Prison.
6

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 7 of 72
1. The Central Office Defendants 18. Defendant Timothy Ward is sued in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as an Assistant Commissioner and the Chief of Staff for the Department. As Assistant Commissioner and Chief of Staff, Defendant Ward exercises final decisionmaking authority over prison transfers and related policies and practices under authority delegated to him by the Department’s Commissioner. Defendant Ward assumed his role as Assistant Commissioner in June 2011 and served as the Assistant Commissioner in charge of the Facilities Division from the time of his appointment until December 2016, when he became Chief of Staff. Prior to becoming an Assistant Commissioner, Defendant Ward was the Department’s Facilities Director from January 2009 to June 2011. 19. Defendant Ricky Myrick is sued in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as the Assistant Commissioner in charge of the Department’s Facilities Division. As Assistant Commissioner, Defendant Myrick exercises final decisionmaking authority over prison transfers and related policies and practices under authority delegated to him by the Department’s Commissioner. He assumed his role as Assistant Commissioner in December 2016. 20. Defendant Steve Upton is sued in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as the Field Operations Director for the Department. As Field Operations Director, Defendant Upton exercises final decisionmaking authority
7

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 8 of 72
over prison transfers and related policies and practices under authority delegated to him by the Department’s Commissioner and Defendants Ward and Myrick. Defendant Upton assumed his current role in September 2015. Prior to serving as Field Operations Director, Defendant Upton served as Deputy Director of Facilities Operations and as Georgia Diagnostic’s Warden.
21. Defendant Rick Jacobs is sued in his individual capacity for actions taken during his tenure as Facilities Director for the Department. The position of Facilities Director was in all relevant respects identical to the current position of Field Operations Director occupied by Defendant Upton. As Facilities Director, Defendant Jacobs exercised final decisionmaking authority over prison transfers and related policies and practices under authority delegated to him by the Department’s Commissioner and Defendant Ward. Defendant Jacobs served as Facilities Director from January 1, 2014, until September 2015. Between July 2010 and January 2014, Jacobs served as Field Operations Manager for the Department’s North Region, which includes Georgia Diagnostic and its SMU.
22. Defendant Randy Tillman is sued in his individual capacity for actions taken during his tenure as Facilities Director for the Department. As Facilities Director, Defendant Tillman exercised final decisionmaking authority over prison transfers and related policies and practices under authority delegated to him by the
8

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 9 of 72
Department’s Commissioner and Defendant Ward. Defendant Tillman served as Facilities Director from June 2011 until January 2014.
2. The Georgia Diagnostic Defendants 23. Defendant Eric Sellers is sued in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Warden of Georgia Diagnostic. As Warden, Defendant Sellers has final authority over the conditions of confinement in the SMU, and supervisory authority over all officers assigned to the SMU. Defendant Sellers assumed his position as Warden in July 2016. 24. Defendant Bruce Chatman is sued in his individual capacity for actions taken during his tenure as Warden of Georgia Diagnostic between July 2013 and July 2016. As Warden, Defendant Chatman had final authority over the conditions of confinement in the SMU, and supervisory authority over all officers assigned to the SMU. 25. Defendant Michael Cannon is sued in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as the Superintendent of the SMU at Georgia Diagnostic. As Superintendent, Defendant Cannon has final authority over the conditions of confinement in the SMU, and supervisory authority over all officers assigned to the SMU. Defendant Cannon assumed his role as Superintendent on October 1, 2016. 26. Defendant Rodney McCloud is sued in his individual capacity for actions taken during his tenure as Superintendent of the SMU at Georgia
9

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 10 of 72
Diagnostic. Defendant McCloud served as Superintendent from April 2014 to January 2016. As Superintendent, Defendant McCloud had final authority over the conditions of confinement in the SMU, and supervisory authority over all officers assigned to the SMU. He was the first person to serve in the role of SMU Superintendent, a position whose duties had previously been performed by Defendants June Bishop and William Powell, the two Co-Deputy Wardens of Security for the SMU. Defendant McCloud currently serves as Deputy Warden of Security at Telfair State Prison in Helena, Georgia.
27. Defendant June Bishop is sued in her individual capacity for actions taken during her tenure as former Co-Deputy Warden of Security for the SMU at Georgia Diagnostic. As Deputy Warden of Security, Defendant Bishop had supervisory authority over all SMU facilities, officers, and prisoners, and had control over the living conditions in the SMU. Until April 2014, when Defendant McCloud assumed his role as SMU Superintendent, Defendant Bishop was, along with Defendant Powell, the highest-ranking officer assigned to the SMU. Between January 2016 and October 2016, Defendant Bishop served as the acting Superintendent of the SMU. Defendant Bishop left her SMU assignment in November 2016 and currently serves as Deputy Warden of Security at Georgia Diagnostic’s main prison.
10

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 11 of 72
28. Defendant William Powell is sued in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Deputy Warden of Security for the SMU at Georgia Diagnostic. As Deputy Warden of Security, Defendant Powell has supervisory authority over all SMU facilities, officers, and prisoners, and has control over the living conditions in the SMU. Prior to April 2014, when Defendant McCloud assumed his role as SMU Superintendent, Defendant Powell was, along with Defendant Bishop, the highest-ranking officer assigned to the SMU. In November 2016, Defendant Powell became the SMU’s sole Deputy Warden of Security.
29. Defendant Dwain Williams is sued in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Chief of Security for the SMU at Georgia Diagnostic. As Chief of Security, Defendant Williams has control over the living conditions in the SMU, and supervisory authority over all uniformed correctional officers assigned to the SMU.
30. Defendant Rufus Logan is sued in his individual capacity for actions taken during his tenure as Unit Manager for the SMU at Georgia Diagnostic. As Unit Manager, Defendant Logan had control over the living conditions in the SMU, and supervisory authority over all uniformed correctional officers assigned to the SMU. On information and belief, the SMU currently lacks a designated Unit Manager.
11

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 12 of 72
31. Defendant Margaret Washington is sued in her individual capacity for actions taken during her tenure as Food Service Director for Georgia Diagnostic. As Food Service Director, Defendant Washington was responsible for determining the quality and quantity of food served to prisoners in the SMU.
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT A. Timothy Gumm Has Been Held in Solitary Confinement in the
Special Management Unit (SMU) for Over Seven Years. 32. Plaintiff Timothy Gumm has been incarcerated since 1995. Gumm is serving a life sentence and is eligible for parole. He was denied parole in September 2014 and will be reviewed again in July 2018. 33. Gumm entered Georgia’s prison system as a teenager and had difficulty adjusting during his first few years of incarceration, resulting in numerous disciplinary reports. However, Gumm’s behavior changed as he matured. Gumm’s current offender disciplinary history shows no disciplinary reports. Gumm’s last two disciplinary convictions were in 2008 for talking during a head count, and in 2003 for kicking his cell door. 34. Gumm has completed numerous programs during his incarceration. In September 1996, Gumm earned his General Educational Development diploma. In 2008, Gumm was recognized by Middle Georgia Technical College with a certificate for completing 320 hours of on-the-job training as an office clerk. Gumm has received certificates for completing the Confronting Self-Concepts
12

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 13 of 72
class, the Family Violence class, the Prime for Life class, the Kairos religious program, and the Motivation for Change class.
35. Gumm has worked in several job assignments during his imprisonment, principally as an educational aide. In June 2008, Gumm’s supervisor for that position rated him “above average”—the highest possible rating—in every performance category for the previous eight months, including “willingness to follow instructions,” “relationship to co-workers,” and “level of productivity.” In January 2009, the same supervisor again gave Gumm high ratings. She wrote on the review form, “Inmate Gumm comes to work each day with a good attitude and eager to help. His willingness to work and attention to detail is exceptional.”
36. In January 2010, several prisoners were implicated in an escape attempt at Telfair State Prison in Helena, Georgia. The prisoners, when questioned by investigators, accused Gumm of being involved in the attempt before he allegedly abandoned the effort and returned to his cell. The alleged escape attempt involved no violence, threats of violence, or physical harm to anyone.
37. Gumm was issued a disciplinary report charging him with the alleged escape attempt. He denied the allegations.
38. On January 27, 2010, Gumm was transferred to the Special Management Unit (SMU) at Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Prison.
13

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 14 of 72
39. Shortly after Gumm entered the SMU, a disciplinary hearing was held concerning the alleged escape attempt. Gumm was not allowed to cross-examine or otherwise challenge the statements of the prisoner-informants.
40. Although Gumm was initially found guilty, the disciplinary report was overturned upon review by higher-level prison officials. The invalid report was expunged from Gumm’s prison record. There were no further disciplinary proceedings or criminal proceedings concerning the matter. The incident is not reflected in Gumm’s official disciplinary history.
41. Despite expunging the results of the only tribunal that has found Gumm guilty of the attempted escape, Defendants continue to hold Gumm in the SMU and the Tier III Program.
B. Gumm Lives in Solitary Confinement Under Conditions of Severe Isolation and Deprivation.
42. The SMU consists of a freestanding detention facility located in a separate compound immediately west of Georgia Diagnostic’s main prison. The SMU facility has its own access-control point, perimeter fence, buildings, assigned staff, and chain of command.
43. The SMU’s housing area consists of 192 cells separated into six wings, designated A-Wing, B-Wing, C-Wing, D-Wing, E-Wing, and F-Wing. Each wing contains 32 cells divided into two “ranges”—top and bottom—of 16 cells each. Each cell is designed to hold one person.
14

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 15 of 72
44. Viewed from above, the facility looks like this:
45. Prisoners assigned to the SMU are always housed alone in solitary cells.
46. Each cell measures approximately seven feet by thirteen feet. 47. The SMU’s 192 solitary confinement cells are specially designed to isolate people by depriving them of sensory stimuli and restricting their movement. 48. Deprivation of visual stimuli is accomplished by sealing off SMU cells from the outside world. 49. A metal shield covers the exterior window of each cell, preventing people from seeing outside.
15

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 16 of 72
50. Virtually no natural air or sunlight enters the cells. The only light that enters comes through a narrow gap between the exterior window and the top edge of the metal shield covering the window.
51. Cell doors have small, grated windows blocked by a sliding metal cover that remains closed except during rounds by staff or officers.
52. Each cell door in the SMU is constructed of heavy, solid metal. The doors are designed so that there is no gap around the edges of the door.
53. The following is an image of the exterior of SMU cells in A-Wing:
54. The SMU’s six housing wings are associated with different phases of a purported behavior-modification program. Each phase has certain restrictions concerning property, out-of-cell time, and other conditions.
55. Under the current policy governing the SMU, known as the “Tier III Program,” the SMU’s six wings are associated with four program phases.
16

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 17 of 72
56. The most restrictive phase of the Tier III Program is Phase Four. Phase Four prisoners are housed in E-Wing. They are restricted to their cells 24 hours per day, except that those with family members able and willing to visit them are allowed one no-contact visit per month after the first 30 days of confinement.
57. The next phase is Phase Three. Phase Three prisoners are housed in F-Wing (referred to as “lower Phase Three”) and then D-Wing (referred to as “upper Phase Three”).
58. The next is Phase Two. Phase Two prisoners are housed in C-Wing (referred to as “lower Phase Two”) and then B-Wing (referred to as “upper Phase Two”).
59. The final phase is Phase One. Phase One prisoners are normally housed in A-Wing. Due to the large number of prisoners who have completed the Tier III Program but have been denied transfer to normal prisons, some prisoners who are in Phase One must be housed in wings other than A-Wing.
60. Prisoners assigned to the SMU begin in Phase Four, where they are confined continuously to their cells 24 hours per day and are prohibited from having personal property. Depending on their behavior and other factors, prisoners may progress through Phases Three, Two, and One.
61. While assigned to the SMU, people in more advanced phases may be summarily returned to Phase Four for minor infractions such as banging on a cell
17

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 18 of 72
door or holding open a tray flap. Prisoners are frequently required to restart the program from the beginning. No notice or opportunity to be heard is required before a prisoner’s progress is reset. Some prisoners are routinely forced to restart the program and thus spend lengthy spans of time in more restrictive phases.
62. A clipboard containing a chart is mounted outside of each cell in the SMU. A new chart is posted each week. Correctional officers passing by may, without a prisoner’s knowledge, enter comments onto the chart about the prisoner’s perceived attitude or conduct. These comments become part of the prisoner’s institutional file and may be relied upon to justify adverse action against the prisoner long after the comments are recorded, leaving the prisoner without a meaningful opportunity to rebut or respond to them.
63. People in the SMU, particularly in the more restrictive phases, frequently have difficulty adjusting to prolonged isolation. Some prisoners scream for hours on end. Others destroy property, bang on doors constantly, disfigure or cut themselves, or smear feces on the walls of their cells.
64. People confined in the SMU take all meals alone inside of their cells. Meals are typically cold. Although a written policy requires prisoners in the SMU to receive the same types and amounts of food as general population prisoners receive, food portions for SMU prisoners are, in practice, smaller than those served to the general population. People in the SMU are, depending on their program
18

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 19 of 72
phase and family support, allowed limited or no access to a commissary to purchase supplemental food. They are not allowed to receive food packages, clothing packages, or the like.
65. As a result of Defendants’ systematic underfeeding of prisoners in the SMU, Timothy Gumm lost over 40 pounds and remained at an abnormally low weight during the first several years of his confinement in the SMU.
66. People confined in the SMU are rarely allowed to leave their cells. At most, recreation periods are scheduled for twice per week, with up to 2.5 hours per period. The recreation takes place alone in an individual metal cage devoid of recreational equipment. Recreation is cancelled when it rains, on holidays, and for assorted other reasons, such as security concerns or understaffing. People in Phase Four are denied recreation throughout the phase, which is at least 90 days in duration and may be extended or repeated.
67. Prisoners assigned to A-, B-, and C-Wings are allowed up to three out-of-cell showers per week, for no more than 15 minutes per shower. Although prisoners in those wings are allowed to leave their cells for showers, they are restrained and escorted by at least two correctional officers during movements from their cells to the showers and back. They are then locked inside of a small, secure stall during the brief shower.
19

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 20 of 72
68. Prisoners in D-, E-, and F-Wings have shower fixtures installed in their cells and thus do not leave their cells to shower. For prisoners who are required to shower in their cells, there is no curtain or wall to contain the water, resulting in cells remaining wet or damp continuously.
69. Visitation in the SMU is severely restricted. For people in Phase One—the least restrictive phase—prisoners with family members able and willing to visit them may meet up to four times per month, for up to three hours at a time, inside of a small, cinderblock booth equipped with a thick Lexan panel that completely separates the prisoner from his visitors. Communication is impossible except through a speaker-microphone device installed in each booth. The devices frequently malfunction, distorting or failing to amplify speech.
70. Gumm has not had a single visit from his family during his seven years in the SMU. Many prisoners likewise have no family to visit them and thus cannot participate in visitation.
71. People in the advanced phases of the Tier III program are allowed a maximum of four 15-minute telephone calls per month from inside of their cells on a portable telephone. Those in the most restrictive phase have no telephone access.
72. Telephone calls are costly for prisoners’ families. Many prisoners, including Gumm, come from families that rarely, if ever, can afford to pay for telephone calls.
20

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 21 of 72
73. People assigned to the SMU are under strict control at all times, particularly when they leave their cells. Their bodies are strip-searched before exiting, and they are strip-searched again before returning. They are required to be handcuffed behind their backs, often with leg shackles, and are physically held and escorted by at least two correctional officers during all out-of-cell movements.
74. People assigned to the SMU are ineligible for any kind of work assignment or detail. To maintain and clean the SMU, prison officials bring in prisoners from other prisons in the region, usually Al Burruss Correctional Training Center in Forsyth, Georgia.
75. Self-improvement programs in the SMU are extremely limited. For those in advanced phases, the main “program” consists of watching television alone in one’s cell. Prisoners in more restrictive phases often have nothing to distract them from their isolation—they cannot even look out a window.
76. The SMU has offered no programs of any kind to prisoners during most of the time that it has been operational. Beginning in 2014 or 2015, the SMU began scheduling GED courses and a course called the “Offender Under Transition” or “OUT” Program. In 2016, the SMU began scheduling Anger Management classes. Only a small handful of prisoners can participate in these classes at any given time.
21

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 22 of 72
77. On rare occasions when people are given classroom instruction, it is limited to a one- or two-hour block of time per week in one of two SMU classrooms. Each of the two classrooms contains four individual cages in which each participating prisoner is detained throughout the class session.
78. Religious services are not held in the SMU or offered to SMU prisoners.
79. For people assigned to the most restrictive program phases, books and other property are forbidden. For a prisoner in one of the advanced phases, the only way to obtain a book is to submit a form requesting that money be transferred from his inmate account to purchase one. Those who have no money to buy books cannot get them.
80. Assignment to the SMU makes it difficult or impossible for prisoners to obtain parole. Classes that are mandatory for parole eligibility are not offered in the SMU. In addition, the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles is required to consider factors such as SMU placement in deciding whether to grant parole. The criteria that cause a prisoner to be assigned to the SMU, as well as the severe restrictions on opportunities for self-improvement within the SMU, preclude any realistic opportunity for parole while prisoners are assigned to the SMU.
22

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 23 of 72
81. By design, the conditions in the SMU are far more restrictive and isolated than those in general population housing units, even for those with the highest security classifications.
82. General population prisoners are allowed outdoor recreation at least five days per week and typically spend most of each day outside of their cells among other people. They typically walk freely throughout their housing units and the larger prison. They do not have to submit to strip-searches or wear handcuffs and leg restraints when they leave their cells.
83. General population prisoners are allowed a minimum of six hours of contact visits with their loved ones every Saturday, Sunday, and holiday. During visitation, they may hug their relatives and share meals together. They are also allowed more frequent and lengthier telephone conversations with family members than are prisoners in the SMU.
84. General population prisoners have access to job assignments, classes, and vocational programs that prepare them for eventual release and improve their chances of obtaining work release or parole. Many prisoners in the general population participate in gainful employment on a work detail.
85. General population prisoners can participate in group religious services with other members of their faiths.
23

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 24 of 72
86. General population prisoners are served larger portions of food than prisoners in the SMU. In contrast to the food served in the SMU, food served to those in the general prison population is typically warm and eaten in a communal dining hall. General population prisoners are also allowed care packages once per month and incentive packages several times per year.
87. General population prisoners receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before having their privileges suspended. In contrast, prisoners in the SMU have extremely limited privileges that may be summarily revoked for any perceived infraction.
88. Every detail of life in the SMU is planned and controlled by policies designed and approved by Defendants Ward, Myrick, Upton, Jacobs, and/or Tillman. Every detail of those policies is implemented by or under the direct supervision of Defendants Sellers, Chatman, McCloud, Cannon, Bishop, Powell, Logan, and/or Williams. Because the conditions in the SMU are so rigidly controlled at all management levels, each Defendant is actually aware of and responsible for the conditions of confinement in the SMU.
24

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 25 of 72
C. Defendants Have Operated the SMU for Ten Years—and Have Held Gumm for Over Seven Years—Without Establishing a System of Meaningful Review.
89. During the time period relevant to this lawsuit, five policies have, at various times, governed the SMU’s living conditions, the process for assigning prisoners to the SMU, and the process for transferring prisoners out of the SMU.
90. Regardless of policy, prisoners in the SMU have not received and do not receive meaningful review of their confinement. Moreover, Defendants have misled prisoners in the SMU about the nature of the decisionmaking process for leaving the SMU. Defendants’ lack of transparency has left prisoners uncertain of how they can obtain a transfer from the SMU to a less restrictive facility.
1. Defendants’ Review of Gumm’s Confinement Under the Five SMU Policies a. The Unwritten Policy: 2007 to September 2012
91. The SMU was built to centralize certain prisoners in a single, uniquely restrictive prison facility.
92. For the first five years of its existence, the SMU had no official, written policy governing its operations, and no system of periodic review for prisoners housed there. Prisoners generally were not expected to leave the SMU unless lack of space required Defendants to transfer one prisoner elsewhere to make room for a higher priority prisoner. Under that system, the ordinary way for
25

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 26 of 72
a prisoner to leave the SMU was for the facility to run out of capacity, forcing prison officials to make a transfer decision.
93. The lack of a written policy during this period reflected an official Department policy and practice, approved by Defendant Ward and other administrators, of assigning prisoners to the SMU on a permanent or semipermanent basis and holding them there regardless of their behavior.
94. Gumm spent his first two and a half years in the SMU under this system, with no periodic review of any kind.
95. Although Gumm does not raise claims for relief with respect to the period during which the SMU lacked a policy, he expects to show that Defendants’ original system of holding prisoners in the SMU regardless of their progress and improved behavior continues to exist despite a series of written policies providing for periodic review hearings.
b. The 2012 SMU Policy: September 2012 to August 2013 96. On September 16, 2012, the Department established a standard operating procedure governing the SMU (“the 2012 SMU Policy”), authored by then-Commissioner Brian Owens2 and Defendant Randy Tillman. (Ex. A.)
2 Brian Owens served as the Department’s Commissioner from January 2009 to February 2015. He is currently a member of the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles.
26

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 27 of 72
97. The 2012 SMU policy has been the template for every subsequent written policy concerning in the SMU. Therefore, many of its provisions remain in force under the current SMU policy.
98. The 2012 SMU Policy identified the SMU’s purpose as follows: “The purpose of the SMU is to establish an incentive program based on an increased level of privileges for demonstrated appropriate offender behavior and program compliance. The goal is for an offender to make the appropriate adjustments so that he may be returned to a general population housing assignment.” (Ex. A at 1.)
99. The policy established four phases, each offering “progressively more privileges.” (Ex. A at 3.) Underscoring the stated purpose of preparing SMU prisoners for a “return[] to a general population housing assignment” (Ex. A at 1), the policy provided, “If the offender successfully completes the program, he is reassigned to general population with a close security status.” (Ex. A at 3.)
100. The 2012 SMU Policy established criteria for assignment to the SMU. The policy listed ten grounds for SMU assignment that were relatively specific and objectively verifiable. (Ex. A at 3-4.) For example, the criteria included prisoners who had made an “[e]scape within the previous five years involving violence or serious threat of violence,” and prisoners who had made “[m]ultiple escapes or escape attempts within the previous three years from a close security institution.” (Ex. A at 3.)
27

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 28 of 72
101. At the time that the 2012 SMU Policy was established, Gumm did not meet any of the enumerated criteria for assignment to the SMU. He had never committed an escape or attempted escape involving violence or threats of violence. And he had only one alleged escape attempt—not multiple attempts—within the preceding three years, per an invalid disciplinary report that was expunged in 2010.
102. In accordance with the ostensible goal of preparing SMU prisoners for their return to general population housing assignments, the 2012 SMU Policy required the SMU Unit Manager to “develop short-range, achievable goals and objectives as part of the Offender’s Management Plan.” (Ex. A at 9.) The policy provided that goals “shall be communicated, verbally and in writing, to the offender in a clear, concise, and professional manner.” (Id.) The Unit Manager was required to review each prisoner’s performance every 30 days and “develop new goals and objectives” as necessary. (Id.)
103. The 2012 SMU Policy also established an SMU Review Committee to “review the offender’s status” every 90 days “and formulate a recommendation to the Warden on whether to promote the offender to the next Phase (or return to general population), to keep him in the current Phase, or to demote him to a lower phase.” (Ex. A at 9.) The policy listed seven factors that the Review Committee was to consider at each 90-day review hearing: (1) length of time in the current phase; (2) continued “facility risk”; (3) number, type, and frequency of disciplinary
28

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 29 of 72
reports; (4) “[i]nvolvement in self-improvement activities”; (5) behavior “as documented” on a checklist posted outside each offender’s cell door; (6) “[p]rogress on his Offender Management Plan”; and (7) “[d]emeanor with staff on the wing and at periodic reviews.” (Ex. A at 9-10.) Prisoners were to be given 48 hours’ notice of the hearings, and were permitted to attend, make a verbal or written statement, and present documentary evidence. (Ex. A at 10.)
104. The Review Committee hearings and recommendations were memorialized on 90-day review forms. (Ex. A at 25.) The forms had an area for comments, and blocks that the Review Committee marked to record one of four housing recommendations: (1) “Remain in Current Phase”; (2) “Move to the Next Phase”; (3) “Return to lower phase eligibility”; or (4) “Pending reassignment.”
105. Once the Review Committee formulated its recommendation, the recommendation was to be sent to Georgia Diagnostic’s Warden for a “final decision.” (Id.) The policy provided that “[i]f the Warden’s approval of the recommendation requires transferring the inmate to a different facility, then staff at the SMU facility must process the paperwork required to implement the transfer.” (Ex. A at 11.)
106. In reality, Defendants have ignored the 2012 SMU Policy and every subsequent written policy, operating the SMU as it operated between 2007 and 2012: without fixed standards, guidelines, or procedures.
29

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 30 of 72
107. The 2012 SMU Policy, like every subsequent written policy, was essentially meaningless. The provision for an “Offender Management Plan” listing individualized “goals and objectives” for each prisoner was and continues to be ignored. Gumm has never been given an “Offender Management Plan,” either verbally or in writing. He expects to show that no other prisoner in the SMU has been given an “Offender Management Plan” and that Defendants are unable even to explain what such a plan would consist of.
108. Under the 2012 SMU Policy and every subsequent policy, prisoners in the SMU have little opportunity to achieve any “goals” or “objectives” because they are constantly locked inside isolated cells or cages, and are barred from work details or other opportunities to demonstrate their good behavior under less restrictive conditions.
109. Like the management-plan provision, the 2012 SMU Policy’s system of periodic reviews had no meaningful impact on prisoners in the SMU. Under that policy and every subsequent policy, review hearings are formalities with respect to the decision to keep a prisoner in the SMU.
110. Under the 2012 SMU Policy and every subsequent policy, when the Review Committee recommends that a prisoner be transferred from the SMU, the SMU’s Deputy Warden of Security or Superintendent almost always approves the recommendation under authority delegated by Georgia Diagnostic’s Warden.
30

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 31 of 72
Under the policy as written, the Warden’s approval would be the final step and a transfer automatically would follow. In practice, the transfer recommendation is usually denied by officials in the Department’s Central Office without explanation, without any notice to the prisoner of the reasons for the decision, without any opportunity for the prisoner to be heard in response, and—until recently—without informing the prisoner of who made the decision to keep him in the SMU.
111. Gumm had three reviews under the 2012 SMU Policy. The reviews occurred on December 10, 2012; April 8, 2013; and July 31, 2013.
112. On December 10, 2012, the Review Committee held a hearing and wrote on the review form, “Remain in current, recommend transfer no DR’s.” The Review Committee checked the box labeled “Remain in Current Phase.”
113. On April 8, 2013, the Review Committee held a hearing and wrote on the review form, “Recommend transfer no DR’s in six months, review in 90 days. Issued appeal form.” The Review Committee also checked the “Pending reassignment” box, indicating the Review Committee’s finding that Gumm had completed the SMU program and should be transferred to a general population housing assignment. Defendant June Bishop, exercising authority delegated by Georgia Diagnostic’s Warden, approved the Review Committee’s recommendation on April 17, 2013.
31

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 32 of 72
114. Despite completing all of the 2012 Policy’s requirements for a transfer to general population, Gumm remained confined in the SMU.
115. On July 31, 2013, the Review Committee held a hearing and wrote on the review form, “Recommends you be considered for transfer from the SMU program, as you have been DR free for more than 6 months. Review in 90 days and issued appeal form.” The Review Committee also checked the “Pending reassignment” box, indicating once again that Gumm had completed the SMU program and should be transferred to the general population. Defendant June Bishop, exercising authority delegated by Georgia Diagnostic’s Warden, again approved the Review Committee’s recommendation on an unknown date.
116. Despite once again completing all of the 2012 Policy’s requirements for a transfer to general population, Gumm remained confined in the SMU.
117. Under the plain terms of the 2012 SMU Policy, Gumm should have been transferred from the SMU to a general population housing assignment with a “close security” status following Defendant Bishop’s “final decision” approving his transfer.
118. Contrary to the text of the 2012 SMU Policy, the decision to release a prisoner from the SMU was not made by Georgia Diagnostic’s Warden or the Warden’s designee. Instead, officials in the Department’s Central Office made the ultimate decision. The Central Office officials had no standards, guidelines, or
32

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 33 of 72
criteria on which to base their decision about whether to transfer prisoners from the SMU.
119. Gumm and other prisoners in the SMU were not formally advised of the existence of a Central Office review process. Aside from rumors that prison administrators “at Tift”3 were holding up their transfers, prisoners had no notice of the existence of another step in the transfer process beyond the Warden, no explanation for the Central Office decision, and no opportunity to be heard by Central Office decisionmakers.
c. The 2013 Tier III Policy: August 2013 to April 2015 120. On August 1, 2013, the Department established the “Tier Segregation System” to govern all forms of administrative and disciplinary segregation in Georgia’s prisons. Like the 2012 SMU Policy, the policies governing the Tier Segregation System were authored by then-Commissioner Brian Owens and Defendant Tillman. (Ex. B.) 121. The Tier Segregation System established three forms, or “Tiers,” of segregated confinement. Tier I was used for prisoners needing short-term segregation of 30 days or less for the purpose of protection, punishment, or transient housing pending classification or investigation. Tier II was a disciplinary
3 Since 2009, the Georgia Department of Corrections headquarters has been located at the Tift College campus in Forsyth, Georgia.
33

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 34 of 72
behavior-modification program, lasting for an indefinite period of at least nine months. Tier II was implemented at “Level V” or “close security” prisons, including Hays State Prison, Georgia State Prison, Macon State Prison, Telfair State Prison, Smith State Prison, Ware State Prison, Hancock State Prison, and Valdosta State Prison. Tier III was the most restrictive of the three forms of segregation, and was implemented only at Georgia Diagnostic’s SMU.
122. Statewide, the Department reserves thousands of cells for prisoners assigned to the Tier Segregation System. The most restrictive of those are the 192 SMU cells for Tier III prisoners.
123. The 2013 Tier III Policy was identical to the 2012 SMU Policy in most respects. It provided that the “goal [of the SMU] is for an offender to make the appropriate adjustments so that he may be returned to a general population housing assignment.” (Ex. B at 1.) The policy provided, “If the offender successfully completes the program, he is reassigned to general population with a Close Security status.” (Ex. B at 3.)
124. The 2013 Tier III Policy retained the 2012 SMU Policy’s 11 eligibility criteria for assignment to the SMU. However, a twelfth, subjective catch-all provision was added that allowed a prisoner to be “eligible for placement in the Tier III Program” if he “is noted as a threat to the safe and secure operation of the Facility.” (Ex. B at 4.)
34

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 35 of 72
125. The review procedures were similar to those provided in the 2012 SMU Policy, with a two-step process for being released from the SMU. The first step required a Review Committee to “review the offender’s status and formulate a recommendation to the Warden.” (Ex. B at 10.) The second step required the Warden to make a “final decision” approving the transfer. (Ex. B at 12.) The policy provided that “[i]f the Warden’s approval of the recommendation requires transferring the offender to a different facility, then staff at the Tier III Program facility must process the paperwork required to implement the transfer.” (Ex. B at 12.)
126. Unlike the 2012 SMU Policy, which provided only for transfers from the SMU to general population, the 2013 Tier III Policy allowed the Review Committee to recommend one of two types of transfer from the SMU. The first was a recommendation that a prisoner be transferred to general population. (Ex. B at 10.) The second was a recommendation that a prisoner be “[t]ransferred to a Level 5 (Tier II Program).” (Id.)
127. The Tier II Program holds prisoners in administrative segregation under conditions similar to those in the SMU. For Tier II prisoners, nearcontinuous confinement to a cell is the norm. They must progress through three phases, which, in theory, takes between nine and twenty-four months, before they are eligible to return to general population. However, prisoners are routinely made
35

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 36 of 72
to restart the program for minor infractions, allowing correctional officers who dislike a certain prisoner to prevent him from completing the program. Moreover, some prisoners are kept in a phase called “Phase 3-Plus” upon completion of the Tier II Program. Prisoners in Phase 3-Plus are held in segregation indefinitely. Thus, the Tier II Program has many of the same problems as the Tier III Program.
128. On August 1, 2013, Defendant William Powell completed an “Assignment Memo” officially placing Gumm in the Tier III Program, meaning Gumm would remain in the SMU. Gumm had been held continuously in the SMU for over three and a half years by that point. The form contained no information about the reasons for Gumm’s assignment other than the following handwritten notation: “Attempted Escape.”
129. Under the terms of the 2013 Tier III Policy, Gumm did not meet the escape-related eligibility criteria because he had no escapes involving violence or threats of violence, and had no attempted escapes within the preceding three years. The only category under which he could have been assigned to the Tier III Program was the new catch-all provision that did not exist in the 2012 SMU Policy. The catch-all provision applied to prisoners “noted as a threat to the safe and secure operation of the Facility.” (Ex. B at 4.)
130. Gumm was not given notice of his assignment to the Tier III Program or an opportunity to be heard in response to that assignment.
36

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 37 of 72
131. After being formally “assigned” to the Tier III Program, Gumm received four reviews under the 2013 Tier III Policy. The reviews occurred on January 7, 2014; July 29, 2014; October 28, 2014; and January 21, 2015.
132. On January 7, 2014, a Review Committee composed of Defendant Dwain Williams, Defendant Rufus Logan, and counselor Monique Gholston, held a hearing and recommended that Gumm “remain in current phase.” Gumm was later informed that the Review Committee had automatically declined to recommend him for transfer from the SMU because he had chosen not to attend the review hearing. Gumm’s reason for not attending was that he had come to believe that the hearings were irrelevant to whether he would be released from the SMU.
133. On July 29, 2014, a Review Committee composed of Defendant Logan, counselor Monique Gholston, and an unknown officer held a hearing and wrote on the review form, “Recommend transfer from SMU Program. Review in 90 days. Appeal form issued.” Although Gumm had twice been recommended for a transfer to general population under the 2012 SMU Policy, the Review Committee checked a box labeled, “Transfer to a Level (5) Administrative Segregation Tier II Program.” Defendant William Powell, exercising authority delegated by Georgia Diagnostic’s Warden, approved the Review Committee’s recommendation on August 4, 2014.
37

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 38 of 72
134. Despite completing all of the 2013 Policy’s requirements for a transfer, Gumm remained confined in the SMU.
135. On October 28, 2014, a Review Committee composed of Defendant Williams, Defendant Logan, and counselor Monique Gholston held a hearing and wrote on the review form, “Recommend transfer from SMU Program. Review in 90 days. Appeal form issued.” The Review Committee again checked the box labeled, “Transfer to a Level (5) Administrative Segregation Tier II Program.” Defendant William Powell, exercising authority delegated by Georgia Diagnostic’s Warden, approved the Review Committee’s recommendation on October 29, 2014.
136. Despite once again completing all of the 2013 Policy’s requirements for a transfer, Gumm remained confined in the SMU.
137. On January 21, 2015, a Review Committee composed of Defendant Williams, Defendant Logan, and counselor Monique Gholston held a hearing and wrote on the review form, “Recommend transfer from SMU Program and review in 90 days. Appeal form issued.” The Review Committee again checked the box labeled, “Transfer to a Level (5) Administrative Segregation Tier II Program.” Defendant William Powell, exercising authority delegated by Georgia Diagnostic’s Warden, approved the Review Committee’s recommendation on January 27, 2015.
138. Despite once again completing all of the 2013 Policy’s requirements for a transfer, Gumm remained confined in the SMU.
38

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 39 of 72
d. The 2015 Tier III Policy: April 2015 to August 2016 139. On April 3, 2015, the Georgia Department of Corrections issued a revised Tier III Policy authored by Defendant Rick Jacobs and then-Commissioner Homer Bryson. (Ex. C.) The 2015 Tier III Policy was identical to the 2013 Tier III Policy in all material respects. 140. Gumm received five reviews under the 2015 Tier III Policy. The reviews occurred on May 4, 2015; August 4, 2015; November 3, 2015; February 10, 2016; and May 18, 2016. 141. On May 4, 2015, a Review Committee composed of Defendant Williams, Defendant Logan, and counselor Monique Gholston held a hearing and wrote on the review form, “Recommend transfer from SMU Program and review in 90 days. Appeal form issued.” The Review Committee checked the box labeled, “Transfer to a Level (5) Administrative Segregation Tier II Program.” Defendant William Powell, exercising authority delegated by Georgia Diagnostic’s Warden, approved the Review Committee’s recommendation on May 14, 2015. 142. Despite completing all of the 2015 Policy’s requirements for a transfer, Gumm remained confined in the SMU. 143. Gumm appealed the May 4 recommendation using a “Review/Classification Appeal Form.” On the form, Gumm wrote:
State prison regulation provides that inmates who successfully complete the SMU: Tier III Program are
39

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 40 of 72
reassigned to the general prison population, not to a Tier II Program. GDC SOP II B09-0004. I also object to the staff’s failure to implement the previous nine (9) wardenapproved recommendations of the SMU Review Committee for my transfer from the Tier III Program in accordance with GDC SOP II B09-0004(VI)(F)(2)(a). In a space designated for a response from Georgia Diagnostic’s Warden, Defendant Rodney McCloud, the SMU Superintendent, checked a box indicating that he concurred with the Review Committee’s recommendation of transfer from the SMU, and wrote, “Inmates that progress through the Tier III program will be recommended for release to the Tier III 90 day executive review committee. During the review with the executive committee you were denied release.” There was no further description of the “executive committee,” and no reason was given for its decision. 144. On August 4, 2015, a Review Committee composed of Defendant Williams, Defendant Logan, and counselor Nash held a hearing and wrote on the review form, “Transfer to a level (5) administrative segregation Tier II Program.” The Review Committee checked the box labeled, “Transfer to a Level (5) Administrative Segregation Tier II Program.” Defendant William Powell, exercising authority delegated by Georgia Diagnostic’s Warden, approved the Review Committee’s recommendation on August 4, 2015. 145. Despite once again completing all of the 2015 Policy’s requirements for a transfer, Gumm remained confined in the SMU.
40

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 41 of 72
146. On November 3, 2015, a Review Committee composed of Defendant Williams, Defendant Logan, and counselor James Goody held a hearing and wrote on the review form, “Recommends you be considered for transfer from SMU program, as you have been DR free for more than 6 months. Review in 90 days and issued appeal form.” The Review Committee checked the box labeled, “Transfer to a Level (5) Administrative Segregation Tier II Program.” In an area on the form designated “Offender’s rebuttal,” the form quotes Gumm as saying, “Please give me a chance to transfer!” Defendant William Powell, exercising authority delegated by Georgia Diagnostic’s Warden, approved the Review Committee’s recommendation on November 3, 2015.
147. Despite once again completing all of the 2015 Policy’s requirements for a transfer, Gumm remained confined in the SMU.
148. Gumm appealed the November 3 recommendation using a “Review/Classification Appeal Form.” He wrote:
State prison regulation provides that inmates who successfully complete the SMU: Tier III Program are reassigned to the general prison population, not to a Tier II Program. GDC SOP II B09-0004. I also object to the Tier III Program staff’s failure to implement all previous approved recommendations for my transfer from the Tier III Program in compliance with GDC SOP II B09-0004. In a space designated for a response from Georgia Diagnostic’s Warden, Defendant Rodney McCloud, the SMU Superintendent, wrote:
41

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 42 of 72
The SMU Classification Committee will make recommendations for release to the Warden. The Warden will review and [sic] the decision of the Classification Committee and approve or deny the Classification Committees [sic] decision. The recommendation will be forwarded to the Director of Field Operations for final approval. Your release is denied. Placement into a Tier II Program will be reviewed on a case by case basis upon approval for release. 149. On February 10, 2016, a Review Committee composed of Defendant
Williams, Defendant Powell, and counselor Karen Forts held a hearing and wrote
on the review form, “Recommends you be considered from the SMU program as
you have been DR free for more than 6 months. Review in 90 days and appeal
form issued.” The Review Committee checked the box labeled, “Transfer to a
Level (5) Administrative Segregation Tier II Program.” In an area on the form
designated “Offender’s rebuttal,” the form quotes Gumm as saying, “When am I
transferring?” Defendant June Bishop, exercising authority delegated by Georgia
Diagnostic’s Warden, approved the Review Committee’s recommendation on
February 10, 2016.
150. Despite once again completing all of the 2015 Policy’s requirements
for a transfer, Gumm remained confined in the SMU.
151. Gumm appealed the February 10 recommendation using a
“Review/Classification Appeal Form.” On the form, Gumm wrote:
I have successfully completed the Tier III Program. Pursuant to GDC SOP II B09-004, I am entitled to
42

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 43 of 72
reassignment to the general prison population. I strenuously object to any decision contrary to what I am entitled under the official GDC policy. In a space designated for a response from Georgia Diagnostic’s Warden, Defendant Bruce Chatman did not record a comment. He checked a block indicating that he concurred with the Review Committee’s recommendation of transfer from the SMU. 152. On May 18, 2016, a Review Committee composed of Defendant Williams, Lieutenant Andrew Russo, and counselor James Goody held a hearing and wrote on the review form, “Recommends transfer for you have been DR free for more than 6 months. Appeal form issued. Review again in 90 days.” The Review Committee checked the box labeled, “Transfer to a Level (5) Administrative Segregation Tier II Program.” Defendant June Bishop, exercising authority delegated by Georgia Diagnostic’s Warden, approved the Review Committee’s recommendation on May 26, 2016. 153. Despite once again completing all of the 2015 Policy’s requirements for a transfer, Gumm remained confined in the SMU. 154. Gumm appealed the May 18 recommendation using a “Review/Classification Appeal Form.” On the form, Gumm wrote: I have successfully completed the Tier III Program. Pursuant to GDC SOP II B09-004, I am entitled to reassignment to the general prison population. I
43

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 44 of 72
strenuously object to any decision contrary to what I am entitled under the official GDC policy. In a space designated for a response from Georgia Diagnostic’s Warden, Defendant Bruce Chatman did not record a comment. Defendant Chatman checked a block indicating that he concurred with the Review Committee’s recommendation of transfer from the SMU.
e. The 2016 Tier III Policy: August 2016 to Present 155. On August 8, 2016, the Georgia Department of Corrections issued a “Policy Information Bulletin” revising the Tier III Policy (“the 2016 Tier III Policy”). (Ex. D.) The 2016 Tier III Policy left intact most of the 2015 Tier III Policy, but made several changes with respect to the Review Committee’s 90-day reviews. 156. The 2016 Tier III Policy revised the 90-Day Review forms to eliminate the Review Committee’s ability to recommend that a prisoner be transferred to a general population housing assignment. Instead, the Review Committee could only recommend transfer “to an Administrative Segregation-Tier II Program.” (Ex. D at 1, 6.) 157. The 2016 Tier III Policy further provided, “If the recommendation of the Tier III Program Review Committee is that offender be released by being transferred to an Administrative Segregation-Tier II Program, [then a] 90 Day Review-Hearing Form and [a] Review-Classification Appeal Form must be
44

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 45 of 72
forwarded to the Director of Field Operations who shall make the final decision.” (Ex. D at 2.) If the Director of Field Operations “approves of the recommendation to release the offender by transfer to a Tier II facility, then staff at the Tier III Program facility must submit the request to Offender Administration to initiate the transfer.” (Id.)
158. Under the 2016 Tier III Policy, the 90-Day Review forms were revised to require approval by the SMU Superintendent, the Warden of Georgia Diagnostic, and the Director of Field Operations. The Review-Classification Appeal forms were similarly revised to provide for approval by both the SMU Superintendent and the Director of Field Operations. The policy thus required a prisoner to obtain a decision in his favor at four separate levels of review before he could be transferred. An unfavorable decision by the Review Committee, the Superintendent, the Warden, or the Director of Field Operations, would ensure that the prisoner remained in indefinite solitary confinement in the SMU.
159. To date, Gumm has received three reviews under the 2016 Tier III Policy. The reviews occurred on August 19, 2016; December 8, 2016; and March 9, 2017.
160. On August 19, 2016, a Review Committee composed of Defendant Williams, Defendant Powell, and counselor James Goody held a hearing and wrote on the review form, “Recommends that you release transfer to Admin. Seg.-Tier II
45

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 46 of 72
Program. Review again in 90 days and issued appeal form.” The Review Committee checked a box labeled, “Release-Transfer to Administrative Segregation-Tier II Program.” In an area on the form designated “Offender’s rebuttal,” the form quotes Gumm as saying, “Please stop lieing to us about leaving here!” Defendant June Bishop approved the Review Committee’s recommendation on August 23, 2016, and Defendant Eric Sellers approved the recommendation on August 25, 2016.
161. Gumm appealed the August 19 recommendation using a “Review/Classification Appeal Form.” On the form, Gumm wrote:
I have successfully completed the Tier III Program. Pursuant to GDC SOP II B09-004, I am entitled to reassignment to the general prison population. I strenuously object to my continued confinement in the Tier III Program in violation of official Tier III Program policy and in total disregard for the Review Committee’s recommendations. In a space designated for a response from the SMU Superintendent, Defendant June Bishop checked a block indicating that she concurred with the Review Committee’s recommendation of transfer from the SMU. However, in a space designated for comments by the Director of Field Operations, Defendant Steve Upton recorded the following comment: “Inmate is a threat to the operation of safe and secure facilities as being an escape risk.” There was no further explanation. Gumm remained in the SMU.
46

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 47 of 72
162. On December 8, 2016, a Review Committee composed of Defendant Williams, Defendant Powell, and counselor Karen Forts held a hearing and wrote on the review form, “Recommends release transfer to Administrative SegregationTier II Program. Appeal form issued. Review in 90 days.” The Review Committee checked a box labeled, “Release-Transfer to Administrative Segregation-Tier II Program.” In an area on the form designated “Offender’s rebuttal,” the form quotes Gumm as saying, “What’s up with the Ipads?” Defendants Cannon and Sellers approved the recommendation on December 9, 2016. Defendant Upton subsequently disapproved that recommendation. On the form, his only written remark was, “Remain.” Gumm remained in the SMU.
163. On March 9, 2017, a Review Committee composed of Defendant Williams, Lieutenant Lawrence Purvis, and counselor Karen Forts held a hearing and recommended that Gumm be transferred from the SMU. The recommendation is currently pending review by Defendants Cannon, Sellers, and Upton. Gumm remains confined in the SMU.
2. Defendants’ Responsibility for Prisoners’ Continued Solitary Confinement in the SMU
164. Despite completing all requirements for transfer under the 2012 SMU Policy, 2013 Tier III Policy, and 2015 Tier III Policy, Gumm remains in the SMU due to the action or inaction of Defendants Ward, Myrick, Upton, Jacobs, Tillman, Sellers, Chatman, Cannon, McCloud, Bishop, Powell, Logan, and/or Williams.
47

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 48 of 72
165. Defendants Ward, Myrick, Upton, Jacobs, and Tillman, during their respective tenures in the Department’s Central Office, had the authority to change both the conditions of confinement in the SMU and the procedures and standards used in deciding whether to transfer a prisoner from the SMU.
166. Defendants Ward, Myrick, Upton, Jacobs, and Tillman knew or should have known that the procedures involved in reviewing prisoners for transfer from the SMU failed to provide notice of the reasons for the Central Office decision or an opportunity for prisoners to address decisionmakers.
167. Defendants Ward, Myrick, Upton, Jacobs, and Tillman knew that they followed no standards or criteria in deciding whether to accept or reject a 90-day Review Committee’s recommendation that a prisoner be transferred from the SMU.
168. Defendants Sellers, Chatman, Cannon, McCloud, Powell, and Bishop, in their respective roles as administrators responsible for the SMU, failed to ensure that the Review Committee provided a complete and accurate assessment of a prisoner’s conduct, attitude, and behavior, at each 90-day review, so that Central Office officials could meaningfully review recommendations for transfer. Similarly, Defendants Powell, Logan, and Williams, in sitting on the Review Committee, failed to provide a complete and accurate account of their reasons for recommending transfers from the SMU. Instead, the Review Committee members
48

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 49 of 72
simply wrote some variation of the same thing each time—“Recommend transfer from SMU Program and review in 90 days. Appeal form issued.”—accompanied by a couple of random words spoken by the prisoner, such as, “What’s up with the Ipads?” at Gumm’s December 2016 review.
3. Arbitrariness of Prisoners’ Continued Solitary Confinement in the SMU
169. Even when experienced officers and administrators conclude that a prisoner’s behavior no longer requires the SMU’s strict security measures, and recommend the prisoner for transfer to a standard prison, an unexplained and unreviewable decision by a Central Office official keeps the prisoner confined under conditions where he is forced to remain compliant. Under those conditions, the prisoner is unable meaningfully to demonstrate that his good conduct is the product of his own volition. Rather, Central Office personnel are likely to attribute the prisoner’s good conduct to his near-total lack of freedom, using the prisoner’s obedience to justify continued confinement under the same restrictive conditions.
170. Many prisoners have left the SMU only because they completed their prison sentences and were released from the prison system altogether. In the 2015 calendar year, 13 of the 16 prisoners released from the SMU had reached the end of their sentences and could no longer be held in any Georgia prison. Another 13 prisoners were released from the SMU to free society in 2016, comprising nearly half of the prisoners who left the SMU that year. Despite knowing that these
49

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 50 of 72
prisoners will return to free society with little or no correctional control, Defendants refuse to give them an opportunity to conform their conduct to an ordinary prison environment while they are in prison.
171. Defendants could easily modify the conditions and policies that apply to the SMU so that prisoners have a meaningful opportunity to show their fitness for less restrictive conditions. For example, the SMU’s physical layout would accommodate prisoner common areas in each wing, where prisoners could be allowed out of their cells unrestrained subject to their continued good behavior. Prisoners could also perform work details within the SMU’s secured areas. Though security concerns may justify withholding those opportunities from certain prisoners, there is little justification for withholding them from prisoners like Gumm, who have been recommended for transfer from the SMU repeatedly over the course of several years, and who have consistently demonstrated good behavior while housed in the SMU.
D. Gumm’s Indefinite Solitary Confinement Deprives Him of Basic Human Needs and Subjects Him to a Risk of Serious Harm.
172. Confinement in a cell for an average of 22 hours or more per day without meaningful human contact is deemed “solitary confinement” by correctional and medical experts in the United States and internationally.
50

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 51 of 72
173. The use of solitary confinement and sensory deprivation in the SMU causes a substantial risk of serious harm and deprives people assigned to the SMU of basic human needs.
174. Solitary confinement has historically been a torture technique whose detrimental effects on physical and mental health are obvious to a reasonable person.
175. Indefinite solitary confinement violates contemporary standards of decency and defies a consensus among correctional experts, who condemn the practice. The Association of State Correctional Administrators, of which Department Commissioner Gregory Dozier is a member, recently acknowledged that “[p]rolonged isolation of individuals in jails and prisons is a grave problem in the United States.” Press Release, Ass’n of State Corr. Adm’rs, New Report on Prisoners in Administrative Segregation Prepared by the Association of State Correctional Administrators and the Arthur Liman Public Interest Program at Yale Law School (Sept. 2, 2015). As a result, “[c]orrectional leaders across the country are committed to reducing the number of people in restrictive housing and altering what it means to be there.” Id.
176. Gumm expects to show that many states have restricted their use of solitary confinement in the past decade. Colorado now requires prisoners in its restrictive Management Control Unit to have at least four hours outside of their
51

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 52 of 72
cells each day. Washington and Pennsylvania have begun to replace solitary confinement with educational programs. Other states that have restricted their use of solitary confinement include Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. The United States government has taken similar action to curb solitary confinement of federal prisoners.
177. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment has concluded that solitary confinement can constitute torture in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention Against Torture. The Special Rapporteur recommended absolute prohibitions on both indefinite solitary confinement and the use of solitary confinement for more than 15 days at a time.
178. Under Rules 43.1 and 44 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, prisoners cannot be held for more than 22 hours per day without meaningful human contact indefinitely or for more than 15 days at a time.
179. The American Bar Association (ABA) recommends that “[c]onditions of extreme isolation should not be allowed regardless of the reasons for a prisoner’s separation from the general population.” Standards for Criminal
52

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 53 of 72
Justice: Treatment of Prisoners § 23-3.8(b) (3d ed. 2011). According to the ABA, “Conditions of extreme isolation generally include a combination of sensory deprivation, lack of contact with other persons, enforced idleness, minimal out-ofcell time, and lack of outdoor recreation.”
180. Gumm expects to show that social isolation brought on by conditions in the SMU causes or exacerbates hypertension, stroke, diabetes, and cardiac diseases. It also reduces life expectancy.
181. Gumm expects to show that symptoms associated with solitary confinement for ten days or longer include insomnia, dizziness, heart palpitations, deteriorated vision, weight loss, severe digestive problems, back and joint pain, and aggravation of preexisting medical problems. These symptoms are common among prisoners held in solitary confinement, even among previously healthy prisoners.
182. Gumm expects to show that solitary confinement causes severe discomfort that is processed by the nervous system as pain. Gumm expects to show that all other deprivations that are processed as pain—such as food and sleep deprivation—are associated with basic human needs that are necessary for survival. The fact that isolation registers in the nervous system as pain shows that social interaction is a basic human need that is denied to people housed in the SMU.
53

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 54 of 72
183. Gumm expects to show that the lack of natural sunlight in the SMU causes prisoners to lose the normal diurnal rhythm that orients a person’s biological processes. As a result, prisoners in the SMU experience significant sleep deprivation, resulting in physiological and psychological deterioration.
184. Gumm expects to show that numerous psychological consequences result from solitary confinement. People exhibit a measurable loss in brain activity within a few days of being placed in solitary confinement. The brain waves affected are those associated with cognition and emotional control. Studies have found that the impaired brain functioning caused by prolonged isolation continues long after a person returns to a normal social setting.
185. Gumm expects to show that many of the conditions associated with life in the SMU—including lack of physical activity, lack of meaningful human interaction, and lack of visual stimulation—are sufficient to dramatically change a person’s brain functioning when confinement continues for longer than a few days.
186. Solitary confinement of ten days or longer results in anxiety, hypersensitivity to stimuli, difficulties in concentration, memory loss, decreased impulse control, and other psychological problems.
187. Gumm expects to show that these psychological consequences manifest themselves in concrete ways that harm prisoners as well as society. For example, people who have been held in solitary confinement have a markedly
54

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 55 of 72
higher rate of recidivism upon their release from prison. In addition, people held in solitary confinement have a markedly higher rate of suicide.
188. Gumm expects to show that the harmful consequences of solitary confinement can be permanent.
189. Gumm expects to show that Defendants are actually aware of the consequences of long-term solitary confinement through their exposure to reliable information produced by the Department or provided to them by outside experts and agencies. Gumm further expects to show that Defendants work in or have visited the SMU and are thus familiar with the conditions there.
E. Gumm’s Seven-Year Term of Solitary Confinement Is Grossly Disproportionate Punishment.
190. Gumm was placed in the SMU as punishment for an alleged escape attempt. Had he not been accused of attempting to escape, he would have remained in the general prison population at Telfair State Prison.
191. Under Department Policy 209.01, governing the punishments imposed on prisoners for disciplinary infractions, the maximum amount of isolation imposed for any offense—including homicide—is “30 days.” Ga. Dep’t of Corr., Policy 209.01, Attach. 5 at 1 (Apr. 30, 2015). Attempted escape is not one of the most serious offenses. It is listed as a “high severity offense” punishable by “[i]solation [of] one to fourteen days.” Id. at 2; see also id., Attach. 4 at 3.
55

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 56 of 72
192. With over seven years of isolation in the SMU, Gumm has served the maximum disciplinary sanction listed for attempted escape—14 days of isolation— nearly 200 times over.
193. Numerous Georgia prisoners have been convicted of escaping or attempting to escape from correctional facilities. Most of those prisoners are housed in the general prison population, and many are held in minimum or medium security prisons.
194. Gumm expects to show that most prisoners found guilty of actual or attempted escapes from prison are not placed in the SMU and, to the extent that they are placed in isolation, serve only a small fraction of the time that Gumm has served.
195. Gumm’s prolonged confinement in isolation is grossly disproportionate to the alleged offense that resulted in his placement in the SMU: a nonviolent escape attempt that was voluntarily abandoned.
F. Gumm Was Deprived of Sufficient Amounts of Food. 196. Prisoners in the SMU receive three meals per day Monday through Thursday, and two meals per day on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. 197. The SMU lacks a kitchen or dedicated food-service staff. Meals for SMU prisoners are prepared at Georgia Diagnostic’s main prison. The food items for each meal are loaded onto a vehicle at the main prison and driven to the SMU.
56

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 57 of 72
198. In the SMU, inmate orderlies from outside prisons prepare meal trays to be distributed to prisoners. The orderlies place food on the trays from bulk containers containing various meal items.
199. Inmate orderlies are supposed to be supervised by professional foodservice staff in preparing the trays. However, the orderlies frequently prepare the trays without supervision. As a result, prisoners in the SMU often receive trays with smaller portions of food than are given to general population prisoners.
200. Inmate orderlies and others fail to take precautions to ensure that food is sanitary and safe to eat. Gloves and hairnets are rarely worn. Food trays are not washed properly and frequently contain traces of old food residue, creating a risk of food poisoning.
201. Due to the delays involved in serving food to SMU prisoners, meals are almost always served cold.
202. Gumm expects to show that SMU prisoners are served food items that are inedible or have less nutritional content than food served to general population prisoners. Food items frequently are undercooked or lack ingredients necessary for their full nutritional content. Prisoners in the SMU often receive rotten fruits and vegetables, expired milk, and other items deemed unsuitable for prisoners at Georgia Diagnostic’s main prison.
57

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 58 of 72
203. Gumm expects to show that between 2010 and 2014, food-service staff members at Georgia Diagnostic’s main prison, with the knowledge of Defendant Margaret Washington, the Food Service Director, routinely substituted normal food items with less nutritious items for prisoners in the SMU.
204. Gumm is a six-foot-tall, 41-year-old male. At the time of Gumm’s assignment to the SMU in January 2010, Gumm weighed 204 pounds. His normal weight is around 180 to 190 pounds.
205. Soon after arriving in the SMU, Gumm noted that his meals contained significantly less food than he received as a general population prisoner. Gumm complained to the SMU’s highest-ranking officers, Defendants Bishop and Powell, about the systematic food deprivation. Gumm expects to show that many other prisoners in the SMU complained of food deprivation such that any officer assigned to the SMU would have known that underfeeding of prisoners was a pervasive and ongoing problem.
206. Gumm expects to show that Defendants Bishop and Powell met with Defendant Washington twice in 2012 about food deprivation and sanitation. The problems with food service continued. Gumm expects to show that numerous formal grievances and incident reports were submitted concerning food service, and many prisoners received disciplinary reports in connection with their complaints about the food. In addition, many prisoners continued to complain
58

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 59 of 72
informally to correctional officers and administrators in the SMU, including Defendants Powell, Bishop, Logan, and Williams.
207. For over three years, Gumm experienced muscle degeneration, constant bone and joint pain, and extreme hunger pains throughout the day and night.
208. During a routine medical examination on November 13, 2012, Gumm learned that he had lost around 40 pounds since arriving in the SMU in January 2010.
209. Gumm complained to the examining physician about his constant bone and joint pain and requested a vitamin deficiency test. The physician responded that vitamin deficiency tests were unavailable. The physician prescribed fish oil pills for Gumm’s joint pain.
210. Gumm filed informal and formal grievances about the food deprivation and his weight loss soon after the November 13 examination. His grievances requested that Defendants end the systematic food deprivation in the SMU. Gumm expects to show that Defendants Bishop, Powell, and Washington were aware of the grievance.
211. In response to Gumm’s formal grievance, Defendant Washington wrote, “SMU and the general population are provided the same quality and quantity of menu items and portion sizes of food required by the daily worksheet.”
59

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 60 of 72
212. In April 2013, Gumm was temporarily transferred to Valdosta State Prison for a court hearing. During the process of entering Valdosta State Prison, Gumm learned that his weight remained abnormally low, around 160 pounds. The weight loss was confirmed when he returned to the SMU four days later. An SMU nurse advised Gumm to submit a formal medical request concerning his extreme weight loss.
213. After over a month of delay, Gumm finally saw a physician. The physician questioned Gumm about whether he could purchase commissary items to compensate for the SMU’s lack of food. The physician prescribed no dietary supplements.
214. Medical testing revealed no medical conditions that would have caused Gumm’s weight loss.
215. Between May 2013 and December 2013, Gumm received money from his family to purchase additional food items. After consuming the additional food, Gumm noticed his health improving and his weight returning to normal.
216. Plaintiff expects to show that administrators for Georgia Diagnostic and the SMU, including Defendants Washington, Chatman, McCloud, Bishop, Powell, Logan, and Williams, were aware of the longstanding problems with food service and food deprivation among SMU prisoners.
60

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 61 of 72
217. Numerous prisoners in the SMU lodged formal and informal complaints with Defendants about the lack of food. Defendants’ awareness of these problems is reflected in a sign that remains posted on the door of the SMU’s Medical Unit, warning prisoners, “Do Not Ask for Extra Food or Vitamins.”
218. Numerous officers and administrators made comments reflecting widespread awareness that prisoners in the SMU were underfed. For example, correctional officers assigned to the SMU often made jokes about the lack of food when they spoke to prisoners. Several SMU prisoners lost significant amounts of weight, sometimes as much as 70 to 100 pounds. Defendant McCloud specifically stated on one occasion that he noticed some of the prisoners in the SMU were losing weight.
219. In addition, Plaintiff expects to show that Defendants ensure that SMU prisoners receive the proper types and amounts of food on days when the SMU receives prominent visitors from outside the prison system, reflecting Defendants’ knowledge that the amount and quality of food ordinarily served to SMU prisoners is inadequate.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 220. Plaintiff brings this class action under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated prisoners. Plaintiff seeks to certify a class defined as follows: All
61

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 62 of 72
prisoners who are or will be assigned to the Special Management Unit (SMU) at Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Prison.
221. Plaintiff meets the requirements of Rule 23(a) for the following reasons:
(a) The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The class consists of up to 192 current SMU prisoners and an unknown number of prisoners who will be assigned to the SMU in the future. The class is ascertainable because the placement of a prisoner in the SMU is immediately apparent from Defendants’ records and the fact of the prisoner’s confinement in the SMU. Plaintiff expects to show that approximately 150 to 192 prisoners are assigned to the SMU at a given time.
(b) There are questions of law and fact common to the class concerning whether prisoners have a liberty interest in avoiding confinement in the SMU; whether Defendants afford prisoners process commensurate with the liberty interest infringed by confinement in the SMU; and whether confinement in the SMU constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
62

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 63 of 72
(c) The policies challenged in this action apply with equal force to Plaintiff and all members of the class so that Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the class. Plaintiff is subject to the same unconstitutional conditions and procedures as other prisoners assigned to the SMU.
(d) Plaintiff and his counsel will adequately protect the interests of the class. Plaintiff possesses no interests adverse to those of other class members. Plaintiff is represented by attorneys with the Southern Center for Human Rights, a nonprofit organization with extensive experience in complex class action litigation.
222. Plaintiff meets the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) in that Defendants have acted or failed to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive or declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole. In particular, Plaintiff seeks to represent the class in challenging, under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, unconstitutional review procedures and conditions of confinement in the SMU. Those procedures and conditions apply to all SMU prisoners, and any prospective relief granted to Plaintiff with respect to those matters will necessarily benefit each class member.
63

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 64 of 72
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I:
VIOLATIONS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
(Procedural Due Process) 223. Timothy Gumm incorporates paragraphs 1-13 and 32-219 as if fully set out herein. 224. Prolonged solitary confinement in the Special Management Unit (SMU) constitutes an atypical and significant hardship relative to the ordinary incidents of life in Georgia prisons. 225. The punishment inflicted by prolonged solitary confinement in the SMU far exceeds the expected bounds of imprisonment, and thus gives rise to a protected liberty interest under the Due Process Clause. 226. Defendants have failed to provide meaningful review to Gumm and other prisoners assigned to the SMU. In particular, Defendants Ward, Myrick, Upton, Jacobs, and Tillman established and maintained a system that failed to give prisoners notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard before their transfers to other facilities were denied. Defendants Sellers, Chatman, Cannon, McCloud, Powell, Bishop, Logan, and Williams exacerbated the lack of meaningful review by failing to completely and accurately document each prisoner’s positive attributes and behavior, or by failing to ensure that their subordinates did so.
64

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 65 of 72
227. Defendants Ward, Myrick, Upton, Jacobs, and Tillman have failed to establish procedures that adequately avoid the risk of erroneously placing or retaining prisoners in the SMU. The private liberty interest at stake is particularly weighty in light of the widely recognized harms caused by prolonged solitary confinement. Procedures that Defendants are required to implement include a heightened evidentiary requirement, hearings at which the prisoner may attend and address the tribunal in person, and a presumption against continued solitary confinement after a prisoner has remained in solitary confinement for a certain amount of time.
228. Defendants Ward, Myrick, Upton, Jacobs, and Tillman have failed to establish a system by which SMU prisoners can demonstrate their ability to maintain good behavior under ordinary prison conditions. The failure to provide additional out-of-cell time, reasonable work assignments, and other opportunities for SMU prisoners to demonstrate good behavior unduly interferes with their right to receive meaningful review of their readiness for a general population housing assignment.
229. Defendants Sellers, Chatman, Cannon, McCloud, Powell, Bishop, Logan, and Williams knew or should have known that the SMU’s procedures are and were grossly inadequate and violate the due process rights of prisoners. These
65

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 66 of 72
Defendants nonetheless failed to adjust prisoners’ conditions of confinement to avoid depriving them of their protected liberty interests without due process of law.
230. For the reasons above, Defendants violated the Due Process Clause. COUNT II:
VIOLATIONS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
(Substantive Due Process) 231. Timothy Gumm incorporates paragraphs 1-13 and 32-219 as if fully set out herein. 232. Defendants Ward, Myrick, Upton, Jacobs, and Tillman have established a system that keeps prisoners in the Special Management Unit (SMU) arbitrarily and capriciously. These Defendants’ failure to consider prisoners for less restrictive housing assignments—even when prisoners will soon be released from prison altogether—fails to rationally further a legitimate penological interest. 233. Defendants Ward, Myrick, Upton, Jacobs, and Tillman have established a system by which an SMU prisoner is expected to demonstrate his fitness for a general population housing assignment while he is housed in conditions where he cannot even leave his cell without being strip-searched, handcuffed, and escorted by two or more officers. These Defendants’ repeated decisions to deny transfer to Timothy Gumm and similarly situated prisoners, without providing an opportunity for the prisoners to demonstrate their good
66

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 67 of 72
behavior under less restrictive conditions of confinement, fails to rationally further a legitimate penological interest.
234. Defendants Ward, Myrick, Upton, Jacobs, and Tillman routinely transfer prisoners from the SMU to administrative segregation or the “Tier II Program,” where prisoners continue to live under extremely restrictive conditions indefinitely, often in solitary confinement. Defendants’ policy of continuing to segregate prisoners as a matter of course, and in violation of Defendants’ own longstanding written policy mandating a transfer to general population when a prisoner completes the SMU program, fails to rationally further a legitimate penological interest.
COUNT III: VIOLATIONS OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS CLAUSE
(Solitary Confinement) 235. Timothy Gumm incorporates paragraphs 1-13 and 32-219 as if fully set out herein. 236. Defendants Ward, Myrick, Upton, Jacobs, and Tillman have final authority over each prisoner’s duration of confinement in the Special Management Unit (SMU), and the authority to prescribe the conditions of prisoners’ confinement, including the duration and degree of isolation imposed on prisoners. Defendants Sellers, Chatman, Cannon, McCloud, Powell, Bishop, Logan, and
67

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 68 of 72
Williams have direct control over the conditions of confinement in the SMU, including the duration and degree of isolation imposed on prisoners.
237. Prolonged or indefinite solitary confinement is considered torture by many authorities and violates contemporary standards of decency in the United States and many other countries.
238. Prolonged or indefinite solitary confinement deprives prisoners of basic human needs, including exercise, social interaction, and sensory stimulation. These deprivations are processed by the nervous system as pain.
239. Prolonged or indefinite solitary confinement creates a substantial risk of serious harm to prisoners. The potential harms include mental illness, brain dysfunction, suicide, self-mutilation, hypertension, and heart problems. The effects continue long after a person is released from confinement, and may be irreversible.
240. By causing Timothy Gumm and other prisoners to remain in the SMU indefinitely, and failing to take action to alleviate the conditions there, Defendants violate contemporary standards of decency, deprive prisoners of basic human needs, and display deliberate indifference to the serious risk of harm caused by prolonged or indefinite solitary confinement, violating the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
68

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 69 of 72
COUNT IV: VIOLATIONS OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS CLAUSE (Grossly Disproportionate Punishment) 241. Timothy Gumm incorporates paragraphs 1-13 and 32-219 as if fully set out herein. 242. Gumm has been held in isolation for over seven years based on rumors by other prisoners that he was involved in a nonviolent and voluntarily abandoned attempt to escape from prison. 243. Had Gumm been convicted of attempted escape at a disciplinary hearing, his maximum punishment would have been 14 days of isolation. 244. Defendants Ward, Myrick, Upton, Jacobs, and Tillman have violated Gumm’s right to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment by holding him in isolation for a grossly disproportionate amount of time.
COUNT V: VIOLATIONS OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS CLAUSE
(Food Deprivation) 245. Timothy Gumm incorporates paragraphs 1-13 and 196-219 as if fully set out herein. 246. Food is a basic human need. Prison officials must provide prisoners with food of sufficient quality and quantity to maintain normal health.
69

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 70 of 72
247. Defendants Washington, Chatman, McCloud, Powell, Bishop, Logan,
and Williams knew that Timothy Gumm and other SMU prisoners did not receive
adequate amounts of food between 2010 and 2014 because Gumm and other
prisoners routinely complained that they were underfed and losing weight, and
because numerous prisoners including Gumm were obviously losing body weight.
These Defendants violated Gumm’s Eighth Amendment right to freedom from
cruel and unusual punishment by depriving Gumm of a basic human need and by
failing to take reasonable steps to respond after learning of a substantial risk that
Gumm was being deprived of sufficient amounts of food.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
For the foregoing reasons, Timothy Gumm respectfully asks that this Court:
(1) assume jurisdiction over this action; (2) certify this case as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure; (3) declare that Defendants violated the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights of Timothy Gumm and other class members; (4) enter preliminary and permanent injunctive relief requiring Defendants to: (a) establish, for the benefit of Timothy Gumm and the
class members, procedural safeguards commensurate with prisoners’ strong interest in avoiding the harmful consequences of prolonged isolation, with specific measures to be determined after further proceedings in this case;
70

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 71 of 72
(b) establish, for the benefit of Timothy Gumm and the class members, conditions of confinement that reasonably mitigate the substantial risk of serious harm caused by prolonged isolation, with specific measures to be determined after further proceedings in this case; and
(c) transfer Timothy Gumm to a general population housing assignment;
(5) award Timothy Gumm nominal, compensatory, and/or punitive damages against Defendants;
(6) award Timothy Gumm reasonable attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs of litigation under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable law; and
(7) provide such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Ryan Primerano Sarah Geraghty Ga. Bar No. 291393 Ryan Primerano Ga. Bar No. 404962 SOUTHERN CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS 83 Poplar Street, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 (404) 688-1202 (404) 688-9440 (fax) sgeraghty@schr.org
Counsel for Timothy Gumm
March 11, 2017
71

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 72 of 72
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on March 11, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of filing to all counsel of record.
/s/ Ryan Primerano

 
 U.S. District Court [LIVE AREA] Middle District of Georgia (Macon) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:15−cv−00041−MTT−CHW

GUMM v. JACOBS et al Assigned to: US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL Referred to: US Magistrate Judge CHARLES H WEIGLE Case in other court: Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals,
17−14458−J
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, 18−11509−J
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, 19−11944−J Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 02/12/2015 Date Terminated: 05/07/2019 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 555 Prisoner: Prison Condition Jurisdiction: Federal Question

TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM

represented by CHRIS WILLIAM HAAF 1001 W 4TH ST WINSTON−SALEM, NC 27101 Email: chaaf@kilpatricktownsend.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

RYAN PRIMERANO 60 WALTON ST NW ATLANTA, GA 30303 404−688−1202 Email: rprimerano@schr.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SARAH ELISABETH GERAGHTY 60 WALTON ST NW ATLANTA, GA 30303 404−688−1202 Fax: 404−688−9440 Email: sgeraghty@schr.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

AARON MICHAEL LITTMAN 385 CHARLES E YOUNG DR E RM 3472 LOS ANGELES, CA 90095 310−825−9562 Email: littman@law.ucla.edu

C ALLEN GARRETT , JR 1100 PEACHTREE ST NE STE 2800 ATLANTA, GA 30309 404−815−6141 Email: agarrett@ktslaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JAMES F BOGAN , III 1100 PEACHTREE ST NE STE 2800 ATLANTA, GA 30309−4530 404−815−6500 Email: jbogan@ktslaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

TAMARA SERWER CALDAS

Plaintiff ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS
Plaintiff JOHNNY MACK BROWN TERMINATED: 01/16/2019
V. Defendant RICK JACOBS Field Operations Manager, GDCP

1100 PEACHTREE ST NE STE 2800 ATLANTA, GA 30309 404−815−6500 Email: tcaldas@kilpatricktownsend.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by AARON MICHAEL LITTMAN (See above for address)
RYAN PRIMERANO (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RYAN PRIMERANO (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER 40 CAPITOL SQ SW ATLANTA, GA 30334 404−463−8850 Email: ecrowder@law.ga.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LAURA LOUISE LONES 40 CAPITOL SQ SW ATLANTA, GA 30334−1300 404−463−8850 Email: llones@law.ga.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER 40 CAPITOL SQ SW ATLANTA, GA 30334−1300 404−656−6666 Email: steaster@law.ga.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOHN Clay DEMOULPIED Carlock Copeland & Stair, LLP 191 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 3600 ATLANTA, GA 30303 404−221−2281 Fax: 404−222−9482 Email: jdemoulpied@carlockcopeland.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROBERT B. SHAPIRO 40 Capitol Square SW ATLANTA, GA 30334 404−463−8850 Email: rshapiro@law.ga.gov

Defendant Warden BRUCE CHAPMAN GDCP
Defendant RODNEY MCCLOUD Superintendent, GDCP
Defendant WILLIAM POWELL Deputy Warden of Security, GDCP

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LAURA LOUISE LONES (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOHN Clay DEMOULPIED (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROBERT B. SHAPIRO (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LAURA LOUISE LONES (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOHN Clay DEMOULPIED (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROBERT B. SHAPIRO (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LAURA LOUISE LONES (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER (See above for address)

Defendant JUNE BISHOP
Defendant RUFUS LOGAN
Defendant DWAIN WILLIAMS

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOHN Clay DEMOULPIED (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROBERT B. SHAPIRO (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LAURA LOUISE LONES (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOHN Clay DEMOULPIED (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROBERT B. SHAPIRO (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LAURA LOUISE LONES (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOHN Clay DEMOULPIED (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROBERT B. SHAPIRO (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant MARGARET WASHINGTON
Defendant TIMOTHY WARD
Defendant RICKY MYRICK

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROBERT B. SHAPIRO (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LAURA LOUISE LONES (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOHN Clay DEMOULPIED (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROBERT B. SHAPIRO (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LAURA LOUISE LONES (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOHN Clay DEMOULPIED (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROBERT B. SHAPIRO (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant STEVE UPTON
Defendant RANDY TILLMAN

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LAURA LOUISE LONES (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOHN Clay DEMOULPIED (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROBERT B. SHAPIRO (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LAURA LOUISE LONES (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOHN Clay DEMOULPIED (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROBERT B. SHAPIRO (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LAURA LOUISE LONES (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOHN Clay DEMOULPIED (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROBERT B. SHAPIRO

Defendant ERIC SELLERS
Defendant MICHAEL CANNON
Defendant GEORGE BALL

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LAURA LOUISE LONES (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOHN Clay DEMOULPIED (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROBERT B. SHAPIRO (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LAURA LOUISE LONES (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOHN Clay DEMOULPIED (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROBERT B. SHAPIRO (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROBERT B. SHAPIRO (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant THOMAS SUMPTER
Movant WASEEM DAKER TERMINATED: 09/15/2017
Movant HJALMAR RODRIGUEZ, JR
Movant JEFFREY BOURASSA TERMINATED: 05/10/2019
Movant PABLO F MALDONADO
Movant CODY TODD TERMINATED: 03/20/2020
Movant

represented by ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROBERT B. SHAPIRO (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by WASEEM DAKER GDC901373 VALDOSTA STATE PRISON PO BOX 5368 VALDOSTA, GA 31603 PRO SE
represented by HJALMAR RODRIGUEZ, JR GDC1036561 VALDOSTA STATE PRISON PO BOX 5368 VALDOSTA, GA 31603 PRO SE
represented by JEFFREY BOURASSA 71501−019 ATLANTA U.S. PENITENTIARY Inmate Mail/Parcels PO BOX 150160 ATLANTA, GA 30315 PRO SE
represented by PABLO F MALDONADO 1000900002 GEORGIA DIAGNOSTIC & CLASSIFICATION PRISON PO BOX 3877 JACKSON, GA 30233−3877 PRO SE
represented by CODY TODD 71452019 ATLANTA U.S. PENITENTIARY Inmate Mail/Parcels PO BOX 150160 ATLANTA, GA 30315 PRO SE

GORDON EVANS TERMINATED: 03/20/2020

represented by GORDON EVANS REG 71884−019 ATLANTA U.S. PENITENTIARY Inmate Mail/Parcels PO BOX 150160 ATLANTA, GA 30315 PRO SE

Date Filed 02/12/2015 02/12/2015 02/12/2015 02/12/2015 02/23/2015 03/18/2015 03/19/2015 03/23/2015 04/17/2015 04/20/2015 05/04/2015 05/07/2015
05/18/2015
05/22/2015 05/22/2015

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants,filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Envelope)(ans) (Entered: 02/12/2015)
2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM. Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(ans) (Entered: 02/12/2015)
3 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge issued at the direction of the
Court. (ans) (Entered: 02/12/2015)
4 Consent Form (28 USC 636(c)(1)) sent to TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM (ans) (Entered: 02/12/2015)
5 Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Envelope)(ans) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
6 ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and ORDER for
service to be made on all four defendants Ordered by US Magistrate Judge CHARLES H WEIGLE on 03/18/15 (ans) (Entered: 03/18/2015)
7 USM285 Process Receipt and Return ISSUED for All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 USM285 − Bruce Chapman, # 2 USM285 − Rodney McCloud, # 3 USM285 − William Powell)(ans) (Entered: 03/19/2015)
8 USM285 Process Receipt and Return MAILED for BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RODNEY MCCLOUD, WILLIAM POWELL. (ans) (Entered: 03/23/2015)
9 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM (ans) (Entered: 04/17/2015)
10 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to RICK JACOBS, USM285 Process Receipt and Return EXECUTED for RICK JACOBS. (ans) (Entered: 04/20/2015)
11 MOTION to Amend 1 Complaint Filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Envelope). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(ans) (Entered: 05/04/2015)
12 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER on behalf of BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RODNEY MCCLOUD, WILLIAM POWELL Attorney SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER added to party BRUCE CHAPMAN(pty:dft), Attorney SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER added to party RICK JACOBS(pty:dft), Attorney SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER added to party RODNEY MCCLOUD(pty:dft), Attorney SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER added to party WILLIAM POWELL(pty:dft) (TEASTER, SUSAN) (Entered: 05/07/2015)
13 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Envelope). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(wks) Modified on 5/22/2015 to modify text from MOTION to Compel Defendants to Provide Plaintiff With Access to the Courts to MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (ans). (Entered: 05/18/2015)
14 WAIVER OF Reply by BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RODNEY MCCLOUD, WILLIAM POWELL. (TEASTER, SUSAN) (Entered: 05/22/2015)
15 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 13 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM (), ORDER GRANTING 11
MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM

06/04/2015
06/04/2015 06/05/2015 06/05/2015 06/16/2015 06/25/2015 06/25/2015 07/13/2015 07/13/2015 07/23/2015 11/16/2015 12/03/2015 12/21/2015 01/22/2016

Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 05/21/15. (ans) (Entered: 05/22/2015)
16 MOTION to Dismiss by BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RODNEY MCCLOUD, WILLIAM POWELL filed by SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER. (Attachments: # 1 Brief In Support of Motion to Dismiss, # 2 Affidavit Attachment 1 − Affidavit of Darryl Reid, # 3 Attachment A − Statewide Grievance Procedure, # 4 Attachment B − Grievance No. 61526, # 5 Attachment C − Grievance No. 80062, # 6 Attachment D − Grievance No. 93578, # 7 Attachment E − Grievance No. 94478, # 8 Attachment F − Grievance No. 94882, # 9 Attachment G − Grievance No. 96085, # 10 Attachment H − Grievance No. 96440, # 11 Attachment I − Grievance No. 115289, # 12 Attachment J − Grievance No. 124508, # 13 Attachment K − Grievance No. 137685, # 14 Attachment L − Grievance No. 18771). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(TEASTER, SUSAN) (Entered: 06/04/2015)
17 MOTION to Stay Discovery by BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RODNEY MCCLOUD, WILLIAM POWELL filed by SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER. (Attachments: # 1 Brief In Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(TEASTER, SUSAN) (Entered: 06/04/2015)
18 ORDER granting 17 Motion to Stay. Ordered by U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHARLES H. WEIGLE on 6/5/15. (aob) (Entered: 06/05/2015)
19 ORDER for Response to Motion re: 16 MOTION to Dismiss. Ordered by U.S.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H. WEIGLE on 6/5/15. (aob) (Entered: 06/05/2015)
20 ORDER ADOPTING 15 Report and Recommendations and DENYING 13 Motion
for Preliminary Injunction. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 6/16/2015. (tlh) (Entered: 06/16/2015)
21 Supplement/Amendment to COMPLAINT against BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RODNEY MCCLOUD, WILLIAM POWELL, filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Envelope)(ggs) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
22 RESPONSE filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM re 16 MOTION to Dismiss (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Cover Letter, # 3 Envelope)(ggs) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
23 RESPONSE in Opposition/Objection to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint re 21 Supplement to Complaint (TEASTER, SUSAN) Modified on 7/13/2015 (ggs). (Entered: 07/13/2015)
24 REPLY to Response filed by BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RODNEY MCCLOUD, WILLIAM POWELL re 16 MOTION to Dismiss (TEASTER, SUSAN) (Entered: 07/13/2015)
25 WITHDRAWAL of Claim re 21 Supplement/Amendment to Complaint by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Envelope)(ggs) (Entered: 07/23/2015)
26 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint Filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Amended Complaint, # 2 Cover Letter, # 3 Envelope). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(ggs) (Entered: 11/16/2015)
27 RESPONSE filed by BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RODNEY MCCLOUD, WILLIAM POWELL re 26 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint (TEASTER, SUSAN) (Entered: 12/03/2015)
28 MEMORANDUM in Support filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM re: 26 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(ggs) (Entered: 12/21/2015)
29 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 16 MOTION to Dismiss filed by
WILLIAM POWELL, RICK JACOBS, BRUCE CHAPMAN, RODNEY MCCLOUD, 26 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM. It is RECOMMENDED that the Defendants Motion to Dismiss be

01/25/2016 02/05/2016 02/08/2016 02/22/2016 03/04/2016 03/31/2016
03/31/2016
03/31/2016 03/31/2016 03/31/2016 03/31/2016 04/04/2016 04/04/2016

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It is further RECOMMENDED that Plaintiffs Motion to Amend be GRANTED, with regard to Plaintiffs due process claims against Defendants Bishop, Logan, and Williams, and DENIED with regard to Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claims, including all claims againstDefendant Washington. It is further RECOMMENDED that service be ordered on June Bishop, Rufus Logan, Dwayne Williams. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 1/22/2016. (ggs) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
30 MOTION to Appoint Counsel Filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Envelope). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(ggs) (Entered: 01/25/2016)
31 OBJECTION to 29 Report and Recommendations filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Envelope)(ggs) (Entered: 02/05/2016)
32 OBJECTION to 29 Report and Recommendations filed by BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RODNEY MCCLOUD, WILLIAM POWELL (TEASTER, SUSAN) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
33 RESPONSE TO OBJECTION TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed by BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RODNEY MCCLOUD, WILLIAM POWELL in re: 31 Report and Recommendations (TEASTER, SUSAN) (Entered: 02/22/2016)
34 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM in re: 32 Report and Recommendations (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Envelope)(ggs) (Entered: 03/04/2016)
35 ORDER ADOPTING as modified 29 Report and Recommendations; GRANTING in
part and DENYING in part 26 Motion for Leave to File; GRANTING in part and DENYING in part 16 Motion to Dismiss. It is ORDERED that service be made on Margaret Washington, June Bishop, Rufus Logan, and Dwayne Williams and that they file an Answer or such other response as may be appropriate under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 3/31/2016. (tlh) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
36 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM. (Attachments: # 1 Verificaton, # 2 Exhibit A − disciplinary Appeal Form (3/1/10), # 3 Exhibit B − SMU Program 90 Day Review Form (12/10/12), # 4 Exhibit C − SMU Program 90 Day Review Form( 4/8/13), # 5 Exhibit D − SMU Program 90 Day Review Form (7/31/13), # 6 Exhibit E − SMU Tier III Program Assignment Memo (8/1/12), # 7 Exhibit F − SMU Tier III Program 90 Day Review Form (1/7/14), # 8 Exhibit G − SMU Tier III Program 90 Day Review Form (7/29/14), # 9 Exhibit H − SMU Tier III Program 90 DAy Review Form (10/28/14), # 10 Exhibit I − SMU Tier III Program 90 Day Reivew Form (1/21/15), # 11 Exhibit J − Warden's/Superintendent's Grievance Response (1/29/2015), # 12 Exhibit K − The GDC Inmate Affairs and Ombudsman Unit's Response to Complaint Letter to Southern Cetner for Human Rights (8/18/11))(ggs) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
37 USM 285 Process Receipt and Return ISSUED for JUNE BISHOP (ggs) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
38 USM 285 Process Receipt and Return ISSUED for RUFUS LOGAN (ggs) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
39 USM 285 Process Receipt and Return ISSUED for DWAYNE WILLIAMS (ggs) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
40 USM 285 Process Receipt and Return ISSUED for MARGARET WASHINGTON (ggs) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
41 USM 285 Process Receipt and Return MAILED for DWAYNE WILLIAMS (ggs) (Entered: 04/04/2016)
42 USM 285 Process Receipt and Return MAILED for MARGARET WASHINGTON (ggs) (Entered: 04/04/2016)

04/04/2016 04/04/2016 04/05/2016
04/11/2016 04/12/2016 04/26/2016 05/09/2016 05/09/2016 05/26/2016 06/02/2016 06/03/2016
06/09/2016 07/06/2016

43 USM 285 Process Receipt and Return MAILED for RUFUS LOGAN (ggs) (Entered: 04/04/2016)
44 USM 285 Process Receipt and Return MAILED for JUNE BISHOP (ggs) (Entered: 04/04/2016)
45 ORDER re 36 Amended Complaint, filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM.
Defendants Bruce Chatman, Rodney McCloud, William Powell, and Rick Jacobs have previously filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Due Process claim (Doc. 16). If they so choose, they may file a second Motion to Dismiss addressing Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claim found in his Amended Complaint. The Order granting Defendants Motion to Stay (Doc. 18) shall stay in effect until all Defendants have had an opportunity to file a responsive pleading or appropriate motion for all claims and the Court has ruled on those claims, or until further order of the Court. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 5/5/2016. (ggs) (Entered: 04/05/2016)
46 MOTION for Extension of Time to File to Answer the Amended Complaint. by BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RODNEY MCCLOUD, WILLIAM POWELL filed by SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(TEASTER, SUSAN) (Entered: 04/11/2016)
47 This is a text only entry; no document issued. ORDER granting 46 Motion for
Extension of Time. All answers and responsive pleadings for all Defendants in this case will be due on June 3, 2016. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 04/12/2016.(sjc) (Entered: 04/12/2016)
48 USM 285 Process Receipt and Return EXECUTED for RUFUS LOGAN, WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to RUFUS LOGAN (Attachments: # 1 Waiver of Service of Summons)(ggs) (Entered: 04/26/2016)
49 USM 285 Process Receipt and Return EXECUTED for DWAYNE WILLIAMS, WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to DWAYNE WILLIAMS (Attachments: # 1 Waiver of the Service of Summons)(ggs) (Entered: 05/09/2016)
50 USM 285 Process Receipt and Return EXECUTED for JUNE BISHOP, WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to JUNE BISHOP (Attachments: # 1 Waiver of the Service of Summons)(ggs) (Entered: 05/09/2016)
51 USM 285 Process Receipt and Return EXECUTED for MARGARET WASHINGTON and WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS Returned EXECUTED. (cma) (Entered: 05/26/2016)
52 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to MARGARET WASHINGTON (ggs) (Entered: 06/02/2016)
53 ANSWER to 36 Amended Complaint,,, by JUNE BISHOP, BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RUFUS LOGAN, RODNEY MCCLOUD, WILLIAM POWELL, MARGARET WASHINGTON, DWAIN WILLIAMS.(TEASTER, SUSAN)Attorney SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER added to party JUNE BISHOP(pty:dft), Attorney SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER added to party RUFUS LOGAN(pty:dft), Attorney SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER added to party MARGARET WASHINGTON(pty:dft), Attorney SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER added to party DWAIN WILLIAMS(pty:dft) (Entered: 06/03/2016)
54 This is a text only entry; no document issued. ORDER denying 30 Motion to
Appoint Counsel. Ordered by U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H. WEIGLE on 06/09/2016. (sjc) (Entered: 06/09/2016)
55 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Extend Discovery Period. by JUNE BISHOP, BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RUFUS LOGAN, RODNEY MCCLOUD, WILLIAM POWELL, MARGARET WASHINGTON, DWAIN WILLIAMS filed by SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(TEASTER, SUSAN) (Entered: 07/06/2016)

07/07/2016 07/13/2016 07/14/2016 08/04/2016 08/04/2016 08/22/2016
08/22/2016
09/01/2016 09/06/2016 09/06/2016 09/30/2016 10/27/2016 10/27/2016 10/28/2016 11/15/2016 11/15/2016

56 This is a text only entry; no document issued. ORDER granting 55 Motion for
Extension of TimeDiscovery to be complete by 12/1/2016. Ordered by U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H. WEIGLE on 07/07/2016.(sjc) (Entered: 07/07/2016)
57 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Cover Letter, # 3 Envelope). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(ggs) (Entered: 07/13/2016)
58 MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING Defendants to Allow Plaintiff to Interview Potential Material Witnesses in Defendants' Custody Filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Envelope). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(cma) (Entered: 07/15/2016)
59 Letter requesting 14−day Clerk's extension re: 57 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and 58 MOTION for Order Compelling Defendants to Allow Plaintiff to Interview Potential Material Witnesses in Defendants' Custody. (TEASTER, SUSAN) Modified on 8/4/2016 (ggs). (Entered: 08/04/2016)
Notice of Clerk's Granting of Extension re: 58 MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, 57 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM. The response and reply deadlines have been reset.(ggs) (Entered: 08/04/2016)
60 RESPONSE filed by JUNE BISHOP, BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RUFUS LOGAN, RODNEY MCCLOUD, WILLIAM POWELL, MARGARET WASHINGTON, DWAIN WILLIAMS re 58 MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A − Declaration of June Bishop)(TEASTER, SUSAN) (Entered: 08/22/2016)
61 RESPONSE filed by JUNE BISHOP, BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RUFUS LOGAN, RODNEY MCCLOUD, WILLIAM POWELL, MARGARET WASHINGTON, DWAIN WILLIAMS re 57 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A − Declaration of June Bishop)(TEASTER, SUSAN) (Entered: 08/22/2016)
62 ORDER STAYING CASE. Ordered by U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H.
WEIGLE on 09/01/2016. (sjc) (Entered: 09/01/2016)
63 REPLY to Response filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM re 57 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Envelope)(ans) (Entered: 09/06/2016)
64 REPLY to Response filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM re 58 MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING (ans) (Entered: 09/06/2016)
65 ORDER STAYING CASE. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H
WEIGLE on 9/30/16. (jfb) (Entered: 09/30/2016)
66 ORDER appointing SARAH GERAGHTY and RYAN PRIMERANO as eVoucher
Attorney for TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 10/27/16. (ans) (Entered: 10/27/2016)
70 ORDER appointing SARAH E GERAGHTY as eVoucher Attorney for TIMOTHY
DENVER GUMM. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on October 27, 2016. (cal) (Entered: 11/16/2016)
NOTICE OF SETTING Status Conference set for 11/15/2016 at 10:00 AM in Macon before US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL. (tlh) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
67 Minute Entry for proceedings held before US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE: Status Conference held on 11/15/2016. Court Reporter: Darlene Fuller.Time in Court: 25 minutes. (ggs) (Entered: 11/15/2016)
68 WITHDRAWAL of Motion re 57 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM (PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 11/15/2016)

11/15/2016 11/16/2016 12/16/2016 12/16/2016 03/11/2017 03/13/2017 03/14/2017 03/14/2017 03/20/2017
03/20/2017 03/21/2017
03/22/2017
03/23/2017 03/23/2017 03/23/2017 03/23/2017

69 WITHDRAWAL of Motion re 58 MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM (PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 11/15/2016)
71 RULES 16/26 ORDER: Proposed Scheduling/Discovery order due by
12/16/2016. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 11/16/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Required Form)(jfb) (Entered: 11/16/2016)
NOTICE OF SETTING Discovery Hearing set for 3/13/2017 10:00 AM in Macon before US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE. (cal) (Entered: 12/16/2016)
72 SCHEDULING/DISCOVERY ORDER:Discovery to be complete by
6/11/2017. Dispositive motions due by 7/11/2017. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 12/15/2016. (ggs) (Entered: 12/16/2016)
73 AMENDED COMPLAINT re 1 Complaint against All Defendants by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: 2012 Special Management Unit (SMU) Policy, # 2 Exhibit B: 2013 Tier III Policy, # 3 Exhibit C: 2015 Tier III Policy, # 4 Exhibit D: 2016 Tier III Policy)(PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 03/11/2017)
74 Minute Entry for proceedings held before US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE: Status Conference held on 3/13/2017 Court Reporter: Darlene Fuller.Time in Court: 26 minutes. (ggs) (Entered: 03/13/2017)
75 UNOPPOSED MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM filed by RYAN PRIMERANO.. Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 03/14/2017)
76 MOTION to Certify Class by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM filed by RYAN PRIMERANO. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Certify Class). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 03/14/2017)
77 ORDER granting 75 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete DiscoveryDiscovery
to be complete by 9/11/2017. Dispositive and/or Daubert motions due by 10/10/2017. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 3/17/2017 (ggs) (Entered: 03/20/2017)
80 MOTION to Intervene Filed by WASEEM DAKER. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Envelope). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(cma) (Entered: 03/22/2017)
78 UNOPPOSED MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 73 Amended Complaint, by JUNE BISHOP, BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RUFUS LOGAN, RODNEY MCCLOUD, WILLIAM POWELL, MARGARET WASHINGTON, DWAIN WILLIAMS filed by SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(TEASTER, SUSAN) (Entered: 03/21/2017)
79 This is a text only entry; no document issued. ORDER granting 78 Motion for
Extension of Time to Answer re 78 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 73 Amended Complaint, All Defendants. Defendants shall have until April 13, 2017, to file their answer. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 3/22/2017. (jfb) (Entered: 03/22/2017)
81 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by RANDY TILLMAN. as to RANDY TILLMAN (TEASTER, SUSAN) (Entered: 03/23/2017)
82 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by RICKY MYRICK. as to RICKY MYRICK (TEASTER, SUSAN) (Entered: 03/23/2017)
83 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by TIMOTHY WARD. as to TIMOTHY WARD (TEASTER, SUSAN) (Entered: 03/23/2017)
84 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by JUNE BISHOP, BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RUFUS LOGAN, RODNEY MCCLOUD, RICKY MYRICK, WILLIAM POWELL, RANDY TILLMAN, TIMOTHY WARD, MARGARET WASHINGTON, DWAIN WILLIAMS filed by SUSAN ELIZABETH

03/24/2017 04/03/2017 04/07/2017 04/10/2017 04/24/2017 04/28/2017 04/28/2017 04/28/2017 05/02/2017 05/04/2017
05/10/2017

TEASTER. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order on second motion to extend time to answer). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(TEASTER, SUSAN) (Entered: 03/23/2017)
85 This is a text only entry; no document issued. ORDER granting 84 Motion for
Extension of Time to Answer All Defendants. Defendants shall have until May 15, 2017, to file their answer to Plaintiff's second amended complaint. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 2/24/2017. (jfb) (Entered: 03/24/2017)
86 UNOPPOSED MOTION to Hold Class Certification Motion in Abeyance re 76 MOTION to Certify Class by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM filed by RYAN PRIMERANO. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Motion to Hold Class Certification Motion in Abeyance). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 04/03/2017)
87 This is a text only entry; no document issued. ORDER granting 86 Motion.
Plaintiff's motion is held in abeyance and Plaintiff shall submit an amended motion following further discovery. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 4/7/16. (jfb) (Entered: 04/07/2017)
88 RESPONSE filed by JUNE BISHOP, BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RUFUS LOGAN, RODNEY MCCLOUD, RICKY MYRICK, WILLIAM POWELL, RANDY TILLMAN, TIMOTHY WARD, MARGARET WASHINGTON, DWAIN WILLIAMS re 80 MOTION to Intervene (TEASTER, SUSAN) (Entered: 04/10/2017)
89 REPLY to Response filed by WASEEM DAKER re 80 MOTION to Intervene (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cma) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
90 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by JAMES F BOGAN, III on behalf of TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM Attorney JAMES F BOGAN, III added to party TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM(pty:pla) (BOGAN, JAMES) (Entered: 04/28/2017)
91 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by C ALLEN GARRETT, JR on behalf of TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM Attorney C ALLEN GARRETT, JR added to party TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM(pty:pla) (GARRETT, C) (Entered: 04/28/2017)
92 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by TAMARA SERWER CALDAS on behalf of TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM Attorney TAMARA SERWER CALDAS added to party TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM(pty:pla) (CALDAS, TAMARA) (Entered: 04/28/2017)
93 Order granting Petition for Admission Pro Hac Vice (Petition Attached); Attorney Admission Fee Met by CHRIS WILLIAM HAAF (nop) (Entered: 05/02/2017)
94 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by LAURA LOUISE LONES on behalf of JUNE BISHOP, MICHAEL CANNON, BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RUFUS LOGAN, RODNEY MCCLOUD, RICKY MYRICK, WILLIAM POWELL, ERIC SELLERS, RANDY TILLMAN, STEVE UPTON, TIMOTHY WARD, MARGARET WASHINGTON Attorney LAURA LOUISE LONES added to party JUNE BISHOP(pty:dft), Attorney LAURA LOUISE LONES added to party MICHAEL CANNON(pty:dft), Attorney LAURA LOUISE LONES added to party BRUCE CHAPMAN(pty:dft), Attorney LAURA LOUISE LONES added to party RICK JACOBS(pty:dft), Attorney LAURA LOUISE LONES added to party RUFUS LOGAN(pty:dft), Attorney LAURA LOUISE LONES added to party RODNEY MCCLOUD(pty:dft), Attorney LAURA LOUISE LONES added to party RICKY MYRICK(pty:dft), Attorney LAURA LOUISE LONES added to party WILLIAM POWELL(pty:dft), Attorney LAURA LOUISE LONES added to party ERIC SELLERS(pty:dft), Attorney LAURA LOUISE LONES added to party RANDY TILLMAN(pty:dft), Attorney LAURA LOUISE LONES added to party STEVE UPTON(pty:dft), Attorney LAURA LOUISE LONES added to party TIMOTHY WARD(pty:dft), Attorney LAURA LOUISE LONES added to party MARGARET WASHINGTON(pty:dft) (LONES, LAURA) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
95 UNOPPOSED MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by JUNE BISHOP, BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RUFUS LOGAN, RODNEY MCCLOUD, RICKY MYRICK, WILLIAM POWELL, RANDY TILLMAN, STEVE UPTON,

05/11/2017 05/30/2017
07/10/2017 07/18/2017 07/20/2017 08/03/2017 08/25/2017
09/15/2017 10/02/2017

TIMOTHY WARD, MARGARET WASHINGTON, DWAIN WILLIAMS filed by SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(TEASTER, SUSAN) (Entered: 05/10/2017)
96 This is a text only entry; no document issued. ORDER granting 95 Motion for
Extension of Time to File an Answer. Defendants' time in which to file an answer is extended through and including May 30, 2017. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 5/11/2017. (jfb) (Entered: 05/11/2017)
97 ANSWER to 73 Amended Complaint, by JUNE BISHOP, MICHAEL CANNON, BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RUFUS LOGAN, RODNEY MCCLOUD, RICKY MYRICK, WILLIAM POWELL, ERIC SELLERS, RANDY TILLMAN, STEVE UPTON, TIMOTHY WARD, MARGARET WASHINGTON, DWAIN WILLIAMS.(TEASTER, SUSAN)Attorney SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER added to party MICHAEL CANNON(pty:dft), Attorney SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER added to party ERIC SELLERS(pty:dft), Attorney SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER added to party STEVE UPTON(pty:dft) (Entered: 05/30/2017)
98 JOINT MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM filed by RYAN PRIMERANO. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Extending Discovery Period and Deadlines). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 07/10/2017)
99 ORDER granting 98 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Ordered
by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 7/18/2017. (jfb) (Entered: 07/18/2017)
100 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 80 MOTION to Intervene filed by
WASEEM DAKER. It is RECOMMENDED that Dakers Motion to Intervene (Doc. 80) be DENIED. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may serve and file written objections to this Recommendation, or seek an extension of time to file objections, WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 7/20/2017. (ggs) (Entered: 07/20/2017)
101 OBJECTION to 100 Report and Recommendations filed by WASEEM DAKER (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(ggs) (Entered: 08/03/2017)
102 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by JOHN DEMOULPIED on behalf of JUNE BISHOP, MICHAEL CANNON, BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RUFUS LOGAN, RODNEY MCCLOUD, RICKY MYRICK, WILLIAM POWELL, ERIC SELLERS, RANDY TILLMAN, STEVE UPTON, TIMOTHY WARD, MARGARET WASHINGTON Attorney JOHN DEMOULPIED added to party JUNE BISHOP(pty:dft), Attorney JOHN DEMOULPIED added to party MICHAEL CANNON(pty:dft), Attorney JOHN DEMOULPIED added to party BRUCE CHAPMAN(pty:dft), Attorney JOHN DEMOULPIED added to party RICK JACOBS(pty:dft), Attorney JOHN DEMOULPIED added to party RUFUS LOGAN(pty:dft), Attorney JOHN DEMOULPIED added to party RODNEY MCCLOUD(pty:dft), Attorney JOHN DEMOULPIED added to party RICKY MYRICK(pty:dft), Attorney JOHN DEMOULPIED added to party WILLIAM POWELL(pty:dft), Attorney JOHN DEMOULPIED added to party ERIC SELLERS(pty:dft), Attorney JOHN DEMOULPIED added to party RANDY TILLMAN(pty:dft), Attorney JOHN DEMOULPIED added to party STEVE UPTON(pty:dft), Attorney JOHN DEMOULPIED added to party TIMOTHY WARD(pty:dft), Attorney JOHN DEMOULPIED added to party MARGARET WASHINGTON(pty:dft) (DEMOULPIED, JOHN) (Entered: 08/25/2017)
103 ORDER ADOPTING 100 Report and Recommendations and DENYING 80 Daker's
Motion to Intervene. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 9/15/2017. (tlh) (Entered: 09/15/2017)
104 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 103 Order on Motion to Intervene, Order on Report and Recommendations by WASEEM DAKER. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cma) (Entered: 10/02/2017)

10/02/2017 10/02/2017
10/06/2017 10/06/2017 10/11/2017 10/12/2017
10/12/2017
10/12/2017 10/19/2017 10/19/2017 10/20/2017
11/02/2017

105 MOTION and AFFIDAVIT for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis Filed by WASEEM DAKER. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Account Statement). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(cma) (Entered: 10/02/2017)
106 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re: 100
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 80 MOTION to Intervene filed by
WASEEM DAKER, 103 Order on Motion to Intervene, Order on Report and Recommendations, 104 Notice of Appeal, 105 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis Judge Appealed: The Honorable Marc T. Treadwell. Court Reporter: NONE. Fee Paid: IFP. (cma) (Entered: 10/02/2017)
107 ORDER DENYING 105 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Ordered by
US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 10/6/2017. (tlh) (Entered: 10/06/2017)
108 JOINT MOTION for Protective Order by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM filed by RYAN PRIMERANO. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Joint Motion for Protective Order). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 10/06/2017)
NOTICE OF SETTING: Discovery Hearing set for 10/19/2017 10:00 AM in Macon before US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE. (cma) (Entered: 10/11/2017)
109 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on March 13, 2017, before Judge Charles H. Weigle. Court Reporter/Transcriber Darlene D. Fuller. Volume Number: 1 of 1. The transcript may be inspected at the court or purchased through the court reporter for a period of 90 days. After 90 days, the transcript may be obtained via PACER. REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Complete redaction policy available on the courts website. (cma) (Entered: 10/12/2017)
110 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on November 15, 2016, before Judge CHARLES H WEIGLE: Court Reporter/Transcriber Darlene D. Fuller. Volume Number: 1 of 1. The transcript may be inspected at the court or purchased through the court reporter for a period of 90 days. After 90 days, the transcript may be obtained via PACER. REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Complete redaction policy available on the courts website. (cma) (Entered: 10/12/2017)
111 ORDER granting 108 Motion for Protective Order. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE
JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 10/12/2017. (ggs) (Entered: 10/12/2017)
112 Minute Entry for proceedings held before US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE: Discovery Hearing held on 10/19/2017. Court Reporter: Darlene Fuller. (ggs) (Entered: 10/19/2017)
113 USCA Case Number 17−14458−J re 104 Notice of Appeal filed by WASEEM DAKER. (ggs) (Entered: 10/19/2017)
114 ORDER It is ORDERED that Defendants permit entry on the premises by Plaintiffs
counsel and expert in accordance with the terms set in this Order. The Parties are ORDERED to file briefs on or before November 2, 2017, as to their position regarding whether Dr. Haney should be permitted to review, post hoc, the medical records and institutional records of the inmates he interviews during his SMU visit. The Parties shall have until November 9, 2017, in which to file a response to the opposing party's brief. It is ORDERED that the Discovery Schedule be EXTENDED THIRTY (30) DAYS. The Clerk is DIRECTED to extend the deadlines to the dates provided in this order. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 10/20/2017. (cma) (Entered: 10/20/2017)
115 BRIEF Regarding the Production of Inmates' Institutional Files and Medical Records filed by JUNE BISHOP, MICHAEL CANNON, BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RUFUS LOGAN, RODNEY MCCLOUD, RICKY MYRICK, WILLIAM POWELL, ERIC SELLERS, RANDY TILLMAN, STEVE UPTON, TIMOTHY WARD, MARGARET WASHINGTON re 114 Order,,, (TEASTER, SUSAN) (Entered: 11/02/2017)

11/02/2017 11/09/2017 11/09/2017 11/14/2017 11/16/2017 11/21/2017
11/22/2017 11/28/2017
12/01/2017 12/05/2017 12/07/2017

116 BRIEF Concerning Access to Records filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM re 114 Order,,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Declaration of Dr. Craig Haney, # 2 Exhibit B: Example Subpoena Seeking Prisoner's Institutional File, # 3 Exhibit C: Example Custodian's Affidavit for Prisoner's Institutional File, # 4 Exhibit D: Proposed HIPAA−Compliant Protective Order)(PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 11/02/2017)
117 RESPONSE in Opposition re 116 Brief, (TEASTER, SUSAN) (Entered: 11/09/2017)
118 BRIEF in Response to Defendants' Brief Concerning Access to Records filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM re 114 Order,,, 115 Brief, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Custodian's Affidavit for Plaintiff's Medical Records (Feb. 25, 2016))(PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 11/09/2017)
119 MANDATE of USCA DISMISSING Appeal for failure to prosecute as to 104 Notice of Appeal filed by WASEEM DAKER (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter)(ggs) (Entered: 11/14/2017)
120 BRIEF (Supplemental) Concerning Access to Records filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM re 116 Brief, 118 Brief, 114 Order,,, 115 Brief, 117 RESPONSE in Opposition − Unrelated to a Motion (PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 11/16/2017)
121 ORDER Defendants are ORDERED to disclose the (1) medical records, (2)
mental−health records, and (3) institutional files for the eleven inmates Dr. Haney interviewed on October 26 and 27, 2017. Regarding the institutional files mentioned above, these Documents are to be labeled CONFIDENTIALSUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER, pursuant to this Courts previous Protective Order re 111 Order on Motion for Protective Order. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 11/21/2017. (ggs) (Entered: 11/21/2017)
122 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by AARON MICHAEL LITTMAN on behalf of TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM Attorney AARON MICHAEL LITTMAN added to party TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM(pty:pla) (LITTMAN, AARON) (Entered: 11/22/2017)
123 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER on behalf of JUNE BISHOP, MICHAEL CANNON, BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RUFUS LOGAN, RODNEY MCCLOUD, RICKY MYRICK, WILLIAM POWELL, ERIC SELLERS, RANDY TILLMAN, STEVE UPTON, TIMOTHY WARD, MARGARET WASHINGTON, DWAIN WILLIAMS Attorney ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER added to party JUNE BISHOP(pty:dft), Attorney ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER added to party MICHAEL CANNON(pty:dft), Attorney ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER added to party BRUCE CHAPMAN(pty:dft), Attorney ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER added to party RICK JACOBS(pty:dft), Attorney ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER added to party RUFUS LOGAN(pty:dft), Attorney ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER added to party RODNEY MCCLOUD(pty:dft), Attorney ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER added to party RICKY MYRICK(pty:dft), Attorney ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER added to party WILLIAM POWELL(pty:dft), Attorney ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER added to party ERIC SELLERS(pty:dft), Attorney ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER added to party RANDY TILLMAN(pty:dft), Attorney ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER added to party STEVE UPTON(pty:dft), Attorney ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER added to party TIMOTHY WARD(pty:dft), Attorney ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER added to party MARGARET WASHINGTON(pty:dft), Attorney ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER added to party DWAIN WILLIAMS(pty:dft) (CROWDER, ELIZABETH) (Entered: 11/28/2017)
124 MOTION to Vacate 103 Order on Motion to Intervene, Order on Report and Recommendations Filed by WASEEM DAKER. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(ggs) (Entered: 12/01/2017)
125 Letter from Waseem Daker regarding request for copy of appeal docket report re 106 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to USCA. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cma) (Entered: 12/06/2017)
126 Letter from D. Bunt in response re 125 Letter (ggs) (Entered: 12/07/2017)

12/08/2017 12/14/2017
01/18/2018 02/16/2018 02/16/2018 02/16/2018 02/27/2018
03/06/2018 03/29/2018 04/11/2018 04/11/2018 04/20/2018 05/14/2018 05/14/2018 05/14/2018

127 UNOPPOSED MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM filed by RYAN PRIMERANO. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Extending Discovery Period and Pending Deadlines by 70 Days). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 12/08/2017)
128 ORDER granting 127 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete
DiscoveryDiscovery to be complete by 3/21/2018. Dispositive motions due by 5/2/2018. Expert Reports shall be served on or before 2/28/2018. Daubert motions are due 5//2/2018. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 12/14/2017. (ggs) (Entered: 12/18/2017)
129 Letter from Waseem Daker regarding requests for docket sheets in response to 126 Letter, re 106 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to USCA and 119 USCA Mandate. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cma) (Entered: 01/22/2018)
130 UNOPPOSED MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM filed by RYAN PRIMERANO. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting 60−Day Extension of Discovery Period and Pending Deadlines). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 02/16/2018)
131 ORDER DENYING 124 Motion to Vacate. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE
MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 2/16/2018. (tlh) (Entered: 02/16/2018)
132 USCA Order GRANTING Appellant's Motion to Reinstate the Appeal as to 104 Notice of Appeal filed by WASEEM DAKER (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter)(ggs) (Entered: 02/16/2018)
133 ORDER granting 130 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete
DiscoveryDiscovery to be complete by 5/21/2018. Expert reports due by 4/30/2018. Dispositive motions due by 7/2/2018. Daubert motions due by 7/2/2018. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 2/27/2018 (ggs) (Entered: 02/27/2018)
134 Letter from WASEEM DAKER requesting copy of docket sheet for use in his appeal. re 104 Notice of Appeal, 132 USCA Order. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (DOCKET SHEET MAILED)(ggs) (Entered: 03/06/2018)
135 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 131 Order on Motion to Vacate by WASEEM DAKER. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(ggs) (Entered: 04/11/2018)
136 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re: 135 Notice of Appeal, 131 Order on Motion to Vacate Judge Appealed: Marc T. Treadwell. Court Reporter: N/A. Fee Paid: NOT PAID. (ggs) (Entered: 04/11/2018)
Pursuant to F.R.A.P 11(c) the Clerk of the District Court for the Middle District of Georgia certifies that the record is complete for purposes of this appeal re: 135 Notice of Appeal. The entire record on appeal is available electronically (ggs) (Entered: 04/11/2018)
137 USCA Case Number 18−11509−J re 135 Notice of Appeal filed by WASEEM DAKER. (ans) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
138 UNOPPOSED MOTION for a Status Conference by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM filed by SARAH ELISABETH GERAGHTY.. Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(GERAGHTY, SARAH) (Entered: 05/14/2018)
139 MOTION to Seal Document(s) by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM filed by SARAH ELISABETH GERAGHTY. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order granting motion to file under seal). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(GERAGHTY, SARAH) (Entered: 05/14/2018)
140 AMENDED 1 Complaint against All Defendants by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS, JOHNNY MACK BROWN (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Ga. Dep't of Corr., Special Mgmt. Unit Policy (Sept. 16, 2012), # 2 Exhibit B: Ga. Dep't of Corr., Policy No. IIB09−0004, Special Mgmt. Unit − Tier III (Aug. 1, 2013), # 3 Exhibit C: Ga. Dep't of Corr., Policy No. 209.09, Special Mgmt. Unit − Tier III (Apr. 3, 2015), # 4 Exhibit D: Ga. Dep't of Corr., Policy Information Bulletin (Aug. 8, 2016), # 5 Exhibit E: Ga. Dep't of Corr., Policy No. 209.09, Special Mgmt. Unit −

05/15/2018 05/15/2018 05/15/2018
05/16/2018 05/16/2018
05/16/2018 05/16/2018 05/21/2018
05/25/2018 05/30/2018 05/30/2018 05/30/2018
05/30/2018

Tier III (Nov. 8, 2017))(PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 05/14/2018)
141 ORDER granting 139 Motion to Seal Document. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE
JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 5/15/2018. (ggs) (Entered: 05/15/2018)
142 SEALED DOCUMENT Expert Report (ggs) (Entered: 05/15/2018)
143 ORDER to Produce State Prisoner Timothy Denver Gumm, GDC 814227 for
Federal Hearing on May 30, 2018, 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom E, 475 Mulberry Street, Macon, GA 31201. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 05/15/2018. (cma) (Entered: 05/15/2018)
NOTICE OF SETTING HEARING: Status Conference set for 5/30/2018 10:00 AM in Macon before US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE. Court Reporter Requested.(cma) (Entered: 05/16/2018)
144 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by JUNE BISHOP, MICHAEL CANNON, BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RUFUS LOGAN, RODNEY MCCLOUD, RICKY MYRICK, WILLIAM POWELL, ERIC SELLERS, RANDY TILLMAN, STEVE UPTON, TIMOTHY WARD, MARGARET WASHINGTON, DWAIN WILLIAMS filed by ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER.. Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(CROWDER, ELIZABETH) (Entered: 05/16/2018)
REMARK: Attorney R. Primerano advised that Plaintiff has been moved to Georgia State Prison. (cma) (Entered: 05/16/2018)
REMARK: Spoke with S. Abrams by telephone, 143 Order is sufficient to produce Plaintiff for the 5/30/2018 hearing. She will notify Georgia State Prison to produce him. (cma) (Entered: 05/16/2018)
145 UNOPPOSED MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 140 Amended Complaint,, by JUNE BISHOP, MICHAEL CANNON, BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RUFUS LOGAN, RODNEY MCCLOUD, RICKY MYRICK, WILLIAM POWELL, ERIC SELLERS, RANDY TILLMAN, STEVE UPTON, TIMOTHY WARD, MARGARET WASHINGTON, DWAIN WILLIAMS filed by ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(CROWDER, ELIZABETH) (Entered: 05/21/2018)
146 This is a text only entry; no document issued. ORDER granting 138 Motion
conference. The status conference is scheduled for May 30, 2018, at 10:00, at the William A Bootle Federal Building and Courthouse. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 5/25/2018. (jfb) (Entered: 05/25/2018)
147 Minute Entry for proceedings held before US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE: Status Conference held on 5/30/2018. Court Reporter: FTR Gold.Time in Court: 45 minutes. (cma) (Entered: 05/30/2018)
NOTICE OF SETTING: Status Conference set for 7/6/2018 10:00 AM in Macon before US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE. (cma) (Entered: 05/30/2018)
148 ORDER to Produce State Prisoner Timothy Denver Gumm, GDC 814227 for
Federal Hearing on July 6, 2018, 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom E, First Floor, 475 Mulberry Street, Macon, GA 31201. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 05/30/2018. (cma) (Entered: 05/30/2018)
149 SCHEDULING ORDER:(Discovery to be complete by 7/30/2018. ), ORDER
GRANTING re 144 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and GRANTING 145 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 140 Amended Complaint. Defendants may have until June 11, 2018, in which to file an answer to Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 140). Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 05/30/2018. (cma) Modified on 5/31/2018 to add dates (cma). (Entered: 05/30/2018)

06/11/2018 06/13/2018 06/19/2018 06/27/2018 07/05/2018 07/05/2018
07/06/2018

150 ANSWER to 140 Amended Complaint,, by GEORGE BALL, JUNE BISHOP, MICHAEL CANNON, BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RUFUS LOGAN, RODNEY MCCLOUD, RICKY MYRICK, WILLIAM POWELL, ERIC SELLERS, THOMAS SUMPTER, RANDY TILLMAN, STEVE UPTON, TIMOTHY WARD, MARGARET WASHINGTON, DWAIN WILLIAMS with Jury Demand. Related document: 140 Amended Complaint,, filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, JOHNNY MACK BROWN, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS.(CROWDER, ELIZABETH)Attorney ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER added to party GEORGE BALL(pty:dft), Attorney ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER added to party THOMAS SUMPTER(pty:dft) (Entered: 06/11/2018)
151 RESPONSE TO ORAL MOTION re: Plaintiffs' Oral Motion For Permission to File Redacted Expert Report by GEORGE BALL, JUNE BISHOP, MICHAEL CANNON, BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RUFUS LOGAN, RODNEY MCCLOUD, RICKY MYRICK, WILLIAM POWELL, ERIC SELLERS, THOMAS SUMPTER, RANDY TILLMAN, STEVE UPTON, TIMOTHY WARD, MARGARET WASHINGTON, DWAIN WILLIAMS re 147 Status Conference (TEASTER, SUSAN) Modified on 6/14/2018 (ggs). (Entered: 06/13/2018)
152 REPLY to RESPONSE TO ORAL MOTION filed by JOHNNY MACK BROWN, TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS re 151 RESPONSE TO ORAL MOTION re: Plaintiffs' Oral Motion For Permission to File Redacted Expert Report, 149 Scheduling/Discovery Order, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Ltr. from Pls. to Defs. (May 3, 2018), # 2 Exhibit B: Ltr. from Defs. to Pls. (May 8, 2018))(PRIMERANO, RYAN) Modified on 6/20/2018 to edit docket text. (ggs). (Entered: 06/19/2018)
153 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on 10/19/2017, before Judge Charles H. Weigle. Court Reporter Darlene D. Fuller. The transcript may be inspected at the court or purchased through the court reporter for a period of 90 days. After 90 days, the transcript may be obtained via PACER. REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Complete redaction policy available on the courts website. (ddf) (Entered: 06/27/2018)
NOTICE OF RESETTING: Status Conference set for 7/6/2018 10:30 AM in Macon before US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE. ONLY THE TIME HAS CHANGED.: (cma) (Entered: 07/05/2018)
154 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by JOHNNY MACK BROWN, TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS filed by RYAN PRIMERANO. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction, # 2 Exhibit Index, # 3 Exhibit 1: Expert Report of Dr. Craig Haney, # 4 Exhibit 2: Declarations of 25 SMU Prisoners (Redacted), # 5 Exhibit 3: Transcript, Deposition of Timothy Ward, # 6 Exhibit 4: Transcript, Deposition of Ricky Myrick, # 7 Exhibit 5: Transcript, Deposition of Steve Upton, # 8 Exhibit 6: Transcript, Deposition of Rick Jacobs, # 9 Exhibit 7: Transcript, Deposition of Randy Tillman, # 10 Exhibit 8: Transcript, Deposition of Eric Sellers, # 11 Exhibit 9: Transcript, Deposition of William Powell, # 12 Exhibit 10: Transcript, Deposition of June Bishop, # 13 Exhibit 11: Transcript, Deposition of Dwain Williams, # 14 Exhibit 12: Transcript, Deposition of Jack Koon, # 15 Exhibit 13: Transcript, Deposition of Otis Stanton, # 16 Exhibit 14: Affidavit of Steve Upton, # 17 Exhibit 15: Declaration of June Bishop, # 18 Exhibit 16: Def. Jacobs's Resp. to Pl.'s 1st Interrog. (Transfers, Jan. 2010 to Feb. 2017), # 19 Exhibit 17: Ga. Dep't of Corr., Specialized Mental Health Treatment Units Handout, # 20 Exhibit 18: Tier III/SMU Program Completion Report, # 21 Exhibit 19: SMU Inmate Handbook, # 22 Exhibit 20: Ga. Dep't of Corr., Policy No. VG32−0001 (Mental Health Levels of Care), # 23 Exhibit 21: SMU Inmate Roster, Oct. 26, 2017, # 24 Exhibit 22: Mental Health History Summaries, # 25 Exhibit 23: SMU Inmate Roster, Nov. 20, 2017 (Showing Mental Health Treatment Level), # 26 Exhibit 24: Records Concerning Recent Suicides, # 27 Exhibit 25: E−Wing Logbook (Excerpt), # 28 Exhibit 26: Def. Cannon's Resp. to Pl.'s 2d RFP (Prisoners Awaiting Bed Space), # 29 Exhibit 27: Def. Sellers's Supp. Resp. to Pl.'s 2d RFP (Movement Histories, July 2017)). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 07/05/2018)
155 Certificate of Need to File Discovery by JOHNNY MACK BROWN, TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS. Related document: 154 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM,

07/06/2018 07/06/2018 07/10/2018 07/10/2018
07/10/2018 07/10/2018 07/13/2018
07/13/2018 07/13/2018

JOHNNY MACK BROWN, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS.(PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 07/06/2018)
156 MOTION to Seal Document(s) 154 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by JOHNNY MACK BROWN, TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS filed by RYAN PRIMERANO. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Motion for Leave to File Under Seal). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 07/06/2018)
157 Minute Entry for proceedings held before US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE: Status Conference held on 7/6/2018. Court Reporter: Tammy DiRocco. Time in Court: 30 minutes. (cma) Modified on 7/17/2018 to correct Court Reporter. Court Reporter on the attached document should also reflect Tammy DiRocco as Court Reporter (cma). (Entered: 07/09/2018)
158 SCHEDULING ORDER: Defendants will have 21 days from the date of the
conference, or through July 27, 2018, to file a response, and Plaintiff will have 14 days to file a reply to 154 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff will have until July 30, 2018 to file a renewed Motion for Class Certification. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 07/10/2018. (mdm) (Entered: 07/10/2018)
159 Discovery Materials − Redacted Expert Report of Dr. Craig Haney by JOHNNY MACK BROWN, TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS. Related document: 155 Certificate of Need to File Discovery, filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, JOHNNY MACK BROWN, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS, 154 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, JOHNNY MACK BROWN, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1: Redacted Expert Report of Dr. Craig Haney (Exhibit 1 to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 154)))(PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 07/10/2018)
ORAL MOTION for Leave to File redacted report of Dr. Haney on the public docket by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM filed by SARAH ELISABETH GERAGHTY.Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(mdm) (Entered: 07/11/2018)
160 ORDER re: ORAL MOTION for Leave to File redacted report of Dr. Haney on the
public docket. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 07/10/2018. (mdm) (Entered: 07/11/2018)
161 AMENDED MOTION to Certify Class by JOHNNY MACK BROWN, TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS filed by RYAN PRIMERANO. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Amended Motion to Certify Class, # 2 Exhibit Index 1 of 2: Previously Filed Exhibits (Ex. 1 to 27), # 3 Exhibit Index 2 of 2: Additional Exhibits in Support of Class Certification (Ex. 28 to 35), # 4 Exhibit 28: Transcript, Deposition of Dr. Craig Haney, # 5 Exhibit 29: Transcript, Deposition of Timothy Gumm (Redacted Version), # 6 Exhibit 30: Transcript, Deposition of Michael Cannon, # 7 Exhibit 31: Transcript, Deposition of Karen Forts, # 8 Exhibit 32: Affidavit of Michael Moore, # 9 Exhibit 33: Movement Histories, Oct. 26, 2017 (Under Seal), # 10 Exhibit 34: Example SMU Assignment Memoranda (Under Seal), # 11 Exhibit 35: Example SMU 90−Day Review Forms (Under Seal)). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(PRIMERANO, RYAN) Modified on 7/16/2018 to edit docket text. (ggs). (Entered: 07/13/2018)
162 MOTION to Seal Document(s) 161 MOTION to Certify Class by JOHNNY MACK BROWN, TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS filed by RYAN PRIMERANO. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Motion for Leave to File Under Seal). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
163 Certificate of Need to File Discovery by JOHNNY MACK BROWN, TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS. Related document: 161 MOTION to Certify Class filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, JOHNNY MACK BROWN, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS.(PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 07/13/2018)

07/16/2018 07/16/2018 07/17/2018 07/17/2018
07/17/2018 07/20/2018 07/24/2018 07/26/2018 08/01/2018
08/09/2018

164 ORDER granting 162 Motion to Seal Document re: 161 MOTION to Certify Class.
Plaintiffs are directed to file under seal Exhibits 29, 33, 34 and 35. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 7/16/2018. (ggs) (Entered: 07/16/2018)
165 ORDER granting 156 Motion to Seal Document re: 154 MOTION for Preliminary
Injunction. Plaintiffs are directed to file under seal Exhibits 2, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 7/16/2018. (ggs) (Entered: 07/16/2018)
166 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference Proceedings held on 7−6−18, before Judge Weigle. Court Reporter Tammy W. DiRocco. Volume Number: 1 of 1. The transcript may be inspected at the court or purchased through the court reporter for a period of 90 days. After 90 days, the transcript may be obtained via PACER. REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Complete redaction policy available on the courts website. (Tammy W. DiRocco) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
167 SEALED DOCUMENT Exhibits re: 154 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by JOHNNY MACK BROWN, TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS filed by RYAN PRIMERANO. Exhibit 2 − Declarations of 25 Prisoners (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 21 − Inmate Roster 10/26/17, # 2 Exhibit 22 − Mental Health History Summaries, # 3 Exhibit 23 − Inmate Roster Showing Mental Health Level 11/20/2017, # 4 Exhibit 24 − Records Concerning Recent Suicides, # 5 Exhibit 25 − E−Wing Logbook, # 6 Exhibit 26 − Def. Cannon's Response to Plaintiff's 2nd Request for Production, # 7 Exhibit 27 − Defendant Sellers' Supplemental Response to Plaintiff's 2nd Request for Production)(ggs) Modified on 7/17/2018 to link document to motion. (ggs). (Entered: 07/17/2018)
168 SEALED DOCUMENT Exhibits re 161 AMENDED MOTION to Certify Class by JOHNNY MACK BROWN, TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS filed by RYAN PRIMERANO; Exhibit 29 − Gumm Deposition (Unredacted), (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 33 − Movement Histories, # 2 Exhibit 34 − Assignment Memoranda, # 3 Exhibit 35 − 90−Day Review Forms)(ggs) Modified on 7/17/2018 to link document to motion. (ggs). (Entered: 07/17/2018)
169 MOTION of Interested Party Requesting Ad Hoc Permission to Appear and File an Amicus Curie Brief in Support of Plaintiff Hjalmar Rodriguez, Jr.'s Position (i.e. Similarly Situated Person) Filed by HJALMAR RODRIGUEZ, JR. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(ggs) (Entered: 07/20/2018)
170 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 5−30−18, before Judge Weigle. Court Reporter Tammy W. DiRocco. Volume Number: 1 of 1 status conference hearing. The transcript may be inspected at the court or purchased through the court reporter for a period of 90 days. After 90 days, the transcript may be obtained via PACER. REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Complete redaction policy available on the courts website. (Tammy W. DiRocco) (Entered: 07/24/2018)
171 RESPONSE filed by GEORGE BALL, JUNE BISHOP, MICHAEL CANNON, BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RUFUS LOGAN, RODNEY MCCLOUD, RICKY MYRICK, WILLIAM POWELL, ERIC SELLERS, THOMAS SUMPTER, RANDY TILLMAN, STEVE UPTON, TIMOTHY WARD, MARGARET WASHINGTON, DWAIN WILLIAMS re 154 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 1 − Jackson Declaration, # 2 2 − Myrick Declaration)(CROWDER, ELIZABETH) (Entered: 07/26/2018)
172 RESPONSE filed by GEORGE BALL, JUNE BISHOP, MICHAEL CANNON, BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RUFUS LOGAN, RODNEY MCCLOUD, RICKY MYRICK, WILLIAM POWELL, ERIC SELLERS, THOMAS SUMPTER, RANDY TILLMAN, STEVE UPTON, TIMOTHY WARD, MARGARET WASHINGTON, DWAIN WILLIAMS re 169 MOTION of Interested Party Requesting Ad Hoc Permission to Appear and File an Amicus Curie Brief in Support of Plaintiff Hjalmar Rodriguez, Jr.'s Position (i.e. Similarly Situated Person) (CROWDER, ELIZABETH) (Entered: 08/01/2018)
173 REPLY to Response filed by JOHNNY MACK BROWN, TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS re 154 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index (Amended), # 2 Exhibit 36: Declarations of Four

08/09/2018 08/13/2018
08/22/2018
08/22/2018 08/23/2018 08/27/2018 09/13/2018
09/17/2018 09/18/2018 09/20/2018 09/21/2018 09/25/2018 09/28/2018

SMU Prisoners (Redacted), # 3 Exhibit 37: Report of Dr. Jeffrey Metzner (2017), # 4 Exhibit 38: Report of Dr. Jeffrey Metzner (2016), # 5 Exhibit 39: Report of Dr. Jeffrey Metzner (2015))(PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 08/09/2018)
174 MOTION to Seal Document(s) 154 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by JOHNNY MACK BROWN, TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS filed by RYAN PRIMERANO. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Leave to File Under Seal Exhibit 36 to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 08/09/2018)
175 RESPONSE filed by GEORGE BALL, JUNE BISHOP, MICHAEL CANNON, BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RUFUS LOGAN, RODNEY MCCLOUD, RICKY MYRICK, WILLIAM POWELL, ERIC SELLERS, THOMAS SUMPTER, RANDY TILLMAN, STEVE UPTON, TIMOTHY WARD, MARGARET WASHINGTON, DWAIN WILLIAMS re 161 MOTION to Certify Class (CROWDER, ELIZABETH) (Entered: 08/13/2018)
176 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs JOHNNY MACK BROWN, TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS re 169 MOTION of Interested Party Requesting Ad Hoc Permission to Appear and File an Amicus Curie Brief in Support of Plaintiff Hjalmar Rodriguez, Jr.'s Position (i.e. Similarly Situated Person) (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of James Wilkes, # 2 Declaration of Raemon Moore, # 3 Declaration of Tavokious Tye, # 4 Exhibit 1 − Receipt for Administrative Segregation: Tier II Program Assignment Appeal Form (Hjalmar Rodriguez, Jr.), # 5 Exhibit Witness Statement of Cecil Epps, # 6 Envelope)(ggs) (Entered: 08/22/2018)
177 ORDER granting 174 Motion to Seal Document. The Clerk is directed to file under
seal the unredacted version of Exhibit 36. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 8/21/2018. (ggs) (Entered: 08/22/2018)
178 SEALED DOCUMENT Exhibit 36 re 154 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by JOHNNY MACK BROWN, TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS. (ggs) Modified 8/23/2018 to add docket text. (Entered: 08/23/2018)
179 REPLY to Response filed by JOHNNY MACK BROWN, TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS re 161 MOTION to Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Amended Motion to Certify Class)(PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 08/27/2018)
180 NOTICE of Filing of Supplemental Declarations in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction by JOHNNY MACK BROWN, TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS re 154 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit : Third Declaration of Robert Watkins, # 2 Exhibit : Third Declaration of M.J., # 3 Exhibit : Second Declaration of D.B.)(PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 09/13/2018)
NOTICE OF SETTING: Telephone Conference set for 9/18/2018 10:00 AM in Macon before US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE. Teleconferencing instructions emailed to counsel.(cma) (Entered: 09/17/2018)
181 Minute Order: Proceedings held before US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE: Telephone Conference held on 9/18/2018. (Court Reporter Darlene Fuller.) (cma) (Entered: 09/19/2018)
182 TRANSCRIPT of Telephone Conference held on 09/18/2018, before Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle. Court Reporter Darlene D. Fuller. The transcript may be inspected at the court or purchased through the court reporter for a period of 90 days. After 90 days, the transcript may be obtained via PACER. REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Complete redaction policy available on the courts website. (ddf) (Entered: 09/20/2018)
183 Discovery Order Memorandum sent to parties.(ggs) (Entered: 09/21/2018)
NOTICE OF SETTING : Evidentiary Hearing set for 10/11/2018 09:00 AM in Macon before US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE. (cma) (Entered: 09/25/2018)
184 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by ROBERT B. SHAPIRO on behalf of All Defendants Attorney ROBERT B. SHAPIRO added to party GEORGE

10/01/2018 10/01/2018 10/01/2018 10/02/2018 10/02/2018 10/02/2018 10/05/2018 10/05/2018 10/05/2018 10/05/2018

BALL(pty:dft), Attorney ROBERT B. SHAPIRO added to party JUNE BISHOP(pty:dft), Attorney ROBERT B. SHAPIRO added to party MICHAEL CANNON(pty:dft), Attorney ROBERT B. SHAPIRO added to party BRUCE CHAPMAN(pty:dft), Attorney ROBERT B. SHAPIRO added to party RICK JACOBS(pty:dft), Attorney ROBERT B. SHAPIRO added to party RUFUS LOGAN(pty:dft), Attorney ROBERT B. SHAPIRO added to party RODNEY MCCLOUD(pty:dft), Attorney ROBERT B. SHAPIRO added to party RICKY MYRICK(pty:dft), Attorney ROBERT B. SHAPIRO added to party WILLIAM POWELL(pty:dft), Attorney ROBERT B. SHAPIRO added to party ERIC SELLERS(pty:dft), Attorney ROBERT B. SHAPIRO added to party THOMAS SUMPTER(pty:dft), Attorney ROBERT B. SHAPIRO added to party RANDY TILLMAN(pty:dft), Attorney ROBERT B. SHAPIRO added to party STEVE UPTON(pty:dft), Attorney ROBERT B. SHAPIRO added to party TIMOTHY WARD(pty:dft), Attorney ROBERT B. SHAPIRO added to party MARGARET WASHINGTON(pty:dft), Attorney ROBERT B. SHAPIRO added to party DWAIN WILLIAMS(pty:dft) (SHAPIRO, ROBERT) (Entered: 09/28/2018)
185 Discovery Status Report by JOHNNY MACK BROWN, TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Original Subpoena, # 2 Exhibit B: Commissioner's Objections to Subpoena, # 3 Exhibit C: Amended Subpoena)(PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 10/01/2018)
186 ORDER to Produce State Prisoner JOHNNY MACK BROWN, GDC 350071 for
Federal Hearing on 10/11/2018, 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom B, second floor of the United States Courthouse, 475 Mulberry Street, Macon, Georgia. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 10/01/2018. (cma) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
187 ORDER to Produce State Prisoner TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, GDC 814227 for
Federal Hearing on 10/11/2018, 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom B, second floor of the United States Courthouse, 475 Mulberry Street, Macon, Georgia. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 10/01/2018. (cma) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
188 ORDER to Produce State Prisoner ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS, GDC 1245402
for Federal Hearing on 10/11/2018, 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom B second Floor of the United State Courthouse, 475 Mulberry Street, Macon, Georgia. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 10/01/2018. (cma) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
NOTICE OF SETTING: Evidentiary Hearing set for 10/16/2018 09:00 AM in Macon before US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE. (cma) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
NOTICE OF SETTING: Evidentiary Hearing set for 10/17/2018 09:00 AM in Macon before US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE. (cma) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
189 ORDER to Produce State Prisoner JOHNNY MACK BROWN, GDC 350071 for
Federal Hearing on OCTOBER 16, 2018, 9:00 a.m. in COURTROOM B, 475 MULBERRY STREET, MACON, GA. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 10/02/2018. (cma) (Entered: 10/05/2018)
190 ORDER to Produce State Prisoner JOHNNY MACK BROWN, GDC 350071 for
Federal Hearing on OCTOBER 17, 2018, 9:00 a.m. in COURTROOM B, 475 MULBERRY STREET, MACON, GA. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 10/02/2018. (cma) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/9/2018: # 1 Corrected Document) (cma). (Entered: 10/05/2018)
191 ORDER to Produce State Prisoner ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS, GDC 1245402
for Federal Hearing on OCTOBER 16, 2018, 9:00 a.m. in COURTROOM B, 475 MULBERRY STREET, MACON, GA. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 10/02/2018. (cma) (Entered: 10/05/2018)
192 ORDER to Produce State Prisoner ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS, GDC 1245402
for Federal Hearing on OCTOBER 17, 2018, 9:00 a.m. in COURTROOM B, 475

10/05/2018 10/05/2018 10/05/2018 10/09/2018 10/09/2018 10/09/2018 10/11/2018 10/12/2018 10/12/2018 10/12/2018 10/16/2018
10/16/2018
10/16/2018
11/05/2018

MULBERRY STREET, MACON, GA. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 10/02/20108. (cma) (Entered: 10/05/2018)
193 ORDER to Produce State Prisoner TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, GDC 814227 for
Federal Hearing on OCTOBER 16, 2018, 9:00 a.m. in COURTROOM B, 475 MULBERRY STREET, MACON, GA. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 10/02/2018. (cma) (Entered: 10/05/2018)
194 ORDER to Produce State Prisoner TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, GDC 814227 for
Federal Hearing on OCTOBER 17, 2018, 9:00 a.m. in COURTROOM B, 475 MULBERRY STREET, MACON, GA. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 10/02/2018. (cma) (Entered: 10/05/2018)
195 Witness List by JOHNNY MACK BROWN, TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS(PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 10/05/2018)
NOTICE OF SETTING: Telephone Conference set for 10/9/2018 04:00 PM in Macon before US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE. Teleconferencing instructions emailed to counsel.(cma) (Entered: 10/09/2018)
NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF Evidentiary Hearing set for 10/11/2018 09:00 AM in Macon before US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE. Courtroom B, Second Floor. (cma) (Entered: 10/09/2018)
196 Minute Order: Proceedings held before US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE: Telephone Conference held on 10/9/2018. (Court Reporter Darlene Fuller and FTR Gold.) (cma) (Entered: 10/10/2018)
NOTICE OF SETTING: Telephone Conference set for 10/12/2018 10:00 AM in Macon before US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE. Teleconferencing instructions emailed to counsel.(cma) (Entered: 10/11/2018)
NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS set for 10/16/2018 and 10/17/2018 both at 09:00 AM in Macon before US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE. (cma) (Entered: 10/12/2018)
197 Minute Entry for proceedings held before US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE: Telephone Conference held on 10/12/2018. Hearing for the testimony of Dr. Haney is set for 11/20/2018 at 9:00 a.m. Court Reporter: Tammy Fletcher.Time in Court: 10 minutes. (cma) (Entered: 10/12/2018)
NOTICE OF SETTING: Evidentiary Hearing set for 11/20/2018 09:00 AM in Macon in Courtroom B−second floor before US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE.(cma) (Entered: 10/12/2018)
198 ORDER to Produce State Prisoner TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, GDC 814227 for
Federal Hearing on NOVEMBER 20, 2018, 9:00 A.M. at 475 MULBERRY STREET, MACON, GEORGIA. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 10/16/2018. (cma) (Entered: 10/16/2018)
199 ORDER to Produce State Prisoner ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS, GDC 1245402
for Federal Hearing on NOVEMBER 20, 2018, 9:00 A.M. at 475 MULBERRY STREET, MACON, GA. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 10/16/2018. (cma) (Entered: 10/16/2018)
200 ORDER to Produce State Prisoner JOHNNY MACK BROWN, GDC 350071 for
Federal Hearing on NOVEMBER 20, 2018, 9:00 A.M. at 475 MULBERRY STREET, MACON, GA. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 10/16/2018. (cma) (Entered: 10/16/2018)
201 MANDATE of USCA DISMISSING appeal for failure to prosecute as to 135 Notice of Appeal filed by WASEEM DAKER (ggs) (Entered: 11/05/2018)

11/09/2018 11/19/2018 11/19/2018 11/20/2018
11/30/2018
12/12/2018 12/21/2018
01/07/2019 01/16/2019 01/16/2019 01/17/2019 01/18/2019 01/22/2019
01/25/2019

202 UNOPPOSED MOTION to Dismiss Party JOHNNY MACK BROWN by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, JOHNNY MACK BROWN, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS filed by RYAN PRIMERANO.. Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 11/09/2018)
203 JOINT MOTION to Continue Evidentiary Hearing by JOHNNY MACK BROWN, TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS filed by RYAN PRIMERANO. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Postponing Hearing). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 11/19/2018)
NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF Evidentiary Hearing set for 11/20/2018 09:00 AM in Macon in Courtroom B−second floor before US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE. (cma) (Entered: 11/19/2018)
204 ORDER granting 203 Motion to Continue. The parties shall file a joint status report
on or before November 30, 2018, notifying the Court of the status of settlement discussions and, if no settlement has been reached, proposing new dates for an evidentiary hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 11/19/2018 (cma) (Entered: 11/20/2018)
205 JOINT STATUS REPORT / RESPONSE to Court Order filed by GEORGE BALL, JUNE BISHOP, MICHAEL CANNON, BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RUFUS LOGAN, RODNEY MCCLOUD, RICKY MYRICK, WILLIAM POWELL, ERIC SELLERS, THOMAS SUMPTER, RANDY TILLMAN, STEVE UPTON, TIMOTHY WARD, MARGARET WASHINGTON, DWAIN WILLIAMS (CROWDER, ELIZABETH) Modified on 12/3/2018 to edit docket text.(ggs). (Entered: 11/30/2018)
206 MANDATE (CORRECTED) of USCA DISMISSING appeal as to 135 Notice of Appeal filed by WASEEM DAKER (ggs) (Entered: 12/12/2018)
207 JOINT MOTION for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS filed by RYAN PRIMERANO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Settlement Agreement Regarding the Special Management Unit (SMU), # 2 Exhibit B: Notice to Class Members of Proposed Class Action Settlement, # 3 Exhibit C: Proposed Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 12/21/2018)
208 NOTICE of Change of Address (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(ans) (Entered: 01/07/2019)
NOTICE OF SETTING HEARING: Telephone Conference set for 1/17/2019 at 4:00 PM in Macon before US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL. Teleconferencing instructions emailed to counsel. (kat) (Entered: 01/16/2019)
209 ORDER GRANTING 202 Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Party. Plaintiff Johnny
Mack Brown is DISMISSED without prejudice. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 1/16/2019. (kat) (Entered: 01/16/2019)
210 ORDER GRANTING 207 Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement Agreement. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 1/17/2019. (kat) (Entered: 01/17/2019)
211 Minute Entry for proceedings held before US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL: Telephone Conference held on 1/17/2019. Court Reporter: FTR. (kat) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
212 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 1/17/19, before Judge MARC T. TREADWELL. Court Reporter/Transcriber SALLY GRAY. The transcript may be inspected at the court or purchased through the court reporter for a period of 90 days. After 90 days, the transcript may be obtained via PACER. REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Complete redaction policy available on the courts website. (slg) (Entered: 01/22/2019)
213 TRANSCRIPT of Telephone Conference held on 10/09/2018, before Judge Charles H. Weigle. Court Reporter Darlene D. Fuller. The transcript may be inspected at the court

02/05/2019 02/06/2019 02/21/2019 02/21/2019
02/21/2019
03/04/2019
03/07/2019 03/15/2019 03/19/2019 03/19/2019 03/21/2019 03/21/2019 03/22/2019

or purchased through the court reporter for a period of 90 days. After 90 days, the transcript may be obtained via PACER. REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Complete redaction policy available on the courts website. (ddf) (Entered: 01/25/2019)
214 ORDER DENYING without prejudice 154 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and
161 Motion to Certify Class. In the event the settlement agreement is not approved, the Plaintiffs may reinstate those motions by providing notice. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 2/5/2019. (kat) (Entered: 02/05/2019)
215 ORDER denying 169 Motion to File and Amicus Curiae Brief filed by Hjalmar
Rodriguez. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES H WEIGLE on 2/6/2019. (ggs) (Entered: 02/06/2019)
NOTICE OF SETTING FAIRNESS HEARING for 4/30/2019 at 10:00 AM in Macon before US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL (per 210 , ORDER GRANTING 207 Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement). (kat) (Entered: 02/21/2019)
216 NOTICE Filing by GEORGE BALL, JUNE BISHOP, MICHAEL CANNON, BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RUFUS LOGAN, RODNEY MCCLOUD, RICKY MYRICK, WILLIAM POWELL, ERIC SELLERS, THOMAS SUMPTER, RANDY TILLMAN, STEVE UPTON, TIMOTHY WARD, MARGARET WASHINGTON, DWAIN WILLIAMS (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Class Action Settlement)(CROWDER, ELIZABETH) (Entered: 02/21/2019)
217 EXHIBIT(S) Exhibit A to Notice of Filing − Acknowledgment of Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement by GEORGE BALL, JUNE BISHOP, MICHAEL CANNON, BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RUFUS LOGAN, RODNEY MCCLOUD, RICKY MYRICK, WILLIAM POWELL, ERIC SELLERS, THOMAS SUMPTER, RANDY TILLMAN, STEVE UPTON, TIMOTHY WARD, MARGARET WASHINGTON, DWAIN WILLIAMS re 216 Notice (Other), (CROWDER, ELIZABETH) Modified on 2/21/2019 to edit docket text. (ggs). (Entered: 02/21/2019)
218 NOTICE of Objections to Proposed Settlement Agreement by WASEEM DAKER re 216 Notice (Other), (Attachments: # 1 Objection to Settlement Agreement of Jeffrey Alan Bourassa, # 2 Exhibit A − GDC Offender Page re: Jeffrey Alan Bourassa, # 3 Bourassa Envelope)(ggs) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/4/2019: # 4 Daker envelope) (ggs). (Entered: 03/04/2019)
219 NOTICE Objection to Proposed Settlement Agreement re 216 Notice of Filing Proposed Class Action Settlement, (Attachments: # 1 SMU Tier III Program Assignment Request Form as to Melvin Jackson, # 2 Envelope)(ggs) (Entered: 03/07/2019)
220 NOTICE from Joseph A. Gitters regarding Settlement Agreement (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(vs) Modified on 3/19/2019 to edit docket text (ggs). (Entered: 03/15/2019)
221 NOTICE of Objections to Proposed Settlement Agreement by XAVIER WILCOX re 216 Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(ggs) (Entered: 03/19/2019)
222 NOTICE of Objection to Proposed Settlement Agreement by MELVIN JACKSON re 216 Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement. (Attachments: # 1 Grievance, # 2 Grievance, # 3 Disciplinary Report, # 4 Warden's Rejected Grievance Response, # 5 Envelope)(ggs) (Entered: 03/19/2019)
223 NOTICE of Objection to Proposed Settlement Agreement by CHARLES SHEPARD re 216 Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(ggs) (Entered: 03/21/2019)
224 NOTICE of Objection to Proposed Settlement Agreement by DAVID ZAVALA re 216 Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Envelope)(ggs) (Entered: 03/21/2019)
225 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS to Proposed Settlement Agreement by WASEEM DAKER re 218 Notice of Objections, 216 Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(ggs) (Entered: 03/22/2019)

03/25/2019 03/25/2019 03/25/2019 03/25/2019 03/25/2019 03/26/2019 03/26/2019 03/26/2019 03/28/2019 04/04/2019 04/04/2019 04/11/2019 04/12/2019 04/12/2019
04/15/2019

226 NOTICE of Objection to Proposed Settlement Agreement by ZJUANTAVIOUS M. JACKSON re 216 Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(ggs) (Entered: 03/25/2019)
227 NOTICE of Second Objections to Proposed Settlement Agreement by JEFFREY BOURASSA re 216 Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(ggs) (Entered: 03/25/2019)
228 MOTION to Intervene by JEFFREY BOURASSA (Attachments: # 1 Envelope). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(ggs) (Entered: 03/25/2019)
229 NOTICE of Objection to Proposed Settlement Agreement by TAVARES DOUGLAS HARRIS re 216 Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement, (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(ggs) Modified on 3/25/2019 to edit docket text. (ggs). (Entered: 03/25/2019)
230 MOTION to Correct Docket re 218 Notice of Objections to Proposed Settlement Agreement, Filed by WASEEM DAKER. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Envelope). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(ggs) (Entered: 03/25/2019)
231 NOTICE of Objection to Proposed Settlement Agreement by CLEMMIET CARTER, JR. re 216 Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(ggs) Modified on 3/26/2019 to edit docket text. (ggs). (Entered: 03/26/2019)
232 NOTICE of Objection to Proposed Settlement Agreement by DONTAVIOUS YOUNG re 216 Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(ggs) Modified on 3/26/2019 to edit docket text. (ggs). (Entered: 03/26/2019)
233 NOTICE of Objection to Proposed Settlement Agreement by GORDON EVENS re 216 Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Envelope)(ggs) (Entered: 03/26/2019)
234 NOTICE of Objections to Proposed Settlement Agreement by DARRELL SCOTT re 216 Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(ggs) Modified on 3/28/2019 to add name of objector. (ggs). (Entered: 03/28/2019)
235 NOTICE of Declaration of DAVID ZAVALA re 216 Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement. (Attachments: # 1 Witness Statement of David Zavala 3/29/2019, # 2 Envelope)(ggs) Modified on 4/4/2019 to link to document. (ggs). (Entered: 04/04/2019)
236 NOTICE of Declaration of SEAN BEST re 216 Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment, # 2 Envelope)(ggs) (Entered: 04/04/2019)
237 PLAINTIFF'S PRE−HEARING BRIEF/RESPONSE to Court Order filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS re 210 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (LITTMAN, AARON) Modified on 4/12/2019 (ggs). (Entered: 04/11/2019)
238 NOTICE of Objection to Proposed Settlement Agreement by SEAN BEST re 216 Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(ggs) (Entered: 04/12/2019)
239 BRIEF , Defendants' Pre−Hearing filed by GEORGE BALL, JUNE BISHOP, MICHAEL CANNON, BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RUFUS LOGAN, RODNEY MCCLOUD, RICKY MYRICK, WILLIAM POWELL, ERIC SELLERS, THOMAS SUMPTER, RANDY TILLMAN, STEVE UPTON, TIMOTHY WARD, MARGARET WASHINGTON, DWAIN WILLIAMS re 210 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (CROWDER, ELIZABETH) (Entered: 04/12/2019)
240 RESPONSE filed by GEORGE BALL, JUNE BISHOP, MICHAEL CANNON, BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RUFUS LOGAN, RODNEY MCCLOUD, RICKY MYRICK, WILLIAM POWELL, ERIC SELLERS, THOMAS SUMPTER, RANDY TILLMAN, STEVE UPTON, TIMOTHY WARD, MARGARET WASHINGTON, DWAIN WILLIAMS re 228 MOTION to Intervene (CROWDER, ELIZABETH) (Entered: 04/15/2019)

04/15/2019 04/15/2019 04/15/2019 04/16/2019 04/16/2019
04/16/2019 04/16/2019 04/25/2019 04/29/2019 05/01/2019 05/02/2019
05/02/2019
05/06/2019

241 UNOPPOSED MOTION for Attorney Fees by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS filed by RYAN PRIMERANO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Combined Declarations of Plaintiffs' Counsel). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 04/15/2019)
242 JOINT MOTION for Order Directing Class Notice Regarding Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS filed by RYAN PRIMERANO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Proposed Notice to Class Members Concerning Motion for Attorneys' Fees). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 04/15/2019)
243 NOTICE Concerning Agreements Made in Connection with Proposed Class Settlement by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS (PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 04/15/2019)
244 Certificate of Need to File Discovery by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS. Related document: 241 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS.(PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 04/16/2019)
245 DEPOSITION of Ahmed Holt taken on October 4, 2018 filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS. Related document: 244 Certificate of Need to File Discovery filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS, 241 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS.(PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 04/16/2019)
246 ORDER to Produce State Prisoner Timothy Denver Gumm, GDC 0000814227 for
Federal Hearing on 4/30/2019 at 10:00 a.m. in United States Courthouse, 475 Mulberry Street, Courtroom A, Macon, Georgia. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 4/16/2019. (kat) (Entered: 04/16/2019)
247 ORDER to Produce State Prisoner Robert Jordan Watkins, GDC 0001245402 for
Federal Hearing on 4/30/2019 at 10:00 a.m. in United States Courthouse, 475 Mulberry Street, Courtroom A, Macon, Georgia. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 4/16/2019. (kat) (Entered: 04/16/2019)
248 REPLY to Response filed by JEFFREY BOURASSA re 228 MOTION to Intervene (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(vs) (Entered: 04/25/2019)
249 MOTION for Permission to Submit Brief Filed by PABLO F MALDONADO. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(vs) (Entered: 04/29/2019)
250 Minute Entry for proceedings held before US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL: Fairness Hearing held on 4/30/2019. Court Reporter: Tammy DiRocco. (kat) (Entered: 05/01/2019)
251 ORDER GRANTING 242 JOINT MOTION for Order Directing Class Notice
Regarding Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees. Plaintiffs' counsel are ORDERED to provide notice by mail to all persons currently held in the SMU no later than May 6, 2019. Class members wishing to object must mail objections to the Clerk of Court postmarked no later than May 27, 2019, as detailed in the notice. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 5/2/2019. (kat) (Entered: 05/02/2019)
252 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 4−30−19, before Judge Treadwell. Court Reporter Tammy W. DiRocco. Volume Number: 1 of 1 Fairness hearing. The transcript may be inspected at the court or purchased through the court reporter for a period of 90 days. After 90 days, the transcript may be obtained via PACER. REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Complete redaction policy available on the courts website. (Tammy W. DiRocco) (Entered: 05/02/2019)
253 ***VACATED*** SETTLEMENT ORDER (Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement). The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Clerk of the Court shall issue a writ of injunction. Ordered by US DISTRICT

05/06/2019 05/06/2019
05/07/2019 05/07/2019 05/10/2019 05/10/2019 05/10/2019 05/14/2019 05/17/2019 05/17/2019
05/17/2019 05/21/2019
05/22/2019
05/22/2019 05/29/2019 05/31/2019 06/04/2019

JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 5/6/2019. (kat) Text Modified on 5/6/2019 (kat). Modified on 5/6/2019 (ggs). (Entered: 05/06/2019)
254 This is a text only entry; no document issued.ORDER VACATING 253 Settlement
Order. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 5/6/2019. (kat) (Entered: 05/06/2019)
255 Exhibit List re 250 Minute Entry − Fairness Hearing held 04/30/2019 by GEORGE BALL, JUNE BISHOP, MICHAEL CANNON, BRUCE CHAPMAN, RICK JACOBS, RUFUS LOGAN, RODNEY MCCLOUD, RICKY MYRICK, WILLIAM POWELL, ERIC SELLERS, THOMAS SUMPTER, RANDY TILLMAN, STEVE UPTON, TIMOTHY WARD, MARGARET WASHINGTON (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Photo, # 2 Exhibit Photo, # 3 Exhibit Photo)(kat) Modified on 5/7/2019 to add Docket Text (vs). (Entered: 05/06/2019)
256 FINAL ORDER AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION. Ordered by US
DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 5/7/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Settlement Agreement)(kat) (Entered: 05/07/2019)
257 JUDGMENT (ggs) (Entered: 05/07/2019)
258 ORDER DENYING 228 Motion to Intervene by Jeffrey Bourassa. Ordered by US
DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 5/10/2019. (kat) (Entered: 05/10/2019)
259 NOTICE of Objection to Prosposed Settlement Agreement re 216 Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(ggs) (Entered: 05/10/2019)
260 MOTION to Intervene Filed by CODY TODD. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Envelope).(ggs) Modified on 6/5/2019 to remove referral judge. (ggs). (Entered: 05/10/2019)
261 Letter from JOSEPH A. GITTENS regarding award of attorneys fees re 241 MOTION for Attorney Fees (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(ggs) (Entered: 05/14/2019)
262 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL as to 258 Order on Motion to Intervene by JEFFREY BOURASSA. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(ggs) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
263 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re: 262 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal, 258 Order on Motion to Intervene Judge Appealed: Marc T. Treadwell. Court Reporter: N/A. Fee: NOT PAID. (ggs) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
264 MOTION to Intervene Filed by GORDON EVANS. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope).(ggs) Modified on 6/11/2019 to remove referral judge. (ggs). (Entered: 05/17/2019)
265 NOTICE of Objection to Proposed Settlement Agreement by CHARLES SHEPARD re 216 Notice of Filing Proposed Settlement Agreement. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(ggs) Modified on 5/22/2019 to edit docket text. (ggs). (Entered: 05/21/2019)
266 JOINT MOTION for Protective Order by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM filed by SARAH ELISABETH GERAGHTY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit proposed order). Motion(s) referred to CHARLES H WEIGLE.(GERAGHTY, SARAH) (Entered: 05/22/2019)
267 USCA Case Number 19−11944−J re 262 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by JEFFREY BOURASSA. (ggs) (Entered: 05/22/2019)
268 Letter from DAVID ZAVALA regarding Attorneys fees re 241 MOTION for Attorney Fees (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(ggs) (Entered: 05/29/2019)
269 Letter from D. Bunt in response re 268 Letter. (Copy of MDGA Local Rules enclosed) (ggs) (Entered: 05/31/2019)
270 PROTECTIVE ORDER GRANTING 266 Joint Motion for Protective Order.
Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 6/4/2019.

06/06/2019 06/10/2019 06/10/2019 06/12/2019
06/18/2019
06/20/2019
06/20/2019 06/24/2019 06/24/2019 07/01/2019
07/03/2019 07/12/2019
07/15/2019
07/16/2019 07/23/2019 07/30/2019

(kat) Modified on 6/5/2019 to edit document title. (ggs). (Entered: 06/04/2019)
271 NOTICE of Change of Address as to JEFFREY BOURASSA (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(ggs) (Entered: 06/06/2019)
272 MANDATE of USCA DISMISSING appeal as to 104 Notice of Appeal filed by WASEEM DAKER (ggs) (Entered: 06/10/2019)
273 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis Filed by JEFFREY BOURASSA. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Envelope). (ggs) Modified on 6/11/2019 to remover referral judge. (ggs). (Entered: 06/10/2019)
274 MOTION to Review IFP Request Without Account Certification and Statement; Alternatively, Motion to Order Prison Officials to Provide Same re 273 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis Filed by JEFFREY BOURASSA. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope). (ggs) Modified on 6/18/2019 to remove referral judge. (ggs). (Entered: 06/12/2019)
275 SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis Filed by JEFFREY BOURASSA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Inmate Information, # 2 Envelope). (ggs) Modified on 6/18/2019 to remove referral judge. (ggs). (Entered: 06/18/2019)
276 Letter from JEFFREY BOURASSA regarding enclosing another copy of motion re 275 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. (Attachments: # 1 Copy of Supplemental Motion for Leave to Appeal IFP, # 2 Envelope)(ggs) (Entered: 06/20/2019)
REMARK: Copy of docket sheet for filings as of 6/17/2019 mailed to JEFFREY BOURASSA. (ggs) (Entered: 06/20/2019)
277 Letter from Waseem Daker regarding Appeal fee payment re 104 Notice of Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(vs) (Entered: 06/24/2019)
Filing fee Paid: Appeal Fee $505.00 (17−14458−J), Receipt Number GAM500032281 as to WASEEM DAKER (vs) Modified on 7/3/2019 to edit docket text. (ggs). (Entered: 06/24/2019)
278 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS filed by AARON MICHAEL LITTMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order). (LITTMAN, AARON) Modified on 7/1/2019 to remove referral judge. (ggs). (Entered: 07/01/2019)
Filing Fee (IFP Denied) Paid: Receipt # AGAMDC−3202237, $400 (PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 07/03/2019)
279 ORDER DENYING 273 and 275 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis; and
TERMINATING as moot 274 Motion to Review IFP Request Without Account Certification and Statement. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to the custodian of the prison in which the Movant is incarcerated. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 7/12/2019. (kat) (Entered: 07/12/2019)
Pursuant to F.R.A.P 11(c) the Clerk of the District Court for the Middle District of Georgia certifies that the record is complete for purposes of this appeal re: 262 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal. The entire record on appeal is available electronically (ggs) (Entered: 07/15/2019)
280 MANDATE of USCA DISMISSING appeal as to 262 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by JEFFREY BOURASSA (ggs) (Entered: 07/16/2019)
281 TRANSCRIPT INFORMATION FORM by JEFFREY BOURASSA. re 262 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal NO TRANSCRIPTS ORDERED (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(ggs) (Entered: 07/24/2019)
282 ORDER granting 241 Motion for Attorney Fees. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE
MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 7/30/2019 (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees) (ggs) (Entered: 07/30/2019)

07/30/2019 07/30/2019 08/01/2019 08/12/2019 08/13/2019
08/14/2019 08/15/2019 08/19/2019
09/06/2019 11/01/2019 03/20/2020 03/20/2020 05/05/2020 06/03/2020 06/08/2020 06/09/2020

283 JUDGMENT on Attorney Fees. (ggs) (Entered: 07/30/2019)
284 NOTICE of Defendants' Breach of Agreement by ROY MANDELL SMITH. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(ggs) (Entered: 07/30/2019)
285 ORDER granting 278 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney by AARON MICHAEL
LITTMAN. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 8/1/2019. (ggs) Modified on 8/2/2019 to edit docket text. (ggs). (Entered: 08/01/2019)
286 STIPULATION of Dismissal by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS as to All Plaintiffs (PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 08/12/2019)
Notice of Deficiency (related document(s): 286 Stipulation of Dismissal filed by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS ); This case was closed on 5/7/2019, therefore a Stipulation of Dismissal is not required. However, a motion, along with a proposed order, requesting the relief contained in this Stipulation of Dismissal must be filed. (ggs) (Entered: 08/13/2019)
287 STIPULATION of Dismissal by TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS as to All Plaintiffs (PRIMERANO, RYAN) (Entered: 08/14/2019)
288 USCA Order: Motion to reinstate appeal filed by Appellant Jeffrey Bourassa is GRANTED by clerk as to 262 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by JEFFREY BOURASSA (ggs) (Entered: 08/15/2019)
Filing fee Paid: Appeal Fee $50.29, Receipt number − GAM500032863 as to JEFFREY BOURASSA RE 262 notice OF Interlocutory Appeal. (vs) Modified on 8/19/2019 to link to applicable notice of appeal and to edit docket text. (ggs). (Entered: 08/19/2019)
289 USCA Order/Opinion as to 104 Notice of Appeal filed by WASEEM DAKER (ggs) (Entered: 09/06/2019)
290 NOTICE to the Court and Counselor(s) about the Defendant's Continued Breach of Agreement in Retaliation Against Roy Mandell Smith by ROY MANDELL SMITH (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(ggs) Modified on 11/4/2019 (ggs). (Entered: 11/01/2019)
291 ORDER DENYING 260 Motion to Intervene. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE
MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 3/20/2020. (kat) (Entered: 03/20/2020)
292 ORDER DENYING 264 Motion to Intervene. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE
MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 3/20/2020. (kat) (Entered: 03/20/2020)
293 USCA Order/Opinion dismissing appeal as to 262 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by JEFFREY BOURASSA. (ggs) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/5/2020: # 1 CORRECTED OPINION) (ggs). (Entered: 05/05/2020)
294 MANDATE of USCA DISMISSING appeal as to 262 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by JEFFREY BOURASSA (ggs) (Entered: 06/03/2020)
295 Letter from Dexter Shaw regarding the cost of obtaining a copy of motion and supporting brief (not exhibits) re 154 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(ggs) (Entered: 06/08/2020)
296 Letter from G. Sellers in response re 295 Letter from Dexter Shaw. (ggs) Modified on 6/10/2020 (ggs). (Entered: 06/09/2020)

 
 c

•

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 1 Filed 02/12/15 Page 1 of 17

~~CEIVEO CLEt<ifS OFFICE
IFNOTRHTEHUENNMI\TCIDE..DCD.L.SOET(DA\ TISETSRDICIDSTTIVORIFISCIGTOENcOoRlMlGlt~iJDHP~AbFtEl~'B,'j,.:... ~~t1TR2.I~~.I:A-HC,GO_8U~.R•ORT3G1IA
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE PRISONERS PROCEEJfMt;G-U£iGIA PRO SE UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
\ \~o\\\\l ~\)Qi (;\Jffi\(\

(GIVE FULL NAME AND PRISON NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF)
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION NO:
1•15-CV-04.... 1

(NAME OF EACH DEFENDANT)

Defendant(s)

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

1. 2.

Your full name and prison number\\~'\

•

•

Name and locatiOn of pnson where you are ~

~\.)Q.t G\.)~\<\ E:,\'::(._~'b\'-\d.d-."7

\sc" . , ~~~\(:... ~\~1\'f..,~\L \ C..\c.£L\\\<..c...\'\<;Jt;)

confined \?(

-~\) ~\~\~

3.

Sentence you (a) What

are now serving (how long?) SI2.\>Q..\\ ~Q•.C.i~
were you convicted of? "'\<i()c.Q\)\".5 and.

-\-o \\\Q... \\.cy~

(b) Name and location of court
S\..)QQ..\\o\ C...c\.)\\ .

which
~(::)\)

imposed
\\~ \Q....

sentence C...0\2,\l\-\-\
• Geo~!j\c_

C.o\.)~~
4

(c) When was sentence imposed?_t)~~_CJ;;;..Q_~_~_e;_\_\_1:\'\;....;_'-\.:___ _ _ _ _=,..-----

(d) Did you appeal your sentence and/or conviction?

Yes0 NoD

(e) What was the result of your appeal? C..C~'J\c.:\ \a\\ \J\)\)Q..\c:\..

• Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 1 Filed 02/12/15 Page 2 of 17

(f) Approximate date your sentence will be completed.__\..1,_\\_tl_Q.:_:\_Q.;_\_~_\_\\_Q..__~ ____

II. PREVIOUS LAWSUITS

NOTE: FAILURE TO DISCLOSE ALL PRIOR CIVIL CASES MAY RESULT IN THE DISMISSAL OF THIS

CASE. IF YOU ARE UNSURE OF ANY PRIOR CASES YOU HAVE FILED, THAT FACT MUST BE DISCLOSED AS WELL.

4. Other than an appeal of your conviction or sentence, and other than any habeas action, have you

filed a lawsuit dealing with the same or similar facts or issues that are involved in this action?
Yes D No~

5. lfyour answer to question 4 is "Yes," list that lawsuit below, giving the following information:

(IF YOU HAVE FILED MORE THAN ONE LAWSUIT, LIST OTHER LAWSUITS ON A SEPARATE SHEET OF PAPER, GIVING THE SAME INFORMATJON FOR EACH)

(a) Parties to the previous lawsuit INVOLVING SAME FACTS:

Plaintiff(s):

~ ~

Defendant(s):_ _~;.....;...a..-~-----------------------

(b) Name ofCourt:__~.;....._a..j..;...~--------------------
(c) Docket Number:__~--=-~-~-- When did you file this lawsuit?__~'--'-/-~------
(d) Name of judge assigned to case:_ _~___:I:..._.P\ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

(e) Is this case still pending?

Yes D NoD

(f) If your answer to (e) is "No", when was it disposed of and what were the results?

(DID YOU WIN? WAS THE CASE DISMISSED? DID YOU APPEAL?)

0 0 6. Other than an appeal of your conviction or sentence, and other than any habeas action, have you

ever filed any lawsuit while incarcerated or detained? Yes

No

7. If your answer to question 6 is "Yes," list that lawsuit below, giving the following information:

(IF YOU HAVE FILED MORE THAN ONE LAWSUIT, LIST OTHER LAWSUITS ON A SEPARATE SHEET OF PAPER, GIVING THE SAME INFORMATION FOR

EACH)

(a) Parties to the previous lawsuit:

Plaintiff(s): \\~-%\l t:>Q..~\.)Q...\ G\)(Y'.\'<1
Defendant(s): ~c:u:<l:..\\ , S~\\-\\ S~~ ~\'&~ (~Q.. \.)\\\.(\(:No)\\)
(b) NameofCourt: ~S.tho~\L-\- C..<:~\'l~-\- , ~~""~ 'U\~\\t.\- c\- ~~\~\c._

(c) Docket Number: \.}"'\..(\<:::>\).)\\

When did you file this lawsuit? \~~~

(d) Name of judge assigned to case:_...;;\l:..;\\.:..'c.:..;..('(:)~'-.l....;...\\....;__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

(e) Is this case still pending?

Yes D

No ~

•
Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 1 Filed 02/12/15 Page 3 of 17

(f) If your answer to (e) is "No", when was it disposed of and what were the results?
(DID YOU WIN? WAS THE CASE DISMISSED? DID YOU APPEAL?)
\J\s\n\~ \I.H.\. \\0\.J\ ))CQ..~'-lchc:..<L , c..\-\-\\\5) ~;L~\\c..\)~:>\-\Q.\\ r:J;

8. AS TO ANY LAWSUIT FILED IN ANY FEDERAL COURT in which you were permitted to

proceed in forma pauperis, was any suit dismissed on the ground that it was frivolous, malicious, or

failed to state a claim?

YesO NoB

If your answer is Yes, state the name of the court and docket number as to each case:

III. PLACE OF INCIDENT COMPLAINED ABOUT

9. Where did the matters you complain about in this lawsuit take place? beG\8)\c:....
~:::n~~cs-\-\c... CS\d. c..\c..ss\\\c...c..."\\ C~\\ \)' \ SCJ(\

(a) Does this institution have a grievance procedure?

Yes~ NoD

(b) Ifyour answer to question 9(a) is "Yes", answer the following:

(1) Did you present your complaint(s) herein to the institution as a grievance?

Yes0 NoD
(2) If Yes, what was the result? ~\- \-\\Q.... \(\~:i\\-\~\\()()C..\ \(L\)Q....\ ,
\\\<L ~C.\dQ.\\ d..Q.~\~ -\\\Q.... C..C8(\\)\C-\\\\- CLS c_

(3) If No, explain why not:_..:..N~(~..../\;:.,.___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 1 Filed 02/12/15 Page 4 of 17

(c) What, if anything else, did you do or attempt to do to bring your complaint(s) to the

attention of prison officials? Give dates and places and the names of persons talked to.
C....cu\ \\u~~~e.'\ . .\c~~ \ooic\~t.\\ ( \~. ~-\s-\\}: S\w...~" ~\~\£ , N\~Q...' ,

~~Q..

~~\'\.S

(

\~\

, ~-\S-\\)-,

\J.l\\\,~

~Cl"UQ..\\

.

~Q~ •

'-'.\c..\dQ..\\

(

\Q..¥c;<2.( , ~-\S-\\ )•,

<J.i\~ ~~\.lC.Q_ ~ l ~·::\<2.\'\ ( s~oo \\'\'0-\\-\\:i\\l)()\,._\ ~\\Q..\.)CS\(_Q_ I \-~-\S).

(d) Did you appeal any denial of your grievance to the highest level possible in the prison

system?

D Yes[3 No

(1) If Yes, to whom did you appeal and what was the result? 0\\ e..~~<..l...)"\\\l<L.
C>..\)\?Q.C...\ I ~~C..."\Q.. ~~C..\'\ s \)\)\\Q..\d ~Q_ ~c...\c.\.'2_\\ Is

(2) IfNo, explain why you did not appeal: __~...;:..t....;~l...;__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

10. In what other institutions have been confined? Give dates of entry and exit.

C..ceJO-\c...\ S\~e... \)"\.~\\
Sen\\\) S\c...\Q... \)'\\':::£!\\

\'\Q.S- \~<\5
\~\5- \~~'1

\\c_"'s S"\~Q... \\\~\1 d...~- a.m1 \~\(\\ S~ ~\\SCI\\ dc£>'1- d..D\~

\Q..\k\\ S\cle.. Q,\sc" \C\<\1- \<\~\

IV. PARTIES TO THIS LAWSUIT
11. List your CURRENT place of incarceration/mailing address.
G,eo<~\c._ ~\e-":)ooG"\\.L c..\\~ C..\c.ss\\\c.cl\<::>\\ \)~ \S()\\

12. List the full name, the official position, and the place of employment of each defendant in this laWSUit. (ATIACH ADDITIONAL PAGES IF NECESSARY)

(

\

t t . ~~· \ C.\c£b. \)\\'::{)\)

'

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 1 Filed 02/12/15 Page 5 of 17

V. STATEMENTOFCLAIM 13. In the space hereafter provided, and on separate sheets of paper if necessary, set forth your claims and contentions against the defendant(s) you have named herein. Tell the court WHAT you contend happened to you, WHEN the incident(s) you complain about occurred, WHERE the incident(s) took place, HOW your constitutional rights were violated, and WHO violated them? Describe how each defendant was involved, including the names of other persons who were also involved. If you have more than one claim, number and set forth each claim SEPARATELY.
DO NOT GIVE ANY LEGAL ARGUMENT OR CIT ANY CASES OR STATUTES AT THIS TIME; if such is needed at a later time, the court will advise you of this and will afford you sufficient time to make such arguments. KEEP IN MIND THAT RULES 8 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE REQUIRES THAT PLEADINGS BE SIMPLE, CONCISE, and DIRECT! If the court needs additional information from you, you will be notified.
WHERE did the incident you are complaining about occur? That is, at what institution or
institutions? Gec\~\c._ \J\Cf){)Co-\\c_ Gi"\c\. C..\GS:b"~.\\c..c:\\G\\ \=>\\Sa\\
WHEN do you allege this incident took place? \={em N\cu ~\\ \ a d..C\CJ ·-\c de:\'<-.
WHAThappened?________~-------------------------------------
.Summ.Q.I'\ , ... -·
<?..SC.GR~ c_-\- ,;_,~, ~ \)\ \s~\\ \\\ \\Q..\Q..\\c_ • \be.o\5\a... ~
t...u-\-\\"s \\'\~o\:)5~ \nQ_ \()"'\Q.s\c\ \?~u\~Q..."\~.s ~LQ... d.~"\"S
\\'\~ ~"'"5 <'nQ.C...\ c....\ C:..\)\?\()~\('C)C-\-Q..\'\ 1:00 ~.W\. ~\\Q_\\ -\~Q_ \c_:_\\~d. \-\\Q_ \-\\\QQ_ \\\~c....-\Q.s ~Q_""\\J(\\<dl -\o \-\\~\\
a..ss\<j\\cl do~~,~~\Q.S (Cl< t-Q..\\\l\()L~). N C..O\<\Q\Q..-\\n,s
G... -\o\c1 \()c...\:.ti~" Cf \\\Q._ Q.m\\~ ~'\\~\\ . <y'\~ ~\c.\cls
'-C~'>c:\e..c\. c...Q...\\ \-(:) c..Q..\\ semc...\'\Q..S \\\ Q..~\-\ ~c \d.Q.."\\{\l
~Q.. \\\~~ \\\\JO\~~ \\\ ~Q_ \\\c...\dQ.\l\". ~-\ ~ \CY:\""~Q..\.\
CJ.:oo ~. N\. i \)\c.\"'\\ \\mo%~ ~\j~'\ <d\J""\'<\ G....\\Q -\\JJa

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 1 Filed 02/12/15 Page 6 of 17
14. List the name and address of every person you believe was a WITNESS to the incident(s) you com plain about, BRIEFLY stating what you believe each person knows from having seen or heard What happened. (USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS, IF NECESSARY)
:S~\\Q.. Q;,s\"\cQ , bQR~ 'wei~ J ~'l<\\\'4

15. BRIEFLY state exactly what you want the court to do for you. That is, what kind of relief are you seeking in this lawsuit? Do not make any legal arguments and do not cite any cases or statutes!
(USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS, IF NECESSARY)

""U\·)\J(\C-\\\JQ.... \Q...\\Q...\ ~a~ \~~~\c..~ \~C-80\c§\\Cle..\\\- ,.\:\'c\Y\ VnQ._

S\\1\\Y.\\<u -m. \>,SC)\~ c_\- ~~<a\c._ ~'c..5oo~'\\L CS'I~ C.\c.5:b\-\\'-_c,_:\\(:)\\

-' !;:)"" \\ \SG\\ \a \()c..\uc;::\.~t_ \)\c'\Q.~\\()\\

C£:0\<j~mQ.(\\ ~ \-\s e...~\l\\Jc..\Q.CV\·

c,_-\- cr\-\\Q..\ \~<;::)\\\\..)"\:\c\\S \-'n(L \_Q...\)Q..\ S \\e\
~~\\Q...~ ', d.cme&Q..S \\\ -\-\'\(L. G.i'C)C\:1~ a\- "\~t~

n_ \)~s.<j~C-\"<\ ', ctQ.c.\c..\c_\()~ \.l
"\l\1~\\?..d ~C-£.\\d d~\\c..\~

(~~.sa:~) +c( .\\\JQ_ ~~s c\- \?""?\c..c._\ . ~<L~"tc...\ c..(\J Q..~~\\c~c._\

16. You may attach additional pages if you wish to make any legal argument. However, legal arguments are NOT required in order for you to obtain relief under §1983. If the court desires legal argument from you, it will request it. Ifany defendant presents a legal argument, you will be afforded an opportunity to respond thereto. 17. KEEP IN MIND THAT ONCE YOUR LAWSUIT IS FILED, THE COURT WILL REQUIRE YOU TO DILIGENTLY PROSECUTE IT. That means that you will be required to go forward with your case without delay. Thus, if you fail to adequately prepare your case before you file it, you may find your lawsuit dismissed for failure to prosecute if you take no action once it is filed. YOU WILL RECEIVE NO FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE COURT TELLING YOU WHAT TO DO OR HOW TO DO IT! IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AND YOURS ALONE TO PROSECUTE YOUR OWN CASE! If you fail to prosecute your case, it will be dismissed under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Signed this <;\-\)

day of_~...:......::Q...:..:b::..:~:.....:~:...:CJ:.:~.:....\:-4-\----' 20 \ S -;:!,;._,d-Jw ~QJn/L'Q;L ~pt.}
~ PLAINTIFF

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 1 Filed 02/12/15 Page 7 of 17

\1. S-\Q~Q.Dt ~ C\a..\~
~ ( t..co\-\(\~) ~

\SQ::Q.f.c\..c(d)c.\..~'\cs.c\\\a\_\\dQ~\..Y\t,)c_o\..-\-\Q,_,r( \c\\e(.Yt..Q\.\a\....)\\\\"\\5

Q_ \Q..-\-\Q..\
, \)r\so<l

~'"~ Q._
c\-\\~\c...\s

o\- c'-.'..:)~\\c-snscl~~G~\~J\-Y\\\1e\d.Q\\\:d.~\c-\_\QCR_Q_c\\\aQ....\.\\d..\w~se"\\\\Jc\ ...\\-\~cC\

\\\S-\\"\\J\\ooc_\\.'\
s~

o" t\\)>,)t~\{\s\~o()~<~'a:)~·".\~,\cc_..\ca.n..d\.-\n.sQ.C...-.\\.(c'r.cosns\£\\-:~~:\\jcU~.Q'._c"'_--r5\~-d,-odn..Gc..\u'\'<~:'.\<) SYa:\Soc.cn{l(\')Ja\c\rQ..._''C'.S-\S-'<J\<:-)jr<".G.'~QQd._..C((\)(\-sa\\-cJ..

*'Q_ -\-o \-\)Q_ s~~\c_\ ~%Q...m<2..\\\- \j()\\- ~\)Qi'Q_

\ns-t\-\u'\\0\\C...\

~\st.\\l\\oc.r'\ <-a\J\: (2..\j~uc_\\'\ -\-~a" -~\c._c_~ cl~\~ \-nQ..

. \\\\JQ..S"\ 'Sd-\n.5
c..m's~ ~\

a«'\CJ2.\ 1.S \~'-.o\"'f\mWd..c..."\-\c\\
-\-\\<L ~~c..' '\\5 ~ \-nQ_ c.c\Jr\-

·\-Q d \S('()\SS \-nQ...
~c\Jnd. Gum\f\

<ju.,\*'\ c" 'oo"\n c:...t\c..\~Q...S ., 'o\J~ an \h<2.. \iJc.rd.Q.n s\J'o82.q_\JQ.n+\'\ Q....~~\}ns~-~

c.d.t<'\\n\s"\\ci\\lQ..
'co\\\ c:.nc..,~Q...S

~\)Q.C-\
~~c~

J

G\JM\f\ '.s \n.s""\\-\u-\\O\\c_\ re.c.c\d. . SQQ..... \)',.oc\~\\nc..\'\ \\~~ I

~~~\ ~c. Cib"-\~d.. { t.'i.~\)\"\~e..d. ~esc.\) \ .) d.0\0 .

\\c \n~c...-w.s cc: ~t\8;::)\\ co"\4 sust\\\Q.c\. \1c..~~ at \~~~.H'\

du\\\\~ -\c -\\\Q....

\\o"\\QA...s. \Q~.QSt_..~QC....\\\'<~1\~\\<-L\ \c_t\cc..n..c\\~.C2-~S.c\~\\\)('~\s\oc\.\ \~~s~\c\:\_%\\~cc_:\\sQ.d.

\~MW\cl~\'\ ~C2..C..SS\~ne..cl \-\')Q.... o\--\\Q..\ -\\klO \~\'C"\C...-\es \(\\la\ve.c\

*'<L \\\ ~\"\«.... \\\<:..\dQ..\\\- beL\:. \o

5<2..\)Q...\c....\ \)(\~\\ \)0~\l\ci\c\\ ~

\)u\ (Q.<'nc.~d..~d.. G\..l(Y)\f'\ \-c ~<2... S~\c...\ tv\~~\\-\- \}\\\\-

~' d..\SC.\~\\<\C.S'\ \)~"\S\\\<\Q.\\\- ( S<L~<Q.Sci\c\\ (e~c.-\\\<2...ci ~\ \\\Q..... ~-\- .\\\lQ... (S) '\Q....c.iS (

~~Q.\~ 'nQ_ 'nc..S c..\\d.. c.~\.)\\\\\\c,) J

\.\\ \J \o\ci\()\\ c£. GC2.0(~\c._ ~\)c.i'-\<'tQ.\\-\- c:f c..~(\Q.~.:\\c\lS ( <;~<:..)

S-\'c.nd.c..( cl. 0\)Q..(C-.-\- \n~ ~fcc..~~ute.. (~~) end -\-\\Q... \J\\ \-te..d

s~ C..c\\~-\\-\\..)\\o(').

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 1 Filed 02/12/15 Page 8 of 17

~ndc.\YtS ~C'\Q'-l)\\\~\~ O.f\d c..s'o \\\c..t\\~ \('<1\)~SQ..d -\\ \)~ (_S)
'\Q..C..(S ( -\-c ticr:X<2J a\ ~'sc..\\>\ '"c..~'\ ~\Jn\s\)MQ..\l\ I S<2.S~e<_sc_"\\c\\

u~~" G\lm~ -\-\)~c\ls'n nss\s"m~()\ -\Q fu<L S\>12..~' c.-.\

N\c.ncs"-~Q..\\\ \)~\\ fo<" \\"\Q... Q....~\)\.l\I~Q_ti d.\sc...,~\\\)c..''\ c_\\c..\sQ_

cl- ~-\-\Q..~~c:\ ~~Q_ ) :,n c.ocm-c_d \c.:\\c\\ \(:) \-\\<2- -\'\\\~\

at c\rtc.c~~

\hQ... \_\\S\\-\\J\\c\\c_\ cl\SC..\\'l\\()C.S'\ ~\~C...Q..Q.ct\'3S

'-'.l\1\c...\) C..\Y'\0\l\\-\S '\o C..\\ 0~ \5l\\\C....\ d~\ \\lc...\\Q\\ ~

\)\"OCQ.ch.)\c..\ cl\..)<L ~\cc...Q.SS \J<1clCL\ -\-\")Q_ t)uQ_ \)\ocQSS c_\c._\.f£._

0{ \t)Q... ~\..)(-\Q.Q_\\\\1 F\\'C\Q_()~('{\Q..(\\-.

C..\c.\\f\ 2
~\'lctC.\\\S ~\\CW\<;5\'\ ~ C...\'o\-\-((~.S \\'\ \ ~ \)Cb'2..d ~\\.l~ ( S) '\Q.CSS ( ~ c:\.e,_\12_.) d- d.\SC..\\)\\\'\CS~ \)~()\S~tc\Q..\\-\- ( SQ...~\Q_~c_-\\c:>C) \..)~" <:=,~~\"<') \-\\<;C)\,)~\1 c.ss\~<'\~<2..\\\ \-~ \\\Q_ SQQ...c..\c_\
N\CS'\qjQ..\'<\!2.n-\- \)()\\- -\;, \-\\Q... Q_'t.Qu"~e..c\. c::h~c.,\)\\()cs~ <:..nc.rs~
cl ~~'\<\"\12..cl ~8:..~CL ... '" c:.c\\-\~c~\t..:\\()() -\~ <o""\c.."W_ \)~\~()
~~\.)\c_"\\on G\Jc.. ~\:l 1..1... ~d-- ~\ ~'n \c...n c..H~.c..."\Q.s c... "((:)~'""~ \'\UQ..\~ ·,~\C2..S-\ \J\\clQ..\ *'Q... \JuQ... \)\CC..<LSS (_\c....\JS<;L a.( \\\Q_
~c\J~ttQ.~\-n ~~Q..\)tlt'C\Q..\\"\.

C..\c...\\<1 3
~dCS\\.S \::..ncw\<"'\S\'\ ~d c..\'G\-\-(c..\\\'\ .{c..\\'Ld. \-c \<2.\'<\()\)e._ c...\\ '~'~"c..QjO ~ \-\\~ e..'k\l\l"SQ..d. d.\sc..\~\\()c.''\ c...t\cJsQ_ ~
~\-\Q..~~~~cl.. ~c._~<.?_ -\(C\'C\ E:J\.)\:'C\<"1 '~ \\\S\\:\\J\\t>\\C...\ te_C..()\d
G_S dQ.C..\Q_~d C\\ MC'n\~\~::)"\\c...\\\lQ.... C..Q~C...\ GS\tl C.O\f\M\l\Q.... \Y\£::. ~\l\\\\\\JQ... SQ.~\<L,SC--\\~() -\Q {\0\\\)\l()\,\\)(L SQ..c~fQ_SC-\\a~ ,
\n c..o\\-\\c.ti\c..:\\c() "\c, CO"\~ \)\ \S<:>C\ \<2..~\l\c.....-\\ofl G~C... S~~
ll.. ~Dd--COO\ ("1...)(\\) \.t.l'n\t:...\\ C..\Q..c:\Q.S C.... ~\O~'-"\C2..d \\'o~\~

~\=\ c.c..\\("C\Q..()-\:
2

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 1 Filed 02/12/15 Page 9 of 17
\n\ct\~ \l()de..\ -\-\te.. \:)ue_ ~toCQSS C..\c..\..)s~ cl- -\-\\<L tau~'\\-) .
t\<'<ter\d~Q..(\\ .

t)~Q.\\c\c.\\-\S \;()cw\n~\'\ one\ c..<~\\-\c.s\\'\ \~~~ d.\S'-\\)\\\\c..\'\
~\.)\\\s~~Q..\\-\- ( s~'~Sc._-\\c\\ \J\)C\\ Gu~~ ~'c'f:)'n C£:S\~"""~_~,\\
~ %~ s~Q.c.\c...\ N\c._~Q..~~\\\- \j(\\\- ~\ '-'.)~\c..\\ \"\fL {\«.,.'>12S ~~\­

\hQ_ '-~ \\12..\\c.. .) <2..\Jm ~\fu \\)Q... Q..X\)'-l"~~tl cl.\~'\)''()C_''\ c:..nc..~'<­

o\- ~\--\~~~~~ \::~~Q... .) '" <'-c\\\\c..cl.\t..-\\o~ "\<:) s-\c...."\Q_ ~<\SC)\\

{<2..5\l\d\c\\ (;\)C..~~ l l . ~'\-CJOO\..\ ( \J)(l.)( ~)(?:,) ~~\c:..\) c..<~

s+ c.. \) \c:s\Q.c.:\<2..<1 \\b<2..\""' \(\\e.H~.

\J\\dC2..\ % Q_ ~\lQ... \) \~Qb.S C\c..'->8L

o~ ~Q... \=-~u~Q..\\~\1 ~~~\\tl~~~ .

C...\c..\(Y) S

t)~<lc\c..ffis ~now\\\~\'\ a..\'\c\. C-\ \)\\\c.\\\'\ nQ...\d G\Jmm \\\
d.\SC.\~\\nc..\'\ ~\J\\\S\'\~eS\T ( ~\<2.-,SC-..\\o\\ .) no\V-l\\-\) st\\d\\\j \\\Q... c.oos\ \"\\l\-\o\\c....\\\~ ~< \J()(_()\\S"\\-\\J\\c<lcl\\'\ f::l~ -\\'\Q.. \\\\-\\c..\
\~~s\\-\c\\ J -\o\.), ('-\) '\Q_c...\S C-\-~ cl.c:\CL) \cnsQ.s \\\c..\\ \-nQ...
cne... ( \) '\~c..\ C.SS\<j\\tnQ..\1-\- ~Q..\\od ~\Q..SC..\ \bQ...d ~c' cr\-\\Q...\
\n('()c..~ \\\ \0.12..\\'\-\c..c...\ t..c\\\\(\<2..\nQ.\\-\- \\\ <:..cC'\"\\cd\'-.'"\\c\\ -\(::)
'0-\c...-\Q.. ~\\8::l\\ ~~\J\c...\\aC\ GbC.. SJJ~ l i MJ ~ -~~ ( \))(1.)lJ\) ( 2.)
\1.)\"\\c..\-) C.tQ.C...-\Q_S c_ ~(o-\Q..c.:\Q.d. \\'oe.\'\'\ \()~\Q.S-\- \.J{)de.\ +\\e...
b~Q_ Q\Cc..QSS C.\c..\lSQ.. a(. *'<2._ ~()\.)~®% ~('<)~\\d~Q.~'".

~nclc..C)-\"S \;(')0\,\)\()5\'\ <:lf\d C,.(\)\\\cS\\'\ n~\~ G\J('("\\Y) '"' 0.\sc..\~\\nc.\'\ ~un\s\\~"-\\T ( ~<2..f§~c....\\c\'l C4>\)\C'k \ mc_\Q_\'\
-\-\\\<LQ... ( ~) '\Q...C..\S c.."cl. CO\Y., (C:,) ('C)Q\\\-\\S J o...f\e.\ ~~"-~<2..'1-\-
o\.' +\\~ c\\££\\)\\OQ\'\ c_hCL\~~ ~ l\\\~('C\~d ~c..~ ., w\fu(:)o-\-
on'\ 'c.\nct o~ +'o( {'<'\C...\ C..\\d \Q..C..o\d«Lcl t(2..c..\c££A"'c:.C-\\~C'\ ~-tc.:..."\\.l.S
(\(:)\\c..~ ~ \)e.c,r\('IS ~ \)Q..\\c~\c... 'Q...\J\Q...w .. a\ o..dm\C'l\ s~'c_"\"\\JQ_
o.M e...~Q..c.\.r\ \ \..)«_ \Q..\JQ..\ ~\)Q..C...\ .) \<\ Lcn"\<'c..d. \<:.:t\G\\ ~ S"\c_~

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 1 Filed 02/12/15 Page 10 of 17

~t\sc\l fQ.~\J\cl-\o\\ G~C. &J~ l l Q:cG- 000\ ~~\t.h c_\Q_c_:\-~S

0.... ~to\Q..~Q..c\ \ \\le..\~ \ \\"\-~\e.S\- c.nc\
o(_ \)\<::ILCLd\J\c....\ d ~~ \)(OC...I2SS \J\\d12.(
o\- ~Q... ~\J~Q...<")\-\) ~MQ.\\d~C2.-'\\ .

CfriC\J\\"T~ -\c a_ dC2..QC\\Jci\o~ \hQ... \:)u<L Q(OC.Q.SS <:..\a..\JSR._

C..\a.\~ 1

DQ...~nd.o..\\-\S \:..now\\\5\'\ on d. c..\\)\\\cJ~ \ \'\ \<j\\O(Q..d. ~\~'n\- ( ~)

c:..onsec.u\-\\H?.... C\0- de..'\ c:..\c.ss\\\c..c...\-\Q\'\
dciCL) "\-\\c...-\ ~Q..C..C~(Y\~\\cl~ b\J(n\("\""'S

S\{-C\.d.\.)\.lSS~\\Q.\*J~\Q0\..'.Wn S

( Th \\\Q...

I cl\SC..\\)\\()C..\'\ ~\..)\\\S~ffiQ.\\\- SQ..~\Q_se-.\\Q\) \~ q_\JQ..S"\\ (:)\\ \IJ\1\c..\t

CllY\o\JC\\"~ -\-o C-\\ 0\\~\\'\c.....\ dQ...\)\\\Jcl\00 o( \)\CC..~'J\c...\ d\)Q...

\)\OCQSS \J\'\dC2.f \\\f<_ \J\.lQ.... Q\CLQ.S.S C...\c._\)SQ_ o(_ %Q... ~ctQ.Q.~

f:\~Q..(\d~Q...\1\- .

C.(<?-~d \n a( c.rc\l\\ct d.OD~ .. \-~f<_ S~c..\c..\ ~cncsQ.ment \j\\\\(s~u) ~ ~'5'~ t)\9\\cs"\:\~ ~ C..\c.ss\-"\~c.."\\c\\ Q~\sc"

<:.o\\S\s"\s a\- s\x (c;) \-h\ct'\-\w~ (~d.) <b\\\~\fCL- ~'2..\So{)- C...Q...\\
doH'''~:\c\\Q..S "{Q.SQ..\\.Rd ~' \-\\eL \o\\~-\'2..\~ ~\\\c..\'\ c.c~\\<\12.~<2.\r\ o( \\\\nclQ.S \.).)~ C..OM<Y\\-\- c\\\'\ \-~Q_ ~C~::i\- SQS\O~ \()S-\\~O()C..\

d\SC..\\)\\OC-\'\ ~nSQ...S \-~tC'{)\)~'-* \\\CL co"\clQ_ Q~\SC() S"\S\Q..~
<"6'-X..\'\ c..s ~\)(tl~( :1 \~Q_ ;;, ~%~( C.SSC..\l\\- ~ Q.S~Q_ .:1 c..~J..
o...~~ ~~CL. \.\()\\\ ~a\~ ~ \-\\<2.. s~u c~'~ ~\~\l\­
o.n o.c<:\~\c._\ GOC. SJ:J~ \)C\\c..'\ c..s C...() \~\\S\\lCL '' ~Q..\)c::l~\JJ~ ''
~~~c..~ ~()( \-~Q.SQ_ \(\('<)ciQ.s ~ ~" '""Q._"\(' ~c.."\ 'oc.c...\:. "\~
\\~\\o\1Cs'\\2\\).\\.Q\..~l.MQ.~.Q.~...qct~Q'l_\d\c.~.e\'\Jns\co<\o\~.\c~.00.\\\'c\\_..\)~\cut<:s\,cu~\c\s..\-s\\~)\\~;<.~ )d\~..)\C5\\\\~3', \c..)e~\\)~\\;c\\.S..C\)\+C\\.~.QQ.(_.).~\S~c\~c£\.\.}c.l\s

~ctc'W() ~to~j'CS<'\ c.nJ. (Q.\\CS<l<Ld \-\- SQQ.C..\c_\ t-1\cno.aQ..\'nQ.~-\­

m.. \)()\-\- ~ \\Q..\

Q,c~cc...~ . \\"\c\)s~ cl. \~(Q.\)~ \\\ (\C.ffiQ.... /

\-n«.. 'oo..s\'-.. d.QS\~\\ .~ \)\.l~~os~ c...nd. c..c\'\~\\-\o"s tQ.."'C-\(\<?_cl

\-'n«<... Sc..<nQ..... .

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 1 Filed 02/12/15 Page 11 of 17
anQ_ nc"\-c.h\Q.. d.\\+C2.\f2.()(Q_: \J\\clQ..\ \nQ... \\Q.vv\'\- '"'~\Q...me..\\~
C:,\)c_ ~'r ~c\\<::.'\ ., ~~\so\'1 c~\<::.\c...\s C<.S"\c..'u\\s\1~ \-o\' -\-ne_ *''cs'\
-\-\('<")(L a_ C..\css\{\c:.c...'\\c\\ C.c\Y)~\\"W..e_ ·-\c c.:'fo<cl. \n~CL\Q.s ~ -\C\'~ o( ~<o<:..R..do\o....\ d\JQ.. ~\~c.£SS and. d.\~\d12..d -\\\<2- S~\J
\~ ~\Jf ( ~) \WC~\Q..SS\\.)e_ C\0- ctc_'\ \)<05\c..~ ~~C...SQ..S
-w,\t\ ,nc..<Q..C.S''\~\~ \~s tQ.s"\<\c..\\c~ o\\ c_\\ ~<\'J\\Q..sQ..S .J
~"\\\-\Q..~Q.\'r\-s c.nc:\ c:::..c\\\JQ_\\\~\\C.J2..S . L~<2....c._\\'\ J \n~c...-\Q..S \JJ~c;:,
S\.lC...C..Q.Sf:i~\\'\ C..C\'1"\~\Q...~ o_\\ ~0\l\ C\0- dQ'\ ~t\c.sQ...S \Q..\-'-l~ \\
\o ~Q.... ~~\\Qsc.....\ ~<\so\\ \)c~\l\cl-\c\\ \\\ <::>\\~ (\) '\Q....c..\. ~,
GOC. S\\1\U: \\Qs m. Q~c5~~ l\'i~c._""\Q__ \\a.ncl\)oc~ c.nd.. ill~c.."""\Q...
\),\\l\\~<L \_\~\ a..\\d SN\\l: \\~s "ill.. ~cc~\c..('() c.:\- bOC sa~ 1..1... ~-()()C)'\. ( \\~c..Q..-\c\~\) _, \)\o....\n\\ff w\\\ \Q.:~<Q.\\~ \:)c\\1 \\\<L
~<\Q.-\)0\\c:.'\ SN\'J c.."d \-'t'\e_ ~o~-t- \)c\\c:.'\ S~\J c.s \\\Q.... SN\\J~
\\<L< l:U. P\c~\~ . )

1n~clQ..S ctSS\<jn~ \a \\\Q... S~\J~ \\Q.\ Ul. \l( o~~c..~ O-\Q_

or- su~~Q..c.:.\-Q.d -\() cl'\\l\c_c....\ c.nd. s\s\\\\\c:::..c..\\\ 'ha-(<1~\\\~~ ~c_\

<j\12-c...\\~ Q...:~c..~ %Q.... ct~:H"c..~'\ \~(.\dQ.(\\S

Q..\JQ.\'\tl~ CV<\Sc\\

\ \~ ~' \n('C)ctQ.~ \n \\lQ.... fjQS\Q...\ c....\ \)'\so\\ ~o~\l\c..:\\c\\ CS\J.

cd('()\\\\S\-cc..-\\~Q.... SQ.!jl\~c....'\\o~ ~d ~<c\QL\\\JQ.... C..\JS-\00.'\.

'1....()\-\:\cl\~ ;) \n('C)c.....\Q.s. c.s~ s~" \~~Q.c\. c( <o~()c\a...'~ \){\~n- \ss\Jcl \l~\.\c~"" s o..\\tl ~\s C(\d <ll\ \)Q-CSO\lc..\ ~'~\)lli~ for a....
~\n\M~{'() c£ co\"'. (f,) ~c()\\)S ( -\-\)(Q.Q_(~) ~<*\'ls {a, ~'<-t~()c..\
~~\-\-'\) o...od. \)~C\J\dl2..d ~~~S\JttS ~ S\\(:)~Q...\ S~(:)~ ( ~\\~ .\.\e>~) . lo~"\Q...S a..<~ <:D~\~\f'tQ...d \-c <:..Q...\\~ ~\fu c:..~~~\Q..-\Q..\'\
a'csc....\l \Q.J .\,e,<T\ a.n~ '\Q_CS ~\\\d(:)\IJ~ -\a< '\'VVQ.\l\'\- +'a\.)\ (d.-'\)
no\J{.S CL do..'\ <2.:XC..Q.\\\- ~f "\we and ()00_ \\a_\~ l d-\) \-\~\l\S
o\- G\l\S\tlQ_ ( c....c..~<J ~Q...<:..{~c..."\\o\\ oo\'\ -\-""c C.. d.-) d..c..'\S \)Q.\ WQ...Q...\..
( c\ \QSS -\c <'\~\\'L cl.'<-~'<-()U\()~ c\\ \)\O_j\c..m ~nc..s<L end. wQ.C:fuQ...\ c..c\\~'tt\c\\S) . "l..n('C)c:\~ C-\Q_ ~\dcl {\(:'\QR() ( \S) ~\\\~Q....
~wQfS +o, ~<~<la..\ \\'\~\Q...\\Q.... c~\'\ -\\·wQ.<L (~) d.e-'\s ~Q..\
~Q...\.. 'J...n(Y)~ O-\Q. ~\c..cl -\-(:) ~\J\)\<"\\-\ -\(:) \)\J~\\\c..\-\~ ~~ ,~ ~Q.O..,c..\\Q...S ~\\o\ "\-t:> Q....~\-\\\\~ \-\\Q_ <:..Q..\\ ~o< em'\ \Q..C~\\
noo ~Q...('<)C..\(\ \\a..<-tti'-~d CS)d s\"')c..c...~\o_d "-l\\-\\ \-\)Jo ~\JCS~

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 1 Filed 02/12/15 Page 12 of 17

Q..SC..ot-\ .S c0- c..\\ \\~ILS d.\J\\~ c..\\ ~~~<2...\\-\- ~'JQ..\) cl\.lr \ n5

<::...cC\t\ctQ..\\"\\c_\ (ncl\t:.c....\ C..O\\Su\tc._\-'\o\\S c.nc\. e_~c_\('\\\\c._"\\O\\S.

& ~~ tQ.scJ<:i\Q.SS

G\)C_ sa~ \)C\\c:.'\ .) \()\ne:\-Q...s cs«.. \l~O\J\d~

~ubs~cndcsc\. {cod Clllcl.. ~~\'-.c...\ <:..cSQ_ CS~d (\c \Q..\)c..'o\\\-\c.:\\\)e_

c...\c..ssQ..S c\ Q..c:\\)c_c.._-\\o\\c..\ o~\)c\"-\-\.)\)\"\\QS J \~\w\"~ S<2.nc:\Q..-

~c..\'td~ \Q..\)c.b\\~c..-\\'J<L c..\C££R.S -fa, ~\a\Q_ «...\\~\'o\\\\'\

\,~ S\Jbs--\c..\\C<L A..\l\JS<L end. k~\\'\ \.Ha\<LOC.Q..... ( \\o-\<2_'. (;t_~

\)(Q..~ c..\\d. C:...C(~~WQ..()C..Q.. C.C\$SQ..S 0...\IL \ \S~ 0\\ fulL lS\ \),hJ\\Q...s~- \..\s\ ~( so~Q_ ~tc~§c..\n ~\)c.sQ.S ~ ~\J\ (\Q.\)Q.\ \co\;.. Q....~'-..-\ ~)

\\~o\\ CLSS\~(\\nQ.\'r\ -\o -\'nQ_ S\'1\\:l: \\QS ID- ~~os{c.~ .) \n~c..-\<?..S n.~'\c~ci\t..c...\\'\ tQ.c..Q..\\)\L o...dd \·\\o\\c..\ ~\.ln\\-\\J\2... tCLS-\\ \'-.-\ \o\\S ftct'<l ~ ~~t\la~\t..cl \)\sc..\~\\\\c5\'\ Sc."c.."\\o\\ s L\s\-
( -\-~cd.\-\\c\\cl\'\ \~Qc~ o\\\'\ ~~c\J~\"\ \\-lQ... \"'s"\\"\\1\\C\\'.C...\ ~\S<:..\\)\\~1\~ <.:.c\J'\\ \ct: \lc..\\ci c:\\sc.\~\\\'\c..\'\ cc\\\l\C:\\C)\\S) O\\ c..\\ 'oc..s\L ~~\'-l\\e2.~~s j Q.<)-\\\\Q.."'Q..\Y\-S c..\\d c:.a\\\J12..\\\Qr\c...Q..S .) \nc:...\\.ld\\\j
b~\- ~ \ \~\~ -\-(:) -\-12.-\~~\)Q... \Q..S-\\ \ct\C)\\ _, \l \ S\-\ c...-\ \C~
\CLS-\\\C::..-\\C\\ j .\~J OS\d ~\(:)\)Q.~ \)C...C..~<L \~\\0\<J\\ .. CC""~\8::0..'
~Q.S""\t\C::..-\\()\) j 0..(\d S~C'\Q...\c..\ CS\~ \c...~ \\\)~c..\'\ ~Q...S"\~ \C.:\\ C)\\ .
~, ]\\.)"\-\)c~\-z.Q..d. t),s~\~\\\lc..\'\ Sa..\\c...\\c\lS \..\s-\ a...\- ~\)c_ SO~
l..l.. ~-~\ ~ OS .

\c Q...\~{~ , \\\\'('\a...-\Q..s fQ..CQ..\\.)fL o~\'\ ~a'-.i\ ( '-\) -\'~" \. \S)

~\\'\\.)~ \-Q..\Q..~~\\~ c...cl\s \)Q...\ ('()o"'*' ( o\ \<2.SS "\c \\(:)\\CL
cl.QQQ--<'Icl\\\5 c\\ \)' c ~~G..\t"\ ~\)o.SQ.. ) . l..~~C-~ ~Q..C:...Q_\\,JQ.... a\\\'\ ~\ ( "\)

\we (~
Cl.. ~\css

'n~\.)' '\'\c
w\~CW

~mc.s:...-\
( 0~ \Q...SS

\J\st\c..\\~\\s ~<2..' (Y)c()\\1 \\")\C)'>S'n
-\~ '\'\(.)\\'<... cl.Q..\)Q-c:\d\(\_j 0\\ ~'~5\C..~ ~~).

nm~s ~~<::..Q..\\.)Q_ ~"\(\c..\-\'\ \\~\~ c...cM~\ssc..''\ l \Jc.s'\\~
'" Q.Q..~'~ -\tom ~~c~tc.."" ~\)C.SQ... -\c ~\C<j\C..(Y\ ~~C.SQ_ ) C..()d

. ~c ~cod o~ \)\O~Q..\-\'\ ~c....c::..%~ ls\mc...~ t:e..c:...Q...\\JQ.... ~o

t:J\. ~Q..<'\<2...\C....\ \\\a, c..\'\ SQ..'\\.) \t..Q..S
-\-<:> \\\<t.. \c...'W \\'o\c..\~ ~c\

C\ \)'n'\o\~c...\
a.. \<\~\M\J<Y"\

0\

Q..\cQ.\.c\..\."~\~c\\\\C.~. cC..(.Cd..C-.).QSS

~::)\~\J\<2-.S ~\ C:....G.SQ_ \c...'v.lS ~Q..( \k)QQk. {o, \Q..~c...\ '\Q...SQGSc:.n . "()d

\n<nclQ.s ~Q..<:Q..\\JQ... \.t...)Q..Q_~ -\o ~ 'WQ.<t ( c' \oo~Q..\ ) ~C2.tl\t.c...\ <:c;,\)Sl.)\-\-c..\~~~s

'

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 1 Filed 02/12/15 Page 13 of 17

to( S\C...\..(\QSS C..\\d C..O\'C"\~\\ a...\\<Y"\Q.~S. SQ.Q..~ ln('()C..."\-C2... \)\\\J\\Q.~<L
L\~--T . eo~\)c..'~ .~ ~\.)~''-"t.e...d b\~'~\w)C.('\ So..\\c..-t\a~s \...\s\ .

l n c..~~~c..\\SQ\\ .I \()('{)c_"\<2-S \{) \\\Q_ si(_\\Q..\C...\ \>'\SC)\'\ ~~\l\c_\\c\\ Q...\\~~'\ ~-<f-c..12...\\ ('<)0\JQ..mQ.\\-\- ~\0~ S~()C ~.~. "\"~ \\·. -~~ ~ .W\.
~<6\_ 'no\J(S) a\\ ~Q.Q..\.dc."s OS\d.. s~oo J\.~. --\-(:) \:aa ~. ~. ( d.o ~U(S) C\\ WQJ2..\...Q0tc:\s OS\d.. \-)~\ \ck:..'.\S • "l.r\\'C1C_~ ~Q.C..Q..\ \.HL

\J\"\JC..\\"" \J{)\",\'C'\\-\(2..d C..C.C.Q..SS -\c S~C\}.JQ.\S c..\\d. \\\Q.. \)\\SCJ\\ ~Q.C.\Qc:\\Q\\ '\~\d a.nd ~'\~\\C..S\um C..\\d S~\\~ C..,.:\\\)\-\\Q..S.
""!_n~c:.\Q.s \Q..C..Q..\\l(L ~ \~~\'\ \J\\\\\n\-\Q..~ G..k.C..QSS -\-~ \-\\(L

\Q..\~\)c\\(L CU'\d S\~ (b) \)c\J\ c..o\\""\~'\ \J\s\-\-c...\\O~S Q...\.>Q..\ '-\

Sci'-l"~~'\ .. S\l(\dc...'\ end. \',c\\d~.S . ~\\\<1c..."\Q..S \Q..C..Q.\\JQ.. \Q..~\J\a.r

CS\ct ~\\~S\C..G...\ C...C..C.QSS -\c ~-\\) \-\\Q.. se..()Q.\CL\

\o...\J.l \ \U\C...\'\ C...\\cl

'\Q..~c_~\\\"\c:'t\\J~ c..\CSSQ.S Q\'ld Q..~\JC..ci\c()G...\ 0~\)C\\\.l\\\\\Q..S .

in('()CL"tt..s \CLC..<i\\J~ \<"\c\ttn\'\ \)\D~~\'\ \)C..C...~~S Ci)d SQ..o..8JC)C...~

-\ooJ. ~~t..G..~c:c..s. l.n\'()c..."\<2...S \«.<:.<?_\\.l<L b~' q_\.)cl\\'\ c..."d.

\a..(sQ.' q__\jo.~~\Q..S esC ~cCld o.nJ d.a..'\--\(::,-cl.c..'\ \?'\'Jc....\(L

\'C\Q..u \c..o...\ c..~\\S\.:!\\c....\\~\\S .

~nd '-'.)\\\) -\\\IL ~~C..Q.~\<:>\\ -\c \<2-S"\\\~tl ~~~\'<\Q.\r\ ~ \~\f\c.:\l2.S

\n cclt"n\~\S"\( c..\\\J\L s~~t~c...t\c\\ and. \)\c~~"\\\.)Q.. c:.\js-\od'\

\Q..\c...\\\ o...\\ ~\\\J\\Q.SQ.S .. Q...\\\\\\e.""Q.(\"\S CS\d C.O\)\.l~\Q.\\~Q...S

cJ\c<d~d -\-o \n~c..."\Q.s \C\ -%<L ~'<-\\~Jc._\ \)\ \~\\ ~~\l\c....-\\ C\\ .

ls\~a:\Q.S \) 0...\.l<:L C...Q..\ \~ciQ.S . l..r\\'<1C-~S \Q.CJ2..\\J<L o..\\ S"\a..\\c\.as~

~~\S(:)\\- \SS\lQ..d \JO\\cn'f\S CS\d. ~cc-\S Gi"'\d c...\\ ~Q...\SO\\CL\

~<o~~~ . ""l..()('()c...-\Q..S \~Q..\\lCL ~\\JQ_ (S) ~c..,\S ~\- c\J\S\tl<L

~Q..c..~e-"\\o\\ ~Q..\
~Q.c:.Q..\\.>e.... de_\\'\

"'-l<2..<L~
c...c.c.QSS

o.s -\~

C)~~sQ.d. -\c c\\\'\ -\\JJo clo...'\s . "l.nMc.."\Q.s \hC2... \Q.\~\1(:)\\Q... and .\\J\\ S\~ (f,)

\\o\l\ c::.c\{\c_<:.:\- \.l\S\"\c...\\o\\S Q..\.}Q.\'\ ~\J"~'\ .. S~C)J9 C..\\c\.

\)c\\ck_'\s
~c<'\-\-\\\'\

. ln('()ci<2.S \<2.C..Q..\'JQ_
~1\C\>QJ'\'\ ~c.i:..'ro..~~

\J\\\~S"\~ \d<2..~
CS\d. SQ..~c...\

C..C\Y"\\'C\\SSC..\'\ 0..\)d_
~ccd. ~c...c..'c.C_~Q_S.

l..n(n~ \«..C..Q...\\lQ_ ~Q..\"\c...~\\\\o:\\\JQ.. c.\cSCQS CS\d.. ~"-lc..ci\o\\c._\

c~~~~n \\\Q..S .. ~Q..<\Q..\o...\ \ \b(C.t'\ S«...~\J\C.<2....S J G.\\d. c._--\- ~<::>S-T
\ns"\\-\u\\o\\S , Q..\Q..c..."\~o\\\c... \c...\J..> \\\)"c..('\ SQ..'\J\C..Q.S. ~M~ \Q...C..Q..\'JQ_
+\"\Q.... sa.~Q... <(_vc...h\'\ and q_~c..~\""' o( ~ c..s \n~ \() -\\\tL

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 1 Filed 02/12/15 Page 14 of 17
~e..(\Q.\c..\ -~\\SO\\ ~C>~\J~C-\\o\'\ . CL\1d de..'\-'"\<:,- d.c...~ ~Q..<~~ \t..c._\
~()S\J \\c:\\c~s . 1-\(ld 'r\~c.."\Q..s n~_c_e.\\JQ.... <:...\c..ss\~\c..e--\ \c~ '2:)\c_-\\Js
CQ..\J\Q.~~ ~\.)Q.':'\ \-\"\\~ l ~a) d.c..'\s a..s C)~~cl.. -\~ Q..\JQ.\" '\a d.c.'\s. Sc:t<t. . 1-\d.~'"'s""(ci\\lQ_ sQ_~(Q..sc.:\\a\\ o...+ c;K. ~~ ""Li ~~­
~' • ~('(\~\<2... ... ~\sc.\~\\"c...''\ ~~\~\c\\ c...-\- G:,~c_ ~~ n_ ~d-.­
ace'-\ .

0~ Gu{'()\<'t.s S~\J: \\Q.X IU.. \)~c~,c..~ ~\S\\l'C\<2.\\\- ~\.)~\- \=o~~

OS\d "SS\<j~~Q.\\~ \'v\<L""~ ond. o....\\ cl\w_( \Q..\ci<2..tl clc<:.'->m<2.\r\s

( ct.~r .. ~<J- ~'\
Q:.\ c..ct.\Q.\Q.).. ~(

~\cffi.\\\c..c:\\~~ \{Q.u\Q.~
\SC\l (:)\\\~\c...\s \\s\

~~~~s ~ \)JQ.Q.~\'\ d.~?~
t\.~\'C\~ t.sc..~'<-

~(c(..'\)\c".'.\\s.)

\~\\c..\\ S~ \>\\~() 0-.S \\\Q... ~\o_ '\<;L~\\ {o~ \)\s C.SS\S(\m<2.\'rt

-\c -\'""<2... S"'\j', ,~,Q., -m_ Q(~~(c_\'(\ • s,nc..<L n\s c..ss\~(\\(\Q.\\\- \-~ -\-~<L

S\'J\\Y. \\ct.\ ""ill.. \>\~~<c..\'C'\ ., <bur<'l\'<) \lc...s \:,QQ..() c._ ~c:>c\Q...\ ~'\\~\\<?..\
'-'.l \\-\1 \\~ d.\sc..\~\\\\<:'...\'\ \ rt\, c..c.:\\o\\S at \) t c~(c...~ ~\lc..S(L

d<2.~\c\\S ~' \\Q..~cl\\R. be"'a...\l \a~ . P...~ -\\\<2.... 'L~\l\\j~ d\~\~\\()CS'\ c:..'nc..\~Q_ c£ J\~\'C\~c\ ~~ " G~(Y\(Y\ \tc.s \\~\
\Q.C..Q...\\l~ 0.... ~(\C\..lS d\~\~\\()~\'\ C..."c..\~e... S\<'1(.<2... d..ffi\ (_ \(\

'* ~\)~\-®.~ t. \~1 '\~css) . ~\ \3'~ , G\l\Y\~ ~Q..\(\C..\\\S '" \\\Q...

\.\nc_\ <\a-de..'\ ~\)c..s<L

\\"\Q.... ~N\\.l: \\Q.~ m. ~~c~~c..\C\ - ~\'\c..S<L \:

"Q_ ~(\~tal \)c~\J\~\0\\ ~c:\ow\\- \IJ\\\"\ C...(\ '\()~e..\\(\\-\~ 11 S'\-c:\\lS

"-.>\)Q..~Q..

\)c._s \)QQ.() \\Q.\d S\\\(.Q.. \\\~VQ.\Y\'o~\ d!J\C) _. -\c.t \c\\~Q_\

%c..~ \)~ \'no_ ~ \Q.SC:.. ~ \\:lQ..d q (J - d.c.'\ ~\'\c..SQ.. ~Q...~ \ad C...\\d. \\\Q...

0\JQ..\ c_\\ c\\Q.. ' \Q..C..\ ~~()~~c..~ ~Q..\ \ctl G..\\ d. \ C\\SQ_\ \\)Q\\ C.\\'\
()\\\~\ \\\~12.... \n %Q... \)\C<j(c.."' ~\"\c..SQ... . ( ~·. ~Q.\.fuQ.\ \-\-\Q....

S\'t\\J:\\Q.\
(\"'\Q.(Y\\c\\

m..
an

~\~\\c~Q5.~.\c\.".'\~-\Q"..1.n~c.s.."\\Q-.d..'-l.\S\c...(~)uo'o\oo'<-\-.\\<2a...

\ ~ sa~
SN\U '. \ \ Q..\

~o\\c:'\
Ul.. ~~~~c..\f\.)

f(c\<1 t-1\csc..\) \ ;) d..D\0 -\o ~\.Yi)\JS\ \ .. d..Q\:6 ~ c..4~s «-~~u~~~.sn~\\-\­

c.f %~ ~v~~\ ~\\\\~\'\ (:..\)o..~~Q... c\= t\~\'(1~\Q..~ E~<L _, G\.lm\C\

H?..c..Q...\\JQ..tl nc ~Q..c..\Cffi\.\\~~\(;)\\ S""\c:\'-JS ~\c..Q.S J S"'\c'l\.)S \)Q_C.\\~S ...

C::>-\c:\\.)~ ~Q..\.l\Q.."-lS _, O( co-\c.O~s c...~\)Q..C...\S cl- \'\\ s c....ss\g<'I\<"'\Q.\\T

-\o \-n~ ~\'l\\.}'. \\<?_( Til.. \)(Cb(c..('<'\ . £\JIL\'\ '\0 ·- d~'\5 S\\'tCJ~- \-\\~

ooU,)\'\- \('(\~\Q.MQ.<"'r\<?-d SW\\l'.\\Q.\ m.. c\'t ~\JS\JS\ \ .l dJJ\3 ~ c.... -\\)~Q.<2...-

~(Dsf\a.m
mQ.m'oe.\

~c\\t'\ -\C>~~ Q..*c..--\<:...\c.ss\{\~c......"\\c\\

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 1 Filed 02/12/15 Page 15 of 17
nc.s C..Cl(n\Y)\\-\e.Q.... ( Q_ ~\Jf \~ \'v\Q.~\)Q..\ .) Q C..C..\<2... CJl<i \\Qci-~Q..~\
~m\~QS CS\d o_ C..\"\c..\\~C..C\ .. \\\Q_ S'N\\J \)(\\-\- \'1\Ci\~~\ ) (<2.\J\<2..VJC2..cl (;\J\'<\\<"{S CLSS\<j\\<ne..\tt S'"\c:\-'.)S OS\d. S\.)~\'<\\\Wd. \"\s
tQ.<:.C>N\Me.\\dc....\\a\'\ -\o \\\Q_ \JJo..\dQ..\\ c...\\d.. S\'1\ \.) S\J\)Q..(\\\~\\dQ..\\\­
\or .\'\nc....\ ~\)\C\JC-\ c....\ \-\\<2... \ns-\\"\\.5\\o\\c_\ \~'Je..\.

1.n \\Jt\\ ~ \-\-\Q... \tJc..(d.e..\\ j \-n<2.. S\'1\\J S'->\)Q.~ \\\\'Q.(\c\Q.o\ a..\\cl \\).)o

~~ \t.lc..~d(L\\S a\- ~C.'l\\\'\ ( b~\\dc..\\-\S -> Q..~S...\\Jd:\\'15 ()\\~

~'-"'\ \t.JcudQ..(') ) '"'o..'JQ_ c..c\\\Je..\\e..d <2..v<2..''\ qa d.~~s ~\\'\c..<2....

\\.\J5\J~\- \ _, 'd.C\.'?> \.JJ\\\\ \-\\C<... ~\cc..\<1. C\)Q...~ct\a\\S ~CS\c...~~\

( \)Q..~(\do...'*) G..~d -\-~<2... ~<2£:)\S~CS)\- '\=-,Q_\~ (j~Q.Cct\o\\S ~Q.S\Q~~

OS\d (e..\J \Q.VJ'Ld \\"\Q_ \'2-C.C\OMQ.\\dC...\\ C\\ cA \~<2.. C...\c...SS\~\~~\0\\

c..c,~\n\~ c..a\\Q..c.:\\\JQ..\'\ -\c, \\\\c..\ ~\)\c\Jc1 c_\ \\'\Q... Q.~es..m\\Je....

\<2..\J~\ . Du~'"S G\)""'~'s \as"\ ~'S~~ <.._~) qa-dc..'\ c:.\~\-\\<:.c:t\c\l

oo\\\ S~\.lS ~<2..\.l\Q...\.IJ~ o...-\-

\Q...\JQ)S

_,

\-"Q.....

\klc..<\ d<2..\\ ~

-\\\<2.... SN\\)

s\l\)Q..~\~(\tlQ..(\\ ~ ~'*' \R..~~ ~c...,c\<2..\\s o~ ~c."'\\,, o...\\tl..

\-\\(L C...\c..ss\\\c..G::\-\Q~ C...Om~\~{L u...\\ , (~c:\-\\l~\'\ .. tl2.ct~~Q."~~

OS"td./of\ ~~~o\JQ..d G\.)~\r\"S \(c..\\S~( ~('om -\-'nQ_ S~\)'. \\Q..\

'"ill... ~((::,~\C...~ .

~\0\'() n-,~ \J\\'-~\\S-\\-\\J\\0\'\C....\ C$\'::{'\("\Q_()\- -\(::, ~CL S~\J'. \\Q.\
'ill.. \)\o~\0...\<\ *o\ -\-~ ~~~ *\\J\L '\Q..c1S, ( C-\\d C..<:l\.l\1\\('~) .. G~~\\\
\)c..s s\.)~Q.\Q..~ s\s~\\\c..c...\\-t antl '''Q..~e.'s''o\<2... 'nc..r \'(\ . 'Ln
c..d~h-\-\o\\ -\-~ -\ho_ ~\)'\s\t-.c_\ J (Y'\<2..""\c....\ and Q.<no\\c(')c_\ <m~\)\s\\ O..Od ~s'\c..\\c\c~\c..c...\ \-\c..'-.l~C... ~~\\«..\cl\'\ o~\O--t-~d.. ~\%
~to\o(\~(2..~ s.o\ \-\a.s'\ C..C~\\\Q.\'C'\Q(T\- .. G~M~ \)c.s Q..'(~\\Q.\\C...<2..c:\
\~"''"S \\c.sd.s\-\\ ~s c..G~ do...<Y't~'"~ Q..~c\- s Q.~c..\\.)~\\J<L -\-~
-\\\Q.... ~\tc....Cltd..\\\0..\'\ <...o\\~H-\\o\lS c..nd. ~Q...S~\ \c.."\-\o()S ~\\t\\\\ -\\\Q... SN\'J'. \\Ill Ul. Q~~'c..."" .
~ O\\Q. \lo\'* . G\.)(Y'\rc\ \os"\ c..s (n\JLX't Cl£l .\\~ (S()) ~o~d~
o\. ~\ M\jSC..\Q... """cffi {,o\n \OC...\0'.:)-\\ \"\\o\\ cl.\)Q_ ~ ~~::;\<m~t~

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 1 Filed 02/12/15 Page 16 of 17
tc:cc\. U..\\d (Q.S"\\: \c.:\\ cos en co~t<)\ ssc...t'\ o..\\u ~ \)C..C't.G.S,)<2..S .
SeQ. J ill«?:l"h\u\\c\\c..\ ~~\c..c....\ \=",\Q_ . (:,~('(\('() 'nc.s e..n\.l\~c\\~Q.\t\c...\
COQ.\\S\-\\u\~ Oi\d C:OOS""\c..\\\- bc\\(L ru1d ~~\(\\ ~c_\(\ d.\JQ_ "\~
{l")\£\\('()C....\ ~\J"\S\dQ. \Q..C..H~~\0() and ~QCS\J\~ "\(:) S'-l\\\\S~~ (~(\"\\c_\ \) \~\~ ~} . s~Q. ~ 1..\\S\\\\J\\O\\C...\ \"\~\~\ ~\\Q_ . G\J~~ \.s Q..SSQ.'*\c...\\'\ ~-\"(C..\\~Q.._d. ~\:o~ cl\ \o\.1~ 0\\Q.S cl\Je..,
nc.s --\C) \Q.S"\~ \c::\\a()S a\\ \J\s\-tc.."\\a" c...\\d.. -\-Q..\~\',~\\c<.... c:..e-\\s. Gru~t"l d.\('('1\()\S~Q..d. Sac..\c._\ c.nd. c..amro~\\ \~cl\\J~ S'c..\\\s d\J<L ~ {'(\\\\\\<'C._\ ~\l\'C"\C-\\ c..a\t\c....c...."t .
1.n ~\'-\ .) b~\n~ {Q..CQ..\\JQ_d CL ~Q...(C\12..._ ~12.\\\o_\ d..\JQ_ ~ \\\ ~c..\\­
Cl:\· \~-\- ~ "\a \)\.s c.ss\3\\\f'\<2.'* ~ \\\C?_ S~\.l '. \\Q..\ m. \)\~(C..\'f\.
<;\)~~ 'ne-s ~Q._\ \)0...\0\Q... ~Q..\J\Q..\J.) \() d.D\'6 G.\\d. ~~~\\\~
~- \\\cS\d~ t~\\\\c_\\\JQ_ ~\c..C££S \-o <:D~\)\~f2... ~r
\Xl-\c\Q... Q...\,~\\)\\\""'.
~nci \o..s-\\'\ ) G\J\'<'\('(\ C:..~\J\d. ()o\ ~c.:\\\J~\'\ c..\"cl\~~CL "\\\<L
c..c\\d\-\\C\\S o\. n\s C.a\\·\\0.e.me.\\-\- \"\~\l~~ C..C..C.J2.S. S -\-c \\\Q_
C..<:)\JrtS Soo\\~\ c:hlQ.. \-() \Q...S"\(\c::\\<3\\S C\\ \c.....\).;) \\\)\c..S'\
~~\)\~.

.
Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 1 Filed 02/12/15 Page 17 of 17
\1\) \""\-\\Q..SS l "\ s T
, (CO(\+\ \\\.)Q..d..)

.
~e...\\()dCL \)m.>\s
~~~\~ he.\d ~xcl\affi ~Ci"\~~
Gec~s'c... ~~ o\ Cc~Qd-\owo
:?:Co {)c..."\~a\ Rac.d
Fo~s'\t\'1 " c;~ ?>\Ocl..~
Rufus lose.\\
\J()\-t tv\cncaer ) SN\\J
E:ec(~\c... tl\C!j()<:f'o"\\C... \ C.\c£;£;~\cct~ \\\so\\ . ~-a \6c~ ?J<ol~
::SC.S:.~\\ " G,~ ~Q~3

Mon\q_,\J<L G\'.o\s"\o<l C.c\)(\se...\o\ S""'\J
GC2.0\_g\c... b\~o~oo"\\c... ~ C..\c.ss\V,ccl~\\ \)~ ~
\).D.~~ ~'9>17
~cc\ffi\\ ,. G, ~ ~0~

t)w9n<L \k) \ \ \ ,c..~S
~c..\() c{ SC2.C..u\\:~ .. S""'\J
Geo(s'c.. ~,~()05\\~ \ c.\~,-\\t..d~" ~( ,~
~.0. ~0~ ~77 "'SCL~\\ b~ ?l~~
.)

""'<L \\o"\Q..'. ~v\\.)s '-c~f·-" . \'1\c\\\~\JQ.... G\l()\s--ta01 Gi'ttl b\rJc..'\~<L.

\u\\\\(l.\<\S COQ..\\.)Q_ o\\

S\11\\.) C....\c.ss\-\k.c:\\o\\ C..C"'trt~Q_

c...s \h~ <:.~ci~('()c.<\ -> \\\~ C.C.<e... c..\1cl \~~'2.\'r\- ~<2.~~ >

Of\d ~ Se_c_\.)f\""' N\~\:>c2s. ~\\nd.c.... \)c_\.)\s ~c...\"\\<:.\~
\n c...\\ Q.......,:.Q..c.~.r\\\JQ.... \<2..\Je.\ \e..\.)\<t.\.\)S of c__\c.ss\(\c..d\o\\

C.OMm\~Q.. \e£.()~{n<2..<\dC-\ \o()S .

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION

TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, Plaintiff,
v. Warden BRUCE CHATMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-CV-41 (MTT) ) ) ) ) )

ORDER

United States Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle recommends granting in part and

denying in part the Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 16) and granting in part and

denying in part the Plaintiff’s third motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. 26).

(Doc. 29). The Defendants and the Plaintiff have filed objections to the Recommendation

and responses to those objections. (Docs. 31; 32; 33; 34). The Court has thoroughly

considered the parties’ objections and has made a de novo determination of the portions of

the Recommendation to which the parties object. Two objections bear mention.

First, the Plaintiff objects to the Recommendation “to the extent [it concludes] that his

due process claims accruing from April 17, 2013 through July 31, 2013 should be dismissed as untimely.”1 (Doc. 31 at 8). The Plaintiff alleges that he received the same type of

meaningless and pretextual periodic reviews regarding his continued confinement in the

SMU under the “old SMU Program” as he did under the “new SMU: Tier III Program”

implemented on August 1, 2013. (Docs. 26-1 at 7, 13-15; 31 at 8). The Magistrate Judge

1 The Plaintiff filed his complaint on February 12, 2015, and thus any claims accruing prior to February 12, 2013 are barred by the statute of limitations. The Plaintiff contends that he had three periodic reviews regarding his continued confinement in the SMU that became final between February 12, 2013 and July 31, 2013. (Docs. 26-1 at 13-15; 31 at 8). One of these reviews was conducted on December 10, 2012, but the Plaintiff claims it did not become final until April 17, 2013. (Docs. 26-1 at 70; 31 at 8 n.3). The Court expresses no opinion on whether the claim arising from the December 10, 2012 review accrued within the statute of limitations.

addressed two of these periodic reviews in the context of exhaustion, and the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing any claims related to the Plaintiff’s continued confinement in the SMU prior to August 1, 2013. (Doc. 29 at 1, 9-10). As the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded, the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that the duration and conditions of the SMU impose an “atypical and significant hardship on [him] in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life” and that he has been deprived of procedural due process with respect to his continued confinement in the SMU. (Doc. 29 at 18-23); Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). Accordingly, the Court cannot say that the Plaintiff’s claims arising from reviews during the period of February 12, 2013 through July 31, 2013 are time-barred.
The Plaintiff, however, first alleged that he received these periodic reviews when he filed his third motion for leave to file an amended complaint. See (Doc. 11 at 2) (first motion for leave) (“[The Plaintiff] did not receive any additional hearings or other due process regarding his continued confinement in the SMU until August 1, 2013.”) (emphasis in original). Unlike his extensive discussion of the Tier III Program, the Plaintiff only mentions Defendant Bishop in connection with these reviews. He alleges she approved the review committee’s recommendation to transfer him from the SMU but nevertheless “arbitrarily continu[ed]” the Plaintiff’s confinement in the SMU. (Doc. 26-1 at 13-15, 58). Accordingly, the Plaintiff may amend his complaint to bring a due process claim against Defendant Bishop based on the reviews he allegedly received under the “old SMU Program.”2
Second, the Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to deny him leave to amend his complaint to add an “Eighth Amendment malnutrition claim” because such an amendment would be futile. (Docs. 29 at 16; 31 at 2-7). “A proposed amendment
2 The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint should be denied because “any new claims or defendants have not been screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.” (Doc. 27 at 4). As discussed, this claim survives review under § 1915A, as does the Eighth Amendment malnutrition claim discussed below.
-2-

may be denied for futility ‘when the complaint as amended would still be properly dismissed.’” Coventry First, LLC v. McCarty, 605 F.3d 865, 870 (11th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). Although the Magistrate Judge recognized that the Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies by filing and appealing the denial of Grievance No. 137685, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the complaint raised in the grievance was time-barred because the grievance was filed on November 14, 2012—the day after the Plaintiff allegedly learned that he had lost 40 pounds from malnutrition. (Docs. 16-2 at ¶ 39; 26-1 at 44; 29 at 15-16; 33 at 2). The Plaintiff first argues that the Magistrate Judge determined elsewhere in his Recommendation that this claim is timely under the continuing violation doctrine.3 (Docs. 31 at 2; 29 at 5-6). The Plaintiff also argues that even if the continuing violation doctrine does not apply, the statute of limitations did not begin to run until he finished exhausting his administrative remedies, which he alleges occurred on March 7, 2013, when he was notified that his appeal was denied.4 (Doc. 31 at 3-5). The Defendants apparently agree that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the Plaintiff finished the grievance process. (Doc. 33 at 2) (“Plaintiff had two years from the denial of his appeal to file a lawsuit with respect to the allegations in grievance number 137685.”); see also Riley v. Vaughn, 2015 WL 9998422, at *4 (S.D. Ga.) (collecting cases). At this stage, the Court cannot say that “it is ‘apparent from the face of the complaint’ that the claim is time-barred.” La Grasta v. First Union Sec., Inc., 358 F.3d 840, 845 (11th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).
Nor can the Court say that the claim is otherwise futile and fails as a matter of law. The Plaintiff has alleged in detail how he receives inadequate and substandard food on a daily basis in the SMU, including receiving rotten fruits and vegetables, spoiled milk, and
3 It remains to be seen whether this is a plausible continuing violation and, if not, whether the amendment will relate back under Rule 15(c). 4 The appeal was denied on February 18, 2013. (Doc. 16-2 at ¶ 39).
-3-

“garbage-destined food items deemed unsuitable for inmates at the main facility.” (Doc. 261 at 39-44). As a result, the Plaintiff alleges that he lost between 40 and 50 pounds and suffers from substantial muscle degeneration, constant bone and joint pain, severe intestinal pain, and extreme hunger pains. (Doc. 26-1 at 31, 44-49). The Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that the challenged condition is “extreme” and “‘pose[s] an unreasonable risk of serious damage to his future health’ or safety.” Chandler v. Crosby, 379 F.3d 1278, 1289 (11th Cir. 2004) (alteration in original) (citations omitted). The Plaintiff must also show that “the defendant prison officials ‘acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind’ with regard to the condition at issue.” Id. (citation omitted). The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Washington, as the Food Service Director, was “responsible for providing adequate nutrition,” that she refused to take corrective action in response to the Plaintiff’s grievances, and that she “willfully submitted a false statement that [led] to the failure of others to take corrective action.” (Doc. 26-1 at 5, 61-62). The Plaintiff further alleges that despite receiving numerous complaints from him and other SMU inmates about food deprivation in the SMU, Defendants Chatman, McCloud, Powell, Bishop, Logan, and Williams have all refused to take corrective action. (Doc. 26-1 at 43-45, 48-49, 62). Accordingly, the Plaintiff may amend his complaint to bring his Eighth Amendment malnutrition claim against Defendants Washington, Chatman, McCloud, Powell, Bishop, Logan, and Williams.
The Recommendation is ADOPTED as modified and made the Order of this Court. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss (Doc. 16) filed by Defendants Chatman, Jacobs, McCloud, and Powell is DENIED with regard to the Plaintiff’s due process claims related to his confinement in the SMU on and after August 1, 2013, and GRANTED with regard to any other due process claims. The Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Doc. 26) is GRANTED with regard to (1) his Eighth Amendment malnutrition claim against Defendants Washington, Chatman, McCloud, Powell, Bishop, Logan, and Williams; (2) his due process claims
-4-

against Defendants Bishop, Logan, and Williams related to his confinement in the SMU on and after August 1, 2013; and (3) his due process claim against Defendant Bishop based on the reviews he received under the “old SMU Program.” The motion to amend is DENIED with regard to any of the Plaintiff’s other Eighth Amendment claims. It is ORDERED that service be made on Margaret Washington, June Bishop, Rufus Logan, and Dwayne Williams and that they file an Answer or such other response as may be appropriate under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
SO ORDERED, this 31st day of March, 2016. S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
-5-

 
 Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 104 Filed 10/02/17 Page 1 of 1

'"iN tlR VNm:b stl\'K! ,UT"-rrT r ov~1 ~~ 't\1 ~ ~hl\\~ br..rr~"<:~ vf G ~v~6-r ~
('IIr(f.Jrv b 1 vr.c.,- 1) r-1

C''-r-.R·•E··'C"\ ESIV(v"';Er'-D,··-:,v("\c,...

<~.j ~ 1\N ,

2011 OCT -2 AH 9: 32

.r;' cv- o.swr 5-

li ooD~

t

-

•~.At:·-.Un.1-.OTSLJ.E-0(/"~ .,.. MACOI .I,

1 lt' ~ - .. -

0 I\ •

,

L·
I

.... {' U

-r-~:• ...
t-vi\ ,J

GECRGI A

,A

(lt'l\'- fAt O ~..S:. ( f ft.'-.J
·J)r fet) c "~ J

t'!Al~K8IJl~11N'1Wr1~l~1En ~"~~11'J/lrlL(f\'61\-Tr\lT)f:~~ff=irKt\f.o,"1.~1-''~A\/.Ot91Ol~f\'.€)~J~~T-.~lrO;voYU~lf"fNl'~'$~-l~\tlS-\p~"oEb~':Jf"t1'NS'L\116"/\4(P=8I"\"a.!0~16(~ ~0J\')\.~..U,.l.0n) (~OnAvP~.v~:(Jtto\lel~3o~cf.U·kcl~ O;.(: ~l_j

eOJ , b~NY'fl.J l ~a tv\ 01"0c-i to"- "l"NTE'/t ~ ~NT~ ut-J ~~ (.

11'1~ 1"l ~ T~ 1"~8ll'tm.-:--l't

~

1'~"[11rL\r1C\!Ml -f"1~~~vt.b.~f\'..N. .~~"-

N
U(

r.'l-~~XO~\J.l~

f1NYJ~1C1l...'<\}.(.,"'t'N.J\Jit\'

''

(".t.'.

il.

o.S,

f._~. .

••~

f\L-<H\).1 ~ ~ ~ . H\ I(~ cu ~rftJb S' rtt ", f(~ l> 6 ~~ M)T ~1'\1~ 'Ttl'-~~ STI"lTf( ( 5' r-t>J) rHf\1
.f nt ~ f\,l. l\ ,1\, 'rlt~~~ ~ rlt~ ~ ,. f\1\\, v-;.r~lh~ , ·"~ v.J.C.. 19 15 ( ' J -rr ONC.OJSTn-vTt'~ .J fllJ W~
N(~rtf~JJ' Q v ,.\.rf-rZS ft~ •l'.a fOI'J\\ t\ hV~ E~n (•·r. f.fl ·) s-r..."l \5 Ofll Mt\~" L ~'-'U"·"~ 1 o r'4~ •·-r~t'A(4't\~ 'f'wC~ O( r a <3'T V.l p~lfJT( f\ \.. '(NJ\4\r " {''l'·b· e.I. P:rt'·), E";< <.f t' fl'~~ 1 \
.f "\...~ u~ <. l fi l'5(3:) B ~(_I\VJ~ \} .,) f~~~~I!M-v ~~~ 'f'l! ~ ~.S\, l~~wt r<N \flv\~avt ~N 1 ~, u: rr c-xfl \:! ~{\ "" ru~ ~ ull......,'tNl ~1\M s- \) f -r ~.u: ~..r:. :u.) iS ~ -r f a~'!tJG
bE)J( Ol Ab( Qvi''T<: fil\l~ t-WA wvTI't!'-r-r ~'V (\t~X) l(,~f 3 ~ P o\)'4\ilH.: ('\.J {/~ 1'\" El'f;tV(/ b f V'r2:)

-rr ~f tntf\\ eft'-~ #.Nf:J v~~f'( U..J AR q n ~l"~E'b M \-b T< r\ u.f\.f ; l~ J H ~ ~'f1:~ t)CtJ'tf b D'-~t..~if'\. c1\fl~ ~"- T \ \)ri-1 "tff.[-r /)~ P MA.J j /~ \ N\: 1'J _a (=~v~ llFl/tq) S'\NJ1'"l~~ .tJ

f\~ ~rs ~V(~~~ f(jiJC\J~) .S1'.J vS "CJ\E"( 'f'O ~J· "S) IE J'~ ~ ~\1\/~ E)t ~l)J~ ( ~ (~('l' 1...JW:;- ~o~M ~~o -"" o~'l.- ~.Ut.Ju~~~ \1\JIJ\ p~o7 frr f\:'( f'S' 1\I'T*

llolli\A ('f\.Jr:.. Ht"1' rvr{tl-_("f1 Fov~l'f ~ s(,Jvs -tN[\2'c-\ f'uf\J S.J. rND ( G~ ~ \f J' ) Bt""' V~ nx-.s~f!) G'v\ J"~h~ GX~K.c ~s-s.

f\IN

L-1

(I II) (J (

S<E-t<Milxot> '-0)
'./

)

.~ /

)

1f' qot17.J
. s (..r.P
3 D\) 1ST {\\}~
(\.C~JJ s~LlC1 0A ] 6'j 5]

~ ~f~ b~~ (;A. ~ VVr,.Jf fp p..u-p oS''t, ,~ra, V-5'toJo/..­ ~fJ~ C: tLMJYJ p~ o F

 
 Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 121 Filed 11/21/17 Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION

TIMOTHY GUMM, Plaintiff,
v. ERIC SELLERS, et al.,
Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 3:15-cv-00043-CAR-CHW

:

;

:

:

Proceedings Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

:

Before the U.S. Magistrate Judge

ORDER On October 26 and 27, 2017, Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Craig Haney, visited the Special Management Unit at Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison. As part of his site visit, Dr. Haney interviewed eleven prisoners. Plaintiff has requested that Defendants provide the medical, mental-health, and institutional files of the eleven inmates Dr. Haney interviewed, pursuant to Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 116, p. 3-4. Plaintiff contends that the records are directly relevant to Dr. Haney’s expert report, and that the evidence will be “one of the key factors” in establishing Plaintiff’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims. Id. at 56. Plaintiff also contends that his request is not unduly burdensome due to the Georgia Department of Corrections’ (“GDC”) resources and expertise in providing similar records in prison-condition cases. Id. at 6. Defendants obejct that that the requested records are not relevant to the matters at hand, contending that the institutional files contain “confidential state secrets” under Georgia law and that the records could range “from hundreds to thousands of pages,” that would create an undue burden on Defendants. Doc. 115, p. 1-2. Defendants also contend that the eleven non-party
1

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 121 Filed 11/21/17 Page 2 of 10
inmate interviewees have not consented to the GDC releasing their records to Plaintiff, and that privileges and privacy restrictions under federal law (HIPPAA) and Georgia law, prevent Defendants from releasing the records.
Under Rule 26(b)(1), the records Plaintiff requests are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment Claims, and are proportional to the needs of Dr. Haney for formulating his report. Haney Decl. pp. 5-6. The physical and psychological impacts of confinement in the SMU are material both to Plaintiff’s due process claim and to his conditions of confinement claim. Dr. Haney has testified that his standard methodology for evaluating conditions of confinement includes not only inspection of facilities and confidential interviews with inmates, but also review of inmate records. Haney Aff., Doc. 116-1, ¶ 14. As Dr. Haney explains,
Institutional and medical files provide a documentary record of a prisoner’s behavior, physical health, and mental health over the course of his incarceration. These records typically contain valuable additional information (of the sort that is difficult to acquire at cell-front and even in a confidential interview) as well as general background information that provides useful context for the data collected directly from the prisoners in the course of interviewing them. Id. at ¶ 16. Dr. Haney has reviewed Plaintiff’s own institutional file, and notes that “these files contain a large amount of information that does not appear to be categorized in a way that would allow me to designate in advance those portions that would be relevant,” but that “most of the documents in the file are relevant and potentially significant” to his review. Id. at ¶ 18. These records are thus reasonably related to the issues in this case. The burden on Defendants to produce these records is not unduly burdensome. Defendants are in sole possession of these records. Although Defendants note that the files may be hundreds, or even thousands of pages, Plaintiff is requesting only eleven files out of a possible
2

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 121 Filed 11/21/17 Page 3 of 10
class of approximately two-hundred inmates. Defendants have been on notice of the identity of these eleven inmates since Dr. Haney’s visit in October, and should not have difficulty in preparing these records. Plaintiff states he is willing to hire a third-party copying service to scan the requested records on-site, to defray the costs of copying and scanning the documents. Id. at 6. Because the factual issues in this case are complex and the allegations are serious, the benefit to Plaintiff in having the records outweighs the inconvenience to the Defendants in producing them.
Defendants may not rely on state law privileges to avoid disclosure. In federal courts, privileges are governed by Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence which states:
The common law [. . .] as interpreted by United States courts in the light of reason and experience [. . .] governs a claim of privilege unless any of the following provides otherwise: the United States Constitution; a federal statute; or rules prescribed by the Supreme Court [. . . .] But in a civil case, state law governs privilege regarding a claim or defense for which state law supplies the rule of decision.
Fed. R. Evid. 501 (emphasis added). In accordance with Rule 501, federal courts have held that where a plaintiff’s asserted claims arise only under federal law, federal privilege law governs. Hancock v. Hobbs, 967 F.2d 462, 467 (11th Cir. 1992)(“We therefore hold that the federal law of privilege provides the rule of decision in a civil proceeding where the court's jurisdiction is premised upon a federal question [. . . .]”); Matter of Int'l Horizons, Inc., 689 F.2d 996, 1003 (11th Cir. 1982)(“it is clear at this point that this is a federal law proceeding and that the Bankruptcy Court is not required to apply the Georgia accountant-client privilege.”); In re Sealed Case (Med. Records), 381 F.3d 1205, 1212 (D.C. Cir. 2004)(“It is thus clear that when a plaintiff asserts federal claims, federal privilege law governs, but when he asserts state claims, state
3

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 121 Filed 11/21/17 Page 4 of 10
privilege law applies.”).1
Plaintiff’s claims in this case arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, with no additional state claims. As state law does not
supply any claim or defense to the rule of decision in this case, any privileges present will be
governed by applicable federal laws.
Federal law and regulations allow the requested documents, specifically the medical and
mental-health records, to be disclosed by an Order from this Court. The Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), with corresponding regulations, allows
entities to disclose private health information in a judicial proceeding:
(i) In response to an order of a court or administrative tribunal, provided that the covered entity discloses only the protected health information expressly authorized by such order; or (ii) In response to a subpoena, discovery request, or other lawful process, that is not accompanied by an order of a court or administrative tribunal [. . . .] 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e)(1)(i-ii).2 The requested disclosure would fall under §164.512(e)(1)(i), as
Plaintiff seeks a court order and Defendants have contested Plaintiff’s discovery requests under §164.512(e)(1)(ii).3 Accordingly, this Court has the authority to order the disclosure of the
relevant medical and mental-health records pursuant to HIPPA and the corresponding
regulations.
1 See also Inspector Gen. of U.S. Dep't of Agric. v. Griffin, 972 F. Supp. 676, 681 (M.D. Ga.), aff'd sub nom. Inspector Gen. of U.S. Dep't of Agric. v. Glenn, 122 F.3d 1007 (11th Cir. 1997). 2 If the disclosure request is made under §164.512(e)(1)(ii), the requesting party must have made reasonable efforts to give notice of the request to the subject of the protected health information, or secure a qualified protective order. § 164.512(e)(1)(ii)(A‐B); see § 164.512(e)(1)(v). 3 Plaintiff’s Brief and Response do not indicate that Plaintiff asked for consent, attempted to gain consent, or actually received written consent from the eleven interviewed inmates to review their medical and mental health records. Likewise, there is no evidence that Plaintiff gave the inmates reasonable notice of Plaintiff’s request to Defendants of the eleven inmates’ files. See § 164.512(e)(1)(ii)(A‐B). The Court does note that pursuant to this Court’s Previous Order (Doc. 114, p. 2 ¶ 5), Dr. Haney was only allowed to interview inmates that voluntarily consented to be interviewed.
4

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 121 Filed 11/21/17 Page 5 of 10
Although there is a federal psychotherapist-patient privilege, this privilege does not apply to prohibit the disclosure of the eleven inmates’ mental-health files. The Supreme Court has recognized a psychotherapist-patient privilege under Fed. R. Evid. 501. Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1996)(“we hold that confidential communications between a licensed psychotherapist and her patients in the course of diagnosis or treatment are protected from compelled disclosure [. . . .]”). This privilege generally prohibits the disclosure of confidential communications between licensed psychotherapists and patients, made in the course of diagnosis or treatment. Id. at 15; Guilford v. MarketStar Corp., WL 10664964, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 18, 2009); United States v. Ghane, 673 F.3d 771, 782 (8th Cir. 2012) (“In its discussion of the contours of the psychotherapist-patient privilege, the [Supreme Court] only contemplated information gleaned during actual psychotherapy sessions conducted, obviously, by a licensed therapist.”).
The federal psychotherapist-patient privilege does not prohibit the disclosure of the eleven inmate’s mental-health records, however. Defendants have not contended that the mental health records contain confidential information between the eleven inmates and licensed psychotherapists. Doc. 117, p. 2-6; See Jaffee, 518 U.S. at 15-16. Defendants, instead, contend that state-law privileges bar the disclosure of the mental-health records, as state law privileges are stricter than federal law. Doc. 117, pp. 2-6. As noted above, state-law privileges are not applicable. Because Defendants have not demonstrated that the requested mental-health records contain confidential information between the inmates and licensed psychotherapists, the federal psychotherapist-patient privilege does not apply. United States v. Wilk, 572 F.3d 1229, 1236 (11th Cir. 2009)(disclosing mental-health records because there was no evidence the records contained information about the plaintiff and psychiatric treatment); see United States v. Hale,
5

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 121 Filed 11/21/17 Page 6 of 10
No. 2:16-MC-01792-MHH, 2017 WL 3828075, at *2 (N.D. Ala. June 30, 2017)(“These mental health records ‘draw on source material otherwise unavailable to the plaintiffs, and will likely prove extremely important’ as the DOJ attempts to demonstrate ‘that the defendant[s'] policies and practices towards mentally ill prisoners [violate the prisoners'] constitutional rights.’” quoting Dunn v. Dunn, 163 F.Supp.3d 1196, 1202 (M.D. Ala. 2016)); see also Jaffee, 518 U.S. at 15–16 (“[A] psychotherapist privilege covers confidential communications made to licensed psychiatrists and psychologists.”).
To the extent that Defendants request that the Court incorporates a state-law privilege regarding the “state secrets” of the inmates’ institutional files into federal law, that argument is unpersuasive. Although federal courts are empowered to “continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges,” this evolution is “disfavored and should not be lightly created.” Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007)(quoting Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 (1980)); see United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 710 (1974). When creating an evidentiary privilege, four factors should be evaluated: 1) the needs of the public good; 2) whether the privilege is rooted in the imperative need for confidence and trust; 3) the evidentiary benefit of the denial of the privilege; and 4) consensus among the states. Adkins, 488 F.3d at 1328; Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 10-16 (1996).
It appears that Defendants attempt to rely on the first two factors of Jaffee, contending that the inmates’ institutional files are “state secrets” and “security-related materials.” Doc. 117, p. 1; Doc. 115, p. 2. Although these files may contain sensitive materials, as well as what Defendants call “mundane documents,” establishing a privilege in this matter must be considered against the “corresponding and overriding goal,” the disclosure of essential evidence to determine whether there have been constitutional violations. Adkins, 488 F.3d at 1328-29.
6

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 121 Filed 11/21/17 Page 7 of 10
Although Defendants have a legitimate interest in maintaining and protecting the confidentiality of prison files, especially files for the inmates in Tier III of SMU, certain established means can maintain the Defendants’ interest while achieving a reasonable disclosure. Adkins, 488 F.3d at 1329 (“In the absence of the privilege, the district court retains its authority to protect [the defendant’s] interests through other established means such as protective orders, confidentiality agreements, and when appropriate, by disclosure only after an in-camera review of these documents.”). Here, there is already a Protective Order (Doc. 111), a means expressly mentioned in Adkins, in place. This Order is still in effect, and will adequately preserve the Defendants’ interest of security and confidentiality. Accordingly, the institutional files for the eleven inmates interviewed by Dr. Haney do not warrant the protection of an evidentiary privilege in this case.
Upon consideration of the relevancy and the value of the items Plaintiff requests, and pursuant to 42 C.F.R. 164.512(e)(1)(i), Defendants are ORDERED to disclose the (1) medical records, (2) mental-health records, and (3) institutional files for the eleven inmates Dr. Haney interviewed on October 26 and 27, 2017. Regarding the institutional files mentioned above, these Documents are to be labeled “CONFIDENTIAL—SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER”, pursuant to this Court’s previous Protective Order (Doc. 111).
Although it does not appear that medical and mental-health disclosures as ordered under 164.512(e)(1)(i) must be made in connection with a qualified protective order (see 45 C.F.R. § 164.152(e)(1)(ii)(v)), in an abundance of caution, it is FURTHER ORDERED:
1. As used herein, “Protected Health Information” (“PHI”) shall mean any information, whether oral testimony or recorded in any form or medium, or any portion thereof, that (a) identifies an individual or, with respect to which, there is a reasonable basis to believe the information can be used to identify the individual and (b) relates to the past, present,
7

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 121 Filed 11/21/17 Page 8 of 10
or future physical or mental health or condition of such individual, the provision of health care to such individual, or the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to such individual. The term “Protected Health Information” specifically includes “protected health information” as such term is defined 45 CFR § 160.103, promulgated pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”). “Protected Health Information” includes, but is not limited to, medical bills, claims forms, charge sheets, medical records, medical charts, test results, notes, dictation, invoices, itemized billing statements, remittance advice forms, explanations of benefits, checks, notices, and requests. “Protected Health Information” also includes all notes, summaries, compilations, extracts, abstracts, or oral communications that contain, are based on, or are derived from Protected Health Information. “Protected Health Information” does not include any document or information that has all identifiers of the individual removed or redacted. 2. All third-party PHI disclosed in this action shall be treated in accordance with this Order without regard to any designation. 3. All transcripts, exhibits, and videotapes of any deposition or testimony containing third-party PHI shall be treated in accordance with this Order without regard to any designation. 4. A party may, in good faith, object to the designation or treatment of any document or information as PHI by stating its objection (including a statement of the legal or factual basis for the objection) in writing to the party or third party making the designation or otherwise treating the information as PHI, and it shall make a good faith effort to resolve the dispute with counsel for the party or third party so designating or treating the
8

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 121 Filed 11/21/17 Page 9 of 10
document. If the parties cannot reach agreement as to the treatment of the information, the objecting party may move the Court for an order determining whether such document is PHI. Pending a final ruling by the Court on the motion, the initial designation or treatment and the terms of this Order shall remain in effect. 5. Third-party PHI may be disclosed only to:
(a) The members of the legal or support staff of the parties’ attorneys, including paralegals and consulting or testifying experts;
(b) The Court and its personnel; (c) Any court reporter, videographer, or similar person with a legitimate need to take custody of documents or records containing PHI; (d) Such persons as appear on the face of the document to be its author or a recipient, provided that any portion of the document which such persons may not have seen is redacted; or (e) The person whose PHI is included on the face of the document provided any other person’s PHI is redacted.4 6. Any document containing third-party PHI shall be filed under seal with the Court. 7. With the exception of documents containing PHI, which shall be subject to the terms set forth above, documents contained in third-party prisoners’ institutional files shall be handled in accordance with Rule 5.2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 8. Within 180 days of the conclusion of this litigation, the parties shall destroy all documents containing third-party PHI, unless the third party whose PHI is at issue has signed a HIPAA-
4 This Order does not incorporate Subparagraph 5(f) of Plaintiff’s proposed protective order. Doc. 116‐4. Because the Protected Health Information involves third parties, the parties may not disclose such information by mutual agreement without prior approval of the Court.
9

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 121 Filed 11/21/17 Page 10 of 10 compliant release authorizing Plaintiff’s counsel to access his PHI. Counsel shall ensure that destruction occurs by a reliable method that precludes further disclosure. The litigation shall be deemed concluded upon the entry of final judgment or the conclusion of any appeal affirming final judgment. If an injunction is entered against Defendants, the litigation shall be deemed concluded upon the entry of a final order terminating injunctive relief.
SO ORDERED, this 21st day of November, 2017. s/ Charles H. Weigle_________ Charles H. Weigle United States Magistrate Judge
10

 
 Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 207-1 Filed 12/21/18 Page 1 of 27
EXHIBIT A

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 207-1 Filed 12/21/18 Page 2 of 27

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION

)

TIMOTHY GUMM,

)

)

ROBERT WATKINS,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

BENJAMIN FORD, Warden, Georgia

)

Diagnostic & Classification Prison, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-CV-41-MTT-CHW

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REGARDING THE SPECIAL MANAGEMENT UNIT

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 207-1 Filed 12/21/18 Page 3 of 27
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 TERMS AND CONDITIONS .........................................................................................................4
I. CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT IN THE SMU.....................................................4 A. Out-of-Cell Time ...............................................................................................4 B. Library, Book Carts, and GOAL Devices..........................................................6 C. Programming......................................................................................................6 D. Privileges............................................................................................................7 E. Food ...................................................................................................................8 F. Other Conditions ................................................................................................8
II. DURATION OF CONFINEMENT IN THE SMU ........................................................9 III. ASSIGNMENT AND PERIODIC REVIEW...............................................................11 IV. MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ...........................................14
A. Monitoring Meetings .............................................................................................14 B. Access to Records and Data...................................................................................14 C. On-site Visits .........................................................................................................16 D. Access to Copies of This Agreement and Training of GDC Staff.........................17 V. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT ..........................................................17 A. Communications with and Responsibilities of Class Counsel...............................17 B. Meet and Confer Obligations in the Event of an Alleged Breach .........................18 C. Enforcement ...........................................................................................................18
ii

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 207-1 Filed 12/21/18 Page 4 of 27 D. Class Certification, Notice, and Joint Motion........................................................18
VI. ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS ...............................................................................19 VII. CONSTRUCTION, EFFECT, AND TERM OF AGREEMENT.................................21
A. Binding Effect ........................................................................................................21 B. Release ...................................................................................................................21 C. Severability ............................................................................................................21 D. Modification...........................................................................................................22 E. Execution and Effective Date ................................................................................22 F. Term of Agreement................................................................................................22
iii

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 207-1 Filed 12/21/18 Page 5 of 27
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REGARDING THE SPECIAL MANAGEMENT UNIT
Plaintiffs Timothy Gumm and Robert Watkins, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and Defendants Timothy Ward, Ricky Myrick, Robert Toole, Benjamin Ford, Michael Cannon, and Joseph Polite (the Plaintiffs and Defendants, collectively, are referenced herein as “the Parties”), hereby enter this Settlement Agreement as a resolution of all claims for prospective relief asserted by Plaintiffs in this action.
INTRODUCTION 1. This is an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging the conditions and procedures at the Special Management Unit (“SMU”) at Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Prison (“Georgia Diagnostic”). 2. Plaintiffs in this action are Timothy Gumm and Robert Watkins, two men who are or were held in the SMU for at least seven years. Watkins remains in the SMU. 3. For purposes of this Agreement, Defendants are Timothy Ward in his official capacity as Interim Commissioner for the Georgia Department of Corrections (“GDC” or “the Department”); Ricky Myrick in his official capacity as the Department’s Assistant Commissioner of the Facilities Division; Robert Toole in his official capacity as the Department’s Director of Field Operations; Benjamin Ford in his official capacity as Warden of Georgia Diagnostic; Michael Cannon in his official capacity as Superintendent of the SMU; and Joseph Polite in his official capacity as Deputy Warden of the SMU. 4. The Parties agree that this Court has jurisdiction to enter prospective relief against Defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 5. The Parties agree that Plaintiff Timothy Gumm faces a risk of being returned to the SMU and being subjected to the policies and practices challenged in this action absent
1

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 207-1 Filed 12/21/18 Page 6 of 27
injunctive relief. Robert Watkins is currently confined to the SMU and will continue to be subjected to the policies and practices challenged in this action absent injunctive relief. Plaintiffs therefore have standing to seek prospective relief against Defendants concerning the conditions and review procedures applicable to the SMU.
6. The Parties agree that Plaintiffs meet the requirements under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to certify an injunctive class defined as follows: All persons who are or in the future will be assigned to the facility currently known as the Special Management Unit at Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Prison, or who are or in the future will be assigned to the Tier III Program.
7. The Parties agree that the prospective relief set forth in this Agreement satisfies the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) in that the relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the alleged violations of those federal rights as asserted by Plaintiffs in the Third Amended Complaint, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violations of federal rights. The relief set forth in this Agreement will not have an adverse impact on public safety or the operation of the criminal justice system, nor will it require or permit government officials to exceed their authority under state or local law, or otherwise violate state or local law.
8. The prospective relief set forth in this Agreement shall be terminated only as provided herein and shall be exempt from the termination provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b) and Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 207-1 Filed 12/21/18 Page 7 of 27
9. The terms of this Agreement apply to the SMU inmates assigned to the Tier III Program.1 The Tier III Program is an incentive program based on an increased level of privileges for demonstrated appropriate behavior and program compliance. The goal is for the inmate to make the appropriate adjustments so that he or she may be returned to a general population housing assignment. A person assigned to the Tier III Program is given the opportunity to progress through the program’s phases based upon his or her behavior and ability to adjust under reduced levels of supervision.
10. In recent months, the Defendants have taken numerous remedial measures, including the adoption of a revised Standard Operating Procedure related to the Tier III Program. Plaintiffs appreciate the Defendants’ efforts thus far aimed at improving conditions and processes related to the Tier III Program. Resolving this matter with this Agreement is in the best interest of the Defendants and the members of the putative plaintiff class.
1 During the pendency of this litigation the Department of Corrections reallocated the A-Wing within the SMU for alternative use. Therefore, nothing contained within this Agreement is intended to include inmates housed in the A-Wing at the SMU.
3

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 207-1 Filed 12/21/18 Page 8 of 27
TERMS AND CONDITIONS I. CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT IN THE SMU
A. Out-of-Cell Time 11. All inmates confined in the Tier III Program will be provided regular opportunities for outdoor and indoor out-of-cell time. The purpose of outdoor out-of-cell time is to provide inmates with exercise and fresh air. The purpose of indoor out-of-cell time is to provide opportunities for interpersonal communication and group activities while ensuring the security of inmates, officers, and staff members. 12. All inmates will receive a minimum of four (4) hours out-of-cell time, per day, Monday through Friday, unless unanticipated security or safety considerations dictate otherwise, which shall be documented. The four (4) hours out-of-cell time will encompass up to three (3) hours spent in a common area using restraint tables and one (1) hour of out-of-cell recreation time in the outdoor recreation cages, for a total of four (4) hours out-of-cell time per day. An inmate’s visitation time Monday through Friday may be included in the four (4) hours out-of-cell time, except that legal visitation shall not be included in the four (4) hours of out-of-cell time. Visitation time that occurs on the weekend shall not be used to reduce the Monday through Friday out-of-cell time. 13. Out-of-cell time will be contemporaneously documented on the individual inmate’s door sheet and thereafter in the institutional record of each individual inmate. Time out and time back in the cell will be listed on the door sheet along with the name of the
4

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 207-1 Filed 12/21/18 Page 9 of 27
documenting officer. Out-of-cell time will also be broadly noted in a logbook maintained in the respective dormitory wings and/or control booths.
14. If Defendants have reason to believe that out-of-cell time has been or will be cancelled or shortened from the time allotments listed in Paragraph 12 for three or more consecutive days, for either an individual dormitory or the entire SMU, the SMU Superintendent will promptly notify the Regional Director in writing and will explain the circumstances resulting in the cancellation, the steps taken to resolve the issue resulting in the cancellation, and an estimated timeline for resuming compliance with Paragraph 12. The provision of written notice required in this Paragraph does not excuse the Defendants from their obligation to comply with the out-of-cell time requirements in Paragraph 12.
15. Defendants will provide designated areas for indoor and outdoor out-of-cell time. The GDC is in the process of constructing additional outdoor recreation areas at the SMU. After such construction is complete, inmates may conduct all or part of their out-of-cell time in the outside recreation pens, subject to security and staffing considerations. This provision does not excuse Defendants from complying, as of the date of this Agreement, with the outdoor time required by Paragraph 12.
16. Inmates will not be denied out-of-cell time as punishment except in cases in which the inmate has committed a “Great” or higher severity level disciplinary offense, see Ga. Dep’t of Corr., Policy No. 209.01, Attach. 4 (Nov. 6, 2017), during out-of-cell time, or during transport to or from out-of-cell time. In such cases, denial of out-of-cell time shall not exceed 14 consecutive days. A mental health counselor will visit any inmate on yard restriction daily, excluding weekends and holidays, and the occurrence and substance of such visit will be documented in the inmate’s mental health file.
5

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 207-1 Filed 12/21/18 Page 10 of 27
17. No inmate will be required to be restrained in a restraint table or to participate in outdoor out-of-cell time if he chooses to remain in his cell during out-of-cell time. An inmate’s refusal to participate in out-of-cell time will be contemporaneously documented on the individual inmate’s door sheet and thereafter made a part of his institutional file.
18. Defendants shall ensure that a sufficient number of administrators, correctional officers, counselors, mental health professionals, and other staff members are available to carry out the terms of this Agreement.
B. Library, Book Carts, and GOAL Devices 19. Inmates may be allowed access to materials from the main prison general-purpose library upon written request. At least two mobile book carts will be available. Inmates will have access to a book cart at least once per week. Additional items will be added periodically. Defendants shall make reasonable efforts to solicit inmates’ preferences for the materials added to the book carts. 20. Inmates will be provided operable GOAL devices. Inmates will be allowed to recharge the devices daily and access the kiosk at least twice per week. 21. If an inmate’s GOAL device is inoperable or inaccessible due to no fault of his own, the inmate shall have an opportunity to repair or replace the GOAL device consistent with the procedures applicable to the general population. C. Programming 22. Within six months of the date of this Agreement, inmates will be provided the opportunity to participate in at least 120 minutes per week of out-of-cell programming or classes, which may include a GED program. No inmate will be required to participate in programming.
6

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 207-1 Filed 12/21/18 Page 11 of 27
Programming time and/or refusal to participate in programming will be contemporaneously documented on the individual inmate’s door sheet.
23. Defendants will notify prisoners of programming opportunities and schedules so that prisoners are aware of their ability to enroll in upcoming programs.
24. Inmates will receive written acknowledgement of programs, classes, and similar activities completed while in the Tier III Program. A certificate of completion shall be placed in the inmate’s institutional file and a notation shall be made in the person’s SCRIBE case notes promptly after the inmate has completed a program or class.
25. If Defendants require inmates to complete certain programs or classes to qualify for transfer out of the SMU or Tier III: (a) no inmate shall be denied the opportunity to transfer if he is unable, due to disability or illness, to complete the required program or class; and (b) no inmate shall be denied the opportunity to transfer out of the SMU or Tier III for failure to complete the required program or class unless the inmate has received a reasonable opportunity to complete such program during his placement in the SMU or Tier III Program.
D. Privileges 26. Inmates will be accorded at a minimum the privileges set out in the privilege chart attached to SOP 209.09. 27. All inmates in the Tier III Program shall have access to Chaplaincy Services. Religious materials are available upon request to the Chaplain, including approved religious texts, and books on a variety of subjects and services. Volunteers from religious organizations may visit with inmates and conduct religious services for individuals or small groups of Tier III inmates at the discretion of the Superintendent.
7

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 207-1 Filed 12/21/18 Page 12 of 27
E. Food 28. The food provided to persons in the Tier III Program shall be of the same quality and quantity as that provided to people in the general population. 29. Inmates held in the SMU will be permitted to receive special or substitute meals on the same basis as inmates in the general population and/or as ordered by a medical provider. 30. Defendants shall remove any sign posted anywhere in the SMU that discourages inmates from discussing their nutritional needs with medical staff members. F. Other Conditions 31. Defendants shall maintain the highest possible standards of cleanliness, sanitation, and safety in the SMU. 32. All cells are single occupancy. 33. Cells must be equipped and furnished in a manner consistent with cells in the general population. 34. Each inmate must be provided prescribed medication, clothing, and access to basic personal items for use in their cells as set out in the privilege chart attached to SOP 209.09 unless there is imminent danger that an inmate will destroy an item or induce self-injury. 35. Inmates shall be provided toiletries and personal hygiene items—including toilet paper, soap, toothbrushes, toothpaste, and similar items—on the same basis as inmates in the general population. 36. Inmates shall be provided the opportunity to clean their cells on the same basis as inmates in the general population. 37. Each inmate must be provided the opportunity for a shower and shave three (3) times per week.
8

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 207-1 Filed 12/21/18 Page 13 of 27
38. Inmates must be provided the same laundry and barbering services and are issued and exchanged clothing on the same basis as inmates in general population. Exceptions are permitted only when found necessary by the Superintendent or designee; any exception is recorded in the unit log and justified in writing.
39. Inmates shall receive the services of a counselor. 40. The sliding covers attached to cell-door windows shall remain open at all times, unless articulable security or safety considerations dictate otherwise. In no case will the sliding cover on a particular inmate’s cell-door window remain closed once the particular security or safety consideration has been resolved. The closure of the cell-door windows will be broadly noted in a logbook maintained in the respective dormitory wings and/or control booths. 41. No inmate shall be held in a cell lacking an exterior window unless the inmate has damaged the exterior window in his assigned cell. 42. Inmates shall have operable electric lights in their cells. Defendants shall promptly repair broken or inoperable electric light fixtures in cells, or promptly move the affected inmate to a cell with an operable light fixture. 43. Inmates shall not be placed in cells that are constantly lit. Cell lights shall be turned off during time periods designated for sleeping unless otherwise requested by an inmate or deemed necessary for the safety and security of an inmate. II. DURATION OF CONFINEMENT IN THE SMU 44. Inmates will not be held in the SMU or Tier III Program for more than 24 months unless they voluntarily request to be placed and remain there or meet one or more of the following six criteria: (1) the inmate committed a murder while incarcerated; (2) the inmate escaped outside the secure fencing of a GDC facility; (3) the inmate caused serious bodily injury
9

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 207-1 Filed 12/21/18 Page 14 of 27
to another inmate or a GDC employee, contractor, or volunteer; (4) the inmate took another inmate or GDC employee, contractor, or volunteer hostage; (5) the inmate’s crime was so egregious that the person was placed in the Tier III Program immediately upon being placed in GDC custody; or (6) the inmate, due to his unique position of influence and authority over others, poses such an exceptional, credible, and articulable risk to the safe operation of the prison system or to the public that no facility other than the Tier III Program facility is sufficient to contain the risk.
45. Inmates held in the SMU or Tier III Program beyond 24 months will be reviewed quarterly by a panel composed of the Director of Field Operations, the Statewide Mental Health Director, the Statewide Medical Director, and a member of the Office of Legal Services. In the event that a panel member is unavailable due to illness, family emergency, or other exigent circumstance to participate in the quarterly review, the panel member may select a designee in the senior management of his or her particular department to participate in the review. The Defendants will rely on specific criteria to govern the panel’s determination of whether a person should remain in the SMU or Tier III Program beyond 24 months, and the Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner must personally approve any decision by the panel to retain an inmate in the SMU or Tier III Program beyond 24 months. The criteria governing the panel’s determination shall include: (a) length of time in current phase; (b) perceived risk of release from the SMU; (c) number, type, and frequency of disciplinary reports; (d) involvement in selfimprovement activities; (e) behavior while in the SMU; (f) the person’s 60-day or 90-day mental health evaluation; (g) progress on the person’s Offender Management Plan; and (h) the total duration of the person’s confinement in the SMU.
10

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 207-1 Filed 12/21/18 Page 15 of 27
46. If the inmate is within 12-months or 6-months of his maximum release date (MRD), then the Classification Committee shall consider the inmate for placement in the Tier III STEP Program. If the inmate is denied placement in the Tier III STEP Program, then the Classification Committee shall document the specific and individualized reasons for the denial on Attachment 4 of SOP 209.09. If such an inmate is denied placement in the Tier III STEP Program and appeals the Classification Committee decision, then the Assistant Commissioner will personally review the denial of such placement and document his decision and reasons in the inmate’s institutional file. III. ASSIGNMENT AND PERIODIC REVIEW
47. The criteria for assignment to the SMU or Tier III Program shall be modified to eliminate the provision that allows any inmate to be assigned to the SMU if he is deemed “a threat to the safe and secure operation of the Facility.” Defendants may, however, assign an inmate to the SMU/Tier III if he participated in or was associated with activity such that greater management of the inmate’s interaction with other persons is necessary to ensure the safety, security, or orderly operation of GDC facilities, or protection of the public.
48. Prior to assignment to the SMU or Tier III Program, a formal hearing will be convened to advise the person that he is being assigned to the SMU/Tier III. The inmate must be given an opportunity to be present at this hearing, and must be afforded the following rights in connection with SMU/Tier III assignment or proposed assignment:
a) At least 48 hours prior to the hearing, the inmate must be served with a notice informing the inmate that he is being considered for the SMU/Tier III Program.
11

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 207-1 Filed 12/21/18 Page 16 of 27
b) The inmate has the right to attend the hearing. He may forfeit this right if he is disruptive, and this disruption shall be documented. Should he decline to attend, his waiver of the right to attend shall be documented.
c) The inmate has the right to make a verbal statement, to present documents, and to submit a written statement.
d) The inmate will be informed that he may submit written objections to a recommendation that he be moved to the SMU/Tier III Program. He may do so using an appeal form to be submitted to the Director of Field Operations within 14 calendar days from receipt of the notice of assignment to the SMU. If the Director of Field Operations approves the recommendation, then the inmate’s written objections shall be forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner of Facilities who shall make the final decision about SMU placement.
e) Except in emergency situations, transfer of the inmate to the SMU must not be made until after the time for the inmate to submit objections expires.
49. Before assignment to the SMU, and in conjunction with every 60-day or 90-day review hearing, inmates will receive an out-of-cell mental health evaluation performed by a licensed mental health provider who shall be a psychiatrist, a psychologist, or a certified nurse practitioner to determine whether the inmate is, by reason of mental illness or disability, precluded from being placed in or remaining in the Tier III program. An inmate is precluded from being placed in or remaining in the Tier III Program if the inmate cannot, by reason of mental illness or disability, comply with the facility’s rules or complete the Tier III program.
12

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 207-1 Filed 12/21/18 Page 17 of 27
Inmates with a mental health designation of Level III or above will not be housed in the Tier III Program.
50. If in the course of any evaluation the mental health provider determines that an inmate is decompensating or is reasonably likely to decompensate in the SMU environment, or that the inmate is, by reason of mental illness or disability, precluded from continued placement in the Tier III program, Defendants will, on an expedited basis, transfer the inmate to an appropriate treatment facility as determined by GDC officials.
51. For every evaluation, the licensed mental health provider shall document in writing his/her observations, findings and recommendations with respect to the inmate evaluated. The provider shall also log the date of the evaluation.
52. Defendants will ensure that all SMU officers and staff members are trained in recognizing and responding to signs and symptoms of mental illness, including suicidal ideation and acts.
53. Upon assignment to the SMU or Tier III Program, each inmate will be provided a detailed Offender Management Plan setting out individualized goals for the inmate and explaining the steps that the inmate must take to qualify for a transfer from the SMU/Tier III Program. Each inmate will also be provided with a description of the periodic review process that determines if the person progresses to the next phase and a review of the steps required to be completed to exit the Tier III Program.
54. The SMU’s periodic review procedures will involve a multi-level process beginning with review by a classification committee and ending with review by an assistant commissioner, as required by SOP Policy No. 209.09 at 12-16. Specific and detailed reasons will be provided in writing for placing an inmate in the SMU/Tier III and retaining him there. At
13

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 207-1 Filed 12/21/18 Page 18 of 27
every stage, including the appeal stage, the inmate will be informed in writing of the result of the review.
55. No inmate will be required to return to E-Wing (Phase 1) or F-Wing (Phase 2) unless he is found to have engaged in conduct that would satisfy one of the criteria for assignment to the SMU. Where feasible, inmates must be provided an interim hearing with the classification review committee before being returned to E-Wing (Phase 1).
56. Inmates transferred from the SMU will be placed in either a Segregation Transition Education Program (STEP) or Specialized Mental Health Treatment Unit (SMHTU). IV. MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
A. Monitoring Meetings 57. The Parties will have regular, in-person meetings to discuss the Defendants’ compliance with this Agreement. Meeting participants will include at a minimum the following: one or more Plaintiffs’ counsel, one or more persons in GDC senior management with knowledge of current conditions at the SMU/Tier III Program, and one or more representatives of the Attorney General’s office. The meetings will take place on at least four occasions (approximately once every 9 months) during the three-year Agreement term, the first one to take place in January 2019. The first meeting may take place by conference call. The Parties will work in good faith to schedule the meetings at a mutually convenient time and location. Plaintiffs will circulate a proposed agenda for each meeting within seven calendar days before each meeting. B. Access to Records and Data 58. Within 15 days after this Agreement is entered, the Parties will present to the Court a joint motion for a protective order to govern the release of confidential and/or HIPAA-
14

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 207-1 Filed 12/21/18 Page 19 of 27
protected information to Plaintiffs’ counsel. Assuming that the Court enters a protective order, the Defendants will provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with documents and data as set forth in this Agreement. Should the Court decline to enter a protective order, Plaintiffs will be required to provide the Defendants with HIPAA-compliant releases before the release of any class member’s protected health information.
59. The Defendants will provide the following documents to Plaintiffs’ counsel once per month for the term of the Agreement, to begin the first week of January 2019: (a) a roster of all current SMU inmates, to include name, current wing/phase assignment, race, and mental health level for each inmate then housed in the SMU; (b) all notices or other documents regarding failures to provide out-of-cell time, including written communications between the Superintendent and the Regional Director, as described in Paragraph 14.
60. The Defendants will provide the following documents to Plaintiffs’ counsel in electronic format at least 14 days in advance of each monitoring meeting:
a) Portions of the institutional, medical, and mental health files, subject to the Court’s protective order, for up to 20 inmates (per round of document production), to be selected by Plaintiffs’ counsel, specifically: 1. SCRIBE-generated case notes, grievances, disciplinary reports, and mental health summaries; 2. The mental-health portion of the inmates’ files; and 3. The complete portions of the inmates’ institutional records reflecting assignment and confinement in the SMU (including completed Attachments 1-5, 7 & 9 of SOP 209.09, for each such person).
15

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 207-1 Filed 12/21/18 Page 20 of 27
b) An Excel spreadsheet containing a SCRIBE summary of all incident reports documenting occurrences, events, or incidents in the SMU for the preceding 9-month period.
c) Logbooks for each of the five wings for the preceding 9-month period. d) ACU/CSU logs pertaining to SMU/Tier III prisoners for the preceding 9-
month period. e) Amendments, modifications, or draft modifications to SMU or Tier III
standard or local operating procedures (if any) since the last meeting. f) Documentation showing classes offered at the SMU or in the Tier III
Program during the preceding 9-month period, and the identities of inmates who participated in and completed each class. C. On-site Visits 61. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall visit the SMU on three occasions, spaced roughly one year apart, during the period of the Agreement. Each visit will occur on a single weekday, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. SCHR will give Defendants no less than 7 business days advance notice of each visit. Defendants will allow Plaintiffs’ counsel to visit areas of the SMU to which inmates have routine access. During the course of the on-site visits, should an inmate express a desire to speak with a representative from SCHR, a representative from SCHR will be permitted to approach the cell of that inmate for the limited purpose of obtaining the name and GDC ID number of the inmate and to advise the inmate that they are there for an on-site visit and that they will return in the near future for an attorney-client meeting. To minimize the disruption to the daily operations of GDC, any and all cell-front communication shall be limited to 30 minutes per wing. Additionally, counsel will be permitted to observe the
16

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 207-1 Filed 12/21/18 Page 21 of 27
common areas where inmate activities occur. Plaintiffs’ counsel will be escorted by GDC officials during each of the on-site visits. Plaintiffs’ counsel may be accompanied on each visit by Dr. Craig Haney or another credentialed expert.
D. Access to Copies of This Agreement and Training of GDC Staff 62. Inmates entering the SMU or any Tier III Program shall be provided an information sheet, mutually approved by all Parties, informing them of the material terms of this Agreement. A copy of the Agreement shall be provided to any inmate who requests it. In addition, copies of the Agreement shall be provided to all inmates in the SMU at the time that class notice is accomplished. All GDC employees who are involved in the daily operation of the Tier III program will be trained on the SOP and any provisions contained herein that apply to the daily management of inmates housed in the Tier III program. V. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT A. Communications with and Responsibilities of Class Counsel 63. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall be entitled to meet with and speak confidentially with all inmates covered by this Agreement. Institutional staff shall facilitate Plaintiffs’ counsel’s requests for reasonable access to such individuals without undue delay. Plaintiffs’ counsel and their paralegals shall be permitted contact visits with inmates in the SMU, unless individualized security concerns dictate otherwise. 64. Any complaints or concerns by any plaintiff class member relating to this Agreement, or to the injunctive relief claims in the Third Amended Complaint in this matter, shall be referred to class counsel who shall determine whether enforcement action is warranted pursuant to Paragraphs 65-66. The enforcement provisions of Paragraph 66 are exclusive and only class counsel may seek enforcement of any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
17

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 207-1 Filed 12/21/18 Page 22 of 27
Except for motions by class counsel pursuant to Paragraph 66, no person, including any member of the class, may be heard upon any contempt motion for alleged non-compliance with this Agreement or bring any separate action or proceeding to enforce this Agreement.
B. Meet and Confer Obligations in the Event of an Alleged Breach 65. If Plaintiffs believe that Defendants have committed or are committing a breach of this Agreement, Plaintiffs’ counsel will provide Defendants with a written notice describing the alleged breach. Defendants will provide a written statement responding to the notice within fifteen (15) calendar days from receipt of the notice and, within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt of Defendants’ written response, counsel for the Parties shall confer in a good faith effort to resolve their dispute. The Plaintiffs will not file an enforcement motion as permitted in Paragraph 66 without first having provided the Defendants with a notice of alleged breach. C. Enforcement 66. Plaintiffs may request enforcement of the Agreement by seeking an order requiring the Defendants to show cause why they should not be held in contempt, or by seeking an order for other relief upon noticed motion before the Court. Any such show cause motion will cite the provision(s) at issue and allege that the Defendants have breached said provision(s). D. Class Certification, Notice, and Joint Motion 67. The Parties agree that Plaintiffs meet the requirements under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to certify an injunctive class defined as follows: All persons who are or in the future will be assigned to the facility currently known as the Special Management Unit at
18

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 207-1 Filed 12/21/18 Page 23 of 27
Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Prison, or who are or in the future will be assigned to the Tier III Program.
68. By joint motion to be filed no later than December 21, 2018, the Parties will request that the Court preliminarily approve this Agreement, conditionally certify a class for settlement under Rule 23(b)(2), require that individualized notice of the proposed settlement be sent to class members, provide for an objection period, and schedule a fairness hearing.
69. Prior to or concurrent with the joint motion for preliminary approval, the Parties will jointly request that the Court stay all other proceedings in this case pending resolution of the fairness hearing. Following the close of the objection period, the Parties will jointly request that the Court enter a final order approving this Agreement and entering it as an order of the Court, retaining jurisdiction to enforce it, and continuing the stay of the case pending the completion of the Agreement’s terms.
70. If this Agreement is not approved by the Court, the Parties shall be restored to their respective positions in the action as of the date on which this Agreement was executed by the Parties, the terms and provisions of this Agreement shall have no force and effect, and shall not be used in this action or in any proceeding for any purpose, and the litigation of this action shall resume as if there had been no settlement. VI. ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
71. The Parties agree that 42 U.S.C. §§ 1988 and 1997(e) govern the award of attorneys’ fees in this case, and that Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of fees—covering the work of counsel through the date of the Court’s Order finally approving and adopting this Agreement—under these provisions. The Parties have, at the request of Plaintiffs’ attorneys,
19

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 207-1 Filed 12/21/18 Page 24 of 27
postponed discussion of the amount of such fees until after the class claims for injunctive relief have been finally resolved.
72. Counsel for the Parties will confer in the 45 days following the Court’s Order preliminarily approving the Agreement in an effort to reach an agreement regarding the amount of the fee award. If the Parties reach resolution with respect to fees, Plaintiffs will submit an unopposed fee petition by no later than 15 days in advance of the fairness hearing in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h). In the event the Parties are unable to resolve by agreement issues relating to Plaintiffs’ claim for attorneys’ fees, Plaintiffs may petition the Court by no later than 15 days in advance of the fairness hearing for a resolution thereof. Defendants’ opposition shall in any event be limited to their disagreement regarding the appropriate amount of fees.
73. The Parties agree that Defendants shall reimburse Plaintiffs for attorneys’ fees at a rate of $200 per hour for attorney work and $75 per hour for paralegal work performed following the Court’s final approval and adoption of this Agreement, in monitoring compliance with and, if necessary, enforcing it. The Parties agree that Plaintiffs shall waive any request for reimbursement of fees for the first 200 hours reasonably expended by counsel or their paralegals during each calendar year. Such fees shall be payable within 30 days of receipt by Defendants of invoices containing proper accounting of hours expended and tasks performed, unless, within 30 days, Defendants petition this Court for relief based upon a showing that some portion of the hours billed were not reasonably expended.
74. The initial notice to the class members shall explain that Plaintiffs will attempt to reach an agreement with Defendants regarding retrospective attorneys’ fees and will file a motion for such fees no later than 15 days in advance of the fairness hearing, at which time additional
20

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 207-1 Filed 12/21/18 Page 25 of 27
notice of the motion will be provided to class members. The initial notice will also indicate that the Parties have agreed to the prospective award of attorneys’ fees as detailed above. VII. CONSTRUCTION, EFFECT, AND TERM OF AGREEMENT
A. Binding Effect 75. This Agreement is binding upon Plaintiffs and the class, the Defendants named in this lawsuit in their official capacities, and on Defendants’ successors in office, employees and agents. B. Release 76. All claims for declaratory and injunctive relief asserted in the Third Amended Complaint shall be finally and fully settled and released, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, which the Parties enter into freely, voluntarily, knowingly, and with the advice of counsel. The named Plaintiffs and unnamed class members hereby release the Defendants in their official capacities from, and are barred and precluded from prosecuting any claims, causes of action or requests for any injunctive or declaratory relief that have been asserted in this litigation, provided that in no event shall this release be deemed to release or otherwise affect in any way: (a) any claim for money damages; (b) any claim related to medical or mental health diagnosis or treatment; or (c) any claim regarding any act, incident, or event that occurs after the expiration of the Agreement. C. Severability 77. The obligations governed by this Agreement are severable. If for any reason a part of this Agreement is determined to be invalid or unenforceable, the presumption will be that such a determination shall not affect the remainder.
21

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 207-1 Filed 12/21/18 Page 26 of 27 D. Modification 78. The Parties may jointly stipulate to make changes, modifications, and amendments
to the requirements of this Agreement. E. Execution and Effective Date 79. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts and emailed or faxed
signatures will be valid and enforceable. This Agreement shall be effective upon the approval of this Agreement by the Court and entry of this Agreement as an order of the Court.
F. Term of Agreement 80. Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties with approval of the Court, this Agreement and the Court’s order approving and entering it shall terminate three years from the Effective Date.
22

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 207-1 Filed 12/21/18 Page 27 of 27

REVIEWED AND AGREED TO BY:
FOR PLAINTIFFS:
/s/ Sarah Geraghty Sarah Geraghty Ga. Bar No. 291393 Aaron Littman Ga. Bar No. 843053 Ryan Primerano Ga. Bar No. 404962 SOUTHERN CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS 83 Poplar Street, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 (404) 688-1202 (404) 688-9440 (fax) sgeraghty@schr.org
C. Allen Garrett Jr. Ga. Bar No. 286335 James F. Bogan III Ga. Bar No. 065220 Tamara Serwer Caldas Ga. Bar. No. 617053 Chris W. Haaf N.C. Bar No. 46077 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP 1100 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 2800 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 (404) 815-6376 (404) 541-3498 (fax) agarrett@kilpatricktownsend.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Dated: December 21, 2018

FOR DEFENDANTS:
/s/ Elizabeth M. Crowder Susan E. Teaster Ga. Bar No. 701415 Elizabeth M. Crowder Ga. Bar No. 100809 STATE DEPARTMENT OF LAW 40 Capitol Square, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30334 (404) 463-8850 (404) 651-5304 (fax) ecrowder@law.ga.gov
Counsel for Defendants

23

 
 Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 15 Filed 05/22/15 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION

TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM,

:

:

Plaintiff.

:

:

v.

:

:

Warden BRUCE CHATMAN,

:

Et al.,

:

Defendants.

:

_________________________________:

NO. 5:15-cv-41-MTT-CWH ORDER & RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Timothy Denver Gumm, who is confined in the Special Management Unit (“SMU”) at the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleged due process violations in connection with his confinement in the SMU. On March 18, 2015, the Court conducted a preliminary review of Plaintiff’s complaint, as required by 28 U.S.C § 1915A, and ordered service of said complaint on the four named Defendants (ECF No. 6). The Defendants have not yet filed an answer or other responsive pleading.
Presently pending before the Court are two motions filed by Plaintiff. In his first motion (ECF No. 11), Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to clarify it. In his second motion (ECF No. 13), entitled “Motion to Compel,” Plaintiff asks the Court to compel the Defendants to provide him with the same access to legal research materials as afforded to inmates in the general population. The Court construes Plaintiff’s “Motion to Compel” as
1

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 15 Filed 05/22/15 Page 2 of 4
a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend “once
as a matter of course” a pleading to which a response is required within 21 days after service of the response. As the Defendants have not yet filed an answer or other responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s complaint, Plaintiff’s motion to amend is GRANTED and his complaint is deemed amended.
Regarding Plaintiff’s second motion, injunctive relief may be granted only if the movant shows that: (1) his case has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury will be suffered unless the injunction issues; (3) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) if issued, the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. This That and Other Gift and Tobacco, Inc. v. Cobb Cnty, Ga., 285 F.3d 1319, 1321-22 (11th Cir. 2002). In All Care Nursing Serv., Inc. v. Bethesda Mem'l Hosp., 887 F.2d 1535, 1537 (11th Cir. 1989) (quotation omitted), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated that a “preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted unless the movant clearly establishes the ‘burden of persuasion’ as to the four requisites.”
At a minimum, Plaintiff has fails to satisfy the first two requisites for injunctive relief. Whether Plaintiff’s motion is viewed as presenting an access to courts claim or an equal protection claim, there is no indication that Plaintiff will succeed on the merits or that he is facing irreparable injury.
2

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 15 Filed 05/22/15 Page 3 of 4
An access to courts claim must allege “actual injury” relating to prospective or existing litigation, such as “missing filing deadlines or being prevented from presenting claims,” while “in the pursuant of specific types of nonfrivolous cases …” Wilson v. Blankenship, 163 F.3d 1284, 1290 & n.10 (11th Cir. 1998); see also Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996). Plaintiff fails to specify any injury resulting from the denial of research materials. Indeed, Plaintiff appears to have had no impediments to his filings in the instant action.
“To establish an equal protection claim, a prisoner must demonstrate that: (1) he is similarly situated with other prisoners who received more favorable treatment; and (2) his discriminatory treatment was based on some constitutionally-protected interest ...” Jones v. Ray, 279 F.3d 944, 946-47 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). Plaintiff has not alleged that his discriminatory treatment was based on a constitutionally protected interest. Instead, Plaintiff merely compares himself with inmates in the general population.
“Because injunctions regulate future conduct, a party has standing to seek injunctive relief only if the party alleges, and ultimately proves, a real and immediate – as opposed to a merely conjectural or hypothetical – threat of future injury.” Wooden v. Board of Regents of University System of Georgia, 247 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff has alleged no such real and immediate threat.
For the above reasons, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the requisites necessary for an injunction to issue. It is thus RECOMMENDED that
3

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 15 Filed 05/22/15 Page 4 of 4
Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief be DENIED. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may serve and file written objections to this Recommendation, or seek an extension of time to file objections, WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. The District Judge shall make a de novo determination as to those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made; all other portions of the Recommendation may be reviewed by the District Judge for clear error.
The parties are hereby notified that, pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party failing to object to a magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.”
SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED, this 21st day of May, 2015.
s/ Charles H. Weigle Charles H. Weigle United States Magistrate Judge
4

 
 Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 100 Filed 07/20/17 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION

TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM,

:

:

Plaintiff,

:

:

v.

:

Case No. 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW

:

RICK JACOBS, et al.,

:

:

Proceedings Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Defendants.

:

Before the U.S. Magistrate Judge

______________________________________________________________________________

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Presently before the Court is Waseem Daker’s Motion to Intervene (Doc. 80) in this case. Because Daker may not use intervention as a means to bypass the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), does not have a right to intervene, and is not entitled to permissive intervention, it is RECOMMENDED that his Motion to Intervene be DENIED. Plaintiff Timothy Gumm, who is confined “Tier III” segregation in the Special Management Unit (SMU) at Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison in Jackson, Georgia, filed this suit on February 12, 2015. Doc. 1. The Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16) was denied regarding Plaintiff’s “due process claims related to his confinement in the SMU on and after August 1, 2013,” and service was made on Defendants Washington, Bishop, Logan, and Williams. Doc. 35, p. 4-5. In September of 2016, Plaintiff’s case was stayed because eleven separate cases with similar claims and fact patterns were filed in this Court.1 Since that time,
1 Those cases are: 5:15-cv-2, Rodriguez v. Chatman; 5:15-cv-41, McCoy v. Chatman; 5:15-cv-276, Brooks v. Bryson; 5:15-cv-267, Coleman v. Danforth; 5:15-cv-387, Rodriques v. Chatman; 5:15-cv331, Emberson v. Chatman; 5:15-cv-384, Ruffin v. McCloud; 5:15-cv-374, Garcia v. Chatman; 5:15cv-355, Salgado v. Chatman; 5:15-cv-338, Diaz v. Chatman.
1

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 100 Filed 07/20/17 Page 2 of 6
Counsel has been appointed in Plaintiff’s case. Doc. 66. The parties have begun discovery and are proceeding according to their scheduling order. Doc. 72. Plaintiff has also filed a Motion to Certify Class. Doc. 76.
Daker filed this Motion to Intervene on March 20, 2017. Doc. 80. Daker contends that following his sentence from a Cobb County Superior Court in October 2012, he was transferred to GDCP and placed in the Special Management Unit. Id. at p. 2. On April 7, 2014, Daker was transferred to Georgia State Prison (“GSP”) in Reidsville, Georgia, and placed in the Tier II program. Id. at 4-5. Daker has alleged that the conditions of the Tier II Segregation are severe and identical to the conditions of Tier III SMU. Id. at 7-9. Daker contends that he should be allowed to intervene in this case as of right. Id. at 7-9. In the alternative, Daker argues that he is entitled to permissive intervention in Plaintiff’s case. Id. at 10.
1. The Prison Litigation Reform Act and the Three Strikes Restriction The record indicates that Daker seeks to intervene in this and numerous other cases in an effort to circumvent the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) related to abusive litigation. The PLRA contains a provision that prohibits prisoners who have received “three strikes” from bringing a civil law suit in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The provision states: if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Daker has filed numerous actions or appeals in this Court and courts around the country that have been dismissed on the grounds named above:
2

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 100 Filed 07/20/17 Page 3 of 6
1. Daker v. Mokwa, Order Denying Leave to Proceed IFP, Doc. 2 in Case No. 2:14-cv00395-UA-MRW (C.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2014) (denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing case after conducting screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and finding claims were frivolous and failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted);
2. Daker v. Warren, Order Dismissing Appeal, Case No. 13-11630 (11th Cir. Mar. 4, 2014) (three-judge panel dismissal of appeal on grounds that appeal was frivolous);
3. Daker v. Warden, Order Dismissing Appeal, Case No. 15-13148 (11th Cir. May 26, 2016) (three-judge panel d i s m i s s i n g appeal as frivolous);
4. Daker v. Commissioner, Order Dismissing Appeal, Case No. 15-11266 (11th Cir. Oct. 7, 2016) (three-judge panel dismissing appeal as frivolous);
5. Daker v. Ferrero, Order Dismissing Appeal, Case No. 15-13176 (11th Cir. Nov. 3, 2016) (three-judge panel dismissing appeal as frivolous);
6. Order Dismissing Appeal, Daker v. Governor, Case No. 15-13179 (11th Cir. Dec. 19, 2016) (three-judge panel dismissing appeal as frivolous).
The Eleventh Circuit has noted that Daker “is a serial litigant who has clogged the federal courts with frivolous litigation.” Daker v. Comm'r, Georgia Dep't of Corr., 820 F.3d 1278, 1281 (11th Cir. 2016), cert. denied sub nom. Daker v. Bryson, 137 S. Ct. 1227, 197 L. Ed. 2d 467 (2017), reh'g denied, No. 16-7414, 2017 WL 2507360 (U.S. June 12, 2017).
Because Daker has by now accrued more than three “strikes” for purposes of § 1915(g), he appears to be attempting to use the intervention provisions of Rule 24 to circumvent the restrictions of the PLRA. Following a prisoner’s third meritless suit, “the prisoner must pay the full filing fee at the time he initiates suit.” Vanderberg v. Donaldson, 259 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th
3

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 100 Filed 07/20/17 Page 4 of 6
Cir. 2001). Additionally, a purpose of the PLRA was to force each prisoner to pay the full filing fee. Hubbard v. Haley, 262 F.3d 1194, 1198 (11th Cir. 2001).2
Daker has filed similar motions to intervene in several cases in this Court, without paying a filing fee or moving for in forma pauperis status. Those cases are as follows: Gumm v. Jacobs, 5:15-cv-41(MTT), Doc. 80; Smith v. Owens, 5:12-cv-26 (WLS), Doc. 155; Nolley v. Nelson, 5:15-cv-75 (CAR), Doc. 109; Sterling v. Sellers, 5:16-cv-13, Doc. 40.
The PLRA’s bar of Daker’s motion to intervene would supersede any right he has to intervene. Daker does not have a right to intervene, as discussed below, but insofar as Rule 24 would allow intervention as of right or permissive intervention, the PLRA requirement overrides Rule 24. Hubbard, 262 F.3d at 1198 ( holding where there are any conflicts between a rule and the requirements of the PLRA “the statute repeals the Rule”; Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1489 (11th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the PLRA bars Daker’s intervention, and it is RECOMMENDED that Daker’s Motion to Intervene be DENIED.
2. Intervention of Right In addition to the PLRA restrictions, Daker is not entitled to intervention as a matter of right under Rule 24. Courts must allow a non-party to intervene in a case where the non-party files a timely motion and: (1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or (2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.
2 See 141 Cong. Rec. S7526 (daily ed. May 25, 1995) (statement of Sen. Kyl) (“Section 2 will require prisoners to pay a very small share of the large burden they place on the federal judicial system by paying a small filing fee upon commencement of lawsuits. In doing so, the provision will deter frivolous inmate lawsuits. The modest monetary outlay will force prisoners to think twice about the case and not just file reflexively.”).
4

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 100 Filed 07/20/17 Page 5 of 6
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). A party seeking to intervene must demonstrate that: (1) his application to intervene is timely; (2) he has an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) he is so situated that disposition of the action, as a practical matter, may impede or impair his ability to protect that interest; and (4) his interest is represented inadequately by the existing parties to the suit.
Loyd v. Alabama Dep't of Corr., 176 F.3d 1336, 1339–40 (11th Cir. 1999); Chiles v.Thornburgh, 865 F.2d 1197, 1213 (11th Cir.1989); Lisle Co. v. CH2M Hill Constructors, Inc., No. 4:15-CV159 (CDL), 2016 WL 6948690, at *3 (M.D. Ga. Jan. 25, 2016); see Daker v. Donals, No. 0412447, Case 1:01-cv-03257-RWS Doc. 256, p. 2.
Daker cannot demonstrate that he has an interest relating to the property or transaction at hand in this case. Plaintiff Gumm has been allowed to proceed with his due process claims regarding his confinement in Tier III SMU at GDCP. Daker was previously confined in Tier III SMU, but is no longer confined there. Doc. 80, pp. 4-5. In his motion, Daker appears to challenge the conditions of confinement in Tier II at Georgia State Prison and the possibility of his future confinement in Tier III SMU at GDCP. Id. at 7-9. The difference in prisons and Tier levels creates an inherently different interest in the subject at hand. Additionally, Daker does not have an interest in Plaintiff’s claim based on the mere possibility that Defendants could “return him to GDCP/SMU at any time.” Id. at 6. Absent an actual interest with the subject matter at hand, Daker does not have a right to intervene. Accordingly, Daker is not entitled to intervention as a right.
3. Permissive Intervention Permissive intervention is also not warranted. Upon a timely motion, a Court may allow intervention by a non-party who: (A) is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or
5

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 100 Filed 07/20/17 Page 6 of 6
(B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1). Here, no federal statute provides Daker with a conditional right to intervene. Additionally, Daker is in a different Tier level and prison than Plaintiff. These differences do not create a common question of law or fact to persuade this Court, in its discretion, to allow Daker to permissively intervene in this case.
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, it is RECOMMENDED that Daker’s Motion to Intervene (Doc. 80) be DENIED. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may serve and file written objections to this Recommendation, or seek an extension of time to file objections, WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. The District Judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made. All other portions of the Recommendation may be reviewed for clear error. The parties are further notified that, pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party failing to object to a magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.” SO RECOMMENDED, the 20th day of July, 2017.
s/ Charles H. Weigle Charles H. Weigle United States Magistrate Judge
6

 
 Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 282 Filed 07/30/19 Page 1 of 7

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 282 Filed 07/30/19 Page 2 of 7

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 282 Filed 07/30/19 Page 3 of 7

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 282 Filed 07/30/19 Page 4 of 7

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 282 Filed 07/30/19 Page 5 of 7

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 282 Filed 07/30/19 Page 6 of 7

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 282 Filed 07/30/19 Page 7 of 7

 
 Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 256 Filed 05/07/19 Page 1 of 29

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION

TIMOTHY GUMM, ROBERT WATKINS,
Plaintiffs, v. BENJAMIN FORD et al.,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-CV-41 (MTT) ) ) ) ) )

FINAL ORDER AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

The parties reached and the Court preliminarily approved, pursuant to Rule 23(e)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a class action Settlement Agreement resolving

the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief in this case. See Doc. 210. After

granting preliminary certification of the settlement class, appointing the Plaintiffs’

counsel as class counsel, granting preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement,

and approving a process for giving notice to the class, the Court received objections

and comments from class members and held a final fairness hearing on April 30, 2019.

For the reasons below and those set forth in the Court’s preliminary approval order, the

Court now grants final certification of the settlement class and final approval of the

Settlement Agreement and, at the joint request of the parties, adopts the Settlement

Agreement by incorporation as the Order of the Court.

I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Timothy Gumm brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging

conditions and practices at the Special Management Unit (“SMU”) at Georgia Diagnostic

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 256 Filed 05/07/19 Page 2 of 29
& Classification Prison (“GDCP”). Doc. 1. The Court appointed attorney Sarah Geraghty of the Southern Center for Human Rights to represent Plaintiff Gumm. Doc. 70. After the parties engaged in several months of discovery, Plaintiff Gumm filed an amended complaint in March 2017 (Doc. 73), asserting claims for declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of a putative class of all prisoners who are or will be held in the SMU. The class claims were brought under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. The complaint alleged that confinement in the SMU created a substantial risk of serious harm to prisoners and that prisoners were held in the SMU for years without meaningful procedural safeguards. The complaint sought classwide injunctive relief to remedy unconstitutional review procedures and conditions of confinement in the SMU. In May 2018, Gumm filed a further amended complaint, naming SMU prisoners Robert Watkins and Johnny Mack Brown as additional plaintiffs and class representatives. Doc. 140. Plaintiff Watkins is presently assigned to the SMU. Plaintiff Brown was subsequently transferred to the GDCP STEP Unit and has been voluntarily dismissed from this action. Docs. 202; 209.
The parties engaged in a lengthy discovery process, as well as settlement discussions over the course of approximately 18 months. The negotiations were conducted at arm’s length by parties and attorneys familiar with the evidence. In December 2018, the parties reached an agreement to certify a settlement class and settle the injunctive and declaratory relief claims raised in this case. Doc. 207-1. This agreement provides SMU prisoners four hours per day of out-of-cell time, improved conditions, guidelines for prisoners with mental illness, more robust procedural
2

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 256 Filed 05/07/19 Page 3 of 29
safeguards, and limits on who may be assigned to the SMU and the duration that they may be held there.
II. DISCUSSION In weighing final approval of a class settlement, the Court’s role is to determine whether the settlement, taken as a whole, is “fair, adequate and reasonable and . . . not the product of collusion between the parties.” Bennett v. Behring Corp., 737 F.2d 982, 986 (11th Cir. 1984) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The factors the Court must consider are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2). All but one of these factors—opposition to the settlement—were addressed in the Court’s preliminary approval order; that analysis will not be repeated here. See Doc. 210 at 5-14. However, the Court will expand on its previous discussion of six issues relevant to the propriety of approval: (1) the Settlement Agreement’s compliance with the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act; (2) the adequacy of notice to class members; (3) the objections and comments submitted by class members; (4) the views of class counsel; (5) the proposed attorneys’ fee award, see Rule 23(e)(2)(C)(iii), and agreements required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3), see Rule 23(e)(2)(C)(iv); and finally, (6) the views of the Court. The Court also concludes that the settlement class preliminarily certified should be finally certified for settlement purposes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), for the reasons set forth in the Court’s preliminary approval order. See Doc. 210 at 3-5. This class is defined as “all persons who are or in the future will be assigned to the facility currently known as the Special Management Unit at Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Prison, or who are or in the future will be assigned to the
3

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 256 Filed 05/07/19 Page 4 of 29
Tier III Program.” A. Compliance of the Settlement Agreement with the PLRA’s NeedNarrowness-Intrusiveness Requirements The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) generally mandates that prospective
relief orders in prison conditions cases “shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs” and requires that courts entering them “find[] that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3626(c)(1) (applying these requirements to consent decrees). Together, these requirements are commonly referred to as the “need-narrowness-intrusiveness” requirements.
In Cason v. Seckinger, the Eleventh Circuit addressed the sort of findings courts are required to make with respect to the need-narrowness-intrusiveness requirements where the parties dispute whether these requirements are met. 231 F.3d 777 (11th Cir. 2000). Cason involved a contested motion by defendant prison officials to terminate a consent order under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b), which provides a right to terminate prospective relief in certain circumstances if the need-narrowness-intrusiveness requirements are not satisfied. Cason, 231 F.3d at 781; see 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3) (providing that prospective relief “shall not terminate if the court makes written findings based on the record that prospective relief remains necessary to correct a current and ongoing violation of the Federal right, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and that the prospective relief is narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means to correct the violation”). The Cason panel read § 3626(b)(3) as
4

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 256 Filed 05/07/19 Page 5 of 29
generally “requiring particularized findings, on a provision-by-provision basis, that each requirement imposed by the consent decrees satisfies the need-narrownessintrusiveness criteria.” 231 F.3d at 785. Where the parties disagree on whether those criteria are satisfied, “[i]t is not enough to simply state in conclusory fashion that the requirements of the consent decrees satisfy those criteria. Particularized findings, analysis, and explanations should be made as to the application of each criteria to each requirement imposed by the consent decrees.”1 Id.
Cason went on to recognize, however, that the provision-by-provision, particularized-finding requirement does not apply where the parties have agreed that the PLRA’s need-narrowness-intrusiveness requirements are satisfied. See Cason, 231 F.3d at 785 n.8. Specifically, a district court may rely on the parties’ “concessions” and “stipulations” concerning those criteria, just as it would any other undisputed facts. Id. Thus, when defendants expressly concede that the PLRA’s need-narrowness-intrusiveness requirements are met, the Court need not enter the particularized findings that are otherwise required. See id. (“Of course, we do not mean to suggest that the district court must conduct an evidentiary hearing about or enter particularized findings concerning any facts or factors about which there is not dispute. The parties are free to make any concessions or enter into any stipulations they deem appropriate.”). Here, the Defendants have not only consented to entry of the Settlement Agreement as an order but have also expressly stipulated that the Settlement
1 The Eleventh Circuit later held that Cason’s particularized-finding requirement applies not just to termination but also to entry of prospective relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). See United States v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 778 F.3d 1223, 1228 (11th Cir. 2015) (involving contested motion for preliminary injunction sought by United States in case challenging Florida’s failure to provide kosher meals to prisoners).
5

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 256 Filed 05/07/19 Page 6 of 29
Agreement satisfies the various requirements of the PLRA, including the need-narrowness-intrusiveness requirements.2 Docs. 207 at 15-16; 207-1 at 6. Therefore, particularized findings are not required. See Dunn v. Dunn, 318 F.R.D. 652, 682 (M.D. Ala. 2016); Laube v. Campbell, 333 F. Supp. 2d 1234, 1239 (M.D. Ala. 2004); see also Martinez v. Maketa, 2011 WL 2222129, at *1 (D. Colo. June 7, 2011) (entering a prospective relief order after observing that “Plaintiffs and Defendant jointly stipulate that the Court should make the findings required for prospective relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A)”); cf. Thomas v. Bryant, 614 F.3d 1288, 1323 & n.33 (11th Cir. 2010) (holding defendant prison officials could waive challenge to district court’s failure to make particularized findings by failing to raise issue in district court or on appeal).
The Court has nevertheless conducted an independent review of the record in this case and assessed the core terms of the Settlement Agreement in light of that record. The Court independently finds that the provisions of the Settlement Agreement satisfy the PLRA’s requirements for the following additional reasons.
1. Settlement Terms The Plaintiffs challenged the conditions of confinement in the SMU and the procedures that kept them there. Doc. 140 ¶¶ 1-13, 36-223. The Plaintiffs alleged that the SMU’s conditions constituted solitary confinement, which was defined as 22 or more
2 See Doc. 207-1 at 6 (“The Parties agree that the prospective relief set forth in this Agreement satisfies the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) in that the relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the alleged violations of those federal rights as asserted by the Plaintiffs in the Third Amended Complaint, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violations of federal rights. The relief set forth in this Agreement will not have an adverse impact on public safety or the operation of the criminal justice system, not will it require or permit government officials to exceed their authority under state or local law, or otherwise violate state or local law.”); see also Doc. 207 at 15-16 (“expressly stipulat[ing]” that the Settlement Agreement satisfies the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) and (a)(1)(B), and does not constitute a “prisoner release order” within the meaning of § 3626(a)(3)).
6

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 256 Filed 05/07/19 Page 7 of 29
hours per day in a cell without meaningful human contact. Id. ¶ 200. The Plaintiffs further alleged that their solitary confinement presented a substantial risk of serious psychological harm to the Plaintiffs and class members, in violation of the Eighth Amendment (id. ¶¶ 201-16), and that procedures for placing prisoners in the SMU were arbitrary in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause (id. ¶¶ 101-99). The Defendants stipulate that the Settlement Agreement is “the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violations of federal rights” alleged by the Plaintiffs. Doc. 201-1 ¶ 7.3 In addition, there is evidence in the record supporting the Plaintiffs’ allegations. See, e.g., Docs. 142; 154-4 to 154-29; 161-4 to 161-8; 167 to 167-8; 168 to 168-3.
As discussed in greater detail below, the Court finds that the prospective relief provided in the Settlement Agreement is necessary to prevent violations of prisoners’ constitutional rights in this case, is narrowly tailored and extends no further than necessary to correct those violations, and constitutes the least intrusive means of ensuring compliance with minimal constitutional requirements. As an initial matter, Cason’s requirement of “particularized” and “provision-by-provision” findings, 231 F.3d at 785, allows for some flexibility in light of the circumstances of each case. Where the parties dispute whether relief is appropriate under § 3626, a district court ordinarily
3 See Morales Feliciano v. Calderon Serra, 300 F. Supp. 2d 321, 334 (D.P.R. 2004) (“The very fact that the defendants chose to join the plaintiffs in selecting this remedy would seem to mean—and must be taken to mean—that they understood it to be precisely tailored to the needs of the occasion, that it is narrowly drawn and least intrusive—in fact not intrusive at all.”), aff’d, 378 F.3d 42, 54-56 (1st Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1054 (2005); Little v. Shelby Cty., 2003 WL 23846734, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 25, 2003) (“Clearly, the least intrusive means in this case is that advocated by the parties themselves and determined by the parties . . . as being in the interest of both inmate and public safety.”). Furthermore, the Defendants amended their standard operating procedures, which now mirror many of the provisions of the settlement agreement. As a number of courts have recognized, this too weighs strongly in favor of a finding that the PLRA’s need-narrowness-intrusiveness is satisfied. See Thomas v. Bryant, 614 F.3d 1288, 1325 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing use of the defendants’ existing policies in formulating relief as evidence of non-intrusiveness).
7

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 256 Filed 05/07/19 Page 8 of 29
holds an evidentiary hearing, creates a record, and makes factual findings. See Loyd v. Alabama Dep’t of Corr., 176 F.3d 1336, 1342 (11th Cir. 1999). In this case, however, the parties have chosen to resolve the case without further proceedings. Although the stage at which this litigation was resolved limits the record available for the Court to consider in making need-narrowness-intrusiveness findings, the Eleventh Circuit has recognized that a district court applying § 3626(a) should “discuss those factors and enter findings that are as specific to the case as the circumstances permit.” Johnson v. Breeden, 280 F.3d 1308, 1326 (11th Cir. 2002). Therefore, the Court concludes that it need not hold an evidentiary hearing or require the parties to expend time and resources on presenting evidence. See generally Williams v. First Nat’l Bank, 216 U.S. 582, 595 (1910) (“Compromises of disputed claims are favored by the courts.”); Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326, 1331 (5th Cir. 1977) (“Particularly in class action suits, there is an overriding public interest in favor of settlement.”). The Court will instead make findings “as specific to the case as the circumstances permit,” recognizing that “there may not be much to say” about certain matters in light of the limited record available to the Court. See Johnson, 280 F.3d at 1326.
Making the findings required by § 3626 “requires a degree of judgment.” See Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 538 (2011). And even under the limitations imposed by the PLRA, “[c]ourts have substantial flexibility when making these judgments.” Id. To determine whether a remedial provision is “narrowly drawn” and “extends no further than necessary,” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A), courts assess the “fit between the remedy’s ends and the means chosen to accomplish those ends.” Brown, 563 U.S. at 531 (quoting Bd. of Trustees of State Univ. of N.Y. v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 480 (1989))
8

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 256 Filed 05/07/19 Page 9 of 29
(internal alterations and quotation marks omitted). The necessity and narrow-tailoring requirements forbid orders that “unnecessarily reach out” to fix problems other than those that violate federal law. Id. Rather, the “scope of the remedy must be proportional to the scope of the violation, and the order must extend no further than necessary to remedy the violation.” Id. Similarly, the requirement that the relief ordered be “the least intrusive means necessary,” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A), aims to ensure that the relief ordered “does not excessively impede upon the [prison system’s] internal administration,” see Thomas v. Bryant, 614 F.3d 1288, 1325 (11th Cir. 2010). The least intrusive orders will tend to be those that track a prison system’s “current policy” and leave discretion to prison officials in implementing the ordered relief. Id.
In determining the permissible scope of relief, a court must consider what relief would be sufficient “to adequately protect future class members” from harm. Plata, 563 U.S. at 532. A remedial order narrowly tailored to preventing future violations of certain class members’ federal rights is not overbroad even though its “collateral effects” may improve conditions for prisoners generally. Id. at 531 (holding order requiring release of prisoners to ensure timely medical care for class members was not overbroad, even though the order would benefit prisoners outside of the plaintiff class by, among other things, reducing prison violence and prompting parole reform).
a. Out-of-Cell Time Paragraphs 11 to 18 of the Settlement Agreement provide that class members will ordinarily receive a minimum of four hours out-of-cell time per day, Monday through Friday, subject to specified limitations and conditions. The Settlement Agreement does not require that class members be permitted to leave their cells on weekends. Out-of-
9

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 256 Filed 05/07/19 Page 10 of 29
cell time may be cancelled if required by “unanticipated security or safety considerations.” Doc. 207-1 ¶ 12. It also may be cancelled for up to 14 days, on an individualized basis, as punishment for certain disciplinary offenses. Doc. 207-1 ¶ 16. When it occurs, the out-of-cell time contemplated by the Settlement Agreement occurs under regimented and secure conditions. One hour of out-of-cell time occurs in “the outdoor recreation cages.” Doc. 207-1 ¶ 12. The record shows that those cages are single-person enclosures that appear to be secure and austere. See Doc. 159-1 at 1516 (photographs of the outdoor cages). Three hours of out-of-cell time will occur “using restraint tables.” Doc. 207-1 ¶ 12. Restraint tables ensure the “safety of staff and inmates” by limiting a prisoner’s “ability to stand and move around.” Doc. 171-2 ¶ 10. Prisoners may voluntarily decline out-of-cell time. Doc. 207-1 ¶ 17. Prisoners denied out-of-cell time as punishment will be visited by a mental health counselor on nonholiday weekdays. Doc. 207-1 ¶ 16. The Settlement Agreement also provides ancillary provisions requiring the Defendants to document out-of-cell time, address failures to provide out-of-cell time, and provide sufficient staff to comply with the Settlement Agreement’s provisions. Doc. 207-1 ¶¶ 13-14, 17-18.
The Court finds that the out-of-cell time provisions are narrowly tailored and extend no further than necessary to prevent an unconstitutional “risk of psychological harm” to the class members. See Thomas v. Bryant, 614 F.3d 1288, 1315 (11th Cir. 2010) (recognizing risk of psychological harm can violate Eighth Amendment). The Settlement Agreement provides for 20 hours per week of total out-of-cell time. Moreover, the out-of-cell time provided under the Settlement Agreement occurs under highly secure conditions and is subject to cancellation by prison officials in cases of
10

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 256 Filed 05/07/19 Page 11 of 29
emergency or unforeseen circumstances. Prison officials also are permitted to punish prisoners with up to 14 days of deprivation of out-of-cell time under certain conditions, which is consistent with evidence in the record suggesting that solitary confinement in excess of 15 days is considered harmful. Doc. 159-1 ¶ 108. The provision for daily mental health counselor contacts with class members on yard restriction is necessary and narrowly tailored to ensuring that mentally vulnerable class members are identified.
The ancillary provisions concerning out-of-cell time also are narrowly tailored and necessary to prevent violations of the Plaintiffs’ rights. The provision for staffing is necessary to ensure that the Settlement Agreement is implemented, and there is evidence that understaffing has limited out-of-cell time in the recent past. See Doc. 239 at 3 (acknowledging class members’ complaints that understaffing diminishes out-of-cell time). Provisions for documenting out-of-cell time are necessary and narrowly tailored to ensuring that the Settlement Agreement is implemented. Finally, given that prison officials expressly consented to these provisions, the Court cannot find that there is a less intrusive means of protecting the class members’ federal rights.
In short, the out-of-cell provisions protect the class members’ rights while ensuring that the Defendants’ ability to run a safe and secure facility is not compromised. Accordingly, the Court finds that the out-of-cell time provisions are necessary, are narrowly drawn, and intrude no further than necessary.
b. Activities, Programs, and Privileges Paragraphs 19 to 27 of the Settlement Agreement provide that class members will have access to certain activities and privileges. The Settlement Agreement provides that class members will have operable computer tablets called “GOAL
11

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 256 Filed 05/07/19 Page 12 of 29
devices.” Doc. 207-1 ¶ 20. These devices have multiple functions, the most important of which for present purposes are educational materials, games, books, and similar activities. Docs. 171-2 ¶ 10; 171-2 at 6-10 (informational materials concerning GOAL devices). The Settlement Agreement further provides that class members may request materials from the GDCP library and will have access to mobile book carts on a weekly basis. Doc. 207-1 ¶ 19. Within six months of the December 21, 2018, date that the parties entered the Settlement Agreement, the Defendants are to provide class members “the opportunity to participate in at least 120 minutes per week of out-of-cell programming or classes.” Doc. 207-1 ¶ 22. Prisoners also will have access to “approved” religious materials, and religious services “at the discretion of the [SMU] Superintendent.” Doc. 207-1 ¶ 27. Class members will have the privileges listed in Georgia Department of Corrections Standard Operating Procedure No. 209.09 (Doc. 207-1 ¶ 26), which allows class members certain personal property, visitation, telephone calls, access to commissary goods, showers three times per week, and assorted other conditions.4
The Court finds that each of these provisions is a necessary correlate of the outof-cell time provisions. Evidence in the record suggests that “enforced idleness and inactivity” contributes to the psychological harm associated with solitary confinement. Doc. 159-1 ¶ 92. The Court finds that the provisions for GOAL devices, books, programming, religious services, and related conditions are necessary and narrowly tailored to preventing the serious psychological harm allegedly caused by solitary
4 See Ga. Dep’t of Corr., Policy No. 209.09 Attach. 6 (Mar. 14, 2019), available at https://www.powerdms.com/public/GADOC/documents/512955 (last visited Apr. 24, 2019).
12

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 256 Filed 05/07/19 Page 13 of 29
confinement and extend no further than necessary to prevent violations of the class members’ federal rights. The Court cannot find that there is a less intrusive alternative to the parties’ proposal, given that prison officials have consented to these specific provisions. Ancillary provisions concerning GOAL devices, books, and programming are likewise necessary and narrowly tailored to ensuring that the principal provisions are implemented.
Accordingly, the provisions concerning activities, programs, and privileges are necessary, are narrowly drawn, and intrude no further than necessary.
c. In-Cell Conditions of Confinement Paragraphs 28 to 43 of the Settlement Agreement address general living conditions, including food, cell furnishings, and sanitation. Class members are required to have the same type and amount of food as prisoners in the general population, and substitute meals if provided to the general population or medically indicated. Doc. 2071 ¶¶ 28-29. The SMU must maintain the highest possible standards of cleanliness, sanitation, and safety. Doc. 207-1 ¶ 31. Cells must be single-occupancy and must be equipped like general population cells. Doc. 207-1 ¶¶ 32-33. Class members must be provided medication, clothing, and property as provided in the privilege chart attached to Georgia Department of Corrections Standard Operating Procedure 209.09, “unless there is imminent danger that an inmate will destroy an item or induce self-injury.” Doc. 207-1 ¶ 34. Class members must also be provided hygiene items, laundry and barbering services, opportunities to clean their cells on the same basis as prisoners in general population, and the opportunity to shower and shave three times per week. Doc. 207-1 ¶¶ 35-38. Class members will have the services of a counselor. Doc. 207-1
13

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 256 Filed 05/07/19 Page 14 of 29
¶ 39. Sliding covers over cell windows will remain open “unless articulable security or safety considerations dictate otherwise.” Doc. 207-1 ¶ 40. Class members may not be held in cells lacking exterior windows unless they damage the windows in their standard cells, must have operable electric lights in their cells, and cannot be placed in cells that are constantly lit unless requested by a class member or “necessary for the safety and security of an inmate.” Doc. 207-1 ¶¶ 41-43.
The Court finds that these provisions, which principally concern the conditions in which class members live while confined to their cells, address general living conditions consistent with constitutional principles. Although the Settlement Agreement provides for out-of-cell time and activities, the class members will continue to spend many hours of their time in their cells. It is thus necessary that class members be provided minimally adequate living conditions—including food, sanitation, hygiene items, clothing, and other basic needs—during the time that they are held in those cells. See Hamm v. DeKalb Cty., 774 F.2d 1567, 1573 (11th Cir. 1985). The Court finds that these provisions are narrowly tailored, extend no further than necessary, and are the least intrusive means available to correct violations of class members’ federal rights. Most of these provisions are taken verbatim or nearly verbatim from the current policies of the Georgia Department of Corrections,5 which is strong evidence that the provisions are appropriately narrow and nonintrusive. See Thomas v. Bryant, 614 F.3d 1288, 1325 (11th Cir. 2010) (holding injunction satisfied § 3626(a) where “the district court borrowed language from the DOC’s current policy”).
5 See, e.g., Ga. Dep’t of Corr., Policy No. 209.09, Special Mgmt. Unit—Tier III Program (Mar. 14, 2019), available at https://www.powerdms.com/public/GADOC/documents/105973 (last visited Apr. 24, 2019).
14

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 256 Filed 05/07/19 Page 15 of 29
Accordingly, the Court finds that the provisions concerning in-cell conditions of confinement are necessary, are narrowly drawn, and intrude no further than necessary.
d. Assignment, Periodic Review, and Duration of Confinement
Paragraphs 44 to 56 establish a general 24-month limit on confinement in the SMU, procedures for assignment to the SMU, and procedures for review while held in the SMU. A multi-level procedure governs assignment. Doc. 207-1 ¶ 48. Upon assignment to the SMU, class members will be provided “a detailed Offender Management Plan setting out individualized goals for the inmate and explaining the steps that the inmate must take to qualify for a transfer.” Doc. 207-1 ¶ 53. Class members will be reviewed every 60 or 90 days under a multi-level procedure to determine whether they will progress through the program phases or transfer to a different facility. Doc. 207-1 ¶ 54. Assignment and periodic review hearings will be accompanied by out-of-cell mental health evaluations “to determine whether the inmate is, by reason of mental illness or disability, precluded from being placed in or remaining in the Tier III program.” Doc. 207-1 ¶ 49. In addition, officers and staff members assigned to the SMU will be trained in recognizing and responding to signs of mental illness and suicidal ideation. Doc. 207-1 ¶ 52. Class members will not be returned to the lowest two program phases—Phase 1 (E-Wing) and Phase 2 (F-Wing)—unless they engage in conduct “that would satisfy one of the criteria for assignment to the SMU.” Doc. 207-1 ¶ 55. Class members will not be held in the SMU for more than 24 months unless they volunteer to remain there or meet one of six enumerated categories. Doc. 207-1 ¶ 44. Prisoners held beyond 24 months will be reviewed quarterly by a panel composed of the Director of Field Operations, the Statewide Mental Health Director, the
15

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 256 Filed 05/07/19 Page 16 of 29
Statewide Medical Director, and a member of the Office of Legal Services. Doc. 207-1 ¶ 45. When they are transferred from the SMU, class members “will be placed in either a Segregation Transition Education Program (STEP) or Specialized Mental Health Treatment Unit (SMHTU).” Doc. 207-1 ¶ 56.6 Beginning when a class member is within 12 months of being released from prison, the committee reviewing the class member will consider placing him in the STEP program, the reasons for denying placement in the STEP program will be documented, and an Assistant Commissioner will review that decision. Doc. 207-1 ¶ 46.
The Court finds that the limitations on assignment to and duration of confinement in the SMU, and the procedures for reviewing class members held in the SMU, are narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the violations alleged by the Plaintiffs, and are the least intrusive means necessary to correct those violations. Taken as a whole, the Settlement Agreement’s provisions concerning assignment and review, and limitations on holding prisoners in the SMU and in certain wings, are necessary and narrowly tailored to correcting the alleged due process violations. The review procedures provided in the Settlement Agreement largely incorporate the procedures required under the Defendants’ own policies; the Settlement Agreement will simply ensure that those procedures are followed in practice. See Thomas, 614 F.3d at 1325. Modifications to the assignment criteria, special review for class members
6 See Ga. Dep’t of Corr., Policy No. 209.55, Special Mgmt. Unit—Tier III Segregated Transition Education Program (Tier III STEP) (Apr. 25, 2019) (providing for at least four hours per day of out-of-cell time, group activities, and the same privileges as general population), available at https://www.powerdms.com/public/GADOC/documents/536189 (last visited Apr. 26, 2019); Ga. Dep’t of Corr., Policy No. 508.23, Specialized Mental Health Treatment Units (Apr. 27, 2018) (providing for at least 20 hours per week of out-of-cell time and therapeutic activities), available at https://www.powerdms.com/public/GADOC/documents/196628 (last visited Apr. 26, 2019)
16

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 256 Filed 05/07/19 Page 17 of 29
approaching their release dates, limitations on how long certain class members may be held in the SMU, and limitations on when class members may be required to return to the SMU’s most restrictive phases, are narrowly addressed to remedying alleged abuses in assigning prisoners to the SMU for questionable reasons and keeping them there indefinitely. See Docs. 140 ¶¶ 188-91; 159-1 ¶¶ 39-45. For class members held in the SMU beyond 24 months, quarterly review of their continued detention by a panel of senior prison officials is necessary to ensure that persons held in the SMU long-term are held there for appropriate reasons while still giving prison officials the discretion and flexibility to make decisions about whom to release. Finally, the provisions for periodic mental health evaluations of class members, treatment for class members who are decompensating, and training for officers in responding to signs of mental illness are necessary so that that class members with serious mental health concerns are identified, assessed, and treated. See Doc. 159-1 ¶¶ 46-89. The Settlement Agreement provides that class members who mentally decompensate in the SMU will be transferred to an appropriate treatment facility, as determined by prison officials. These agreed-upon provisions reflect the parties’ mutual goal of ensuring that prisoners with a mental health designation of Level III or above are not housed in the SMU. Doc. 207-1 ¶ 49.
Together, these provisions put in place a structure to provide that class members are appropriately considered for advancement through and transfer from the SMU. The Settlement Agreement specifies certain criteria but leaves the application of the criteria to individual class members in the hands of prison administrators. These provisions address the concerns about prolonged and indefinite confinement in isolation raised by
17

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 256 Filed 05/07/19 Page 18 of 29
the Plaintiffs but are narrowly drawn and do not unnecessarily constrain the Defendants’ decisionmaking authority.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the provisions concerning assignment, periodic review, and duration of confinement to the SMU are necessary, are narrowly drawn, and intrude no further than necessary.
e. Provisions for Monitoring and Implementation Paragraphs 57 to 80 of the Settlement Agreement provide for monitoring and implementation of the Settlement Agreement’s substantive terms. The principal terms in that regard provide for monitoring meetings between the parties approximately every nine months (Doc. 207-1 ¶ 57), limited access to records (Doc. 207-1 ¶¶ 58-60), annual on-site visits to the SMU by class counsel (Doc. 207-1 ¶ 61), notice and training for officers and staff members (Doc. 207-1 ¶ 62), and confidential meetings and communications between class counsel and the class members (Doc. 207-1 ¶¶ 63-64). The Court finds that these provisions are narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the violations alleged by the Plaintiffs, and are the least intrusive means necessary to correct those violations. Many of the obligations imposed by the Settlement Agreement with respect to records and communications by class members with class counsel are comparable to obligations already imposed on the Defendants and the Georgia Department of Corrections by law (when responding to a public records request). See, e.g., O.C.G.A. § 50-18-71(a) (providing that public records are generally available for public inspection and copying); Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. § 125-3-4.07(a) (providing for confidential attorney-client visits in state prisons). Regarding the provisions for meetings, site visits, and training of officers and staff, the Settlement
18

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 256 Filed 05/07/19 Page 19 of 29
Agreement’s provisions are plainly narrowly tailored and no more intrusive than necessary to ensure that the Defendants’ subordinates are aware of their obligations and that class counsel can perform their role in monitoring compliance on behalf of their clients. The Court notes that the Settlement Agreement also includes a meeting and conferral requirement, so as to ensure that the Defendants are given the opportunity to resolve potential concerns without court intervention if possible. Doc. 207-1 ¶ 65. Some process for verifying compliance is of course necessary and is commonplace in institutional reform orders of this sort; a process designed to ensure that the Defendants are made aware of any alleged issues of non-compliance before the Plaintiffs resort to adversarial contempt proceedings is reasonable and nonintrusive.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the provisions concerning monitoring and implementation are necessary, are narrowly drawn, and intrude no further than necessary.
2. Impact of the Settlement Agreement on Public Safety Neither the parties nor the Court has identified “any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief” provided in the Settlement Agreement. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). The terms of this agreement will allow the Defendants to continue to place prisoners in a secure setting when necessary. In sum, the parties stipulate, and the Court concludes, that the Settlement Agreement meets the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A).7
7 The parties have also expressly stipulated, and the Court finds based upon that stipulation and upon its own independent review, that the terms of the Settlement Agreement do not “require[] or permit[] a government official to exceed his or her authority under State or local law” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(B) and do not constitute a “prisoner release order” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3). The parties have also expressly stipulated, and the Court finds based upon that stipulation and upon its own independent review, that the PLRA’s termination provision, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(1)(A)
19

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 256 Filed 05/07/19 Page 20 of 29
B. Notice to Class Members The Court must ensure that notice has been provided to class members in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1). Per the Court’s preliminary approval order, the parties were required to provide notice and a copy of the Settlement Agreement directly to every current class member—that is, every person currently assigned to the Tier III Program and confined in the SMU. See Doc. 210 at 15. Such individual delivery clearly constitutes adequate notice under Rule 23(e)(1). See, e.g., Dunn, 318 F.R.D. at 668 (concluding that notice was adequate when prisoners confined in cells rather than dormitories were individually “hand-delivered” notice forms). The Defendants have filed forms with the Court indicating whether each class member acknowledged or refused to acknowledge receipt of the settlement documents. See Doc. 217. The parties agree that the class notice process was carried out as set forth in the Court’s preliminary approval order. The Court concludes that notice to the class members satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2) and 23(e)(1). C. Objections to the Settlement Agreement In determining whether a class settlement should be approved, “the reaction of the class is an important factor.” Lipuma v. American Express Co., 406 F. Supp. 2d 1298, 1324 (S.D. Fla. 2005). The Court received objections or comments from 14 individual class members. Docs. 218 to 235. The parties submitted pre-hearing briefs summarizing and responding to these filings. Docs. 237; 239. As the parties point out,
(providing that prospective relief “shall be terminable upon the motion of any part or intervener . . . 2 years after the date the court granted or approved the prospective relief . . .”), is subject to waiver and has been waived by the Defendants. See Dunn v. Dunn, 318 F.R.D. 652, 682 (M.D. Ala. 2016); Depriest v. Walnut Grove Corr. Auth., 2015 WL 3795020, at *6 (S.D. Miss. June 10, 2015).
20

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 256 Filed 05/07/19 Page 21 of 29
the class members almost entirely address concerns with the Defendants’ alleged failures so far to implement some of the Settlement Agreement’s terms—particularly those regarding out-of-cell time (and the staffing required to facilitate it), certain conditions of confinement, and procedures for placement and retention in the SMU. Thus, most of the objections do not take issue with the Settlement Agreement; they raise compliance issues.
For example, many class members complain that due to short staffing, inmates are denied the out-of-cell time required by the Settlement Agreement: specifically, Gitters (Doc. 220 at 2), Wilcox (Doc. 221 at 1-2), Shepard (Doc. 223 at 2-3), Zavala (Doc. 224 at 1-2 (alleging that “certain inmates are being placed on 5-man escorts . . . and then deprived out-of-cell time with the excuse that there is not enough staff”)), Jackson (Doc. 226 at 1), Carter (Doc. 231 at 1)), Young (Doc. 232 at 5), and Scott (Doc. 234 at 1). These concerns are heightened on E-Wing, which objectors allege has lower priority for recreation than other dormitories. Similarly, some class members complain there is no programming or library access for class members in E-Wing as required by the Settlement Agreement. Docs. 224 at 2; 231 at 1; 234 at 1; 207-1 ¶¶ 19-22.8 None of the noncompliance objections provide a basis for rejecting the settlement. Rather, the Court will address any failure to comply if necessary. To the extent that the objectors raise a concern that GDCP lacks sufficient resources to implement the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Court addressed that concern at the hearing. The
8 This is not exhaustive of the noncompliance objections, and class counsel’s pre-hearing brief addresses those additional objections. See generally Doc. 237.
21

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 256 Filed 05/07/19 Page 22 of 29
Defendants agree that they must provide the resources necessary to implement the Settlement Agreement. Doc. 252 at 15-16.
Some objectors argue the Settlement Agreement could have done more for class members. For instance, Waseem Daker and Jeffrey Bourassa9 both argue the agreement is inadequate unless it provides for access to the law library. Docs. 218 at 26; 227 at 8. Class counsel responded by noting that the objection does “not fall within the scope of the substance of this lawsuit,” and both class counsel and the Defendants’ counsel agreed there is nothing in the Settlement Agreement which would preclude a Tier III inmate from “pursuing a remedy based upon insufficient or inadequate access to legal materials[.]” Doc. 252 at 17-18. The Court agrees. Daker and Bourassa also objected to Paragraph 44 of the Settlement Agreement, which allows the Defendants to keep class members in the SMU for longer than 24 months if they meet certain narrow criteria. Daker and Bourassa argue the exceptions to the 24-month cap on confinement in the SMU allow the Defendants excessive discretion in keeping class members in the SMU. Docs. 218 at 14-15; 227 at 14-15. However, the Settlement Agreement also provides a panel for quarterly placement review for class members kept in the SMU for longer than 24 months. Doc. 207-1 ¶ 45. Class counsel argue that “the provisions in question were the subject of extended and difficult negotiation by class counsel with the
9 The Defendants contend Daker is not a class member, because he is a Tier II inmate. Doc. 239 at 5-6. Actually, virtually everybody is a potential future class member because of the possibility, however slight, that they could be assigned to Tier III during the next three years. Bourassa, for example, is currently in federal custody, and although, as a practical matter, he may never return to the Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Prison, and may not be assigned to Tier III even if he is, he is still a potential future class member. However, Daker’s arguments concerning conditions of confinement on Tier II are beyond the scope of this Settlement Agreement and this case, and the Settlement Agreement will not resolve any claims Daker may have regarding Tier II. Accordingly, his objections relating to Tier II are not relevant, but even considering them, nothing in Daker’s Tier II-related objections at all impacts the Court’s finding that the Settlement Agreement provides fair, adequate, and reasonable relief for the class members.
22

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 256 Filed 05/07/19 Page 23 of 29
Defendants; they represent a cabining of the Defendants’ authority to place inmates in the SMU and a significant limiting of their ability to retain them there for longer than two years[.]” Doc. 237 at 12. The Court agrees and notes further that a 24-month cap with limited exceptions is a substantial improvement and confers a considerable benefit to the class. The Court finds that the provisions limiting the circumstances in which a class member may be held in the SMU for longer than 24 months are a fair, adequate, and reasonable outcome for the class members.
Bourassa also objects to Paragraph 40, which requires the “sliding covers attached to cell-door windows [to] remain open at all times, unless articulable security or safety considerations dictate otherwise.” Doc. 207-1 at 13. Bourassa argues that closed covers “further[] no legitimate penological interest.” Doc. 227 at 11. Again, on this point the Settlement Agreement represents a negotiated compromise after “a protracted back and forth” between the parties. Doc. 252 at 19. It represents a considered balance between the class’s interests and the Defendants’ interest in security, and the Settlement Agreement itself prohibits closed covers in the absence of an articulable security interest.
Similarly, Shepard objects to the use of “restraint tables” during indoor out-of-cell recreation time. Doc. 223 at 2. During the three hours per weekday of indoor out-of-cell recreation time secured by the Settlement Agreement, the Defendants allow class members who wish to leave their cells to sit at tables to which they are handcuffed for security. Doc. 252 at 25. The Defendants purchased these tables during settlement negotiations to allow Tier III inmates to have out-of-cell recreation in a secure setting in the common area. Id. Although Shepard objects that the tables “mak[e] it impossible to
23

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 256 Filed 05/07/19 Page 24 of 29
read a book, write a letter, or even scratch an itch” and inhibit inmate self-defense, the Court, after reviewing photographs of these tables, disagrees. Doc. 223 at 2; see Docs. 255-1; 255-1; 255-3. Shepard overstates significantly the degree of restraint. The Court finds that the tables are a reasonable solution to provide inmates with increased out-of-cell recreation, thereby reducing the harms associated with prolonged isolation, while maintaining prison security. Id.
Tavares Harris raises concerns that Paragraph 14 of the Settlement Agreement, which imposes heightened notice requirements on the Defendants when the out-of-cell time secured by Paragraph 12 is cancelled or shortened for three or more consecutive days, is too lenient, and he argues that the period to trigger heightened notice obligations should be shortened to two or more consecutive days. Doc. 229 at 1. However, Paragraph 12 still requires a minimum of four hours of out-of-cell time per day, Monday through Friday, and the Court finds those requirements, along with the Settlement Agreement’s other provisions for ensuring compliance, are a favorable outcome for the class members. Harris also alleged the Defendants denied that Paragraph 14 applied to the E-Wing dormitory, Doc. 229 at 2, but the Defendants’ counsel has acknowledged that Paragraph 14 does apply to E-Wing. Doc. 252 at 24. Accordingly, the application of Paragraph 14 to E-Wing is an issue not of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, but of compliance.
Harris also raises concerns about Paragraph 16, which provides that prison staff may use denial of out-of-cell time as a punishment only when an inmate has committed a disciplinary offense of “Great” or higher severity level; that inmates placed on such a restriction must be visited daily, excluding weekends and holidays, by a mental health
24

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 256 Filed 05/07/19 Page 25 of 29
counselor; and that the visit must be documented in the inmate’s mental health file. Harris argues that the Defendants have violated that provision and that the Settlement Agreement should require greater accountability for any such denials. However, the Court finds that the Settlement Agreement’s restrictions on the Defendants’ use of denial of out-of-cell time as a punishment, the counselor requirement, and the existing provisions for monitoring and compliance represent a fair, adequate, and reasonable outcome for the class members.
Other objections challenging the terms of the Settlement Agreement similarly discuss how the Settlement Agreement could theoretically have been drafted to provide even more benefits to class members; however, none of the objections in any way undermines the Court’s conclusion that class counsel, through hard-fought negotiation, procured a Settlement Agreement which “provides adequate substantive relief for the class members and treats class members equitably.” Doc. 210 at 7.
Accordingly, after careful consideration of all objections, the Court finds none provides any basis for not approving the Settlement Agreement.
D. Judgment of Class Counsel on the Adequacy of the Settlement In considering a proposed class settlement, the Court “may rely upon the judgment of experienced counsel for the parties. . . . Absent fraud, collusion, or the like, the district court ‘should be hesitant to substitute its own judgment for that of counsel.’” Nelson v. Mead Johnson & Johnson Co., 484 F. App’x 429, 434 (11th Cir. 2012) (quoting Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326, 1330 (5th Cir. 1977)). Here, class counsel have extensive experience litigating and settling conditions of confinement cases and
25

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 256 Filed 05/07/19 Page 26 of 29
strongly endorse the Settlement Agreement as appropriate. This factor therefore weighs in favor of approval.
E. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs and Other Agreements In compliance with the Court’s preliminary approval order (Doc. 210 at 12-13), the parties have conferred regarding attorneys’ fees and costs. They reached a negotiated agreement that attorneys’ fees and costs should be paid by the Defendants to class counsel in the amount of $425,000. The Plaintiffs thereafter filed an uncontested fee petition seeking an award of such fees in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h). Doc. 241. The parties have moved the Court for leave to notify class members of the proposed fee award and give them an opportunity to object to it.10 Doc. 242. The Court granted the motion, ordered that notice be given to the class members regarding the Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees, and provided a reasonable opportunity for class members to object. Doc. 251. Because the fee award was negotiated only following the parties’ entry into the Settlement Agreement and because the parties agree that the Settlement Agreement stands regardless of whether or not the Court grants the fee petition, the Court finds that nothing in the Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees undermines the fairness or adequacy of the Settlement Agreement. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(C)(iii). The fee petition will be resolved pursuant to a separate order.
10 Class members were notified that the parties would attempt to negotiate attorneys’ fees following preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement and were made aware that the Settlement Agreement provides for the ongoing payment of fees to class counsel for post-settlement work. See Docs. 207-2 at 2 (“The Settlement Agreement . . . also states that the Defendants will pay the attorneys’ fees of the lawyers for the class, in an amount to be negotiated.”); 207-1 ¶¶ 71-74 (setting forth in detail the process for negotiation regarding a retrospective attorneys’ fee award, and providing for prospective payment of attorneys’ fees for the monitoring of—and, if necessary, the enforcement of compliance with—the Settlement Agreement).
26

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 256 Filed 05/07/19 Page 27 of 29
The Court further notes that the parties have filed a notice of agreements required to be identified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(3), in compliance with Rule 23(e)(2)(C)(iv). Doc. 243. Therein, the parties inform the Court that an agreement has been reached regarding modest incentive awards for the named plaintiffs, and that a separate and unrelated settlement has been reached with Plaintiff Gumm disposing of his alleged damages claims. The parties note that the amounts of these awards were negotiated after the parties reached the class Settlement Agreement and did not affect the terms of that agreement. See Doc. 243 at 1-2. The Court therefore concludes that these monetary agreements do not undermine the fairness, adequacy, or reasonableness of the injunctive-relief class Settlement Agreement.
F. The Court’s Assessment “Finally, with the above considerations in mind, the court should itself [finally] assess whether the settlement agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.” Gaddis v. Campbell, 301 F. Supp. 2d 1310, 1316 (M.D. Ala. 2004) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Based on a review of the Settlement Agreement and of the entire record in this case, and based on the analysis of the Rule 23(e) factors set forth in the Court’s preliminary approval order and in this Order, the Court concludes that the Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, should be approved, and should be adopted as an Order of the Court. The Court finds that this settlement, reached after extensive discovery and arms-length negotiations by the parties, represents an appropriate and desirable resolution of this case; it substantially affords to class members the relief the Plaintiffs sought regarding conditions and placement and retention in the SMU, without the cost and uncertainty of further litigation. Because the
27

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 256 Filed 05/07/19 Page 28 of 29
Defendants were involved in crafting and agreed to the provisions of the Settlement Agreement, the Court expects that they will successfully implement those terms, to the benefit of the class members.
III. ORDER AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant final approval of the settlement and incorporate it as an Order of the Court.11 In accordance with foregoing opinion and findings, it is the ORDER and DECREE of the Court as follows: (1) A settlement class is certified, consisting of “all persons who are or in the future will be assigned to the facility currently known as the Special Management Unit at Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Prison, or who are or in the future will be assigned to the Tier III Program,” under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2); (2) The objections to the proposed settlement filed by class members in response to the notice to the class are overruled; (3) The parties’ request to adopt the Settlement Agreement is granted; (4) The terms of the Settlement Agreement, which is attached as an appendix to this Order, are incorporated as the Order of this Court; (5) In accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the agreement during its term; (6) The Defendants in their official capacities, their officers, agents, servants, and employees, and those persons in active concert or participation with them who
11 Note that although the Settlement Agreement has been attached to this opinion as an appendix, it is incorporated as the Order of the Court. The parties expressly stipulate and the Court finds that this Order complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(1). See Williams v. City of Dothan, Ala., 818 F.2d 775, 761 (11th Cir. 1987).
28

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 256 Filed 05/07/19 Page 29 of 29 receive actual notice of this injunction by personal service or otherwise, are each enjoined from failing to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement; and
(7) The Settlement Agreement shall expire, in accordance with its terms, three years from the date of entry of this Order.
In order to provide class members with notice of the final disposition of this lawsuit, it is further ORDERED that, within 14 days from the date of this Order, the Defendants shall cause to be provided to class members notice of the final disposition of this lawsuit by delivering to each class member this Order and Permanent Injunction and the Court’s Judgment.
SO ORDERED, this the 7th day of May, 2019. S/Marc. T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
29

 
 Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 20576-1 Filed 1025/2017/189 Page 1 of 27
EXHIBIT A

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 20576-1 Filed 1025/2017/189 Page 2 of 27

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION

)

TIMOTHY GUMM,

)

)

ROBERT WATKINS,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

BENJAMIN FORD, Warden, Georgia

)

Diagnostic & Classification Prison, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-CV-41-MTT-CHW

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REGARDING THE SPECIAL MANAGEMENT UNIT

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 20576-1 Filed 1025/2017/189 Page 3 of 27
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 TERMS AND CONDITIONS .........................................................................................................4
I. CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT IN THE SMU.....................................................4 A. Out-of-Cell Time ...............................................................................................4 B. Library, Book Carts, and GOAL Devices..........................................................6 C. Programming......................................................................................................6 D. Privileges............................................................................................................7 E. Food ...................................................................................................................8 F. Other Conditions ................................................................................................8
II. DURATION OF CONFINEMENT IN THE SMU ........................................................9 III. ASSIGNMENT AND PERIODIC REVIEW...............................................................11 IV. MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ...........................................14
A. Monitoring Meetings .............................................................................................14 B. Access to Records and Data...................................................................................14 C. On-site Visits .........................................................................................................16 D. Access to Copies of This Agreement and Training of GDC Staff.........................17 V. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT ..........................................................17 A. Communications with and Responsibilities of Class Counsel...............................17 B. Meet and Confer Obligations in the Event of an Alleged Breach .........................18 C. Enforcement ...........................................................................................................18
ii

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 20576-1 Filed 1025/2017/189 Page 4 of 27 D. Class Certification, Notice, and Joint Motion........................................................18
VI. ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS ...............................................................................19 VII. CONSTRUCTION, EFFECT, AND TERM OF AGREEMENT.................................21
A. Binding Effect ........................................................................................................21 B. Release ...................................................................................................................21 C. Severability ............................................................................................................21 D. Modification...........................................................................................................22 E. Execution and Effective Date ................................................................................22 F. Term of Agreement................................................................................................22
iii

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 20576-1 Filed 1025/2017/189 Page 5 of 27
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REGARDING THE SPECIAL MANAGEMENT UNIT
Plaintiffs Timothy Gumm and Robert Watkins, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and Defendants Timothy Ward, Ricky Myrick, Robert Toole, Benjamin Ford, Michael Cannon, and Joseph Polite (the Plaintiffs and Defendants, collectively, are referenced herein as “the Parties”), hereby enter this Settlement Agreement as a resolution of all claims for prospective relief asserted by Plaintiffs in this action.
INTRODUCTION 1. This is an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging the conditions and procedures at the Special Management Unit (“SMU”) at Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Prison (“Georgia Diagnostic”). 2. Plaintiffs in this action are Timothy Gumm and Robert Watkins, two men who are or were held in the SMU for at least seven years. Watkins remains in the SMU. 3. For purposes of this Agreement, Defendants are Timothy Ward in his official capacity as Interim Commissioner for the Georgia Department of Corrections (“GDC” or “the Department”); Ricky Myrick in his official capacity as the Department’s Assistant Commissioner of the Facilities Division; Robert Toole in his official capacity as the Department’s Director of Field Operations; Benjamin Ford in his official capacity as Warden of Georgia Diagnostic; Michael Cannon in his official capacity as Superintendent of the SMU; and Joseph Polite in his official capacity as Deputy Warden of the SMU. 4. The Parties agree that this Court has jurisdiction to enter prospective relief against Defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 5. The Parties agree that Plaintiff Timothy Gumm faces a risk of being returned to the SMU and being subjected to the policies and practices challenged in this action absent
1

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 20576-1 Filed 1025/2017/189 Page 6 of 27
injunctive relief. Robert Watkins is currently confined to the SMU and will continue to be subjected to the policies and practices challenged in this action absent injunctive relief. Plaintiffs therefore have standing to seek prospective relief against Defendants concerning the conditions and review procedures applicable to the SMU.
6. The Parties agree that Plaintiffs meet the requirements under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to certify an injunctive class defined as follows: All persons who are or in the future will be assigned to the facility currently known as the Special Management Unit at Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Prison, or who are or in the future will be assigned to the Tier III Program.
7. The Parties agree that the prospective relief set forth in this Agreement satisfies the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) in that the relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the alleged violations of those federal rights as asserted by Plaintiffs in the Third Amended Complaint, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violations of federal rights. The relief set forth in this Agreement will not have an adverse impact on public safety or the operation of the criminal justice system, nor will it require or permit government officials to exceed their authority under state or local law, or otherwise violate state or local law.
8. The prospective relief set forth in this Agreement shall be terminated only as provided herein and shall be exempt from the termination provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b) and Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 20576-1 Filed 1025/2017/189 Page 7 of 27
9. The terms of this Agreement apply to the SMU inmates assigned to the Tier III Program.1 The Tier III Program is an incentive program based on an increased level of privileges for demonstrated appropriate behavior and program compliance. The goal is for the inmate to make the appropriate adjustments so that he or she may be returned to a general population housing assignment. A person assigned to the Tier III Program is given the opportunity to progress through the program’s phases based upon his or her behavior and ability to adjust under reduced levels of supervision.
10. In recent months, the Defendants have taken numerous remedial measures, including the adoption of a revised Standard Operating Procedure related to the Tier III Program. Plaintiffs appreciate the Defendants’ efforts thus far aimed at improving conditions and processes related to the Tier III Program. Resolving this matter with this Agreement is in the best interest of the Defendants and the members of the putative plaintiff class.
1 During the pendency of this litigation the Department of Corrections reallocated the A-Wing within the SMU for alternative use. Therefore, nothing contained within this Agreement is intended to include inmates housed in the A-Wing at the SMU.
3

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 20576-1 Filed 1025/2017/189 Page 8 of 27
TERMS AND CONDITIONS I. CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT IN THE SMU
A. Out-of-Cell Time 11. All inmates confined in the Tier III Program will be provided regular opportunities for outdoor and indoor out-of-cell time. The purpose of outdoor out-of-cell time is to provide inmates with exercise and fresh air. The purpose of indoor out-of-cell time is to provide opportunities for interpersonal communication and group activities while ensuring the security of inmates, officers, and staff members. 12. All inmates will receive a minimum of four (4) hours out-of-cell time, per day, Monday through Friday, unless unanticipated security or safety considerations dictate otherwise, which shall be documented. The four (4) hours out-of-cell time will encompass up to three (3) hours spent in a common area using restraint tables and one (1) hour of out-of-cell recreation time in the outdoor recreation cages, for a total of four (4) hours out-of-cell time per day. An inmate’s visitation time Monday through Friday may be included in the four (4) hours out-of-cell time, except that legal visitation shall not be included in the four (4) hours of out-of-cell time. Visitation time that occurs on the weekend shall not be used to reduce the Monday through Friday out-of-cell time. 13. Out-of-cell time will be contemporaneously documented on the individual inmate’s door sheet and thereafter in the institutional record of each individual inmate. Time out and time back in the cell will be listed on the door sheet along with the name of the
4

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 20576-1 Filed 1025/2017/189 Page 9 of 27
documenting officer. Out-of-cell time will also be broadly noted in a logbook maintained in the respective dormitory wings and/or control booths.
14. If Defendants have reason to believe that out-of-cell time has been or will be cancelled or shortened from the time allotments listed in Paragraph 12 for three or more consecutive days, for either an individual dormitory or the entire SMU, the SMU Superintendent will promptly notify the Regional Director in writing and will explain the circumstances resulting in the cancellation, the steps taken to resolve the issue resulting in the cancellation, and an estimated timeline for resuming compliance with Paragraph 12. The provision of written notice required in this Paragraph does not excuse the Defendants from their obligation to comply with the out-of-cell time requirements in Paragraph 12.
15. Defendants will provide designated areas for indoor and outdoor out-of-cell time. The GDC is in the process of constructing additional outdoor recreation areas at the SMU. After such construction is complete, inmates may conduct all or part of their out-of-cell time in the outside recreation pens, subject to security and staffing considerations. This provision does not excuse Defendants from complying, as of the date of this Agreement, with the outdoor time required by Paragraph 12.
16. Inmates will not be denied out-of-cell time as punishment except in cases in which the inmate has committed a “Great” or higher severity level disciplinary offense, see Ga. Dep’t of Corr., Policy No. 209.01, Attach. 4 (Nov. 6, 2017), during out-of-cell time, or during transport to or from out-of-cell time. In such cases, denial of out-of-cell time shall not exceed 14 consecutive days. A mental health counselor will visit any inmate on yard restriction daily, excluding weekends and holidays, and the occurrence and substance of such visit will be documented in the inmate’s mental health file.
5

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 20576-1 Filed 1025/2017/189 Page 10 of 27
17. No inmate will be required to be restrained in a restraint table or to participate in outdoor out-of-cell time if he chooses to remain in his cell during out-of-cell time. An inmate’s refusal to participate in out-of-cell time will be contemporaneously documented on the individual inmate’s door sheet and thereafter made a part of his institutional file.
18. Defendants shall ensure that a sufficient number of administrators, correctional officers, counselors, mental health professionals, and other staff members are available to carry out the terms of this Agreement.
B. Library, Book Carts, and GOAL Devices 19. Inmates may be allowed access to materials from the main prison general-purpose library upon written request. At least two mobile book carts will be available. Inmates will have access to a book cart at least once per week. Additional items will be added periodically. Defendants shall make reasonable efforts to solicit inmates’ preferences for the materials added to the book carts. 20. Inmates will be provided operable GOAL devices. Inmates will be allowed to recharge the devices daily and access the kiosk at least twice per week. 21. If an inmate’s GOAL device is inoperable or inaccessible due to no fault of his own, the inmate shall have an opportunity to repair or replace the GOAL device consistent with the procedures applicable to the general population. C. Programming 22. Within six months of the date of this Agreement, inmates will be provided the opportunity to participate in at least 120 minutes per week of out-of-cell programming or classes, which may include a GED program. No inmate will be required to participate in programming.
6

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 20576-1 Filed 1025/2017/189 Page 11 of 27
Programming time and/or refusal to participate in programming will be contemporaneously documented on the individual inmate’s door sheet.
23. Defendants will notify prisoners of programming opportunities and schedules so that prisoners are aware of their ability to enroll in upcoming programs.
24. Inmates will receive written acknowledgement of programs, classes, and similar activities completed while in the Tier III Program. A certificate of completion shall be placed in the inmate’s institutional file and a notation shall be made in the person’s SCRIBE case notes promptly after the inmate has completed a program or class.
25. If Defendants require inmates to complete certain programs or classes to qualify for transfer out of the SMU or Tier III: (a) no inmate shall be denied the opportunity to transfer if he is unable, due to disability or illness, to complete the required program or class; and (b) no inmate shall be denied the opportunity to transfer out of the SMU or Tier III for failure to complete the required program or class unless the inmate has received a reasonable opportunity to complete such program during his placement in the SMU or Tier III Program.
D. Privileges 26. Inmates will be accorded at a minimum the privileges set out in the privilege chart attached to SOP 209.09. 27. All inmates in the Tier III Program shall have access to Chaplaincy Services. Religious materials are available upon request to the Chaplain, including approved religious texts, and books on a variety of subjects and services. Volunteers from religious organizations may visit with inmates and conduct religious services for individuals or small groups of Tier III inmates at the discretion of the Superintendent.
7

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 20576-1 Filed 1025/2017/189 Page 12 of 27
E. Food 28. The food provided to persons in the Tier III Program shall be of the same quality and quantity as that provided to people in the general population. 29. Inmates held in the SMU will be permitted to receive special or substitute meals on the same basis as inmates in the general population and/or as ordered by a medical provider. 30. Defendants shall remove any sign posted anywhere in the SMU that discourages inmates from discussing their nutritional needs with medical staff members. F. Other Conditions 31. Defendants shall maintain the highest possible standards of cleanliness, sanitation, and safety in the SMU. 32. All cells are single occupancy. 33. Cells must be equipped and furnished in a manner consistent with cells in the general population. 34. Each inmate must be provided prescribed medication, clothing, and access to basic personal items for use in their cells as set out in the privilege chart attached to SOP 209.09 unless there is imminent danger that an inmate will destroy an item or induce self-injury. 35. Inmates shall be provided toiletries and personal hygiene items—including toilet paper, soap, toothbrushes, toothpaste, and similar items—on the same basis as inmates in the general population. 36. Inmates shall be provided the opportunity to clean their cells on the same basis as inmates in the general population. 37. Each inmate must be provided the opportunity for a shower and shave three (3) times per week.
8

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 20576-1 Filed 1025/2017/189 Page 13 of 27
38. Inmates must be provided the same laundry and barbering services and are issued and exchanged clothing on the same basis as inmates in general population. Exceptions are permitted only when found necessary by the Superintendent or designee; any exception is recorded in the unit log and justified in writing.
39. Inmates shall receive the services of a counselor. 40. The sliding covers attached to cell-door windows shall remain open at all times, unless articulable security or safety considerations dictate otherwise. In no case will the sliding cover on a particular inmate’s cell-door window remain closed once the particular security or safety consideration has been resolved. The closure of the cell-door windows will be broadly noted in a logbook maintained in the respective dormitory wings and/or control booths. 41. No inmate shall be held in a cell lacking an exterior window unless the inmate has damaged the exterior window in his assigned cell. 42. Inmates shall have operable electric lights in their cells. Defendants shall promptly repair broken or inoperable electric light fixtures in cells, or promptly move the affected inmate to a cell with an operable light fixture. 43. Inmates shall not be placed in cells that are constantly lit. Cell lights shall be turned off during time periods designated for sleeping unless otherwise requested by an inmate or deemed necessary for the safety and security of an inmate. II. DURATION OF CONFINEMENT IN THE SMU 44. Inmates will not be held in the SMU or Tier III Program for more than 24 months unless they voluntarily request to be placed and remain there or meet one or more of the following six criteria: (1) the inmate committed a murder while incarcerated; (2) the inmate escaped outside the secure fencing of a GDC facility; (3) the inmate caused serious bodily injury
9

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 20576-1 Filed 1025/2017/189 Page 14 of 27
to another inmate or a GDC employee, contractor, or volunteer; (4) the inmate took another inmate or GDC employee, contractor, or volunteer hostage; (5) the inmate’s crime was so egregious that the person was placed in the Tier III Program immediately upon being placed in GDC custody; or (6) the inmate, due to his unique position of influence and authority over others, poses such an exceptional, credible, and articulable risk to the safe operation of the prison system or to the public that no facility other than the Tier III Program facility is sufficient to contain the risk.
45. Inmates held in the SMU or Tier III Program beyond 24 months will be reviewed quarterly by a panel composed of the Director of Field Operations, the Statewide Mental Health Director, the Statewide Medical Director, and a member of the Office of Legal Services. In the event that a panel member is unavailable due to illness, family emergency, or other exigent circumstance to participate in the quarterly review, the panel member may select a designee in the senior management of his or her particular department to participate in the review. The Defendants will rely on specific criteria to govern the panel’s determination of whether a person should remain in the SMU or Tier III Program beyond 24 months, and the Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner must personally approve any decision by the panel to retain an inmate in the SMU or Tier III Program beyond 24 months. The criteria governing the panel’s determination shall include: (a) length of time in current phase; (b) perceived risk of release from the SMU; (c) number, type, and frequency of disciplinary reports; (d) involvement in selfimprovement activities; (e) behavior while in the SMU; (f) the person’s 60-day or 90-day mental health evaluation; (g) progress on the person’s Offender Management Plan; and (h) the total duration of the person’s confinement in the SMU.
10

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 20576-1 Filed 1025/2017/189 Page 15 of 27
46. If the inmate is within 12-months or 6-months of his maximum release date (MRD), then the Classification Committee shall consider the inmate for placement in the Tier III STEP Program. If the inmate is denied placement in the Tier III STEP Program, then the Classification Committee shall document the specific and individualized reasons for the denial on Attachment 4 of SOP 209.09. If such an inmate is denied placement in the Tier III STEP Program and appeals the Classification Committee decision, then the Assistant Commissioner will personally review the denial of such placement and document his decision and reasons in the inmate’s institutional file. III. ASSIGNMENT AND PERIODIC REVIEW
47. The criteria for assignment to the SMU or Tier III Program shall be modified to eliminate the provision that allows any inmate to be assigned to the SMU if he is deemed “a threat to the safe and secure operation of the Facility.” Defendants may, however, assign an inmate to the SMU/Tier III if he participated in or was associated with activity such that greater management of the inmate’s interaction with other persons is necessary to ensure the safety, security, or orderly operation of GDC facilities, or protection of the public.
48. Prior to assignment to the SMU or Tier III Program, a formal hearing will be convened to advise the person that he is being assigned to the SMU/Tier III. The inmate must be given an opportunity to be present at this hearing, and must be afforded the following rights in connection with SMU/Tier III assignment or proposed assignment:
a) At least 48 hours prior to the hearing, the inmate must be served with a notice informing the inmate that he is being considered for the SMU/Tier III Program.
11

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 20576-1 Filed 1025/2017/189 Page 16 of 27
b) The inmate has the right to attend the hearing. He may forfeit this right if he is disruptive, and this disruption shall be documented. Should he decline to attend, his waiver of the right to attend shall be documented.
c) The inmate has the right to make a verbal statement, to present documents, and to submit a written statement.
d) The inmate will be informed that he may submit written objections to a recommendation that he be moved to the SMU/Tier III Program. He may do so using an appeal form to be submitted to the Director of Field Operations within 14 calendar days from receipt of the notice of assignment to the SMU. If the Director of Field Operations approves the recommendation, then the inmate’s written objections shall be forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner of Facilities who shall make the final decision about SMU placement.
e) Except in emergency situations, transfer of the inmate to the SMU must not be made until after the time for the inmate to submit objections expires.
49. Before assignment to the SMU, and in conjunction with every 60-day or 90-day review hearing, inmates will receive an out-of-cell mental health evaluation performed by a licensed mental health provider who shall be a psychiatrist, a psychologist, or a certified nurse practitioner to determine whether the inmate is, by reason of mental illness or disability, precluded from being placed in or remaining in the Tier III program. An inmate is precluded from being placed in or remaining in the Tier III Program if the inmate cannot, by reason of mental illness or disability, comply with the facility’s rules or complete the Tier III program.
12

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 20576-1 Filed 1025/2017/189 Page 17 of 27
Inmates with a mental health designation of Level III or above will not be housed in the Tier III Program.
50. If in the course of any evaluation the mental health provider determines that an inmate is decompensating or is reasonably likely to decompensate in the SMU environment, or that the inmate is, by reason of mental illness or disability, precluded from continued placement in the Tier III program, Defendants will, on an expedited basis, transfer the inmate to an appropriate treatment facility as determined by GDC officials.
51. For every evaluation, the licensed mental health provider shall document in writing his/her observations, findings and recommendations with respect to the inmate evaluated. The provider shall also log the date of the evaluation.
52. Defendants will ensure that all SMU officers and staff members are trained in recognizing and responding to signs and symptoms of mental illness, including suicidal ideation and acts.
53. Upon assignment to the SMU or Tier III Program, each inmate will be provided a detailed Offender Management Plan setting out individualized goals for the inmate and explaining the steps that the inmate must take to qualify for a transfer from the SMU/Tier III Program. Each inmate will also be provided with a description of the periodic review process that determines if the person progresses to the next phase and a review of the steps required to be completed to exit the Tier III Program.
54. The SMU’s periodic review procedures will involve a multi-level process beginning with review by a classification committee and ending with review by an assistant commissioner, as required by SOP Policy No. 209.09 at 12-16. Specific and detailed reasons will be provided in writing for placing an inmate in the SMU/Tier III and retaining him there. At
13

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 20576-1 Filed 1025/2017/189 Page 18 of 27
every stage, including the appeal stage, the inmate will be informed in writing of the result of the review.
55. No inmate will be required to return to E-Wing (Phase 1) or F-Wing (Phase 2) unless he is found to have engaged in conduct that would satisfy one of the criteria for assignment to the SMU. Where feasible, inmates must be provided an interim hearing with the classification review committee before being returned to E-Wing (Phase 1).
56. Inmates transferred from the SMU will be placed in either a Segregation Transition Education Program (STEP) or Specialized Mental Health Treatment Unit (SMHTU). IV. MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
A. Monitoring Meetings 57. The Parties will have regular, in-person meetings to discuss the Defendants’ compliance with this Agreement. Meeting participants will include at a minimum the following: one or more Plaintiffs’ counsel, one or more persons in GDC senior management with knowledge of current conditions at the SMU/Tier III Program, and one or more representatives of the Attorney General’s office. The meetings will take place on at least four occasions (approximately once every 9 months) during the three-year Agreement term, the first one to take place in January 2019. The first meeting may take place by conference call. The Parties will work in good faith to schedule the meetings at a mutually convenient time and location. Plaintiffs will circulate a proposed agenda for each meeting within seven calendar days before each meeting. B. Access to Records and Data 58. Within 15 days after this Agreement is entered, the Parties will present to the Court a joint motion for a protective order to govern the release of confidential and/or HIPAA-
14

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 20576-1 Filed 1025/2017/189 Page 19 of 27
protected information to Plaintiffs’ counsel. Assuming that the Court enters a protective order, the Defendants will provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with documents and data as set forth in this Agreement. Should the Court decline to enter a protective order, Plaintiffs will be required to provide the Defendants with HIPAA-compliant releases before the release of any class member’s protected health information.
59. The Defendants will provide the following documents to Plaintiffs’ counsel once per month for the term of the Agreement, to begin the first week of January 2019: (a) a roster of all current SMU inmates, to include name, current wing/phase assignment, race, and mental health level for each inmate then housed in the SMU; (b) all notices or other documents regarding failures to provide out-of-cell time, including written communications between the Superintendent and the Regional Director, as described in Paragraph 14.
60. The Defendants will provide the following documents to Plaintiffs’ counsel in electronic format at least 14 days in advance of each monitoring meeting:
a) Portions of the institutional, medical, and mental health files, subject to the Court’s protective order, for up to 20 inmates (per round of document production), to be selected by Plaintiffs’ counsel, specifically: 1. SCRIBE-generated case notes, grievances, disciplinary reports, and mental health summaries; 2. The mental-health portion of the inmates’ files; and 3. The complete portions of the inmates’ institutional records reflecting assignment and confinement in the SMU (including completed Attachments 1-5, 7 & 9 of SOP 209.09, for each such person).
15

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 20576-1 Filed 1025/2017/189 Page 20 of 27
b) An Excel spreadsheet containing a SCRIBE summary of all incident reports documenting occurrences, events, or incidents in the SMU for the preceding 9-month period.
c) Logbooks for each of the five wings for the preceding 9-month period. d) ACU/CSU logs pertaining to SMU/Tier III prisoners for the preceding 9-
month period. e) Amendments, modifications, or draft modifications to SMU or Tier III
standard or local operating procedures (if any) since the last meeting. f) Documentation showing classes offered at the SMU or in the Tier III
Program during the preceding 9-month period, and the identities of inmates who participated in and completed each class. C. On-site Visits 61. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall visit the SMU on three occasions, spaced roughly one year apart, during the period of the Agreement. Each visit will occur on a single weekday, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. SCHR will give Defendants no less than 7 business days advance notice of each visit. Defendants will allow Plaintiffs’ counsel to visit areas of the SMU to which inmates have routine access. During the course of the on-site visits, should an inmate express a desire to speak with a representative from SCHR, a representative from SCHR will be permitted to approach the cell of that inmate for the limited purpose of obtaining the name and GDC ID number of the inmate and to advise the inmate that they are there for an on-site visit and that they will return in the near future for an attorney-client meeting. To minimize the disruption to the daily operations of GDC, any and all cell-front communication shall be limited to 30 minutes per wing. Additionally, counsel will be permitted to observe the
16

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 20576-1 Filed 1025/2017/189 Page 21 of 27
common areas where inmate activities occur. Plaintiffs’ counsel will be escorted by GDC officials during each of the on-site visits. Plaintiffs’ counsel may be accompanied on each visit by Dr. Craig Haney or another credentialed expert.
D. Access to Copies of This Agreement and Training of GDC Staff 62. Inmates entering the SMU or any Tier III Program shall be provided an information sheet, mutually approved by all Parties, informing them of the material terms of this Agreement. A copy of the Agreement shall be provided to any inmate who requests it. In addition, copies of the Agreement shall be provided to all inmates in the SMU at the time that class notice is accomplished. All GDC employees who are involved in the daily operation of the Tier III program will be trained on the SOP and any provisions contained herein that apply to the daily management of inmates housed in the Tier III program. V. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT A. Communications with and Responsibilities of Class Counsel 63. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall be entitled to meet with and speak confidentially with all inmates covered by this Agreement. Institutional staff shall facilitate Plaintiffs’ counsel’s requests for reasonable access to such individuals without undue delay. Plaintiffs’ counsel and their paralegals shall be permitted contact visits with inmates in the SMU, unless individualized security concerns dictate otherwise. 64. Any complaints or concerns by any plaintiff class member relating to this Agreement, or to the injunctive relief claims in the Third Amended Complaint in this matter, shall be referred to class counsel who shall determine whether enforcement action is warranted pursuant to Paragraphs 65-66. The enforcement provisions of Paragraph 66 are exclusive and only class counsel may seek enforcement of any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
17

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 20576-1 Filed 1025/2017/189 Page 22 of 27
Except for motions by class counsel pursuant to Paragraph 66, no person, including any member of the class, may be heard upon any contempt motion for alleged non-compliance with this Agreement or bring any separate action or proceeding to enforce this Agreement.
B. Meet and Confer Obligations in the Event of an Alleged Breach 65. If Plaintiffs believe that Defendants have committed or are committing a breach of this Agreement, Plaintiffs’ counsel will provide Defendants with a written notice describing the alleged breach. Defendants will provide a written statement responding to the notice within fifteen (15) calendar days from receipt of the notice and, within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt of Defendants’ written response, counsel for the Parties shall confer in a good faith effort to resolve their dispute. The Plaintiffs will not file an enforcement motion as permitted in Paragraph 66 without first having provided the Defendants with a notice of alleged breach. C. Enforcement 66. Plaintiffs may request enforcement of the Agreement by seeking an order requiring the Defendants to show cause why they should not be held in contempt, or by seeking an order for other relief upon noticed motion before the Court. Any such show cause motion will cite the provision(s) at issue and allege that the Defendants have breached said provision(s). D. Class Certification, Notice, and Joint Motion 67. The Parties agree that Plaintiffs meet the requirements under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to certify an injunctive class defined as follows: All persons who are or in the future will be assigned to the facility currently known as the Special Management Unit at
18

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 20576-1 Filed 1025/2017/189 Page 23 of 27
Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Prison, or who are or in the future will be assigned to the Tier III Program.
68. By joint motion to be filed no later than December 21, 2018, the Parties will request that the Court preliminarily approve this Agreement, conditionally certify a class for settlement under Rule 23(b)(2), require that individualized notice of the proposed settlement be sent to class members, provide for an objection period, and schedule a fairness hearing.
69. Prior to or concurrent with the joint motion for preliminary approval, the Parties will jointly request that the Court stay all other proceedings in this case pending resolution of the fairness hearing. Following the close of the objection period, the Parties will jointly request that the Court enter a final order approving this Agreement and entering it as an order of the Court, retaining jurisdiction to enforce it, and continuing the stay of the case pending the completion of the Agreement’s terms.
70. If this Agreement is not approved by the Court, the Parties shall be restored to their respective positions in the action as of the date on which this Agreement was executed by the Parties, the terms and provisions of this Agreement shall have no force and effect, and shall not be used in this action or in any proceeding for any purpose, and the litigation of this action shall resume as if there had been no settlement. VI. ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
71. The Parties agree that 42 U.S.C. §§ 1988 and 1997(e) govern the award of attorneys’ fees in this case, and that Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of fees—covering the work of counsel through the date of the Court’s Order finally approving and adopting this Agreement—under these provisions. The Parties have, at the request of Plaintiffs’ attorneys,
19

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 20576-1 Filed 1025/2017/189 Page 24 of 27
postponed discussion of the amount of such fees until after the class claims for injunctive relief have been finally resolved.
72. Counsel for the Parties will confer in the 45 days following the Court’s Order preliminarily approving the Agreement in an effort to reach an agreement regarding the amount of the fee award. If the Parties reach resolution with respect to fees, Plaintiffs will submit an unopposed fee petition by no later than 15 days in advance of the fairness hearing in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h). In the event the Parties are unable to resolve by agreement issues relating to Plaintiffs’ claim for attorneys’ fees, Plaintiffs may petition the Court by no later than 15 days in advance of the fairness hearing for a resolution thereof. Defendants’ opposition shall in any event be limited to their disagreement regarding the appropriate amount of fees.
73. The Parties agree that Defendants shall reimburse Plaintiffs for attorneys’ fees at a rate of $200 per hour for attorney work and $75 per hour for paralegal work performed following the Court’s final approval and adoption of this Agreement, in monitoring compliance with and, if necessary, enforcing it. The Parties agree that Plaintiffs shall waive any request for reimbursement of fees for the first 200 hours reasonably expended by counsel or their paralegals during each calendar year. Such fees shall be payable within 30 days of receipt by Defendants of invoices containing proper accounting of hours expended and tasks performed, unless, within 30 days, Defendants petition this Court for relief based upon a showing that some portion of the hours billed were not reasonably expended.
74. The initial notice to the class members shall explain that Plaintiffs will attempt to reach an agreement with Defendants regarding retrospective attorneys’ fees and will file a motion for such fees no later than 15 days in advance of the fairness hearing, at which time additional
20

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 20576-1 Filed 1025/2017/189 Page 25 of 27
notice of the motion will be provided to class members. The initial notice will also indicate that the Parties have agreed to the prospective award of attorneys’ fees as detailed above. VII. CONSTRUCTION, EFFECT, AND TERM OF AGREEMENT
A. Binding Effect 75. This Agreement is binding upon Plaintiffs and the class, the Defendants named in this lawsuit in their official capacities, and on Defendants’ successors in office, employees and agents. B. Release 76. All claims for declaratory and injunctive relief asserted in the Third Amended Complaint shall be finally and fully settled and released, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, which the Parties enter into freely, voluntarily, knowingly, and with the advice of counsel. The named Plaintiffs and unnamed class members hereby release the Defendants in their official capacities from, and are barred and precluded from prosecuting any claims, causes of action or requests for any injunctive or declaratory relief that have been asserted in this litigation, provided that in no event shall this release be deemed to release or otherwise affect in any way: (a) any claim for money damages; (b) any claim related to medical or mental health diagnosis or treatment; or (c) any claim regarding any act, incident, or event that occurs after the expiration of the Agreement. C. Severability 77. The obligations governed by this Agreement are severable. If for any reason a part of this Agreement is determined to be invalid or unenforceable, the presumption will be that such a determination shall not affect the remainder.
21

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 20576-1 Filed 1025/2017/189 Page 26 of 27 D. Modification 78. The Parties may jointly stipulate to make changes, modifications, and amendments
to the requirements of this Agreement. E. Execution and Effective Date 79. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts and emailed or faxed
signatures will be valid and enforceable. This Agreement shall be effective upon the approval of this Agreement by the Court and entry of this Agreement as an order of the Court.
F. Term of Agreement 80. Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties with approval of the Court, this Agreement and the Court’s order approving and entering it shall terminate three years from the Effective Date.
22

Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 20576-1 Filed 1025/2017/189 Page 27 of 27

REVIEWED AND AGREED TO BY:
FOR PLAINTIFFS:
/s/ Sarah Geraghty Sarah Geraghty Ga. Bar No. 291393 Aaron Littman Ga. Bar No. 843053 Ryan Primerano Ga. Bar No. 404962 SOUTHERN CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS 83 Poplar Street, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 (404) 688-1202 (404) 688-9440 (fax) sgeraghty@schr.org
C. Allen Garrett Jr. Ga. Bar No. 286335 James F. Bogan III Ga. Bar No. 065220 Tamara Serwer Caldas Ga. Bar. No. 617053 Chris W. Haaf N.C. Bar No. 46077 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP 1100 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 2800 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 (404) 815-6376 (404) 541-3498 (fax) agarrett@kilpatricktownsend.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Dated: December 21, 2018

FOR DEFENDANTS:
/s/ Elizabeth M. Crowder Susan E. Teaster Ga. Bar No. 701415 Elizabeth M. Crowder Ga. Bar No. 100809 STATE DEPARTMENT OF LAW 40 Capitol Square, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30334 (404) 463-8850 (404) 651-5304 (fax) ecrowder@law.ga.gov
Counsel for Defendants

23