,,. .

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SO UTHERN DISTRICT O F MISSISSIPPI
J ACKSON DMSION

C.B., by and through his next friend,

)

Cbarleston DePriest; ERIC BALL; ERIK

)

BARNES; JAMARIO BRADY; JOSHUA )

CLAY; CHRISTOPHER COLEMAN;

)

LAMARCUS CURRY; CRAIG KINCAID; )

LAMARSHA READUS; COZY SCOTT; )

LATRAVIS SMITH; BRIAN WEBSTER; )

and FREDRICK WHITE, on behalf of

)

themselves and all similarly situated

)

individuals,

)

)

Plaintiffs

)

)

v.

)

)

WALNUT GROVE CORRECTIONAL

)

AUTIlORITY; THE GEO GROUP, INC.; )

HEALTH ASSURANCE, L.L.C.;

)

WALTER TRIPP, in his official capacity as )

Warden of the Walout Grove Youth

)

Correctional Facility; WESLEY VINSON, )

in his official capacity as Deputy Warden of )

the Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility;)

DAN KERN, in his official capacity as Deputy )

Warden of the Walnut Grove Youth

)

Correctional Facility; K. HOGUE, in her

)

official capacity as Health Services

)

Administrator for Walnut Grove Youth

)

Correctional Facility; CHRISTOPHER EPPS, )

in his official capacity as Commissioner of the )

Mis'sissippi Department of Corrections; and )

DR. TOM BURNHAM, in his official capacity )

as Superintendent of the Mississippi State )

Department of Education,

)

)

Defendants

)

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

SOUTI1ERl'l DISTRICT 'If I,Il$SlSSlPl>'
J F ! LE D
NOV 16 2010

J T N08l1N. CLERK

BY

OEPUT"

loQV &&3 CLASS ACTION
Civil Action No.

~:

D£5--Fr{3

C O M PL A I N T

, - .. '--

,~.

__ - ----_. _-_ .- - - - - --_.. .....-. ....

INTRODUCfION 1. This is a class action filed on behalf of the teenagers and young men who are imprisoned in the Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility ("WGYCF"), located in Leake County, Mississippi. WGYCF is a prison fOf.youth ages 13- 22 who are tried and convicted in the adult criminal justice system. Sixty-seven percent of the young men at WGYCF are incarcerated for committing non-violent offenses. Constructed with over $41 million in taxpayer-funded subsidies, the facility has generated approximately $100 million for the various for-profit entities that have operated the prison since it opened its doors in 2001. Under the current contract, Mississippi taxpayers pay the Walnut Grove Correctional Authority (<<WGCA") $14 million annually to operate the prison. In turn, the WGCA contracts with the GEO Group, Inc., the second largest private correctional company in the United States, to oversee the prison's daily operations. 2. The Mississippi Legislature established the WGYCF with good intentions: to ensure that young men in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (uMDOC') would have a second chance and receive rehabilitative services. Unfortunately. these good intentions were never realized. The youth imprisoned there live in barbaric. unconstitutional conditions. The for-
profit entities that manage WGYCF perpetuate violence and corruption. Some prison staff
exploit youth by selling drugs inside the facility. Other staff members abuse their power by engaging in sexual relationships with the youth in their care. Many youth have suffered physical injuries. some serious and some permanent, as a result of dangerously deficient security policies and prison staffwbo physically abuse the young men housed in WGYCF. Youth who are handcuffed and defenseless have been kicked, punched, and beaten all over their bodies. For the sole purpose of inflicting excruciating pain, some WGYCF staff have sprayed dangerous
2

chemical restraints on young men who are secure in their cells. Some youth are stripped naked

and held in isolation for weeks at a time. Young I?en with serious health needs languish without

required medical care-sometimes risking death or permanent injury. Courts frequently order

youth sentenced to WGYCF to finish their education. and state law specifically requires

WGYCFto provide educational services to all young men confined there throughout their

incarceration. Despite these facts, the facility prevents most youth from accessing even the most

basic education services-fewer than half of the 1,200 youth imprisoned in WGYCF attend

school.

-

-.--~~-~

3. Many violations suffered by the young men confined at WGYCF are well documented.

Over the past five years, the Joint Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure

Review (PEER) and the tv1DOC Corrections Auditor have consistently reported serious concerns

related to safety, security, violence prevention, medical/mental health care and educational

services at WGYCF. In 2005, 2006 and again in 2010, PEER noted that the population at

WGYCF increased, while security staffdecreased-creating dangerously understaffed

conditions. The PEER report revealed serious understaffing of mental health care at the prison.

As a result, youth suffer serious hann. PEER also docwnented the lack of educational services

provided to young people at WGYCF-findings that were confinned by the Mississippi

Department of Education.

4. The youth who have suffered hann as a result of the unlawful conditions at WGYCF

include a young man who was held hostage in his cell for almost 24 hours, brutally raped and

physically assaulted after prison staff failed to heed his pleas for protection. Other youth suffered

multiple stabbings and beatings- including one youth who lives with permanent brain damage as

a result of an attack in which prison staff were entirely complicit.

3

5. On behalf of themselves and all similarly situated youth imprisoned at WGYCF, the Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief ordering the Defendants to cease aU unconstitutional and unlawful policies and practices at the prison and to provide class members with required care, educatio~ and living conditions.
JURISDICTION 6. This cause of action arises under the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of2004 ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Section 504"), 29 U.S.C. § 794, and Title II
-_._._- ..- -----. ~
of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U .S.C. § 12101 et seq. Jurisdiction in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3). In addition, one of the claims arises under Mississippi law. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.c. § 1367 over any state law claims.
VENUE 7. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim[s] occurred" in this district. This Court is authorized to grant declaratory relief under 28 U.s.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and injunctive relief pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Ru1es of Civil Procedure.
PARTIES 8. The Plaintiffs are all youth who are currently incarcerated at the WGYCF and who are subject to conditions of confinement that violate their rights under the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs are also denied the educational services to which they are entitled under federal and state law.
4

9. Plaintiff c.B. is sixteen years old. Since arriving at WGYCF, C.B. has been repeatedly beaten, robbed, and tlrreatened. C.B. fears for his safety. He brings this action through his next friend and father, Plaintiff Charleston DePriest. 10. Plaintiff Eric Ball bas a learning disability and is eligible for special education, but he receives no special education or related services at WGYCF. He also has repeatedly been punished with arbitrary placements in isolation without penological justification and for the sole purpose of inflicting wanton and unnecessary discomfort, pain, and humiliation. 11. Plaintiff Erik Barnes has received grossly inadequate mental health care for his serious mental illnesses. 12. Plaintiff Jamario Brady has a learning disability and is eligible for special education services, but he receives no special education or related services at WGYCF. 13. Plaintiff Joshua Clay has suffered serious injuries as a result of dangerously deficient security practices and the brutal use of chemical restraints. WGYCF staff have compounded his serious injuries by denying him necessary medical care. 14. Plaintiff Christopher Coleman has been repeatedly attacked and constantly fears for his safety. 15. PlaintiffLamarcus Curry has been denied the special education services to which he is entitled. 16. PlailltiffCraig Kincaid has been subject to WGYCF's deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. 17. Plaintiff Lamarsha Readus has been physically attacked by WGYCF staff while handcuffed. Lamarsha fears that WGYCF staff will soon attack him again.
5

18. Plaintiff Cozy Scott is eligible for special education and related services, but is not receiving them. 19. PlaintiffLatravis Smith was assaulted byWGYCF staff who sprayed him with dangerous chemical restraints while he was locked in his cell. 20. Plaintiff Brian Webster has been physically attacked by several WGYCF staff members, and be lives in fear that his attackers will target him for further abuse. 2 1. Plaintiff Fredrick White is eligible for special education and related services, but he does not receive such services at WGYCF.
. - -- -
22. Defendant Walnut Grove Correctional Authority ("WGCA') was created by the enactment in 1998 of House Bill No. 1878, which "created in the city a public body corporate and politic to be known as the 'Walnut Grove Correctional Authority. "'1998 Miss. H.B. 1878. Under that special legislation, WGCA "shall have all the powers necessary or convenient to effectuate and carry out the provisions of this act," including the powers to construct a facility, and to "contract with the United States or the State of Mississippi, or any political subdivision of the State of Mississippi, to provide for housing, care and control in a facility of offenders who are in the custody of the jurisdiction... The facility shall at all times be operated and managed by a private contractor pursuant to a management contract unless the board of commissioners determines that the operation and management by a private contractor is not feas ible or desirable. The terms and conditions of a management contract shall be approved by the board of commissioners." 1998 Miss. H.B. 1878. Under Mississippi law, and pursuant to its contract with the Mississippi Department of Corrections, the WGCA has a duty to operate and maintain the facility in accordance with all constitutional standards of the United States and the State of Mississippi and the standards of the American Correctional Association (UACA"). 1998 Miss.
6

H.B. 1878; Miss. Code Ann. § 47· 5-943; Residential Services Agreement between Mississippi

Department of Corrections (by and on behalf of the State of Mississippi) and Walnut Grove

Correctional Authority (November 10, 2006) (hereafter "WGCAlMDOC Contract"), § 4.1. The

WGCA/MDOC Contract allows WGCA to assign or subcontract its contractual obligations, but

states that WGCA "shall remain responsible for seeing that any subcontractor or assignee fulfil ls

the provisions of this Agreement." WGCAlMDOC Contract, § 9.l2.ln 2004, the WGCA

subcontracted with Cornell Companies, Inc. ("Cornell"), a for-profit corporation, for the

management and operation ofWGYCF.

~ ---_.-..

~

23. Defendant GEO GrouP. Inc. ("GEon), acquired Cornell in a merger that was completed

on August 12, 2010. OED has assumed all of Cornell's duties, contractual responsibilities, and

liabilities. Since the merger, Defendant GEO has managed the WGYCF under a contract with the

WGCA. Under its contract, GEO has responsibility for providing humane Care and treatment

consistent with all constitutional and ACA standards. Defendant GEO is a for-profit private

corporation incorporated and existing in the state of Florida and maintaining a principal place of

business at 621 NW 53rd Street, Suite 700 in Boca Raton, Florida

24. Defendant Health Assurance, L.L.C. ("HALLC"), is a limited liability corporation that

has contracted with the Mississippi Department of Corrections to provide health care for the

youth at WGYCF. Under the May 22,2006 Contract for Merlical Services, HALLC agrees to

provide "medical, optometry, pharmaceutical services, mental health services and a dental

program" for the incarcerated youth at WGYCF. The contract specifies that HALLC will

provide all health services "in accordance with ACA standards, federal and state laws,

constitutional standards, court orders, local laws and regulations and :tv1DOC Policies and

Procedures. If there is a difference between the above standards and/or laws then the higher

7

standard will be followed." HALLC is incorporated in the state of Mississippi and maintains its principal place of business at 5903 Ridgewood Road, Suite 320 in Jackson, Mississippi. 25. Defendant Walter Tripp is the Warden of the WGYCF. Warden Tripp is responsible for the administration of WGYCF. He has the duty to hire, supervise, train and discipline the staff at the prison and to ensure the prison's compliance with state policies and procedures and the laws and Constitutions of Mississippi and the United States. His duties also include reviewing. investigating and responding to prisoner grievances and complaints. He is sued in his official capacity. 26. Defendant Wesley Vinson is a Deputy Warden ofWGYCF. He is responsible for the supervision and training of staff and for reviewing, investigating and responding to prisoner grievances and complaints. He is sued in his official capacity. 27. Defendant Dan Kern is a Deputy Warden ofWGYCF. He is responsible for overseeing the provision of medical and education services in the prison, for supervision and training of staff, and for reviewing. investigating and responding to prisoner grievances and complaints. He is sued in his official capacity. 28. Defendant K. Hogue is the Health Services Administrator at WGYCF. She oversees and administers the provision of medical care at the facility for HALLC. Her duties include, but are not limited to, ensuring prisoners' prompt access to medical care and ensuring that physician orders are timely and consistently carried out. Sbe is sued in ber officia1 capacity. 29. Defendant Christopher Epps is the Commissioner oftbe Mississippi Department of Corrections ("1vIDOC"). The Department of Corrections is "responsible for the management of affairs of the correctional system and for the proper care, treatment, feeding, clothing and management of the offenders confined therein." Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-23. The Commissioner,
8

..,

as the head of the department, oversees all of these functions. The Commissioner has the duty

and authority to do the following: establish the general policy of the department, § 47-5-20;

"implement and administer laws and policy relating to corrections.. ," § 47-5-28; and "establish

standards, _.. and exercise the requisite supervision as it relates to correctional programs over all

state-supported adult correctional facilities," § 47-5-28(b). The Commissioner also has "final

authority to employ and discharge all employees of the correctional system." Miss. Code Ann. §

47-5-23. As Commissioner, Defendant Epps has the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that all

prisons under the jurisdiction ofMDOC operate in compliance with state and federal law.

--_.

- - - - ~-

--- --

..

Defendant Epps' obligations extend with full force to privately operated facilities like WGYCF.

He receives reports regarding operations at WGYCF, and has knowledge of all the conditions

described in this complaint. He is sued in his official capacity.

30. Defendant Dr. Tom Burnham is the State Superintendent of the Mississippi Department

of Education (uMDE''). He is sued in his official capacity. Defendant Burnham is the chief

administrative officer of the state Department of Education. Miss. Code Ann. § 37-3-11.

Pursuant to Mississippi Code Section 37-3-5, MDE is responsible for administering all public

education services in the state of Mississippi. :MDE is also responsible for administering speciaJ

education services to all educable youth who reside in the state of Mississippi. Miss. Code. Ann.

§ 37-23-5. Pursuant to federal law, MDE bas the ultimate responsibility to ensure the provision

of special education services to all eligible individuals. 20 U.S.CO § 1412(a)(lI)(A). MDE is

obligated to ensure that the State of Mississippi implements and complies with all provisions of

-the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. §

1400 e/ seq..

9

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 31. The named Plaintiffs bring this suit on their own behalf and on behalf of all youth who are, or will in the future be, incarcerated at the WGYCF. 32. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. WGYCF currently houses approximately 1,200 prisoners and has the capacity to house 1,500 at one time. The class also includes many future members whose names are not mown, as the facility regularly admits new youth. 33. There are questions oflaw and fact common to all class members, including but not limited to the fonowing: whether conditions of confinement for youth confined at WGYCF violate their rights under the Eighth and Fowteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; whether the Defendants' excessive use of force and use of punitive isolation violate their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; whether the systemically inadequate medical and mental health care violates their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the u.s. Constitution; and whether the systemic denials of educational services
violate their rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, §§ 1400 et seq. ,
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.c. § 794, Title n of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and state law regarding the provision of educational service to youth confined at WGYCF. 34. Because the policies, practices and customs challenged in this Complaint apply with equal force to the named Plaintiffs and the other members of the class, the claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the class in general. 35. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. They possess a strong personal interest in the subject matter of the lawsuit and are represented by
10

experienced counsel with expertise in class action prison conditions litigation in federal court. Counsel have the legal knowledge and resources to fairly and adequately represent the interests of all class members in this action. 36. The Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class: their policies, practices, acts, and omissions have affected all class members. Accordingly, final injunctive and declaratory relief is appropriate to the class as a whole.
STATEMENT OF FACTS 35. While the private prison operators increase profits, the young men imprisoned at
- - - - - - ,- -.'-----_.---WGYCF live in unconstitutional and inhumane conditions and endure great risks to their safety
and security. Because WGYCF is dangerously Wlderstaffed and because existing staff lack the training and supervision necessary required to care for the youth in their custody, corruption and violence is rampant. Youth and staff face threats to their lives and safety on an almost daily basis. Youth struggle to secure even the most basic services at WGYCF-medical and mental health care are dangerously deficient, and youth are regularly denied educational services. 36. Mississippi taxpayers pay Defendant WGCA $3 1.40 per youth per day to operate the WGYCF. WGYCF opened in 2001 with 500 beds and was authorized to house "juvenile offenders" between the ages of l3-19. Since then, approximately every two years, the Mississippi legislature has amended WGYCF's authorizing legislation to increase its bed capacity and to raise the maximum age of those who are eligible to be housed in the facility. In 2002, the legislature amended the law to allow 20-year-olds at WGYCF. The legislature then doubled WGYCP's size in 2004-allowing the facility to house 500 more youths-for a total capacity of 1,000 beds. In 200S,lawmakers raised the maximum age again, and the facility began housing people until shortly after their twenty~second birthdays. WGYCF's capacity was
11

expanded again in 2007, when the legislature added another 500 beds. WGYCF is currently authorized to house 1,500 individuals between the ages of 13 and 22. These amendments have significantly increased WGCA's income and tripled the size the prison. 37. In 2004, WGCA subcontracted with Cornell, a for-profit corporation, for the management and operation ofWGYCF. Under its contract with WGCA, Cornell had responsibility for providing humane care and treatment consistent with all constitutional and ACA standards. In violation of these duties, Cornell incarcerated youth in extremely dangerous conditions, resulting in the serious injury of numerous young prisoners, and the death of two youths. Until its recent acquisition by the GEO Group, Inc., Cornell was a for-profit corporation incorporated and existing in the State of Texas and maintaining a principal place of business in Houston. Upon assuming control ofWGYCF, GEOmanagement retained almost all of the employees who were formerly employed by Cornell The management structure and staffing assignments have changed little since the acquisition. 38. This Complaint describes conditions that currently exist and give examples involving specific individuals who are or were incarcerated at WGYCF. Some of the individuals are named plaintiffs and some are not.
E ighth Amendment Violations: Protection from Harm and Dangerous and Violent Conditions of Confmement
38. WGYCF is an extremely dangerous prison. For years, violent fights have occurred at WGYCF at least every week, and often every day. WGYCF reported 342 fights from 2004 to 2006-an average of nearly one fight every other day. Between January and June 2010, WGYCF reported 207 fights, or on average more than one fight per day. Many other fights go unreported. 39. Defendant GEO has a policy, which began years ago under Cornell, of understaffing the prison. In much of the prison, only one officer is assigned to guard each zone, and many of the
12

zones hold approximately 60 youth. The prison is constantly short-staffed, so officers sometimes are left responsible for two zones at a time. Additionally, youth are often left unsupervised when the assigned officer leaves the zone for other reasons. This understaffing creates violent conditions that subject youth to serious and sometimes permanent injury. 40. Defendants WGCA, GEO, Tripp, Vinson, and Epps have long been aware that the routine understaffing ofWGYCF creates a risk of serious harm to the youth incarcerated there. In a 2005 report to the Mississippi legislarure, a corrections auditor specifically noted that Cornell had decreased security staff while the prison population was increasing, and warned that
-- ---- ---------------- -------_._- - - - - - _...- --- - ------- - - - -
the decrease could present "some significant problems with the safety and security of the facility." The report also highlighted corrections officers' concerns that decreases in staffing were increasing the potential for youth-an-youth assaults. In a 2010 update to that report, the auditor noted, "Although the inmate-population at WGYCF has increased, the corrections officer staffing decreased." 42. The understaffing of the facility and the minimal supervision that Defendants Tripp and Vinson provide to correctional officers in the facility contributes to staff abuse and exploitation of the youth incarcerated there. Because staffing is so thin and supervision so minimal, correctional officers who want to exploit prisoners have ample opportunity to do so. 43. Officers who enter the prison at night are not searched. This allows correctional officers to prey on vulnerable youth by smuggling in drugs. Defendants Tripp and Vinson are aware that the drug-smuggling takes place, but they have not taken reasonably adequate measures to halt the practice, including adequate measures to ensure that correctional officers are properly searched before entering the facility. The presence of illegal drugs in the facility increases violence.
13

44. Some correctional officers and nurses have sex with youth at WGYCF. Many of these sexual acts occur in isolated, camera-free areas in the facility, including the individual cells, medical unit examination rooms, pod control, towers, and restrooms. Pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-104, any correctional officer who engages in sexual activity with individuals in MDOC custody commits a felony that is punishable by up to five years in prison. Correctional officers who have sex with the youth often use their relationships to manipulate the youth into acting as pseudo-correctional officers. At the direction of these WGYCF staff, these youth enforce order on their living units by physically assaulting and intimidating others. This increases tensions between youth on the cellblocks and results in more violence. Former WGYCF employees cite sexual relationships between staff and youth as one of the major causes of violence inside the facility. The understaffing of the facility and poor supervision allow these dangerous relationships to occur. 45. Cell doors on many units can easily be rigged to remain unlocked when shut, allowing prisoners to leave their cells and enter the cells of others at any time, resulting in many assaults. Wardens Tripp and Vinson have received multiple reports of assaults stating that prisoners escaped or entered other cells through rigged doors, yet they have failed to adequately supervise correctional officers to ensure that they routinely and effectively examine doors to check for rigging, or to take adequate measures ~o ensure that the defective doors are replaced. 46. By the terms of its contract with the Department of Corrections, WGCA is responsible for operating the prison to keep the prisoners safe. GEO has also assumed this responsibility through its subcontract with WGCA, which it took over from Cornell after the merger. These Defendants have failed to replace the defective doors with non-defective ones such as those that exist in other parts of the prison.
14

47. Many correctional officers do not routinely conduct security checks to confirm that youth are safe inside their cells, and the security checks they do conduct are so cursory that they are ineffective in determining whether youth are actually safe. Because emergency call buttons in the cells do not work, youth often cannot get help while locked down. As a result of these failures, one youth was raped, beaten and held hostage for nearly a full 24 hours earlier this year. Yet despite their knowledge of this and other assaults that frequently occur inside celis, Wardens Tripp, Vinson and Kern have failed to train and supervise officers to ensure that they perform frequent, effective security checks on prisoners locked in cells. 48. Many officers knowingly instigate fights and attacks by purposefully opening cell doors to allow youth who are in conflict to leave their cells at the same time. Some officers order or persuade youths to attack other youths. Many officers also facilitate attacks by intentionally leaving cell blocks unsupervised and cell doors unsecured. Wardens Tripp and Vinson have received many complaints about these problems from youth, but rarely conduct thorough investigations or take corrective action. 49. Many officers ignore prisoner requests to be moved to another zone due to fear of attack. Wardens Tripp and Vinson are aware of this problem but rarely discipline officers who ignore the warnings. Tripp, Vinson and other prison officials often fail to conduct thorough investigations of young peoples' warnings ofimpending violence. 50. Weapons are readily available throughout the prison. Wardens Tripp and Vinson are aware of this grave problem. It is documented in the Incident Reports, Extraordinary Incident Reports, and prisoner grievances they review. Despite their knowledge, they have failed to take reasonable measures to protect youth from suffering weapon-induced injuries.
15

51. Youth in protective custody are not safe. While in protective custody. youth have been raped, attacked, robbed of their belongings, and stabbed. WGYCF stafffail to take reasonable measures to ensure the safety of these youth, who are particularly vulnerable to prison violence due to a variety of factors including size, disposition, nature of their offense, and mental illnesses. Unit Manager Latunja Leflore oversees Unit 4, where protective custody is housed. She and other officers routinely incite violence among prisoners, intentionally cause cell doors to open to faci litate attacks, ignore basic security precautions, and disregard youths' concerns about their safety. A number of youth have complained to prison authorities about these practices, but Defendants have failed to conduct an appropriate investigation into the allegations concerning Unit Manager Leflore or to take any other precautions to protect the youth in her custody. 52. According to MDOC policy, WGYCF staff are supposed to conduct an "in-depth investigation" before placing youth in cells together in protective custody. Defendants Tripp and Vinson frequently fail to complete proper investigations before allowing youth to be placed in cells together in protective custody. Officials have repeatedly placed youth in cells with other youth from whom they had requested separation and protection---resulting in numerous attacks. Defendants Tripp and Vinson are aware of these dangers, having received numerous complaints from youth about these issues, but have not responded. Even in a zone supposedly reserved for vulnerable youth, Defendants expose youth to the risk of serious harm. 53. Wardens Tripp and Vinson demonstrate wanton disregard for life by removing youth from protective custody against their wishes and sending them to general population, despite their knowledge of the threats of attack against them. 54. The injuries suffered by the WGYCF youth described below illustrate how the Defendants' security practices put the Plaintiffs and other WGYCF youth in danger.
16

lohn Doe (referred to as 1.0. throughout the complaint). 55. In late lanuary 2010, J.D. was held hostage, violently sexually assaulted and beaten by his cellmate. 56. About three days before the attack, Captain Michael 10nes moved a youth into J.D. 's cell. J.D. was fearful of sharing a Toom with this youth and immediately expressed his concerns to Captain Jones. Captain Jones ignored J.D.'s concerns. 57. Over the next two days, 1.0. 's celhnate became more aggressive towards him, and 1.0. became increasingly fearful that his cellmate might attack him. On or about January 22, 2010,
- -------_. - ._---------- ._---..,.--,-----:-
J.D. sent a note to Unit Manager Benton describing his fears and serious concerns for his safety. Benton did not respond.
58. On lanuary 23rd, 1.0.'5 cellmate covered the cell door window with a towel and used a
weapon to force J.D. to his Imees. 1.0.'5 ceUmate tied 1.0.'5 hands behind his back and forced
him to perform oral sex. He then raped 1.0. J.D.'s ceUmate told him he would stab him ifhe
yelled forbelp. After the assault, 1.0. ' 5 cellmate went to sleep. 1.0., afraid to yell, wrote a note to the guard and stood at the window waiting for help. J.D. stood at the window for hours waiting for an officer to walk by or see him. No officer came. The panic buttons in his cell did not work, so he had no other way ofobtaining help.
59. While J.D. was standing at the door, his cellmate woke up and saw J.D. trying to contact an officer. Angry that J.D. was trying to get help, the cellmate forced him to lie on his bed and tied him down using bed sheets. 59. 1.0.'s cellmate physically assaulted him throughout the night, inflicting multiple bruises and contusions, including two black eyes. At one point, 1.0. 's cellmate made him drink: blue
17

cleaning liquid in an attempt to remove physical evidence of the sexual assault. Although 1.D.'s injuries were visible and obvious, no correctional officer took any measures to protect him.
60. After 1.0. suffered Wuost 24 hours of abuse, a correctional officer opened the cell door
to deliver dinner trays. When the cell door opened, J.D. tackled his cellmate and screamed for help. It was not until then that 1.0. was freed from his cellmate. 61. This incident was not the first time 1.D.'s cellmate exhibited violent tendencies. Incident reports sent to Warden Tripp reveal that in the year before the attack, 1.0. 's cellmate had been found with multiple weapons and had received numerous write-ups for rule violations of a sexual nature. 62. Before placing 1.D.'s cellmate in the cell with him. Wardens Tripp and Vinson and WGYCF staff failed to conduct an in-depth investigation to ensure that J .D.'s roommate would not endanger him. 63. Even when 1.0. warned lanes and Benton that he did not feel safe with his roommate, they ignored his warnings. subjecting him to extreme risk ofharm. Wardens Tripp and Vinson fail to supervise officers in the prison to ensure that they respond to youth's concerns about safety. 64. 1.0. was extremely traumatized by the attack and continues to suffer mentally, emotionally and physically. He lives with chronic back pain since the a!1ack. 1.0. also has severe insomnia. depression, anxiety. feelings of paranoia and nightmares. C.B. 65. PlaintiffC.B. is 16 years old. He entered WGYCF when he was only 15 years old. As a result ofms youth, he is a target of physical abuse and violence.
18

66. Only a few days after C.B. arrived at WGYCF in October 2009, four youths beat him and kicked him while he was outside of his cell during recreation. There was only one correctional officer on duty and he left the cell block unsupervised inunediately before C.B.'s attack. C.B. suffered multiple injuries during this attack including bruised ribs and the temporary loss of hearing in his right ear. 67. Later, C.B. was moved to a different zone. However, he was unable to escape danger. He was housed with a 21-year-old cel1mate who constantly beat him up, stole his canteen purchases, and threatened to stab him. C.B. did not dare report the abuse, fearing that staff would not protect - - - - - - - -------- ---------- ------ - - - - - ------------ - - - - - - - - ---- ----him from retaliation. 68. In mid-August of2010, C.B. sustained deep gashes on his chest after another inmate
entered his cell and instigated a fight with c.a.. No correctional officer was on the zone at the time. Again, fearing that the staff would fail to protect him from retaliation, c.B. did not report
this attack. 69. C.B. continues to fear for his safety at WGYCF. In the last few months, C.B. has witnessed multiple attacks in his zone. CHRlSTOPHER COLEMAN 70. Plaintiff Christopher Coleman is housed in protective custody, where be has been attac~ed repeatedly. 71. In October 2009, while he was housed in zone 5C, Christopher was attacked by several other prisoners who told him that Unit Manager Leflore had incited the attack. In July 2010, Leflore threatened to arrange another attack against Christopher. In making this threat, Leflore admitted her responsibility for the first October 2009 attack.
19

72. In April of20] 0, Unit Manager Leflore falsely told other youth on the zone that Christopher was convicted of rape-intentionally subjecting him to the serious risk ofbeing physically attacked as a suspected sex offender. 73. In August of2010, Christopher was attacked by his cellmato--a person he should never bave been housed with in the first place. Christopher has a slight build and weighs only 135 pounds. Leflore assigned as Christopher's cellmate a 2S0·pound youth whom the MDOC website describes as "extremely large." Contrary to MDOC policy, Tripp and Vinson did not ensure that an in-depth investigation took place before this assignment. Leflore should never
---- --~.. - - - - - - - - . - -
have placed, and Wardens Tripp and Vinson should not have approved, Christopher's placement with this cellmate: the extreme danger to -him was obvious.. The danger manifested when Christopher's cellmatc beat him, causing excruciating pain. 74. Before the attack, the cellmate began to threaten Christopher. Because he feared for his safety, Christopher filed a request for a separation order, called. "a red-tag," from his cellmate and begged to be taken out of the cell. Leflore, Tripp and Vinson ignored these requests. 75. On or about August 17, 2010, Christopher's cellmate told Unit Manager Leflore, who was standing at their cell door talking to him, that he wanted to beat up Cluistopher. Leflore told him to go ahead and watched as the cellmate knocked Christopher's head into the wall, bit him, and beat him for several minutes. Finally, when the attack was winding down, Leflore called other officers to the zone to respond to the attack. 76. About two days later, Christopher was attacked again. At that time, the youth were locked in their cells, and the correctional officer on duty was supposed to be letting the prisoners out one at a time to use the telephone. While this was happening, two prisoners were loudly arguing with Christopher across the cellblock where the officer was standing. Shortly thereafter,
20

-:.

the officer opened Christopher's door, ostensibly so he could use the phone. When he came out,

Christopher was surprised to find he was not the only prisoner outside his cell: the two prisoners

he bad been arguing with were out too, as well as another prisoner. The two from the argument

attacked Christopher and the fourth prisoner, and beat Christopher and the other prisoner up.

Christopher ended up with a severe headache.

77. As a result of these attacks and the repeated threats from Leflore, Christopher fears for

rus life and has become increasingly anxious. He believes he is likely to be attacked again.

78. Wardens Tripp and Vinson and other prison officials have ignored the danger and abuses

- - - - . - - - - - .. - - - - - c - -

-.------c-~.--

Christopher and other youth face from Unit Manager Leflore and other abusive officers.

Christopher has written multiple grievances detailing the threats he has received, the attacks he

has suffered, and his fear of future attacks. He has also directly expressed rus concerns to Major

Swann and other staff and sent written complaints directly to Warden Tripp. Defendants have

not taken any reasonable measures to protect Christopher and other youth from Leflore, who

remains the unit manager and continues to endanger the youth in her custody. Wardens Tripp

and Vinson have failed to properly investigate and have not disciplined Leflore and the other

officers for their misconduct.

ORLANDO TIlOMAS

79. In June of this. year, Orlando Thomas was attacked and beaten by a group of others

incarcerated at WGYCF. For many months before the attack, Orlando had repeatedly notified

WGYCF staff about his safety concerns. Around February 2010, Orlando wrote a note to Case

Manager McGhee saying he felt his life was in danger and needed to talk. to her as soon as

possible. She never spoke to him about his concerns. Around the same time, he also told Case

Manager Brown that he wanted to be moved to protective custody. She denied his request. On

21

.'
May 14, 2010, Thomas submitted an Administrative Remedy Program (ARP) request claiming his life was in danger for the following reasons: officers leave the zone unattended while prisoners are out oftbeir cells; officers conduct inadequate weapons searcbes; doors are easily rigged; and, prisoners have sharp weapons so stabbings are common. Defendant Vinson reviewed this grievance but failed to take measures to protect Orlando from a violent attack. 80. Around June 23, 2010, Orlando learned that others were planning to attack him. Orlando felt he needed to leave his zone immediately to avoid harm, so he told Unit Manager Leflore that
his life was in danger and that he needed to move Qut afms zone. Leflore failed to investigate
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -.- ---------- - - - - - - - - - -
Orlando's claim. Instead, she dismissed his concerns, saying no one was going to hurt him. She then returned him to the zone with the youth who had targeted him. 81. Unit Manager Leflore did more than just ignore his concerns; she instigated the attack. When she returned him to his zone, she conveyed to other youth that Orlando was a fearful "snitch"-knowing that Orlando would likely be targeted with violence as a direct result ofher words. 82. Later that day, Orlando was beaten with a broom and food trays, kicked several times, and stabbed with an ice pick. He suffered severe bruising and painful bumps on his head. Orlando filed a grievance about this, but neither Warden Tripp nor Vinson responded in any way.
Febru ary 27, 2010: D an gerouslv Deficien t Secnritv Leads to Massive In ju ries 84. On February 27, 2010, several large and extremely violent fights broke out in Unit 6. 85. Many WGYCF officers and officials were on notice that fights were coming. A day or two before February 27, a correctional officer heard prisoners on Unit 6 talking about a planned
22

attack and told her superiors, two lieutenants. The day before the attack, P laintiff Joshua Clay

warned Major Swann and Captain Goff that there was a great risk of attack in Unit 6.

86. At a morning staff meeting on February 27, Captain Goffwamed that an out-of-the-

ordinary disturbance was expected on Unit 6.

87. Defendants Tripp and Vinson had known of the dangerous conditions at the facility and

failed to reasonably respond to the violence at the facility. They were aware of numerous similar

incidents that had occurred previously, but did not increase supervision or training for

correctional officers or increase security to prevent future incidents. Just two weeks before the

- - - - - --'--iDcident,

three

yo~ths -;ere

lUSh~

to

the

hospital

with

stab

- ---.
wounds after

a

-_._-----
large fight involving

several weapons.

88. Days before the attack, several weapons were found in cells in Unit 6. Despite this,

Defendant Tripp failed to conduct a thorough search for weapons throughout the unit.

89. On February 27,2010, there were approximately 60 prisoners in each of the four zones

on Unit 6, but because several officers were absent from work that day, there were only three

officers assigned to patrol those zones. With only three officers for approximately 240 prisoners,

there was little hope they could adequately protect and supervise those in their custody.

90. Officers released one group of youth from their cells for recreation. When that group's

recreation time was over, the officers failed to secure all of the cell doors before releasing

another group, in spite of the warnings of imminent violence and the understaffing. Several

prisoners from the first group exited their cells and joined those from the second group. At some

point, the correctional officers left the zone unattended.

91. Shortly thereafter, a large fight started_ Young people were stabbed, punched, ldcked,

stomped, and thrown from the upper tier to the lower tier. Prisoners broke televisions and used

23

the glass as weapons. Staff took considerable time to respond. By the time they did so, fourteen young people had suffered serious injuries that required emergency off·site medical care. Two almost died as a result of this incident. MICHAEL MCINTOSH and MONICO LOPEZ 92. On February 27, 2010, Michael McIntosh and Monico Lopez were roommates on Unit 6 when the fight erupted in the unit. They were nearly killed in this fight. 93. Michael suffered brain trauma that required emergency surgery and a prolonged hospitalization. He had to re·learn basic functions like walking, eating, and combing his bair. He is still suffering from brain injuries be received in the figbt-an-d-W-1·-11l-i·-k~I-y-s-uf= iier--;f;r-o-m--Ct:h;e-s· e injuries for the rest of his life. 94. Monico was stabbed in the head and badly beaten. He was transferred to a hospital in Jackson in February and released from custody in May 2010. Since the fight, Monico continues to suffer from serious back pain and has spit up blood repeatedly. 95. Prison officials received multiple warnings of the risk of attack on Unit 6, but ignored them. Had prison officials responded to these warnings, the injuries Monico and Michael suffered could have been prevented.
JOSHUA CLAY 96. During the February 27, 2010 figh~ Ioshua Clay was stabbed in Unit 6. Several of the other prisoners proceeded to kick, hit, and stab Joshua. He was stabbed repeatedly around the head and on his right forearm and hand. 97. Josbua was taken by ambulance to a hospital. He was in terrible pain and the doctors put staples in his hand and put him in a neck brace.
24

98. To this day, Joshua still suffers from pain and limited mobility in his right hand as a result of this attack. Joshua also has anxiety and severe insomnia, and is in constant fear of another attack.
Eighth Amendment Violations: Use of Excessive Force 99. Youth in WGYCF li ve in constant fear and risk of staff abuse. Many correctional officers maliciously use excessive force and go far beyond what is reasonably necessary to maintain or restore discipline in the facility. Frequently. force is used as a form of punishment with no
--------:--- -------- - -- ---- -- -legitimate penological purpose. 100. Many officers are quick to throw the young men to the ground and punch, beat or kick them, even when they are in handcuffs and pose no threat to the officers. 101. These officers commonly assault young men in areas lacking cameras, such as inside cells or in the medical unit. After these assaults, the injured youth often do not receive immediate medical attention. 102. Many officers spray youth with excruciatingly painful chemical restraints for the sole purpose of inflicting pain and severe discomfort. Youth are most frequently subject to chemical restraints as a consequence for placing their hands outside of their cells. WGYCF staff spray youth with chemical restraints, even though they are locked in their cells and pose no threat to the officers or others. 103. Officers frequently refuse to provide youth with appropriate medical treatment immediately after the use of chemical restraint. Officers leave the young men in their cells instead of taking them to the medical uni~ giving them an opportunity to rinse the stinging chemicals from their eyes and bodies, or allowing them to go outside to get fresh air.
25

104. Some youth, especially those 'With asthma, suffer adverse reactions from airborne exposure to the chemicals even if they are not directly sprayed. Many officers ignore the young men's pleas for help. 105. Warden Tripp has known for years that the young men in WGYCF face significant and unnecessary risk of injury from staff abuse. He receives many grievances complaining about staff assaults, as well as medical reports describing injuries youth have suffered from staff assaults. Warden Tripp does not take reasonable measures to ensure that incidents of staff abuse are adequately documented and investigated and that all officers guilty of misconduct are
- - - - -.. - - - - - - - - - - - . - -.. --~~~-
appropriately disciplined. 106. Warden Tripp routinely gives explicit approval for correctional officers to use chemical restraints to punish youth for minor rule violations. He approves of this practice and has implemented it himself. In addition, Tripp has directly ordered this unnecessary and malicious use of force on several occasions. 107. The injuries suffered by the WGYCF youth described below illustrate how the Defendants' policy and practice of inflicting unnecessary and excessive force put the Plaintiffs and and other Walnut Grove Youth in danger. LAMARSHA READUS 108. Plaintiff Lamarsha Readus lives in constant fear ofphysical abuse by officers at WGYCF, particularly Captain Michael Jones. In February 2010, Captain Jones assaulted Lamarsha while he was handcuffed, and he has threatened to assault Lamarsha again. Lamarsha has notified Warden Tripp and Commissioner Epps about the incident and his fear of future harm, but nothing has been done to investigate his claims or protect him from further harm.
26

109. The February 2010 incident began when Captain Jones and Officer B~owskin escorted Lamarsha in handcuffs from the shower to his celL Lamarsha entered his cell while handcuffed without incident. 110. While Lamarsha was handcuffed and defenseless inside his cell, Captain Jones maliciously and sadistically slammed his body to the ground, face down, splitting Lamarsha's chin on the ground, and then pressed one foot on top ofLamarsha's neck. 111. Lieutenant White and Officers Browskin and Johnson witnessed the abuse, but failed to intervene. Faint and bleeding from his chin, Lamarsha asked Lieutenant White and Officer
- - - - - - - ---------------------~----------------------------
Johnson for medical attention. They denied his requests. 112. Eventually, when the shift changed, Larnarsha was permitted to seek medical attention. Head Nurse and Health Services Adminstrator K. Hogue examined him and observed. a laceration on Lamarsha's chin, which be had suffered when he was thrown face-down to the ground. 113. Captain Jones bragged about the assault to other inmates. Since then, Jones bas repeatedly threatened to assault Lamarsha again. 114_ On March 10, 2010, Larnarsha submitted an Administrative Remedy Program (ARP) request to notify authorities of the incident and his fear of future assault. Lamarsba received a response to his grievance three months later. His request for relief was ~enied on the ground that there were no witnesses to the event. 115. Lamarsha appealed to Warden Tripp. Warden Tripp failed to investigate Lamarsha's complaint, despite his documented injuries. On August 19, 2010, Lamarsha submitted an Emergency ARP request due to his continued fear of assault. BRIAN WEBSTER
27

116. In April 201 0, Plaintiff Brian Webster was maliciously beaten by several WGYCF staff

members, including Major John Swann. Despite compelling evidence that excessive force was

used against Webster, Warden Tripp failed to thoroughly investigate the incident.

117. The beating occurred on or about April 22, 2010. Brian had covered the window of his

cell with a piece of paper. In response, Captain Michael Jones, Major John Swann and several

other staff members (called. an "Extraction Team") entered. Brian's cell, s lammed. him to the

ground, and began kicking him. When Brian resisted in an effort to protect himself, the

Extraction Team repeatedly kicked. his body and beat his head on the ground, maliciously using

~ -

- - - - c - ; -- - - - -- ;--;;--= ~ ~ -~-~----:---;-:-:-.-------

excessive force that was entirely unnecessary to subdue the 135-pound youth or to maintain or

restore control in the unit.

118. In addition to Major Swann and Captain Jones, another high-ranking official, Deputy

Warden Vinson, was present during the incident.

119. On April 22, 2010, WGYCF staffsubmitled two Extraordinary Occurrence reports to

Warden Tripp which mentioned that staff had "struggled" with Brian and mentioned the

presence of Captain Jones, Major Swann, and Deputy Warden Vinson. On May 26, 2010, Brian

submitted an ARP request describing the abuse and the involvement of Swann, Jones, and the

extraction team. More than a month later, Brian received. notice that his request had been rejected

because he had failed to write an exact date for the incident. (He wrote "End of April 201 0.")

Brian submitted a corrected ARP request on July 29, 2010. Defendants did not investigate the

matter.

JOSHUA CLAY

120. In early April 2010, PlaintiffJoshua Clay told several officers that he needed medical

attention for a painful rash and requested a sick call slip. The officers refused. Joshua later put

28 .

his arm through the food flap in his cell door to try to get the attention of another officer to ask for medical attention. Although Joshua was not aggressive or violent, the officer responded by maliciously spraying Joshua in the face with chemical restraints. For several minutes, Joshua was coughing uncontrollably and could barely breathe. Eventually, he was removed from his cell and left in the recreation yard, where he remained from breakfast until dinner time. Defendants never provided Joshua with any medical care. 121. Joshua submitted an ARP request on May 6, 2010, to notify Defendants of this incident. In his ARP request, Joshua asked for "a better system for people to get to medical with out doing
-::-0--_- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---,-,:-:-:=-::--;--;--- ------ something to harm themselves." He did not receive a response. On August 20, 2010, Joshua wrote a letter to Commissioner Epps stating, "I don't think it's fall that people have to get mace to get medical help." JARED EPPERSON 122. Plaintiff Jared Epperson was diagnosed at an early age with a seizure disorder that requires him to take daily medication. On average, WGYCF medical staff have failed to deliver Jared his seizure medication once per week, and multiple times have failed to deliver it for four to five days in a row. 123. In late October 2010, WGYCF medical staff failed to give him his medication for around five days . He suffered recurring headaches during this period. Every day he told the nurses on pill call that he needed his medication, but they failed to -provide him with his medication. 124. Around the fifth day, Jared still had not received any medication, so he stuck his arm through the tray flap ofbis closed door to summon the officer on duty. In response to Jared's request for medical attention, the officer called Lieutenant Cox. When Lieutenant Cox arrived on the unit, Jared reiterated his request for his medication. Cox responded by spraying him through
29

the tray flap with chemical restraints in the face causing him excruciating pain and compromising his ability to breathe.. ANTONIO DUNNIGAN 125. On the morning of March 9, 2010,Antonio Dunnigan's cellmate had begun to experience pain and breathing problems. He was afraid his cellmate might die, so Antonio told Lieutenant McAfee that the cellmate needed immediate medical attention. 126. By lunchtime, the cellmate's condition persisted, and he still had not received any medical attention. Antonio placed his ann outside of the flap to try and speak to a captain. - --.- Lieutenant McMee and several other officmcame to the cell in response. Antonio told the officers that the cellmate needed emergency medical treatment for his asthma. Rather than provide treatment, the officers sprayed Antonio and his cellmate with chemical restraints. Antonio and his cellmate could barely breathe. 127. Officers moved Antonio and his cellmate to the recreation yard where a nurse came and took their blood pressure but did not provide any medical treatment for the cellmate's asthma or shortness of breath. 128. On March 12,2010, Antonio submitted an ARP request informing Defendant Vinson about this incident. LATRAVIS SMITH 129. In mid-October, 2010, Captain Michael Jones assaulted PlaintifILatravis Smith with chemical restraints while he was completely naked and locked in a cell in the special needs unit. 130. Latravis had no bed, blanket, clothes, or even a paper gown in this special needs cell. Latravis had asked Captain Jones for some clothes or a blanket. After arguing with Latravis over
30

his requests, Jones left the cell block without providing him anything he could use to cover himself. 131. About two hours later, Captain Jones returned to the special needs cellblock, went directly to Latravis ' cell door, and sprayed him with chemical restraints through the food flap. Latravis was not threatening Captain Jones or anyone else and posed no threat to prison security. 132. Latravis was standing close to the door at the time, so the spray landed directly on his skin. The chemicals went on his genitalia and caused a painful burning sensation.
Eighth Amendment Violations! Punitive Isolation
--_._----
--- - - - -T3"3. --Some staffmeriioers routinely subject youth to purutive isolation and sensory deprivation
by arranging to place to place non· suicidal youth in a suicide watch cell without any penological justification and for the purpose of inflicting wanton and unnecessary discomfort, pain and humiliation. Non·suicidal youth who are forced into punitive isolation in a suicide watch cell are stripped naked with the exception ofa thin paper gown. Youth are forced to sleep on a steel bed frame without mattresses. Though the cells in suicide watch are cold, youth are only given one blanket. Youth are confined to their cells for 24 hours a day, denied physical exercise or recreation, and provided with limited opportunities to care for their personal hygiene needs. Youth receive little to no human interaction and are not allowed to receive mail, make phone calls, have visitation, or receive any of their property, including radios, canteen food, pictures, paper, or pens. 134. Once a youth is designated by a staff member as suicidal, he must remain in isolation until he is evaluated by a mental health professional who can determine whether the youth remains a suicide risk. The psychiatrist usually performs these evaluations, but he only conducts assessments of youth on suicide watch two days out of the week. As a result, these non· suicidal
31

youth are forced to wait for days or even a week before they are evaluated and removed from

isolation.

135. One youth has been subject to punitive isolation in a suicide cell on three separate

occasions. Unit Manager Leflore arranged this punitive isolation as a punishment when the youth

refused to agree to leave the protective custody unit. When officials transported him to isolation,

the youth told Warden Vinson, Major Swann and Lieutenant McAfee that he was not suicidal

and that Leflore was lying. These officials ignored the youth's statements, stripped him naked

and isolated him.

-_.. __. - - - -136-. -

Alrotlier

youtifnacrto

speIillover-a-weeKm

isolabonon

suicide

watch

after

a

,-,
verbal

-

_.

_

-

-

---

disagreement with a WGYCF staff member. The youth witnessed the staff member lie to the

medical personnel and state that the youth had threatened to kill himself. Medical personnel

transported him to isolation where he remained for around one week.

137. Defendants Tripp and Vinson have known about this abusive practice and have failed to

respond. Several youth, including the one mentioned above, have informed them of their

placement on suicide watch as punishment. Despite their knowledge, they continue to allow

certain staff to inflict this unlawful punishment. They have failed to investigate the young men's

claims and failed to discipline the officers or take other action to protect the youth from this

punishment that is calculated solely to assault their human dignity and inflict serious discomfort.

138. The injuries suffered by the WGYCF youth described below illustrate how the

Defendants' policy and practice of imposing arbitrary isolation without penological justification

for the purpose of inflicting wanton and unnecessary harm place WGYCF prisoners in danger.

ERIC BALL

32

139. Unit Manager Leflore has sent Eric Ball to punitive isolation in a suicide watch cell three times in the past few months even though he was not suicidal. 140. The last time this happened, Leflore had become upset at Eric for stopping at another cell to get some notebook paper. To punish him, she radioed officials and told them he was suicidal. Eric was taken to the medical unit and placed in an isolated suicide cell. Even though he told medical staff that he was not suicidal, they placed him on suicide watch anyway. 141. While placed in an isolated suicide cell, Eric was forced to strip naked and wear only a thin paper gown. He was denied access to recreation, phone calls, visitation, and reading
- - - - - - - - - - .-~--- -----
materials. He was denied human contact and locked in a cell for 24 hours a day. Recently, after Eric was returned to the zone, Leflore threatened to isolate him in a suicide watch cell again if he did not tuck in his shirt. Eric feels it is only a matter oftime before he is again subject to punitive isolation in a suicide watch cell again, as Defendants Tripp and Vinson have not put a stop to this abusive practice.
Eighth Amendment Violations: Inadequate Medical and M ental H ealth Treatment 142. MDOC contrncts with Defendant Health Assurance, L.L.C. (HALLC) to provide almost all medical and mental health care at WGYCF. Under the May 22, 2006 Contrnct for Medical Services, HALLC agrees to provide "medical, optometry, phannaceutical services, mental health services and a dental program" for the incarcerated youth at WGYCF. Under this contract, HALLC is responsible for all costs of care, except that ?vIDOC is responsible for the costs of hospitalizations over 72 hours and for the costs of treating prisoners with HIV, AIDS, and Hepatitis-C. 143. Defendant GEO also has responsibilities related to medical and mental health care at WGYCF. Walnut Grove Correctional Authority subcontracted with GEO to fulfill its operational
33

responsibilities at WGYCF under the Authority's contract with .MDOC. As the subcontractor responsible for general operation of the prison, GEO has the duty to provide "access to counseling and mental health programs," and to operate a Regimented Inmate Discipline program at the prison that provides "psychological counseling." Pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-951. WGYCF "... shall provide each juvenile offender housed in the facility alcohol and drug counseling and treatment throughout his incarceration." 144. Defendants HALLC, Tripp, Kern, Hogue, and Epps are deliberately indifferent to the serious medical and mental health needs of youth in WGYCF. Defendants fail to provide youth
-.------;--c----,- - - - - --- - - -
adequate access to health care. In WGYCF, non-medical professionals-most often correctional officers-()ften decide whether a youth will receive medical attention. The forms the youth must use to request medical attention are not readily available to them. To obtain the forms, youth often must request them from an officer on duty, because nurses are sent to the cellblocks infrequently and often do not have the forms. Some officers refuse to give out the forms; sometimes officers tell the young people that forms are unavailable. When young people make urgent medical requests, correctional officers-rather than medical staff-often decide whether the youth' s illness constitutes a medical emergency. Nurses do not work on site during the night and on weekends and therefore are unavailable to react promptly to emergencies at those times. 145. Even when young people manage to obtain medical service request foImS, they often must submit multiple requests over the course of several weeks before they are able to see a nurse or doctor. 146. HALLe has a policy and practice of delaying the timely provision of needed medical care. Youth experience lengthy delays before they receive medically required care and suffer substantial physical pain and serious risks to their health and well being as a result.
34

147. Youth often must wait for weeks or months to receive urgently needed medical care, with

the result that injuries that could have been treated effectively if timely addressed become

permanent and untreatable. Trips to specialists are often delayed repeatedly. Doctors' orders for

specialist consultations for serious medical problems are often ignored.

148. Officers and medical staff routinely ignore repeated requests from young people with

dangerous and painful medical and mental health problems. As a result, the young people must

resort to extreme measures-like yelling, banging and kicking doors, and breaking sprinklers-

to get needed attention. Even then, they are often left to suffer through painful and dangerous

- - - - - - -~----------

----~---------------- -~

conditions without medical attention. One youth who had been requesting medical attention for

weeks had to be transported by ambulance to a hospital when his condition became so urgent and

life-threatening that it could no longer be ignored by prison staff.

149. There is no reliable way to get medical help in case of emergencies, even for youth with

conditions like severe asthma and seizure disorders, and for those at high risk of suicide. The

panic call buttons in the cells do not work and often no officers are present in areas where youth

are housed.

150. Young people who need medical attention are discouraged from seeking necessary care

because they are charged a six-dollar copayment for most visits with medical personnel.

151. Defendant HALLC has a policy and practice of failing to supervise its medical staff and

to implement effective systems to ensure that medications are timely ordered and delivered and

that prescribed care is provided. Medical staff commonly fail to provide prescribed treatment.

Inconsistent prescription drug delivery and other lapses in treatment are customary. HALLC staff

have repeatedly run out ofmedication prescribed for youths' chronic conditions, causing lengthy

gaps in treatment. The medical staff routinely fail to provide prescribed care for open wounds

35

susceptible to infection. Staff fail to monitor youths taking prescribed medications and thus

unnecessarily subject youth to risk of serious adverse reactions to medications. As Health

Services Administrator, Defendant Hogue has a duty to ensure these lapses do not occur, but she

does nothing to correct these recurrent problems.

152. HALLC fails to provide or ensure minimally adequate mental health services to young

people in WGYCF who have serious mental health needs.

153. A significant number of the young people incarcerated in WGYCF have untreated serious

mental health needs. HALLC fails to ensure adequate psychological assessments of youth in the

--- - --

-- --------_. - ---------_._--

prison, resulting in under-identification of, and inadequate treatment for, youth with serious

mental illnesses. The young people do not receive adequate mental health evaluations. The

mental health evaluations they do receive are perfunctory.

154. HALLC has a policy and practice ofbiring insufficient numbers of qualified medical and

mental health professionals. In accordance with tbis policy and practice, HALLC has not hired

enough staff to properly care for the mental health needs of 1,200 youth. HALLe currently

employs one full-time, master's level psychologist who solely conducts intake assessments, and

contracts with one psychiatrist who is required to provide on-site services for only sixteen hours

per month. The psychiatrist does not conduct minimally adequate assessments or review

necessary information before diagnosing patients and prescribing medication. The psychiatrist

also has been known to prescribe medications solely based on the evaluation of the masters-level

psychologist without ever meeting the patient. His evaluations are grossly incompetent-he

generally spends less than 10 minutes interviewing, observing and evaluating his patients and he

rarely reviews prior medical records before prescribing medication.

36

155. In providing this level of staffing. HALLC has been openly violating its contract with

IvIDOC for years. The contract, which was drafted when the prison only held 940 prisoners,

requires a substantially higher minimum level of mental health staffing and care. Under the

contract, HALLC is required to provide a ''PsychiatristlPsychologist'' for twelve hours per week.

"[1]n addition," HALLC must provide a licensed "Ph.D." psychologist to provide mental health

services to prisoners a minimum of eight hours per week and a psychiatrist for a minimum of

sixteen hours per month. HALLC must also make individual therapy available to prisoners.

HALLC is also required to increase this staffing as needed to meet growth in prison population.

--~~--.

.. ~-

---::. -.~-~---

156. In violation of the contract, HALLC does not employ a Ph.D. psychologist to provide

mental health services to prisoners at all, does not provide a psychiatrist/psychologist twelve

hours per week, and does not provide individual therapy. Although the population of the prison

has increased by about 260 youth since the contract was drafted, HALLC has not increased

staffing. Although aware of HALLe's understaffing of the prison, Defendant Epps has

repeatedly renewed HALLC's contract.

157. HALLC, Health Services Administrator Hogue, and Wardens Tripp, Vinson and Kern

fail to ensure that WGYCF staffreceive necessary training on managing mentally ill young

people. Most staff members are unable to recognize and properly react to the obvious needs of

yout? with known, demonstrable, serious mental disorders. Consequently, youth often feel they

must resort to self-harming behavior to receive the services they need. The suicide prevention

practices in place at WGYCF are dangerously deficient. These deficient practices result in injury

and a significant risk of injury or death to young people with serious mental health needs. In the

first six months of2010, nine attempted suicides were recorded.

37

158. Many facility staff receive no suicide prevention training; they do not know how to

identify warning signs and symptoms of impending suicidal behavior or how to !lPpropriately

respond to youth who threaten suicide. Staff do not take appropriate care to ensure that suicide

observations cells contain no objects that can be used for self-harm. Staff sometimes ignore

suicide threats or respond to the threats by egging the young people on to hurt themselves. Some

officers assigned to conduct fifteen-minute checks of youths in suicide watch cells simply sit at a

desk filling out false information on the paperwork without actually checking on the youth.

159. The woefully deficient training, monitoring, and supervision ofWGYCF staff has already

~-~-~--~----

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

led to one tragic death of a youth. In October 2009, a youth cut his arm, showed his wound to a

nurse and officer and told them that he was going to kill himself, emphasizing his resolve to

follow through on his threat. The nurse and officer failed to take any precautionary steps;

instead, they left the youth alone in his cell. Around a half hour later, the young man informed

three officers that he was going to kill himself that day. One officer observed something tied

around the youth's neck, but coIIllI1ented that the youth was just playing around and left. Around

one hour later, the youth told another officer that be was going to kill himself That officer

informed a captain, who responded by telling the youth in profane language to untie the object

around his neck and ordering the officer to leave the youth alone. Less than two hours later, the

youth's dead body was found hanging from the light fixture in his cell.

160. The injuries suffered by the WGYCF youth described below illustrate how the

Defendants' policies and practices of deliberate indifference to youth's serious medical needs

harm the Plaintiffs and the class members.

38

CRAIG KINCAID
161. Craig Killcaid has a metal plate in his left leg and metal screws in his right knee as a result of injuries sustained when he was bit by a car. Over the past few years, Craig has had chronic infections in his left leg that are extremely painful and make it hard for Craig to sit or exercise for long periods of time. Craig has repeatedly informed Warden Tripp, Administrator Hogue, and Commissioner Epps about the history and seriousness afhis leg injuries. Defendants have consistently subjected Craig to long delays in receiving urgently needed care for this condition. 162. In Apri12008, soon after Craig arrived at WGYCF, he started having serious problems with his left leg. On April 16, 2008, Craig submitted a sick call slip. A week passed before he was seen by a nurse, who referred him to a doctor. Several more days passed before Craig finally saw a doctor. By this time, an extremely painful pus.filled sore had fonned on his left leg.
163. Craig received wound care on his leg for two weeks. Two weeks after wound care ended, symptoms recurred, and Craig submitted another sick call slip request form on June 16, 2008. Craig's next documented medical visit was not until seven months later, on January 13, 2009. 164. In February 2009, Craig's left leg deteriorated. The sore was very painful and leaked pus and blood. On February 11, 2009, Dr. Sutton, a HALLC employee who works at WGYCF, ordered that Craig b~ referred to a surgeon. The order was ignored by Administrator Hogue 165. For the rest of the year, Craig continued to experience severe pain in his leg and repeatedly-notified the medical staff ofhis ongoing problems. On November 30, 2009, Craig informed the medical staff that he needed to see the doctor as soon as possible because "the hole in [his] leg was leaking pus." Craig was not seen by a doctor until December 11J 2009. During
39

this visit, Dr. Sutton again referred Craig for surgery, nearly a year after Dr. Sutton had made the initial order for surgery that Hogue had ignored. 166. On December 28, 2009, still not having received surgery and frustrated by the growing pain and stiffiJ.ess in his leg, Craig again notified Administrator Hogue about his serious medical need and his surgery referral. By the time Hogue scheduled Craig for surgery evaluation, his infection had progressed to the point that emergency surgery was required. 167. Recently, the infection returned. Craig continues to experience difficulties getting access to medical care and fears he may lose his leg.
- - - - - - - ; - - : : - : - - - ----~---- ..,..--:::-:------
168. In November or December 2009, Craig submitted a grievance notifying Defendants of the lack of medical care he received. He received his First Step Response from Administrator Hogue in February 2010 and appealed to the Second Step_ Craig received the Second Step Response from Warden Tripp in April 2010 and submitted his request to appeal to Commissioner Epps that same day. Craig received no response from Commissioner Epps. On August 20, 2010, . Craig wrote another letter to the Commissioner requesting a response. In September 2010, Craig received a response from an MDOC medica1 official, saying there was no record of Craig's grievance. 169. A$ the Health Services Administrator for WGYCF, Hogue is ultimately responsible for ensuring physician's orders are followed. She knew the chronic and serious narure of Craig's condition and twice failed to follow a physician's prescribed order. 170. In August 2010, the infection in Craig's leg returned. Because the infection was so deep, surgeons had to cut out a large section ofms thlgh. As a result, Craig's mobility has been seriously affected, and he is no longer able to sit or lay for long periods of time without experiencing excruciating pain.
40

171. On August 20, 2010, Craig wrote an emergency ARP notifying Defendant Epps of the

continuous problems he is experiencing accessing medical care at WGYCF. Craig still has not

received a response.

JOSHUA CLAY

172. On February 27,2010, Plaintiff Joshua Clay was stabbed mUltiple times in a fight and

suffered a significant injwy to his right arm and hand. Joshua was transported to a hospital for

evaluation and treatment. On the discharge paperwork given to WGYCF staff, the emergency

room doctor noted that Joshua experienced a decreased range of motion in his right wrist and

- - - - - - - ---,;-;-

- - - - - - - - - - - - ,;0--.

fingers, and that this decreased range of motion was "significant for possible tendon injury." The

doctor recommended that Joshua "be referred to band/orthopedic surgeon for evaluation of right

foreann tendon region." T1ris form was returned to WGYCF and placed in Joshua's HALLC

medical file. There was no fo llow-up, and he never saw a surgeon.

173. After Joshua was discharged from the emergency room, he received wound care in the

infirmary for a week or so. Since then, Defendants have failed to provide Joshua with any

medical treatment for his hand. Even though his wounds 'have visibly healed, his right hand

continues to burt. Joshua has limited mobility in his right band and cannot use it for more than a

few minutes at a time.

174. On March 25, 201 0, Joshua submitted an ARP request stating he had been stabbed

multiple times in the hand and still had "serious pain." As a remedy, Joshua requested treatment

for his continuing injuries. On May 14,2010, Joshua submitted another ARP notifying

Defendants of his persistent need for medical care. On June 22, 2010, Joshua submitted a note to

Ms. Tracey Morgan, ARP Administrator at WGYCF, notifying Warden Tripp that he still needed

medical help for his hand.

41

175. Joshua did not receive a response until mid-June. In the First Step Response, Deputy Warden Vinson stated: "The medical staff reports you did receive several injuries during the 227-10 incident but none of your injuries were considered debilitating." In early July 2010, Joshua submitted another sick call slip. Defendants continued to ignore his requests for help. 176. Joshua appealed and received a Second Step Response from Wardens Tripp and Kern dated July 16,2010. In the response, Wardens Tripp and Kern did not address the problems with Joshua's hand. 177. On AUgust 20, 2010, Joshua submitted an emergency ARP, notifying Commissioner Epps and Warden Tripp about his serious medical needs and his previous unsuccessful efforts to secure medical attention. On that same day, Joshua sent another note to Commissioner Epps requesting a response to his May 14, 2010 ARP. Defendants continue to ignore Joshua's requests for medical care. 178. Defendants HALLe, Hogue, Tripp, Vinson, Kern and Epps also have subjected Joshua to continuing pain and substantial risk of permanent pain and disability by failing to ensure that he has received any follow-up medical care for his hand despite his repeated requests. 179. Despite multiple requests, Joshua still has not received any medical care for his hand. Joshua continues to experience pain and limited mobility in his hand. Because of Defendants' continuing refusal of care, Joshua has experienced needless pain and suffering, and may suffer permanent disability.
ERIKBABNES
180. Plaintiff Erik Barnes has an extensive mental health history. Erik has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, intermittent explosive disorder, mood disorder, impulse control disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Since the age offive, he
42

'.

has received psychiatric outpatient treatment and been hospitalized or placed in long-term

treatment facilities numerous times. He has a history of self-harming behavior. Over the years,

Erik has been prescribed various antipsychotic medications. Erik has frequent mood swings and

is afraid that he might hurt himself or others ifhe does not receive appropriate medication. Since

his arrival at WGYCF, Erik has been denied all medication for lengthy periods of time. He also

bas informed the Defendants and the WGYCF medical staffabout his various disorders and has

asked numerous times for appropriate mental health treatment.

181 . WOYCF medical staff's knowledge of Erik's serious mental health needs is well-

.-.--.--~

- - - - - - .~---

documented. On November 12, 2009, Marilyn Johnson, LPN, at the Central Mississippi

Correctional Facility (CMCF), conducted an intake mental health screening of Erik. This was

soon after his commitment to MDOC and before he was sent to WGYCF. Her report

documented the following infonnation: prior diagnoses ofADHD, bipolar disorder and

schizophrenia; a recent schizophrenic episode two days earlier; prescriptions for psychiatric

medications (including antipsychotics to treat schizophrenia) since the age of five; more than

five hospitalizations; current signs ofdepression and anxiety; and hallucinations. On November

15,2009, while still at CMCF, a psychiatrist named Dr. Gurdial Sandhu evaluated Erik and also

noted hallucinations, paranoia, and Erik's history ofprescriptions for antipsychotic medicines.

On November 18, 2009, Erik participated in a :MDOC Initial Psychological Evaluation Screening

at CMCF, during which he reported auditory and visual hallucinations, depression, sleep

disturbance and a family history ofmental illness. He again described in detail his extensive

mental health history and even took care to include the names of different mental institutions

where he'd been placed. All ofthis information was noted by the screener, who recommended a

psychiatric referral. Similar infonnation was noted by Nurses Leach and Hogue during their

43

health screening of Erik at WGYCF on December 22, 2009. They additionally noted that Erik felt he could lose control of his temper. 182. While at CMCF. Erik was diagnosed with ''Psychotic Disorder NOS" and "Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Moderate" and prescribed an anti-depressant and anti-psychotic medication. The first anti-depressant medication, Celexa, gave him headaches, so the
psychiatrist at CMCF, Dr. Sandhu, switched him to Prozac.
183. Erik was transferred from CMCF to WGYCF in late December 2009. He did not receive either of his prescribed mental health medications for over a month.
._ - - - - - - - - -----.--
184. Once at WGYCF, he did not see a psychiatrist until January 30,2010, when he saw Dr. Sandhu, the psychiatrist who had seen him during his intake screening at CMCF. The doctor spent only a few minutes with him on this January 30 visit at WGYCF. Dr. Sandhu noted that Erik reported "he has been treated with unknown meds while he was at CMCF." But Dr. Sandhu did not review the prior medical records and apparently did not remember that Erik was his patient at CMCF. Based on their briefmeeting, he prescribed Celexa, the same medication he had discontinued for Erik at CMCF. He failed to prescribe any anti-psychotic medication. 185. Erik finally started receiving Celexa, an anti-depressant, three days later, on February 2, 2010. Later that month, HALLC stafffailed to administer Erik's anti-depressant medication for four days. In July or August of201O, HALLC stafffailed to deliver his medication for about two weeks after they ran out of it. 186. Erik conveyed his prior diagnoses to the nurses and doctors who screened him at the Central Mississippi Correctional Facility and at WGYCF, and informed them of his need for medications to controls his mood disorders and limit the risk of harm to himself and others around him.
44

"

1---

187. At WGYCF, he told Deputy Warden Vinson about his prior diagnoses and was instructed ·to fill out a sick call request form. On December 22, 2009, Erik submitted a sick call request form saying he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, ADD and ADHD, had problems sleeping. and had previously taken the antipsychotic Seroquel, which is used for treating schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. On March 2, 2010, he submitted another sick call request saying he couldn't sleep and his medications weren't helping his nerves. On May 7. 2010, he submitted an Administrative Remedy Program (ARP) request seeking medications to control his mood swings. On August 19,2010, Erik submitted an Emergency ARP request expressffigliis fear ilianle cQulCfnurrlllmsetf6r otliers without medications to controJ-llis moO'd- - - - - - - disorders. He also wrote a letter to Commissioner Epps asking for review of his unanswered ARP request. Finally on November 1, he received a response to his May 7,2010 ARP request, written by Administrator Hogue, saying that if his medication is not working, the "appropriate step ... would be to notify the medical department and a follow-up would be scheduled with the appropriate doctor." Erik had already notified the medical department multiple.times. 188. WGYCF and HALLC staffhave ignored all of Erik's requests for medication to control bis mood disorders. He is currently prescribed two medications: Celexa and a sleeping medication, neither ofwhich is used in the treatment ofbipolar disorder or psychosis. Erik has repeatedly stated that those medications do nothing to help his mood swings-swings he fears could push him to harm to himself or others. JARED EPPERSON 189. Plaintiff Jared Epperson was diagnosed at an early age with a seizure disorder that requires him to take daily medication (Depakote). On average, WGYCF medical staff has failed

45

to deliver Jared his seizure medication at least once per week, and multiple times has failed to deliver it for four to five days in a row. 190. On one these occasions, in October 2009, Jared broke the sprinkler head in his cell in a desperate attempt to get his seizure medication. Nine months later, he was indicted for damaging jail property, was convicted, and now has to serve two additional years in prison.
191. Just recently, in late October 2010, HALLC medical staff failed to give him his
medication for at least four days. He suffered recuning headaches during this period. Every day
he told the nurses on pill call that he needed his medication, but they responded that they had no - ".- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - -
medicine to give him. 192. Because the medical staff has not consistently delivered Jared's seizure medication, and WGYCF staff has failed to respond to his complaints, Jared has been exposed to a substantial risk of serious harm. EDWARD WHITE 193. Edward White needs intensive mental health services. However, he is deprived of counseling and other therapy because of Defendants' failure to provide or ensure adequate psychological assessments and mental health services to youth at WGYCF. 194. The care currently being provided to Edward is grossly deficient given his suicidal tendencies and self-harnling b ehavior. Evaluations by doctors are wholly cursory and last no more than two to three minutes. Edward receives no counseling or other therapeutic services, and HALLe staff have been inconsistent in administering his prescribed medication. 195. For more than one year, Edward has consistently communicated his need for intensive mental health services. He has expressed a desire to kill himself numerous times and informed medical staff of audio and visual hallucinations. For example, on June 8, 2009, Edward wrote on
46

,
a medical service request form, "Thinking bout killing myself. Am kinda crazy." On October 9, 2009, Edward told NUISe C. Stewart, "I feel like I'm going to lcill myself. My head is messed up because of my mama. I can't be here. I need some help bad." On October 31, 2009, Edward told a doctor that be was thinking ofkilling himself because rus mother and sister were dead. He also said he was hearing "crazy" voices and seeing "little men" that were after him. Meanwhile, in October 2009, medical staff failed to provide Edward his prescribed anti~depressant medication for two weeks. On November 14,2009, Edward told Dr. Gurmal Sandhu that be was suicidal and wanted to be transferred to East Mississippi Correctional Facility, where he believed he could get
- -ad7e-qu-a:te--m- -en:t-a;l-;h-e-aCIt:;h-; ervices. On December 12,2009, he told Dr. Sandhu he was suicidal
because his father passed away the week earlier. He also was hearing voices and feeling
paranoid. On December 17, 2009, Edward told Dr. Sutton that he wanted. to die and dreamed about people killing him and mentioned that his mother, father and "homeboys" are dead. On
December 27, he -told Dr. Sandhu be had a nervous breakdown. In 2009, he spent a total of nearly five months in suicide prevention housing. 196. Edward's mental illness is so serious it manifests in self-harming behavior that includes scratching and cutting himself, carving into his stomach with a metal razor, and eating his own
feces. His file reveals that HALLe medical staff have been well aware of these behaviors, but
have failed to provide him with the care needed to alleviate his serious mental illness. 197. On April 29, 2010 and May 8, 2010, Edward submitted medical service request forms seeking help for his strong desire to injure himself. At the end ofMay 2010, Edward cut his left arm with a razor. 198. On February 17, 2010, Edward submitted an Administrative Remedy Program (ARP) grievance in which he expressed his need for therapy and more time with doctors. In June 201 0,
47

Edward sent a letter to ~ommissioner Epps requesting review of his February 201 0 grievance. On August 19, 2010, Edward submitted an Emergency ARP request as well on the same issue. None of these efforts have secured Edward the mental health services he needs.
IDEA. Section 504. ADA. and State Law Violations: Denial of Access to Educational Services
199. When it created the WGYCF, the Mississippi Legislature passed a law mandating that WGYCF "shall provide any juvenile offender housed in the facility with continuing education throughout his incarceration which leads to the presentation of a high school diploma or General Education Development (!>ED)..llquiya1ent.~CMiss~Co.de Ann.-$4.7~5.09.!R(20l0). 200. Federal law requires that youth eligible youth who are imprisoned at WGYCF receive special education services pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, §§ 1400 et seq ("IDEA"), which requires that all students with disabilities receive a free and appropriate education. The implementing regulations of the IDEA provide that "[yJouth with disabilities through age seventeen who are incarcerated in adult prisons will be identified and provided special education and related services." 34 C.F.R. § 300.101(a), § 300.102(a)(2). In addition, "[yJouth with disabilities aged eighteen through twenty-one who are incarcerated in adult prisons are also entitled to a free and appropriate education if they were previously identified as baving a disability under IDEA." 34 C.F.R. §300.102(a)(2).
201. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title n of the Americans with Disabilities Act
prohibit public entities from discriminating against individuals with disabilities. Pursuant to
Section 504 and Title n, public entities are prohibited from excluding youth with disabilities
from participating in or receiving educational and related services. Each student with a disability must be provided access to all programs provided to non-disabled students. 42 U.S.C. § 12132; 29 U.S.C. § 794; 34 C.P.R. §§ 104.21. Furthermore, Section 504 and Title II require that each
48

disabled student be provided reasonable accommodations and modifications designed to provide meaningful access to educational benefits, or as necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability 34 C.F.R. § 104.33; 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7). 202. The United States Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has routinely determined that, as recipients of federal financial assistance, state educational agencies like the Mississippi Department of Corrections are ultimately responsible for ensuring the provision of a free appropriate public education to each qualified person in its jurisdiction under Section 504.
Individuals with Disabilities Educ. L. Rep., 352:627-631, 628-29, OCR Ruling: Complaint No.
- - _ . _ - _ . ,~::;-:-----~-.-- "--:-;C;:-;--C.--. . -~.-- . _ -
03-88-1024 West Virginia Department a/Education. MDOC is also a recipient of federal funding and is therefore subject to Section 504's requirements. 203. An interagency agreement between MDOC and MDE specifies that:MDE is responsible for ensuring compliance with the IDEA and that "all educational programs for children with disabilities in the state... will be under the general supervision of individuals in the state who are responsible for educational programs for children with disabilities and shall meet the educational standards of the MDE." 204. The interagency agreements recites the agencies' responsibility to identify youth who are eligible for special education services, to evaluate youth for such services, to develop individualized education plans for such youth, and to regularly report detailed information regarding the provision of special education services. 205. In a November 2006 monitoring report, MOE documented MOOC's systemic failure to comply with the IDEA and with the interagency agreement. As a result of these failures, MDE concluded that youth incarcerated at Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility were denied a free and appropriate education. The systemic failures documented by MDE include a failure to
49

•
identify and evaluate students with special education needs and a fai lure to provide necessary related services. Related services include interventions like counseling that are required in order for a youth to receive educational benefit. 206. Nearly four years after MDE first documented and became aware ofWGYCF's systemic failures to provide educational services, youth are still denied the educational services to which they are entitled under federal and state law. 207. While Miss. Code §47-5-949 requires that all youth incarcerated at WGYCF receive educational services that will lead to a high school diploma or GED "throughout" their
- --- - - -mcarceration, a recent PEER review reveals that only oii"e-quarter of the youth imprisoned at
WGYCF receive any kind of educational services. Youth are frequently denied access to educational services and their requests to attend school are ignored or denied. 208. A large number of youth ~carcerated at WGYCF live with learning disabilities, cognitive impainnents and mental health conditions that interfere with their learning. Many of these youth struggle with basic reading and writing, were identified as eligible for special education services before entering WGYCF, and received such services in school before they were incarcerated. WGYCF bas an affirmative obligation to identify these youth and to evaluate and identify youth who are under the age of seventeen and who may be eligible for special education services. 209. Defendants WGCA, GEO, Tripp, Kern, and Epps have not established an adequate system for identifying, locating, and evaluating all children with disabilities, as required by the ChildFind provisions of the IDEA. Many youth entitled to receive special education at WGYCF do not receive any special education services because the prison fails to identify them as children with disabilities. National studies conclude that between 30-70% of youthful offenders are
50

,
eligible for special education services. Mary Magee Quinn, Robert B. Rutherford, Peter E. Leone, David M. Osher & David M. Poirier, Youth With Disabilities in Juvenile Corrections: A National Survey, 71 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN 339, 340 (2005). At WGYCF, only 46 youth-less than 4 % of the entire population of approximately 1200 youth-are currently identified as eligible for special education services. In 2006, MDE documented that WGYCF identified only 2-4 % of its population as eligible for special education services. Since then.. 'MDE has failed to ensure that WGYCF modified its ChildFind procedures to ensure the identification of all eligible youth incarcerated at WGYCF. --- ---------------:-- .------------c----210. Many youth at WGYCF require individualized related services such as psychological services to benefit from special education, but WGYCF provides no such services. In 2006, MDE documented that WGYCF provided inadequate related services to students with disabilities. "MDE noted that the only related services available were ·counseling, and even these services were offered so infrequently that they were unlikely to meet the educational needs of students with disabilities. Four years later, WGYCF has not increased its related services offering. To the contrary, the population of the facility has expanded, and WGYCF still relies on the same part-time contractual service providers that"MDE found inadequate when the facility housed significantly fewer youth. The quality and frequency of related services has actually decreased since 2006. 211. WGYCF does not provide individualized special education services for youth at the facility in the least restrictive environment. Most students who are determined eligible for special education are placed together in segregated classes, Tegardless of their individual disabilities or educational levels.
51

"
212. Youth with cognitive and learning disabilities housed in protective custody are barred from accessing any educational services. WGYCF provides these youth with packets of worksheets, regardless of their individual educational needs, and denies them access to a qualified teacher and/or education professional who could provide instruction and feedback. 'The packets are not delivered on a regular schedule, but usually are given to youth every two to three weeks. For those youth who either cannot read or who lack the cognitive functioning to teach themselves, the educational "packets" are meaningless. These youth gain no education benefit from merely receiving packets that they cannot read or understand. This fai lure to accommodate
the disabilities of youth who live with disabilities and who require protective custody violates
federal law. 213. Despite having clear notice ofWGYCF's IDEA and 504 violations, MDE has failed to promulgate and implement policies, practices and procedures to ensure that students with disabilities who are incarcerated at WGYCF receive the services to which they are entitled under federal law. 214. GEO and WOCA fail to comply with their obligations pursuant to state law to provide educational services to "provide any juvenile offender housed in the facility with continuing education tlrroughout his incarceration which leads to the presentation of a high school diploma or General Education Development (OED) equivalent." 215. The deprivations of educational services suffered by the WOYCF youth described below illustrate how the Defendants' policy and practice failing to comply with federal and state education laws place unnamed class members at a substantial risk of irreparable harm. JAMARlO BRADY
52

" 216. Plaintiff Jamario Brady has been in WGYCF for three years and has never attended
classes. He entered WGYCF at the age of fifteen and is now nineteen. For most afhis time at WGYCF, Jamario has been housed in protective custody, where he has received occasional packets of worksheets instead of instruction by a teacher, and no help or feedback on his work. 217.. Before his incarceration, Jamario was identified as a youth in need of special education and related services and received such services at the last school he attended in accordance with an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). Jamario has difficulty reading and writing. He also has behavioral issues that interfere with his ability to learn. WGYCF has failed to identify Jamario as
I - - - - - -a youtheIfgiole for sPecial education and has failed to provide him with special education and
related services.
COZVSCOTI
218. Before his incarceration, Plaintiff Cozy Scott was identified as a youth in need of special education and related services and received special education at the last school be attended in accordance with an IEP. However, in his years at WGYCF, be bas not been identified as eligible for special education. As a result, be has received no special education or related services. 219. Cozy was incarcerated at WGYCF in 2008 and then again starting in February 0[2009. Around the second week of October 2010, Cozy was enrolled in scbool for the first time at WGYCF. About two weeks later, he was removed from school. Since then, he has not been reenrolled in school and has not received alternative fonns of education. The judge who sentenced Cozy ordered him to earn his GED during the term of his incarceration. Under his current circwnstances, he cannot obtain aGED. LAMARCUS CURRY
53

220. PlaintiffLamarcus Curry is twenty-one years old and has severe difficulties reading and spelling. He recently tested at a first-grade reading level. Before his incarceration, he was identified as a youth in need of special education and related services and received such services
at the last school he attended in accordance with an IEP.
221. When Lamarcus arrived at WGYCF, he requested to enroll in school. WGYCF placed Lamarcus in a regular classroom setting without first administering an appropriate test to evaluate his abilities and needs. Because he was not able to learn in that setting, he told both his teacher and the principal of the WGYCF scbool about his special education status and his
-----~ ina= bility to read or write-. T=h- ey g- ave-h;i-m;--no-sup-ple-mental assistance or services. When be was
moved to a different zone, he waited one full month before being placed back in school. He told
his new teacher that he could not read or write and had previously been placed in special education classes, but, again, received no special education or related services. Over one month
ago, Lamarcus was withdrawn from school; he was told that he could not attend school because the facility lacks the appropriate teachers for him. Lamarcus has not attended school in over one
month. FREDRlCK WHITE 222. Before entering WGYCF, PlaintiffFredrick White was identified as a youth in need of special education and related services and received such services in the last school he attended in
accordance with an IEP. Fredrick entered MDOC custody at the age of eighteen and is now
twenty. 223. Fredrick White has lived in protective custody at WGYCF since January 2010. Since entering protective custody. he has not been allowed to attend classes and has received no instruction from a teacher; instead, he receives packets of worksheets every one to three weeks.
54

Fredrick receives no help in completing the worksheets and never receives any feedback on the work he submits. The worksheets are not individualized for him and are not calculated to help him receive educational benefit and earn his GED. WGYCF has not provided him with individualized special education or related services. ERIC BALL 224. Plaintiff Eric Ball was previously identified as a youth in need of special education and related services and received such services at his last school accordance with an IEP before, entering prison. Eric entered MOOC custody at the age of nineteen and is now twenty. WGYCF fias fiilled to identify Eric as a youth eligible for special education and has denied him special education and related services. 225. Eric has severe trouble reading and writing. He currently lives in protective custody where he receives packets of worksheets every one to three weeks in lieu of attending school. No one helps Eric complete the worksheets or provides any instruction or feedback on his work. He has received no educational benefit during his time at WGYCF.
EXHAUSTION 226. The named Plaintiffs have exhausted all available administrative remedies..
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF First Claim
Eighth Amendment Violations: Dangerously Violent Conditions of Confinement By subjecting Plaintiffs to dangerously violent conditions of confinement and by exhibiting deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs' substantial risk of serious physical injury as a result of these
55

'" .
conditions Defendants OEO, WGCA, Tripp, Vinson, and Epps violate the Plaintiffs' rights to be free from cruel and unusual punisbment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Second Claim
Eighth Amendment Violations: Protection from Harm and Deliberate Indifference to Excessive use of Force

L - . _..

By exhibiting deliberate indifference to the substantial risk ofharm Plaintiffs face as a result of WGYCF's policy and practice of subjecting youth to excessive use of force and by failing to

protect the Plaintiffs from this harm, Defendants GEO, WGCA, Tripp, Vinson, and Epps violate

the Plaintiffs' rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Third Claim

Eighth Amendment Violations: Punitive Isolation

By subjecting Plaintiffs to punitive isolation without penological justification and for the purpose

of inflicting wanton .and unnecessary discomfort, pain, and humiliation, and by lmowingly

allowing this practice to continue, Defendants WGCA, GEO, Tripp, Vinson, Kern, and Epps

violate Plaintiffs' rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eigl;lth and

, ,

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Fourth Claim

Eighth Amendment Violations: Deliberate Indifference to Plaintiffs' Serious Medical and Mental Health Needs

By failing to provide constitutionally adequate medical and mental care to address the Plaintiffs'

serious medical and mental health needs and by allowing the policies and practices of providing

56

grossly substandard healthcare to continue, Defendants HALLe, Walnut Grove Correctional Authority, GEO, Tripp, Kern, Hogue, and Epps violate the Plaintiffs' rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Fifth Claim IDEA Violations: Denial of Free and Appropriate Public Education By failing to provide WGYCF youth who qualify as students with disabilities a free appropriate public education, Defendants GEO, WGCA, Burnham, Tripp, Kern, and Epps violate the Plaintiffs' rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, §§ 1400 et seq..
- - - - - - - - -----.- - . - - - - --S;'cix-:t:h-C:"l'a-cn·-n - - - - - - -.. - --_._._-- -

Section 504 and ADA Violations: Unlawful Denials of Educational Services

By failing to ensure that WGYCF youth with disabilities have equal access to educational

services, Defendants WGCA, GEO, Tripp, Kern, Buntham, and Epps violate the Plaintiffs' rights

under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 and Title Il of the .

Seventh Claim

State Law Violation: Denial of Educational Services

By failing to provide youth at WGYCF with continuing education throughout their incarceration

and by failing to allow WGYCF youth to earn a high scbool diploma or a GED, Defendants

Tripp, Kern, GEO, and WGCA violate the Plaintiffs rights under Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-949

(20 10) .

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

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

a.

Declare that the acts and omissions oftbe Defendants violate Plaintiff' s constitutional

rights and federal law;

57

r-
i

b.

Enter a preliminary and pennanent injunction requiring the Defendants, their agents.

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

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

c.

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

d.

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

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITfED, this the 15th day
,

--.------- --_. -----

_

Sheil'!.f,, __ ·,Miss_BarNo_101652 Mississippi Youth Justice Project

A Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center

921 N. President Street, Suite B

Jackson, Mississippi 39202

601-948-8882 (phone)

601-948-8885 (fax)

Marion Chartoff (pro hac vice to be filed) Jadine Johnson (pro hac vice to be filed) Dominique Nong (pro hac vice to be filed) Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Ave. Montgomery, Alabama 361 04 334-956-8200 (phone) 334-956-8481 (fax)

Robert B. McDuff, Miss. Bar. No. 2532 767 North Congress Street Jackson, Mississippi 39202 601-969-0802 (phone) 601-969-0804 (fax)

Margaret Winter (pro hac vice to be filed) The National Prison Project of the ACLU Foundation, Inc. 915 Islh Street, N.W., Seventh Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 202-393-4930 (phone) 202-393-4931 (fax)

58

 
 Case .3.;·.:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-3 Filed 03/26/12 Page 1 of 15

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DMSION

C.B., by and through his next fi'iend,

)

Charleston DePriest, et al.

)

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

~

)

)

WALNUT GROVE CORRECTIONAL

)

AUTHORITY, eta!.

)

)
_______________D_e_fe_nd_an_ts_. _))

CLASS ACT10N Civil Action No. 3:1 Ocv663

CONSENT DECREE On or about November 16, 2010, Plaintiffs filed the above-captioned suit asserting constit1J.tional and oiatutory challenges to conditions in the Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility. Plaintiff.q and the Mississippi Department of Corrections stipulate and ag~:ee to the following provisions in partial resolution of the litigation. This Consent Decree contains provisions related to a settlement subclass comprised of all individuals who are now or in the f1.1ture will be imprisoned in the Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility.

I. Introduction. (l) In order to resolve the allegations in the Complaint related to protection from hrum and violence, excessive use of force, punitive isolation, ru1d inadequate medical care with regard to
1

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-3 Filed 03/26/12 Page 2 of 15
individuals who are now or in the future will be imprisoned in the Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility (''WGYCF"), the parties have entered into this Consent Decree. (2) The parties agme to a settlement subclass comprised of all individuals who are now or who in the future will be imp1isoned in the WGYCF. The tem1s ofthis Consent Decree applfonly to this subclass and only to the WGYCF, and do not follow a Plaintiff who is transferred, discharged, or otherwise leaves WGYCF. (3) The Defendant in this lawsuit is Commissioner Christopher Epps, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections ("MDOC"). This Consent Decree refers to actions and inactions that will be undertaken by Cmmnissioner Epps, his staff and contractors under his direction. For ease of reference only, this Consent Decree refers to "MDOC" thrC\ugh this Agreement. The Parties intend for this Agreement to bind Conunissioner Epps and his assigns. (4) The term "Walnut Gwve Youth Correctional Facility" or "WGYCF" hereinafter refers to the correctional facility located in Leake CoU!lty, Mississippi as provided for in Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-943 (Rev. 2007) and located at 1650 Highway 492, Walnut Grove, Mississippi 39189. The terms of this Consent Decrco apply to the facility located at this address, regardless of whether MDOC and/or the Mississippi Legislature change the name of the facility. (5) The parties stipulate that nothing in this Consent Decree constitutes either an admission of liability, or any evidence of liability, with respect to suits for damages or any claims asserted against the named Defendants with respect to imnates who are housed, were housed, or may be housed in the future, at the Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility.
2

Case 3:10-cv-00663.-.C....W.....R- ·-F-K·B- -D-oc-u-m-ent 75-3 Filed 03/26/12 Page 3 of 15
(6) Nothing in this Consent Decree will prevent the State of Mississippi and/or MDOC from modifying the mission of, or closing WGYCF, or developing alternative comrnnnity placements for the persons currently in the facility as set forth herein. (7) This Consent Decree is not intended to have any preclusive effect except between the parties. The parties acknowledge that the t·cmedies contained in this agreement are not necessarily appropriate for facilities other than the WGYCF as described in this Consent Decree. (8) Individuals who are not class members are not third-pmty beneficiaries of this agreement and may uot assert any rights Ullder this Consent Decree.
II. Care Required by the Constitution and Federal Statutes. The purpose ofthis Consent Decree is to protect certain constitutional and federal statutory rights of individuals who are now or in the future will be inlprisoned at WGYCF. The te1ms and reqtdrements of this Consent Dec1•ee will be interpreted to be consistent with the remedial measures necessmy to protect these rights of the prisoners, and consistent with applicable federal law. The terms o:f tbis Consent Decree are applicable only to WGYCF.
fii. Substantive Remedial Measures. WGYCF will be operated and mainta.ined by MDOC, or by a contractor retained by MDOC, in accordance with the following conditions: A. ClassUkation and Housing System. (1) MDOC will utilize a classification system that ensures prisoners are appropriately and safely' housed within WGYCF.
3

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-3 Filed 03/26/12 Page 4 of 15
B. Protection from Harm. (1) At alJ times, prisoners will be provided with reasonably safe living conditions and will be protected from violence and other physical or sexual abuse by staff and other prisoners. (2) MDOC will ensure that there are sufficient numbers of adequately trained direct care and supervisory statr, and sufficient nLJmbers of professional staff. Within 90 days of the Com-t's approval of this Consent Decree, MDOC will develop and implement a staffing plan for direct care, supervisory, and professional staff to ensure that prisoners are adequately supervised and protected from harm and that prisoners have adequate access to medical services and adequate time out of their cells. (3) Mechanical, physical or chemical restraints such as O.C. spray, pepper spray and mace will not be used to punish prisoners. If any restraint is necessary, the force must be the minimum amount required to safely contaln the prisoners, and the restraints must be removed as soon as they are no longer necessary. Except in emergency circtunstances, no prisoner should be subject to restraints until staffhave first attempted verbal de-escalation techniques. (4) Physical force and paln aversion behavior management techniques will not be used to punish prisoners. If physical force or pain aversion behavior management techniques are necessary, the force must be the minimum amount required to safely contain the prisoner. Except in emergency circumstances, no prisoner will be subject to physical force until staff have first attempted verbal de-escalati.on techniques. (5) Except in exigent circumstances whe~'e no delay is possible because of the risk ofbodily injury or se11ous damage to property creating a tlu·eat to security or except when totally impracticable, use of force will be captm·ed on an audio-visual recording. MDOC will provide sufficient
4

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-3 Filed 03/26/12 Page 5 of 15

·.-.:·_

audio-visual recording equipment at WGYCF to ensure that use of force as specified above will be recorded. The summary use of force reports will be provided to Plaintiffs' counsel on a monthly basis, and copies ofvideotapes will be available for inspection by Plaintiffs' counsel. Ifthe use of force was not recorded, the use of force report must document why a recording was not made. (6) Except in exigent circumstances where no delay is possible because ofthe risk of bodily injury or serious damage to property creating a tltreat to security, or except when totally impracticable, the Shift Commander or Warden will be notified and his or her consent obtained before force is used. Except in emergency circumstances, the Shift Commander or Warden will visit the prisoner before consenting to the use of force, to determine if force is necessary. A log will be maintained recording the efforts made to obtain the presence ofthe Shift Commander or Warden and a mental health professional prior to the use of force. These logs will become part of the monthly reports refetTed to in Section III B(7) below. (7) All physical interventions, including use offorce and mechanical and chemical restraints, must be documented in writing. The written docmnentation will include a detailed description of the physical intervention and the verbal de-escalation attempt(s) that occuued prior to the intervention. MDOC will use tl:ris docmnentatlon to review each physical intervention and to tmalyze patterns ofuse afforce and restraint in an effort to reduce such incidents. (8) Each use of force will be reviewed pursuant to MDOC's use of force policy and standard operating procedures. (9) MDOC will develop protocols and procedures to ensure the involvement, where possible, of a mental health professional prior to use of force ou prisoners with Serious Mentallliness, as defined in this Consent Decree.
5

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-3 Filed 03/26/12 Page 6 of 15 ·.·:·
(1 0) MDOC will develop policies and procedures that will limit the use chemical restraints. Chemical restraints will not be used as a punishment or to gain compliance. Chemical restraints may only be used to prevent seriously bodily injury or serious damage to property creating a threat to security. Only staff who have been trained on the appropriate use of chemical restraints may regularly cmTy chemical restraints on the living units. (1 1) Issuance of restraint equipment will be documented in a bound Restraint Equipment Log Book. Staff members who are issued restraint equipment will iuiti.al in the appropriate section of the Log Book when checking equipment out of storage. The inventory number, name of the equipment, time in, and time out should be noted in the Log Book. Containers of chemical restraints that have been signed out for a shift will be weighed at the beginning and conclusion of that shift by the Shift Supervisor or his designee. The inventory numbers and weight of the containers will be documented in the Log Book. (12) All prisoners who have been exposed to chemical restraints will be immediately removed from the contan1inated m·ea, will promptly be permitted to shower, and will be examined by medical staff to see if transport to the clinic is needed. Any contaminated liviug area will be decont<nninated before aprisoner is returned to it. If emergency circmnstances create 1111 inuninent threat to secmity and prevent staff from immediately removing prisoners from cont;nninated areas, MDOC will promptly provide prisoners who have been exposed to the chemical agents with all adequate supply of appropriate decontaminating agents. (13) MDOC will not utilize, direct, or allow prisoners to enforce rules or impose discipline on other prisoners. (14) MDOC will take reasonable steps to protect prisoners at WGYCF from verbal abuse and
6

C·...;a·.·se 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-3 Filed 03/26/12 Page 7 of 15
harassment. MDOC will develop policies, procedures, and practices that protect prisoners from abuse, hm·assment, and p1.mishment on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender non-conformity. (15) MDOC will prohibit staff from forcing prisoners at WGYCF to engage in physical exertion that inflicts paln or discomfort, for example the practice of forcing prisoners to "alligator walk" and to "duck wall<." C. Long-Term Cell Confinement. (1) MDOC will not subject prisoners to long-term cell confinement except in conformity with this Consent Decree. For purposes ofthis agreement, "cell confinement" means confinement to a cell for more thm1 twenty-one hours a day. "Long tenn" with tespcct to cell confinement mem1s confinement for more than sixty days, '(2) Prisoners may be held in long-term cell confinement only if:
a. they have inflicted serious physical injury on another while incarcerated; b. they are actively ih.volved in dismptive gang activity; c. ·fuey have escaped or attempted to escape from within a security perimeter or while under
direct supervision; d. they have connnitted a felony while on escape fTom a community correctional facility; or e. the Commissioner or his designee determines, based on specific objective criteria set forth
in writing, that there is a significant risk that the prisoner will cause physical injury to pri.son staff, other prisoners, or members ofthe public ifhe is housed in general population, even at the highest security level. (3) Prisoners will not be held in long-tenn cell confmement for the following reasons:
7

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-3 Filed 03/26/12 Page 8 of 15
a. solely on their classification scores or for refusing to work or participate in programs; b. solely because they escaped from a youth facility or commUllity co1Tectional facility; c. solely because they are subject to a felony detainer, even if for a serious crime, from
another jmisdiction; d. solely because they have tested positi.ve for marijuana; or e. solely because they need protective custody. Prisoners needing protection will be housed
and accorded access to visits, canteen, and other privileges consistent with their custody levels. (4) Every 90 days, the classification committee will reconsider whether any prisoner who has been placed on long term cell confinement should be reclassified and returned to the general populatiqn. (5) For the duration of tlJ.is Consent Decree, MDOC will maintain and provide to Plaintiffs' counsel a cun-ent list of all WGYCF prisoners placed in long-term cell confmement with the date of and reason for placement, and the date oflast.review, D. Programming and Behavior Management. (1) MDOC will revise the Regimented Inmate Discipline Program to remove the paramilitary elements of the program. (2) MDOC will develop a behavior management policy that incorporates graduated sanctions for rule violations, and positive incentives for good behavior. (3) Except as limited by acceptable disciplinary procedures and p1mishment or a specific threat to safety, the norm will be that prisoners will be allowed out of their cells most of the hours of the day, including access to at least one hom· a day of outside recreation, weather pe!Tnitting.
8

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-3 Filed 03/26/12 Page 9 of 15
E. Disciplinary Due Process and Grievances. (1) MDOC will revise, if needed, its disciplinary procedures to ensure that prisoners receive adequate due process before the imposition of discipliuary sanctions (includiug rule violatiou reports) that would affect a prisoner's ability to earn the following: Earned Time Allowance, pursuant to Miss. Code Ann.§ 47-5-138(1); Trusty Earned Time, pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. 47-5-138.1; Meritorious Earned Time, pursuffilt to Miss. Code § · 47-5-142(2); Intensive Supervision ProgJ·arn, pmsuant to Miss. Code Arm § 47-5-1003; Community Work Center I Pre-release Centers, as described in Miss. Code Ann§ 47-5-1 81; or placement in the Regimented Inmate Discipline Program, (2) MDOC will develop an a.dequate grievance procedure that is accessible to prisoners ofvarying English proficiency levels. (3) MDOC w.lll notify all prisoners of the rules of the institution, and will clearly descdbe the conduct that will be considered a rule violation and that may subject a prisoner to discipline. I<'. Suicide Prevention. (!) Within 90 days of the execution of this agreement, prisoners placed on suicide watch will be housed in a unit determined by a mental health professional to be appropriate. A mental health professional will direct the an1ount and location of out-of-cell activity for the prisoner with the goal of providing the fewest restrictions appropriate for the prisoner. (2) MDOC will develop a suicide prevention poJicy that includes the following:
a. a prohibition on placing prisoners on suicide watch as punishment or without medical justification;
b. instnwtions for thoroclghly documenting the suicide precautions that are administered to
9

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB.,; ...· Document 75-3 Filed 03/26/12 Page 10 of 15
each prisoner who is placed on suicide watch; c. a process for conducting a review of any and all instances of attempted suicide or suicide.
TI1e review process will include a committee of staff (including mental health stafl) who will review every attempted suicide or suicide in order to refme policies and procedures to decrease the number of these incidents; d. all prisoners placed on suicide watch will be assessed by mental health professional as soon. as possible but no later than 18 hours from being placed on suicide watch; any prisoner placed on suicide watch will be re-assessed by a mental hearth professional at least every 18 hours; and e. if the initial assessment indicates that the prisoner is at a high risk for suicide and/or selt~lmrm for longer than five days, that prisoner will be transferred to a facility that can provide intensive mental health services. Ifthe assessment indicates that the prisoner needs less-inte<nsive, but ongoing, supervision in order to prevent suicide and/or self-hann, a qualified mental health · professional will develop an individual suicide prevention/treatment plan and will direct the appropriate unit to house the prisoner. This
an plan will be updated daily until the prisoner is no longer j1.1dged to be on active suicide
"watch" statas. (3) If an inmate has been deprived of his regular clothing (other than shoelaces and belts), a qualified mental health professional will determine if a medical or mental health justification exists for the continued deprivation. The deprivation may continue only if medical and mental healtl1 justifications exist for the continued depriva.tion and the mental health clinician mal<es specific written findings explaining these justifications. Each 24-hour clinical reassessment must
10

Case 3:10-cv-00663-C-W.... · R -FKB Document 75-3 Filed 03/26/12 Page 11 of 15 - -- ------------:-:---~---,-----,----~
include written findings explaining any medical/mental health justifications for any continuing dep1ivation, (4) If an imnale has been subject to cell confinement or deprived of access to regular progrannning and activities, a qualified mental health professional will detennine if a medical or mental health justification exists for the continued cell confinement and/or deprivation, The cell confinement and/or deprivation may continue only if medical and mental health justif!cations exist for the continued cell confinement and/or deprivation and the qtialified mental health professional makes specific written findings explaining these justifications, Bach 24-hour clinical reassessment must include written fmdings explaining the medical and mental health justifications for any continuing cell confmement and/or deprivation. G. Medical Care. (I) Prisoners will be provided adequate, appropriate, and timely medical and dental care to meet · their individualized needs, including the treatment of acute and chronic conditions. Care will be provided at WGYCF, or the Prisoners will be lnmsferred to a facility that complies with the National Commission on Co!Tectional Health Standards for Health Care in Adult Confinement Facilities. (2) WGYCF will not be used -for long-term housing of prisoners with Serious Mental Illness. Prisoners with Serious Menta! Illness must be tnmsferred to a facility where they will receive appropriate mental health treatment For purposes of this Consent Decree, "long-term" means more than 14 days, "Prisoners with Serious Mental Illness" means those with an Axis I diagnosis of a major mental illness (for example Schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder), Bipolar Disorder, Depressive Disorder or o1her serious Mood Disorder; prisoners who are signifwantly
11

Case 3:10•.•-.""cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-3 Filed 03/26/12 Page 12 of 15
disabled by menta! retardation or an organic bt·ain disorder; and prisoners who are significantly disabled by any other mental disorder (for exarnple, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Post·traumatic Str<;~ss Disorder, or any disorder characterized by repetitive self-hann). (3) A medical professional will direct the amount and location of out-of-cell activity for the prisoners who are in need of medical care with the goal of providing the fewest restrictions appropriate for the prisoner. H. Contract Monitoring and Revisions. (I) MDOC will develop comprehensive con1xact monitoring policies and procedures, md will monitor the contracts with tl1e operator of WGYCF and the health care provider at WGYCF in compliance with these policies and procedures, (2) MDOC will revise the contracts currently in place with the operator of WGYCF and the health care provider at WGYCF to incorporate the tel1tts ofthis Consent Decree.
IV. Enforcement and Monitoring. (1) The parties agree to the appointment of James Austin and Steven Mmtin as monitors responsible for tracking compliance with the tenus ofthis Consent Decree. The monitors may, if asked by MDOC, provide technical assistance to MDOC to promote compliance with the terms of this Consent Decree. The monitors will be responsible for submitting reports to counsel every four months following the Court's approval of this Consent Decree. The monitors will provide their reports in draft form to the patiies for comments a:t least two weeks before issuance. Should either of the monitor positions become vacant and the parties are unable to agree on a replacement, the parties will recommend candidates to the ma.gistra.te judge and the pmiies agree to accept the
12

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-3 Filed 03/26/12 Page 13 of 15
candid~te chosen by the magistrate judge. The reasonable cost for the experts' fees and expenses related to monitoring will be borne by MDOC. (2) The monitors and Plaintiffs' counsel, with advance notice, will have full and complete access to WGYCF, to all facility records (including medical and mental health records), and to staff (who will be directed to cooperate with. the experts and Plaintiffs' counsel), as well as to all subclass members. State attomeys may be present at interviews of staff and tours of facilities, The experts and Plaintiffs' counsel will comply with all applicable federal and state laws with regard to confidentiality of such records and information. (3) Witl1in 90 days of 'lite Court's approval of this Consent Decree, MDOC expert James Austin and Plaintiffs' expert Steve Martin will collaborate in a non-binding manner with MDOC to promulgate the policies, procedures, classiftcation, and staffing plans necessary to effectuate this C(msent Decree. Plaintiffs' cmmsel will compensate Steve Martin only for expenses related to drafting these policies, procedures and plans and that expense will not be the responsibility of MDOC. MDOC retains the final authority over the drafting and wording of the policies and staffing plans, as long as the policies and plans are consistent with the tem1s of this Consent Decree. Once drafted, MDOC will submit the draft policies and plans to Plaintiffs' co1msel. Plaintiffs' counsel will promptly notify MDOC of any objections, with an explanation as to how the draft is inconsistent with the terms ofthis Consent Decree, and will suggest revisions. MDOC will revise policies, procedures, plans, and other written documents as necessary to conform with · the tenus of this Consent Decree. If either party is unsatisfied with the resolution, then either party may invoke the assistance ofthe magistrate judge for mediation. If mediation fails to resolve the dispute, t11e Plaintiffs may file a motion to enforce this Consent Decree.
13

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-3 Filed 03/26/12 Page 14 of 15
(4) The patiies agree that the terms of prospective relief afforded by the tenns of this Consent Decree are narrowly drawn, pertain exclusively to the subclass defined herein, extend no further than. necessary to correct the violations of federal rights at issue, are the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violations of federal lights at issue, and all terms and conditions of this Consent Decree will be construed in accord with federal law, including the Plison Litigation Reform Act. (5) The pm·ties agree that the terms of this Consent Decree will. be submitted to the Court for approval, and the Comt will retain julisdiction to enforce the te1111s thereof. (6) Nothing in this Decree alters the requirements ofthe Prison Litigation Refo!1ll Act, including the exhmLStion requirement, with respect to at1y class member who seeks to assert atl individualized dispute against MDOC, including a drunages action, which is umelated to the terms ofthis Consent Decree. Nothing in this Consent Decree bars a member of the Plaintiffclass from bringing an individualized suit seeking drunages or prospective relief m1der state and/or federal . law. Only class cocmsel may seek to enforce the terms of this Consent Decree. (7) If Plaintiffs believe that MDOC has substantially failed to comply with any obligation m1<ier this Consent Decree, Plaintiffs' counsel will give written notice of that failure to MDOC. The parties will conduct good faith discussions to resolve the dispute. Ifthe parties are unable to reach agreement within 7 days of Plaintiffs' written notice, the parties will submit the dispute to mecliation befme the magistrate judge who is assigned to this case. The parties will attempt in good faith to mediate U1e dispute. If the pruiies are m1able to resolve the dispute within 21 days from the date of Plaintiffs' written notice, Plaintiffs may seek enforcement of this Consent Decree from the Court. In the case of an emergency posing an immediate threat to the health or safety of the
14

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-3 Filed 03/26/12 Page 15 of 15

individuals housed at WGYCF, Plaintiffs' counsel may omit the notice il!ld cure requirements herein (including the provision regarding mediation) before seeldng enforcement from the Court. (8) This Consent Decree will tenninate five years fTOm the date it is filed with the Court, The Consent Decree may also terminate earlier than five years from the date it is filed with the Court if the Court determines that MDOC substantially complied with each of the provisions of the Consent Decree and has continuously maintained substil!ltial compliance for at least two years. Noncompliance with mere technicalities, m· a brief lapse in compliance dming a period of otherwise sustained compliance, will not constitute failure to maintaia substantial compliance. The Comi may extend this Consent Decree and/or ao.y of its provisions twice, and each extension may be no longer than one year upon a findiag that MDOC failed to substantially comply.

She , Bedi, M1ss. Bar No. 101652 Southem Poveliy Law Center 44 31 Canal Street New Orleans, LA 70119
Margm·et Winter (pro hac vice) The National Prison Project of the ACLU Foundation, Inc. 915 151h Street, N.W., Seventh Floor Washington, D.C. 20005

mn:tJssioner Christopher B. Epp Mississippi Department of Corrections 723 North President Street Jackson, MS 39202 For the Defendant

Robert B. McDuft; Miss. Bar. No. 2532

767 North Congress Street

Jackson, Mississippi 39202

For the Plaintiffs

----- ~r;/._day Dated and entered this

of Z/e .J.!:::.

2012

15

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-4 Filed 03/26/12 Page 1 of 5
Memorandum of Agreement Mental Health -WGYCF
1

--

--------------~-----

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-4 Filed 03/26/12 Page 2 of 5

I. INTRODUCTION
(A) This Memorandum of Agreement ("MOA") between the certified class of Plaintiffs described in subsection (G) below and Christopher Epps, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections ("MDOC") resolves litigation concerning the mental health claims in C.B., et al. v. Walnut Grove Correctional Authority, et a!., case number '3:10cv663 (S.D. Miss.). A separate settlement agreement between the parties, that the parties will seek to have the Court enter as a Consent Decree, addresses other topics agreed to between the parties. This litigation concerns conditions of confinement at the Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility ("WGYCF") (as described in Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-943 (Rev. 2007)), located at 1650 Highway 492, Walnut Grove, Mississippi 39189.)
This MOA refers to actions and inactions that will be undertaken by Commissioner Epps, his staff and contractors under his direction. For ease of reference only, this MOA refers to "MDOC" through this Agreement. The Parties intend for this Agreement to bind Commissioner Epps and his assigns.
The terms of this MOA apply to the facility located at this address, regardless of whether MDOC and/or the Mississippi Legislature change the name of the facility. TI1e terms of this MOA do not follow a Plaintiff who is transferred, discharged, or otherwise leaves WGYCF.
(B) In order to resolve the mental health claims in this litigation, the parties have entered into thisMOA.
(C) This MOA does not constitute an admission ofliability by MDOC.
(D) This MOA is not intended to have any preclusive effect except between the parties.
(E) Nothing in this MOA will prevent the State of Mississippi and/or MDOC from modifYing the mission of or closing WGYCF, or developing alternative community placements for the persons currently in the facility as set forth herein.
(F) Individuals who are not class members are not third party beneficiaries of this agreement and may not assert any rights under this agreement.
(G) The parties will jointly request that the Court enter an order certifYing a sub-class comprised of all individuals who are now or who in the future will be housed WGYCF and who live with a serious mental illness, referred to in this MOA as "Plaintiffs" or "prisoners."
II. CARE REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION
The purpose of this MOA is to protect the rights of Plaintiffs to constitutionally adequate mental health care. The terms and requirements of this MOA will be interpreted to be consistent
2

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-4 Filed 03/26/12 Page 3 of 5
with the remedial measures necessary to protect these rights, and consistent with applicable federal law.
III. MENTAL HEALTH CARE
1) MDOC will provide prisoners with adequate, appropriate, and timely mental health care to meet their individual needs, including the treatment of acute and chronic conditions. If the MDOC Office of Medical Compliance determines that appropriate mental health care cannot be provided at WGYCF, MDOC may transfer prisoners to other MDOC or NonMDOC facilities, on a permanent or temporary basis, in order to receive mental health treatroent.
2) Within 90 days of the execution of this agreement, MDOC will develop and implement policies and procedures, and will develop and implement a staffmg plan, to ensure that adequate mental health services are provided by adequate numbers of qualified mental health professionals using evidence-based, generally accepted treatment approaches.
3) Within 120 days of the execution of this agreement, Defendants will ensure that every prisoner at WGYCF who has not previously received a mental health evaluation or who is not currently being treated by a mental health professional will receive a mental health examination if that prisoner has physically attempted suicide or serious self-harm within the past year, or if that prisoner has a history of institutionalization in mental health facilities. Prisoners who are diagnosed with chronic mental health issues will receive individualized mental health treatroent plans. The plans will comport with generally accepted treatment approaches.
IV. IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING
4) Within 90 days of the Court's approval of this MOA, MDOC expert James Austin and Plaintiffs' expert Steve Martin will collaborate in a non-binding manner with MDOC to promulgate the policies, procedures, and staffing plans necessary to effectuate this MOA. Plaintiffs' counsel will compensate Steve Martin only for expenses related to drafting these policies, procedures and plans and that expense will not be the responsibility of MDOC. MDOC retains the final authority over the content, drafting, and wording of the policies and staffing plans, as long as the policies and plans are consistent with the terms of this MOA. Once drafted, MDOC will submit the draft policies and plans to Plaintiffs' cotmsel. Plaintiffs' counsel will promptly notify MDOC of any objections, with an explanation as to how the draft is inconsistent with the terms of this MOA, and will suggest revisions. MDOC will revise policies, procedures, plans, and other written documents as necessary to conform with the terms of this MOA. If either party is unsatisfied with the resolution, either party may invoke the assistance of the magistrate judge for mediation. If mediation fails, Plaintiffs may re-instate the Complaint.
3

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-4 Filed 03/26/12 Page 4 of 5
5) The parties agree to the appointment of James Austin and Steve Martin as monitors responsible for tracking compliance with the terms of this MOA. The monitors may, if asked by MDOC, provide technical assistance to MDOC to promote compliance with the terms of this MOA. The monitors will be responsible for submitting reports to counsel every four months following the Court's approval of this MOA. The monitors will provide their reports in draft form to the parties for comments at least two weeks before issuance. Should both of the monitor positions become vacant and the parties are unable to agree on a replacement, the parties will recommend candidates to the magistrate judge and the parties agree to accept the candidate chosen by the magistrate judge. The reasonable cost for the experts' fees and expenses related to monitoring will be borne by MDOC.
V. ACCESS
6) The monitors and Plaintiffs' counsel, with advance notice, will have full and complete access to WGYCF, to all facility records, and to staff (who will be directed to cooperate with the experts and Plaintiffs' counsel), as well as to all subclass members. State attorneys may be present at interviews of staff and tours of facilities. The experts and Plaintiffs' counsel will comply with all applicable federal and state laws with regard to confidentiality of such records and information.
VI. ENFORCEMENT AND TERMINATION
7) If Plaintiffs believe that MDOC has substantially failed to comply with any obligation under this MOA, Plaintiffs' counsel will give written notice of that failure to MDOC. The parties will conduct good faith discussions to resolve the dispute. If the parties are unable to reach agreement within 7 days of Plaintiffs' written notice, the parties will submit the dispute to mediation before the magistrate judge who is assigned to this case. The parties will attempt in good faith to mediate the dispute for a period of 21 days with the magistrate judge. The terms of this MOA are not subject to state or federal court enforcement other than the reinstatement of those paragraphs of the Complaint that this MOA settled. If MDOC has substantially failed to comply with any obligation under this agreement, Plaintiffs may reinstate the mental health provisions of the Complaint. In the case of an emergency posing an immediate threat to the health or safety of the individuals housed at WGYCF, Plaintiffs' counsel may omit the notice and cure requirements herein (including the provision regarding mediation) before reinstating the Complaint. All Plaintiffs are bound by this MOA, and a Plaintiff or Plaintiffs may not initiate a legal action asserting claims contained within the' Complaint filed in cause number 3:1 Ocv663 (S.D. Miss.) as long as this MOA is in effect. Nothing in this MOA bars a member of the Plaintiff class from bringing an individualized suit seeking damages or prospective relief under state and/or federal law. Only class counsel may seek to enforce the terms of this MOA.
4

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-4 Filed 03/26/12 Page 5 of 5
8) In the event that Plaintiffs reinstate the Complaint, the parties agree that this case will proceed expeditiously. To that end, the parties agree to the following procedures for reinstatement:
a. Plaintiffs will file a Notice of Re-instatement and an Amended Complaint. b. Within 20 days of Plaintiffs' filing, Defendants will file a responsive pleading. c. The case management conference, unless stayed pursuant to court order, will
occur within 35 days of Plaintiffs' filing or at the earliest date that is convenient for the court.
9) This MOA will terminate five years from the date it is executed, unless the Complaint is reinstated as referenced above. When the MOA is terminated, all claims pertaining to mental health in case number 3:10cv663 (S.D. Miss.) will be dismissed without prejudice: The MOA may also terminate earlier than five years from the date it is executed if the magistrate judge determines MDOC has substantially complied with each of the provisions of this MOA and has continuously maintained substantial compliance for at least two years. Noncompliance with mere teclrnicalities, or a brief lapse in compliance during a period of otherwise sustained compliance, will not constitute failure to maintain substantial compliance.
Executedthe \~dayof~Va~2012

She . e ,Miss.BarNo.l01652 Southern Poverty Law Center 4431 Canal Street New Orleans, LA 70119
Margaret Winter (pro hac vice) The National Prison Project of the ACLU Foundation, Inc. 915 151h Street, N.W., Seventh Floor Washington, D.C. 20005
Robert B. McDuff, Miss. Bar. No. 2532 767 North Congress Street Jackson, Mississippi 39202 For the Plaintiffs

·ssioner Christopher B. s Mississippi Department of Corrections 723 North President Street Jackson, MS 39202 For the Defendant

5

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 69-1 Filed 02/09/12 Page 1 of 4

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

C.B., by and through his next friend,

)

Charleston DePriest, et al.

)

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

WALNUT GROVE CORRECTIONAL

)

AUTHORITY, et al.

)

)

Defendants.

)

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

CLASS ACTION Civil Action No. 3:10cv663

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

To: All individuals who are now or who will in the future be imprisoned in the Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility

The Mississippi Department of Corrections ("MDOC" or "Defendant") has agreed to st:llle a class action lawsuit over conditions in the Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility ("WGYCF"). The lawsuit was filed in November 2010 by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, and Robert B. McDuff on behalf of fourteen people who sought relief on behalf of all individuals who are confined in WGYCF ("Plaintiffs"). The lawsuit claimed that conditions in WGYCF violated the law because people who are confined at WGYCF are subjected to violent, inhumane prison conditions, excessive use of force, deprivations of medical and mental health care, prolonged isolation, and inadequate suicide prevention policies and procedures. The lawsuit requested that the Court order MDOC to end the legal violations and improve living conditions and medical and mental health care for all people confined in WGYCF.

The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of the status of the lawsuit, including your rights with respect to a Proposed Settlement of the case, and the opportunity to file with the Court any objections you may have to the Proposed Settlement.

1. The Settlement Class: The parties have agreed to a settlement subclass made up of all people who are now or who in the future will be imprisoned in the WGYCF. If the Court approves this settlement and you are a member of the settlement class, this settlement will affect your rights.

2. Proposal to settle the case by adoption of a Consent Decree and a Memorandum of Agreement: The Plaintiffs and the Defendants have proposed two documents that would,

1

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 69-1 Filed 02/09/12 Page 2 of 4
if approved by the Court, settle this case. The first is a Consent Decree which the Plaintiffs' lawyers would monitor and enforce in federal court. The Consent Decree governs conditions of confinement in WGYCF. The second is a Memorandum of Agreement ("MOA") that would govern the mental health services provided to individuals imprisoned in WGYCF. Plaintiffs' lawyers would monitor the MOA and, if MDOC violated its terms, re-instate the provisions of the Complaint related to mental health services. The MOA cannot be enforced in federal court.
3. No money damages are involved in this case: The lawsuit does not involve money damages, so whether this case settles or goes to trial, no class member will obtain money from MDOC. Notl1ing in the Proposed Settlement would prevent you from filing a separate lawsuit for money damages against MDOC.
4. Terms of the Proposed Settlement: The terms of the Proposed Settlement would require MDOC to do the following:
Consent Decree Provisions: a. Develop a housing and classification system that would ensure individuals are
appropriately and safely housed while at WGYCF; b. Provide individuals at WGYCF witl1 reasonably safe living conditions and
provide protections from violence and sexual and physical abuse; c. Provide sufficient staffing to ensure individuals at WGYCF are protected from
harm, provided adequate access to medical services, and given adequate out-ofcell time; d. Restrict the use of mechanical, physical, and chemical restraints; e. Restrict the use of long term cell confinement; f. Remove the paramilitary elements of the Regimented Inmate Discipline; g. Except as limited by discipline policies or a specific threat to safety the norm will be that prisoners will be allowed out of their cells most of the hours of the day, including access to at least one hour a day or outside recreation, weather permitting; h. Ensure that individuals receive adequate due process prior to the imposition of discipline (including rule violation reports); i. Develop and implement a comprehensive suicide prevention policy; j. Provide adequate, appropriate, and timely medical and dental care; and k. MDOC will monitor the contracts in place with WGYCF's operator and health care provider and amend these contracts to reflect the terms of these Agreements.
Memorandum of Agreement- Mental Health Provisions: a. Provide individuals at WGYCF custody with adequate, appropriate, and timely
mental health care; b. Provide every individual at WGYCF who has 1) attempted suicide or deliberately
hurt himself within the last year, or 2) stated that he was previously diagnosed with a mental illness and/or has a history of institutionalization with an individualized mental health treatment plan; and c. Ensure adequate mental health staffing.
2

- ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 69-1 Filed 02/09/12 Page 3 of 4
The summary of the Settlement Provisions in this Notice does not include all of the terms and conditions of the Proposed Settlement. The only complete statement of the terms of the Proposed Settlement is found in the actual Proposed Consent Decree and Proposed Memorandum of Agreement. A copy of each is attached to this Notice. You may also obtain a copy by writing to:
Alesha C. Judkins Southern Poverty Law Center 111 East Capitol Street, Suite 280 Jackson, MS 39201
5. Reasons for Settlement: Class counsel has concluded that the terms and conditions of the Proposed Settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate and are in the best interests of the class. In reaching this conclusion, Class Counsel has carefully analyzed the benefits of settlement and the risks of an lmfavorable outcome in this litigation, as well as the length of time that would be needed to prosecute this case through a trial and possible appeals.
6. If you have no objection to the Proposed Settlement: If you have no objection to the Proposed Settlement, you do not have to do anything.
7. If you object to the Proposed Settlement: If you believe the Court should not approve the settlement of this case because you object to the terms of the Proposed Settlement, you may object. If you wish to object, you must submit the objection in writing. Objections must contain the following information:
a. The case name and nun1ber: DePriest v. Walnut Grove Correctional Authority, et al., Civil Action No. 3:10cv663;
b. Your full name and MDOC number; and c. What it is exactly that you object to about the Proposed Settlement, with an
explanation of why you object.
For your objection to be considered by the Judge, you must mail it by March 15, 2012 to the Clerk of the Court:
Clerk of the United States District Court Attention: DePriest v. Walnut Grove Correctional Authority, et al. P.O. Box 23552 Jackson, MS 39225-3552
8. Fairness Hearing: After reviewing all of the objections that were filed on time, the Court will hold a fairness hearing on March 22,2012 at 9:00am in the U.S. Federal Courthouse, 501 E. Court Street, Jackson, Mississippi to decide whether or not to approve the Proposed Settlement. If the Judge decides that the Proposed Settlement is fair, adequate, and a reasonable compromise of this case, then the Proposed Settlement will become final.
3

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 69-1 Filed 02/09/12 Page 4 of 4
9. Questions about the Proposed Settlement: If you have questions about the Proposed Settlement or wish to review any of the documents in the case, you may contact: Alesha C. Judkins Southern Poverty Law Center 111 East Capitol Street, Suite 280 Jackson, MS 39201
10. If the Court does not approve the Proposed Settlement: If, after the fairness hearing, the Court decides not to approve the Proposed Settlement, the Proposed Settlement will be voided and will have no further effect. The case will not be settled and the lawsuit will proceed. If that happens, there is no assurance that the outcome will be in favor of the class members. Approved this the 9111 day of February, 2012
Is Carlton W. Reeves
United States District Judge
4

 
 Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-1 Filed 03/26/12 Page 1 of 19

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

C.B., by and through his next friend,

)

Charleston DePriest, et a!.

)

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

~

)

)

WALNUT GROVE CORRECTIONAL

)

AUTHORITY, et al.

)

)

_________________D_ef_en_da_n_ts.__))

CLASS ACTION Civil Action No. 3:10cv663

CONSENT DECREE On or about November 16, 2010, Plaintiffs filed the above-captioned suit asserting constitutional, statutory, and state law challenges to conditions in the Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility. Plaintiffs and the Mississippi Departinent of Corrections stipulate and agree to the following provisions in partial resolution of the litigation. This Consent Decree contains provisions related to a settlement subclass comprised of all male youth who are age 17 and Uilder and who are in the custody of the Mississippi Departme~t of Corrections, and as specifically further defined herein.
I. Introduction. (1) In order to resolve the allegations in the Complaint related to protection from harm and
~".
violence, excessive use of force, punitive isolation, and inadequate medical ca;:e with regard to individuals ages 17 and younger who are in the custody of the Mississippi Department of
1

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-1 Filed 03/26/12 Page 2 of 19
Corrections and housed at the Walnut Grove Youth Con·ectional Facility ("WGYCF"), the parties have entered into this Consent Decree. (2) The pru.ties agree to a settlement subclass comprised of 1) all male youth who are ages 17 and under and who are now or in the future will be housed in a Mississippi Department of Corrections prison, and 2) all male youth who are ages 18 and 19 and who will be housed in the Youthful Offender Unit described in this Consent Decree. The terms of tlris Consent Decree apply only to tlris subclass. A youth who has attained the ·age of 18 and who is not housed in the Youthful Offender Unit is not in the settlement subclass. (3) The Defendant in this lawsuit is Commissioner Christopher Epps, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections ("MDOC"). This Consent Decree refers to actions and inactions that will be· tmdertal<en by Commissionel' Epps, his staff and contractors under his direction. For ease of reference only, tlris Consent Decree refers to "MDOC'' through this Agreement. The Parties .intend for tlris Agreement to bind Commissioner Epps and his assigns. (4) The term "Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility" or "WGYCF";hereinafter refers to the correctional facility located in Leake County, Mississippi as provided for in Miss, Code Ann. § 47-5-943 (Rev. 2007). (5) The pru.ties stipulate that nothing in tlris Consent Decree constitutes either an admission of liability, or any evidence of!iability, with respect to suits for damages 01' any claims asserted against the named Defendants with respect to inmates who are housed, were housed, or may be housed in the future, at the Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility.
2

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-1 Filed 03/26/12 Page 3 of 19
(6) Not!Ung in this Consent Decree will prevent the State of Mississippi and/or MDOC from modifying the mission of, or closing WGYCF, or developing alternative commnnity placements for the persons currently in the. facility as set fotih herein. (7) This Consent Decree is not intended to have any preclusive effect except between the parties. The parties acknowledge that the remedies contained in t\Jis agreement are not necessarily appropriate for facilities other than the Youthful Offender Unit described in this Consent Decree. (B) Individuals who are not class members are not third·party beneficiaries of this agreement and may not assmt any rights under tllls Consent Decree.
II. Care Required by the Constitution and Federal Statutes. The purpose of this Consent Decree is to protect certain constitutional and federal statutory rights of youth who are housed at the Youth Offender Unit as described in this Consent Decree. The terms and requirements of this Consent Decree will be interpreted to be consistent with the remedialmeasm'es necessary to protect these rights of the youth, and consistent with applicable fedei·allaw.
ill. Establ!shment of Youthful Offender Unit. The Mississippi Department of Corrections will establish a Youthful Offender Unit ("YOU") at the Central Mississippi Correctional Facility ("CMCF"). WGYCF will no longct· house youth who are ages 17 and under. This transition will happen as soon as is practicable but will ocelli' no later than December 1, 2012. At two month intervals following court approval of this Consent Decree, counsel for MDOC will update coUllsel for Plaintiffs on the progress of MDOC' s establishment of the YOU facility.
3

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-1 Filed 03/26/12 Page 4 of 19
Subject to the exceptions set forth in this agreement, all youth who are ages 17 and under and who are assigned to a MDOC prison will be housed in the YOU, except that nothing in this agreement will prohibit MDOC from housing a youth who is 17 or under in a community work center or other environment that is less restrictive than a MDOC prison. For the duration of this agreement, MDOC will provide Plaintiffs' counsel with a list of youth who are ages 17 and under and in MDOC custody. The list will indicate where each youth is housed, MDOC will generate this list twice a month (every two weeks). The terms of this Consent Decree, unless otherwise expressly stated herein, apply only to the YOU and do not follow a Plaintiff who is transfe!1'ed, discharged, or otherwise leaves tl1e YOU.
IV. Substantive Remedial Measures. The Youthful Offender Unit provided for in Section III above wjlJ be operated and maintained by MDOC in accordance with the following conditions applicable to its establishment and operation: A. Classification and Housing System. (1) MDOC will develop and implement policies and procedures that establish a classification system that ensures youth are appropriately and safely housed witlrin the YOU. (2) Youth ages 17 and under should be housed in tl1e YOU, separate from other inmates at CMCF, No individual who is over the age of 19 will be housed in the YOU. TI1e MDOC Commissioner will have discretion to house in the YOU 18 and 19 year aids who have been classified as vulnerable. (3) A youth who, while honsed at the YOU, has been found following a due-process bearing as specified in Section IV C(6) ofthis agreement to have committed: murder, attempted murder, rape,
4

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-1 Filed 03/26/12 Page 5 of 19
attempted rape, escape, hostage-taking, or the act ofurging and actually causing a group off!ve or more people to commit widespread, significant damage to MDOC property, or (if a youth is over the age of 16) aggravated assault may be moved from the YOU to a single cell tmit located at CMCF. These youth will also receive at least four hours a day of out-of-cell progranuning. Out-of-cell programming will include educational services and at least one hour of large-muscle exercise daily. These youth will also be permitted to make weekly phone calls and to visit with illllnediate family at least twice a month. Every 45 days, the classification committee will reconsider whether any youth who is under the age of 16 and who has been found to have committed escape, hostage-taldng, or the act ofurging and actually causing a group offive or more people to commit widespread, significant damage to MDOC property should be reclassified and returned to the YOU. · All other youth ages 17 aod under who are removed from the YOU will be considered for reclassification and possible return to the YOU every 90 days. The units housing youth who are removed from the YOU will not be required to operate ill compliance with the terms of this agreement except as specified above. B. Protection from Harm. (1) At all times, youth will be provided with reasonably safe living conditions and will be protected from violence and oth.er physical or sexual abuse by staff and other youth or inmates. (2) MDOC will enSlll'e that there are sufficient numbers of adequately trained direct care and supervisory staff, and sufficient nnmbers of professional staff. Within 90 days of establishment of the YOU, MDOC will develop aod implement a staffing plan for direct care, supervisory, and professional staff (i.e., social workers) to ensure that youth are adequately supervised and
5

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-1 Filed 03/26/12 Page 6 of 19
protected from harm and that youth have adequate access to medical services and adequate time out oftheir cells. (3) Mechanical, physical or chemical restraints such as O.C. spray, pepper spray and mace will not be used to punish youth. If any restraint is necessary, the force must be the minimum amount required to safely contain the youth, and the restraints must be removed as soon as they are no longer necessary. Except in emergency circumstances, no youth should be subject to restraints tUltil staff have first attempted verbal de-escalation techniques. (4) Physical force will not be used to punish youth. Ifphysical force is necessary, the force must be the minimum amount required to safely contain the youth. Except in emergency circumstances, no youth will be subject to physical force until staff have first attempted verbal de-escalation techniques. (5) MDOC will provide sufficient audio-visual recilrding equipment throughout the YOU to ensme the capacity to create one or more audio-visual recordh1gs of uses of force. MDOC will develop protocols and procedures to ensure that all planned uses offorce, and all unplanned uses of force except when impossible, are captured by an audio-visual recording. Audio-visual recording of use of force incidents at the YOU, of adequate quality to allow review ofthe incidents, will be the norm, and only in the most exigent circumstances will it be impossible to make such recordings. If less than 95% of the uses of force are recorded in a manner that allows review of· the incident, MDOC will be deemed out of compliance with this provision and must revise its procedures so that the 95% threshold is met. MDOC will implement procedures for generating monthly reports on use of force. The monthly J'eports will include the documentation described in
6

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-1 Filed 03/26/12 Page 7 of 19
Section IV B(7) below as well as copies of the audio..visual video, and will be shared with Plaintiffs' counsel. (6) Except in exigent circumstances where no delay is possible because of the risk ofbodily injuty or serious damage to property creating a threat to security, or except when totally impracticable, the Shift Co!IDnander or Warden will be notified and his or her consent obtained before force is used. Except in emergency circumstances, the Shift Commander or Warden will visit 1he youth before consenting to 1he use afforce, to determine ifforce is necessary.. A log will be maintained recording the efforts made to obtain the presence offue Shift Commander or Warden and a mental health professional prior to 1he use of force. These logs will become part of the monthly reports refen·ed to in Section IV B(7) below. (7) All physical interventions, including use offorce and mechanical and chemical restraints, must be documented in writing. The written documentation will incl1)de a detailed description of the physical intervention and 1he verbal de-escalation attempt(s) 1hat occurred prior to the intervention. MDOC will use this documentation to review each physical intervention and to analxze patterns of use afforce and restraint in m effort to reduce such incidents. (8) MDOC will develop a protocol for an Incident Review Committee ("IRC") that is responsible for conducting the review and analysis described in Section IV B(7) above. The IRC will be a standing committee comprised of YOU staff and the Warden. The lRC is charged with reviewing all uses of force, uses of restraints, and incident reports, and developing strategies for reducing these incidents throughout the YOU. (9) MDOC will develop protocols and procedures to ensure the involvement, where possible, of a mental health professional prior to use of force on youfu wi1h severe mental illness.
7

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-1 Filed 03/26/12 Page 8 of 19
(1 0) MDOC will develop policies and procedures that will limit the use chemical restraints. Chemical1·estraints will not be used as a punislm1ent or to gain compliance. Chemical restraints may only be used to prevent serious bodily injury or serious damage to property creating a threat to security. Only shift supervisors who have been trained on the appropriate use of chemical restraints on juveniles may regularly carry chemical restraints on the living units. (11) Isswmce ofrestraint equipment will be documented in a bound Restraint Equipment Log Book. Staffmembers who are issued restraint equipment will initial in the appropriate section of tl:ie Log Book when checking equipment out of storage. The inventory number, name of the equipment, tinle in, and time out should be noted in the Log Book. Containers of chemical restraints that have been signed out for a shift will be weighed at the beginning and conclusion of that shift by the YOU Unit Manager or his designee. The inventory numbers and weight of the containers will be documented in the Log Book. (12) All youth who have been exposed to chemical restraints will be immediately removed from the contaminated area, will promptly be pennitted to shower, and will be exatllined by medical staff to see if transport to the clinic is needed. Any contanlinated living area will be decontanlinated before a youth is returned to it. If emergency circumstances create an imminent threat to security and prevent staff from immediately removing youth from contruninat.ed areas, MDOC will promptly provide tl1e youth who have been exposed to the chemical agents with an adequate supply of appropriate decontan1inating agents. (13) All youth will be informed oftheir rights and responsibilities, including the consequences for rule violations and the privileges that can be earned when youth comply with the rules. Youth will not be relied on to enforce unit rules or to impose discipline or physical punishment on other youth.
8

Case 3:10-cv-00"6: :6: :·3:.:-.:C:: ",W·-' R -FKB Document 75-1 Filed 03/26/12 Page 9 of 19
(14) MDOC w.ill take reasonable steps to protectall inmates of the YOU from verbal abuse and harassment. MDOC will develop policies, procedures, and practices that protect gay, bi-sexual, transgendered, and gender non-conforming youth from abuse, harassment, and punishment on the basis of their sexuality. (15) MDOC w.ill prohibit staff from forcing inmates of the YOU to engage in physical exertion that irilicts pain or discomfort, for example the practice offorcing youth to "alligator walk" and to "duck walk." (16) MDOC w.ill not employ pain aversion behavior management techniques and will develop behavior management techniques that do not rely on the use ofpain. C. Solitary Confiuement, Lockdown, 11nd Seclusion. (1) MDOC will ·ensure that youth are never subjected to solitary confim1ment. Solitary confinement means confinement in a cell for more than twenty hours a day. (2) When not expected to be asleep, youth may be subject to cell confinement for two general puxposes: 1) If a youth presents an immediate, serious threat to the safety of others, he may be placed on cell confinement for a time period not to exceed 24 hours (known as "Emergency Cell Confmement"); 2) If a youth violates a major rule he may be placed on cell confinement for a time period not to exceed 72 hours Qmown as "Disciplinary Cell Confmement"). A youth may only be placed in Disciplinm-y Cell Confmement after he receives due process as specified further below. (3) No youth may be placed on cell confinement for a time period that exceeds 72 consecutive hours, except as set forth in Section IV C(6) of this agreement. Youth on cell confmement must not be denied basic educational progranrming; the opportunity for daily out-of-cell and outdoor exercise (weather permitting); or opporllmity for weekly contact w.ith family through visit, phone
9

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-1 Filed 03/26/12 Page 10 of 19
calls, and letters. Youth on cell confinement must be provided the opportunity for at least one hour daily of large muscle exercise and must be provided the same meals, clothing, access to drinking water, medical treatment, educational services, exercise, correspondence privileges, contact with parents and higal guardians, and legal assistance as is provided to other inmates. (4) Youth may be. subjected to Emergency Cell Confinement if their behavior presents an immediate threat to the safety of others. Placement in Emergency Cell Confinement will only last until the youth has regained self-control and can be returned to the general population, and under no circumstance may Emergency Cell Confinement last longer than 24 hours. (5) When youth are placed in cell confmement for longer than 15 minutes, an incident report will be completec!. When youth are placed in cell confmement for longer than 2 hours, the shift supervisor must receive permission from the Warden or the designated acting warden in the Warden's absence, and document in writing the reason for the isolation and the justification for extending the youth's time in cell confinement. (6) No youth will be su~ject to Disciplinary Cell Confinement without due process protections that will include, at a minimum: 1) the youth receives notice of the alleged offense; 2) the youth is provided with a hearing during which he has the opportunity to present his version of events and call witness; and 3) the hearing is presided over by a staffmember who is uninvolved in the incident, and who functions as an independent hearing officer who issues written findings that include the reasons for subjecting a youth to DisciplinarY Cell Confinement. The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether cause exists for cell confinement for the purposes of punislnnent and gaining compliance with institutional roles. Under no circumstances may a youth be subject to Disciplinary Cell Confinement for longer than 72 hours unless an extension is approved by the
10

Case 3:10-cv-.0.0..6-6·3--..C· W· R- -F· K· B·D~ o- cu- m- en- t 7- 5- -1-- Fi- led~0· 3/26/12 Page 11 of 19
Deputy Commissioner or the designated individual acting in his capacity. Extensions will only be granted in extraordinary circumstances when a youth presents a continuous direct threat to the safety of others. The Deputy Commissioner or the designated individual acting in his capacity will review extensions every 72 hours to determine whether the youth continues to present a continuous direct threat to the safety of others. (7) Every effort will be made to avoid the placement of youth on cell confinement for any reason. Whenever possible, prior to placing a youth on ceil confinement, staff will first use less restrictive techniques including verbal de-escalation. (8) During the time a youth is on cell.confmement, staffwiil conduct visual checks at least 4 times an hour and not longer than 15 minutes apart. Dtuing the time a youth is awake the staff are required to speak to the youth during the visual checks. After each visual check, the staff wi.ll record the sta:lus ofthe youth on the cell detention log sheet. For the duration of cell confmement, the youth will be interviewed by medical and mental health staff at least every 2~ hours. D. Prog1·nmming and Behavior Management. (!)During the hours of the day that youth are not expected to be sleeping, MDOC will provide youth with the opportunity for the appropriate mix of interactive, stmctured rehabilitative and/or educational programming, recreational, and leiSlJre activities outside of their cells Ol). a daily basis, including weekends and holidays. A policy and procedure, including a schedule of activities and programming under this section, will be developed by MDOC and Mississippi Department of Education. The progranurling developed will, to the degree possible, be tailored to the developmental needs of adolescents. Under no circumstances will the MDOC develop youth progTannning that could be considered "paramilitary" or that contains elements of a "boot camp"
11

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-1 Filed 03/26/12 Page 12 of 19
program. (2) Jv.[])OC will develop a behavior management policy that incorporates positive behavior intervention and supports for youth. This policy should include guidelines for imposing graduated sanctions for rule violations, and positive incentives for good behavior. E. Disciplinary Due Process and Grievances. (1) Jv.[])OC will revise, if needed, its disciplinary procedures to ensure that youth receive adequate due process before the imposition of disciplinary sanctions (including rule violation reports) that would affect a youth's ability to earn the following: Earned Time Allowance, pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 47~5-138(1); Trusty Earned Time, pursuant to Miss. Code Atm. 47-5-138.1; Meritorious Eamed Time, pursuant to Miss. Code§ 47-5-142(2); Intensive Supervision Progran1, pursuant to Miss. Code Am) § 47-5-1003; Community Work Center I Pre-release Centers, as .described in Miss. Code Atm § 47-5-181; or placement in the Regimented Inmate Discipline Program. (2) The YOU will utilize an adequate grievance procedure that is accessible to youth of varying English proficiency levels. F. Suicide Prevention. (1) Jv.[])OC will develop a suicide prevention policy that includes the following:
a. a prohibition on placing youth on suicide watch as punishment or without medical justification;
b. a prohibition on holding youth on suicide watch in isolation. To the extent clinically feasible, youth on suicide watch should engage in normal programming;
c. hwtructions for thoroughly documenting the suicide precautions that are administered to each youth who is placed on suicide watch;
12

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-1 Filed 03/26/12 Page 13 of 19
d. a process for conducting a review of any and all instances of attempted suicide or suicide. The review process will include a committee of staff (including mental health staff) who will review every attempted suicide or strlcide in order to refine policies and procedures to decrease the number of these incidents;
e. all youth placed on suicide watch will be assessed by a mental health professional as soon as possible, but no later than 18 hours from being placed on suicide watch; any youth placed on suicide watch will be re-assessed by a mental health professional at least every 18 hotu·s; and if the initial assessment indicates that the youth is at high risk for suicide and/or self-harm for longer than five days, that youth will be transferred to a facility that can provide intensive mental health services. If the assessment indicates that the youth needs less-intensive, but ongoing, supervision in order to prevent suicide and/or self-harm, a qualified mental health professional will develop an individual ·suicide ' prevention/treatment plan, and the youth will be housed in his regular turit. This plan will be updated daily until the youth is no longer judged to be on an active suicide "watch" status.
(2) If a youth has been deprived of Iris regular clothing (other than shoelaces and belts), a qualified mental health .professional will dete~mine if a medical or mental health justification exists for the continued deprivation. The ·deprivation may continue only if medical and mental health justifications exist for the continued deprivation and the mental health clinician makes specific written findings explaining these justifications. Each 24-hour clinical reassessment must include written fmdings explaining any medical/mental health justifications for any continuing deprivation.
13

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-1 Filed 03/26/12 Page 14 of 19
(3) If a youth has been subject to cell confinement or deprived of access to regular programming and activities, a qualified mental health professional will determine if a medical or mental health justification exists for the continued cell confinement and/or deprivation. The cell confinement and/or deprivation may continue only if medical and mental health justlfications exist for the continued cell collfmement and/or deprivation and the qualified mental health professional mal<es specific written findings explainillg these justifications. Each 24,hour clinical reassessment must include written fmdings explaining the medical and mental health justifications for any oontinmng cell confinement and/or deprivation. G. Medical Care. (1) Youth will be provided adequate, appropriate, and timely medical and dental care to meet their individualized needs, including the treatment of acute and chronic conditions. Those youth housed at the YOU who are detennined by a qualified medical health professional to require necessary treatment may be assigned to a designated medical health unit. (2) MDOC will comply with, and will ensure that the medical services provided at the YOU and those provided to inmates assigned to the designated medical tmit comply with, the National Commission on Correctional Healthcare Standards for health care in Youth Detention and Confinement Facilities. 11. Family Support and Interaction. (1) Visitation will not be restricted or withheld from youth unless the Warden determines that a visit will seriously compromise the security of the facility. If the Warden makes this detennination, s!he must document the reason for this detennination in writing. Visitation will not be restricted as a form of punishment.
14

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-1 Filed 03/26/12 Page 15 of 19
(2) MDOC will provide accommodations that allow youth to have contact visits with their immediate families, Youth may also have contact visits with other individuals upon fue approval offue Warden or the Co1nmissioner. (3) Immediate family visitation will be regularly scheduled at least three times per week. Each visitation time period will last for at least two hours. At least two of those three times, visitation will be scheduled in the evening or during fue weekend in order to encourage family visitation. MDOC will permit fue minor siblings of cop:fined youth to participate in visitation, as long as the minors' parent or guardian is present during the visit, and will permit a confined youth's own child(ren) to participate in visitation. MDOC will make special provisions to schedule visitations outside of the regularly scheduled time for families who are traveling long distances or have an employment-related conflict with fue regularly scheduled visitation times, and in instances when fue confined youth is ill and requires placement in the infirmary or in an off-site medical/mental health facility. (4) MDOC will allow all youth to make at least one free, five minute phone call a week to their parent(s) and/or guardian(s). This phone call will not be restricted as a form of pnnishment. In addition, MDOC will allow youth who are free from any serious Rule Violation Reports to earn at least one additional free, five minute phone call a week.
V. Enforcement and Monitoring. . (1) The parties agree to the appointment of James Austin and Paul DeMuro as monitors responsible for tracking compliance with the terms of this Consent Decree. The monitors may, if asked by MDOC, provide technical assistance to MDOC to promote compliance wifu the te1ms of this Consent Decree. The monitors will be responsible for submitting reports to counsel every
15

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-1 Filed 03/26/12 Page 16 of 19
' i four months following the establishment of the YOU as specified in Section III of this Consent Decree. The monitors will provide their reports in draft form to the parties for comments at least two weeks before issuance. Should either ofthe monitor positions become vacru>t and the parties are unable to agree on a replacement, the parties will recommend candidates to the magistrate judge and the parties agree to accept the cmdidate chosen by the magistrate judge. The reasonable cost for the experts' fees and expenses related to monitoring will be borne by MDOC. (2) The monitors md Plaintiffs' counsel, with advance notice, will have full ru>d complete access to the YOU, to all facility records (including medical ru>d mental health records), ru1d to staff (who will be directed to cooperate with the experts md Plaintiffs' counsel), as well as to all subclass members. State attorneys may be present at interviews of staff and tours of facilities. The experts ru>d Plaintiffs' counsel will comply with all applicable federal and st&te laws with regard to confidentiality of such records and inf01mation.. (3) Within 90 days of the Comt's approval of this Consent Decree, MDOC expert Jrunes Austin and Plaintiffs' expert Paul DeMuro will cC!llaborate in a non-binding manner with MDOC to promlligate the policies, procedures, classification, and staffing plans necessary to effectuate this Consent Decree. Plaintiffs' counsel will compensate Paul DeMuro only for expenses related to drafting these policies, procedures ru>d plans md that expense will not be the responsibility of MDOC. MDOC retains the final authority over the content, drafting, ru>d wording ofthe policies and staffing pla11S, as long as the policies and plans are consistent with the terms of this Consent Decree. Once drafted, MDOC will submit the draft policies and plans to Plaintiffs' counsel. Plah1tiffs' counsel will promptly notify MDOC of any objections, with an explrumtion as to how the draft is inconsistent with the terms of this Consent Decree, and will suggest revisions. MDOC
16

Case 3:1.0...-.cv- -- 00- 6- 63- -C-W-- R- -F- K- B-- D- oc- u- m- e- nt- 7- 5-- 1-- F~ iled 03/26/12 Page 17 of 19
will revise policies, procedures, plans, and other written documents as necessary to conform with the terms of tins Consent Decree. If either party is unsatisfied with the resolution, then either party may invoke the assistance of the magistrate judge for mediation. If mediation fails to resolve the dispute, the Plaintiffs may file a motion to enforce tlris Consent Decree. (4) The pnrties agree that the terms of prospective relief afforded by the tetms of tills Consent Decree are narrowly drawn, pertain exclusively to the subclass defined herein, extend no further than necessary to correct the violations of federal rights at issue, are the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violations of federal rights at issue, and all tenus and conditions of this Consent Decree will be constmed in accord with federal law, including the Prison Litigation Reforrn Act. (5) The pnrties agree that the terms of this Consent Decree will be submitted to the Court for approval, and the Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the tenus thereof. (6) Nothing in this Decree alters the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, including. the exhaustion requirement, with respect to any class member who seeks to assert an individualized dispute against MDOC, iucludii1g a damages action, which is unrelated to the terms ofthis Consent Decree. Notlllng in this Consent Decree bars a member ofthe Plaintiff class from bringing an individualized snit seeking damages or prospective relief under state and/or federal law. Only class counsel may seek to enforce the terms of this Consent Decree. (7) If Plaintiffs believe that MDOC has substantially failed to comply with any obligation under this Consent Decree, Plaintiffs' counsel will give written notice of tlmt failure to MDOC. The parties will conduct good faith discussions to resolve the dispute. If the parties are unable to reach agreement within 7 days of Plaintiffs' written notice, the parties will submit tl1e dispute to
17

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-1 Filed 03/26/12 Page 18 of 19

mediation before the magistrate judge who is assigned to this case, The parties will attempt in good faith to mediate the dispute. If the parties are unable to resolve the dispute within 21 days from the date of Plaintiffs' written notice, Plaintiffs may seek enforcement of this Consent Decree from the Court. In the case of an emergency posing an immediate threat to the health cir safety of the youth housed at the YOU, Plaintiffs' counsel may omit the notice and cure requirements herein (including the provision regarding mediation) before seeking enforcement from the Court, (8) This Consent Decree will terminate five years from the date that the YOU houses .at least half of all youth who are, at that point in time, eligible for the YOU. The Consent Decree may also termiriate earlier than this date ifthe Court determines that MDOC has substantially complied with each of the provisions of the Consent Decree and has continuously maintained substantial compliance for at least two years. Noncompliance with mere tecln:Ucalities, or a brief lapse in
compliance during a pedod of otherwise sustained compliance, will not constitute failure to
maintain substantial complianc.e. The Comt may extend this Consent Decree and/or any of its
provisions twice, and each extension may be no longer than one year upon a finding that MDOC
has failed to substantially comply.
Agreed:

Shei

e 1, iss. Bar No. 101652

Southern Poverty Law Center

4431 Canal Street

New Orleans, LA 70119

Margaret Winter (pro hac vice) The National Prison Project of the ACLU Foundation, Inc. 915 15th Street, N.W., Seventh Floor Washington, D.C. 20005

mmissioner Christopher B. .pp Mississippi Department of Corrections 723 North President Street Jackson, MS 39202 For the Defendant
18

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-1 Filed 03/26/12 Page 19 of 19 Robert B. McDuff, Miss. Bar. No. 2532 767 North Congress Street Jackson, Mississippi 39202 For the Plaintiffs IT IS SO ORDERED
19

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-2 Filed 03/26/12 Page 1 of 6
Memorandum of Agreement Mental Health-Youthful Offender Unit

--------------------~--~----------

--------------------~

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-2 Filed 03/26/12 Page 2 of 6

I. INTRODUCTION
(A) This Memorandum of Agreement ("MOA") between the certified class of Plaintiffs described in subsection (G) below and the Christopher Epps, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections ("MDOC") resolves litigation concerning the mental health claims in C.B.. et al. v. Walnut Grove Correctional Authority, et al., case number 3:10cv663 (S.D. Miss.). A separate settlement agreement between the parties, that the parties will seek to have the Court enter as a Consent Decree, addresses other topics agreed to between the parties. This litigation concerns conditions of confinement at the Walnut Grove Youth Correctional
Facility ("WGYCF") (as described in Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-943 (Rev. 2007)). This
MOA refers to actions and inactions that will be undertaken by Commissioner Epps, his staff and contractors under his direction. For ease of reference only, this MOA refers to "MDOC" through this Agreement. The Parties intend for this Agreement to bind Commissioner Epps and his assigns.
The terms of this MOA apply only to the Youth Offender Unit ("YOU") to be established at the Central Mississippi Correctional Facility. Except for any youth who is age 17 and under and who is removed from the YOU pursuant to Section IV(A)(3) in the accompanying Consent Decree, the terms of this MOA do not follow a Plaintiff who is transferred, discharged, or otherwise leaves the YOU.
(B) In order to resolve the mental health claims in this litigation, the parties have entered into this MOA.
(C) This MOA does not constitute an admission of liability by MDOC.
(D) This MOA is not intended to have any preclusive effect except between the parties.
(E) Nothing in this MOA will prevent the State of Mississippi and/or MDOC from modifYing the mission of or closing WGYCF, or developing alternative community placements for the persons currently in the facility as set forth herein.
(F) Individuals who are not class members are not third party beneficiaries of this agreement.
(G) The parties will jointly request that the Court enter an order certifYing a sub-class comprised of 1) all male youth who are ages 17 and under and who are now or in the future will be housed in a Mississippi Department of Corrections prison and who live with a serious mental illness, and 2) all male youth who are ages 18 and 19 and who will be housed in the YOU who live with a serious mental illness, referred to in this MOA as "Plaintiffs," "prisoners," or "youth." The terms of this MOA apply only to this subclass.

2

------------------~---~
Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-2 Filed 03/26/12 Page 3 of 6
II. CARE REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION
The purpose of this MOA is to protect the rights of Plaintiffs to constitutionally adequate mental health care. The terms and requirements of this MOA will be interpreted to be consistent with the remedial measures necessary to protect these rights, and consistent with applicable federal law.
III. MENTAL HEALTH CARE
1) MDOC will provide youth with adequate, appropriate, and timely mental health care to meet their individualized needs, including the treatment of acute and chronic conditions. Those youth housed at the YOU who are determined by a psychiatrist to require an inpatient level of mental health care may be assigned to a medical unit where they will be able to receive such treatment.
2) MDOC will comply with and will ensure that any relevant contractors comply with the National Commission on Correctional Healthcare Standards for Youth Detention and Confmement Facilities and Mental Health Services in Correctional Facilities, and will ensure that their policies and procedures are fully consistent with these standards.
3) MDOC will develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that adequate mental health services are provided by qualified mental health professionals using evidence-based, generally accepted treatment approaches.
4) MDOC will ensure that every youth imprisoned at the YOU who 1) has attempted suicide or engaged in self-harming behavior within the last year, 2) has stated that he was previously diagnosed with a mental illness, and I or 3) has a history of institutionalization in mental health facilities will receive a comprehensive mental health evaluation. Youth who are diagnosed with chronic mental health issues will receive individualized mental health treatment plans. The plans will comport with generally accepted treatment approaches. The care provided will include individualized multidisciplinary treatment plans based on assessments of the patients' needs, and statements of short- and long-term goals and the methods by which these goals will be pursued. When clinically indicated, and in light of consultation between mental health and security staff, the treatment plans will give patients access to the range of treatment, supportive, and rehabilitative services (such as individual and group counseling, psychiatric rehabilitation programs, and self-help groups) that mental health specialists deem appropriate.
5) Each youth placed in a single cell unit located at Central Mississippi Correctional Facility pursuant to Section IV(A)(3) of the Consent Decree, and youth placed in cell confinement pursuant to Section IV(C) of the Consent Decree, will receive an individualized treatment plan that will include any treatment, supportive, and rehabilitative services (such as individual and group counseling, psychiatric rehabilitation programs, and self-help groups) that mental health specialists deem appropriate.
3

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-2 Filed 03/26/12 Page 4 of 6
6) Within 90 days of the execution of this agreement, MDOC will develop and implement policies and procedures, and will develop and implement a staffing plan, to ensure that adequate mental health services are provided by adequate numbers of qualified mental health professionals using evidence based, generally accepted treatment approaches.
IV. IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING
7) Within 90 days of the Court's approval of this MOA, MDOC expert James Austin and Plaintiffs' expert Paul DeMuro will collaborate in a non-binding manner with MDOC to promulgate the policies, procedures, and staffing plans necessary to effectuate this MOA. Plaintiffs' counsel will compensate Paul DeMuro for expenses related to drafting the policies, procedures and plans only and that expense will not be the responsibility of MDOC. MDOC retains the final authority over the content, drafting, and wording of the policies and staffing plans, as long as the policies and plans are consistent with the terms of this MOA. Once drafted, MDOC will submit the draft policies and plans to Plaintiffs' counsel. Plaintiffs' counsel will promptly notify MDOC of any objections, with an explanation as to how the draft is inconsistent with the terms of this MOA, and will suggest revisions. MDOC will revise policies, procedures, plans, and other written documents as necessary to conform with the terms of this MOA. If either party is unsatisfied with the resolution, either party may invoke the assistance of the magistrate judge for mediation. If mediation fails, Plaintiffs may re-instate the Complaint.
8) The parties agree to the appointment of James Austin and Paul DeMuro as monitors responsible for tracking compliance with the terms of this MOA. The monitors may, if asked by MDOC, provide technical assistance to MDOC to promote compliance with the terms of this MOA. The monitors will be responsible for submitting reports to counsel every four months following the establishment of the YOU as specified in Section III of the Consent Decree. The monitors will provide their reports in draft form to the parties for comments at least two weeks before issuance. Should both of the monitor positions become vacant and the parties are unable to agree on a replacement, the parties will recommend candidates to the magistrate judge and the parties agree to accept the candidate chosen by the magistrate judge. The reasonable cost for the experts' fees and expenses related to monitoring will be borne by MDOC.
V. ACCESS
9) The monitors and Plaintiffs' counsel, with advance notice, will have full and complete access to the YOU, to all facility records, and to staff (who will be directed to cooperate with the experts and Plaintiffs' counsel), as well as to all subclass members. State attorneys may be present at interviews of staff and tours of facilities. The experts and Plaintiffs' counsel will comply with all applicable federal and state laws with regard to confidentiality of such records and information.
4

--------------------------
Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-2 Filed 03/26/12 Page 5 of 6
VI. ENFORCEMENT AND TERMINATION
10) If Plaintiffs believe that MDOC has substantially failed to comply with any obligation tmder this MOA, Plaintiffs' counsel will give written notice of that failure to MDOC. The parties will conduct good faith discussions to resolve the dispute. If the parties are unable to reach agreement within 7 days of Plaintiffs' written notice, the parties will submit the dispute to mediation before the magistrate judge who is assigned to this case. The parties will attempt in good faith to mediate the dispute for a period of 2I days with the magistrate judge. The terms of this MOA are not subject to state or federal court enforcement other than the reinstatement of those paragraphs of the Complaint that this MOA settled. IfMDOC has substantially failed to comply with any obligation under this agreement, Plaintiffs may reinstate the mental health provisions of the Complaint. In the case of an emergency posing an immediate threat to the health or safety of the individuals housed at YOU, Plaintiffs' counsel may omit the notice and cure requirements herein (including the provision regarding mediation) before reinstating the Complaint. All Plaintiffs are bound by this MOA, and a Plaintiff or Plaintiffs may not initiate a legal action asserting claims contained within the Complaint filed in cause number 3: 1Ocv663 (S.D. Miss.) as long as this MOA is in effect. Nothing in this MOA bars a member of the Plaintiff class from bringing an individualized suit seeking damages or prospective relief under state and/or federal law. Only class counsel may seek to enforce the terms of this MOA.
11) In the event that Plaintiffs reinstate the Complaint, the parties agree that this case will proceed expeditiously. To that end, the parties agree to the following procedures for reinstatement:
a. Plaintiffs wiil file a Notice of Re-instatement and an Amended Complaint. b. Within 20 days of Plaintiffs' filing, Defendants will file a responsive pleading. c. The case management conference, unless stayed by court order, will occur within
35 days of Plaintiffs' filing or at the earliest date that is convenient for the court.
12) This MOA will terminate five years from the date it is executed, unless the Complaint is reinstated as referenced above. When the MOA is terminated, all claims pertaining to mental health in case number 3:10cv663 (S.D. Miss.) will be dismissed without prejudice. The MOA may also terminate earlier than five years from the date it is executed if the magistrate judge determines that MDOC has substantially complied with each of the provisions of this MOA and has continuously maintained substantial compliance for at least two years. Noncompliance with mere technicalities, or a brief lapse in compliance during a period of otherwise sustained compliance, will not constitute failure to maintain substantial compliance.
5

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75-2 Filed 03/26/12 Page 6 of 6

Sheila . Bedi, Miss. BarNo. 101652 Southern Poverty Law Center 4431 Canal Street New Orleans, LA 70119
Margaret Winter (pro hac vice) The National Prison Project of the ACLU Foundation, Inc. 915 151h Street, N.W., Seventh Floor Washington, D.C. 20005
Robert B. McDuff, Miss. Bar. No. 2532 767 North Congress Street Jackson, Mississippi 39202 For the Plaintiffs

~kJ!.N·~ OIDl11iSSiO!ler Christopher B. Epps Mississippi Department of Corrections 723 North President Street Jackson, MS 39202 For the Defendant

6

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 69-2 Filed 02/09/12 Page 1 of 4

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

C.B., by and through his next friend,

)

Charleston DePriest, eta!.

)

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

WALNUT GROVE CORRECTIONAL

)

AUTHORITY, eta!.

)

)

__

_

__

_

__

_

Defendants.
________

_

__

_

__

_

)
)

CLASS ACTION Civil Action No. 3:10cv663

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

To: All individuals who are age 17 and under who are in the custody ofthe Mississippi Department of Corrections.

The Mississippi Department of Corrections ("MDOC" or "Defendant") has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit over conditions in the Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility ("WGYCF"). The lawsuit was filed in November 2010 by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, and Robert B. McDuff on behalf of fourteen people who sought relief on behalf of all individuals who are confined in WGYCF ("Plaintiffs"). The lawsuit claimed that conditions in WGYCF violated the law because people who are confined at WGYCF are subjected to violent, inhumane prison conditions, excessive use of force, deprivations of medical and mental health care, prolonged isolation, and inadequate suicide prevention policies and procedures. The lawsuit requested that the Court order MDOC to end the legal violations and improve living conditions and medical and mental health care for all people confined in WGYCF.

The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of the status of the lawsuit, including your rights with respect to a Proposed Settlement of the case, and the opportunity to file with the Court any objections you may have to the Proposed Settlement.

1. The Settlement Class: The parties have agreed to a settlement subclass made up of all youth who are age 17 and under and who are in the custody of MDOC. If the Court approves this settlement and you are a member of the settlement class, this settlement will affect your rights.

2. Proposal to settle the case by adoption of a Consent Decree and a Memorandum of Agreement: The Plaintiffs and the Defendants have proposed two documents that would,

I

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 69-2 Filed 02/09/12 Page 2 of 4
if approved by the Court, settle this case. The first is a Consent Decree which the Plaintiffs' lawyers would monitor and enforce in federal court. The Consent Decree governs where MDOC will house individuals who are age 17 and under, and conditions of confinement for these individuals. The second is a Memorandum of Agreement ("MOA") that would govern the mental health services provided to individuals who are age 17 and under. Plaintiffs' lawyers would monitor the MOA and, if MDOC violated its terms, re-instate the provisions of the Complaint related to mental health services. The MOA cannot be enforced in federal court.
3. No money damages are involved in this case: The lawsuit does not involve money damages, so whether this case settles or goes to trial, no class member will obtain money from MDOC. Nothing in the Proposed Settlement would prevent you from filing a separate lawsuit for money damages against MDOC.
4. Terms of the Proposed Settlement: The terms of the Proposed Settlement would require MDOC to do the following:
Consent Decree Provisions: a. Establish a Youthful Offender Unit ("YOU") at Central Mississippi Correctional
Facility, and house all youth age 17 and under at the YOU; b. Develop a housing and classification system that would ensure individuals are
appropriately and safely housed while at the YOU custody; c. Provide individuals at the YOU with reasonably safe living conditions and
provide protections from violence and sexual and physical abuse; d. Provide sufficient staffing to ensure individuals at the YOU are protected from
harm, provided adequate access to medical services, and given adequate out-ofcell time; e. Restrict the use of mechanical, physical, and chemical restraints; f. Prohibit the use of solitary confinement; g. Provide individuals with a mix of interactive, structured, rehabilitative programming outside of their cells on a daily basis; h. Ensure that individuals receive adequate due process prior to the imposition of discipline (including rule violation reports); 1. Develop and implement a comprehensive suicide prevention policy; j. Provide adequate, appropriate, and timely medical and dental care; and k. Provide at least one free, five-minute phone call a week to parents or guardians, and the opportunity to earn additional phone calls with good behavior.
Memorandum of Agreement- Mental Health Provisions: a. Provide youth with adequate, appropriate, and timely mental health care; b. Provide every youth who has 1) attempted suicide or deliberately hurt himself
within the last year, or 2) stated that he was previously diagnosed with a mental illness and/or has a history of institutionalization with an individualized mental health treatment plan; and c. Ensure adequate mental health staffing.
2

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 69-2 Filed 02/09/12 Page 3 of 4
The summary of the Settlement Provisions in this Notice does not include all of the terms and conditions of the Proposed Settlement. The only complete statement of the terms of the Proposed Settlement is found in the actual Proposed Consent Decree and Proposed Memorandum of Agreement. A copy of each is attached to this Notice. You may also obtain a copy by writing to:
Alesha C. Judkins Southern Poverty Law Center 111 East Capitol Street, Suite 280 Jackson, MS 39201
5. Reasons for Settlement: Class counsel has concluded that the terms and conditions of the Proposed Settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate and are in the best interests of the class. In reaching this conclusion, Class Counsel has carefully analyzed the benefits of settlement and the risks of an unfavorable outcome in this litigation, as well as the length of time that would be needed to prosecute this case through a trial and possible appeals.
6. If you have no objection to the Proposed Settlement: If you have no objection to the Proposed Settlement, you do not have to do anything.
7. If you object to the Proposed Settlement: If you believe the Court should not approve the settlement of this case because you object to the terms of the Proposed Settlement, you may object. If you wish to object, you must submit the objection in writing. Objections must contain the following information:
a. The case name and number: DePriest v. Walnut Grove Correctional Authority, et al., Civil Action No. 3:10cv663;
b. Your full name and MDOC number; and c. What it is exactly that you object to about the Proposed Settlement, with an
explanation of why you object.
For your objection to be considered by the Judge, you must mail it by March 15, 2012 to the Clerk of the Court:
Clerk of the United States District Court Attention: DePriest v. Walnut Grove Correctional Authority, eta!. P.O. Box 23552 Jackson, MS 39225-3552
8. Fairness Hearing: After reviewing all of the objections that were filed on time, the Court will hold a fairness hearing on March 22, 2012 at 9:00am in the U.S. Federal Courthouse, 501 E. Court Street, Jackson, Mississippi to decide whether or not to approve the Proposed Settlement. If the Judge decides that the Proposed Settlement is fair, adequate, and a reasonable compromise of this case, then the Proposed Settlement will become final.
3

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 69-2 Filed 02/09/12 Page 4 of 4
9. Questions about the Proposed Settlement: If you have questions about the Proposed Settlement or wish to review any of the documents in the case, you may contact: Alesha C. Judkins Southern Poverty Law Center 111 East Capitol Street, Suite 280 Jackson, MS 39201
I0. If the Court does not approve the Proposed Settlement: If, after the fairness hearing, the Com! decides not to approve the Proposed Settlement, the Proposed Settlement will be voided and will have no further effect. The case will not be settled and the lawsuit will proceed. If that happens, there is no assmance that the outcome will be in favor of the class members. Approved this the 91h day of February, 2012 s/ Carlton W Reeves United States District Judge
4

 
 Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75 Filed 03/26/12 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

CHARLESTON DEPRIEST, as Father and Next Fried of C.B., a minor, et al.

PLAINTIFFS

VS.

CAUSE NO. 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB

CHRISTOPHER EPPS, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the MDOC, and TOM BURNHAM, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Mississippi State Department of Education

DEFENDANTS

ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT Before this Court is the Joint Motion of the parties to approve a settlement proposal that would bind class members and resolve the issues set forth in the Complaint [Docket No.1]. Having considered the pleadings, submissions and arguments of counsel and the testimony of certain class members, the Court finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, and therefore is APPROVED.
FINDINGS 1. The Plaintiffs instituted this action on November 16, 2010, alleging barbaric, unconstitutional conditions in the Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility (“WGYCF”), on behalf of a putative class of all individuals who now or in the future will be confined at WGYCF. WGYCF is a Mississippi Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) prison for young men who are ages 13-22 and have been convicted as adults in criminal court. Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-943 (West 2007). According to the Complaint, “[s]ixty-seven percent of the young men at WGYCF are incarcerated for committing non-violent offenses.” [Docket No. 1], at ¶ 1. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief that will remedy the unlawful
1

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75 Filed 03/26/12 Page 2 of 8
conditions, practices and policies of WGYCF, and an order from this Court that WGYCF provide the class members with required care, education and living conditions that conform to the dictates of the United States Constitution. They also seek reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for having to file this action.
2. WGYCF is owned by the Walnut Grove Development Authority (“WGDA”). The WGDA contracts with a private, for-profit company, the GEO Group, Inc. (“GEO”), to operate the WGYCF. GEO assumed operations of WGYCF in August 2010, after acquiring and merging with Cornell Companies, Inc. (“Cornell”), which had operated the Facility since 2003. Following GEO and Cornell’s merger, key personnel, policies and training at WGYCF did not change substantially. The mental health and medical staffs at WGYCF are employed by Health Assurances as contract staff; they are not employees of GEO or the State. MDOC, through its commissioner, has the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that all prisons under its jurisdiction operate in compliance with state and federal law. Although the Complaint named several defendants, all but the Commissioner of Corrections and the Superintendent of the Mississippi Department of Education have been released since “[t]he State Defendants have the authority to provide complete relief on Plaintiffs’ claims.” [Docket No. 59] at ¶2.
3. Counsel for Plaintiffs began investigating allegations of unconstitutional actions by prison officials in 2006. Those allegations, however, far exceeded mere breaches of the United States Constitution; the investigation uncovered pervasive violations of state and federal civil and criminal law and a wholesale lack of accountability by prison officials. For example, staff of the WGYCF and those responsible for overseeing and supervising the youth engaged in sexual relationships with the youth; they exploited them by selling drugs in the facility; and the
2

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75 Filed 03/26/12 Page 3 of 8
youth, “handcuffed and defenseless[,] have been kicked, punched, and beaten all over their bodies.” Complaint, at ¶ 2. They are frequently subjected to chemical restraints for the most insignificant of infractions and are denied necessary medical care. And although many of the offenders have been ordered to finish their education, “the facility prevents most youth from accessing even the most basic education services.” Id.
4. The investigation culminated with the filing of the instant action. Even prior to filing the lawsuit, however, the parties began settlement negotiations, each having retained nationally recognized experts in the areas of protection from harm, mental health and medical care. These experts conducted a comprehensive examination of WGYCF, which included a review of files, policies and procedures, conducting interviews of facility staff and imprisoned individuals, and tours of the facility. Many of the allegations of the Complaint were substantiated, and other documented actions that would not meet constitutional standards also were discovered. Based on information obtained by the experts and through extensive negotiations, the parties developed one Memorandum of Agreement and one Consent Decree concerning conditions for individuals in MDOC custody who are age 17 and under (“under 18 Agreements”) and one Memorandum of Agreement and one Consent Decree governing conditions in WGYCF (“WGYCF Agreements”). The parties submitted the proposed agreements to the Court on February 3, 2012, for its consideration and approval [Docket No. 68].
5. Pursuant to an order of this Court, see [Docket No. 69], the parties provided notice to class members of the proposed settlement and set a hearing and a deadline by which the persons could file objections. Id. Having received no objections, the Court conducted the fairness hearing on March 22, 2012, and allowed the parties to provide testimony and to submit
3

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75 Filed 03/26/12 Page 4 of 8
evidence and argument in support of their request for entry of the proposed consent decrees. 6. During the hearing, the Court received the arguments of counsel for the parties,
testimony of certain class members, and statements from two parents of children who served sentences at WGYCF. Additionally, the Court reviewed all pleadings filed in this action, including a Report of Investigation of the Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility Walnut Grove, Mississippi, conducted by the United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division under the authority of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997 (“CRIPA”), and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1992, 42 U.S.C. 14141 [Docket No. 74-1]. The Report was issued only two days before the hearing, and on that date Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General, delivered a letter to Governor Phil Bryant with a copy of the report.
7. The Report confirmed many of the allegations that brought counsel for Plaintiffs to pursue this action. The Report also documented many of the issues and findings that were uncovered while the parties were engaged in the negotiations to resolve the claims. More pointedly, the Report concluded that the “State of Mississippi is deliberately indifferent to the constitutional rights of young men confined at WGYCF. Evidence discovered at WGYCF reveals systemic, egregious and dangerous practices exacerbated by a lack of accountability and controls.” [Docket No. 74-1] (emphasis added). The DOJ’s findings, together with the testimony of the witnesses and the arguments of counsel, leave this Court with the firm and unshakeable conviction that the Consent Decrees must be entered WITHOUT DELAY. Those youth, some of whom are mere children, are at risk every minute, every hour, every day. Without Court intervention, they will continue to suffer unconstitutional harms, some of which
4

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75 Filed 03/26/12 Page 5 of 8
are due to aberrant and criminal behavior. Nothing has curtailed actions of the staff and indifference of management officials to the constant violations, even though the parties and their experts have been monitoring, investigating and conducting on-site visits constantly since before the lawsuit was filed and during the pendency of this action. Moreover, the fact that the DOJ dared to begin its investigation in October 2010 has not caused the defendants to transform the facility into one that complies with the United States Constitution. But even more astounding is the fact that the notice of the fairness hearing itself did not cause the defendants to change course. The testimony established that only two days before the hearing, the facility remained so understaffed that a teenage offender was brutally attacked by several other offenders while only one staffer was on site. As of the date of the hearing, according to testimony, management has done nothing to address staffing issues. WGYCF has allowed a cesspool of unconstitutional and inhuman acts and conditions to germinate, the sum of which places the offenders at substantial ongoing risk.
8. The Court understands completely why the DOJ would conclude that the sexual misconduct occurring at WGYCF, including “brazen” staff sexual misconduct and brutal youthon-youth rapes, was “among the worst that we have seen in any facility anywhere in the nation.” Id. (emphasis added).
9. All evidence establishes that the youth are routinely subjected to excessive force by the prison officials and that the staff fails consistently to report and investigate these claims, even though staff members have witnessed many of the acts and the offenders, despite facing threats of retaliation, have reported incidents. Given that the facility employs correctional staffers affiliated with gangs, no more can be expected. Moreover, there is virtually no evidence
5

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75 Filed 03/26/12 Page 6 of 8
that these claims or any of the infractions, which clearly violate state and federal law, are forwarded to law enforcement for investigation. In fact, there is no evidence that the allegations of abuse and misconduct even have been forwarded to the Mississippi Department of Human Services, which has the responsibility to investigate allegations of abuse against children.
10. The misconduct is widespread and frequent, and WGYCF is deliberately indifferent to the serious and substantial risk of harm to which these youth are subjected. And to add one final insult to these injuries, State officials repeatedly failed to monitor the contracts with GEO and simply rewarded the company by either extending or offering new contracts, or by not revoking the existing contract despite “systemic, egregious, and dangerous practices exacerbated by a lack of accountability and controls.” [Docket 74-1]. State officials are “aware of and disregard an excessive risk to youth health and safety.” Id. See, e.g., Complaint at ¶ 30 (“[The Commissioner receive[d] reports regarding operations at WGYCF, and has knowledge of all the conditions described in the complaint.”). They have been derelict in their duties and remain deliberately indifferent to the serious medical and mental health needs of the offenders. The sum of these actions and inactions by WGYCF, WGDA, the State, the Department of Corrections, GEO and Health Assurance, L.L.C., paints a picture of such horror as should be unrealized anywhere in the civilized world. Court intervention, as proposed by the parties, is undoubtedly necessary.
11. The settlement agreement “secures an adequate advantage for the class in return for the surrender of litigation rights against the defendants.” See In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, 628 F.3d 185, 196 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting 4 Alba Conte & Herbert Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions § 11:46); Reed v. Gen. Motors Corp., 703 F.2d 170, 172 (5th Cir.
6

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75 Filed 03/26/12 Page 7 of 8
1983). Equally important to the Court is the fact that this agreement does not “bar[ ] a member of the Plaintiff class from bringing an individualized suit seeking damages or prospective relief under state and/or federal law.” Nor does the agreement in any way inhibit state and federal authorities from pursuing breaches of state and federal statutes, including criminal law. Certainly, where there is evidence of such violations, law enforcement has the authority, duty and obligation to seek justice. But law enforcement cannot respond unless and until they are notified. Moreover, nothing within these Consent Decrees obviates the duty of the authorities to make such referrals to the appropriate state and federal agencies and investigative units. And finally, nothing about the agreement alters the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
12. Approving the Consent Agreement brings this matter to conclusion and gives the youthful offenders and victims immediate relief from further unconstitutional actions. The State’s cooperation in crafting the agreement assures that the State limits its exposure and the significant expenses that would be incurred with prolonged litigation.
13. The Court appreciates the fact that the terms of the settlement agreement and consent decrees were reached after months of exhaustive investigation and non-collusive negotiation, both of which began even before the lawsuit was filed. The results reached fall within the range of possible relief, and there are no obvious deficiencies in the terms that have been proposed. In fact, the Consent Decrees address and seek to rectify the issues raised in the Complaint, the matters uncovered during discovery, the testimony received at the fairness hearing and the matters addressed by counsel in their arguments requesting approval.
The Consent Decrees, which have been proposed and attached hereto, are hereby APPROVED AND ENTERED by the Court.
7

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 75 Filed 03/26/12 Page 8 of 8 SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED this Twenty-Sixth day of March 2012.
/s/ Carlton W. Reeves
Hon. Carlton W. Reeves U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
8

 
 Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74 Filed 03/21/12 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

JACKSON DIVISION

______________________________________

C.B., by and through his next friend,

)

Charleston DePriest, et al.

)

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

) CLASS ACTION

) Civil Action No. 3:10cv663

WALNUT GROVE CORRECTIONAL

)

AUTHORITY, et al.

)

)

Defendants.

)

______________________________________ )

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF FINDINGS OF THE UNITED STATES’ INVESTIGATION OF THE WALNUT GROVE YOUTH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

Just yesterday, the United States Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division (“DOJ”)

released its investigation into the conditions of confinement at the Walnut Grove Youth

Correctional Facility (“WGYCF”). DOJ conducted its investigation pursuant to the Civil Rights

of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997 (“CRIPA”), and the Violent Crime Control

and Law Enforcement Act of 1992, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 (“Section 14141”). Plaintiffs hereby file

with the Court the findings of DOJ’s investigation. See Letter from Thomas E. Perez, Assistant

Attorney General, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to The Honorable Phil Bryant, Governor, State of

Mississippi (Mar. 20, 2012) (hereinafter DOJ Findings Letter) (attached as Exhibit A); U.S.

Dep’t of Justice Civil Rights Div., Investigation of the Walnut Grove Youth Corr. Facility (Mar.

20, 2012) (hereinafter WGYCF Report) (attached as Exhibit B).

DOJ concluded that the State of Mississippi is “deliberately indifferent to the

constitutional rights of young men confined at WGYCF” and thereby in violation of the “Eighth

Amendment’s mandate that imprisoned youth be protected from harm and provided adequate

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74 Filed 03/21/12 Page 2 of 4
medical and mental health care.” DOJ Findings Letter at 1-2. DOJ’s investigation into WGYCF
revealed “systematic, egregious, and dangerous practices exacerbated by a lack of accountability
and controls.” Id. at 1. DOJ specifically found the following constitutional violations:
1. WGYCF is deliberately indifferent to staff sexual misconduct and inappropriate behavior with youth. The sexual misconduct we found was among the worst that we have seen in any facility anywhere in the nation. Further, staff fails to report allegations of staff sexual abuse to supervisors and State officials, as required by law.
2. WGYCF is engaged in a pattern or practice of using excessive force against youth. The State acknowledges, and we agree, that staff often uses excessive force as a first response, not as a last resort, including the use of pepper spray in excessive amounts. Further, staff fails to adequately report and investigate uses of force.
3. WGYCF is deliberately indifferent to gang affiliations within the ranks of correctional staff.
4. WGYCF is deliberately indifferent to the serious risk of harm to youth posed by fellow youth. The State acknowledges, and we agree, that corrections officers fail to supervise youth, particularly youth known to be violent, resulting in a high rate of ongoing harm and serious risk of harm. There is significant evidence that the Facility fails to take reasonable steps to protect youth from sexual and physical assault from other youth.
5. WGYCF is deliberately indifferent to the suicide risks and serious mental health needs of its youth. The State acknowledges, and we agree, that the Facility lacks sufficient qualified mental health professionals to provide proper mental health care and current staff is not appropriately trained to address suicidal youth.
6. WGYCF is deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of its youth. The State acknowledges, and we agree, that staff provide inadequate medical care.
WGYCF Report at 1-2.
As a result of these violations, DOJ concluded that WGYCF is not equipped to meet the needs of
children and that children must be removed from the privately operated, Department of
Corrections facility. “Indeed, many of the youth 17 and younger at WGYCF suffer

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74 Filed 03/21/12 Page 3 of 4
disproportionately from the Facility’s deficiencies and weaknesses. Their vulnerability to harm
from older, stronger inmates expose this group to increased risks of harm. The State
recommends, and we agree, that the 45-50 youth currently housed at WGYCF who are age 17 or
under should be housed in the State’s juvenile system, which would be better suited to provide
the most effective care.” WGYCF Report at 4.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Sheila A. Bedi Sheila A. Bedi Miss. Bar. No. 101652 Southern Poverty Law Center 4431 Canal Street New Orleans, LA 70119 (504) 486-8982 (p) (504) 486-8947 (f)

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74 Filed 03/21/12 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by email to all parties by the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s CM/ECF System. This 21st day of March, 2012.
/s/ Sheila A. Bedi

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB

Document

7u4.s-1.

Filed 03/21/12 Page Department of Justice

1

of

47

Civil Rights Division

Special Litigation Section ~ PHB 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington DC 20530

MAR 2 0 2012
The Honorable Phil Bryant Governor State of Mississippi 550 High Street Jackson,MS 39201
Re: Investigation of the Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility
Dear Governor Bryant:
The U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division has completed its investigation into the conditions of confinement at the Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility ("WGYCF" or "Facility") in Walnut Grove, Mississippi. Our investigation was conducted pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997 ("CRIPA"), and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,42 U.S.C. § 14141 ("Section 14141"). Both CRIPA and Section 14141 give the United States Department of Justice authority to seek a remedy for a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the constitutional rights of youth. We conclude that the State of Mississippi is deliberately indifferent to the constitutional rights of young men confined at WGYCF. Evidence discovered at WGYCF reveals systematic, egregious, and dangerous practices exacerbated by a lack of accountability and controls.
We conclude that youth at WGYCF are not receiving constitutionally adequate care. Specifically, we find that:
• WGYCF is deliberately indifferent to staff sexual misconduct and inappropriate behavior with youth. Further, staff fails to report allegations of staff sexual abuse to supervisors and State officials, as required by law.
• WGYCF is engaged in a pattern or practice of using excessive force against youth. Staff often use excessive force as a first response, not as a last resort, including the use of pepper spray in excessive amounts. Further, staff fails to adequately report and investigate uses offorce.
• WGYCF is deliberately indifferent to gang affiliations within the ranks of correctional staff.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 2 of 47
• WGYCF is deliberately indifferent to the serious risk of harm, through physical and sexual assault, to youth posed by fellow youth. Corrections officers fail to supervise and take reasonable steps to protect youth.
• WGYCF is deliberately indifferent to the suicide risks and serious mental health needs of its youth. The Facility lacks sufficient qualified mental health professionals to provide proper mental health care and current staff is not appropriately trained to address suicidal youth.
• WGYCF is deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of its youth.
The widespread and significant deficiencies at WGYCF violate the Eighth Amendment's mandate that imprisoned youth be protected from harm and provided adequate medical and mental health care. The attached Report discusses these findings in greater detail.
We announced our investigation into WGYCF on October 25, 2010. In January 2011, we conducted an on-site inspection ofWGYCF ac~ompanied by expert consultants in the areas of corrections, medical care, and mental health care. Before, during, and after our tour, we reviewed extensive documentation provided by the State, including policies and procedures, incident and use of force reports, use of force videos, unit logs, youth rule violation reports, youth grievances, youth injury lists, youth death reports, unit floor plans, staffing discipline reports, internal investigations, after action reports, facility maintenance reports, training materials, medical and mental health records, and related material. Additionally, we interviewed WGYCF administrators, staff, and between 300 - 400 youth. We thank the State for the assistance and cooperation extended and acknowledge the courtesy of the State officials and counsel involved in this matter.
Mter the start of our investigation, the State conducted an internal review of WGYCF to see if it was operating consistently with sound correctional practices. In March 2011, the State issued a report that identified deficiencies in WGYCF that are consistent with the findings in our Report. We are encouraged that the State recognizes the need for fundamental change, and hope that there is a desire to work toward an amicable resolution in this matter. We hope that our findings will be received in the spirit of assisting in our mutual goal of ensuring that youth at WGYCF receive constitutionally adequate care.
We are obligated to advise you that, in the unexpected event that we are unable to reach a resolution regarding our concerns, the Attorney General is authorized to initiate a lawsuit pursuant to CRIPA 49 days after your receipt of this letter to correct deficiencies of the kind we have identified. See 42 U.S. C. § 1997b(a)(1). We would very much prefer, however, to resolve this matter by
2 


Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 3 of 47
working cooperatively with you. Accordingly, the lawyers assigned to this matter will be contacting the attorney for the State to discuss next steps in further detail.
Please note that this letter and the accompanying Report are public documents and will be posted on the Civil Rights Division's website. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Jonathan M. Smith, Chief ofthe Civil Rights Division's Special Litigation Section, at (202) 514-6255.
Sincerely,
Thomas E. Perez Assistant Attorney General
cc: Jim Hood Office of the Attorney General State of Mississippi Christopher Epps 
 Commissioner 
 Mississippi Department of Corrections 
 Walter Tripp 
 Warden 
 Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility 
 John Dowdy 
 United States Attorney 
 Southern District of Mississippi 

3 


Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 4 of 47
Investigation of the Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility
Walnut Grove, Mississippi
United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division March 20, 2012

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 5 of 47 i
Table of Contents I. INVESTIGATION.........................................................................................................- 2 II. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................- 3 III. FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................- 4 -
A. THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI IS FAILING TO ADEQUATELY PROTECT YOUTH AT WGYCF FROM HARM. ....................................................................- 4 -
1. The State’s deliberate indifference to the high incidences of sexual misconduct between youth and staff is in violation of the Eighth Amendment. ...................- 5 -
2. WGYCF is engaged in a pattern or practice of using excessive physical force against youth. ..........................................................................................................- 7 -
3. Chemical agents are used excessively at WGYCF...............................................- 9 4. WGYCF’s use of force policies, reporting, training and investigations
contribute to constitutional violations. ...............................................................- 12 5. The State is deliberately indifferent to youth-on-youth violence in the
Facility. ..................................................................................................................- 15 6. WGYCF’s inadequate staffing fails to protect youth from harm. ...................- 18 7. WGYCF’s inadequate life safety systems pose an unreasonable risk of
harm to youth........................................................................................................- 19 B. THE STATE PROVIDES CONSTITUTIONALLY INADEQUATE
MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE......................................................- 20 1. The State is deliberately indifferent to detained youth’s mental health
needs.......................................................................................................................- 21 2. The State is deliberately indifferent to detained youth’s serious medical
needs.......................................................................................................................- 27 3. Deficiencies in both medical and mental health care. .......................................- 30 IV. REMEDIAL MEASURES ..........................................................................................- 33 A. PROTECTION FROM HARM ..............................................................................- 33 B. MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH REFORMS .............................................- 36 C. MENTAL HEALTH AND SUICIDE PREVENTION REFORMS ....................- 38 D. QUALITY ASSURANCE........................................................................................- 42 V. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................- 42 -

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 6 of 47
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) conducted an investigation of Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility (“WGYCF” or “Facility”) in Walnut Grove, Mississippi, pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997 (“CRIPA”), and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 (“Section 14141”). Both CRIPA and Section 14141 give DOJ the authority to seek a remedy for a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the constitutional rights of youth. Consistent with the statutory requirements of CRIPA, we now report the findings of our investigation, the facts supporting them, and the minimum remedial steps that are necessary to address the deficiencies we have identified. 42 U.S.C. § 1997b.
We conclude that the State of Mississippi violates the constitutional rights of the young men confined at WGYCF. Evidence discovered at WGYCF reveals systematic, egregious, and dangerous practices exacerbated by a lack of accountability and controls. Mississippi officials are aware of and disregard an excessive risk to youth health and safety.
Our findings are, in large measure, consistent with the State’s own conclusions about the unmet needs of youth in WGYCF, and the Facility’s deficiencies and weaknesses.1 Youth are not receiving constitutionally adequate protection. We have made a point to include these State conclusions and admissions in this letter, and we adopt them as part of our findings. Specifically, we found that:
1. WGYCF is deliberately indifferent to staff sexual misconduct and inappropriate behavior with youth. The sexual misconduct we found was among the worst that we have seen in any facility anywhere in the nation. Further, staff fails to report allegations of staff sexual abuse to supervisors and State officials, as required by law.
2. WGYCF is engaged in a pattern or practice of using excessive force against youth. The State acknowledges, and we agree, that staff often uses excessive force as a first response, not as a last resort, including the use of pepper spray in excessive amounts. Further, staff fails to adequately report and investigate uses of force.
3. WGYCF is deliberately indifferent to gang affiliations within the ranks of correctional staff.
4. WGYCF is deliberately indifferent to the serious risk of harm to youth posed by fellow youth. The State acknowledges, and we agree, that corrections officers fail to supervise youth, particularly youth known to be violent, resulting in a high rate of ongoing harm and serious risk of harm. There is significant evidence that the Facility fails to take reasonable steps to protect youth from sexual and physical assault from other youth.
5. WGYCF is deliberately indifferent to the suicide risks and serious mental health needs of its youth. The State acknowledges, and we agree, that the Facility lacks sufficient
1 See MGT America, Operation Assessment of the Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility (2011).

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 7 of 47 -2 -

qualified mental health professionals to provide proper mental health care and current staff is not appropriately trained to address suicidal youth.

6. WGYCF is deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of its youth. The State acknowledges, and we agree, that staff provide inadequate medical care.

The widespread and significant deficiencies in the Facility violate the Eighth Amendment’s mandate that imprisoned youth be protected from harm and provided adequate medical and mental health care.

I.

INVESTIGATION

On October 25, 2010, we notified Mississippi officials of our investigation. On January 10-13, 2011, we conducted an on-site inspection of WGYCF accompanied by expert consultants in the areas of corrections, medical care, and mental health care. Before, during, and after our tour, we reviewed extensive documentation provided by the State, including policies and procedures, incident and use of force reports, unit logs, youth rule violation reports, youth grievances, youth death reports, unit floor plans, staffing discipline reports, internal investigations, after action reports, facility maintenance reports, youth injury lists, use of force videos, training materials, medical and mental health records, and related material. Additionally, we interviewed WGYCF administrators, staff, and 300-400 youth. We observed youth in a variety of settings, including their living units, common areas, library and classrooms. Consistent with our commitment to conduct a transparent investigation and provide technical assistance, our expert consultants conveyed their initial impressions and concerns to the State during exit conferences held at the conclusion of the tour.

After the start of our investigation, and heightened public interest in the program and operations of WGYCF,2 the State conducted an internal review of the Facility to see if it was operating consistently with sound correctional practices. On January 27, 2011, the State commissioned a report with MGT America (“MGT”) to conduct an independent review of the programs and operations of WGYCF.

In its March 2011 report, the State found deficiencies in WGYCF that are consistent with our findings, such as:

 high incidences of use of force, with specific reference to excessive use of chemical
agents on youth for blocking food slots;  inadequate staff training;  low staffing levels;  inadequate staff supervision;  inadequate sick call process and medical assessments;

2 In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center (“SPLC”) sued the State in a class action lawsuit alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinement at WGYCF. C.B. v. Walnut Grove Correctional Authority, Case No. 2010-cv-663 (D.MS.). On February 3, 2012, SPLC and the State filed a joint motion for preliminary approval of two proposed Consent Decrees, one governing WGYCF and the other governing a new Youth Offender Unit to be located at the Central Mississippi Correctional Facility by no later than December 2012. The parties also filed two Memoranda of Agreement relating to the provision of mental health care services at these facilities.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 8 of 47
-3 -
 inadequate mental health care, including a deficient special needs unit and suicide prevention program;
 unnecessarily housing youth age 17 and younger in the facility when they would be better served with educational and rehabilitative services in the State’s juvenile system; and,
 inadequate control of contraband.
During our site visit in January 2011, we conveyed our significant concerns with the Facility’s practices that deviated from constitutional norms, and our expert consultants provided technical assistance in the areas of protection from harm, suicide prevention, mental health care and medical care during an extensive exit conference.
II. BACKGROUND
WGYCF is a 1,500-bed prison that houses young men aged 13-22 years who are in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (“MDOC”). The Facility, opened in March 2001, is authorized by Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-943 (West 2007) specifically for the incarceration of male adolescents who are convicted as adults in criminal court.
The Facility has an authorized correctional officer complement of 245 staff (162 officers and 82 security supervisors). Between May 2001 and March 2010, the population of WGYCF has more than tripled, from 350 to approximately 1,200 adolescents.3 Twenty percent of the youth are White, 79% of the youth are Black, and 1% of the youth are categorized as other.
The Facility is owned by the Walnut Grove Development Authority (“WGDA”). The WGDA contracts with a private, for-profit company, the GEO Group, Inc. (“GEO”), to operate the Facility. GEO assumed operations of the Facility in August 2010, after acquiring and merging with Cornell Companies, Inc. (“Cornell”), which had operated the Facility since September 2003. Following GEO and Cornell’s merger, key personnel, policies and training at WGYCF did not change substantially, despite GEO’s claim that it made corrective reforms to reflect the GEO philosophy. The mental health and medical staffs at WGYCF are employed by Health Assurances as contract staff; they are not employees of GEO or the State.
All cells in WGYCF are configured for double-cell occupancy, but some special management units only house one youth per cell. The Facility has six main housing units and a special observation unit. A zone is two or more housing units, both of which are observed by the same control center. Each housing unit in a zone has a large day room and contains approximately 32 double cells for a zone capacity of 64 youth. The Facility also has a recreation yard, library, and educational and vocational sections. In addition, there is a medical unit, but no special unit designated for in-patient mental health care treatment. There is, however, a “special needs” unit where young men on medical observation or suicide watch are housed.
3 The persons incarcerated at WGYCF are called “inmates” by the State of Mississippi. We refer to them as “youth” throughout this Report.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 9 of 47 -4 -

III.

FINDINGS

In violation of their constitutional rights, youth at WGYCF are not adequately protected from harm by staff or other youth, suffer sexual abuse, are denied adequate medical and mental health care, are not protected from suicide risk, and are inadequately supervised. These unsafe conditions of confinement create an environment that is dangerous and detrimental to youth development and well-being.

The constitutional deprivations uncovered by our investigation are not the result of isolated incidents or the misconduct of a few WGYCF staff members. Instead, WGYCF’s deliberate indifference to protecting youth from harm is a systemic failure. We did our best to verify all of the allegations that we received during our investigation. In some cases, however, we relied on witness statements, due to the Facility’s poor recordkeeping.

Indeed, many of the youth 17 and younger at WGYCF suffer disproportionately from the Facility’s deficiencies and weaknesses. Their vulnerability to harm from older, stronger inmates expose this group to increased risks of harm. The State recommends, and we agree, that the 4550 youth currently housed at WGYCF who are age 17 or under should be housed in the State’s juvenile system, which would be better suited to provide the most effective care.4

A. THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI IS FAILING TO ADEQUATELY PROTECT YOUTH AT WGYCF FROM HARM.

WGYCF does not provide humane conditions of confinement or take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of youth as required by the Constitution. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1984). Young men imprisoned at WGYCF are protected by the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and usual punishment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976).

The Constitution imposes upon jurisdictions a duty to assume responsibility for a prisoner’s safety and general well-being. County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 851 (1998). Generally, state and local governments must provide confined persons with reasonably safe conditions of confinement. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979). The Eighth Amendment – as applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment – also requires that prisoners “receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832.

Incarcerated juveniles at WGYCF have a constitutional right to be protected from physical abuse and from assaults. Id. at 834 (it is unconstitutional to incarcerate an inmate under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm or when prison officials are deliberately indifferent to the inmate's safety); Longoria v. Texas, 473 F.3d 586, 592 (5th Cir. 2006) (prison officials have a constitutional duty to protect inmates from violence at the hands of their fellow inmates). The State shows deliberate indifference and fails to protect youth from harm in seven major areas: 1) sexual misconduct; 2) use of excessive physical force; 3) excessive use of

4 On February 3, 2012, SPLC and the State filed a joint motion for preliminary approval of a proposed Consent Decree governing a new Youth Offender Unit to be located at the Central Mississippi Correctional Facility by no later than December 2012.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 10 of 47
-5 -
chemical agents; 4) poor use of force polices, reporting, training and investigations; 5) youth-onyouth violence and sexual assault; 6) inadequate staffing; and 7) inadequate life systems.
1. The State’s deliberate indifference to the high incidences of sexual misconduct between youth and staff is in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
During our investigation, we found that staff sexual misconduct with youth in their custody occurred on a monthly basis, at a minimum. The allegations exposed wide-spread and systemic abuses and revealed a lack of accountability and controls that would have prevented harm to the young people confined in the Facility. We reviewed incidents starting in July 2009 through May 2010 of sexual misconduct between youth and staff, including the Facility’s disposition in each matter. We find that WGYCF is aware of the pervasiveness of staff sexual misconduct, but has failed to take any steps to prevent it beyond terminating staff caught in the act. This blatant disregard for the youth’s safety and well-being is unconstitutional. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 825. Barney v. Pulsipher, 143 F.3d 1299, 1310 (10th Cir. 1998) (holding that forced oral sex and sexual assault of adult prisoners are “sufficiently serious to constitute a violation under the Eighth Amendment”).
The Facility’s pervasive level of brazen staff sexual misconduct is stark evidence of a dysfunctional system. Despite being aware of the regular sexual misconduct or inappropriate behavior between staff and youth, the Facility fails to provide specific training to address sexual misconduct between its staff and youth. WGYCF’s lack of programmatic and operations response to staff sexual misconduct constitutes deliberate indifference. The failures to detect and eradicate inappropriate sexual conduct between staff and youth stem from inadequate staffing levels, poor staff deployment practices, the absence of staff training, lack of correctionalappropriate privacy structures in showers, and lack of staff accountability. The Facility has failed to institute policies, procedures, and training to both proactively and reactively address this unlawful conduct.
An egregious example of staff sexual misconduct occurred in April 2010, when a nurse was observed by a corrections officer having sexual intercourse with a youth in the medical department restroom. The nurse, while in the sexual act, yelled “close the door!” to the corrections officer who had interrupted her in the midst of sexual relations. The officer informed the nurse that he was immediately informing a Captain. Upon returning, the corrections officer observed the nurse and the youth still having sexual intercourse. In response, the nurse called out “close the fucking door!” Once finished, the nurse confronted the corrections officer asking “why couldn’t [he] wait until they got done before coming back?” The corrections officer escorted the youth back to his cell and filed a report with a Captain. The nurse admitted to having sexual intercourse with the youth and was terminated and arrested.
WGYCF’s failure to train staff, failure to provide adequate supervision, failure to provide adequate privacy for showering, and failure to provide follow-up care to sexually abused youth, creates an environment ripe for sexual misconduct and inappropriate relationships between youth and staff. Between July 2009 and May 2010, allegations of sexual misconduct and inappropriate behavior led to criminal charges against at least two and the termination of at least 13 staff members. While there should be no sexual contact between staff and prisoners, all physical abuse of youth under the age of 18 and sexual misconduct between an adult staff member and an

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 11 of 47
-6 -
incarcerated youth under the age of 18 is a felony sexual battery must be reported to the Sheriff for criminal prosecution and to the State of Mississippi, pursuant to its child abuse laws.5
The imbalance of power that leads to adult-youth sexual exploitation is exacerbated in the prison setting, where youth are easily coerced out of fear of reprisal. For instance, a staffer can promise better treatment or threaten poor treatment if the incarcerated youth does not cooperate with the sexual act. Or, sex between staff and youth can be used as a bartering device, where staff gives favors (like access to better work assignments, food, telephone privileges, clothing or drugs) in exchange for sex with a youth.6 By law, sex between staff and incarcerated youth is never consensual.
a. Failure to Train Staff
WGYCF does not train staff on custodial sexual misconduct. Even though Facility records show staff sexual misconduct occurred on a monthly basis, WGYCF has not implemented policies, developed a curriculum or mandated that all staff receives training in the prevention of sexual misconduct and inappropriate behavior. Given the prevalence of sexual misconduct at this Facility, this failure to act bespeaks deliberate indifference and is a violation of the law. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 825. It is imperative that the State institute policies, conduct training and provide the proper staff supervision to eliminate staff sexual misconduct at the Facility.
We found numerous inappropriate relationships between staff and youth at WGYCF, including: officers providing their personal cell phone numbers to youth; wiring money to youth’s commissary accounts or providing the officer’s banking information; allowing youth to kiss them on their neck; and, providing incriminating letters and pictures of themselves to youth. Staff also provided contraband to youth, such as: cell phones, currency and sharpened objects. Between January and October 2010, 11 officers found to have engaged in inappropriate relationships with youth were terminated. Clearly, the State must also evaluate its hiring practices.
b. Failure to Supervise
Further, at the Facility, there are no systems in place to identify and prevent sexual misconduct or inappropriate relationships between staff and youth. The State found, and we agree, that the shift assignments for correctional officers do not currently ensure that a sufficient number of supervisors and correctional officers are assigned to each one of the four 12-hour shifts to cover the young men housed at the Facility.
The following examples illustrate disturbing evidence of systemic sexual misconduct between staff and youth, which results from inadequate supervision and control:
In May 2010, a correctional officer alleged that a nurse had inappropriate sexual contact with a youth. The corrections officer, while searching for an unaccounted for youth, claimed that
5 Miss. Code Ann §§ 43-21-105(d) (2010); 43-21-353 (2007); Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-95(2) (1998).
6 Brenda Smith, Sexual Abuse Against Women in Prison, 16 CRIM. JUST. 30, 34 (2001).

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 12 of 47
-7 -
she heard “moaning and groaning sounds coming from the [employee] bathroom” and an unidentified voice from the restroom asking “where do you want me to put it?” The officer left the area to get another officer. Upon returning, the officer observed the accused nurse and the unaccounted for youth exit the restroom together. The youth claimed that while waiting in an exam room, he used the employee restroom. A nurse entered, and initiated and performed oral sex on the youth. The nurse denied the act occurred; however, the Facility Investigator referred the case to the Sheriff’s Office for further investigation. With proper supervision, the youth should not have had access to the employee bathroom and the nurse should not have been left alone with the juvenile for an extended span of time.
In August 2009, a female correctional officer removed her shirt and threw it on the floor while in her security post in the housing unit control center, which is positioned on a higher level than the ground floor of the unit. The correctional officer was recorded on camera bending over and moving provocatively in front of the youth housed in her unit. A youth was able to climb onto the ledge just beneath the control center window and positioned himself in front of the control center window. This episode continued during a four hour time span. During this time, the correctional officer can be seen on video extending her hand from the control center window and touching the youth inappropriately.
The failure to supervise staff and youth at WGYCF is not only egregious on its face; it also has serious security and safety implications. Further, the physical design of WGYCF contributes to the officers’ inability to appropriately monitor youth. For instance, the showering facilities are particularly inadequate to protect youth from sexual victimization. The Facility showers are located on the corners of each unit at the end of the hall. The showers allow naked youth to be viewed from the lower level, upper level and other areas in the unit by all staff, male and female, including medical personnel, and mental health professionals. The Facility needs to redesign the shower to ensure both security and privacy and should restrict access to male corrections officers on the unit during showering.
2. WGYCF is engaged in a pattern or practice of using excessive physical force against youth.
In its March 2011 report, the State acknowledged, and we also find, that youth at WGYCF are not adequately protected from harm. We uncovered rampant excessive uses of force on youth at the Facility, resulting in a pattern or practice of inappropriate and disproportionate levels of force, and inadequate staff training and reporting. Force by correctional officers is unconstitutional when it is not applied “in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline,” but instead is administered “maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992). Courts may examine a variety of factors in determining whether the force used was excessive, most commonly including: (1) the need for the application of force; (2) the relationship between the need for force and the amount of force applied; (3) the threat, if any, reasonably perceived by responsible corrections officers; and, (4) any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response. Id. at 7-8.
There is disturbing and strong evidence that WGYCF officers frequently and brutally react to low-level aggression from youth (e.g., abusive language or passive resistance to an order) by slamming youth head first into the ground, slapping, beating, and kicking youth. In

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 13 of 47
-8 -
addition, youth are sprayed with an oleoresin capsicum agent (“OC spray”) when not necessary and in excessive amounts.
Force used by a prison official after a prisoner is subdued and an emergency has dissipated, or which is disproportionate to the force needed to regain control, violates the Eighth Amendment. Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 738 (2002) (leaving a prisoner handcuffed to a pole after order had been regained constituted cruel and unusual punishment); Valencia v. Wiggins, 981 F.2d 1440, 1447 (5th Cir. 1993) (applying a chokehold on a disruptive prisoner who refused to exit the cell and striking a prisoner while handcuffed, kneeling, and non-resisting was malicious and sadistic, causing harm). The use of force does not have to result in significant injury for it to be considered excessive. Gomez v. Chandler, 163 F.3d 921, 924 (5th Cir. 1999) (concluding that there is no categorical requirement that an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim be supported by a prisoner’s significant, serious, or more than minor physical injury).
The following examples reflect disturbing incidents and evidence of correctional officers using excessive force:
 In December 2010, A.A.7 alleges he was asked by corrections officers to exit his cell for an unknown reason. Upon exiting, a supervisor allegedly jumped the youth and kicked him in his back four times. The supervisor then put him in his cell and another officer reportedly stomped on the youth’s left leg. In January 2011, during our tour, we observed a bruise on A.A.’s left leg that was in the shape of a boot print similar to the kind of boot worn by a corrections officer. The Facility made no report of this incident.
 In September 2010, B.B. was exiting the shower area for escort to his cell, when he reportedly was thrown against a wall and choked twice by one of the two officer escorts. Both officers reported to their Lieutenant that force was used because the youth was pulling away. The Lieutenant questioned the officers and issued a rule violation report form to B.B. for disruptive behavior. The Lieutenant did not report the incident to his supervisor. In October 2010, the Facility investigation found via the in-house security cameras and admission by the officers that the officers had used excessive force and that the Lieutenant failed to report a use of force to the next chain in command. The disciplinary action taken was unclear.
 In August 2010, a Military Training Instructor (“MTI”) in the Regimented Inmate Discipline Program (“RID”) instructed youth to prepare for a pat search. The MTI grabbed an unidentified youth by the waist of his pants and pulled until he was able to lift him from the floor by the waistband of his pants, reportedly causing the youth extreme pain. Then, the same MTI grabbed another unidentified youth by the neck, slammed him into a wall and then proceeded to choke the youth. The Facility investigation revealed that both youth were not being aggressive and did not warrant uses of force. The investigation recommended termination of the MTI, but the outcome is uncertain and there is no indication that the incident was referred to the local Sheriff’s Office for criminal investigation.
7 Fictional initials are used throughout the Report to preserve the anonymity of the youth.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 14 of 47
-9 -
 In May 2010, C.C. threw a liquid substance out of his cell and used profane language as an officer walked by. The officer then shouted “Open the cell door!” When questioned by another officer why he wanted the door open, the officer stated C.C. is trying to “hang himself.” The officer entered and was in the cell for two minutes when C.C. ran out of his cell, and slipped on the puddle of liquid immediately outside of his cell. The officer then grabbed C.C. from behind by his neck and dragged the youth on the ground by his neck. Another officer, observing the incident, called for assistance. More officers arrived and observed the officer, using both hands, dragging C.C. by the neck on the floor of the unit. One of the officers attempted to pull the assaulting officer off of the youth but was unsuccessful. Another incarcerated youth assisted the officer and both were finally able to pull the assaulting officer off of the youth. The investigation supported C.C.’s and witness’ accounts, and the assaulting officer admitted to grabbing and dragging the youth by the neck. He also admitted that C.C. was not acting aggressively towards him, but that he was “angry and agitated” with the youth. The Facility investigation concluded that the use of force was not justified. The officer was placed on Administrative Leave.
 In March 2010, D.D. was reportedly physically assaulted by two MTIs during two separate incidents. In the first instance, D.D. claimed the two MTIs grabbed, pushed and struck him while in his cell. The assault was allegedly unprovoked and continued until one of the MTIs received a radio call. A few hours later, as D.D. waited in the education hallway to receive instructions on his classroom assignment, one of the same MTIs instructed D.D. to stop moving, and then struck the youth underneath his chin and behind his head with an open hand. D.D. reported the incident, but the assaulting MTI did not file a use of force report. In-house security cameras in the education area corroborated D.D.’s account. The Facility Investigator made no findings concerning the assault in the cell that was not recorded by a camera. The MTI caught on camera was placed on Administrative Leave for using force that was not justified. The other MTI alleged to have struck D.D off-camera in the cell was not disciplined.
We found a pattern of instances where youth, already confined in their cells, were subjected to force beyond that which was necessary for orderly administration. In many instances, excessive force was used when youth were too slow to react to an officer’s orders or used profane language. We also found that youth were assaulted for the way they allegedly looked at officers or for absolutely no given reason at all.
3. Chemical agents are used excessively at WGYCF.
The State found, and we agree, that staff often uses Oleoresin Capsicum (“OC”) spray or “pepper spray” in excessive amounts, and as an early response rather than as a last resort, contrary to policy. More specifically, staff inappropriately used OC sprays on youth who were simply refusing verbal commands to remove their arms from the food tray flap while already in a secured locked cell. We also found that there is a lack of guidance on decontamination procedures.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 15 of 47
- 10 -
a. Excessive Amounts of Chemical Agents
We found that the Facility uses excessive amounts of chemical spray. In use of force reports, staff describes using only one to two short bursts of OC spray during incidents. However, in reviewing WGYCF use of force videos, we observed a considerable amount of chemical agent being used on youth far beyond one or two short bursts. In one video, an officer used so much chemical spray on a youth, the surrounding staff, some as far as approximately 20 feet away, are seen coughing and seemingly having a difficult time breathing and seeing. Of the 300-400 youth we interviewed, an overwhelming majority described the excessive use of chemical agents. Some described instances where entire spray cans appeared to be emptied into a cell, after which the staff secured the door with the youth inside. During an interview with a Lieutenant in January 2011, he informed us that he could “barely remember the last time [he] used OC spray on an inmate” and thought it was “at least nine months ago or longer.” However, a review of use of force videos showed that same Lieutenant using OC spray on a youth on December 20, 2010, a mere two weeks before we interviewed him.
In determining whether the use of a chemical agent for controlling youth may be unconstitutional, as with any other use of force, it is “proper to evaluate the need for application of force, the relationship between that need and the amount of force used, the threat ‘reasonably perceived by the responsible officials,’ and ‘any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response.’” Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7 (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321 (1986)). Although it is well-established that the use of chemical agents on recalcitrant prisoners is not per se unconstitutional, there are constitutional boundaries to its use. See Iko v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225, 239 (4th Cir. 2008) (use of additional bursts of pepper spray after inmate attempted to comply with officer's orders and which possibly contributed to inmate's asphyxiation and death sufficiently alleged objective component of excessive force claim); Soto v. Dickey, 744 F.2d 1260, 1270 (7th Cir. 1984) ("[I]t is a violation of the Eighth Amendment for prison officials to use mace or other chemical agents in quantities greater than necessary or for the sole purpose of punishment or the infliction of pain."). We find that WGYCF does not properly evaluate the need for chemical spray and uses excessive amounts.
WGYCF officers most commonly use a chemical agent known as the “Fox Fogger.” According to the manufacturer, Fox Laboratory International, the Fox Fogger Personal Sized Duty-Belt Units do not use tiny nozzle openings that reduce the amount of formula discharged per burst.8 Instead, the Fox units discharge as much of their formula as possible per one-shot burst, regardless of the size of the can. Using the “Fox Fogger” is not prohibited; however, knowing that the maximum amount of OC spray is administered per one-shot burst, it is astounding to find that officers expose youth to several bursts or extended amounts of spray. Inhalation of high doses of some of the chemicals found in OC spray can produce adverse cardiac, respiratory, and neurologic effects, including arrhythmias and sudden death.9 Exposure to OC spray may occur through skin or eye contact, or inhalation. With acute exposure, there is a rapid onset of symptoms including nausea, fear and disorientation. Respiratory responses to OC spray include burning of the throat, wheezing, dry cough, shortness of breath, gagging, gasping,
8 Fox Labs International, available at http://www.foxlabs.com/pepperspray.shtml (last visited Mar. 5, 2012).
9 C. Gregory Smith and Woodhall Stopford, Health Hazards of Pepper Spray, 60 N.C. MED. J. 268, 274 (1999).

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 16 of 47
- 11 -
and inability to breathe or speak.10 When WGYCF officers deploy chemical agents in unnecessary and excessive quantities, this is a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Danley v. Allen, 540 F.3d 1298, 1311 (11th Cir. 2008).
b. OC Spray Used as a First Response
We found that WGYCF staff excessively uses chemical agents for minor rule violations, such as when youth “buck the flap.” “Bucking the flap” occurs when a cell door is locked, but a youth simply refuses to remove his arm from the food tray flap, which is located on the cell door. Many of the youth we interviewed indicated that they “buck the flap” when staff ignores them and that is often the only means of getting administrative, medical, or mental health care attention.
The State acknowledged that although this is a common occurrence at WGYCF, the Facility does not examine the root cause of “bucking the flap,” which we found was the youths attempt to draw the officers’ attention to an unaddressed grievance. WGYCF staff often times reacts excessively to this conduct without addressing the underlying issue. Chemical agents, use of restraints, and physical force are routinely used on youth for simply refusing verbal commands to remove their arms from the food tray flap. Staff excessively uses chemical agents even though the youth are in secured locked cells, youth are not trying to harm others or themselves, and the youth are not otherwise engaged in serious violations. These responses constitute excessive force, especially in light of the fact that the Facility’s use of force policy clearly requires that force be used only as last resort, and the Facility’s response results in unnecessary injury to youth.
In response to “bucking the flap,” WGYCF should train its staff in tactical communication and de-escalation techniques enabling corrections officers to better manage noncompliant or upset youth without the use of force. Because “bucking the flap” is not aggressive conduct, staff should investigate each incident to fully understand why the youth may be refusing the verbal command to remove his arm from the flap. In these instances, staff should seek to verbally maintain control without resorting to the O.C. spray so quickly. We found, contrary to the Facility’s policies, uses of force are not used as a response of last resort, but as early choices for staff.
For example, in September 2010, E.E. stuck his arm outside of his food portal and refused to allow the portal to be secured. After unsuccessful verbal commands, a Lieutenant deployed OC spray through the portal. E.E. was restrained and escorted to the recreation yard for decontamination and medical evaluation. The youth was placed in segregation pending disciplinary action. In another example, in August 2010, two youth refused to close their food flaps, with their arms stuck out. After verbal commands, a Captain and Lieutenant sprayed OC spray into F.F. and G.G.’s flap. Both youth retreated and were sent to the recreation yard for decontamination and medical treatment. Here, proper use of de-escalation techniques could be effective in regaining control without resorting to excessive force.
10 Id.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 17 of 47
- 12 -
4. WGYCF’s use of force policies, reporting, training and investigations contribute to constitutional violations.
The State acknowledged, and we also find, that WGYCF fails to provide adequate use of force policies, reporting and investigations.
a. Inadequate Use of Force Policies
The Facility’s deficient use of force system, inadequate policies and procedures, reporting and investigations led to the rampant and excessive uses of force against youth.
The use of force policy for the WGYCF is addressed primarily in the Facility policy starting at chapter 9-25 and is entitled, Use of Force and Four-Point Restraint Policy.11 We noted that some portions of the policy are lacking important requirements and guidance. The following are examples of the policy’s deficiencies:
 requirement that photographs be taken of staff injuries following a use of force incident, but no requirement to photograph injured youth;
 no guidance provided regarding the review process for determining whether or not force was justified and reasonable;
 does not provide guidance on describing the type or amount of force used. Staff uses inadequate boiler type descriptions such as, “physical takedown” or “took the inmate to the floor” to describe use of force actions; and
 does not require that reviewing supervisors have prompt access to medical evidence such as nursing notes and anatomical drawings of the body that depict the specific areas where injuries are present following a use of force incident.
WGYCF also uses the State’s Use of Force Training Policy 04-03, which provides the use of force staff training requirements. This policy does not specify the number of hours that each employee should receive on use of force regulations. Also, as discussed earlier, the policy does not provide adequate guidance to staff on decontaminating procedures when chemical agents are deployed.
b. Inadequate Supervisory Review
In addition to the staff reporting and investigation inadequacies, the Facility fails to require supervisors to review use of force reports. Most of the use of force reports we reviewed did not contain annotations indicating review by the Warden or State Deputy Commissioner. This is a very serious breakdown in the use of force reviewing process. An unchecked use of force program is a detriment to the Facility. Unfortunately, even in those few instances where the State Deputy Commissioner acknowledged review of a use of force incident, it is with a tacit
11 It should be noted that GEO staff were still in the process of updating and converting their policy and procedure manual and post orders to meet the new vendor requirements. Surprisingly, MDOC is not required to approve the WGYCF operating policies and procedures.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 18 of 47
- 13 -
and boiler plate non-committal statement that reads, “Use of force reported as justified and in accordance with MDOC policies and procedures.” This type of review process further exacerbates an unchecked use of force program and contributes to constitutional violations.
c. Inadequate Investigations and Investigatory Training
Similarly, the Facility’s investigation component is inadequate in protecting youth from harm and remedying staff behavior. The State found, and we agree, that WGYCF’s staff training is inadequate. WGYCF’s Facility Investigator is responsible for investigating all allegations of staff misconduct, youth violence, suicidal ideations, contraband, and youth on staff violence for the entire 1200-bed Facility; however, she has not received basic outside training for investigators. Most of the Facility Investigator’s knowledge of investigative techniques is derived from on-the-job training. As a result, her investigations are replete with errors and inadequacies. The Facility Investigator should be adequately trained to assume the role as incident investigator. Basic incident investigation training would provide the Facility Investigator with the needed tools to analyze an incident, reviewing reports, evidence, and witness statements.
The Facility Investigator’s lack of professional training contributes to inadequate reporting, and there is no assurance that investigations are conducted in a fair manner, without a conflict of interest. For example, we noted that in several use of force incidents, the Facility Investigator witnessed the incident under review and was the sole investigator.
When the Facility Investigator is absent or unavailable, the Facility’s Major assumes the Facility Investigator’s role. This is also problematic because the Major is also not adequately trained in this area and is then tasked with investigating staff members he supervises or is responsible for, again presenting conflict of interest issues.
d. Inadequate Training on Decontamination Procedures
Mississippi Department of Corrections Use of Force Training Policy 04-03 provides the use of force staff training requirements for the Facility. The policy does not specify the number of hours that each employee should receive on use of force regulations, including the use of chemical agents. Also, the policy does not provide guidance or direction to staff on decontamination procedures for a youth’s clothing, bedding and cell area where a chemical agent was deployed. Instead, the decontamination process is limited to having the youth checked by medical staff and washing the chemical agent from his face and eyes. Furthermore, staff possessed minimal knowledge about the safe use of chemical agents. Some staff were able to recount only basic facts about the use of OC spray (e.g., to deploy the spray in very short bursts; or how to hold the canister), while others could not recall any specific information from the OC spray training they received. We saw no evidence to suggest that youth are allowed to decontaminate their clothing, bedding and cell areas in the videos and in the numerous use of force reports we reviewed. In addition, numerous youth reported that they were put back into their cell with chemical agents still present on their clothing, bedding and cell areas.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 19 of 47
- 14 -
e. Failure to Adequately Report Uses of Force
In many instances, uses of excessive force go unreported or uninvestigated. According to the WGYCF log, between December 2009 and November 2010, there were approximately 160 uses of force; however, it appears this log does not capture the real number of use of force incidents that are occurring at WGYCF. For example, the log does not capture the use of restraints as a reportable use of force, it does not capture all of the types of physical force used except for “physical takedowns,” and there are many other incidents that are not captured because staff failed to report the force incident. Also, according to the log, physical takedowns were not recorded prior to May 15, 2010 and the use of chemical agents was not recorded prior to May 3, 2010. When chemical agents are used, other uses of force that may have been used during the incident, including physical force and restraints, are not reported.
Between March 2009 and October 20, 2010, only 12 staff members were disciplined for use of force violations. In other allegations of staff misconduct, the Facility Investigator made no findings as to excessive use of force. This was often times due to the lack of corroborating evidence, such as when a Facility camera was not available to support the allegations of a youth and there was no other evidence or witness account to corroborate the youth. WGYCF should increase security cameras throughout the units and common areas for better visibility and evidence of incidents in the Facility.
f. Lack of Child Abuse Reporting
Further, we also find that that WGYCF is in dereliction of its duty to report child abuse when it occurs on its premises. According to the National Commission on Correctional Health Care’s Position Statement regarding “Correctional Health Care Professionals’ Response to Inmate Abuse”:
It is the duty of correctional health care professionals to ensure the clinical care, physical safety and psychological wellness of their patients. The correctional facility must have written policy and procedures regarding the detection, prevention, reduction and punishment of abuse of inmates. Separation of alleged victim and perpetrator is essential. In addition, for minors, any allegation of abuse toward a minor must be investigated under that jurisdictions’ Child Protection Agency (emphasis added).
The Facility Investigator has served in her role since March 2009 and reported that there have been no child abuse referrals during her tenure because, according to her, “youth lose their status as minors once they are adjudicated as adults.” Medical staff shared this misconception about their duty to report any incidents of child abuse. This practice is in clear contravention of Mississippi law, which requires that child abuse be reported to the appropriate agency and defines “child” and “youth” synonymously as “a person who has not reached his eighteenth birthday.”12 There is no exception in this law for youth who have been adjudicated guilty of
12 There are only two exceptions in the law: “[a] child who has not reached his eighteenth birthday and who is on active duty for a branch of the armed services or who is married is not considered a ‘child’ or ‘youth’ for the purposes of this chapter [Reporting abuse or neglect].” Miss. Code Ann. §§ 43-21-105 (West 2010); 43-21-353 (West 2007).

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 20 of 47 - 15 -

committing crimes as adults. Accordingly, WGYCF must set up a reporting procedure that complies with Mississippi law.

5. The State is deliberately indifferent to youth-on-youth violence in the Facility.

The State reported, and we also find, that WGYCF fails to appropriately supervise youth and protect them from youth-on-youth violence. WGYCF has a duty, under the Eighth Amendment, to protect its prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832-33; Longoria, 473 F.3d at 592. WGYCF officials can be held liable for their failure to protect a youth if they are deliberately indifferent to a risk of serious harm posed by another youth’s violent acts. Cantu v. Jones, 293 F.3d 839, 843-44 (5th Cir. 2002) (affirming verdict against prison guards found to have manifested the requisite deliberate indifference when they left the door to prisoner’s cell open, allowing him to escape and assault another prisoner). At a minimum, a prison official may be held liable under the Eighth Amendment for a known risk that he or she disregards by “failing to take reasonable measures to abate” that risk. See Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss., 74 F. 3d 633, 648 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847); Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, 1359-60 (11th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, WGYCF officials must take reasonable steps to protect youth from physical and sexual violence and to provide humane conditions of confinement. Providing humane conditions requires that a corrections system satisfy youth’s basic needs, such as their need for safety. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993) (explaining that the Eighth Amendment protects against future harm to inmates and requiring that inmates be furnished with basic human needs).

a.

Youth-on-Youth Physical Assault

The State acknowledges, and we agree, that corrections officers fail to supervise youth, particularly youth known to be violent, resulting in a shockingly high rate of ongoing harm and serious risk of harm. The proliferation of shanks at the Facility and the existence of gang affiliation within the ranks of correctional staff increase the risk of harm youth face from fellow prisoners.

i. Proliferation of Shanks

During our investigation, we noted many instances where youth used “shanks,” which are ordinary objects fashioned into a sharp or pointed weapon. Often, the victim required emergency medical treatment. For example, in reviewing the Facility’s Serious Injuries/Emergency Transports list between December 28, 2009 and November 12, 2010, 91 youth were transported outside the Facility for emergency medical treatment due to youth-on-youth violence. This does not include youth who were involved in a violent act at the Facility and were treated at the Facility. The list is replete with transports for stab wounds and lacerations.

The following examples illustrate harm caused by youth having access to sharpened objects:

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 21 of 47
- 16 -
 In August 2010, a correctional officer observed five youth involved in a physical altercation, where one of the youth was observed wielding a sharpened metal object. One of the youth sustained a laceration to his right cheek and to his right eyebrow and was taken to an outside hospital for emergency treatment. After the incident, a shank was recovered that was made from a light fixture cover.
 In July 2010, after a youth was assaulted by several youth, he was escorted to medical by an officer. While on the way, the youth was again physically assaulted by another youth with a sharpened metal object. Apparently, one of the youth from the original assault was able to breach his cell locking mechanism and got out of his cell to further assault the injured youth.
 In June 2010, a youth was transported to an outside hospital after his cellmate lacerated the youth’s right leg.
 In April 2010, a youth was transported to an outside hospital after his face was lacerated during an assault by several other youth.
An overwhelming number of youth reported that possession of shanks is common among youth for self-protection from other youth. During our investigation, a youth alerted the DOJ team that there was a piece of a razor blade on the dayroom floor. We located the razor blade and brought this issue to the attention of one of the high ranking Facility officials. In response, the official merely picked up the blade and disposed of it. We were told by many youth that they are allowed to keep razors in their possession for up to a week. This is an example of the lack of control over contraband in the Facility. Indeed, between August 23, 2009 and November 21, 2010 eight youth were criminally charged with possession of a sharpened object. However, youth also reported that staff does not detect shanks because youth hide them near their crotches, as staff will not search that area thoroughly.
ii. Failure to Supervise Youth Results in Youth-on-Youth Physical Assaults
The blatant lack of supervision by WGYCF officers creates an environment in which incarcerated youth reasonably fear for their safety. WGYCF’s failure to supervise youth, particularly ones known to be violent, results in unconstitutional conditions of confinement where assaults between youth occur due to the lack of supervision. Cottone, 326 F.3d at 135960.
Further, we were informed by numerous youth that there is a significant amount of gang activity in the Facility. Youth also reported staff involvement with youth gang members and that, in fact, several staff members are actually members of various gangs and are involved in gang activity at the Facility. Surprisingly, a high ranking WGYCF official acknowledged to our DOJ investigative team that some of the Facility staff are involved in gangs. Given that knowledge, it is disturbing that the Facility allows gang members on staff despite the predictable conflicts of interest that arise between staff and youth of differing gangs. For example, we were informed by several youth that one of WGYCF’s unit managers is known to affiliate with a certain gang. If youth are part of the same gang, the unit manager treats those

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 22 of 47 - 17 -

youth favorably. If, however, one is not affiliated with that gang, or affiliated with an opposing gang, youth reported that the unit manager commissions gang affiliated youth to brutally attack those youth, even assisting by ensuring that cells are unlocked during late hours to foster the attack. This condition in a prison is egregious, shocking, and unconstitutional. Id. at 1359 (explaining that a lack of monitoring and supervision of known violent inmates, which led to inmate-on-inmate violence, constituted impermissible unconstitutional conduct).

We interviewed approximately 300-400 youth and the great majority admitted they did not feel safe at the Facility. The following examples demonstrate disturbing evidence of the Prison’s failure to protect youth from harm:

 In September 2010, a correctional officer reportedly opened a cell door from the control area and allowed two youth to enter another youth’s cell and assault him. The victim was treated at an outside hospital for stab wounds to his right arm and to the back of his head and for a broken hand.

 In February 2010, a youth melee resulted in the stabbing of several youth, as well as other types of physical injuries necessitating treatment at an outside hospital. One of the injured youth, J.J., suffered irreparable brain damage and sustained a fractured nose, cuts and stab wounds. After J.J. was hospitalized for weeks, J.J.’s previously normal cognition resembled that of a two year old. After a State investigation, MDOC found, among many other serious operational deficiencies, that on the day of the disturbance, a female officer “endorsed the disturbance by allowing inmates into an authorized cell to fight. Officer (X) falsified log entries. Officer (Y) had written personal letters to an inmate (Z.Z.) (Gang Affiliation).” The Facility agreed with the findings and terminated the involved officer for inappropriate involvement with a youth. The Facility did not refer this case to the Sheriff or District Attorney for criminal prosecution.

b.

Youth-on-Youth Sexual Assault

We also have serious concerns about the alarming amount of alleged sexual misconduct that is occurring between youth at the Facility. There is significant evidence that the Facility fails to take reasonable steps to protect youth from sexual assault. According to our investigation, between April 21, 2009 and September 7, 2010, six alleged incidents involving youth-on-youth sexual assaults have resulted in criminal referrals to the Leake County Sheriff’s Office. This problem was caused by the grossly inadequate staffing of correctional officers on the unit patrolling the Facility’s living areas. Under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, correctional facilities must not only have zero tolerance for sexual violence and abuse among offenders, as well as between staff and offenders, but facilities must protect their prisoners, report all incidents of rape and train their staff in responding to rape.13

The following examples demonstrate how these failures combine to create an environment where youth are routinely subject to sexual assault by other youth:

13 42 U.S.C. § 15603.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 23 of 47
- 18 -
 In August 2009, a youth reported to an officer that his cellmate physically and sexually assaulted him during the previous night. The victim reported that his cellmate began hitting him in the back and chest, demanding that he get out of bed. The victim complied and the cellmate attempted to penetrate him anally. Upon an unsuccessful attempt, the cellmate tried to force the victim to perform oral sex. The victim refused to open his mouth, so the cellmate forced the victim to stroke the cellmate’s penis until he ejaculated. The cellmate threatened the victim with further physical harm, if the victim reported the incident. According to the Facility report, the victim was removed from the cell and the matter was referred to the Leake County District Attorney.
 In July 2009, a youth provided a Lieutenant a letter stating he was sexually assaulted by his cellmate. The victim reported that his cellmate put a shank to his neck and pinned the victim to his bed. Immediately, the cellmate began penetrating the victim anally. After the rape, the cellmate threatened to stab the victim if he reported the incident. According to the Facility report, the victim was removed from the cell and the medical report found sexual contact occurred, including blood by the victim’s anal cavity. The matter was referred to the Leake County Sheriff’s Office.
 In April 2009, a youth was in tears and reported that he had been raped by his cellmate. The victim informed staff that his cellmate told him if he did not perform oral sex on him he was going to stab him. The victim refused to perform this act. His cellmate took a sharp tool and put it to the victim’s throat and then raped him. He also told the victim that if he told anyone, he would stab him or kill him, among other threats. According to the Facility report, the youth had a red mark on his neck, and abrasions to his arms, neck and face. Criminal charges were filed in this matter.
WGYCF is liable for its deliberate indifference and failure to react to known or obvious risks of harm. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 825. We find that WGYCF does not protect its youth from harm and sexual acts of violence by other youth.
6. WGYCF’s inadequate staffing fails to protect youth from harm.
The State reported, and we also find, that WGYCF has inadequate staffing. The Facility has an authorized correctional officer complement of 245 staff (162 officers and 82 security supervisors). This is a reduction of the correctional officer force since GEO assumed operation of the Facility.
We found that WGYCF correctional officers are required to supervise more than one zone, particularly in the evening and early morning hours, when there are usually only two zone officers on the floor supervising four zones. This means that two officers are responsible for supervising between 128 and 256 youth. This is unacceptable and contributes to violations of youth’s constitutional rights to reasonably safe conditions of confinement. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 825.
The State found and we agree that the staff to prisoner ratio was low and makes the Facility less safe. WGYCF should conduct a detailed staffing analysis to ascertain acceptable levels, with the goal of providing more direct supervision for all youth in all of the six housing

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 24 of 47
- 19 -
units. At a minimum, there should be at least one housing unit officer assigned to each housing unit, on all shifts, at all times. This is in addition to the housing unit control center officer. For the special observation unit, there should at least be one officer assigned, on all shifts, at all times.
Another example of inadequate youth supervision was noted during our tour in the academic and vocational areas. Staff reported that there are usually two officers assigned to this area; however, the area contains numerous classrooms and vocational areas that are difficult to monitor by only two officers. Despite this claim, during our tour, we did not observe a single officer in the education or vocational area.14 Further complicating the supervision issue in the education area is the fact that many of the in-house security cameras located in the classrooms to monitor the youth and observe the instructor do not work.
In reviewing staffing levels, we reviewed the after-action report concerning the February 2010 melee, conducted by Cornell Companies, Inc. Following this major disturbance and the serious injury many youth sustained, it appears that the Facility made attempts to improve the operations. For example, a Security Threat Group management program was developed following the incident to better deter gang activity; however, gangs are still prevalent in the Facility, even among WGYCF staff. The auditors found that there was not enough staff on duty on the date of the disturbance to respond to the incident. However, in the wake of this report, staffing patterns have not significantly changed. Lack of staffing is exposing youth to risks of significant harm and the Facility’s failure to address the risk bespeaks of deliberate indifference.
The State reported and we find that the lack of adequate staffing is severely limiting the time that youth are allowed out of their cells. The inadequate out of cell time increases stress and creates a tense atmosphere that is ripe for violence. We also found that the vocational programs have a waiting list of approximately 50 youth. This is a significant number of youth who should be learning a skill to enhance future employment opportunities. Numerous youth reported that they are eager to attend school or a vocational program, but there is not enough security available to supervise them. Consequently, youth who do not attend school due to lack of staffing are denied the opportunity for early release from the Facility that may be available when a youth obtains his GED certificate or regularly attends a vocational program.
7. WGYCF’s inadequate life safety systems pose an unreasonable risk of harm to youth.
WGYCF fails to ensure adequate life safety systems throughout the Facility. We observed numerous deficiencies during our tour that endanger the life and safety of youth and staff. Numerous panic buttons were not working, and staff seemed to be unaware of the problem. Further, youth complained that the staff is not responsive when they activate panic buttons in the cells either because the buttons are inoperative or because staff ignores the call. Therefore, we conducted a test of the classroom and library emergency panic button system that the staff is supposed to use in an emergency situation. A staff member is supposed to be available to respond to uses of the panic button. However, when we pressed the panic button, no
14 WGYCF vocational areas contain dangerous work shop tools and materials, like hammers, nails and wood beams, to assist youth in learning skills in building, maintenance, and repair.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 25 of 47
- 20 -
staff responded. Instead, unbeknownst to security and program staff, the entire emergency panic alarm system was not functioning in the education areas. Therefore, staff in the classrooms and library, as well as youth, had a false sense of safety and security. The Facility lacks any system to regularly check cell panic buttons for functionality. We note that the staff apparently took steps to address this problem. By the end of our tour, the Facility generated approximately 300 maintenance work orders regarding faulty cell panic buttons and associated equipment.
We also noted that youth are able to sabotage their cell locking mechanisms and get out of their cells, resulting in a serious breach of security and safety to staff and other youth. This deficiency results in a high incidence of youth-on-youth violence and severe injury to unsuspecting youth. Either the cell door locking devices are inferior or security staff is not inspecting the cell door locking mechanisms on a frequent enough basis.
During the tour, we also noted a serious problem with the emergency key control system. It appears the Facility does not have a system in place to regularly check emergency keys and locks. We conducted a mock emergency drill in one of the housing units. Staff failed to access emergency keys and were not able to promptly open a cell door manually. Such a lapse in life safety management can have harmful and even deadly consequences to staff and youth when faced with real emergencies. Conditions violate the Constitution when they pose an unreasonable risk of serious damage to a prisoner’s current or future health, and the risk is so grave that it offends contemporary standards of decency to expose anyone unwillingly to that risk. Chandler v. Crosby 379 F.3d 1278, 1289 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing Helling, 509 U.S. at 3335) (explaining an inmate need not await a tragic event before seeking relief, where he shows the condition of confinement posed an unreasonable risk of serious damage to his future health). The Facility’s unsafe conditions of confinement expose youth to an unreasonable risk of harm, and are therefore unconstitutional.
B. THE STATE PROVIDES CONSTITUTIONALLY INADEQUATE MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE.
The State is deliberately indifferent to the serious medical and mental health needs of youth offenders, as demonstrated by their failure to ensure youth have direct access to medical and mental health care, failure to adequately assess and monitor suicidal risks, and failure to diagnosis and provide treatment for youth with serious medical and mental health needs. A corrections official’s “deliberate indifference” to a prisoner’s serious medical and mental health needs is a violation of the Eighth Amendment, which requires prison officials to “ensure that inmates receive adequate . . . medical care.” Easter v. Powell, 467 F.3d 459, 463 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832). Prison officials act with deliberate indifference when they are subjectively aware of and disregard a risk of serious harm to the inmate, including harm resulting from serious medical and mental health conditions. Monceaux v. White, 266 F. App’x 362, 366 (5th Cir. 2008) (affirming denial of State’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that prisoner's allegations supported claim that nurses were deliberately indifferent to prisoner's medical needs). WGYCF’s deliberate indifference to youth’s medical and mental health needs is the result of a systemic failure.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 26 of 47 - 21 -

1. The State is deliberately indifferent to detained youth’s mental health needs.

Hundreds of youth with serious mental illness have suffered at WGYCF in recent years without adequate care. WGYCF has a duty, at a minimum, not to be deliberately indifferent to incarcerated youth’s serious mental health needs. Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 335 (5th Cir. 2004) (upholding finding that MDOC officials demonstrated deliberate indifference to death row inmates’ mental health needs). In assessing the merits of a prisoner's claim for unconstitutional denial of psychiatric care, courts take into account a number of competing considerations in order to decide whether that denial amounts to deliberate indifference of the prisoner’s serious medical needs. Woodall v. Foti, 648 F.2d 268, 272 (5th Cir. 1981) (finding prisoner’s allegation that he was denied psychiatric treatment while in prison constituted a valid claim under the Eighth Amendment). Such factors include the seriousness of the prisoner's illness, the need for immediate treatment, the likely duration of his incarceration, the possibility of substantial harm caused by postponed treatment, the prospects of some cure or substantial improvement in his condition, and the extent to which the prisoner presents a risk of danger to himself or others. Id.

Our investigation revealed that WGYCF has a number of youth who have a history of prior psychiatric illness or treatment and/or are presently exhibiting symptoms of suicidal behavior or serious mental illness. The Facility, however, is not providing adequate mental health care to those youth. Instead, the Facility fails to adequately assess and treat youth at risk of suicide. Medication management or “therapeutic lockdown” are the only treatments available, and those are plagued with errors. In addition, youth experience inordinate delays before receiving the basic mental health services that WGYCF does provide, and mental health staffing levels are grossly deficient. Collectively, these shortcomings evidence WGYCF’s deliberate indifference to the serious mental health needs of incarcerated youth. It must be noted that most of these youth with their untreated or inadequately treated mental health problems are eventually going to be released in worse condition, and often times more dangerous, than when they entered WGYCF.

a.

Deliberate Indifference to Suicidal and Mentally Ill Youth

Youth identified as potentially suicidal are not properly assessed or treated at WGYCF. When a psychological or psychiatric condition results in suicidal tendencies, it can be as serious as any physical pathology or injury. Gates, 376 F.3d at 343. Failure to take any steps to save a suicidal youth from injuring himself may constitute a due process violation. See Partridge v. Two Unknown Police Officers of City of Houston, Tex., 791 F.2d 1182, 1187 (5th Cir. 1986).

i. Failure to Adequately Assess and Monitor Suicide Risk

Suicide prevention begins when the youth enters the system. Processing, screening, and booking occur primarily at the State level, with a licensed practical nurse (“LPN”) performing the initial mental health and suicide screening. Youth who are determined to be too medically or mentally ill are supposed to remain in a state mental health facility and not be transferred to WGYCF.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 27 of 47
- 22 -
The Facility does not perform its own mental health screening. This is problematic for two reasons. First, cases of mental illness are often missed by the State’s screening process. Second, severe mental illness typically presents itself in youth ages 16 to 22. After the State transfers youth to WGYCF, youth routinely experience extreme delays before seeing mental health staff. As a result, new cases of depression, psychosis, and bipolar disorder may develop in the interim between screening by the State and when the youth are eventually seen by mental health staff at WGYCF.
In spite of the fact that WGYCF is not supposed to house youth with serious mental health needs, WGYCF placed approximately 285 youth – nearly one quarter of its population – on suicide watch during the period of July 2010 to December 2010. A psychiatrist only performed follow-up evaluations on 7-8% of these youth.
Youth who are under suicide watch are not monitored appropriately, which is also indicative of deliberate indifference to serious mental health needs. Matis v. Johnson, 2008 WL 248556 (5th Cir. 2008) (dismissing an appeal from a denial of qualified immunity on a claim of deliberate indifference for a jail nurse who knew of youth’s prior treatment for mental illness and prior suicide attempts, yet failed to properly complete the intake form and place the youth on suicide watch prior to his suicide). Once a youth is identified as being at risk of suicide, mental health staff should specify, in writing, how closely corrections staff should observe the youth. Health staff should reassess the youth frequently. Corrections staff should provide the level of observation ordered by mental health staff, e.g., close or constant observation. Generally accepted professional standards dictate that people who are on suicide watch should be observed at random 15 minute intervals. However, neither WGYCF’s policies nor practices include these assessments or orders, thus making the observation of suicidal youth deficient in both policy and practice, and dangerous in operation. Our review of over 100 suicide watch sheets revealed serious deviations from this standard. The majority of the checks were not staggered and numerous entries recorded gaps between observations far greater than 15 minutes.
Medical and custody staff at WGYCF report that youth who “self-injure” are not tracked and do not require follow-up by mental health. The claimed rationale for this decision is that youth fake mental health crises to “get off the zone.” WGYCF’s failure to take any actions in the face of self-injury places all self-injurious youth in danger. Such gross inaction is unconstitutional. The following incidents are examples of WGYCF’s failure to appropriately monitor youth who expressed suicidal ideation and were at risk of suicide:
 In October 2009, a correctional officer noted in his log that he observed A.B., who had a reported history of depression and suicidal ideation, in his cell with a rope tied around his neck, saying that he was going to kill himself. Ten days later, A.B. informed an LPN during pill call that he had cut himself and stated, “I want out of here. If I have to do this again I will.” The LPN reportedly told the youth that she would take him to medical upon completion of pill call, which typically takes 5-6 hours. At the end of her pill call, she advised the oncoming nurse of the incident with A.B. Shortly thereafter, A.B. was found “cold to the touch, with rigor mortis, eyes dilated.” The LPN did not initiate CPR or call paramedics.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 28 of 47
- 23 -
 In December 2008, A.C., who had a prior history of suicide ideations and attempts, received notification that his two-year-old child had died in a motor vehicle accident. A.C. was “found hanging from light fixture. Color blue.” A.C. was revived and taken to an outside emergency room, and when he returned two days later, a nurse noted that she observed a “large reddened rope burn around left back of neck, looks like carpet burn.” Despite knowledge of A.C.’s history and suicidal behavior, the nurse cleared A.C. for placement in administrative segregation, as opposed to placing A.C. on suicide watch.
The medical team’s delay in responding to youth who express active thoughts of selfharm is indicative of WGYCF’s deliberate indifference to the serious mental health needs of youth.
ii. Failure to Adequately Treat Youth with Serious Mental Illness
WGYCF’s failure to treat serious mental health needs amounts to deliberate indifference. WGYCF does not provide mental health crisis services (including group therapy, one-on-one therapy, access to beds in a health care setting for short-term treatment and acute care (an inpatient level of care)); chronic care; and/or a special needs unit for youth who cannot function in the general population. Instead, medication management or “therapeutic lockdown” are the only treatments available, and even those are plagued with errors. Youth at WGYCF whose serious mental health needs are left untreated are at risk of harm, suffer unnecessarily, and may be at risk of harming others. Helling, 509 U.S. at 33-35 (1993).
The following cases illustrate that youth with very severe mental illnesses are being sent to WGYCF, contrary to State policy and procedure, and these youth then receive egregiously inadequate treatment for their illness:
 In July 2010, the Facility’s psychiatrist met with A.D., who reported a two year history of psychiatric treatment on an outpatient basis at his State screening. The psychiatrist gave a verbal order for an intramuscular medication but did not document the reason. Approximately two weeks later, A.D. met with the psychiatrist, who noted the youth was hearing voices telling him to hurt other people and that he had visual hallucinations, as well. The psychiatrist diagnosed the youth with psychosis and prescribed two new drugs. In December 2010, the youth reported that he could not sleep. The psychologist (not the licensed psychiatrist) recommended discontinuing one of the drugs the psychiatrist had prescribed and starting another drug under the “sleep protocol.” Approximately ten days later, the psychiatrist restarted the youth on the original drugs he had prescribed. Starting and stopping medication in this fashion risks worsening A.D.’s mental illness. Further, the complete absence of mental health treatment, except for medication management, for a youth such as A.D., who suffers from a serious mental illness, is unconstitutional.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 29 of 47
- 24 -
 In November 2009, A.E. was referred to a “psych doctor” because correctional officers were unable to arouse him one morning. Other youth stated he had saved eight pills to take in one dose. The following day, A.E. met with the psychiatrist, but the psychiatrist did not appear to be aware of the overdose, as he made no mention of it in his notes, nor did he perform a suicide risk assessment. In January 2010, A.E. lacerated his arm with a razor blade, requiring sutures. Approximately one week later, the youth complained of mood swings and was referred to the psychiatrist, who diagnosed him with mood disorder and malingering symptoms of suicidality and prescribed him medication. A.E. cut himself an estimated five times in 2010 and was on suicide watch for five months without a mattress, underwear, socks, educational programming, or psychotherapy. Despite this, WGYCF had not provided him additional treatment.
 In August 2008, A.F., a youth with a history of psychosis and treatment with an atypical anti-psychotic medication, met with the psychiatrist at the request of corrections staff, who described him as guarded, suspicious, and often seen mumbling to himself. The psychiatrist ordered medication and placed him on suicide observation. Three days later, the psychiatrist described A.F. as, “doing fine. Assessment: Stable.” Several months later in February 2009, the youth reported, “I’m not the same without my meds,” referring to the drugs he had been taking pre-incarceration. In 2010, A.F. initiated at least three requests to be seen by a psychiatrist, but in each instance significant time, ranging from one week to two months, elapsed before he saw a mental health professional. He was also on suicide watch almost every month in 2010. Throughout his incarceration at WGYCF, A.F. has not received adequate mental health treatment services, which should have included group therapy, 1:1 psychotherapy or treatment with his prior medications.
These examples demonstrate that youth with a diagnosed history of severe mental illness are getting past State screening and sent to WGYCF, where they receive inadequate mental health services. At WGYCF, youth are routinely taken on and off medications, which is dangerous to the youth’s health, and psychologists frequently prescribe medication, which they are not licensed to do. Further, the youth languish for years at a time without receiving evidence based mental health services that are routinely used to treat serious mental health conditions. These practices evidence deliberate indifference to youth’s serious mental health needs. Monceaux, 266 F. App’x at 366 (“A prison official’s knowledge of a substantial risk of harm may be inferred if the risk is obvious. Obvious risks . . . include disregarding a doctor’s orders.”).
iii. Inadequate Suicide Prevention and Risk Training
WGYCF fails to provide adequate suicide prevention training to all corrections, medical, and mental health staff to ensure the safety of self-harming youth. Successful suicide prevention is a collaborative process among all staff; however, training is particularly critical for corrections officers because they are the only staff present 24 hours per day and who have regular contact with the youth. Pre-service and annual training requirements should be clearly set forth in the relevant policy. Training should ensure that staff is able to recognize the verbal and behavioral

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 30 of 47 - 25 -

signs that indicate a suicide risk, know what to do when a risk is suspected, and understand how to respond when there is a suicide attempt (generally achieved through mock drills). A qualified mental health professional should provide suicide prevention training; however, at WGYCF, it is provided by an unlicensed counselor who only had one documented hour of suicide prevention training herself that year. Suicide prevention training at WGYCF is grossly inadequate.

b.

Excessive Delays in Access to Mental Health Care

Prisons must deliver mental health care in a timely manner. Unreasonable barriers must be removed, including barriers that deter youth from seeking care for their serious mental health needs, permit unreasonable delays before inmates are seen by prescribing providers, and delay sick-call appointments. See NCCHC Standard YE 07. The delay of medical care can constitute an Eighth Amendment violation “if there has been deliberate indifference that results in substantial harm.” Easter, 467 F.3d at 463.

Youth at WGYCF experience inordinate delays before receiving necessary mental health care and often have to fill out multiple requests before receiving mental health treatment. Youth we interviewed reported that once they successfully received a medical request slip from the unit manager or correctional officer, which was difficult in itself to obtain, they were forced to submit two or three slips before the sick call request was answered. As discussed earlier, they also stated that in order to get medical attention, they resorted to placing their arms outside the food port and would “buck the flap,” and frequently face being sprayed with a chemical agent or another use of force in response. The youth’s reports were substantiated in the medical records. Further, mental health grievances are not tracked for patterns, trends, or repeated issues. The Facility views weeks of delay in access to care as acceptable and considers it standard operating procedure for youth to first request a follow-up appointment rather than place youth on a chronic care list for routine management. This practice is contrary to generally accepted professional standards and to WGYCF policy.

The following examples illustrate the significant delays youth at WGYCF experienced
 before receiving mental health care, and the harm that resulted:


 In June 2010, A.G., who has a history of depression, suicide ideations and family suicide, was placed on suicide watch. He did not see the psychologist until over one week later, at which time the psychologist noted, “He is catching suicide to get off the zone.” In October 2010, the youth submitted a request for mental health treatment, “My grandma just died and I am hearing voices.” Three weeks later, he was referred to the psychologist who noted, “Mood up and down, lost 30 pounds, insomnia. Rule out bereavement. Refer for medication evaluation.” A week later, A.G. saw the psychiatrist who diagnosed, “Normal grief,” despite the 30 pound weight loss, and prescribed no medication; it is not clear whether the psychiatrist reviewed the record. In December 2010, more than two months after his grandmother’s death, the psychiatrist finally diagnosed him with “Depression and Grief Reaction” and prescribed medication.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 31 of 47 - 26 -

 In May 2010, the State conducted a mental health evaluation of A.H. and noted that he had a prior diagnosis of schizophrenia and had been on and off medication for several years. At the screening, the youth complained of auditory and visual hallucinations, including hearing voices calling his name. In spite of this history and complaint, he was sent to WGYCF. In June 2010, upon arrival to WGYCF, A.H. was held “in the infirmary”15 until the psychiatrist could perform an evaluation. Three days later, A.H. was finally evaluated and prescribed medication; the psychiatrist noted that A.H. reported hearing voices in his head and feeling the devil was after him. A.H. did not see a psychiatrist again until two months later. At the time of our investigative tour in January 2011, he had not seen a psychiatrist since August 2010.

 In December 2008, A.I. submitted a psychiatric request slip, which stated: “Something in my ear is making my head hurt very bad.” An LPN documented his complaint and noted that he was hearing screaming noises, but did not refer him to the psychiatrist. Several months later, in June 2009, the youth submitted another slip, this time complaining that he was hearing voices in his head telling him he was going to die. There is no record a mental health professional met with him at that time. In February 2010, the youth complained that he could not sleep and that his depression was getting worse. It was nearly two months later before the psychiatrist met with him. In May 2010, A.I. was sent to the hospital to extract a razor blade that he used to cut his arm. In August 2010, A.I. noted he again needed his medication and that he was not receiving it consistently. He was referred to the psychiatrist one month later.

Additional cases reviewed showed a clear pattern: youth were admitted with a history of substance abuse issues and/or psychiatric treatment, developed bizarre behaviors such as flight of ideas, depression, agitation, or confusion, and were evaluated months later, usually only by a nurse. Subsequently, youth were returned back to general population due to alleged “malingering” with no mental health follow-up and sometimes became suicidal. This pattern of care evidences a deliberate indifference to serious mental health needs and is a violation of youth’s constitutional rights. Gates, 376 F.3d at 335 (noting the inadequacy of a prison’s mental health services where some inmates are medicated “but there is essentially no other mental health services” provided).

c.

Staffing Deficiencies Responsible for a Lack of Essential Services

As the State acknowledges, and we agree, mental health staffing levels at WGYCF are inadequate. One psychiatrist, who was on call an average of 14 hours per month in 2010, is responsible for providing psychiatric coverage at WGYCF. This equates to a .08 full time equivalent (“FTE”) psychiatrist for a population of 1200 prisoners. That level of psychiatric staffing is shockingly low. The psychiatrist, who has no formal on-call duties, estimates that he was called at home approximately one or two times every two weeks. There are two psychologists who each work part-time on alternating weeks, once per week for five hours per day. This is the equivalent of 1.25 FTE psychologists, an equally shocking lack of mental health staff for a prison of that size. The State reported that the lack of available mental health staff

15 It is not clear what the reference to an “infirmary” means. The medical unit at WGYCF has no beds.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 32 of 47
- 27 -
causes inmates to stay in the suicide observation unit for up to two weeks where they get no education, no programming, and no out of cell time while simply awaiting to be cleared from that unit.
Mental health staff fails to provide group therapy, psychotherapy, or 1:1 counseling. The Education Department provides substance abuse and anger management programming, but only to a limited number of youth (less than 10% of the general population). Youth housed within administrative segregation, on suicide watch, or designated as special needs status receive no programming at all. This practice makes no sense. The youth with the greatest need for programming and treatment do not receive it.
Given its pronounced mental health staffing deficiencies, it is not surprising that the Facility fails to provide adequate mental health services. A mental health care program for chronic conditions is a vital component of rehabilitation for incarcerated youth with serious mental illnesses, but such a program does not exist at WGYCF. Specialized programs for incarcerated youth with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and other major mental health disorders are endorsed by not only the American Psychiatric Association, but are also required by the NCCHC standards for mental health services in correctional facilities. See NCCHC Standard JG-04.
Other required services are also absent: identification and referral of youth with mental health needs; crisis intervention services; psychotropic medication management; individual counseling; group counseling; psychosocial/psycho-educational programs; and treatment documentation and follow-up.
The majority of the youth taking psychotropic medications were receiving minimal psychiatric follow-up. Nearly all the youth who reported suicidal ideation or attempted suicide were labeled “malingerers” and provided no further mental health support. No one inquired into what prompted the behavior nor did anyone track youth with repeated complaints of distress. The Facility cannot adequately assess whether mental health staffing levels are appropriate because it fails to track requests for mental health care and youth placed on suicide watch. We saw no evidence of a qualitative mental health review, including in cases of death/morbidity, or of routine review of medication errors and lack of access to care. These practices amount to deliberate indifference towards the serious mental health needs of youth, in violation of their civil rights. Gates, 376 F.3d at 335.
2. The State is deliberately indifferent to detained youth’s serious medical needs.
The State is also deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of its youth. A serious medical need is one for which treatment has been recommended or for which the need is so apparent that even laymen would recognize that care is required. Vasquez v. Dretke, 226 F. App’x 338, 340 (5th Cir. 2007). A prison official’s knowledge of a substantial risk of harm may be inferred if the risk is obvious. Monceaux, 266 F. App’x at 366. Conditions violate the Constitution if they pose an unreasonable risk of serious damage to a prisoner’s current or future health, and the risk is so grave that it offends contemporary standards of decency to expose anyone unwillingly to that risk. Helling, 509 U.S. at 33-36; Gates, 376 F.3d at 332-33.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 33 of 47
- 28 -
WGYCF fails to identify and treat youth who present obvious symptoms of serious illness and injury. When WGYCF does identify youth in need of medical treatment, the treatment provided is often insufficient, placing the youth’s health and safety at risk. Youth are needlessly suffering and, in some cases have even died, due to the Facility’s deliberate indifference to their medical needs. Below we highlight five major areas of deficiencies: (1) intake screening and initial health assessments; (2) correctional medical care; (3) access to care for acute medical needs; (4) management of chronic health problems; and (5) failure to recognize the special duties owed to youth.
a. Deficient Intake Screening Process
Screenings and health assessments at WGYCF must be timely, thorough, and completed by competent professionals with the necessary training to identify signs that pose risks to youth’s health, so as to meet the Eighth Amendment’s mandate that prison officials “ensure that prisoners receive adequate ... medical care.” Easter, 467 F.3d at 4463 (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832). As the State acknowledges, and we agree, WGYCF fails to conduct a proper and thorough medical examination upon intake, thereby failing to identify the acute and chronic care needs of youth entering the Facility. This failure amounts to deliberate indifference.
Our investigation uncovered that it is difficult, if not impossible, for nurses to conduct a proper and thorough medical examination of the youth upon intake because the exam rooms do not contain examination tables, chairs, or examination equipment. Youth are placed in individual “exam rooms” to wait for the physician or nurse practitioner to enter the furniture-less room to conduct their exam.
During our tour, we observed a nurse practitioner perform an examination of a youth. While an examination of the upper body was performed, there was no examination of the lower portion of the body other than pulling up pant legs and looking at the skin. A standard examination, which should include palpation and/or percussion of the thorax and abdomen and lower extremity pulses, and examination of the skin, is not possible while the youth stands in an “exam room” containing no furniture.
Further, the Medical Unit appeared to lack equipment for urinalysis and peak flow meters. These are identified in Health Assurance policy and procedures as being a routine part of the intake evaluation. Asthma is the most prevalent chronic disease in children and adolescents. A peak flow meter should be available to evaluate this disease. Dipstick urinalysis is also necessary to check for kidney disease or urinary tract infections. As a result of these deficiencies, youth do not receive a necessary assessment, which in turn, can lead to an unreasonable risk of serious damage to a youth’s current or future health.
b. Failure to Provide Youth with Adequate Access to Medical Care
Youth can request medical treatment through a sick-call form. Even though the medical staff receives these sick-call complaints, we find that WGYCF fails to take timely and necessary action. This failure to act is unconstitutional deliberate indifference to youth’s serious medical needs. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104. Every one of the grievance slips we reviewed complained about access to care.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 34 of 47
- 29 -
Youth are entitled to direct access to health care, but the sick-call process at WGYCF creates significant impediments to that right. If a youth wants to put in a request to obtain medical services, the youth must ask for a “sick call request sheet” from a corrections officer on duty. Most often, these request slips are locked in a box within the unit. The corrections officer must unlock the box and then give the form to the youth. The youth then returns the form to the corrections officer and hopes the officer places the request in the sick call request box. Alternatively, youth may choose to wait for nursing staff to make their rounds and hand the sick call request slip directly to the nurse. The nurse on night duty collects the sick requests each evening and is responsible for creating a list of youth to be seen, which is distributed to Facility officers in the morning.
Once the sick call requests reach the Medical Unit, there are often extreme delays in providing the requested relief. Often, the interval between requesting service and receiving service was greater than seven days. Youth routinely had to make several sick-call requests before a nurse would initially evaluate them, and then would endure extensive delays before seeing a physician, following a nurse’s referral.
WGYCF’s sick call process interposes several obstacles to youth having direct access to health care. Rather than locking the blank sick call requests forms in a box, the forms should be easily accessible and available to the youth. After the youth fill out their sick call request form, they should be able to place the form themselves in a secure locked box to ensure that it reaches its intended location. This would address youth’s concerns that correctional officers use access to sick call requests as leverage to manipulate the youth’s behavior. This might also reduce the excessive delays youth experience before receiving medical care.
The following are examples of WGYCF exhibiting deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of youth due to excessive delays in providing medical care:
 One week prior to our investigation, A.J. filled out a request slip to be seen regarding a scalp problem. After one week, he still had not been seen.
 In December 2010, A.K. put in a medical request for evaluation of intense knee pain, but was not seen by a nurse for 8 days.
 In December 2010, A.L. requested to be seen for a spider bite, a potentially very serious problem. He was not seen until three days later.
 Youth A.M. experienced several delays:
o In June 2010, he was seen by the physician and medication was ordered. He had to request medication three additional times before he actually received the medication.
o In October 2010, he complained of a neck rash, but was not seen for 11 days. o In November 2010, he requested treatment for a head rash, but wasn’t evaluated for
10 days.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 35 of 47
- 30 -
Through WGYCF’s sick-call process, medical staff is made aware of youth’s medical needs. Despite this knowledge, WGYCF repeatedly fails to provide timely care. This situation amounts to deliberate indifference that places youth at risk of grievous harm. Helling, 509 U.S. at 33-35.
c. Failure to Provide Adequate Care to Youth with Serious Chronic Medical Needs
Chronic care programs in correctional settings are critical to avoid placing incarcerated youth with serious medical needs at excessive risk. The requirements of chronic care are addressed in guidelines developed by the NCCHC.16 See NCCHC Standard YG 02. While WGYCF claimed to be following the NCCHC guidelines, our review of prisoner charts revealed that no chronic care program exists.
For example, our investigation revealed that WGYCF has neglected to implement a protocol to treat hypertension among the youth. During our tour, we took a random sample of the youth’s vital sign data and noticed at least ten youth with multiple instances of blood pressures above 120/80 (normal value for adults). The definition of abnormal blood pressure readings is three abnormal measurements of either the systolic (top number) or diastolic (bottom number). There were no treatment plans or referrals to the physician after multiple documentations of abnormal blood pressure readings.
3. Deficiencies in both medical and mental health care.
There are several deficiencies that plague both the provision of medical and mental health services, including grossly deficient medication administration, the lack of an effective quality improvement mechanism, and physical plant issues.
a. Lack of Follow-up Care
All youth in the facility, especially those who are sexually assaulted, need to be informed of the availability and need for medical examinations and psychological counseling for any sexual incident. Sexual interactions can have medical consequences, including exposure to HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. They may also exacerbate existing mental health problems and cause anxiety, depression or re-traumatize youth who have been subjected to prior sexual abuse. 17
b. Grossly Deficient Administration of Medication
The administration of medication at WGYCF is grossly deficient and results in many youth not having access to their required medication in a timely fashion. Medication “pill” rounds occur at least twice daily. Medications are locked in a medication cart used to distribute medication directly to the youth on the unit. Medication Administration Records (“MARs”)
16 It should be noted that in 2008, NCCHC elevated the requirement of a chronic care program from “important” to “essential,” emphasizing the necessity of a functional chronic care program.
17 Smith, Sexual Abuse Against Women in Prison, 16 Crim. Just. at 35.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 36 of 47
- 31 -
serve as documentation of medication administration. At the time of our investigation, there were many sites on the medication administration record that were empty, which indicates “missed” medication administrations. Interviews with youth revealed many instances of missed medication doses.
For example, on one “pill” round that we observed, the nurse had six medications that needed to be administered in the unit, but she was unable to locate three of the patients. Apparently, nurses are not given an updated housing unit list on a regular basis. When the nurse cannot locate the youth, the medication is not administered. This results in missed doses as well as misplaced medications. Pill rounds frequently take up to five hours because of the inability to locate youth. During this time the nurse is not available for other nursing duties.
Another problem with medication administration is that the nursing staff fails to consistently record in the MAR. Medications should be documented as soon as they are given. Often two or three youth were given medication before the nurse stopped to record the administration on the MAR.
c. Inadequate Quality Assurance Mechanism
Our investigation revealed the fundamental problem underlying the provision of medical services at WGYCF is that the Facility does not recognize that it owes a special duty to youth confined to its care. The Facility is using the wrong quality assurance standards to gauge the quality of medical and mental health services it provides, and it does not employ any medical professionals that have expertise in pediatric medicine.
Correctional facilities must have quality assurance systems in place to ensure accountability for errors that lead to grievous harm. Helling, 509 U.S. at 35. Health Assurance uses the NCCHC adult jail detainee standards; not the juvenile or even adult prison standards.18 As of January 2011, the average length of stay for youth offenders at WGYCF is 3.5 years. The use of jail standards is not acceptable because jail is for pre-adjudication or short stays, usually one year or much less. The youth at the Facility have been sentenced to serve much longer lengths of time.
Further, the NCCHC recognizes that the standards that should be used to treat youth are different than those that apply in an adult correctional setting. According to the NCCHC, “[a]dolescent health specialists, including medical and mental health professionals, familiar with correctional health care should be consulted in the development of correctional policies and procedures dealing with adolescent inmates.”19 Similarly, the American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that the practice of pediatrics is intended to address the needs of people from birth to 22 years of age. Although the youth at WGYCF range in age from 13 to 22, none of the physician providers at WGYCF have training in pediatric, family medicine, or internal medicine-
18 Each policy in the Health Assurance Medical Manual delineates the National Standard the policy was based on. In each instance, the NCCHC standard that was used was the Jail Standard, as indicated by the use of “J” in front of the policy number. For example: Access to Health Care Policy is based on NCCHC Standard: J-A-01 and J-E-07.
19 NCCHC Position Statement, Health Services to Adolescents in Adult Correctional Facilities (May 17, 1998), http://www.ncchc.org/resources/statements/adolescents.html (last visited Mar. 5, 2012).

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 37 of 47
- 32 -
pediatrics. While it is not necessary that all staff be trained in pediatrics, there should be adolescent and young adult expert oversight. Expertise in the psychosocial and developmental aspects of adolescents is necessary to provide appropriate health care.
d. Ineffective Quality Improvement Measures
WGYCF does not have appropriate quality improvement mechanisms for either medical or mental health services. NCCHC Standard Y-A-06 requires a continuous quality improvement program in all facilities to monitor and improve health care delivered in the facility. There were two deaths at WGYCF in the 24 months preceding our January 2011 tour. While we were told that a mortality review was conducted within 30 days of each death, we were not given access to those reviews and thus, could not corroborate that information.
Even though one completed suicide and six serious suicide attempts occurred at WGYCF between January 1, 2009 and January 11, 2011, we received no copies of reviews of death and/or adverse events specific to mental health or psychiatry despite our specific request for those records. In other words, it appears that the mental health providers at WGYCF did not perform a qualitative analysis of the suicides which took place between January 1, 2009 and our visit.
The Facility’s monthly statistical report documents the provision of emergency care. There was a spike in emergency department visits, hospital admissions and hospital days in the months of January 2010 and February 2010. The average number of emergency department visits between May and December 2010 was 8.3, but in January 2010 there were 17 visits and 32 in February 2010. Similarly, the total number of days youth spent in the hospital was 12 between May and December 2010, but youth spent, on average, 15 days in the hospital in February 2010. Yet, there was no documented discussion regarding the etiology of these spikes in the minutes of the Medial Audit Committee meetings for 2010. The Facility should have documented the root cause and evaluation of its practices. In addition, the Facility should formulate corrective action. Finally, the Facility should review the role of medical services and whether the medical response was effective and adequate.
Further, treatment teams do not meet to review cases at WGYCF. In fact, there was no evidence of treatment plans, informed consent, peer review, or parental notification in cases of serious injury or probable or suspected abuse/injury. While WGYCF does have a Policy and Procedure Committee, it has no input from a physician or mental health provider. Each of these findings is problematic and indicates that there is no mental health management or oversight process.
Quality improvement is well-known to be a cornerstone of a sound medical and mental health-system, regardless of the facility’s size. Measurable components of care, which should be tracked on a regular basis include: access to care, continuity, safety of the environment, grievances, and timely care delivery. The fact that qualitative review of medical and mental health services is not occurring in a prison the size of WGYCF is disturbing.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 38 of 47
- 33 -
e. Physical Plant Issues
There are several physical plant issues that interfere with the provision of adequate medical and mental health services. For instance, the Special Needs modules are primarily indirect supervision housing with 16 cells. The cameras operating in these cells have a significant blind spot in which a youth could easily harm himself or suffer a medical emergency (such as a seizure) outside the view of an officer. Earlier, we discussed the serious issue related to emergency call buttons. Direct supervision could be provided if correctional officers were performing rounds on an intermittent basis. However, a review of hundreds of suicide watch sheets revealed that these checks were not performed on a staggered basis, which is the standard of care.
Youth confined in segregation units experience additional obstacles in accessing adequate medical care. The medical and mental health staff perform medication management contacts on administration segregation cell-side, as opposed to in the medical unit. In the segregated units, a card for recording nurse checks is placed outside each unit near the door. The card is initialed whether the youth is seen or not. Conversations between the nurse and the youth occur through the flap in the door. This method of interviewing youth deprives them of confidentiality and may contribute to victimization, as the assessment is done from outside the cell with other youth well within hearing distance.
IV. REMEDIAL MEASURES
In order to rectify the identified deficiencies and protect the constitutional rights of youth confined at WGYCF, the State should expeditiously implement the minimal remedial measures set forth below. These measures are necessary to ensure that youth are adequately treated, protected from harm, and receive adequate medical and mental health care, including adequate suicide prevention.
A. PROTECTION FROM HARM
1. Protection from Harm by Staff
a. Adopt and implement a zero-tolerance policy for physical and sexual abuse of youth by staff.
b. Review hiring process and make any changes necessary to ensure the hiring of qualified staff.
c. Develop and maintain age appropriate, comprehensive and contemporary policies and procedures regarding permissible uses of force (including among other things, de-escalation techniques and an appropriate continuum of interventions short of physical force).
d. Expressly prohibit the use of force as a response to verbal insults or youth threats.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 39 of 47
- 34 -
e. Expressly prohibit the use of force as a response to youth’s failure to follow instructions where there is no immediate threat to the safety of the institution, youth, or staff, unless corrections officers have attempted a hierarchy of documented nonphysical alternatives.
f. Expressly prohibit the use of force as punishment.
g. Expressly prohibit the use of punching and slapping to the head or slamming youth’s heads into the ground.
h. Ensure that all youth’s allegations or staff reports of child abuse are referred to the appropriate external agency immediately.
i. Develop and implement a process to track all incidents of use of force that at a minimum includes the following information: youth name, housing unit, date and type of incident, injuries, if medical care is provided, primary and secondary staff directly involved, reviewing supervisor, external reviews and results, remedy taken, and administrative sign-off.
j. Provide a minimum of four hours of competency-based training for all staff on the identification and prevention of custodial sexual misconduct or other sexual misconduct, and provide new employee and annual refresher training.
k. Provide competency-based training for all staff and the Facility Investigator responsible for conducting Facility incident investigations, including use of force allegations and sexual misconduct allegations.
l. Ensure that incident reports contain all material information including, at a minimum:
i. the number of youth and staff present at the time of the incident, and the location of individuals present;
ii. activity that occurred just prior to the incident;
iii. a thorough description of the incident;
iv. specificity as to how staff responded and intervened; and,
v. witness’s statements from all staff and youth present.
m. Review all use of force and incident reports multiple times per week and document the review. Implement all appropriate remedial action.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 40 of 47
- 35 -
n. Review all youth grievances multiple times per week and document the review.
o. Conduct routine and unpredictable audits of video recordings and surprise in-person visits to the Facility during the overnight shift and on weekends.
p. Promptly investigate any incident where staff is suspected of possible violations of law, policies, procedures, or rules.
q. Impose and document appropriate counseling, reprimands, training, or sanctions on staff found to have violated policies, procedures, or rules.
r. Provide a minimum of eight hours of competency-based training for all staff on the approved use of force curriculum (including use of physical force and any chemical agents), provide new employee training, and provide annual refresher training.
s. Prohibit the use of chemical agents, except in extraordinary circumstances (e.g., when there is imminent danger to staff or others).
t. Develop and implement policies and procedures for the effective and accurate maintenance, inventory and assignment of OC spray and other security equipment.
u. Develop and implement an adequate system of tracking and reviewing use of force incidents. The system should be capable of identifying patterns and trends that can be addressed through training, administrative, or disciplinary measures.
2. Protection from Harm by Youth
a. Transfer and house youth age 17 or under in the State’s juvenile system, and in the absence of a transfer to a juvenile facility, those youth 17 and younger should be housed in a single unit with specialized programming and limited contact with other youth.
b. Conduct a staff and supervisor assessment to determine the appropriate staff to youth and supervisor to staff ratios for enhanced supervision of all incarcerated youth.
c. Ensure frequent, irregularly timed, and documented security rounds by corrections officers inside each housing unit.
d. Ensure that staff adequately and promptly reports incidents involving youth violence.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 41 of 47 - 36 -
e. Develop a process to track all serious incidents that captures all relevant information, including: location, any injuries, medical care provided, primary and secondary staff involved, reviewing supervisor, external reviews and results, remedy taken, and administrative sign-off.
f. Increase video surveillance in critical housing areas and adjust staffing patterns to provide additional direct supervision of housing units.
B. MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH REFORMS
1. Access to Medical and Mental Health Care
a. Ensure that sick call slips are directly and readily available to youth.
b. Implement a corrective action plan for remediation of service delays.
c. Track all requests for medical and mental health care.
d. Establish a system for review of all grievances regarding medical and mental health services.
2. Youth Specific Care
a. Consult with adolescent health specialists, including medical and mental health professionals, familiar with correctional health care in the development and implementation of correctional policies and procedures dealing with youth.
b. Implement a policy and procedure to report child abuse of any youth less than 18 years of age that complies with Mississippi’s child abuse law.
c. Admission Screening
i. Provide exam tables in the exam room.
ii. Ensure that medical staff performs a complete examination of the youth’s body during intake screening.
iii. Provide screenings as required by the Health Assurance Medical Services Manual and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 42 of 47 - 37 -
d. Chronic Medical Care
i. Provide evaluation and treatment plans for all youth with abnormal blood pressure measurements.
ii. Implement an audit system to verify the provision of chronic care to youth who require treatment, with a special focus on the monitoring of hypertension.
3. Medical Administration
a. Ensure that adequate psychotherapeutic medication administration is provided.
b. Provide standardized storage of medication so that pharmaceuticals can be easily located.
c. Establish a system to track medication ordering and delivery.
d. Provide nursing with a housing move list every day.
e. Establish a system to train and monitor accurate medication administration recording.
f. Provide a more stringent system for date and time stamping of provider orders.
4. Quality Assurance and Improvement
a. Develop and implement an effective quality assurance program for the Medical Unit which ensures that policies, procedures, and practices are being followed. This will require, at a minimum:
i. creating standards that reflect current medical and mental health policies;
ii. establishing a process for auditing medical and mental health practices that includes document review, interviews with youth and staff, and observation of operational procedures and programs;
iii. drafting a written report on the level of compliance with each quality assurance standard; and
iv. creating a corrective action plan to address the deficits noted by the quality assurance audits.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 43 of 47 - 38 -
5. Physical Plant Issues
a. Provide direct visuals of youth in the Special Needs modules and in the segregated units.
C. MENTAL HEALTH AND SUICIDE PREVENTION REFORMS
1. Admission Screening
a. Revise intake procedures and forms to adequately screen incoming youth for mental health issues and for suicide risk upon a youth’s arrival to WGYCF and prior to housing assignment. The intake screening questionnaire must include, among other things, inquiry regarding:
i. Past suicidal ideation and/or attempts;
ii. Current ideation, threat, plan;
iii. Prior mental health treatment/hospitalization;
iv. Recent significant loss (relationship, death of family member/close friend, etc.);
v. History of suicidal behavior by family member/close friend; suicide risk during prior confinement; and
vi. Transporting officer(s) belief as to whether the inmate is currently at risk.
b. Incorporate mental health screening results into youth’s files and implement a formal communication process between intake and classification staff.
c. Ensure that all staff conducting intake screening is trained adequately, including regarding identification and assessment of suicide risk, and are given appropriate tasks and guidance.
d. Ensure that intake screening is conducted in a setting that provides the privacy consistent with correctional security and which includes specific inquiry regarding whether an incoming youth is currently suicidal or has a history of suicidal behavior.
e. Ensure that medical and mental health staff conducting screening incorporate the corrections screening information into their screening process.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 44 of 47 - 39 -
f. Ensure that all reasonable efforts are made to obtain a youth’s prior mental health records and that this information, along with all WGYCF screenings, is incorporated into youth’s charts.
2. Suicide Prevention
a. Provide a minimum of eight hours of competency-based suicide prevention training as part of new employee training and four hours of annual refresher training for all correction officers, medical and mental health staff, which includes:
i. the environmental risk factors;
ii. individually predisposing factors;
iii. high risk periods;
iv. warning signs and symptoms;
v. the Facility’s suicide prevention procedures;
vi. liability issues;
vii. a discussion of recent suicide attempts at the Facility;
viii. the use of a rescue tool; and
ix. certification in CPR and first aid.
b. Require direct care staff to immediately notify mental health care staff any time a youth is placed on suicide precautions.
c. Notify all direct care staff on a daily basis of all youth on suicide watch precautions.
d. Provide a mechanism for mental health care staff to provide critical information about youth on suicide precautions to direct care staff regarding known sources of stress to potentially suicidal youth, the specific risks posed, or coping mechanisms or activities that may help to mitigate the risk of harm.
e. Provide quality private suicide risk assessments of suicidal youth on a daily basis.
f. Ensure that all mental health care staff within the Facility has access to critical information for youth on suicide precaution (e.g., progress notes from all treating clinicians).

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 45 of 47
- 40 -
g. Prohibit the routine use of isolation rooms for youth on suicide precautions. Ensure that isolation rooms are only used when legitimate security concerns exist and are documented.
h. Ensure that any youth assigned to a special housing unit or disciplinary housing receives opportunities for educational and other programming.
i. Ensure that youth who have been identified with a high risk of suicide receive one-on-one supervision by a direct care staff with no other duties until the youth is transferred out of the Facility.
j. Clarify WGYCF’s policy regarding levels of observation of suicidal youth (e.g., constant observation, unpredictable intervals not to exceed 15 minutes, etc.) and ensure that corrections officers implement documented appropriate levels of observation.
k. Implement treatment plans for suicidal youth that identify signs, symptoms, and preventive measures for suicide risk.
l. Require adequate emergency intervention training for all staff who regularly interacts with youth. Enforce a policy requiring corrections officers to initiate CPR if they are the first responders to suicide attempts.
m. Ensure that cut-down tools are readily available to staff who may be first responders to suicide attempts.
n. Conduct adequate multidisciplinary morbidity-mortality reviews of all suicides and serious suicide attempts (i.e., suicide attempts requiring hospitalization), and implement any appropriate remedial action. A preliminary review should occur within 30 days of the incident, and a comprehensive review should occur within 30 days of the completion of a coroner’s report.
3. Mental Health Care Treatment
a. Develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure youth with serious mental health needs receive timely treatment as clinically appropriate, in a clinically appropriate setting.
b. Ensure crisis services and acute care in an appropriate therapeutic environment, including access to beds in a health care setting for shortterm treatment (usually less than ten days) and regular, consistent therapy and counseling.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 46 of 47
- 41 -
c. Ensure that mental health staff conducts documented in-person assessments of youth prior to placement in a special management unit (segregation) and on regular intervals thereafter as is clinically appropriate.
d. Ensure an inpatient level of care that is available to all youth who need it, including regular, consistent therapy and counseling.
e. Provide adequate on-site psychiatric coverage and psychiatric support staff in order to timely address youth’s serious mental health needs.
f. Ensure that psychiatrists provide documented diagnoses of youth.
g. Implement an adequate scheduling system to ensure that mental health professionals see mentally ill youth as clinically appropriate, regardless of whether the youth is prescribed psychotropic medications.
h. Ensure that mental health care staff is able to access youth medical records that are up-to-date, accurate, and that contain all clinically appropriate information.
i. Implement policies and procedures requiring that mental health staff reviews mentally ill youth’s disciplinary charges to ensure that WGYCF does not impose a significant disciplinary penalty on mentally ill youth for conduct that is symptomatic of the youth’s mental illness.
j. Ensure that WGYCF’s quality assurance program is adequately maintained to identify and correct deficiencies with the mental health care system.
k. Provide outpatient treatment, including regular, consistent therapy and counseling, to all youth who are on the mental health caseload.
l. Provide discharge/transfer planning, including services for youth in need of further treatment at the time of transfer to another institution or discharge to the community. These services should include the following:
i. arranging an appointment with mental health agencies for all youth with serious mental illness;
ii. providing referrals for youth with a variety of mental health problems;
iii. notifying reception centers at state prisons when mentally ill youth are going to arrive; and

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR -FKB Document 74-1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 47 of 47 - 42 -

iv. arranging with local pharmacies to have youth’s prescriptions renewed.

4. Mental Health Care Housing Units

a. Provide for appropriate housing for mental health care, including a chronic care and/or special needs unit for youth.

b. Provide an appropriate housing unit for suicidal youth, and allow those youth to leave their cells for recreation, showers, and mental health treatment, as clinically appropriate.

c. Remove suicide hazards from all areas housing suicidal youth or place all suicidal youth on constant observation.
5. Staffing
a. Increase mental health staff to achieve a ratio of 1.0 full time psychiatrist or equivalent for every 75-100 youth with serious mental illness who are receiving psychotropic medication.

D.

QUALITY ASSURANCE

1. Develop and implement an effective quality assurance program to ensure that policies, procedures, and practices at the Facility are being followed, and whether policies require improvement or updating. The program should, at a minimum:

a. create standards that reflect current Facility policies;

b. establish a process for auditing Facility practices that includes document review, interviews with youth and staff, and observation of operational procedures and programs;

c. produce a written report on the level of compliance with each quality assurance standard; and

d. create corrective action plans to address the deficits noted by the quality assurance audits.

V.

CONCLUSION

The constitutional violations outlined above are the result of the State’s deliberate indifference to the welfare of youth confined to its care. The widespread and significant deficiencies at WGYCF violate the Eighth Amendment’s mandate that imprisoned youth be protected from harm and provided adequate medical and mental health care. The State must take immediate measures to assess the full extent of its failed oversight with the assistance of consultants in juvenile protection from harm issues. The State must also strengthen its oversight processes by implementing a more rigorous system of hiring, training, and accountability.

 
 Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 59 Filed 11/15/11 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

______________________________________

C.B., by and through his next friend,

)

Charleston DePriest, et al.

)

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

WALNUT GROVE CORRECTIONAL

)

AUTHORITY, et al.

)

)

Defendants.

)

______________________________________ )

CLASS ACTION Civil Action No. 3:10cv663

Notice of Dismissal

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 41, the Plaintiffs file to dismiss without prejudice the

following Defendants: The Walnut Grove Correctional Authority, The GEO Group, Inc., Health

Assurance, LLC, Walter Tripp, in his official capacity as Warden of the Walnut Grove Youth

Correctional Facility, Wesley Vinson, in his official capacity as Deputy Warden of the Walnut

Grove Youth Correctional Facility, Dan Kern, in his official capacity as Deputy Warden of the

Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility, K. Hogue, in her official capacity as Health Services

Administrator for Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility. In support of this Notice, the

Plaintiffs state as follows:

1. The Defendants listed above have not filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment

in this action. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have the right to voluntarily dismiss these Defendants

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 41 (a).

2. The Plaintiffs dismiss the Defendants listed above in an effort to streamline this litigation

and increase the chances of settlement. The State Defendants have the authority to provide

1

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 59 Filed 11/15/11 Page 2 of 3
complete relief on Plaintiffs’ claims. For several months, the Plaintiffs and the State Defendants have engaged in productive settlements talks and the Plaintiffs are hopeful that additional negotiations conducted solely between the Plaintiffs and the State Defendants will result in a comprehensive settlement of these claims. 3. In the event that the Plaintiffs re-instate the Defendants listed above at a later time or file a subsequent case against these Defendants, the Defendants have agreed to waive their right to seek all or part of the costs related to this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (d). 4. The Plaintiffs dismiss these claims against the Defendants listed above without prejudice. 5. This dismissal does not extend to Defendants Christopher Epps, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections or Dr. Tom Burnham, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Mississippi State Department of Education.
The Plaintiffs therefore dismiss Defendants The Walnut Grove Correctional Authority, The GEO Group, Inc., Health Assurance, LLC, Walter Tripp, in his official capacity as Warden of the Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility, Wesley Vinson, in his official capacity as Deputy Warden of the Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility, Dan Kern, in his official capacity as Deputy Warden of the Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility, K. Hogue, in her official capacity as Health Services Administrator for Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility, from this matter without prejudice and subject to the agreement set forth in paragraph 3 of this Notice.
Respectfully submitted, s/Sheila A. Bedi__________________ Sheila A. Bedi, Miss. Bar No. 101652 The Southern Poverty Law Center 921 N. President Street, Suite B Jackson, Mississippi 39202 601-948-8882 (phone)
2

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 59 Filed 11/15/11 Page 3 of 3
601-948-8885 (fax)
Robert B. McDuff, Miss. Bar. No. 2532 767 North Congress Street Jackson, Mississippi 39202 601-969-0802 (phone) 601-969-0804 (fax) Margaret Winter (admitted pro hac vice) The National Prison Project of the ACLU Foundation, Inc. 915 15th Street, N.W., Seventh Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 202-393-4930 (phone) 202-393-4931 (fax) Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by email to all parties by the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s CM/ECF System. This 15th day of November, 2011.
s/ Sheila A. Bedi_______________ Sheila A. Bedi, Miss. Bar No. 101652 The Southern Poverty Law Center 921 N. President Street, Suite B Jackson, Mississippi 39202 601-948-8882 (phone) 601-948-8885 (fax)
3

 
 Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 170 Filed 06/11/15 Page 1 of 32

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION

CHARLTON DEPRIEST, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS

v.

Civil Action No. 3:10-cv-663-CWR-FKB

WALNUT GROVE CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITY, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Enforcement and Modification of Consent Decree and Defendant’s Motion to Terminate Prospective Relief Granted and Ordered by the Court’s Approval of the Consent Decree. Dkt Nos. 106, 129. Following an evidentiary hearing over six days, April 1, 2, 3, 23, 24 and 27, 2015, the Court received the parties’ proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law in support of their respective positions. Dkt Nos. 161 and 165. After careful consideration of the submissions of the parties, the testimony of the witnesses, the arguments of counsel presented at hearing, and the applicable law, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ motion is granted in part and denied in part, and the Defendant’s motion is denied.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The lawsuit in this case was filed on November 16, 2010, but the genesis of it began quite some time earlier. At the heart of the class action complaint was Plaintiffs’ contention that Defendant Walnut Grove Correctional Facility, which housed youth offenders between the ages of 13 and 22, who had been convicted in Mississippi’s adult criminal justice system, were being subjected to violations of the Eighth Amendment. See Compl., Docket No. 1. Settlement negotiations began even before the lawsuit was filed. Dkt No. 75. After reaching several

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 170 Filed 06/11/15 Page 2 of 32
agreements, the parties filed for Preliminary Approval of the Proposed Agreement, requested a
fairness hearing and sought other relief.
The Court conducted a fairness hearing on March 22, 2012, “and allowed the parties to
provide testimony and to submit evidence and argument in support of their [joint] request for
entry of the proposed consent decrees.” Id. at 3-4. In support of their request for approval of the
settlement, the parties informed the Court that they had negotiated over a nine-month period with
the assistance of the magistrate judge and their experts, who “were very much involved in
creating the settlement documents.” See Transcript of Mot. Hrg. at 5. The Court also heard from
class members, who testified about extreme violence - inmate on inmate assaults as well as staff
on inmate violence, which constituted excessive force and violations of the Eighth Amendment.
Id. at 13, 16, 17 and 20. There was also testimony about contraband at the facility, the lack of
sufficient staffing, and a February 27, 2010 riot. Id. at 23, 24 and 35. Counsel for the State
explained:
The consent decrees and the memoranda of agreement are the product of [sic] since this lawsuit was [filed] back in 2010, late 2010, the parties have spent obviously months and months and months negotiating the provisions, studying the provisions, and ensuring that the provisions are tailored to remedy what has been determined to be the constitutional violations or the constitutional claims under the Eighth Amendment and other constitutional claims that plaintiff[s] alleged in their complaint.
There’s been experts from both sides involved, including the commissioner [sic] had a nationally recognized panel of experts come in and give him an independent report about the conditions at Walnut Grove that was - - when completed shared with counsel for the other side.
And as the court is aware from being provided the proposed consent decrees, the experts - - an expert from plaintiff[s’] side and an expert from the defendant’s side will be participating in developing protocols and monitoring the facility once - - and if the consent decrees are put in place.
********

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 170 Filed 06/11/15 Page 3 of 32
An important feature about the consent decrees and the agreements is that it - - of course, MDOC is responsible, but - - it also makes MDOC’s contractors responsible, and it’s expressly stated in that agreement. So it gives MDOC the responsibility to ensure that the detailed changes and provisions in the decree are made. And that’s an important feature of this because we are dealing with a privately run facility.
Id. at 54-55. The following colloquy also occurred:
The Court: With respect to the question that I asked [counsel for the plaintiffs’], they have been involved in this matter, according to her, since about 2006. The lawsuit was filed in 2010. We have evidence today that something happened two days ago. I realize the parties negotiated the agreement and it was give and take in it, and I realize the agreement as worded now expires after five years. Does the agreement itself at the end of the five-year term allow for the court to determine whether or not it should remain beyond the five-year period after the five-year term?
Will the monitoring that the court will do, will it authorize the court to say . . . the court is not allowing the consent decree to expire at this time because there is evidence - - assuming that there would be evidence - - at the end of the day that the agreement should not be terminated.
[Counsel for State]: Your Honor, that particular provision, of course - - I mean, the way that it has been negotiated, drafted, it speaks for itself. My understanding of it is that the - - it is a five-year termination, but it can be extended before that five years even expires based upon meeting certain criteria that’s in the provision.
So for example, if two years from now things aren’t going the way that the court expects and that the monitoring and stuff reveals it, then I think that you have to look at the provision, and there is a way that the decree would last more than five years.
Another important thing - - and [counsel for the Plaintiffs] mentioned this. But the parties have had to be very careful in ensuring that the remedies crafted in this agreement are consistent with what Congress has said in the PLRA, and the way that that provision and the other provisions in the agreement are set up with regard to how you show compliance, how the agreement ends, we believe that comports with the PLRA in that regard, Your Honor.
Id. at 57-59.
There is more:

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 170 Filed 06/11/15 Page 4 of 32
[Counsel for Plaintiffs]: Just a few points, Your Honor. . . . On your question about termination, I just wanted to clarify that that provision states that the court has the authority to extend the consent decree twice for a period of no longer than a year. So the consent decree could conceivably be in place for seven years before it is terminated. . . . [i]f they are not in compliance and based on the terms of this agreement as currently drafted. . . .
Id. at 62-63.
**** ****
[The Court]: . . . the court is going to take the request under advisement. . . . So the court realizes that a ruling needs to be made expeditiously, but one thing stands out in my mind, however. And the court preliminarily is likely going to enter the decree because I believe that the state has committed to - - through the last two years of trying to work out this agreement.
But what’s troubling about some of the testimony that I heard today, even though this lawsuit is pending, you still have staffing issues, and you don’t need a court order to provide more than what an agreement - - the perfected agreement requires. You don’t need a court order. You don’t need a court order to give somebody more rights than what they might be entitled to.
The fact [that you had] an incident that occurred two days ago, I wonder if we had had this hearing on Monday would that incident still have occurred on Tuesday. . . . Again too when the parties leave this courtroom today, it sounds as if the place is still going to be understaffed and that they are not going to do anything until this order is in place.
I can assure you of this. If the court signs on to this agreement, this court will monitor. This court will be involved in it. And this court will want to know what is happening. And this court will want to make sure that the rights of the, whatever you want to call them, offenders, inmates, students, children, grown folk, whatever you want to call them, that they have rights irrespective of the reason why they may be there. And we have and the state has an obligation to make sure that they are protected and treated in a humane way based on - - and I think I can rely on the DOJ report because it has been submitted to the court as part of these proceedings. Based on that, the state, as the Department of Justice has said, has been egregious, has been brazen, has been all of those things against these offenders and the state has not lived up to its obligation in protecting these individuals.
Id. at 64-65.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 170 Filed 06/11/15 Page 5 of 32
The parties presented to the Court the well-crafted Consent Decree, which states that “[i]n order to resolve the allegations in the Complaint related to the protection from harm and violence, excessive use of force, punitive isolation and inadequate medical care . . . the parties have entered into this Consent Decree.” Dkt No. 75-3, at 1. “This Consent Decree refers to actions and inactions that will be undertaken by Commissioner Epps, his staff and contractors under his direction.” Id. at 2.1 The purpose of this Consent Decree, it continues, “is to protect certain constitutional and federal statutory rights to individuals who are now or in the future will be imprisoned at WGYCF.” Id. at 3. The agreement allows for the appointment of James Austin and Steve Martin to serve as monitors who are “responsible for tracking compliance with the terms of this Consent Decree.” Id. at 12. Furthermore, the parties agreed that the terms of the Consent Decree “are narrowly drawn . . . extend no further than necessary to correct the violations of federal rights at issue, [and] are the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violations of federal rights at issue. . . .” Id. at 14.
When there are disagreements about whether the defendants are in substantial compliance with any obligation under the Consent Decree, its terms are not silent. Most notably, under the agreement, litigation was meant to be the last option. The parties first had to engage in good faith discussion to resolve the dispute. If that did not resolve the issue, they would “submit the dispute to the magistrate judge who is assigned this case.” Id. at 14.
After the fairness hearing, the Court made its findings and approved the settlement agreement. En route to its approval, the Court noted the testimony it received at the fairness
1 The Court notes the Defendant is Marshall Fisher, who is now Mississippi’s Commissioner of the Department of Corrections (“MDOC”). Also, MDOC is now contracting the operation of Walnut Grove to Management Training Corporation (“MTC”). This company took over the facility after the Consent Decree was entered. The Court will refer to them collectively as “Defendant.”

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 170 Filed 06/11/15 Page 6 of 32
hearing, the arguments of counsel and the other evidence, including all pleadings which had been filed up to that date, and a report issued by the Department of Justice. That review and consideration left “the Court with the firm and unshakeable conviction that the Consent Decrees2 must be entered WITHOUT DELAY.” See Dkt No. 75, at 4 (emphasis in original). The settlement agreement, the Court noted, “‘secures an adequate advantage for the class in return for the surrender of litigation rights against the defendants.’” Id. at 6 (citations omitted). The Court also commented that the “State’s cooperation in crafting the agreement assures that the State limits its exposure and the significant expenses that would be incurred with prolonged litigation.” Id. at 7.
Upon entry of the Order Approving Settlement, the parties began implementing its provisions and the Monitors began their work. Between the submission of the Third and Fourth Status Reports, a riot occurred at the facility. See Dkt Nos. 97, 100 and 101. The monitors described it as a “serious disturbance.” Dkt No. 101, at 3. However, it was the more extreme riot which occurred on July 10, 2014, that prompted the Plaintiffs to file their Motion for Enforcement and Modification of Consent Decree. Dkt No. 106.3 In that motion, the Plaintiffs requested an evidentiary hearing in order to take testimony on whether additional remedial measures are required to provide reasonably safe living conditions and freedom from violence for the inmates at Walnut Grove. Id. Plaintiffs argued that if the Court determines additional
2 In addition to the Consent Decree, which is the subject of these motions, the Court entered other consent decrees, which are not in issue.
3 The riot was captured on video cameras throughout four housing zones and a recording was placed in evidence. See, Pl. Ex. 9- DVD of July 10, 2014 Riot; see also Vail Tr. Dkt. No. 141, at 82-96 and Vail August 2014 Report, Dkt. No. 151-6. The events captured can best be described as shocking. The staff lost complete control of the zones for a significant period of time. Inmates were brutally assaulted repeatedly with hands, feet, and objects including sticks, trays and a microwave. Some of the attackers stood over their victims and urinated on them. See, e.g., Monitor Report Dkt. No. 151-7, at 7-8.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 170 Filed 06/11/15 Page 7 of 32
measures are needed, it should modify the decree “to provide for whatever narrowly and suitably tailored relief is necessary to achieve that goal.” Id. at 1-2.
Primarily, at the urging of the Defendant (who chastised the Plaintiffs for instituting this action before meeting its mediation obligations and their demand for discovery), no hearing was immediately set. The Court allowed for the parties to pursue their mediation obligations between themselves and through the magistrate judge. The Court also set a discovery deadline and set the hearing on the Plaintiffs’ motion to begin on April 1, 2015. In the interim, the Defendant, on March 13, 2015, filed its Motion to Terminate Prospective Relief Granted and Ordered by the Court’s Approval of the Consent Decree. Docket No. 129. The hearing on both motions was held over the course of six days, April 1 – 3 and April 23, 24 and 27.
Before delving into the testimony and other evidence, however, the Court must speak about the importance and legal effect of the Consent Decree.
II. CONSENT DECREE The United States Supreme Court has explained that “[a] consent decree embodies an agreement of the parties and is also an agreement that the parties desire and expect will be reflected in, and be enforceable as, a judicial decree that is subject to the rules generally applicable to other judgment and decrees. Frew ex rel Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431 (2004) (internal quotation and citation marks omitted). “A consent decree,” the Fifth Circuit notes, “is akin to a contract yet also functions as an enforceable judicial order.” U.S. v. Chromalloy American Corp., 158 F.3d 345, 349 (5th Cir. 1990). “General principles of contract interpretation govern the interpretation of a consent decree . . . [which] is to be construed only by reference to the ‘four corners’ of the order itself.” Id. at 349-50 (citations omitted).

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 170 Filed 06/11/15 Page 8 of 32
As mentioned above, the parties negotiated at length the terms of the Consent Decree.
They negotiated the remedial steps to be taken by MDOC. Every term was submitted to the
scrutiny of counsel opposite, and the parties presented the document to this Court for its blessing.
Before the Court gave its seal of approval, it held a fairness hearing to determine whether the
decree was fair, reasonable and adequate.
During the hearing, the Court questioned counsel and heard their arguments on why the
Court should adopt the Consent Decree. The hearing evinced to the Court that the inmates at the
facility were “at risk every minute, every hour, every day.” Dkt No. 75, at 4. In its Order
Approving Settlement, the Court explained:
Without Court intervention, [the inmates] will continue to suffer unconstitutional harms, some of which are due to aberrant and criminal behavior. Nothing has curtailed actions of the staff and indifference of management official to constant violations, even though the parties and their experts have been monitoring, investigating and conducting on-site visits constantly since before the lawsuit was filed and during the pendency of this action. Moreover, the fact that the DOJ dared to begin its investigation in October 2010 has not caused the defendants to transform the facility into one that complies with the United States Constitution. But even more astounding is that fact that the notice of the fairness hearing itself did not cause the defendants to change course. . . . [Walnut Grove] has allowed a cesspool of unconstitutional and inhuman acts and conditions to germinate, the sum of which places the offenders at substantial ongoing risk.
Id. at 4-5. Finally, the Order Approving Settlement closed with this thought:
The Court appreciates the fact that the terms of the settlement agreement and consent decrees were reached after months of exhaustive investigation and non-collusive negotiation, both of which began even before the lawsuit was filed. The results reached fall within the range of possible relief, and there are no obvious deficiencies in the terms that have been proposed. In fact, the Consent Decrees address and seek to rectify the issues raised in the Complaint, the matters uncovered during discovery, the testimony received at the fairness hearing and the matters addressed by counsel in their arguments requesting approval.
Id.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 170 Filed 06/11/15 Page 9 of 32
With respect to the negotiation of the parties and the specific terms of the Consent
Decree, the Court finds instructive the termination provision of the Consent Decree, which is
found at Section IV(8):
The Consent Decree will terminate five years from the date it is filed with the Court. The Consent Decree may also terminate earlier than five years from the date it is filed with the Court if the Court determines that MDOC substantially complied with each of the provisions of the Consent Decree and has continuously maintained substantial compliance for at least two years. Noncompliance with mere technicalities, or a brief relapse in compliance during a period of otherwise sustained compliance, will not constitute failure to maintain substantial compliance. The Court may extend this Consent Decree and/or any of its provisions twice, and each extension may be no longer than one year upon a finding that MDOC failed to substantially comply.
Dkt. No. 151-1.
The parties disagree about whether this language of the Consent Decree authorizes the
Defendants to move for termination at any time after the passage of two years. Defendants argue
that it does and that they were in fact required to move for termination. The Court agrees with
the Plaintiffs, however. As argued by the Plaintiffs, there is a sunset provision which favors the
Defendants: the Consent Decree terminates in five years. Dkt No. 163, at 95 (citing Dkt No. 151-
2, at 15). On the other hand, the next clause of Paragraph IV(8) circumscribes when defendants
can achieve termination of prospective relief: only after they have maintained substantial
compliance with each of the substantive provisions of the decree continuously for two years, a
limitation which is not in the PLRA. Id.
The parties freely negotiated this language, and they are bound by it. Nothing about the
PLRA prohibits parties from agreeing to termination conditions different than those contained in
the PLRA. Moreover, it has been done in other jurisdictions. See, e.g., Cody v. Hillard, 88
F.Supp.2d 1049, 1058-59 (D.S.D. 2000) (the consent decree established procedure for continued

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 170 Filed 06/11/15 Page 10 of 32

monitoring and avoided the limited duration of having a modification subject to termination in a

year); Stipulated Settlement Agreement Between Plaintiffs and Defendants at 7, McLendon v.

City of Albuquerque, No. 6:95-cv-24 (D.N.M. June 30, 2005) (“The Defendant will not file any

motion in the future asserting that this Stipulated Settlement should be terminated under the

Prison Litigation Reform Act.”); Settlement Agreement at 5, Duffy v. Riveland, No. 2:92-cv-

01596

(W.D.

Wash.

June

4,

1998),

available

at

http://chadmin.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/PC-WA-0003-0004.pdf (“In order to give the

provisions contained herein an opportunity to be implemented and evaluated, both parties agree

not to challenge this agreement for a period of four years.”); Consent Order at 2, Duvall v.

Glendening, No. 1:76-cv-01255 (D. Md. Aug. 22, 2002) available at

http://chadmin.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/PC-MD-0006-0003.pdf (“Defendants have

agreed that they will neither challenge nor otherwise seek to modify the terms of this Order,

without Plaintiffs’ consent, for a period of 14 months from date of entry.”). Conditioning

termination of decree on compliance is also not rare. See e.g., Consent Injunction at ¶ 56, Prison

Legal News v. Berkeley County Sheriff, No. 2:10-cv-02594 (D.S.C. Jan. 13, 2012), at Dkt No.

201 (“Defendants shall not provide such notice or file such motion until they have achieved a

minimum of one year of substantial compliance with the provisions of the Consent Injunction . . .

‘Substantial Compliance’ shall mean that defendants have achieved compliance with most or all

of the components of the relevant provision of the Consent Injunction for a period of one year.”).

Defendant’s attempt to repudiate the Consent Decree that it jointly drafted and negotiated

with the Plaintiffs is rejected.

III. LEGAL STANDARD A defendant seeking termination, must initially establish the requisite passage of time. 18

U.S.C. § 3626(b)(1)(iii) (relief terminable upon motion of any party, but “in the case of an order

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 170 Filed 06/11/15 Page 11 of 32
issued . . . before the date of enactment of the [PLRA], 2 years after such date of enactment”).
Guajardo v. Texas Dep’t of Crim. Justice, 363 F.3d 392, 395 (5th Cir. 2004). The burden of
proof then shifts to the prisoners to demonstrate ongoing violations and that the relief is narrowly
drawn. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3). Id. Section 3626(b)(3) places a limitation on the termination of
prospective relief under a consent decree if the court makes the requisite written findings based
on the record; but the burden of proof to support these findings is obviously on the party
opposing termination. Id.
In determining whether this consent decree should be terminated, the Fifth Circuit
explains as follows:
The PLRA provides three methods for terminating such consent decrees: (1) the passage of time, 18 U.S.C. § 3625(b)(1)(A); (2) agreement by the parties, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(10(B); or (3) ‘if the relief was approved or granted in the absence of a finding by the court that it was narrowly drawn, extended no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and was the least intrusive means necessary to correct a current and ongoing violation’ of a federal right (ongoing violation), and that, consistent with subpart (b)(2) above, the relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary, and is the least intrusive means, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3).
Id. at 394.
IV. DISCUSSION Occurrences suggesting an increase in the inmate violence and overall chaos at Walnut
Grove prompted Plaintiffs’ August 2014 motion. The worst moments saw this perilous
environment explode into mayhem and MDOC lost complete control of the facility. Plaintiffs
have moved to modify the Consent Decree on the grounds that the recurrent violence over a two
year period indicates the lack of efficacy in the order’s aim -- securing a reasonably safe
environment for the prisoners housed at Walnut Grove.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 170 Filed 06/11/15 Page 12 of 32
As discussed supra, Defendants responded by moving to terminate the Consent Decree.
They contend that pursuant to the PLRA, termination is now appropriate because the Consent
Decree is no longer required to cure a current and ongoing violation of any federal right.
In relevant part, the Consent Decree stipulates that it “will terminate five years from the
date it is filed with the Court,” or it “may also terminate earlier than five years from the date it is
filed with the Court if the Court determines that MDOC substantially complied with each of the
provisions of the Consent Decree and has continuously maintained substantial compliance for at
least two years.” Consent Decree, Dkt. No. 151-1, at 15 (emphasis added).
The evidence before the Court paints a picture of a facility struggling with disorder,
periodic mayhem, and staff ineptitude which leads to perpetual danger to the inmates and staff.
The dangers that inmates face are not simply limited to assaults by other inmates but also from
the guards. The Monitors’ Reports validate that the sometimes chaotic conditions are more than
mere snapshots of disruption, as they span a time period of almost two years. Each of these
reports, with the exception of the third and most recent, conveys findings of noncompliance with the core requirement of “reasonably safe living conditions.”4 In fact, in the core areas of the
4 The First Monitors’ report found that “disruptive incidents at the facility through the first six months of the Consent Decree [] continued at alarming levels,” and concluded with the findings that Defendant remained in non-compliance with the core requirement of reasonably safe living conditions. (First Monitors’ Report, October 1, 2012) Dkt. No. 152-4, at 2-4. Finding that the facility was still in noncompliance with reasonably safe living conditions, the Second report notes that there remained to be “too many serious incidents of assaults, too much contraband, and ineffective management of special needs inmates.” (Second Monitors’ Report, April 1, 2013) Dkt. No. 152-5, at 7. The Third report shows that Defendant was only in partial compliance with reasonably safe living conditions but it conveys that recent reports indicate an overall decline in assaults. (Third Monitors’ Report, October 19, 2013) Dkt. No. 152-6, at 8. Noting a significant “sharp rise in assaults and fights and also in staff applications of force,” the Fourth report found Defendant in non-compliance with reasonably safe living conditions. (Fourth Monitors’ Report, April 7, 2014) Dkt. No. 151-2, at 47. The Fifth report indicates that Defendant was still in non-compliance with reasonably safe living conditions; importantly, it notes that Defendant was reporting assaults according to the number of events instead of the number of inmates involved. (Fifth Monitors’ Report, October 22, 2014) Dkt. No. 151-7, at 5-6. With this method of tabulation, the Defendants counted the July riot as one assault. Finally, although, the final report determined that the

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 170 Filed 06/11/15 Page 13 of 32
Consent Decree, the Defendant has yet to reach substantial compliance. It is difficult for the Court to formulate its analysis of the conditions at Walnut Grove without according some weight to the fact that the Defendant has not maintained substantial compliance with specific provisions the parties agreed were necessary to improve those conditions. Yet, the mere passage of two years provides an avenue for the Defendant to be relieved from the obligations of the Consent Decree. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(1)-(3).
On the issues of whether Defendant’s motion to terminate and whether the Court should modify the existing Consent Decree, the threshold question is whether there are any current and ongoing violations of a federal right at the facility. If there are, then the question becomes whether a remedial plan is necessary to correct the violations, and is it narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means to correct the violations. Guarjardo, 363 F.3d at 392. On defending against termination and seeking their modification, the burden is on the Plaintiffs. Id. at 396. A. Current and Ongoing
The Court must consider only those findings which reflect conditions as they exist at the time of its § 3626(b)(3) inquiry. Castillo v. Cameron County, Tex., 238 F.3d 339, 353 (5th Cir. 2001). As a result, the Defendant argues that any analysis of the events which lead to Plaintiffs’ motion to modify the Consent Decree is improper. The only relevant facts Defendant argues are those revealed at the evidentiary hearing that represent facts in “close temporal proximity.” Defendant says that “[t]he evidence spanning the most recent Monitors’ Report (Sixth Report), as well as evidence from February and March 2015, should be the guidepost.” Docket No. 161, at 21. This gives the Court a full six months of evidence to evaluate current conditions, the
“vast majority of inmate population is not involved in assaultive or violent behavior,” it found Defendant in partial compliance with the reasonably safe living conditions requirement. (Sixth Monitors’ Report, March 5, 2015) Dkt. No. 121, at 9-10.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 170 Filed 06/11/15 Page 14 of 32
Commissioner argues. Id. This, he contends, constitutes temporal proximity. Id. at 20 (citing Lancaster v. Tilton, No. C-79-01630-WHA, 2007WL 4570185, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2007)). Thus, Defendant’s presentation of the relevant facts seeks to limit the Court’s analysis to no more than a six-month period.
While too dated to stand on its own, the factual findings from the previous Monitors’ Reports, After Action Reports, and other related documents provide an extensive and welldocumented account of conditions at Walnut Grove following the Court’s adoption of the Consent Decree. If properly updated by current findings, they serve to help establish an appropriate factual foundation. Although these past accounts standing alone cannot qualify as current and ongoing, they provide a reference point that must be considered. “Instantaneous snapshots are impossible.” Id. “In all litigation involving a decisive point in time . . . facts in close temporal proximity are probative.” Id. In Lancaster, for example, the court considered evidence over a thirteen-month period. Id. at 5. But in Skinner v. Lampert, 457 F. Supp. 2d 1269 (D. Wyoming 2006), the court determined that evidence within the last year should be considered, because that evidence was “especially worrisome considering the penitentiary’s historic indifference to inmate assaults.” Id. at 1281; See also Benjamin v. Schriro, 370 F. Appx. 168, 170 (2d Cir. 2010) (affirming districts court’s new orders based on nearly eight-year “troubling pattern of noncompliance” with the court’s previous order).
This Court acknowledges that a much more narrow view of current and ongoing is adhered to by some courts. See, e.g., Cason v. Seckinger, 231 F.3d 777, 783 (11th Cir. 2000) (current and ongoing means a presently existing violation, not a potential, or even likely future violation); Hadix v. Johnson, 228 F.3d 662 (6th Cir. 2000). But as the court appointed monitor in this case explained, the ability to maintain sustained compliance is a sine qua non of

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 170 Filed 06/11/15 Page 15 of 32
demonstrating that there is not a substantial risk of serious harm. He added that it takes an “appreciable time” to fully institutionalize systematic change in a prison, and that in most instances it takes years to accomplish. See Martin Tr., Dkt. No. 143, at 59-60. The Court, therefore, is of the view that to get a complete picture of the prison’s ability to demonstrate that it has and can substantially comply with the agreement it crafted jointly with the Plaintiffs and that no current and ongoing violations exist, evidence beyond the six-month period advocated by the Defendant is probative.5
For sure, Defendant has improved upon the conditions which existed at the time of the most recent riots as evidenced by the Monitors’ Reports and the testimony, but the Court finds that current and ongoing violations of Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment right to reasonable protection remain. The findings contained herein are based upon current violations. See Castillo, 238 F.3d at 354. B. Eighth Amendment Right to Reasonable Protection
The Court’s analysis of a federal right violation is controlled by the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993) (“[T]he treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment.”). The Eighth Amendment, as applied to states by reason of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, provides inmates protection from cruel and inhumane treatment. U.S. CONST. amend. VII; see also Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 675 (1962). This protection includes the duty of prison officials to take “reasonable
5 The Court notes that Defendant could have filed his motion to terminate as early as March 2014, which would have been within three months after the New Year’s riot. He could have filed it before the July riot or he could have filed it immediately in response to Plaintiffs’ motion to modify filed in August. He chose to file it in March, 2015, but that filing does not denigrate the probative value of the evidence and conditions of the facility which existed in the last 12 months prior to his filing of the motion to terminate.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 170 Filed 06/11/15 Page 16 of 32
measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates.” Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526-27 (1984). The Fifth Circuit instructs that for prisoners to demonstrate an Eighth Amendment violation, they must prove that they are incarcerated under conditions that pose a substantial risk of serious harm to their health or safety, and that prison officials have acted with deliberate indifference to that risk. See Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 333 (5th Cir. 2004). C. Current and Ongoing Violations of the Eighth Amendment
The profound history of violence6 at Walnut Grove has been a central point of interest throughout this case’s existence. As such, the risk of serious harm to inmates is extremely important to the Court’s evaluation of whether it is appropriate to terminate the Consent Decree at this time. Given the general nature of prison environments – an atmosphere filled with a volatile mixture of prisoners ranging from nonviolent to violent offenders with temperaments that fluctuate from peaceful to murderous –, concerted efforts to provide protection from harm are essential to maintain order. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 858 (1994) (“Prisons are necessarily dangerous places; they house society’s most antisocial and violent people in close proximity with one another.”). “[P]rison officials have a duty . . . to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners” and that “[b]eing violently assaulted in prison is simply not part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offense against society.” Id., at 83334 (Stevens, J., concurring) (citations and internal quotations omitted). Adequately trained prison
6 Following the December 31, 2013 riot, reports indicate that “[a] total of 16 offenders were treated at outside medical facilities for injuries … includ[ing] “multiple stabbing and puncture wounds, lacerations, and fractures.” Fourth Monitors’ Report, Dkt. No. 151-2, at 8. This level of violence was duplicated during the July riot, wherein “[n] o fewer than nine inmates required off-site medical attention” for injuries, some of which included: “lacerations to hands,” “lacerations to head,” “broken arm,” “surgery for eye,” “puncture wound to back,” and “collapsed lung.” Fifth Monitors’ Report, Dkt. No. 151-7, at 7.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 170 Filed 06/11/15 Page 17 of 32
officials are required to quell the victimization and predation of the more vulnerable individuals by aggressive offenders.
A substantial risk of serious harm in a prison setting cannot be delineated through the application of any particular formula. Horton v. Cockrell, 70 F.3d 397, 400 (5th Cir. 1995) (reasoning that “[t]here is no concise definition of what types of prison conditions pose a substantial risk of serious harm”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); but see Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 332 (5th Cir. 2004) (explaining that the test for inhumane conditions is whether there exists “extreme deprivation of any minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities”) (citations and quotations omitted). Courts instead draw guidance from a holistic review of the confinement conditions to determine whether, “contextually,” prisoners are receiving treatment that comports with “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102 (1976) (citation omitted).
1. Deliberate Indifference Conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm are necessary to the Eighth Amendment analysis, but they are not sufficient to find a violation because inmates must also show that prison officials were deliberately indifferent. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. Before discussing those conditions evincing current and ongoing violations of the inmates’ federal rights, it is important for the Court to recognize the remedial measures taken by the Defendant to address some of the problems at Walnut Grove. The most significant of these was the removal of close custody inmate population.7 These inmates were indicated as the key instigators and
7 It is worth noting that many (“approximately 96”) of the inmates formerly classified as Close Custody were re-classified as Medium Custody as a result of officials at Walnut Grove using their discretionary override authority. See Fifth Monitors’ Report, Dkt No. 151-7, at 4-5. These inmates remained at Walnut Grove.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 170 Filed 06/11/15 Page 18 of 32
participants in many of the past assaults at the facility, including both riots. Following the July 2014 riot, it was determined that the facility was not equipped to house these individuals.8 Thereafter, Defendant responded by completing their removal from the prison.9 There were also
other measures taken to increase the facility’s safety, such as: replaced security cameras,
decreased inmate population, and the installation of a body scanner and a perimeter netting.
Defendants have made significant advancements with staffing as well. Inadequately trained staff and insufficient numbers has been an ongoing problem at the facility.10 Indicated as
a contributing factor to the New Year’s Eve riot, as well as other dangers, the Sixth Monitors’ Report notes an increase in staffing for that monitoring period.11
Also important is that the MDOC records show a significant improvement in the number
of assaults that occur at the facility. Monitors’ reports note these findings and indicate that the
Walnut Grove rate per 100 inmate population declined over the months and was comparable to other MDOC major facilities.12 Specifically, the records kept by MDOC indicate that eight percent of the inmate population will be involved in an assault in a 12-month period.13
8 Dkt. No. 160, at 59. The monitor also opined that a facility cannot protect inmates from a substantial risk of serious harm without maintaining sustained compliance with the protection from harm mandate.
9 From August 2014 to September 2014, the MDOC transferred close custody prisoners, as well as all long-term segregation prisoners, out of Walnut Grove and placed them in other facilities within its control. See (Fifth Monitors’ Report) Dkt No. 151-7, at 3,12.
10 See First Monitors’ Report, Dkt. No. 152-4, at 5 (noting that there were obvious staffing deficiencies); see also Second Monitors’ Report, Dkt. No. 152-5, at 9 (concluding that the staff did not “constitute a stale workforce”).
11 Dkt. No. 121, at 14 (observing that the staffing numbers represent a “very sizeable increase over the prior reporting period”). The Court must also note the numbers relied on by the monitor may not have been accurate since MTC implemented a reduction in force following the removal of some Closed Custody inmates and the information reflecting this change was not provided to the monitor. Dkt. No. 160, at 65-66.
12 Sixth Monitors’ Report, Dkt. No. 121, at 9.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 170 Filed 06/11/15 Page 19 of 32
While giving due credit to Defendants for the significant improvements made at Walnut Grove, the Court nonetheless finds that current and ongoing violations of the Eighth Amendment exist at the facility. In order to adhere to its constitutional duty to the inmates, the Court cannot ignore the persistent threat to inmate safety.
The deliberate indifference analysis under the Eighth Amendment requires “more than an ordinary lack of due care for the prisoner’s . . . safety.” See Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986). Deliberate indifference exists if “the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. “The legal conclusion of ‘deliberate indifference,’ therefore, must rest on facts clearly evincing ‘wanton’ actions on the part of the defendants.” Hall v. Thomas, 1909 F.3d 693, 697 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Farmer, at 834). If there is circumstantial evidence indicating an obvious risk to inmates, it may be relied on to show that the official must have known of the risk. See Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 738 (2002).
Plaintiffs assert that continued judicial supervision is needed to ensure against the mere appearance of commitment to reform, as many of the more significant measures have only come following monitors’ intervention. Plaintiffs also contend that some of the statistics indicating improvements are skewed due to deceptive reporting practices by Defendant. These allegations warrant some discussion. The record contains noticeable discrepancies which raise serious questions concerning the veracity of some of the Defendant’s reports in core areas. For example, the Sixth Monitors’ Report indicates that MDOC reports that only fourteen percent of the prisoners were active gang members. This number is suspicious in light of the wealth of evidence
13 Id.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 170 Filed 06/11/15 Page 20 of 32
indicating significant gang influence at the facility.14 Another instance occurred after the July riot. Defendants are required to provide monitors with an After-Action Report following major disturbances in the prison so officials can gather facts, identify problems, examine staff performance, and develop a plan to prevent future developments.15 The monitors have notified the Court that this document has not yet been provided.16
Monitors also note that the re-classifications of many Close Custody inmates were troubling due to the discretionary manner in which they were performed.17 Misleading or missing status reports prevent the monitors from efficiently performing their tasks because it limits their knowledge of the real problems that may persist at the prison. This is a dangerous practice that creates a substantial risk of harm to inmates by perpetuating an indifference to conditions as they may really exists. See Skinner v. Lampert, 457 F. Supp. 2d 1269, 1278 (D. Wyo. 2006) (“Deliberate indifference may exist if “the evidence show[s] that [prison officials] . . . refused to verify underlying facts that [they] strongly suspected to be true, or declined to confirm inferences of risk that [they] strongly suspected to exist.”) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 842 n. 8 (1994)).
Because Defendant was aware of the need to protect inmates from serious threats to their safety, the continuous inaction was more than negligence. Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344,
14 Given previous reports on the gangs’ control at Walnut Grove, it is difficult to believe that 86 percent of the inmate population are none affiliated. The Court’s monitor testified that he does not believe the numbers to be accurate and he is not sure what method MDOC used to obtain them. Dkt No. 160, at 62.
15 See Vail Tr. Dkt. No. 141, at 41. 16 Id. at 40. According to its safety policy, MTC is responsible for providing MDOC with an After-Action Report on the July riot, as it did following the New Year’s Eve riot. Id. at 41. 17 See Fifth Monitors’ Report, Dkt. No. 151-7, at 4-5 (stating that “[t]here is a concern that approximately 96 inmates at WGCF who were formerly classified as Close Custody have been reclassified as Medium Custody by using a discretionary over-ride”).

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 170 Filed 06/11/15 Page 21 of 32
357 (1986) (“When officials have actual notice of a prisoner’s need for physical protection, administrative negligence can rise to the level of deliberate indifference to or reckless disregard for that prisoner’s safety.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Here, Defendant’s knowledge of circumstances posing a substantial risk of serious harm was informed by past events. There are a host of incidents at Walnut Grove from which Defendant could have drawn inferences regarding potential breaches to inmate protection. Also, monitors’ reports informed Defendant about areas of noncompliance and the dangers these digressions present to inmates. Officials at Walnut Grove were undoubtedly forewarned of conditions that increased the chances of harm to inmates. Still, Defendant had to be prodded to take remedial measures in most instances18 and there has not yet been full compliance with instructions from monitors on how to alleviate threats to prisoner safety.
The failure to fully comply with directives aimed at improving inmate safety implies indifference on the part of Defendant. And though they contend that some affirmative steps taken by them negate a finding of deliberate indifference, this position is belied by recently reported incidents at Walnut Grove that can be traced directly to Defendant’s security failures and staff corruption.19 For instance, between March 6, 2015 and March 21, 2015, almost immediately following a report showing reduction in assaults, there were four serious incidents that required
18 See Vail Tr. Dkt. No. 141, at 193 (stating that, by his recollection, the only changes between July 2014 and April 2015 that Defendants made of their own initiative were “additional netting and body scanners and x-ray machines”).
19 On March 7, 2015, three inmates at Walnut Grove allege that an officer forced them to perform sexual acts on him, promising them that refusal would result in retaliation by gang members. See Dkt. No. 153-5, at 7. The incident is still under investigation but video surveillance shows the officer in the cell of two of the inmates for an extended period during the time in question, a fact that was confirmed at the hearing. See (Testimony of Marjorie Brown) Dkt. No. 142, at 241.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 170 Filed 06/11/15 Page 22 of 32
prisoners to be taken to hospitals for medical treatment.20 The inmates involved in these incidents were individuals who had been reclassified from Close Custody to Medium Custody through the discretion of Defendant. Because of their previous status, they were supposed to be under close observation to ensure that future problems with their conduct did not arise.21
As discussed supra, inmate’s protection from harm was a central concern when this lawsuit was first initiated. The record establishes that there is a history of nonfeasance by Defendant in this regard. The Monitors’ reports as well as the record generated by the evidentiary hearing indicate two areas of concern on which the substantial risk of harm analysis should be focused: gang activity and employee fitness. The most recent records show that at the time Defendant filed to terminate the Consent Decree, Walnut Grove remained in partial compliance with “Reasonably Safe Living Conditions” and “Sufficient Numbers of Adequately Trained Staff,” core areas of the “Protection from Harm” instructions found in the parties’ agreement. These categories are essential to inmate protection and will be discussed by the Court in kind.
2. Reasonable Safe Living Conditions According to the latest monitors’ report, Walnut Grove is yet to fully comply with improvements necessary for providing “Reasonable Safe Living Conditions.”22 The finding echoes reviews on the subject from previous reports, all of which concluded that Walnut Grove
20 See (Testimony of Steve Martin) Dkt. No. 160, at 73-74 (stating that it was “bothersome’ to have four off-site medical runs over a span of less than three weeks and that the incidents support his opinion that a record at the facility has not been achieved to establish the absence of a substantial risk of serious harm).
21 See Fifth Monitors’ Report, Dkt No. 151-7, at 4-5. 22 Id. (finding the facility in “Partial-Compliance” under the category of “Reasonable Safe Living Conditions”).

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 170 Filed 06/11/15 Page 23 of 32
was in either partial or noncompliance with this requirement.23 One of the key factors weighed
by monitors for this assessment is the number of inmate assaults reported at the facility on a
monthly basis. Given the level of violence notoriously associated with Walnut Grove, protection
from inmate on inmate assaults is fundamental to Defendant ensuring reasonably safe living
conditions. According to the Defendant, their recently assigned STG (Security Threat Group) Coordinator develops strategies to better manage gang members.24 The record before the Court establishes that this method has been ineffective and is inadequate to prevent assaults.25
Much of the danger still prevalent at Walnut Grove is attributable to gang activity and the influence these organizations have over daily prison operations.26 Because gang involvement is
largely a symptom of a societal illness and many members enter prison already affiliated,
completely eradicating gangs and their inherent violence is an unrealistic aim. See Lewis v.
Richards, 107 F.3d 549, 557 (7th Cir. 1997) (Flaum, J., concurring) (“far from being unusual,
gang violence remains an ever-present reality of prison life”). At Walnut Grove, however, there
23 See supra, n. 2. 24 See Morgan Tr. Dkt. No. 158, at 6. 25 Id. at 25. The STG lieutenant testified that he is aware of gang security escorts because gang members come to him with escorts. 26 The Sixth Monitors’ Report notes that, “while it appears that the vast majority of inmates . . . are not being subjected to personal safety issues . . . there remains a significant presence of active gang members who are attempting on a daily basis to control certain aspects of the facility’s operations.” (Sixth Monitors’ Report) Dkt. No. 121, at 13. It concluded that “[i]n order for the MDOC to reach compliance with [the protection from harm] part of the Consent Decree, there must be no evidence of active gang members developing and operating their own inmate-based security system.” Id. at 12. The February 2015 report from Plaintiffs’ expert covers his January visit to the facility. He notes that, when he asked inmates about the practice of “security escorts,” they responded that it was a common practice, with one inmate exclaiming that it occurred “all day, every day.” Dkt. No. 152-2, at 19. He was also informed that “certain gangs control specific showers in some living units, posting bodyguards at the showers when some gang members are using them, as well as controlling certain television viewing areas.” Id.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 170 Filed 06/11/15 Page 24 of 32
is a history and present-day firmly established tradition of gangs operating with impunity.27 Indeed, much of the violence which led to the parties entering into the Consent Decree, as well as those extremely brutal acts demonstrated during the riots, can be traced to the lack of power and control over gangs at the facility.28 The gang problem is pervasive, and Defendant has failed to overcome its stronghold of the prison. See Vail Tr., Dkt. No. 141, at 57.
With their penchant for using violence and the threat of harm as a form of intimidation and control, gang members, left unchecked, have proven that the havoc they can cause at the prison is substantial.29 Inmate Evans provided testimony on methods of violence and tactics that the gangs use to intimidate and control. For example, he explained how gang members are subjected to discipline in the form of physical assaults by multiple members whenever the “violation” of a gang code occurs.30 He also testified that prisoners not affiliated with any particular gang must be knowledgeable of the various gangs’ rules and abide by them; otherwise, they too become victims of similar violence.31
When gangs run amok and control a facility, as they do here, it certainly can lead to riots,32 but it also can lead to significant underreporting of assaults and other crimes that occur at the prison. For example, when officers witness gang-imposed discipline, they do not seek
27 See, e.g., Dkt. No. 151-4, at 2 (Walnut Grove Correctional Facility After Action Report) (The New Year’s Eve riot began as a fight between two inmates who were affiliates of the prison’s two major opposing gangs – “Gangster Disciples” and “Vice Lords.” The altercation quickly spread to other housing units as other offenders joined in by “siding up” and “split[ting] into two groups supporting each of the fighters.”
28 Id. 29 See Docket No. 151-4, at 2. 30 Evans Tr., Dkt. No. 143, at 29-32. 31 Id. at 33:14-21. 32 See Docket No. 151-4, at 2.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 170 Filed 06/11/15 Page 25 of 32
medical attention for the prisoners.33 Other courts have noted that assaults go unreported because of a prevalent code of silence when inmates are afraid to report witnessing or becoming the victim of assaults. See e.g., Skinner, 457 F. Supp. 2d at 1282 (referencing “a culture of silence – sometimes referred to as a ‘code of silence’—that prevented administrators from ostensibly knowing much of what is happening at the [p]enitentiary”); Alberti v. Heard, 600 F. Supp. 443, 450 (S.D. Tex. 1984) (“it is apparent that the inmates have an unwritten code of silence which results in most of the acts of violence going undetected”); Grubbs v. Bradley, 552 F. Supp. 1052, 1078 (M.D. Tenn. 1982) (“evidence is absolutely clear that the inmate code exists and that it prevents the reporting of a great many episodes of actual or threatened violence”); Smith v. Ulman, 874 F. Supp. 979, 985 (D. Neb. 1994) (noting that naming one’s assailant is an act of snitching, a practice “often brutally discourage[d] in the general [prison] population”).
As indicated in the Monitors’ Reports and the testimony of the witnesses, the gangs and their leaders maintain a privileged position at the prison. They have their own “security escort” system and the practice is known and condoned by prison officials.34 Obviously, this alone demonstrates the power and the entrenchment of the gangs -- a current and ongoing violation. It took the monitors to inform the Defendant that the practice was completely unacceptable and must cease immediately.35 Prisons are commonly thought of as dangerous places; however, to provide the expectations of a humane society, inmates cannot be subjected to conditions where assaults are imminent. See Jensen v. Clarke, 94 F.3d 1191, 1198 (8th Cir. 1996) (“Assault at the hands of fellow inmates . . . is a ‘serious harm.’”). Reasonable measures must be taken to
33 See Evans Tr., Dkt. No. 143, at 29, 31. 34 See Sixth Monitor’s Report, Docket No. 152; Vail February 2015 Report, Docket No. 152-2, at 19-20. 35 See Martin Tr., Dkt. No. 143, at 63-64.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 170 Filed 06/11/15 Page 26 of 32
guarantee their safety. Fifth Circuit precedent instructs that “the Eighth Amendment is intended to protect against both present and future dangers to inmates,” and, as a result, “[p]rison authorities must protect not only against current threats, but also against ‘sufficiently imminent dangers’ that are likely to cause harm in the ‘next week or month or year.’” Horton, 70 F.3d at 401 (citation omitted).
Also relevant to this assessment are security issues caused by the malfunctioning cell doors at Walnut Grove. Often a topic of concern, the locking mechanisms on the cell doors at Walnut Grove were easily compromised by inmates, which thwarted the staff’s ability to secure or protect.36 It is impossible for Defendant to provide protection from harm in a facility where inmates are aware that they can freely escape their cells. After multiple assaults possibly linked to this dangerous situation,37 and reports from monitors’ imploring resolution to the problem, MDOC issued an instruction stating the following:
Please notify staff that an officer is to be present when a cell door is opened or closed to ensure its functionality and to prevent tampering. It is imperative that cell doors are operational; therefore, cell doors are to be inspected each time and every time a cell door is opened or closed.38 Despite the directive for staff to inspect doors on a frequent basis, at the hearing the Court received testimony that the locking mechanisms on cell doors are still readily defeated by
36 See Dkt No. 151-5, at 25. The Department of Justice reported that the cell doors were a problem in its 2012 Report. The report notes that “youth are able to sabotage their cell locking mechanisms . . . resulting in a serious breach of security and safety to staff and other youth.” Id.
37 Opining that it is likely that the ineffective cell doors contributed to the assaults during the riots, Plaintiffs’ expert testified that, in viewing the videos of the incidents, the “detention hardware … didn’t appear to be strong enough for a prison.” Simple logic instructs that this is a reasonable assumption. When an incident occurs between a number of inmates, how can the officers prevent other inmates from joining the fray if the cell locks do not function properly?
38 Dkt. No. 152-10.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 170 Filed 06/11/15 Page 27 of 32
inmates.39 It is foreseeable that inmates will continue to unlock cell doors at their own liberty.
Instructing guards to check doors each time they open and close is only a short-term and
impracticable solution that does not rectify the problem. It also places too much responsibility, in
an area where mistakes can be fatal, on human error. The only guaranteed remedy is to fix the
doors, and to date, Defendant has only done so in some of the units.40
3. Employee Fitness
The evidence gleaned from the latest monitors’ report and information provided at the
evidentiary hearing demonstrate that the ability of staff tasked with overseeing the inmates at
Walnut Grove remains a problem. The Sixth Monitors’ Report lists the facility as only being in
partial compliance with the “Sufficient Numbers of Adequately Trained Staff” requirement. This
is an area critical to the overall substantial risk of serious harm analysis. In the past,
inexperienced staff has contributed to the assaults of inmates and inmate misconduct.41 There is
39 Inmate Owens testified that the cell doors still do not work properly and that “[inmates] will stick toothpaste caps off in part of the door where it latch[es] closed so it’s impossible . . . to keep the doors just locked.” Dkt No. 160, at 34-35. He also testified that other items such as spoons and folded pieces of paper are used to rig doors and that officers are aware that the doors are frequently compromised but still do not regularly check them. Id.
40 Dkt. No. 141, at 183-84. On April 1, 2015, Plaintiff’s expert provided testimony confirming that that most of the cell doors at Walnut Grove are essentially in the same state they were in 2012, when the Department of Justice first issued notice detailing how the doors were not secure and the dangers posed by this condition. He acknowledged that the hinged doors in Units 3 and 4 had been replaced with sliding doors (apparently fixing the problem), but revealed that the units with the new doors were not occupied when he visited the facility; thus, the units housing inmates are those with the malfunctioning hinged doors.
41 Insufficient numbers of officers and lack of experience were contributing factors to both the December 31, 2013 and July 2014 riots. See Fifth Monitors’ Report, Dkt. No. 151-7, at 10 (observing that “[t]he high vacancy rate, the inexperience of the staffing complement, and the complicity of four officers in the July disturbance strongly suggest that MTC management continues to struggle with maintaining sufficient numbers of adequately trained staff”).
Testimony from Eldon Vail provided an example of how inadequate training can result in a violent situation intensifying uncontrollably. He opined that it is concerning that following both riots, it took nearly 90 minutes for officers to establish a control center. See Dkt. No. 159, at 164. This deficiency

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 170 Filed 06/11/15 Page 28 of 32
also an ample history of staff corruption at the facility, ranging from sexual and physical assaults by guards,42 to guards assisting inmates in the assault of other inmates.43 The report acknowledges areas of considerable improvement with staffing, however, it still advises that correctional officers continue to be deficient in the areas of contraband control and unobserved altercations.44
Although the Court has acknowledged Defendant’s efforts to increase staffing, the fact that this is still an area of deficiency makes it relevant to this discussion because it contributes to the facility being dangerous for inmates as well as officers. Walnut Grove continues to have a problem with understaffing, a condition linked to staff resignations and terminations.45 The Court understands the challenge of retaining employees given the salaries offered and the dangers that the job presents. The low wages also contribute to terminations, as some officers find an incentive to introduce contraband and participate in other illegal activities as they see them as other sources of income. Regardless, being adequately staffed is imperative to Defendants providing a reasonably safe environment.
Obviously, prison officials cannot perform their “constitutional duty to protect inmates from violence at the hands of other prisoners” if they are inadequately trained or if their numbers are too scarce to properly supervise. See Horton, 70 F.3d at 400. Given its history of violent incidents resulting in serious injuries to inmates and staff corruption and ineffectiveness, the in responding to emergency situations was also illustrated by reports from the July riot of a gas canister going off in the command tower when officers attempted to discharge it, an incident which led to the officers abandoning the tower because they were not wearing respirators. Id.
42 See DOJ Report, Dkt No. 74; See also Order Approving Settlement, Dkt No. 75. 43 See, e.g., Fifth Monitors’ Report, Dkt No. 151-7, at 10. The complicity of officers is illustrated in video footage from the July 2014 riot which shows inmates being allowed to freely enter the cells of other inmates to assault them. Id. 44See Sixth Monitors’ Report, Dkt. No. 121-7, at 15. 45 (Testimony of Marjorie Brown) Dkt. No. 142, at 199.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 170 Filed 06/11/15 Page 29 of 32
pivotal role of maintaining order held by correctional officers at Walnut Grove is considerably heightened. Therefore, Defendant’s failure to resolve this area of deficiency cannot be excused. Until the facility is in full compliance in this respect, Defendant cannot adequately protect inmates against “sufficiently imminent dangers.” Id.
Collectively, the facts establish that inmates at Walnut Grove are still exposed to a substantial risk of serious harm. The Sixth Monitors’ report and supporting testimony are a reflection of the conditions within the facility at the time Defendant moved to terminate the Consent Decree, and they indicate less than full compliance in core areas essential to the protection of inmates. Specifically, Defendant has not been in substantial compliance with the “Reasonably Safe Living Facility” requirement since the Court entered the Consent Decree. During the evidentiary hearing, the Court’s monitor testified that without a reasonably safe living facility, there will always be a substantial risk of serious harm.46 This testimony confirms aforementioned reasons, detailing why a current and ongoing threat of serious injury still exists at Walnut Grove. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have met their burden for this aspect of the federal right violation analysis. The Defendant’s Motion to Terminate is denied. D. Consent Decree and the Need-Narrowness -Intrusiveness Test
In prison litigation suits, a court granting prospective relief must determine “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). The Court has found continuing and ongoing violations of the inmates’ federal right to reasonable protection from harm in the areas of reasonably safe living conditions and employee fitness. The first violation stems from Defendants’ failure to adequately address
46 See Martin Tr. Dkt. No. 143, at 59.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 170 Filed 06/11/15 Page 30 of 32
two recognized impediments to inmate safety: gang activity and unsafe cell doors. The second violation is a result of Defendants’ failure to adequately abate staffing deficiencies. Having found current and ongoing violations, the Court must now decide whether the provisions set forth in the parties’ Consent Decree are necessary to resolve them. See Ruiz v. United States, 243 F.3d 941, 950-51 (5th Cir. 2001) (finding that pursuant to 3626 (b)(3), a consent decree will continue to be enforced by the federal court only if “particularized findings” indicate that “each requirement imposed by the consent decree [ ] satisfies the need-narrowness-intrusiveness criteria given the nature of the current and ongoing violation”) (citation omitted). “[T]he district court should engage in specific, provision-by-provision examination of the consent decree, measuring each requirement against the statutory criteria.” Id. (citation omitted).
Based on the discussed violations, the Court finds that a majority of the Consent Decree’s provisions are no longer necessary. However, those pertaining to the inmates’ Eighth Amendment right to reasonable protection are still relevant and shall remain in force.
1. Classification and Housing System This “Substantive Remedial Measures” provision mandates that “MDOC will utilize a classification system that ensures prisoners are appropriately and safely housed within [Walnut Grove].” Dkt. No. 75-3, at 3. Given Defendant’s difficulties with inmate security and this provision’s bearing on safety, the requirement remains relevant and it is not unnecessarily intrusive. 2. Protection from Harm This provision is also found under the “Substantive Remedial Measures” requirements, and it lists a number of stipulations the parties determined necessary to guarantee inmates’

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 170 Filed 06/11/15 Page 31 of 32
protection from harm.47 In general, the section consists of directives created to address inmate on inmate assaults, officers’ abuse of inmates, and acceptable use of force by officers. Given that the majority of ongoing violations are concentrated on Defendant’s failure to protect inmates, these requirements remain relevant and are not unnecessarily intrusive.
3. Enforcement and Monitoring This provision covers the parties’ agreement appointing James Austin and Steve Martin as monitors responsible for tracking compliance with the Consent Decree.48 Since the decree has not been terminated, the requirement remains relevant and is not unnecessarily intrusive.
V. CONCLUSION The Court appreciates the efforts by both parties in this matter, but there is no question that, based on the record, there are current and ongoing violations of the inmates’ federal rights, as discussed in this opinion. The Court also understands its very limited role as the PLRA strongly disfavors continuing relief. Because of the current and ongoing violations, however, it is the Court’s obligation to supervise the continued work of the Defendant so that the necessary changes are implemented in the Walnut Grove facility to ensure that violations do not persist. The protection of prisoner rights greatly impacts prisoners, the prison staff in charge of overseeing the prison facility, and even those who may visit the facility. And we cannot overlook the impact the treatment of prisoners has on the rest of society. We know that most prisoners do not die in prison; they serve their sentences and are subsequently released. How they are treated while in prison affects how they will reintegrate into society upon their release. As such, public
47 Id. 48 Dkt. No. 75-3, at 12.

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 170 Filed 06/11/15 Page 32 of 32
confidence in our criminal justice and public safety systems is vital. To this end, the Court will continue to enforce the consent decree in this matter as necessary.
The Court holds that the Plaintiffs have made all the showings set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3), and, as a result, the consent decree will not be terminated at this time, consistent with the limitations set forth in that provision of the PLRA.
IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 10th day of June, 2015.
s/ Carlton W. Reeves UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 175 Filed 07/09/15 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION

C.B., by and through his

)

next friend, Charleston DePriest, et al. )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

WALNUT GROVE CORRECTIONAL )

AUTHORITY, et al.

)

)

Defendants.

)

___________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 3:10cv663-CWR-FKB

FINAL JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 54(b) In accordance with the Court’s [Amended] Order, Docket No. 170 entered on June 11, 2015, the Court hereby enters a Final Judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs on the Defendants’ Motion to Terminate Prospective Relief, Docket No. 129. Because the Court denied the Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate and held a hearing only on the completely severed issues, see Docket No. 170, at n.2, the Court finds that there is no just reason for delay for entry of final judgment on the claims considered at the evidentiary hearing held on April 1, 2, 3, 23, 24 and 27, of 2015. All reasons for extending the consent decree on these issues are set forth in the Court’s [Amended] Order. The other issues related to medical care remain between the parties and are still open. Accordingly, a Final Judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) is appropriate and is hereby entered.
SO ORDERED and ADJUDGED, this the 9th day of July, 2015.

s/ Carlton W. Reeves UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case: 15-60488 Document: 00513694251 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/27/2016 Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 192 Filed 09/27/16 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
FILED

No. 15-60488

September 27, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

CHARLESTON DEPRIEST, as father and next friend of C.B. a minor; ERIC BALL, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals; ERIK BARNES, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals; JAMARIO BRADY, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals; JOSHUA CLAY, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals; CHRISTOPHER COLEMAN, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals; LAMARCUS CURRY, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals; CRAIG KINCAID, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals; LEMARSHA READUS, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals; COZY SCOTT, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals; LATRAVIS SMITH, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals; BRIAN WEBSTER, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals; FREDRICK WHITE, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals,

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

MARSHALL L. FISHER, COMMISSIONER, MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:10-CV-663
Before DENNIS, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Case: 15-60488 Document: 00513694251 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/27/2016 Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 192 Filed 09/27/16 Page 2 of 3
No. 15-60488 PER CURIAM:*
Prisoners at the Walnut Grove Correctional Facility filed this lawsuit in November 2010, challenging what they referred to as the “barbaric, unconstitutional conditions” of confinement and alleging that Walnut Grove was violating their Eighth Amendment rights. In March 2012, the district court entered a consent decree, approving and adopting substantive remedies to which the parties had agreed. In 2015, Walnut Grove filed a motion to terminate the decree in its entirety, pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, claiming that prospective relief was no longer necessary. In July, the district court entered a final judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on Walnut Grove’s motion to terminate. Marshall Fisher, the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC), appealed. On September 15, 2016, while the appeal was pending, the MDOC closed Walnut Grove, and all prisoners were transferred to other facilities within the state. We invited the parties to address whether the closure of Walnut Grove rendered the appeal moot.
It is well settled that mootness is a threshold jurisdictional inquiry. See Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 199 (1988) (“Article III of the Constitution limits federal courts to the adjudication of actual, ongoing controversies between litigants.”). In general, a claim becomes moot “when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982) (per curiam). “If a dispute has been resolved, or if it has evanesced because of changed circumstances, it is considered moot.” Louisiana Envtl. Action Network v. U.S. E.P.A., 382 F.3d 575, 580-81 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing American Medical Assoc. v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 267 (5th Cir. 1988)). Here, the closure of Walnut Grove has
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
2

Case: 15-60488 Document: 00513694251 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/27/2016 Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 192 Filed 09/27/16 Page 3 of 3
No. 15-60488 rendered the consent decree inoperative, resolving the dispute over its continued enforcement and mooting Fisher’s appeal of the district court’s judgment. See id.; see also Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 741 (5th Cir. 2002).
Because the issue is moot, we DISMISS the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.1 However, “a determination of mootness neither precludes nor is precluded by an award of attorneys’ fees.” Doe v. Marshall, 622 F.2d 118, 120 (5th Cir. 1980). The district court therefore retains jurisdiction to rule on the plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
1 Fisher urges us to vacate the district court’s judgment if we find that the appeal is moot. The Supreme Court has emphasized that vacatur is an “extraordinary” and equitable remedy. See U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18, 25-26 (1994). The burden is on “the party seeking relief from the status quo” of the lower court judgment to demonstrate “equitable entitlement to the extraordinary remedy of vacatur.” See id. at 26. Fisher has not met this burden.
3

 
 Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 208 Filed 09/22/17 Page 1 of 19

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION

CHARLTON DEPRIEST, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS

V.

CAUSE NO. 3:10-CV-00663-CWR-FKB

WALNUT GROVE CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITY, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees and costs. For the reasons stated

below, the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

I. Background

In March 2012, the parties and this Court entered into a Consent Decree regarding

conditions at the Walnut Grove Correctional Facility. Docket No. 75 at 5. The Decree’s provisions,

among other things, required Defendants to protect the Eighth Amendment rights of Walnut Grove

inmates. See Docket No. 75-3 at 4 (requiring that inmates be “provided with reasonably safe living

conditions and [be] protected from violence”). These provisions were originally set to expire in

March 2017, but could be extended by this Court as it saw fit. Id. at 15.

In August 2014, following two riots at Walnut Grove, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for

Enforcement and Modification of the Decree. Docket No. 106. That motion asked that this Court

hold an evidentiary hearing to determine what, if any, new measures were necessary to enforce the

Decree’s Eighth Amendment protections. Id. at 1 (requesting whatever “additional remedial

measures” were required to “provide reasonably safe living conditions and freedom from violence

for the inmates at Walnut Grove”). In March 2015, Defendants responded by filing a Motion to

Terminate Prospective Relief Granted by the Decree. Docket No. 129. That motion asked this

Court to terminate the entirety of the Decree pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 208 Filed 09/22/17 Page 2 of 19
(“PLRA”), alleging that there were “no current and ongoing violations” of any inmate rights at Walnut Grove. Id. at 2.
In April 2015, this Court held the evidentiary hearing requested by Plaintiffs. Two months later, the Court issued an Order dispensing with both the Motion to Enforce and the Motion to Terminate. Docket No. 169. The Order found, on the basis of the evidence presented by Plaintiffs, that there were “current and ongoing violations of the Eighth Amendment” at Walnut Grove. Id. at 19. The Order tailored the Decree’s prospective relief to those violations, eliminating some of the Decree’s provisions while maintaining others. Id. at 30-31. The Order was effectuated by a Final Judgment. Docket No. 175. The Final Judgment denied Defendants’ Motion to Terminate, and – pursuant to the Decree’s terms – “extend[ed]” the remaining provisions of the Decree beyond their original expiration date. Id. at 1.
Defendants promptly appealed the Order. Docket No. 172. Before the Fifth Circuit could render an opinion, Walnut Grove was closed, and the appeal was mooted. Docket No. 192. In September 2016, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, but held that this Court retained jurisdiction to rule on Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees and costs, Depriest v. Fisher, 669 Fed.Appx. 209 (5th Cir. 2016), which was filed shortly after the entry of the Order. Docket No. 171.
In January 2017, Plaintiffs filed a supplemental motion for attorney’s fees and costs. Docket No. 196. That motion requested an award for work performed on the Motion to Enforce, the Motion to Terminate, and all subsequent filings. Id. at 4-5. Plaintiffs calculate this award to be $587,355.00. Docket No. 206.
Defendants claim it would “shock the conscience” to grant Plaintiffs an attorney’s fee award. Docket No. 198 at 1. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ fee request should be “denied
2

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 208 Filed 09/22/17 Page 3 of 19
outright” because the Order left Plaintiffs “in a worse, not better, position than they were [previously] in.” Id. at 2. In the alternative, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs are “not entitled to anything close” to the award they request because that award fails to be “reasonable.” Docket No. 198 at 26. II. Legal Standard
In civil rights actions, a “prevailing plaintiff should ordinarily recover attorney’s fees under [42 U.S.C. § 1988(b)] unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust.” Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 708 F.2d 991, 998 (5th Cir. 1983). “We have interpreted this to mean that absent special circumstances, a prevailing plaintiff should be awarded section 1988 fees as a matter of course.” Id. (citation omitted and emphasis in original).
To attain prevailing party status, “a plaintiff must (1) obtain actual relief, such as an enforceable judgment or consent decree; (2) that materially alters the legal relationship between the parties; and (3) modifies the defendant's behavior in a way that directly benefits the plaintiff at the time of the judgment or settlement.” Dearmore v. City of Garland, 519 F.3d 517, 521 (5th Cir. 2008) (quotation marks and citation omitted). If plaintiffs have already obtained relief granting them prevailing party status, that status will be extended to certain efforts aimed at enforcing the prior relief. Miller v. Carson, 628 F.2d 346, 348 (5th Cir. 1980). Such efforts are those that are “related to the enforcement” of the prior relief and have “contributed to the vindication of rights.” Id. Furthermore, a “plaintiff is entitled to an attorney’s fee for [a mooted] appeal” when they are “a prevailing party” in the underlying action. Murphy v. Fort Worth Indep. Sch. Dist., 334 F.3d 470, 470-71 (5th Cir. 2003) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Depriest, 669 Fed.Appx. at 210 (“a determination of mootness neither precludes nor is precluded by an award of attorneys’ fees”) (citation omitted).
3

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 208 Filed 09/22/17 Page 4 of 19
Prevailing parties are entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fee, which is typically calculated using the “lodestar” method. See McClain v. Lufkin Indus., Inc., 649 F.3d 374, 381-82 (5th Cir. 2011). This method requires courts to multiply the hours a party “reasonably expended” by the “reasonable hourly rate for their services.” Id. (citations omitted). The lodestar method “yields a fee that is presumptively sufficient.” Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542, 552 (2010) (citation omitted).
Courts may adjust the lodestar using the twelve Johnson factors, the “most critical” of which is the “degree of success obtained.” Abner v. Kan. City S. Ry. Co., 541 F.3d 372, 377 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Johnson v. Ga. Highway Express, 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir. 1974)). An attorney’s fee award ruling should “explain how each of the Johnson factors affects its award,” but “need not be meticulously detailed to survive appellate review.” In re High Sulfur Content Gasoline Prod. Liab. Litig., 517 F.3d 220, 228 (5th Cir. 2008).
The PLRA imposes three additional limitations on fee awards in prison reform litigation. First, all fees must have been “directly and reasonably incurred in proving an actual violation of the plaintiff's rights.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(1)(A). Second, the fees must be either “proportionally related to the court ordered relief” or “directly and reasonably incurred in enforcing the relief ordered.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(1)(B). Third, the fees cannot be predicated upon hourly rates which exceed “150 percent of the hourly rate established” by 18 U.S.C.A. § 3006A, known as the Criminal Justice Act (“CJA”). 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(3).
Courts disagree on what the “established” hourly rate is under the CJA for the purposes of this third requirement. Some courts use the maximum CJA rates approved by the Judicial Conference, while others use the rates budgeted for by Congress. See Batchelder v. Geary, No. C71-02017 RMW, 2007 WL 2427989, at *4–5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2007) (collecting cases). In the
4

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 208 Filed 09/22/17 Page 5 of 19
absence of binding precedent, this Court agrees with the majority of courts which have reached this issue, and finds it appropriate to use the CJA rate approved by the Judicial Conference. See, e.g., Hadix v. Johnson, 398 F.3d 863, 866–68 (6th Cir. 2005), Webb v. Ada Cty., 285 F.3d 829, 839 (9th Cir. 2002), Williams v. Taylor, No. 4:08CV163-SA, 2012 WL 12965714, at *2 (N.D. Miss. Dec. 3, 2012); but see Hernandez v. Kalinowski, 146 F.3d 196, 201 (3d Cir. 1998). III. Discussion
The threshold question in this case is whether Plaintiffs have attained prevailing party status. If this is the case, the only remaining question regards the scope of the attorney’s fee award to which Plaintiffs are entitled. Both questions are discussed below.
A. Prevailing Party Status There is no real dispute that the 2012 Decree granted Plaintiffs prevailing party status. The Decree meets all three prongs of the test outlined in Dearmore. 519 F.3d at 521. First, the Decree constitutes “actual relief,” as it is a consent decree. Id. Second, as evidenced by the extent of its terms, the Decree “materially alter[ed]” the legal relationship between Plaintiffs and Defendants. Id. Finally, as demonstrated by those terms’ implementation, the Decree “modifie[d] the defendant’s behavior” in a way that “directly benefitted plaintiffs at the time of its entry.” Id. What the parties dispute is whether this prevailing party status extends to Plaintiffs’ subsequent efforts to enforce the Decree – namely, the work Plaintiffs expended on both the Motion to Enforce and the Motion to Terminate. For prevailing party status to extend to this work, that work must have (1) been “related to the enforcement” of the Decree’s relief, and (2) “contributed to the vindication of rights.” Miller, 628 F.2d at 348. Plaintiffs’ efforts satisfy Miller’s first prong by relating to the enforcement of the Decree’s relief. Their efforts to defeat the Motion to Terminate aimed to prevent the end of that relief. Their
5

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 208 Filed 09/22/17 Page 6 of 19
efforts to support their Motion to Enforce aimed to extend and enhance that relief. And their efforts to defend their victories on appeal furthered both these aims. All of Plaintiffs’ efforts here satisfy Miller’s first prong.
Plaintiffs’ efforts satisfy Miller’s second prong by contributing to the vindication of the Walnut Grove inmates’ Eighth Amendment rights. This prong is met when a plaintiff has “successfully induc[ed a defendant] to comply with both the constitution and the regime of law, embodying important rights and duties, created by” the prior relief. Miller, 628 F.2d at 348-50. Plaintiffs did so by obtaining the Final Judgment, which induced Defendants’ compliance in two ways. First, by denying the Motion to Terminate, it prevented the entirety of the Decree’s relief from disappearing, and stopped Defendants from ending their compliance with that relief. Docket No. 175 at 1. Second, the Final Judgment “extend[ed]” many of the Decree’s terms beyond their original expiration date. Id. This extension forced Defendants into a period of compliance beyond that initially envisioned by the Decree. Plaintiffs’ efforts resulting in the Final Judgment therefore induced compliance with the Decree’s relief, and satisfy Miller’s second prong.1
That this Court ended some of the Decree’s provisions does not disturb this conclusion. Miller does not require plaintiffs to vindicate all rights granted by the prior relief, nor does it require them to obtain all the relief they have requested. Miller explicitly “reject[s] anything . . . which insists that a district court must always sever an attorney’s work into ‘issue parcels’ and then assess that work for the purposes of a fee award in terms of each issue standing alone.” 628
1 The relief within the Order and Final Judgment not only meets the Miller test for extending “prevailing party” status, but also meets the Dearmore test for granting new “prevailing party” status. The extension of the Decree’s provisions beyond their original expiration date constituted “actual relief” by continuing a consent decree, “materially alter[ed]” the relationship between the parties beyond the terms of the initial Decree, and “modifie[d] the defendant’s behavior” in a way that benefitted plaintiffs at the time of its entry. Dearmore, 519 F.3d 517, 521 (emphasis added). That this case was later mooted by the closure of Walnut Grove does not change this fact. For the purposes of Dearmore, all that matters is that, at the time of the Final Judgment’s entry, defendant’s behavior was modified to the benefit of plaintiffs.
6

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 208 Filed 09/22/17 Page 7 of 19
F.2d at 348. As long as the entirety of plaintiffs’ efforts are “directed towards remedying the constitutional wrongs” at issue, and those efforts result in the vindication of rights, they qualify for a fee award. Id at 348-49.
Such is the case here. This Court may have denied the portions of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce which requested the enforcement or modification of all the Decree’s provisions. But this Court also granted the rest of that motion, extending the enforcement of many of the Decree’s key provisions. Plaintiffs’ efforts will not be parceled into segments aimed at enforcing the Decree’s entirety and segments aimed at enforcing the Decree’s extended provisions. These efforts in their entirety were directed at remedying constitutional wrongs, and resulted in the vindication of rights embodied in the Order and Final Judgment.
In sum, Plaintiffs are a prevailing party for the purpose of this motion. The work for which they seek an attorney’s fee award was related to the enforcement of the Decree’s relief, and resulted in the vindication of rights. That work must be accounted for within an attorney’s fee award.
B. Scope of Award This Court will use a three-step analysis to determine the scope of a reasonable attorney’s fee award.2 First, the lodestar fee award will be calculated. Second, the Johnson factors will be applied to the lodestar, which will be modified if necessary. Finally, the award will be limited in line with the PLRA. This analysis is conducted below.
1. Lodestar Calculation “[T]he loadstar method yields a fee that is presumptively sufficient.” Perdue, 559 U.S. 542, 552 (2010) (citations omitted). The first step in calculating a lodestar is determining the hours a
2 In line with Farrar v. Hobby, this reasonableness analysis subsumes a determination of whether “special circumstances would render [an award granted under §1988] unjust.” 506 U.S. 103, 188 (1992) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
7

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 208 Filed 09/22/17 Page 8 of 19
prevailing party “reasonably expended” during the actions in question. McClain, 649 F.3d at 381. Plaintiffs bear the burden of submitting evidence “supporting the hours worked,” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983), and establishing that such hours are reasonable, Abner, 541 F.3d at 377. That evidence must reflect “billing judgment,” which “refers to the usual practice of law firms in writing off unproductive, excessive, or redundant hours.” Walker v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 99 F.3d 761, 769 (5th Cir. 1996). This burden is met by producing “billing records . . . that will enable a reviewing court to identify distinct claims.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437. But, “[a] district court cannot inquire into the reasonableness of every action taken and every hour expended by counsel.” Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Harried, No. 5:06-CV-160-DCB-JMR, 2011 WL 283925, at *10 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 25, 2011) (citation omitted).
Plaintiffs though have submitted billing records that are detailed enough to allow this Court to determine if each billed hour was reasonable. See, e.g., Docket No. 206-2. Plaintiffs utilized the practice of separate billing, and billed for three classes of work: attorney work, community advocate work, and law clerk work. See id. The lodestar must account for this work. See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285 (1989) (a lodestar calculation “must take into account the work not only of attorneys, but also of secretaries, messengers, librarians, janitors, and others whose labor contributes to the work product for which an attorney bills her client”). In total, Plaintiffs request attorney’s fees for 2,290.9 hours of attorney work, 475.5 hours of community advocate work, and 39.2 hours of law clerk work.3
3 These figures were obtained by adjusting Plaintiffs’ initial hourly requests to reflect the deductions made in their supplemental motion and relevant exhibits. And, it includes the time expended in making this request for attorneys’ fees. Such time is compensable. See Volk v. Gonzalez, 262 F.3d 528, 536 (5th Cir. 2001) (holding that fees-on-fees are “directly and reasonably incurred in proving an actual violation of the plaintiff’s rights’ and therefore recoverable.”) (citation omitted).
8

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 208 Filed 09/22/17 Page 9 of 19
This Court finds that Plaintiffs generally expended a reasonable number of hours on this matter, which required a significant amount of complex legal work over a three-year period. Plaintiffs have engaged in both trial court and appellate advocacy, extensive motions practice, exploration of novel legal issues, and coordination amongst a host of parties. This work – and its pressing nature, given the threat to inmate safety evidenced by the 2014 riots – indicates a high degree of skill on the part of counsel for Plaintiffs. Their work here, which aimed to defend both their longstanding clients and the Decree, was difficult and necessary. It is reasonable for Plaintiffs to bill for hours that accord with what a single attorney, working typical law firm hours, would bill over roughly a year and a half period. See E.E.O.C. v. Clear Lake Dodge, 60 F.3d 1146, 1154 (5th Cir. 1995) (noting that “2000 billable hours a year” is average for attorneys at law firms).
This Court finds, however, that a number of hours billed by Plaintiffs must be excluded for a lack of billing judgment. The most significant deficiency in terms of billing judgment stems from the 562.4 hours of attorney work Plaintiffs billed in preparing their appellate brief. See Docket No. 206-2 at Ex. A; Docket No. 206-5. This compares to the 177.1 hours of attorney work (and 30 hours of legal assistant work) Plaintiffs billed in preparing the brief filed after the evidentiary hearing. Id. To wit, Plaintiffs billed three times as many hours to draft an appellate brief that was half as long as their post-hearing brief, and much of that time was attributed to a single editor.4 There is, then, a wide discrepancy between the hours Plaintiffs expended on their post-hearing brief – a number of hours this Court finds to be reasonable – and the hours expended on their appellate brief. Some of this discrepancy can be attributed to the nature of appellate work, which can require more thorough and detailed legal analysis than that involved in trial work. See Boniuk
4 Given the formatting differences between appellate and trial court briefs, word count – and not page count – is the most appropriate way to compare brief length. Plaintiffs’ post-hearing brief contained roughly 35,000 words. Docket No. 165. In contrast, Plaintiffs’ appellate brief contained roughly 17,000 words. Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellees, Depriest v. Fisher, 669 Fed.Appx. 209 (2016) (No. 15-60488), 2015 WL 7596127.
9

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 208 Filed 09/22/17 Page 10 of 19
v. New York Med. Coll., 535 F. Supp. 1353, 1357 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 714 F.2d 111 (2d Cir. 1982) (noting the “cost and difficulty of appeals within the federal system”). Some of this discrepancy can be attributed to the fact that Plaintiffs wrote memoranda on issues that, while relevant to the appeal, were not covered in their final appellate brief. See Docket No. 206-2 at 15-16. The remaining, sizeable discrepancy between hours billed on their post-hearing brief and their appellate brief has not been justified by Plaintiffs, and indicates a significant failure to exercise billing judgment. This Court will account for this failure by excluding 75 hours of attorney work each from the ACLU and the SPLC’s shares of the attorney’s fee award.
Internal inconsistencies within Plaintiffs’ billing records also reflect a failure to exercise billing judgment. Some inconsistencies were minor, like those involving differing hour entries for the same conference call. Compare Docket No. 206-5 at 33 with Docket No. 206-2 at Ex. A-19 (Southern Poverty Law Center billing 1.1 hours of attorney work for a call for which the American Civil Liberties Union billed just 0.9 hours of attorney work). Others are more significant, like those suggesting an entire meeting billed for may not have occurred. Compare Docket No. 206-5 at 9 with Docket No. 206-2 at Ex. A-6 (ACLU billing 6.6 hours for attorney work regarding a “Skype call with SPLC” on February 24, 2015 that is not reflected in SPLC’s billing records).
These inconsistencies may be insignificant errors that do not constitute a lack of billing judgment. Indeed, Plaintiffs have exercised substantial billing judgment elsewhere in this case. See, e.g., Docket No. 206-3 at 7 (reducing claimed hours in response to Defendants’ objections). The inconsistencies, however, reflect some inattentiveness which undermines the foundation of Plaintiffs’ overall fee request. Their award, therefore, must be adjusted accordingly. But, these inconsistencies do not justify limiting Plaintiffs to no relief at all, as Defendants advocate. See Docket No. 198, at 10. See A C Marine, Inc. v. Axxis Drilling Inc., No. 10-0087, 2011 WL 1595438,
10

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 208 Filed 09/22/17 Page 11 of 19
at *4 (W.D. La. Apr. 25, 2011) (“The remedy for failure to submit bills containing complete detail is not preclusion, but, rather, reduction of the fees and costs claimed.”). “The essential goal in shifting fees (to either party) is to do rough justice, not achieve auditing perfection.” Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 131 S. Ct. 2205, 2216 (2011)., This Court will thus exclude 50 hours of attorney work from each of the ACLU and the SPLC’s shares of the attorney’s fee award.
Defendants also allege that Plaintiffs did not exercise billing judgment by overstaffing depositions and hearings. Docket No. 198 at 17. Billing the hours of more than one attorney for a court proceeding or deposition, particularly where one or more of the attorneys are observers only, constitutes a lack of billing judgment. See Johnson, 488 F.2d at 717; see also Abrams v. Baylor College, 805 F.2d 528, 535 (5th Cir. 1986). But courts recognize that more than one attorney, or even a team of lawyers, may be required in a complex matter. See, e.g., Feld Motor Sports, Inc., v. Traxxas, LP, No. 4:14-CV-543, 2016 WL 2758183, at * 8 (E.D. Tex. May 12, 2016); Ali v. Stephens, No. 9:09-CV-52, 2015 WL 2061981, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 29, 2015).
Here, Plaintiffs’ staffing practices are justified. This was a complex case and Defendants do not dispute this point. Plaintiffs only billed for one attorney during the relevant depositions. Docket No. 206-2 at 10. While Plaintiffs did bill for two to three attorneys during courtroom proceedings, those attorneys all made appearances and helped present complex evidence and legal arguments. Id. at 12. Likewise, given the difficulty of this case, Plaintiffs’ use of a legal assistant during depositions and courtroom proceedings was reasonable. Id. at 10-12.
Defendants’ objections ring particularly hollow given their own staffing practices during this case. Defendants had many as three attorneys present during depositions, id. at 9-10, and staffed the evidentiary hearing with four attorneys. Docket No. 195-4. Their complaints regarding Plaintiffs’ alleged overstaffing cannot be taken seriously.
11

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 208 Filed 09/22/17 Page 12 of 19
Taking all relevant adjustments into consideration, this Court finds that a reasonable attorney’s fee award must account for a total of 788.9 hours of attorney work for the SPLC, 475.5 hours of community advocate work for the SPLC, 1201.8 hours of attorney work for the ACLU, 39.2 hours of law clerk work for the ACLU, and 40.1 hours of attorney work for the firm of McDuff & Byrd.
After determining the hours “reasonably expended” on a matter, a court calculating a lodestar must determine the “reasonable hourly rate” for an attorney’s services. McClain, 649 F.3d at 381 (citation omitted). Such rates “are to be calculated according to the prevailing market rates in the relevant community.” Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984); see also Jenkins, 491 U.S. at 286-87 (holding that, if the prevailing custom in a community is separate billing for non-attorney work, the value of that work is measured by the relevant market rates in that community). The “relevant market” here is “the community in which the district court sits,” Scham v. District Courts Trying Criminal Cases, 148 F.3d 554, 558 (5th Cir.1998), abrogated on other grounds by Bailey v. Mississippi, 407 F.3d 684 (5th Cir.2005). Plaintiffs bear the burden of submitting evidence “supporting the . . . rates claimed,” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433, and establishing that such rates are reasonable, Abner, 541 F.3d at 377.
Plaintiffs request an hourly rate of $219 for attorney work. Prevailing market rates for this work in Jackson vary widely. See Brown v. Miss. Dep’t of Health, No. 3:11-CV-146-CWR-FKB, 2013 WL 12128785, at *3 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 5, 2013). Plaintiffs have submitted extensive evidence regarding the reasonableness of their requested rate. See, e.g., Docket No. 195-1 at Ex. B-1 (affidavit stating that hourly rates for similar attorney work in Jackson are between $300 and $450); id. at 7-10 (affidavits of Plaintiffs’ attorneys attesting to their levels of experience and skill); Docket No. 195-2 at 2 (affidavit establishing current market rates for Plaintiffs’ attorneys). This
12

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 208 Filed 09/22/17 Page 13 of 19
evidence is supported by recent rulings in this district establishing rates for similar attorney work. See, e.g. Olivia Y., et al., v. Barbour, No. 3:04CV251LN, Docket No. 691 at 11 (S.D. Miss. May 6, 2016) (finding that hourly rates between $217.50 and $425 for attorney work in institutional reform litigation are reasonable); Jones v. Singing River Health Sys., No. 1:14-CV-447-LG-RHW, 2016 WL 3248449, at *3 (S.D. Miss. June 10, 2016) (finding $400 hourly rate proper in this jurisdiction for an experienced attorney handling complex litigation); Perez v. Bruister, No. 3:13CV-1001-DPJ-FKB, 2015 WL 5712883, at *6 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 29, 2015) (approving hourly rates of $375, $400 and $700 for attorneys involved in the case). Plaintiffs’ requested hourly rate appears to be on the low end of what is reasonable, given the extensive work of seasoned attorneys like the ACLU’s Margaret Winter, see Docket No. 195-2 at Ex. D. This Court finds a reasonable hourly rate for the attorney work here to be $219.
However, a different rate must be applied to hours billed for time that attorneys were travelling. Courts in this district “typically compensate travel time at 50% of the attorney's rate in the absence of documentation that any legal work was accomplished during travel time.” Baker v. Washington Mut. Fin. Grp., LLC, No. CIVA 104CV137WJG-JMR, 2007 WL 571103, at *12 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 20, 2007) (citing Watkins v. Fordice, 807 F.Supp. 406, 459 (S.D. Miss. 1992); Smith v. Walthall Cnty., 157 F.R.D. 388, 393 (S.D. Miss. 1994)); see also Martin v. Mabus, 734 F.Supp. 1216, 1227 (S.D. Miss. 1990); Beamon v. City of Ridgeland, Miss., 666 F.Supp. 937, 941 (S.D. Miss. 1987). Here, Plaintiffs have failed to provide documentation that any legal work was accomplished during travel time billed for by their attorneys. This Court finds a reasonable hourly rate for this attorney travel time to be 50% of the attorney work rate, or $109.50.
Plaintiffs billed separately for non-attorney work in custom with the practice of this district. Pursuant to Jenkins, this work will be included within the lodestar, and will be valued using the
13

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 208 Filed 09/22/17 Page 14 of 19
market rates for that work in Jackson. See 491 U.S. at 286-87. Plaintiffs request $75 an hour for the work of community advocates (who are paid employees of SPLC, Docket No. 195-2 at 5), and $160 for the work of law clerks. Unlike Plaintiffs’ requested hourly rates for attorney work, these requested rates for non-attorney work are not supported by the record.
Plaintiffs have not presented any evidence regarding the market value of the work done by community advocates. Plaintiffs claim that community advocate work should be treated like paralegal work. See Docket No. 195-2 at 12. Their only support for this contention is that one community advocate “performed the job duties of an outreach paralegal.” Id. Plaintiffs’ own billing records indicate, however, that community advocates’ work often did not require the skill of a paralegal to complete. See, e.g., id. at Ex. A (billing for community advocate hours spent “compil[ing] names for visit list from previous notes,” conducting “client interviews at Walnut Grove,” “pick[ing] up . . . documents from Attorney General’s office,” and “pulling exhibits”). Defendants point to cases where courts have set hourly rates for this kind of basic legal assistant work between $25 and $45 an hour. See, e.g., Jackson v. Austin, 267 F. Supp. 2d 1059, 1066 (D. Kan. 2003). This Court is persuaded by these cases, and finds a reasonable hourly rate for community advocate work to be $35.5
Plaintiffs’ requested rate for law clerk work is similarly unjustified. Their only evidence supporting that rate is a citation to the Department of Justice’s matrix for determining reasonable fee awards in civil rights actions. Docket No. 195-2 at Ex. C. This matrix establishes rates for work in the District of Columbia, not in Jackson. Id. Out-of-district counsel is entitled to the rates they normally charge only in “certain limited circumstances.” McClain, 649 F.3d at 383. Plaintiffs have failed to show why any of these circumstances apply to the work of their law clerks. This work
5 The fact that some of the community advocate hours billed for included travel time is reflected in this downward adjustment.
14

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 208 Filed 09/22/17 Page 15 of 19
appears to be that normally conducted by paralegals, work which this Court has previously found to have a “reasonable local billing rate” of $100. Brown, No. 3:11-CV-146-CWR-FKB, 2013 WL 12128785, at *3. Therefore, this Court finds a reasonable hourly rate for law clerk work to be $100.
Once reasonable hourly rates have been set, a court calculating a lodestar must take reasonable expenses into account. Jenkins, 491 U.S. at 285. Here, Plaintiffs have submitted reports detailing $45,841.30 in expenses. See, e.g., Docket No. 195-2 at Ex. B. Defendants’ only substantial6 objection here is that some expenses were related to inmate interviews at Walnut Grove. Docket No. 198 at 25. Pursuant to the Decree, Plaintiffs are already entitled to recover $20,000 in annual fees related to monitoring of the Decree’s implementation. See Docket No. 1971 at 1. Inmate interviews are often part of such monitoring efforts. Defendants are concerned that including these expenses in a fee award will cause, or at least pose the threat of, double recovery.
Defendants concerns are justified, but can be assuaged. Plaintiffs have already done so, in part, by excluding from their reports expenses for which they have already recovered. See Docket No. 206-2 at 3-6. To prevent any future threat of double recovery, this Court will award the portion of Plaintiffs’ expenses related to interviews at Walnut Grove, on the condition that Plaintiffs be barred from including these expenses in any future requests for monitoring costs from Defendants.
This Court will include within the lodestar all expenses relating to filing, lodging, travel, photocopying, postage, and telephone costs, as it finds these expenses to be reasonable. This Court will not, however, award Plaintiffs the $657 requested by the ACLU for court admission fees, which are not reimbursable. See Knauff v. Dorel Juvenile Grp., Inc., No. SA-08-CV-336-XR, 2010
6 Defendants also question, without detail, a pair of meal expenses totaling $93.47. Docket No. 198 at 25. This Court finds these objections to be meritless. See, e.g., Gros v. City of New Orleans, No. 12-2322, 2014 WL 3894371, at *5 (E.D. La. Aug. 8, 2014) (out of pocket expenses including meals recoverable as they are “normally billed to private client.”); Tindall v. Lit Refrigeration Co., Inc., 507 F.Supp. 341, 345 (N.D. Miss. 1980) (finding meal expense reasonable “and should be allowed’).
15

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 208 Filed 09/22/17 Page 16 of 19

WL 2545424, at *2 (W.D. Tex. June 21, 2010) (disallowing pro hac vice costs); Smith v. Fresh Cut

Floral & Catering, Inc., No. 3:07-CV-661-WHB-LRA, 2008 WL 4539630, at *2 (S.D. Miss. Oct.

7, 2008) (same). Therefore, the lodestar will include a total of $45,184.30 for expenses.

In sum, this Court finds that the lodestar here totals $496,859.25, as detailed below:

COUNSEL

FEE TYPE

HOURS

RATE

FEE AMOUNT

SPLC

Attorney Work

733.9

$219

$160,724.10

SPLC

Attorney Travel

55.0

$109.50

$6,022.50

SPLC

Community

475.5

$35

$16,642.50

Advocate Work

SPLC

Expenses

-

-

$32,468.89

ACLU

Attorney Work

1132.3

$219

$247,973.70

ACLU

Attorney Travel

69.5

$109.50

$7,610.25

ACLU

Law Clerk Work

39.2

$100

$3,920.00

ACLU

Expenses

-

-

$12,715.41

McDuff & Byrd Attorney Work

40.1

$219

$8,781.90

Total Award

$496,859.25

2. Lodestar Modification Using Johnson Factors
This step requires the Court to discuss each of the Johnson factors and, in accord with that
case, adjust the lodestar upward or downward based on that discussion. 488 F.2d at 717-19.
The Johnson factors are: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions; (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of employment by the attorney due to the acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the
16

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 208 Filed 09/22/17 Page 17 of 19
attorneys; (10) the “undesirability” of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases. Penthouse Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. 1:07-CV-568-HSORHW, 2011 WL 6699447, at *3 (S.D. Miss. Dec. 21, 2011) (citation omitted). Many of these factors “usually are subsumed within the initial calculation of hours reasonably expended at a reasonable hourly rate.’” Id. at *4 (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434 n.9). Again, the “most critical” of the Johnson factors corresponds to factor (8), “the degree of success obtained.” Abner, 541 F.3d at 377. Here, each of the Johnson factors, except the fourth and sixth, are subsumed into the above discussion of the lodestar calculation. That discussion focuses on the eighth Johnson factor, noting the high degree of success obtained by Plaintiffs. The remaining two Johnson factors are not relevant to this case. In weighing all of these factors, this Court concludes that the lodestar should not be adjusted.
3. PLRA Limitations The PLRA includes a provision that limits the award of attorney’s fees in prison reform litigation. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(1). That provision has three requirements. The first bars awards from covering work that was not “directly and reasonably incurred” in proving actual rights violations. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(1)(A). Here, the entirety of Plaintiffs’ work either (1) directly led to the Order’s finding of “current and ongoing” rights violations at Walnut Grove or (2) defended that finding and the subsequent relief on appeal. The portion of this work dedicated to “fees-onfees” is recoverable under the PLRA. See Volk v. Gonzalez, 262 F.3d 528, 536 (5th Cir. 2001). Thus, the lodestar award satisfies this threshold requirement of the PLRA limitation provision. The PLRA fee limitation provision’s second requirement states that awards shall only cover work that either is “proportionally related” to the relief ordered or is “directly and reasonably
17

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 208 Filed 09/22/17 Page 18 of 19
incurred” in enforcing that relief. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(1)(B). Plaintiffs’ efforts leading up to the Final Judgment were “proportionally related” to the Final Judgment’s relief by being narrowly focused on enforcing the Decree’s provisions. Plaintiffs’ later efforts were “directly and reasonably incurred” in enforcing that relief by only encompassing appellate work and fees-on-fees work. The lodestar therefore satisfies the second requirement of the PLRA limitation provision.
Finally, the PLRA fee limitation provision caps the hourly rates within attorney’s fees awards at 150 percent of the rate established by the CJA. For the reasons stated above, this Court will cap the relevant hourly rates at 150 percent of $146, which is the CJA hourly rate currently approved by the Judicial Conference. See United States Courts FY 2017 Congressional Budget Summary at 37 (“the maximum rate authorized in statute is $146 per hour”); see also Carruthers v. Israel, No. 76-06086-CV, 2017 WL 3531471, at *5–6 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 15, 2017) (calculating same rate). Furthermore, to compensate for delayed payment, this Court will use the currently approved CJA rate to all hours billed, rather than applying the approved CJA rates set at the time a given hour was billed. See Walker, 99 F.3d at 773. Therefore, this Court finds the PLRA to cap the relevant hourly rates at $219.
None of the hourly rates within the lodestar fee award exceed this cap. This Court therefore finds that the lodestar has satisfied the requirements of the PLRA. IV. Conclusion
Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs is granted with regard to $496,859.25 of the attorney’s fees and costs requested and denied with regard to $90,495.75 of that request. Defendants are ordered to pay to Plaintiffs $496,859.25.
SO ORDERED, this the ___ day of September, 2017.
18

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 208 Filed 09/22/17 Page 19 of 19 s/ Carlton W. Reeves UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19

 
 Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 217 Filed 04/25/18 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION

CHARLTON DEPRIEST, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS

V.

CAUSE NO. 3:10-CV-00663-CWR-FKB

WALNUT GROVE CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITY, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER GRANTING IN PART & DENYING IN PART ATTORNEY’S FEE AWARD

Plaintiffs spent over half a decade in litigation before this Court seeking to remedy

egregious civil rights abuses at the Walnut Grove Correctional Facility.1 After prevailing, they

were granted an initial attorney’s fee award authorized by both the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees

Awards Act and the Prison Litigation Reform Act.2 The Fifth Circuit in Volk v. Gonzalez said that

such authorization makes “fees incurred in seeking attorney’s fees . . . recoverable.”3 Accordingly,

a portion of the initial award covered Plaintiffs’ work on their opening fees-on-fees brief.4

Plaintiffs now request an additional $51,034.90 award to cover the remainder of their fees-on-fees

work, which focused on the drafting of a reply brief.5

Defendants make two objections to this request. First, they claim that the Supreme Court

revoked Volk’s authorization of fees-on-fees recovery in Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC.6

Baker Botts stated that, “absent explicit statutory authority,” each party “pays his own attorney’s

1 Depriest v. Walnut Grove Corr. Auth., No. 310CV00663CWRFKB, 2017 WL 4228751 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 22,
2017). 2 Id. (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e). 3 262 F.3d 528, 533, 536 (5th Cir. 2001). 4 See Amended Supplemental Declaration of Jody E. Owens II, Docket No. 206-2. 5 Motion for Attorney Fees for Fees Litigation, Docket No. 210. 6 135 S. Ct. 2158, 192 L. Ed. 2d 208 (2015).

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 217 Filed 04/25/18 Page 2 of 5
fees.”7 Defendants say Plaintiffs deserve no fees-on-fees award because “there is no express statutory authorization” for one.8
Defendants misread Baker Botts, which merely interpreted the term “reasonable compensation” within the attorney’s fees provisions of the federal bankruptcy code.9 In doing so, the Court contrasted the bankruptcy code to statutes – including the Awards Act – which the Court said have “specific and explicit provisions for the allowance of attorney[’s] fees.”10 Baker Botts applied, rather than altered, prior law governing attorney’s fee awards made under the Awards Act. Baker Botts is therefore consistent with Volk. Plaintiffs remain entitled to fees-on-fees.
Defendants’ second objection is that Plaintiffs’ requested award is unreasonable. The Supreme Court says “presumptively” reasonable awards may be calculated using the “lodestar” method.11 As the Fifth Circuit has explained, the lodestar method multiplies the hours a party “reasonably expended” by the “reasonable hourly rate for their services.”12 Plaintiffs’ requested award uses this method, incorporating hourly rates previously set by this Court.13 Defendants do not question these rates; rather, they claim Plaintiffs billed for more hours than they should have.
The first example of alleged overbilling is a $3,898.20 charge for what Defendants label “clerical” tasks.14 Tasks like “reviewing and categorizing fees” and “creating charts re: time categories” may be clerical in some contexts.15 A request for fees-on-fees is not among them. What made otherwise clerical tasks essential was the need to catalog work, a need caused by Defendants’ resistance to any fee award. Plaintiffs reasonably expended the hours Defendants cite as clerical.
7 Id. at 2164. 8 Memorandum in Support of Response in Opposition, Docket No. 214 at 5. 9 135 S. Ct. at 2612 (quoting 11 U.S.C. § 330). 10 Id. 11 Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542, 552 (2010) (citation omitted). 12 McClain v. Lufkin Indus., Inc., 649 F.3d 374, 381-82 (5th Cir. 2011). 13 Compare Motion for Attorney Fees, supra n. 4 at 3 with Depriest, supra n. 1, at *8. 14 SPLC Fees Charged for Clerical Tasks, Docket No. 210-2. 15 Id.
2

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 217 Filed 04/25/18 Page 3 of 5
Next, Defendants allege that Plaintiffs overbilled for work involving legal arguments they failed to prevail on. They cite Supreme Court’s statement in Comm’r, I.N.S. v. Jean that fees-forfees “should be excluded to the extent that the applicant ultimately fails to prevail in such litigation.”16 Defendants say that, because the initial award omitted a percent of the fees requested by Plaintiffs, the fees-on-fees award “should be reduced based on the same percentage.”17
Defendants misread Jean, which gives an example of how to apply its rule: “if the Government’s challenge to a requested rate for paralegal time resulted in . . . reducing the award for paralegal time from the requested amount, then the applicant should not receive fees for the time spent defending the higher rate.”18 Jean thus requires a reduction measured by the time spent seeking unobtained portions of the requested fee, not by the percent difference between the fees awarded and fees requested.
Here, Plaintiffs prevailed on issues that consumed the vast majority of fee litigation time. Such issues included whether fees included cover law clerk, community advocate work, work done on fees-on-fees, or expenses.19 As Defendants’ briefing shows, the majority of time was spent on a single issue Plaintiffs handily won: whether Plaintiffs deserved any fee award.20 Plaintiffs failed to prevail on a handful of minor issues: an award for some improperly recorded billable hours; the precise rates for attorney travel, law clerk work, and community advocate work; and the award of $657 court admission costs.21 Ever cognizant of the Supreme Court’s statement that “essential goal” in awarding attorney’s fees is achieving “rough justice” and not “auditing perfection,” 22 this
16 496 U.S. 154, 163 n. 10. 17 Memorandum in Support, supra n. 7 at 12-13. 18 Id. 19 See generally id. 20 See Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Docket No. 198. 21 Depriest, supra n. 1 at *6-9. 22 Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 838 (2011).
3

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 217 Filed 04/25/18 Page 4 of 5
Court estimates that Plaintiffs spent 5% of their time litigating such issues. Accordingly, their requested award is reduced by $2,551.75.
Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs improperly billed for work done on an initial 57 page reply brief, which was struck by this Court for exceeding the relevant page limit.23 Defendants say an award should only cover work on the revised 12 page reply brief.24 Plaintiffs admit they billed hours for work spent on the struck brief.25 They give three reasons to justify doing so: first, they claim the entirety of their initial work ended up in the revised brief;26 second, they did not bill for the hours spent drafting the revised brief, amounting to $12,586.86 of work;27 and finally, they adjusted for duplicative work by reducing their requested award by a further $5,387.40.28
These reductions do not resolve Defendants’ objection. While much of the initial brief’s argument appear in the revised brief, a significant amount does not.29 Precisely how much that amount represents in work-hours requires a computation beyond this Court’s power. Thankfully, such a computation is unnecessary. To repeat, the “essential goal” in crafting attorney’s fee awards is to “do rough justice, not to achieve auditing perfection.”30 Comparing the briefs, the Court estimates that Plaintiffs should have omitted an additional 60 hours of attorney work from their requested award. Accordingly, that award will be further reduced by $13,140.
,
23 Order, Docket No. 206. 24 Memorandum in Support, supra n. 7 at 11. 25 Reply in Support of Motion, Docket No. 215 at 8. 26 Id. 27 See Owens Supplemental Declaration, Docket No. 215-1; Fathi Declaration, Docket No. 210-1. 28 Fathi Declaration, Docket No. 210-1. 29 Compare Response in Support re Supplemental Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Docket No. 201 with Response in Support re Supplemental Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Docket No. 206. 30 Fox, 563 U.S. at 838.
4

Case 3:10-cv-00663-CWR-FKB Document 217 Filed 04/25/18 Page 5 of 5 The Court believes the adjustments above make Plaintiffs’ requested fees-on-fees award
reasonable. Their request for that award is therefore GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants are ORDERED to pay Plaintiffs $35,343.15.
The Court will conclude by noting that Defendants chose the path of lengthy fees-on-fees litigation. The law did not force them to do so. The Supreme Court encourages parties to “settle the amount of a fee,” and warns that the question of reasonable fees “should not result in a second major litigation.”31 If Defendants wish to avoid the risk of paying fees-on-fees awards, they should heed that warning.
SO ORDERED, this the 25th day of April, 2018. s/ Carlton W. Reeves UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
31 Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 436 (1983).
5

 
 Case: 3:10-cv-663 As of: 08/09/2018 11:25 AM CDT 1 of 35
CLOSED,FKB,NO_CMC
U.S. District Court Southern District of Mississippi (Northern (Jackson)) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:10−cv−00663−CWR−FKB

DePriest et al v. Walnut Grove Correctional Authority et al Assigned to: District Judge Carlton W. Reeves Referred to: Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball Related Case: 3:16−cv−00913−CWR−FKB Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 11/16/2010 Date Terminated: 09/22/2017 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Charleston DePriest as father and next friend of C.B. a minor

represented by Gabriel B. Eber − PHV NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT OF THE ACLU 915 15th Street, NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20005 202/548−6601 Fax: 202/393−4931 Email: geber@aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sheila A. Bedi SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER − Jackson 111 East Capitol Street, Suite 280 Jackson, MS 39201 601/948−8882 Fax: 601/948−8885 Email: sheila.a.bedi@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob W. Howard MCDUFF & BYRD 767 N. Congress Jackson, MS 39202 601/969−0802 Fax: 602/969−0804 Email: jake@mcdufflaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennie A. Eichelberger EICHELBERGER LAW FIRM, PLLC 775 North Congress Street Jackson, MS 39202 601/292−7940 Fax: 601/510−9103 Email: jennie@ike−law.com TERMINATED: 09/30/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jody E. Owens , II SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER − Jackson 111 East Capitol Street, Suite 280 Jackson, MS 39201 601/948−8882 Fax: 601/948−8885 Email: jody.owens@splcenter.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:10-cv-663 As of: 08/09/2018 11:25 AM CDT 2 of 35

Plaintiff
Eric Ball on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals

Margaret Winter − PHV NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT OF THE ACLU 915 15th Street, NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20005 202/393−4930 Fax: 202/393−4931 Email: winter.margaret@gmail.com TERMINATED: 04/24/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert B. McDuff THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT MCDUFF 767 North Congress Street Jackson, MS 39202 601/969−0802 Fax: 601/969−0804 Email: RBM@McDuffLaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah D. Bidinger SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER − Jackson 111 East Capitol Street, Suite 280 Jackson, MS 39201 601/345−7578 Email: sarah.bidinger@splcenter.org (Inactive) TERMINATED: 05/01/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vanessa Judith Carroll SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER − New Orleans 201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 2000 New Orleans, LA 70170 6083547149 Fax: 504/486−8947 Email: vanessa.carroll@splcenter.org (Inactive) TERMINATED: 08/13/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gabriel B. Eber − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacob W. Howard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennie A. Eichelberger (See above for address)

Case: 3:10-cv-663 As of: 08/09/2018 11:25 AM CDT 3 of 35

TERMINATED: 09/30/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jody E. Owens , II (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Margaret Winter − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/24/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert B. McDuff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah D. Bidinger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/01/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vanessa Judith Carroll (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Erik Barnes on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals

represented by Gabriel B. Eber − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob W. Howard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennie A. Eichelberger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jody E. Owens , II (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Margaret Winter − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/24/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert B. McDuff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah D. Bidinger (See above for address)

Case: 3:10-cv-663 As of: 08/09/2018 11:25 AM CDT 4 of 35

TERMINATED: 05/01/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vanessa Judith Carroll (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jamario Brady on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals

represented by Gabriel B. Eber − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob W. Howard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennie A. Eichelberger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jody E. Owens , II (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Margaret Winter − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/24/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert B. McDuff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah D. Bidinger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/01/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vanessa Judith Carroll (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Joshua Clay on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals

represented by Gabriel B. Eber − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:10-cv-663 As of: 08/09/2018 11:25 AM CDT 5 of 35

Plaintiff
Christopher Coleman on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals

Jacob W. Howard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennie A. Eichelberger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jody E. Owens , II (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret Winter − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/24/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert B. McDuff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah D. Bidinger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/01/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vanessa Judith Carroll (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gabriel B. Eber − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacob W. Howard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennie A. Eichelberger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jody E. Owens , II (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret Winter − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/24/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:10-cv-663 As of: 08/09/2018 11:25 AM CDT 6 of 35

Plaintiff Lamarcus Curry on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals
Plaintiff Craig Kincaid on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals

Robert B. McDuff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah D. Bidinger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/01/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vanessa Judith Carroll (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gabriel B. Eber − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacob W. Howard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennie A. Eichelberger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jody E. Owens , II (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret Winter − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/24/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert B. McDuff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah D. Bidinger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/01/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vanessa Judith Carroll (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gabriel B. Eber − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 3:10-cv-663 As of: 08/09/2018 11:25 AM CDT 7 of 35

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob W. Howard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennie A. Eichelberger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jody E. Owens , II (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Margaret Winter − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/24/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert B. McDuff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah D. Bidinger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/01/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vanessa Judith Carroll (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Lamarsha Readus on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals

represented by Gabriel B. Eber − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/24/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob W. Howard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennie A. Eichelberger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jody E. Owens , II

Case: 3:10-cv-663 As of: 08/09/2018 11:25 AM CDT 8 of 35

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Margaret Winter − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/24/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert B. McDuff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah D. Bidinger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/01/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vanessa Judith Carroll (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Cozy Scott on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals

represented by Gabriel B. Eber − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/24/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob W. Howard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennie A. Eichelberger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jody E. Owens , II (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Margaret Winter − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/24/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert B. McDuff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah D. Bidinger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/01/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:10-cv-663 As of: 08/09/2018 11:25 AM CDT 9 of 35

Vanessa Judith Carroll (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Latravis Smith on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals

represented by Gabriel B. Eber − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/24/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob W. Howard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennie A. Eichelberger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jody E. Owens , II (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Margaret Winter − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/24/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert B. McDuff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah D. Bidinger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/01/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vanessa Judith Carroll (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Brian Webster on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals

represented by Gabriel B. Eber − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/24/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:10-cv-663 As of: 08/09/2018 11:25 AM CDT 10 of 35

Jacob W. Howard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennie A. Eichelberger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jody E. Owens , II (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Margaret Winter − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/24/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert B. McDuff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah D. Bidinger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/01/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vanessa Judith Carroll (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Fredrick White on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals

represented by Gabriel B. Eber − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/24/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob W. Howard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennie A. Eichelberger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jody E. Owens , II (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Margaret Winter − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/24/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:10-cv-663 As of: 08/09/2018 11:25 AM CDT 11 of 35

Robert B. McDuff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah D. Bidinger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/01/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vanessa Judith Carroll (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Walnut Grove Correctional Authority TERMINATED: 11/16/2011
Defendant GEO Group, Inc. The TERMINATED: 11/16/2011 Defendant Health Assurance, L.L.C. TERMINATED: 11/16/2011
Defendant Walter Tripp in his official capacity as Warden of the Walnut Grove Youth Correctional

represented by Lee Thaggard BARRY, PALMER, THAGGARD, MAY & BAILEY, LLP P.O. Box 2009 505 Constitution Ave. (39301) Meridian, MS 39302−2009 601/693−2393 Fax: 601/482−7855 Email: thaggard@btmblaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lee Thaggard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Pedersen WATKINS & EAGER, PLLC P. O. Box 650 400 East Capitol Street (39201) Jackson, MS 39205−0650 601/965−1926 Fax: 601/965−1901 Email: bpedersen@watkinseager.com TERMINATED: 07/15/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY
Walter T. Johnson WATKINS & EAGER, PLLC P. O. Box 650 400 East Capitol Street (39201) Jackson, MS 39205−0650 601/965−1900 Fax: 601/965−1901 Email: wjohnson@watkinseager.com TERMINATED: 07/15/2015
represented by Lee Thaggard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 3:10-cv-663 As of: 08/09/2018 11:25 AM CDT 12 of 35

Facility TERMINATED: 11/16/2011

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Wesley Vinson in his official capacity as Deputy Warden of the Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility TERMINATED: 11/16/2011

represented by Lee Thaggard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Dan Kern in his official capacity as Deputy Warden of the Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility TERMINATED: 11/16/2011

represented by Lee Thaggard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
K. Hogue in her official capacity as Health Services Administrator for Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility TERMINATED: 11/16/2011

represented by Robert H. Pedersen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/15/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
Christopher Epps in his official capacity as Commissioner of the MDOC

represented by Gary E. Friedman PHELPS DUNBAR, LLP − Jackson P. O. Box 16114 4270 I−55 North (39211) Jackson, MS 39236−6114 601/352−2300 Fax: 601/360−9777 Email: friedmag@phelps.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin L. Matheny−State Gov MISSISSIPPI ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE P. O. Box 220 550 High Street (39201) Jackson, MS 39205−0220 601−359−3825 Fax: 601−359−2003 Email: jmath@ago.state.ms.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Krissy Casey Nobile−State Gov MISSISSIPPI ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE 550 High Street, Suite 1100 P. O. Box 220 Jackson, MS 39205 601−359−3824 Fax: 601−359−2003 Email: knobi@ago.state.ms.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William T. Siler , Jr. PHELPS DUNBAR, LLP − Jackson

Case: 3:10-cv-663 As of: 08/09/2018 11:25 AM CDT 13 of 35

P. O. Box 16114 4270 I−55 North (39211) Jackson, MS 39236−6114 601/352−2300 Fax: 601/360−9777 Email: silert@phelps.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory Todd Butler PHELPS DUNBAR, LLP − Jackson P. O. Box 16114 4270 I−55 North (39211) Jackson, MS 39236−6114 601/352−2300 Fax: 601/360−9777 Email: butlert@phelps.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harold Edward Pizzetta−State Gov , III OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL P.O. Box 220 550 High Street (39201) Jackson, MS 39205−0220 601/359−3680 Email: hpizz@ago.state.ms.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert H. Pedersen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/15/2015

Defendant
Tom Burnham Dr., in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Mississippi State Department of Education

represented by Wilson D. Minor−State Gov MISSISSIPPI ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE P. O. Box 220 550 High Street (39201) Jackson, MS 39205−0220 601/359−6279 Fax: 601/359−2003 Email: wmino@ago.state.ms.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Commissioner Marshall L. Fisher

represented by Gary E. Friedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lewis W. Bell WATKINS & EAGER, PLLC P. O. Box 650 400 East Capitol Street (39201) Jackson, MS 39205−0650 (601) 965−1900 Email: lbell@watkinseager.com TERMINATED: 07/15/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY

Michael J. Bentley BRADLEY ARANT BOULT

Case: 3:10-cv-663 As of: 08/09/2018 11:25 AM CDT 14 of 35

CUMMINGS, LLP − Jackson P.O. Box 1789 188 E. Capitol Street, Suite 400 (39201) Jackson, MS 39215−1789 601/592−9935 Fax: 601/948−3000 Email: mbentley@bradley.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert H. Pedersen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/15/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY

Krissy Casey Nobile−State Gov (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael C. Williams BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, LLP − Jackson P.O. Box 1789 188 E. Capitol Street, Suite 400 (39201) Jackson, MS 39215−1789 601/592−9981 Fax: 601/592−1481 Email: mcwilliams@bradley.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Interested Party Brenda Wolverton

Interested Party Court Reporter Gina Morris

Interested Party Omar K. Humphrey

represented by Omar K. Humphrey r3755 South MS Correctional Facility P.O. Box 1419 Leakesville, MS 39451 601−394−5600 PRO SE

ate Filed /16/2010
/16/2010 /17/2010 /17/2010

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Tom Burnham, Christopher Epps, GEO Group, Inc., Health Assurance, L.L.C., K. Hogue, Dan Walter Tripp, Wesley Vinson, Walnut Grove Correctional Authority ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 34643006550), Erik Barnes, Craig Kincaid, Charleston DePriest, Joshua Clay, Christopher Coleman, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, E Brian Webster, Fredrick White, Lamarcus Curry, Jamario Brady, Latravis Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Entered: 11/16/2010)
2 Summons Issued as to Tom Burnham, Christopher Epps, GEO Group, Inc., Health Assurance, L.L.C., K. Hogue, Dan Walter Tripp, Wesley Vinson, Walnut Grove Correctional Authority. (cwl) (Entered: 11/16/2010)
3 ***ERROR***DISREGARD THIS ENTRY. MOTION to Certify Class by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Jos Christopher Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis S Brian Webster, Fredrick White (Bedi, Sheila) Modified on 11/18/2010 (cwl). (Entered: 11/17/2010)
4 ***ERROR***DISREGARD THIS ENTRY. MEMORANDUM in Support re 3 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Er Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Bedi, Sheila) Modified on 11/18/2010 (cwl). (Entered

Case: 3:10-cv-663 As of: 08/09/2018 11:25 AM CDT 15 of 35

/18/2010
/18/2010
/18/2010
/22/2010
/22/2010
/22/2010
/22/2010
/22/2010
/22/2010
/23/2010 /29/2010 /30/2010 /01/2010 /03/2010 /03/2010 /06/2010 /06/2010
/10/2010 /13/2010 /21/2010

11/17/2010)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to # 3 and 4 The documents aren't signed in compliance with the courts Administrative P for Electronic Case Filing (Sec. 3.D.) and Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 11(a). Attorney is directed to refile the documents with an appropriate signature. Motion 3 termed. (cwl) (Entered: 11/18/2010)
5 MOTION to Certify Class by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher Coleman, Lamarcus Cu Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian Webster, Fredrick White (Be Sheila) (Entered: 11/18/2010)
6 MEMORANDUM in Support re 5 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua C Christopher Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis S Brian Webster, Fredrick White (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 11/18/2010)
7 Summons Returned Unexecuted by Erik Barnes, Craig Kincaid, Charleston DePriest, Joshua Clay, Christopher Colema Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Eric Ball, Brian Webster, Fredrick White, Lamarcus Curry, Jamario Brady, Latravis Sm GEO Group, Inc.. (Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 11/22/2010)
8 Summons Returned Unexecuted by Erik Barnes, Craig Kincaid, Charleston DePriest, Joshua Clay, Christopher Colema Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Eric Ball, Brian Webster, Fredrick White, Lamarcus Curry, Jamario Brady, Latravis Sm K. Hogue. (Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 11/22/2010)
9 Summons Returned Unexecuted by Erik Barnes, Craig Kincaid, Charleston DePriest, Joshua Clay, Christopher Colema Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Eric Ball, Brian Webster, Fredrick White, Lamarcus Curry, Jamario Brady, Latravis Sm Dan Kern. (Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 11/22/2010)
10 Summons Returned Unexecuted by Erik Barnes, Craig Kincaid, Charleston DePriest, Joshua Clay, Christopher Colema Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Eric Ball, Brian Webster, Fredrick White, Lamarcus Curry, Jamario Brady, Latravis Sm Wesley Vinson. (Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 11/22/2010)
11 Summons Returned Unexecuted by Erik Barnes, Craig Kincaid, Charleston DePriest, Joshua Clay, Christopher Colema Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Eric Ball, Brian Webster, Fredrick White, Lamarcus Curry, Jamario Brady, Latravis Sm Walnut Grove Correctional Authority. (Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 11/22/2010)
12 Summons Returned Unexecuted by Erik Barnes, Craig Kincaid, Charleston DePriest, Joshua Clay, Christopher Colema Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Eric Ball, Brian Webster, Fredrick White, Lamarcus Curry, Jamario Brady, Latravis Sm Walter Tripp. (Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 11/22/2010)
13 Summons Reissued as to Dan Kern, Walter Tripp, Wesley Vinson, Walnut Grove Correctional Authority. (cwl) (Enter 11/23/2010)
14 Summons Reissued as to K. Hogue. (cwl) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
15 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by Tom Burnham (Minor, Wilson) (Entered: 11/30/20
16 ORDER granting 15 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Tom Burnham answer due 1/6/2011. Signed by Magist F. Keith Ball on December 1, 2010 (CSF) (Entered: 12/01/2010)
17 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by Christopher Epps (Matheny, Justin) (Entered: 12/0
18 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by Health Assurance, L.L.C. (Pedersen, Robert) (Ente 12/03/2010)
19 ORDER granting 17 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Christopher Epps answer due 1/6/2011. Signed by Mag Judge F. Keith Ball on December 6, 2010 (CSF) (Entered: 12/06/2010)
TEXT−ONLY ORDER granting 18 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Health Assurance, L.L.C. answer due 1/ NO WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on December 6, 2010 (CSF) (Enter 12/06/2010)
20 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by K. Hogue (Pedersen, Robert) (Entered: 12/10/2010)
TEXT−ONLY ORDER granting 20 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. K. Hogue answer due 1/10/2011. NO W ORDER SHALL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on December 13, 2010 (CSF) (Entered: 12/13/2010
21 MOTION for Margaret Winter to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christo Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian W Fredrick White (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Certificate of Good Standing)(McDuff, Robert) (Entered: 12/21/2010)

Case: 3:10-cv-663 As of: 08/09/2018 11:25 AM CDT 16 of 35

/21/2010 /21/2010 /22/2010
/22/2010
/22/2010 /30/2010
/04/2011
/05/2011 /05/2011 /07/2011 /07/2011 /07/2011 /11/2011
/11/2011
/11/2011
/11/2011
/11/2011 /13/2011
/07/2011 /08/2011 /08/2011

Pro Hac Vice fee paid for Margaret Winter receipt number 0538−1747901 $ 100 (McDuff, Robert) (Entered: 12/21/20
22 NOTICE of Appearance by Lee Thaggard on behalf of GEO Group, Inc., Dan Kern, Walter Tripp, Wesley Vinson, Wa Grove Correctional Authority (Thaggard, Lee) (Entered: 12/21/2010)
TEXT−ONLY ORDER granting 21 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, that Margaret Winter be admitted pro had vice in on behalf of the plaintiffs in association with local counsel and upon registration for electronic filing as required by the NO WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on December 22, 2010 (CSF) (Ent 12/22/2010)
PLEASE DISREGARD − ENTERED IN ERROR −NOTICE OF RESCHEDULING OF TELEPHONIC CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Per the request of the parties, the TCMC scheduled for 1/5/11 HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED TO 1/13/11 AT 2:45 P.M. before Judge Ball. (CSF) Modified on 12/22/2010 (CSF). (Entered: 12/22
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to NOTICE filed 12/22/10. Please disregard − this was entered in error. (CSF) (Entered: 12/22/2010)
23 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 6 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 5 MOTION to C Class, 1 Complaint, until March 1, 2011 by GEO Group, Inc., Dan Kern, Walter Tripp, Wesley Vinson, Walnut Grove Correctional Authority (Thaggard, Lee) (Entered: 12/30/2010)
24 ORDER granting 23 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer and respond to Motion for Certification. GEO Group, In due 3/1/2011; Walter Tripp answer due 3/1/2011; Wesley Vinson answer due 3/1/2011; Walnut Grove Correctional Au answer due 3/1/2011. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 1/4/11. (dfk) (Entered: 01/04/2011)
25 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint,, MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 5 MOTION to Certify Class by Christopher Epps (Matheny, Justin) (Entered: 01/05/2011)
26 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint,, MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 5 MOTION to Certify Class by Tom Burnham (Minor, Wilson) (Entered: 01/05/2011)
27 NOTICE of Appearance by Walter T. Johnson on behalf of Health Assurance, L.L.C. (Johnson, Walter) (Entered: 01/0
28 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by Health Assurance, L.L.C., K. Hogue (Pedersen, Robert) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
29 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 6 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 5 MOTION to Ce Class by Health Assurance, L.L.C., K. Hogue (Pedersen, Robert) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
Test−only ORDER granting 25 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Christopher Epps answer due 3/1/2011.; gran Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 5 MOTION to Certify Class ( Responses due by 3/1/2011) Si Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 1/11/11. (No further written order will be issued.) (dfk) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
Text−only ORDER granting 26 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Tom Burnham answer due 3/1/2011.; grantin Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 5 MOTION to Certify Class ( Responses due by 3/1/2011) Si Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 1/11/11. (No further written order will be issued.) (dfk) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
Text−only ORDER granting 28 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Health Assurance, L.L.C. answer due 3/1/201 granting 29 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 5 MOTION to Certify Class ( Responses due by 3 Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 1/11/11. (No further written order will be issued.) (dfk) (Entered: 01/11/2
Text−only ORDER. Defendant K. Hogue's Answer due 3/1/11; Defendant K. Hogue's Response to Motion for Class Certification due 3/1/11. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 1/11/11. (No further written order will be issued (Entered: 01/11/2011)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 5 MOTION to Certify Class.( Responses due by 3/1/2011), Set/Reset Deadlines: K. Hogue a 3/1/2011. (dfk) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
30 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to District Judge Carlton W. Reeves for all further proceedings. Dist Daniel P. Jordan, III no longer assigned to case Signed by District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr on 1/13/2011 (cwl) (Entered 01/14/2011)
31 NOTICE of Service of Disclosure by GEO Group, Inc., Dan Kern, Walter Tripp, Wesley Vinson, Walnut Grove Corre Authority (Thaggard, Lee) (Entered: 02/07/2011)
32 NOTICE OF SERVICE OF PRE−DISCOVERY DISCLOSURE INFORMATION by Health Assurance, L.L.C., K. Hogu (Pedersen, Robert) (Entered: 02/08/2011)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to # 32 incorrect event used. Attorney is advised to refile using the event Notice of Servi Disclosure which is located under the category Discovery Documents. (cwl) (Entered: 02/08/2011)

Case: 3:10-cv-663 As of: 08/09/2018 11:25 AM CDT 17 of 35

/08/2011 /22/2011 /22/2011 /28/2011 /28/2011 /01/2011 /01/2011 /01/2011 /01/2011 /01/2011 /03/2011
/03/2011
/03/2011 /30/2011 /31/2011 /31/2011 /31/2011
/31/2011 /31/2011

33 NOTICE of Service of PRE−DISCOVERY Disclosure by Health Assurance, L.L.C., K. Hogue (Pedersen, Robert) (Ent 02/08/2011)
34 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 5 MOTION to Certify Class, 1 Complaint, b Christopher Epps (Matheny, Justin) (Entered: 02/22/2011)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting Defendant Epps's unopposed 34 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply MOTION to Certify Class and to file response to Complaint. Epps's Responses due by 4/1/2011. NO FURTHER WRIT ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 2/22/11. (YWJ) (Entered: 02/22/2011)
35 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint,, MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 5 MOTION to Certify Class by Tom Burnham (Minor, Wilson) (Entered: 02/28/2011)
36 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer & Defenses to Complaint (Document No. 1) and First Mot Certify Class (Document No. 5) by GEO Group, Inc., Dan Kern, Walter Tripp, Wesley Vinson, Walnut Grove Correcti Authority (Thaggard, Lee) (Entered: 02/28/2011)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to # 36 incorrect motion relief selected. Attorney is advised to refile the "Motion for Ext Time to Answer" and "Motion to Certify Class separately using the same pdf document. Motion 36 termed. (cwl) (Ente 03/01/2011)
CORRECTED DOCKET ANNOTATION as to # 36 incorrect motion relief selected. Attorney is advised to refile the M Extension of Time to Answer and Motion for Extention of Time to File Response/Reply to Motion to Certify Class sep using the same pdf document. Motion 36 termed. (cwl) (Entered: 03/01/2011)
37 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint,, MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 6 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 5 MOTION to Certify Class by GEO Group, Inc., Dan Ke Walter Tripp, Wesley Vinson, Walnut Grove Correctional Authority (Thaggard, Lee) (Entered: 03/01/2011)
38 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by Health Assurance, L.L.C., K. Hogue (Pedersen, Ro (Entered: 03/01/2011)
39 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 5 MOTION to Certify Class by Health Assurance, L.L.C Hogue (Pedersen, Robert) (Entered: 03/01/2011)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 35 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Tom Burnham answer due 4/1/2011.; gra Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 5 MOTION to Certify Class ( Responses due by 4/1/2011). N FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 3/3/11. (YWJ) (Entered: 03/03/2011)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 37 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. GEO Group, Inc. answer due 4/1/2011; D answer due 4/1/2011; Walter Tripp answer due 4/1/2011; Wesley Vinson answer due 4/1/2011; Walnut Grove Correcti Authority answer due 4/1/2011.; granting 37 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 5 MOTION to C Class ( Responses due by 4/1/2011). NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge F Ball on 3/3/11. (YWJ) (Entered: 03/03/2011)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 38 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Health Assurance, L.L.C. answer due 4/1 Hogue answer due 4/1/2011.; granting 39 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 5 MOTION to Cert Responses due by 4/1/2011). Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 3/3/11. (YWJ) (Entered: 03/03/2011)
40 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint,, MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 5 MOTION to Certify Class by Christopher Epps (Matheny, Justin) (Entered: 03/30/2011)
41 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint,, MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 5 MOTION to Certify Class by Tom Burnham (Minor, Wilson) (Entered: 03/31/2011)
42 NOTICE of Appearance by Jody E. Owens, II on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Owens, Jody) (Entered: 03/31/2011)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 40 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Christopher Epps answer due 6/1/2011; g Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 5 MOTION to Certify Class (Responses due by 6/1/2011); gr Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Tom Burnham answer due 6/1/2011; granting 41 Motion for Extension of Tim Response/Reply re 5 MOTION to Certify Class (Responses due by 6/1/2011) Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Bal March 31, 2011. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER TO ENTER. (DCL) (Entered: 03/31/2011)
43 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by Health Assurance, L.L.C., K. Hogue (Pedersen, Ro (Entered: 03/31/2011)
44 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 5 MOTION to Certify Class by Health Assurance, L.L.C Hogue (Pedersen, Robert) (Entered: 03/31/2011)

Case: 3:10-cv-663 As of: 08/09/2018 11:25 AM CDT 18 of 35

/31/2011 /31/2011 /01/2011
/27/2011 /31/2011 /31/2011 /31/2011 /01/2011
/01/2011 /01/2011
/01/2011 /02/2011
/29/2011 /01/2011 /01/2011 /01/2011

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 43 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Health Assurance, L.L.C. answer due 6/1 Hogue answer due 6/1/2011.; granting 44 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 5 MOTION to Cert Responses due by 6/1/2011) Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on March 31, 2011. NO FURTHER WRITTEN TO ENTER. (DCL) (Entered: 03/31/2011)
45 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint,, MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Re 6 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 5 MOTION to Certify Class by GEO Group, Inc., Dan Kern, Walter Tripp, Wes Vinson, Walnut Grove Correctional Authority (Thaggard, Lee) (Entered: 03/31/2011)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 45 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer GEO Group, Inc. answer due 6/1/2011; D answer due 6/1/2011; Walter Tripp answer due 6/1/2011; Wesley Vinson answer due 6/1/2011; Walnut Grove Correcti Authority answer due 6/1/2011.; granting 45 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 5 MOTION to Certify (Responses due by 6/1/2011). Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on April 1, 2011. NO FURTHER WRITTEN O TO ENTER. (DCL) (Entered: 04/01/2011)
46 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 5 MOTION to Certify Class, 1 Complaint, by Christoph (Matheny, Justin) (Entered: 05/27/2011)
47 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint,, MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 5 MOTION to Certify Class by Tom Burnham (Minor, Wilson) (Entered: 05/31/2011)
48 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by Health Assurance, L.L.C., K. Hogue (Pedersen, Ro (Entered: 05/31/2011)
49 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 5 MOTION to Certify Class by Health Assurance, L.L.C Hogue (Pedersen, Robert) (Entered: 05/31/2011)
50 [ENTERED IN ERROR. SEE DOCKET ANNOTATION.] TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 46 Motion for Extension o File Response/Reply 47 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, MOTION for Ex Time to File Response/Reply as to 5 MOTION to Certify Class, 46 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/R to 5 MOTION to Certify Class, 1 Complaint,, 48 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint,, 49 M for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 5 MOTION to Certify Class Answers and Responses due by 8/1/20 by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on June 1, 2011 NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL BE ENTERED (WS) M 6/1/2011 (WS). Modified on 6/1/2011 (WS). (Entered: 06/01/2011)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #50. The text−only order at #50 was entered in error. A new order will be entered. (W (Entered: 06/01/2011)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 46 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 5 MOTION to Certify Cla Responses due by 8/1/2011); granting 47 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Tom Burnham answer due 8/1/2011 Assurance, L.L.C. answer due 8/1/2011; K. Hogue answer due 8/1/2011; Christopher Epps answer due 8/1/2011.; gran Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 5 MOTION to Certify Class ( Responses due by 8/1/2011); gr Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Tom Burnham answer due 8/1/2011; Health Assurance, L.L.C. answer due 8 K. Hogue answer due 8/1/2011; Christopher Epps answer due 8/1/2011.; granting 49 Motion for Extension of Time to Response/Reply re 5 MOTION to Certify Class ( Responses due by 8/1/2011) Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ba 1, 2011 NO FURTHER ORDER WILL BE ISSUED. (WS) (Entered: 06/01/2011)
51 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint,, MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 6 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 5 MOTION to Certify Class by GEO Group, Inc., Dan Ke Walter Tripp, Wesley Vinson, Walnut Grove Correctional Authority (Thaggard, Lee) (Entered: 06/01/2011)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 51 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer GEO Group, Inc. answer due 8/1/2011; D answer due 8/1/2011; Walter Tripp answer due 8/1/2011; Wesley Vinson answer due 8/1/2011; Walnut Grove Correcti Authority answer due 8/1/2011.; granting 51 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 5 MOTION to C Class ( Responses due by 8/1/2011) NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL BE ENTERED. Signed by Magistrate Keith Ball on June 2, 2011 (WS) (Entered: 06/02/2011)
52 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 5 MOTION to Certify Class, 1 Complaint, by Christoph (Matheny, Justin) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
53 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by Health Assurance, L.L.C., K. Hogue (P Robert) (Entered: 08/01/2011)
54 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 5 MOTION to Certify Class by Health Assu L.L.C., K. Hogue (Pedersen, Robert) (Entered: 08/01/2011)
55 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 5 MOTION to Certify Class, 1 Complaint, by Tom Burn (Minor, Wilson) (Entered: 08/01/2011)

Case: 3:10-cv-663 As of: 08/09/2018 11:25 AM CDT 19 of 35

/01/2011 /18/2011
/18/2011 /25/2011 /25/2011
/26/2011 /15/2011 /15/2011 /15/2011
/15/2011
/07/2011 /07/2011 /10/2011 /10/2011 /10/2011 /14/2011

56 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint,, MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 5 MOTION to Certify Class by GEO Group, Inc., Dan Kern, Walter Tripp, Wesley Vinson, Wal Correctional Authority (Thaggard, Lee) (Entered: 08/01/2011)
TEXT ONLY ORDER − The Court hereby orders the parties to attend a Telephone Conference on Thursday, August 2 10:00 A.M. to discuss the most recent Unopposed Motions for Extension of Time to Respond to Amended Complaint a Motion to Certify Class (Docket Nos. 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56). All counsel are not required to attend, but at least one cou each party shall attend. The call−in number is (601) 608−3977. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE. S District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 8/18/2011. (JS) (Entered: 08/18/2011)
Set Hearing: Telephone Conference set for 8/25/2011 at 10:00 AM before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves. (JS) (Ente 08/18/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Telephone Conference held on 8/25/2011 order will be entered. (AN) (Entered: 08/25/2011)
TEXT−ONLY ORDER−The Court convened a conference call on 8/25/2011 regarding the recent Motions for Extensio Time to Respond to Amended Complaint and First Motion to Certify Class (Docket Nos. 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56) and co each party was present. The Court hereby grants the motions and extends the time for which the defendants must answ Complaint (Docket No.1) and respond to the Motion to Certify Class (Docket No.5) as the parties represented to the Co settlement discussions have been productive and are moving forward. The parties are hereby instructed to attend a Tele Conference on Friday, October 7, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. to provide the Court an update on the settlement negotiations. If th are not resolved by that date, the Court may enter a schedule setting forth appropriate deadlines so that this case may p without further delay. All counsel are not required to attend the conference call, but at least one counsel for each party attend. The call−in number is (601) 608−3977. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE. Signed by Distric Carlton W. Reeves on 8/25/2011 (VB) (Entered: 08/25/2011)
Set Hearing: Telephone Conference set for 10/7/2011 at 2:00 PM before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves (AN) (Enter 08/26/2011)
57 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 5 MOTION to Certify Class, 1 Complaint, b Burnham (Minor, Wilson) (Entered: 09/15/2011)
58 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 5 MOTION to Certify Class, 1 Complaint, b Christopher Epps (Matheny, Justin) (Entered: 09/15/2011)
TEXT−ONLY ORDER granting various unopposed motions for extension of time to file response/reply to Motion to C [Docket Nos. 57 and 58]. The Court hereby extends the time for ALL defendants to respond to the motion to certify cla answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint. The dates that any answer or response will be due will be set afte Court conducts the status conference which is scheduled for October 7, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. Signed by District Judge Car Reeves on 9/15/2011 (VB) (Entered: 09/15/2011)
TEXT−ONLY ORDER finding as moot 52 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply ; finding as moot 53 for Extension of Time to Answer ; finding as moot 54 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply ; finding a Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply ; finding as moot 56 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer ; moot 56 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply pursuant to the TEXT−ONLY order entered on 8/25/20 Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 9/15/2011 (VB) (Entered: 09/15/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Telephone Status Conference held on 10/7 (JS) (Entered: 10/07/2011)
Telephone Status Conference set for 11/10/2011 at 2:00 PM before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves. The call−in num (601) 608−3977. (JS) (Entered: 10/07/2011)
TEXT−ONLY ORDER. Defendants shall file their answer and/or responsive pleading to Plaintiffs' Complaint [Docket and response to Motion for Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification [Docket No. 5] on or before December 5, 2011. T on Plaintiffs' request for Preliminary Injunction is scheduled for February 27, 2012−March 1, 2012. Signed by District Carlton W. Reeves on 11/10/2011 (VB) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
ORAL MOTION for Preliminary Injunction requested by Plaintiffs during Status Conference. (JS) (Entered: 11/14/201
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Status Conference held on 11/10/2011. (JS (Entered: 11/14/2011)
NOTICE OF HEARING as to Plaintiffs' complaint for Preliminary Injunction. Hearing set for 2/27/2012 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 5B (Jackson) Reeves before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves. ELT 4 days. Modified on 11/16/2011 (JS). ( 11/14/2011)

Case: 3:10-cv-663 As of: 08/09/2018 11:25 AM CDT 20 of 35

/15/2011
/16/2011 /17/2011
/05/2011 /05/2011 /05/2011 /05/2011 /05/2011 /05/2011 /06/2011 /13/2011 /14/2011
/14/2011 /20/2011 /20/2011 /21/2011
/21/2011
/21/2011 /29/2011 /23/2012
/25/2012
/25/2012

59 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Tom Burnham, Joshua Clay, Christopher C Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian Webster, F White (Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 11/15/2011)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to ORAL MOTION filed on 11/10/2011. Oral Motion entered in error and has been term NOTICE OF HEARING filed on 11/14/2011 has been corrected to reflect same. (JS) (Entered: 11/16/2011)
Set/Reset Hearing: Settlement Conference set for 12/6/2011 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball. Seven (7 prior to the settlement conference, the parties shall submit via e−mail to ball_chambers@mssd.uscourts.gov a CONFID SETTLEMENT MEMORANDUM. (JEJ) (Entered: 11/17/2011)
60 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by Tom Burnham.(Minor, Wilson) (Entered: 12/05/2011)
61 MOTION to Dismiss by Tom Burnham, Christopher Epps (Minor, Wilson) (Entered: 12/05/2011)
62 MEMORANDUM in Support re 61 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Tom Burnham, Christopher Epps (Minor, Wilson) (E 12/05/2011)
63 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by Christopher Epps.(Matheny, Justin) (Entered: 12/05/2011)
64 RESPONSE in Opposition re 5 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Tom Burnham, Christopher Epps (Matheny, Justin) 12/05/2011)
65 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 5 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Tom Burnham, Christopher Epps (Matheny, J (Entered: 12/05/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball: Settlement Conference held on 12/6/2011. T did not settle. (JEJ) (Entered: 12/09/2011)
Set/Reset Hearings: Settlement Conference set for 12/27/2011 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball. (JEJ) 12/13/2011)
66 Consent MOTION to Extend Deadline by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher Coleman, L Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian Webster, Fredrick Wh Sheila) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
Set/Reset Hearings: Settlement Conference RESET for 12/29/2011 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball. ( (Entered: 12/14/2011)
Set/Reset Hearings: Telephonic Status Conference set for 12/21/2012 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball Plaintiff's counsel shall initiate the call. (JEJ) (Entered: 12/20/2011)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference RESET for 12/21/2011 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball. Chang reflect the correct year. (JEJ) (Entered: 12/20/2011)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting unopposed 66 Motion to Extend Deadline for Plaintiffs to submit briefs related to Mot Class Certification and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs have until 1/23/12 to file rebuttal to the Motion for C Certification, and Plaintiffs have until 1/30/12 to file their reply to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. NO FURTHER WR ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 12/22/11 (YWJ) (Entered: 12/21/2011)
TEXT ONLY ORDER setting briefing schedule for preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for 2/27/2012 before Ho W. Reeves, as follows: Motion Deadline: 1/23/2012; Response Deadline: 2/6/2012; Rebuttal Deadline: 2/13/12; Exhib Witness Lists: 2/13/2012. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ba 12/21/11. (YWJ) (Entered: 12/21/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball: Telephonic Status Conference held on 12/21 (JEJ) (Entered: 12/27/2011)
Settlement Conference held in chambers on 12/29/2011. (JEJ) (Entered: 12/30/2011)
67 Consent MOTION MOTION TO STAY BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND TO REQUEST A STATUS CONFERENCE b Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kin (Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 01/23/2012)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 67 Motion for Status Conference. Status conference will be held Thursday, February 2 2:00 p.m.NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on January 25, (WS) (Entered: 01/25/2012)
Set/Reset Hearings: Telephonic Status Conference set for 2/2/2012 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball. P counsel shall initiate the call. (JEJ) (Entered: 01/25/2012)

Case: 3:10-cv-663 As of: 08/09/2018 11:25 AM CDT 21 of 35

/02/2012 /03/2012
/03/2012 /03/2012 /06/2012 /09/2012 /09/2012
/14/2012 /16/2012 /29/2012 /15/2012 /19/2012 /19/2012 /21/2012
/22/2012 /26/2012
/27/2012 /03/2012 /09/2012 /11/2012

Set/Reset Hearings: Telephonic Status Conference RESET for 2/3/2012 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge F. Keith B (Entered: 02/02/2012)
68 Joint MOTION Preliminary Approval of Proposed Agreement, To set a date for a fairness hearing and other relief by E Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian Webster, Fredrick White (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit)(Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 02/03/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball: Telephonic Status Conference held on 2/3/20 (Entered: 02/03/2012)
Set/Reset Hearings: Telephonic Status Conference set for 2/6/2012 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball. (J (Entered: 02/03/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball: Telephonic Status Conference held on 2/6/20 (Entered: 02/09/2012)
69 ORDER granting 68 Motion Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 2/9/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Notice, # 2 N (VB) (Entered: 02/09/2012)
Set/Reset Hearings: Settlement Conference set for 2/29/2012 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball. The par submit via e−mail to ball_chambers@mssd.uscourts.gov an updated CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT MEMORAND February 27, 2012. All parties are required to be present at the conference unless excused by the Court. (JEJ) (Entered: 02/09/2012)
Fairness Hearing set for 3/22/2012 at 09:00 AM before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves Signed by District Judge Car Reeves on 2/14/2012 (VB) (Entered: 02/14/2012)
70 NOTICE Certification of Compliance with February 9, 2012 Order by Christopher Epps re 69 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (Matheny, Justin) (Entered: 02/16/2012)
NOTICE OF CANCELLATION of settlement conference set for February 29, 2012. (JEJ) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
71 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christop Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian W Fredrick White (Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 03/15/2012)
72 ORDER granting 71 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves 3/19/2012. (JS) (Entered: 03/19/2012)
73 Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum Issued as to Charvecus Baker, Zaccheaus Vasser, Jamaal Jenkins, Aaron Har Ryaneal Campbell and Channing Larry for 3/22/2012. (cwl) (Entered: 03/19/2012)
74 NOTICE OF FINDINGS OF THE UNITED STATES INVESTIGATION OF THE WALNUT GROVE YOUTH CORREC FACILITY by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian Webster, Fredrick White (Attachments: # 1 Exhib Sheila) (Entered: 03/21/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Fairness Hearing held on 3/22/2012. The the matter under consideration and will rule on a later date. (Court Reporter Cherie Bond 601−608−4186). (JS) (Entere 03/22/2012)
75 ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 03/26/2012 (Attachments: # 1 A − Consent Decree (Male Youth Age 17 and Under in MDOC Custody), # 2 Exhibit B − Memorandum of Agreemen Health − Youthful Offender Unit), # 3 Exhibit C − Consent Decree (All Individuals Now or in the Future Imprisoned i WGYCF), # 4 Exhibit D − Memorandum of Agreement (Mental Health − WGYCF))(WB) (Entered: 03/26/2012)
TEXT ORDER granting 5 Motion to Certify Class pursuant to terms set forth in 75 Order Approving Settlement. NO F ORDER SHALL ISSUE. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 03/27/2012 (WB) (Entered: 03/27/2012)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Telephone Status Conference set for 5/11/2012 at 10:00 AM before District Judge Carlton W. Each party shall have at least one attorney on the call. The court will contact all lead counsel via e−mail with the call−i prior to the conference. (WB) (Entered: 05/03/2012)
Set/Reset Hearings: Telephone Status Conference reset for 5/11/2012 at 02:00 PM before District Judge Carlton W. Re Each party shall have at least one attorney on the call. The call−in number was provided to counsel via e−mail on Thur 3, 2012. (WB) (Entered: 05/09/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Telephone Status Conference held on 5/11 (JS) (Entered: 05/11/2012)

Case: 3:10-cv-663 As of: 08/09/2018 11:25 AM CDT 22 of 35

/11/2012 /28/2012 /29/2012 /29/2012
/19/2012 /01/2012 /28/2012 /04/2012 /09/2012 /24/2012 /01/2012 /08/2012 /08/2012 /19/2012 /28/2012 /28/2012 /28/2012 /03/2012
/17/2012

76 Sealed Letter. (RRL) (Entered: 05/11/2012)
Set Hearing: Hearing set for 5/29/2012 in Courtroom 5B at 01:30 PM before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves. (AC) ( 05/28/2012)
ORE TENUS MOTION for Emergency Hearing. (Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 05/29/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Emergency Hearing held on 5/29/2012. Appearances: Wilson Minor and Justin Matheny on behalf of the Defendants. Jody Owens and Robert McDuff, on beh Plaintiffs. The Court heard testimony from Emmitt L. Sparkman, witness for the defendants. Exhibits 1 and 2 were adm evidence and the Court ordered the exhibits to be filed under seal. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court ordered t to submit a proposed agreement on or before June 4, 2012. (Court Reporter Gina Morris) (Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 05/2
79 Sealed Letters. (cwl) (Entered: 06/19/2012)
TEXT ORDER granting Plaintiff's unopposed ore tenus motion for extension of time to file monitor report. The report monitors, as referred to on page 12 of the [75−3] consent decree, shall be filed on or before Sunday, August 26, 2012. N FURTHER ORDER SHALL ISSUE. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 8/1/2012 (WB) (Entered: 08/01/2
Set Hearing: Telephonic Status Conference set for 10/4/2012 at 2:30 PM (Central Time) before District Judge Carlton Reeves. The Court requests that the monitors and at least one attorney from each party participate. The call−in telephon is 601−608−3977. (AC) (Entered: 09/28/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Telphone Status Conference held on 10/4 Participants: Sheila Bedi, Jody E. Owens II, Robert B. McDuff, Harold Pizzetta, Justin Matheny, Wilson Minor; and M James Austin, Steve Martin and Paul DeMuro. (JS) (Entered: 10/09/2012)
80 NOTICE of Appearance by Harold Edward Pizzetta, III on behalf of Christopher Epps (Pizzetta, Harold) (Entered: 10/
81 NOTICE of Appearance by Jacob W. Howard on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Howard, Jacob) (Entered: 10/24/2012)
Set Hearing: Telephone Status Conference set for 11/8/2012 at 9:00 AM CST before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves Court requests that the monitors and at least one attorney from each party participate. The call−in telephone number is 601−608−3977. (JS) (Entered: 11/01/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Telephone Status Conference held on 11/8 Participants: Sheila Bedi, Margaret Winter, Robert McDuff, Jody Owens II, Jacob Howard, Harold Pizzetta and Justin and Monitors: Paul DeMuro, Steve Martin and Dr. James Austin. (JS) (Entered: 11/08/2012)
Set Hearing: Telephone Status Conference set for 11/19/2012 at 3:00 PM before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves. Th requests that the monitors and at least one attorney from each party participate. The call−in telephone number is 601−6 (JS) (Entered: 11/08/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Telephone Status Conference held on 11/1 Participants: Sheila Bedi, Margaret Winter, Robert McDuff, Jacob Howard, Alisha Justin, Vanessa Carroll, Harold Piz Emmitt Sparkman and Nathan Davis. Monitors: Paul DeMuro, Steve Martin and Dr. James Austin. (JS) (Entered: 11/1
Set Hearing: Telephone Status Conference set for 11/28/2012 at 11:00 AM before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves. T requests that the monitors and at least one attorney from each party participate. The call−in telephone number is 601−6 (JS) (Entered: 11/28/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Status Conference held on 11/28/2012. Pa Sheila Bedi, Robert McDuff, Jody E. Owens II, Jacob W. Howard, Margaret Winters, and Harold Pizzetta; Vanessa Ca Nathan Davis and Emmitt Sparkman; and Monitor−Steve Martin. (JS) (Entered: 11/28/2012)
Set Hearing: Telephone Status Conference set for 12/17/2012 at 1:30 PM before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves. Th requests the monitor and at least one attorney from each party participate. The call−in telephone number is 601−608−3 (Entered: 11/28/2012)
TEXT−ONLY ORDER. The Court held a telephonic status conference with the parties on November 28, 2012. Upon r the State Defendants and with no opposition from the Plaintiffs, the Court hereby extends the deadline from December December 14, 2012, for the State to have completed everything necessary to move and house the members of the plain It is further ordered that the State shall give counsel for the Plaintiffs forty−eight hours notice before any class member moved. The next telephonic status conference is set for December 17, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. Signed by District Judge Carlt Reeves on 12/3/2012. (AC) (Entered: 12/03/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Telephone Status Conference held on 12/1 Participants: Sheila Bedi, Jody Owens II, Harold Pizzetta III, and Justin Matheny; Alecia Judkins, Nathan Davis and M Paul DeMuro. The monitor's first report is due on or before 3/18/2013. (JS) (Entered: 12/18/2012)

Case: 3:10-cv-663 As of: 08/09/2018 11:25 AM CDT 23 of 35

/17/2013 /08/2013 /13/2013
/13/2013 /13/2013
/04/2013 /04/2013
/06/2013 /13/2013 /14/2013
/14/2013 /28/2013 /03/2013 /12/2013 /31/2013 /31/2013 /08/2013

82 NOTICE of Appearance by Vanessa Judith Carroll on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Carroll, Vanessa) (Entered: 01/17/2013)
83 STATUS REPORT First Monitors' Report for Walnut Grove by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, C Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian W Fredrick White (Carroll, Vanessa) (Entered: 02/08/2013)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to 83 : Exhibits named in the document were not attached. Attorney is directed to file ex ATTACHMENT and link to the appropriate document. Also, this document is not accompanied by a certificate of serv certificate of service must be attached to a document [Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing, Sec. 4.A.1 and Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 5(d)(1)]. Attorney is directed to file a certificate as CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE and link it to document. (PKM) (Entered: 02/13/2013)
84 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher Coleman, Lamarcu Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian Webster, Fredrick White re 8 Report, First Monitors' Report (Carroll, Vanessa) (Entered: 02/13/2013)
85 ATTACHMENT re 83 Status Report, Attachment 1 − May 2012 Memo by Steve Martin by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jam Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Co Latravis Smith, Brian Webster, Fredrick White (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment 2 − Aug. 1, 2012 Document Req Exhibit Attachment 3 − July 17, 2012 Incident Report, # 3 Exhibit Attachment 4 − Aug. 15, 2012 Use of Force Memor 4 Exhibit Attachment 5 − July 16, 2012 PREA Investigation, # 5 Exhibit Attachment 6 − Email re Housing Offenders w SMI)(Carroll, Vanessa) (Entered: 02/13/2013)
86 STATUS REPORT Second Monitors' Report for Walnut Grove by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay Christopher Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis S Brian Webster, Fredrick White (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Carroll, Vanessa) (Entered: 04/04/2013)
87 STATUS REPORT First Monitor's Report for YOU Consent Decree by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Christopher Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis S Brian Webster, Fredrick White (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Monitoring Checklist, # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Service)(Car Vanessa) (Entered: 04/04/2013)
Set Hearing: Telephonic Status Conference set for 6/13/2013 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball. Plaintif counsel shall initiate the call to 601−608−4460. (JEJ) (Entered: 06/06/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball: Telephonic Status Conference held on 6/13/2 Jackson, MS. (JEJ) (Entered: 06/14/2013)
TEXT−ONLY ORDER. This case came before the undersigned for a telephonic status conference on 6/13/2013. Appe Sheila Bedi, Jody Owens, and Rob McDuff, counsel for Plaintiffs; and Harold Pizzetta and Justin Matheny, counsel fo Defendants. During the conference, the undersigned heard and considered the positions of the parties. Counsel are here instructed to meet and confer with each other and the private contractors regarding all of Plaintiffs' claims of noncompl June 28, 2013, and attempt to resolve all such issues. A telephonic conference before the undersigned is hereby set for 2013, at 9:00 a.m. No further written order shall issue from the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 6/1 (Entered: 06/14/2013)
Set Hearing: Telephonic Status Conference set for 7/1/2013 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball. Plaintiff shall initiate the call to 601−608−4460. (JEJ) (Entered: 06/14/2013)
Reset Hearing: Telephonic Status Conference reset for 7/12/2013 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball. Pla counsel shall initiate the call to 601−608−4460. (JEJ) (Entered: 06/28/2013)
Reset Hearing: TIME CHANGE ONLY. Telephonic Status Conference reset for 7/12/2013 01:30 PM before Magistrat Keith Ball. Plaintiff's counsel shall initiate the call to 601−608−4460. (JEJ) (Entered: 07/03/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball: Telephonic Status Conference held on 7/12/2 Jackson, MS. Appearances: Sheila Bedi, Rob McDuff, Jody Owens, Harold Pizzetta and Wilson Minor. (JEJ) (Entered 07/15/2013)
88 MOTION to Consolidate Cases by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher Coleman, Lamarcu Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian Webster, Fredrick White (M Robert) (Entered: 07/31/2013)
89 MEMORANDUM in Support re 88 MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Jos Christopher Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis S Brian Webster, Fredrick White (McDuff, Robert) (Entered: 07/31/2013)
90 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher Coleman, Lam Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian Webster, Fredrick Wh

Case: 3:10-cv-663 As of: 08/09/2018 11:25 AM CDT 24 of 35

/13/2013 /14/2013 /21/2013 /23/2013 /23/2013 /27/2013 /27/2013 /16/2013 /01/2013 /04/2013 /06/2013 /20/2013
/20/2013 /20/2013 /21/2013

(Carroll, Vanessa) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 90 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Vanessa Judith Carroll terminated. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 8/13/13. (YWJ) (Entered: 08/13/2013)
91 RESPONSE in Opposition re 88 MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by Tom Burnham, Christopher Epps (Pizzetta, H (Entered: 08/14/2013)
92 RESPONSE in Support re 88 MOTION to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Discovery filed by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Co Latravis Smith, Brian Webster, Fredrick White (Owens, Jody) (Entered: 08/21/2013)
93 REPLY to Response to Motion re 88 MOTION to Consolidate Cases AMENDED AND CORRECTED filed by Eric Ba Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lam Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian Webster, Fredrick White (McDuff, Robert) (Entered: 08/23/2013)
94 ORDER denying 88 Motion to Consolidate Cases. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 9/20/13. (YWJ) (Enter 09/23/2013)
ORAL MOTION for Extension of Time to Submit Comments to Status Report of Monitor by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Ja Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Co Latravis Smith, Brian Webster and Fredrick White. (JS) . (Entered: 09/27/2013)
TEXT−ONLY ORDER granting [ORAL] Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Comments to Status Report of Mon Response due by 10/11/2013. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE. Signed by District Judge Carlton W on 9/27/2013. (JS) (Entered: 09/27/2013)
95 NOTICE of Appearance by Jennie S. H. Eichelberger on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Eichelberger, Jennie) (Entered: 10/16
96 STATUS REPORT Monitor's Second Report for YOU by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christop Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian W Fredrick White (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1: Monitoring Checklist, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2: Certificate of Service)(Eichelberger, Jennie) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
97 STATUS REPORT Third Report of Monitors by Christopher Epps (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Monitoring Checklis Exhibit 2 − Certificate of Service)(Matheny, Justin) (Entered: 11/04/2013)
Set Hearing: In Person Status Conference set for 11/19/2013 03:00 PM before Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball in chamb party shall submit a three−page memorandum setting forth the nature of the issues to be mediated by NOVEMBER 14, (JEJ) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
Minute Entry and TEXT ONLY ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball in Jackson, MS: I Status Conference held on 11/20/2013. This case came before the undersigned on 11/19/2013 regarding Plaintiffs' requ their retained corrections expert, Eldon Vail, be afforded an opportunity to visit Walnut Grove Correctional Facility an afforded the same access as provided to Plaintiffs' counsel in Section IV(2) of the Consent Decree. [75−3 at 13]. Appea Harold Pizzetta, Margaret Winter, and Jennie Eichelberger. During the conference, the undersigned also discussed this with Court−appointed monitor, Steven Martin, by telephone. After conferring with counsel and Mr. Martin, the unders finds that Mr. Vail shall be allowed to visit Walnut Grove Correctional Facility and be afforded the same access as pro Plaintiffs' counsel in Section IV(2) of the Consent Decree, subject to the following parameters: (1) Mr. Vail's visit shal limited to 2 days; (2) Mr. Vail shall provide reasonable advance notice to Mr. Martin of the dates on which he intends t Walnut Grove; (3) Mr. Martin has the right, but is not required, to be present during Mr. Vail's visit, and Mr. Martin m be present or not to be present during Mr. Vail's visit; (4) Mr. Vail shall visit Walnut Grove as a fact−gatherer and obse and (5) Mr. Vail shall identify all pre− and post−visit documents which he reviews in preparation for and in relation to and evaluation of Walnut Grove. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. (YWJ) (Entered: 11/20/2013)
Set Hearing: Telephone Conference set for 11/20/2013 01:30 PM before Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball. The Court sha the call. (JEJ) (Entered: 11/20/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball: Telephone Conference held on 11/20/2013 in MS. (JEJ) (Entered: 12/02/2013)
TEXT ONLY ORDER. This case came before the undersigned for a telephonic status conference on 11/20/2013. Appe were: Margaret Winter, Jennie Eichelberger, and Harold Pizzetta. During the conference, the undersigned informed cou Court−appointed monitor, Steven Martin, had requested that the Court set a deadline for Plaintiffs to advise of any issu concern identified by Eldon Vail after Mr. Vail's upcoming visit of Walnut Grove. Counsel had no objection to such a and Plaintiffs' counsel proposed a deadline of 45 days after Mr. Vail's visit. Accordingly, the Court hereby orders that, days after Mr. Vail's visit of Walnut Grove, Plaintiffs' counsel shall identify in writing to Defendants' counsel all issues concern identified by Mr. Vail with respect to compliance with the Consent Decree. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDE

Case: 3:10-cv-663 As of: 08/09/2018 11:25 AM CDT 25 of 35

ISSUE FROM THE COURT. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 11/20/13. (WS) (Entered: 11/21/2013)

/27/2013 98 LETTER MOTION for Copies from Rocky M. Shroyer. (PKM) (Entered: 12/27/2013)

/08/2014 99 ORDER denying 98 Motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 1/8/14. Copy mailed to Movant at address p Docket No. 98. (WS) (Entered: 01/08/2014)

/24/2014

Set Hearing: Telephonic Status Conference set for 1/27/2014 01:30 PM before Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball. The pla counsel shall set up the telephone conference and contact the Court at 601−608−4460. (JEJ) (Entered: 01/24/2014)

/27/2014

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball: Telephonic Status Conference held on 1/27/2 Jackson, MS. Appearing: Jennie Eichelberger, Margaret Winter and Harold Pizzetta. (JEJ) (Entered: 01/29/2014)

/14/2014 100 STATUS REPORT Plaintiffs' Expert Eldon Vail's Report by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Chris Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian W Fredrick White (Eichelberger, Jennie) (Entered: 03/14/2014)

/17/2014 101 STATUS REPORT 4th Report of Monitors by Christopher Epps (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − April 14, 2014 Respons MTC, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Walnut Grove Correctional Facility After Action Report, # 3 Exhibit 3 − AdminPros semi−annu monitoring report for Walnut Grove Correctional Facility, # 4 Exhibit 4 − Summary of Conference call on 2−21−14 @ Eastern Time)(Pizzetta, Harold) (Entered: 04/17/2014)

/01/2014 102 STATUS REPORT Plaintiff's Expert Pablo Stewart's Report by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, C Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian W Fredrick White (Eichelberger, Jennie) (Entered: 05/01/2014)

/13/2014 103 STATUS REPORT Third Monitoring Report re YOU Consent Decree by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshu Christopher Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis S Brian Webster, Fredrick White (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Compliance Checklist, # 2 Exhibit B: Certificate of Service)(Eichelberger, Jennie) (Entered: 05/13/2014)

/11/2014

Set Hearing: Telephone Status Conference set for 6/12/2014 at 10:00 AM before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves. At counsel for each party shall participate. CALL IN TELEPHONE NO. (601) 608−3977. (JS) (Entered: 06/11/2014)

/12/2014

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Telephone Status Conference held on 6/12 Participants: Jennis S. Eichelberger, Jody E. Owens II, Robert B. McDuff and Harold Edward Pizzetta III. (JS) (Entere 06/12/2014)

/16/2014

Set Hearing: Status Conference set for 7/15/2014 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 5B (Jackson) before District Judge Carlton Reeves. (JS) (Entered: 06/16/2014)

/15/2014

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Status Conference held on 7/15/2014. App Jacob W. Howard, Jody E. Owens II, Margaret Winters and Robert B. McDuff for Plaintiffs; and Leonard C. Vincent ( Counsel for MDOC) for Defendants; Monitor Paul DeMuro participated via telephone. (JS) (Entered: 07/15/2014)

/30/2014

Set Hearing: Status Conference set for 8/7/2014 at 11:30 AM in Courtroom 5B (Jackson) before District Judge Carlton Reeves. (JS) (Entered: 07/30/2014)

/30/2014 104 NOTICE of Appearance by Gary E. Friedman on behalf of Christopher Epps (Friedman, Gary) (Entered: 07/30/2014)

/04/2014 105 STATUS REPORT of Eldon Vail by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher Coleman, Lamar Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian Webster, Fredrick Wh (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Memo from Eldon Vail to Steve, Jim and Harold re May 19, 2014 meeting with MTC, # 2 Eldon Vail's CV)(Eichelberger, Jennie) (Entered: 08/04/2014)

/06/2014 106 MOTION For Enforcement and Modification of Consent Decree by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Cla Christopher Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis S Brian Webster, Fredrick White (Eichelberger, Jennie) (Entered: 08/06/2014)

/06/2014 107 MEMORANDUM in Support re 106 MOTION For Enforcement and Modification of Consent Decree filed by Eric Ba Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lam Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian Webster, Fredrick White (Eichelberger, Jennie) (Entered: 08/06/2014)

/07/2014

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Status Conference held on 8/7/2014. Parti Jacob Howard, Jennie H. Eichelberger, Margaret Winter, Gary Friedman and Harold Pizzetta III; with Steve Martin an James Martin. Monitors shall file their next Status Reports by 10/15/2014. Status Conference set for 11/18/2014 at 8:30 Courtroom 5B (Jackson) before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves wherein Plaintiffs shall advise the Court how they w proceed on their 106 Motion to Enforce and Modification of Consent Decree pending before the Court. The Court shal any deadlines/hearing necessary regarding the motion. (JS) (Entered: 08/07/2014)

Case: 3:10-cv-663 As of: 08/09/2018 11:25 AM CDT 26 of 35

/09/2014

Set Hearing: Telephonic Status Conference set for 10/16/2014 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball. Defen shall set up the conference and contact the Court at 601−608−4460. The parties shall submit a summary of the issues to at ball_chambers@mssd.uscourts.gov by Tuesday, October 14, 2014. (JEJ) (Entered: 10/09/2014)

/16/2014

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball: Telephonic Status Conference held on 10/16 Jackson, MS. Appearing: Margaret Winter, Jennie Eichelberger, Rob McDuff and Jody Owens. (JEJ) (Entered: 10/28/2

/20/2014 108 STATUS REPORT Plaintiffs' Expert, Madeline LaMarre's Report by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua C Christopher Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis S Brian Webster, Fredrick White (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Service)(Eichelberger, Jennie) (Entered: 10/20

/22/2014 109 STATUS REPORT Report of the Court Monitors' Mental Health Care Consultant by Christopher Epps (Pizzetta, Haro (Entered: 10/22/2014)

/22/2014 110 STATUS REPORT 5th Report of Monitors Pursuant to: Class Action Consent Decree by Christopher Epps (Pizzetta, H (Entered: 10/22/2014)

/03/2014 111 RESPONSE to Memorandum re 109 Status Report as filed Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Submission of the Repor Amanda Ruiz filed by Charleston DePriest (Winter − PHV, Margaret) (Entered: 11/03/2014)

/05/2014

Set Hearing: Status Conference set for 11/18/2014 at 8:30 AM in Courtroom 5B (Jackson) before District Judge Carlto Reeves wherein Plaintiffs shall advise the Court how they wish to proceed on their 106 Motion to Enforce and Modific Consent Decree pending before the Court. The Court shall then set any deadlines/hearing necessary regarding the moti (Entered: 11/05/2014)

/05/2014

Set Hearing: Telephone Status Conference set for 11/6/2014 at 10:15 AM before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves. At counsel for each party shall participate. CALL−IN TELEPHONE NO. (601) 608−3977. (JS) (Entered: 11/05/2014)

/06/2014

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Telephone Status Conference held on 11/6 Participants: Jennie Eichelberger, Margaret Winter, Robert McDuff and Harold Pizzetta III. (JS) (Entered: 11/07/2014)

/07/2014

Set Hearing: Telephone Status Conference set for 1/6/2015 at 9:00 AM before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves. CAL TELEPHONE NO. (601) 608−3977. (JS) (Entered: 11/07/2014)

/02/2014 112 STATUS REPORT of Plaintiffs' Expert Madeleine L. LaMarre by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis S Brian Webster, Fredrick White (Owens, Jody) (Entered: 12/02/2014)

/09/2014

Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 1/6/2015 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 5B (Jackson) District Judge Carlton W. R Telephone Status Conference on same date and time is hereby cancelled because of conference now set to take place in Courtroom. (JS) (Entered: 12/09/2014)

/29/2014

Set Hearing: Telephone Status Conference set for 12/30/2014 at 9:30 AM before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves. At counsel for each party shall participate. CALL−IN TELEPHONE NUMBER: (601) 608−3977. (JS) (Entered: 12/29/20

/30/2014

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Telephone Status Conference held on 12/3 Participants: Jennie S. H. Eichelberger, Jody E. Owens II, Margaret Winter, Robert B. McDuff, Gary E. Friedman and Pizzetta III. (JS) (Entered: 12/30/2014)

/30/2014

Set Hearing: Status Conference set for 1/8/2015 at 12:30 PM in Courtroom 5B (Jackson) Reeves before District Judge W. Reeves. (JS) (Entered: 12/30/2014)

/08/2015

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Status Conference held on 1/8/2015. Appe Margaret Winter, Jennie S.H. Eichelberger, Robert B. McDuff, Gary E. Friedman and Harold E. Pizzetta III. Plaintiffs amend their 106 Motion for Enforcement and Modification of Consent Decree by 1/13/2015, if necessary; Defendants respond by 1/27/2015; and Plaintiffs shall file any Rebuttal by 2/2/2015. Court Reporter/Transcriber Brenda Wolverton Telephone Number : 601−608−4188. (JS) (Entered: 01/08/2015)

/08/2015 113 Plaintiffs' Exhibit List to Status Conference held on 1/8/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs Ex. 1−−Memo dated 11/4/20 (Entered: 01/08/2015)

/08/2015

Set Hearing: Evidentiary Hearing set for 3/30/2015 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 5B (Jackson) Reeves before District Judg W. Reeves. (JS) (Entered: 01/08/2015)

/08/2015

Set Hearing: Settlement Conference set for 2/6/2015 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball in chambers. Sev days prior to the settlement conference, the parties shall submit via e−mail to ball_chambers@mssd.uscourts.gov an up CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT MEMORANDUM. All parties are required to be present at the conference unless e the Court. If a party believes the scheduled settlement conference would not be productive and should be cancelled, the directed to inform the Court via e−mail of the grounds for their belief at least seven (7) days prior to the conference. (J (Entered: 01/08/2015)

Case: 3:10-cv-663 As of: 08/09/2018 11:25 AM CDT 27 of 35

/13/2015 114 NOTICE of Appearance by Krissy Casey Nobile on behalf of Christopher Epps (Nobile, Krissy) (Entered: 01/13/2015)

/13/2015 115 MEMORANDUM in Support re 106 MOTION For Enforcement and Modification of Consent Decree , 107 Response of Motion, (Amended Memorandum) filed by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher Colema Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian Webster, Fredrick White (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Remedial Measures Proposed by Plaintiffs' Expert Eldon Vail)(Eichelberger, Jennie) (Ent 01/13/2015)

/23/2015 116 RESPONSE to Motion re 106 MOTION For Enforcement and Modification of Consent Decree filed by Christopher Ep (Nobile, Krissy) (Entered: 01/23/2015)

/23/2015

Reset Hearing: Evidentiary Hearing reset for 3/31/2015 at 9:00 AM CST in Courtroom 5B (Jackson) before District Ju Carlton W. Reeves. (JS) (Entered: 01/23/2015)

/28/2015 117 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING held on 1/8/2015 before Judge Carlton W. Reeve Reporter Brenda Wolverton, Telephone Number : 601−608−4188. NOTICE RE : REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If is filed, the transcript will be made electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The p located on the court website at www.mssd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purch through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/18/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/2/2015. Release o Transcript Restriction set for 4/28/2015. (BW) (Entered: 01/28/2015)

/30/2015 118 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Plaintiffs' Expert Report of Eldon Vail by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, J Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Co Latravis Smith, Brian Webster, Fredrick White (Eichelberger, Jennie) (Entered: 01/30/2015)

/02/2015

TEXT−ONLY ORDER granting 118 Motion for Extension of Time to File. The new deadline is February 10, 2015. Si District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 2/2/2015. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE. (AS) (Entered: 02

/02/2015 119 REPLY to Response to Motion re 116 Response to Motion for Enforcement and Modification of Consent Decree filed Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kin Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian Webster, Fredrick White (Eichelberger, Jennie) (Entered: 02/02/2

/05/2015

Set Hearing: Telephone Status Conference set for 2/9/2015 at 10:00 AM before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves to di deadlines and disclosure requirements for hearing set for March 2015. CALL−IN TELEPHONE NUMBER (601) 608− (JS) (Entered: 02/05/2015)

/06/2015

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball: Settlement Conference held on 2/6/2015 in J MS. Appearing: Odie Washington, Eldon Vail, Margaret Winter, Jody Owens II, Leslie Barlow, Alesha Judkins, Leona Vinson, Krissy Nobile, Gary E. Friedman and Harold Pizzetta. This case did not settle. (JEJ) (Entered: 02/09/2015)

/09/2015

Set Hearing: Settlement Conference set for 3/30/2015 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball in chambers. S days prior to the settlement conference, the parties shall submit via e−mail to ball_chambers@mssd.uscourts.gov an up CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT MEMORANDUM. All parties are required to be present at the conference unless e the Court. If a party believes the scheduled settlement conference would not be productive and should be cancelled, the directed to inform the Court via e−mail of the grounds for their belief at least seven (7) days prior to the conference. (J (Entered: 02/09/2015)

/09/2015

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Telephone Status Conference held on 2/9/ Participants: Jody E. Owens II, Margaret Winter, Gary Friedman and Harold Pizzetta III. Evidentiary Hearing reset for at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 5B (Jackson) before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves. Plaintiffs must identify their witnesse 3/13/2015; Defendants must identify their witnesses by 3/20/2015. Deadline for the parties to take depositions of any e witness is 3/23/2015; and deadline for the parties to take depositions of any non−expert witness is 3/27/2015. Witness Exhibit Lists are due by 3/31/2015 at 2:00 PM. (ELH is 3 days) (JS) (Entered: 02/09/2015)

/10/2015 120 STATUS REPORT of Eldon Vail by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher Coleman, Lamar Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian Webster, Fredrick Wh (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 March 14, 2014 Memo, # 2 Exhibit 2 Recommendation Memo, # 3 Exhibit 3 Report re Jul 2014 Riot, # 4 Exhibit 4 List of Materials Reviewed by Eldon Vail, # 5 Exhibit 5 Resume of Eldon Vail)(Owens, Jody) 02/10/2015)

/06/2015 121 NOTICE of Filing − 6th Report of Monitors Pursuant to: Class Action Consent Decree by Marshall L. Fisher (Pizzetta (Entered: 03/06/2015)

/06/2015 122 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Archelaus Longley by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christophe Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian W Fredrick White (Owens, Jody) (Entered: 03/06/2015)

Case: 3:10-cv-663 As of: 08/09/2018 11:25 AM CDT 28 of 35

/06/2015 123 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Odie Washington by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian Webster, F White (Owens, Jody) (Entered: 03/06/2015)

/06/2015 124 NOTICE of Service of Defendant's Designation of Experts by Christopher Epps (Friedman, Gary) (Entered: 03/06/201

/09/2015

DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #121: this document contains the wrong civil action number; DOCKET ANNOTATIO 124: this document contains the wrong judge/magistrate judge initials. Attorney should correct in future filings. (RRL) 03/09/2015)

/09/2015 125 NOTICE of Appearance by Gregory Todd Butler on behalf of Christopher Epps (Butler, Gregory) (Entered: 03/09/201

/09/2015 126 Subpoena Returned Executed as to Archelaus (Archie) Longley. (Owens, Jody) (Entered: 03/09/2015)

/10/2015 127 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher Coleman, Lam Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian Webster, Fredrick Wh (Owens, Jody) (Entered: 03/10/2015)

/13/2015 128 ORDER granting 127 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 3/13/15. (WS) (Entere 03/13/2015)

/13/2015 129 MOTION to Terminate Prospective Relief Granted and Ordered by The Court's Approval of the Consent Decree by M Fisher (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Expert Report of Tom Roth)(Nobile, Krissy) (Entered: 03/13/2015)

/13/2015 130 MEMORANDUM in Support re 129 MOTION to Terminate Prospective Relief Granted and Ordered by The Court's A of the Consent Decree filed by Marshall L. Fisher (Nobile, Krissy) (Entered: 03/13/2015)

/13/2015 131 MOTION for Hearing by Marshall L. Fisher (Nobile, Krissy) (Entered: 03/13/2015)

/16/2015

Set Hearing: Telephonic Status Conference set for 3/19/2015 01:00 PM before Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball. Counse Plaintiffs shall set up the conference and contact the Court at 601−608−4460. (JEJ) (Entered: 03/16/2015)

/16/2015 132 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Marjorie Brown by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher C Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian Webster, F White (Owens, Jody) (Entered: 03/16/2015)

/17/2015 133 RESPONSE in Opposition re 131 MOTION for Hearing TO CONSOLIDATE AND CONTINUE ON PLAINTIFFS' MO ENFORCE CONSENT DECREE filed by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher Coleman, L Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian Webster, Fredrick Wh (Owens, Jody) (Entered: 03/17/2015)

/18/2015 134 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Marjorie Brown by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher C Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian Webster, F White (Owens, Jody) (Entered: 03/18/2015)

/19/2015

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball: Telephonic Status Conference held on 3/19/2 Jackson, MS. Appearing: Margaret Winter, Jody Owens, Alissa Johnson, Harold Pizzetta, Gary Friedman and Krissy C Nobile. (JEJ) (Entered: 03/20/2015)

/23/2015

TEXT−ONLY ORDER cancelling settlement conference set for March 30, 2015. No further written order shall issue fr Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 3/23/2015. (JEJ) (Entered: 03/23/2015)

/23/2015 135 NOTICE of Appearance by William T. Siler, Jr on behalf of Christopher Epps (Siler, William) (Entered: 03/23/2015)

/24/2015 136 RESPONSE in Support re 131 MOTION for Hearing and to Consolidate and Continue filed by Marshall L. Fisher (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− Consent Decree, # 2 Exhibit B − Excerpts of Fairness Hearing)(Nobile, Krissy) (Entered 03/24/2015)

/25/2015 137 RESPONSE in Opposition re 129 MOTION to Terminate Prospective Relief Granted and Ordered by The Court's App the Consent Decree filed by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher Coleman, Lamarcus Curr Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian Webster, Fredrick White (Ow Jody) (Entered: 03/25/2015)

/27/2015 138 Response in Support re 129 MOTION to Terminate Prospective Relief Granted and Ordered by The Court's Approval Consent Decree by Marshall L. Fisher (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Expert Report of Tom Roth)(Nobile, Krissy) filed by L. Fisher (Nobile, Krissy) (Entered: 03/27/2015)

/01/2015

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Hearing held on 4/1/2015. Appearances: M Winter, Robert B. McDuff, Jody E. Owens II, Gary E. Friedman, Krissy Casey Noble, William T. Siler Jr. and Harold III. Court Reporter/Transcriber Gina Morris, Telephone Number : 601−608−4187. (JS) (Entered: 04/02/2015)

Case: 3:10-cv-663 As of: 08/09/2018 11:25 AM CDT 29 of 35

/02/2015

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Hearing held on 4/2/2015. Appearances: M Winter, Robert B. McDuff, Jody E. Owens II, Gary E. Friedman, Krissy Casey Noble, William T. Siler Jr. and Harold III. Court Reporter/Transcriber Gina Morris, Telephone Number : 601−608−4187. (JS) (Entered: 04/03/2015)

/03/2015

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Hearing held on 4/3/2015. Appearances: M Winter, Robert B. McDuff, Jody E. Owens II, Gary E. Friedman, Krissy Casey Noble, William T. Siler Jr. and Harold III. This Hearing shall continue on 4/23/2015 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 5B (Jackson) before District Judge Carlton W. (ELH 2 days). Counsel shall submit any post hearing briefs to the Court by midnight on 5/4/2015. Court Reporter/Tran Gina Morris, Telephone Number : 601−608−4187. (JS) (Entered: 04/03/2015)

/09/2015 139 MOTION Postponement of Automatic Stay by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher Colem Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian Webster, F White (Owens, Jody) (Entered: 04/09/2015)

/13/2015 140 ORDER granting 139 Motion for Postponement of Automatic Stay for 60 days, or until 6/11/2015, as permitted by 18 3626(e)(3). Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 4/13/2015. (JS) (Entered: 04/13/2015)

/14/2015 141 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 4−1−2015 before Judge Carlton W. Reev Reporter/Transcriber Gina Morris, Telephone Number : 601−608−4187. NOTICE RE : REDACTION OF TRANSCR parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If is filed, the transcript will be made electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The p located on the court website at www.mssd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purch through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 5/5/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/15/2015. Release o Transcript Restriction set for 7/13/2015. (GM) (Entered: 04/14/2015)

/14/2015 142 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 4−2−2015 before Judge Carlton W. Reev Reporter/Transcriber Gina Morris, Telephone Number : 601−608−4187. NOTICE RE : REDACTION OF TRANSCR parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If is filed, the transcript will be made electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The p located on the court website at www.mssd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purch through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 5/5/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/15/2015. Release o Transcript Restriction set for 7/13/2015. (GM) (Entered: 04/14/2015)

/14/2015 143 **ERROR**DISREGARD THIS ENTRY** NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings hel 4−3−2015 before Judge Carlton W. Reeves. Court Reporter/Transcriber Gina Morris, Telephone Number : 601−608−4 NOTICE RE : REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a No Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no Notice is filed, the transcript will be made electronically available t public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on the court website at www.mssd.uscourts.gov. may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline fo of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 5/5/2015. Redact Transcript Deadline set for 5/15/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/13/2015. (GM) Modified on 5/6/2015 (Entered: 04/14/2015)

/22/2015

Set Hearing: Telephone Status Conference set for 4/22/2015 at 2:30 PM before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves. Only counsel for each party is required to participate. CALL−IN TELEPHONE NO. (601) 608−3977. (JS) (Entered: 04/22/2

/22/2015

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Telephone Status Conference held on 4/22 Participants: Jody E. Owens II, Margaret Winter, Gary E. Friedman and Krissy Casey Noble. (JS) (Entered: 04/23/201

/23/2015

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Hearing held on 4/23/2015. Appearances: Owens II, Margaret Winter, Gary E. Friedman, Krissy Casey Noble, William T. Siler, Jr. and Harold E. Pizzetta III. Co Reporter/Transcriber Gina Morris, Telephone Number : 601−608−4187. (JS) (Entered: 04/23/2015)

/24/2015 144 Subpoena Returned Executed as to Yzette Butler. (Siler, William) (Entered: 04/24/2015)

/24/2015 145 Subpoena Returned Executed as to Connie Carrouthers. (Friedman, Gary) (Entered: 04/24/2015)

/24/2015 146 Subpoena Returned Executed as to Kathy Hogue. (Friedman, Gary) (Entered: 04/24/2015)

/24/2015 147 Subpoena Returned Executed as to Pratmus Hinson. (Butler, Gregory) (Entered: 04/24/2015)

/24/2015

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Hearing held on 4/24/2015. Appearances: Owens II, Margaret Winter, Gary E. Friedman, Krissy Casey Noble, William T. Siler, Jr. and Harold E. Pizzetta III. De Counsel to submit any post hearing briefs to the Court was extended until midnight on 5/6/2015. Court Reporter/Trans Gina Morris, Telephone Number : 601−608−4187. (JS) Modified on 5/4/2015 (JS). (Entered: 04/24/2015)

Case: 3:10-cv-663 As of: 08/09/2018 11:25 AM CDT 30 of 35

/27/2015

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Hearing held on 4/27/2015. Appearances: Owens II, Margaret Winter, Gary E. Friedman, Krissy Casey Noble, William T. Siler, Jr. and Harold E. Pizzetta III. He completed, the Court to take the matters heard under consideration. Court Reporter/Transcriber Gina Morris, Telephon : 601−608−4187. (JS) (Entered: 04/27/2015)

/27/2015 150 Plaintiffs Exhibit List for Consent Decree hearing held through 4/27/2015.(JS) (Entered: 04/28/2015)

/27/2015 151 PLAINTIFFS EXHIBITS for Consent Decree hearing held through 4/27/2015 (Ex−1 Vail's Resume). Related documen Plaintiffs Exhibit List (Part 1 of 3) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2−Consent Decree 3−26−12, # 2 Exhibit 3−4th Monitors 4−7−14, # 3 Exhibit 4−Vail Report 3−14−14, # 4 Exhibit 5−MTC After Action Report, # 5 Exhibit 7−DOJ Report 3−2 Exhibit 8−Vail Report 8−4−14, # 7 Exhibit 10−5th Monitors Report 10−22−14, # 8 Exhibit 11−MTC Safety Committe # 9 Exhibit 12−Memo From Jenkins to Brown 1−22−15, # 10 Exhibit 13−MDOC Policy 16−19, # 11 Exhibit 14−MDO 16−19−09)(JS) (Entered: 04/28/2015)

/27/2015 152 PLAINTIFFS EXHIBITS for Consent Decree hearing held through 4/27/2015 (Ex−15 6th Monitors Report 3−6−15) R document: 150 Plaintiffs Exhibit List (Part 2 of 3) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 16−WGCF Program Overview, # 2 Exhib 17−Vail's 2−2015 Report, # 3 Exhibit 18−MTC 2−2015 Monthly Report, # 4 Exhibit 19−1st Monitors Report 2−8−13, Exhibit 20−2nd Monitors Report 4−1−13, # 6 Exhibit 21−3rd Monitors Report 10−19−13, # 7 Exhibit 22−Comparison Monitors Compliance, # 8 Exhibit 23−MODC Policy on UOF, MDOC SOP 16−23−01, # 9 Exhibit 24−Material Safety Sheet, # 10 Exhibit 25−Cell Door Operations Memo 6−10−14, # 11 Exhibit 26−UOR 14−551 dated 11−12−14, # 12 E 27−UOR 14−858 dated 12−7−14, # 13 Exhibit 28−UOR 14−065 dated 12−12−14, # 14 Exhibit 29−UOR 14−065 dated 12−25−14, # 15 Exhibit 33−Pizzetta Email dated 3−23−15 re Heathly, # 16 Exhibit 34−Pizzetta Email dated 3−23−15, Exhibit 36−UOR 13−638 12−31−13 re 3−21−15 incident)(JS) (Entered: 04/28/2015)

/27/2015 153 PLAINTIFFS EXHIBITS for Consent Decree hearing held through 4/27/2015 (Ex−37 UOR 14−342 dated 7−10−14) R document: 150 Plaintiffs Exhibit List (Part 3 of 3) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 42−Newspaper Article 10−2−14, # 2 Exh 43−ARP dated 9−25−14, # 3 Exhibit 44−Evans Certificates, # 4 Exhibit 45−WGCF 3−2015 Monthly Report, # 5 Exhib 46−EOR 15−084 dated 3−7−15, # 6 Exhibit 47−EOR 15−085 dated 3−7−15, # 7 Exhibit 48−EOR 15−114 dated 3−14− Exhibit 49−EOR 15−106 dated 3−19−15, # 9 Exhibit 50−EOR 15−109 dated 3−21−15, # 10 Exhibit 51−EOR 15−124 3−28−15, # 11 Exhibit 52−EOR 15−118 dated 3−31−15, # 12 Exhibit 54−WGCF Emergency Action Plan TOC)(JS) (E 04/28/2015)

/27/2015 154 DEFENDANTS Exhibit List for Consent Decree hearing held through 4/27/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 5−6th Mo Report 3−5−15, # 2 Exhibit 7−Expert Report of Roth 3−3−15, # 3 Exhibit 10−Chart of Incident Command System Staf WGCF, # 4 Exhibit 11−List of Recent Improvements at WGCF, # 5 Exhibit 12−Sample WGCF Shift Roster, # 6 Exhib 13−MTC−WGCF Field Training Officer Manual, # 7 Exhibit 14−MTC Policy on OC Decontamination, # 8 Exhibit 18 Policy 05−01, # 9 Exhibit 21−Photo WGCF Housing Zone at WGCF, # 10 Exhibit 22−MDOC Policy No. 16−107, # 1 23−MDOC Policy No 16−18, # 12 Exhibit 24−MTC Policy No 903A.07, # 13 Exhibit 25−Photo Package and Property at WGCF, # 14 Exhibit 26−Photo Body Scanner at WGCF, # 15 Exhibit 27−Photo Hallway at WGCF, # 16 Exhibit 28 Metal Detector at WGCF, # 17 Exhibit 29−Photo Metal Detector at WGCF, # 18 Exhibit 30−Photo Housing Zone Clea Area at WGCF, # 19 Exhibit 31−Staffing Schedules Table for WGCF, # 20 Exhibit 32−Photo Emergency Eye Wash S WGCF, # 21 Exhibit 33−Photo Interior Emergency Eye Wash Station at WGCF, # 22 Exhibit 34−Photo Walk Thru M Detector at WGCF, # 23 Exhibit 35−Photo Gym at WGCG, # 24 Exhibit 36−Photo Inmate Library at WGCF, # 25 Exh 37−Photo Vocational Classroom at WGCF, # 26 Exhibit 38−Photo Inmate Computer Lab at WGCF, # 27 Exhibit 39−P Housing Zone Dayroom at WGCF, # 28 Exhibit 40−Letter from Owens to King 3−16−15, # 29 Exhibit 41−Emails from Mullikin and King 3−14−15, # 30 Exhibit 42−Email from Mulikin to King 3−15−15, # 31 Exhibit 44−MODC Policy N # 32 Exhibit 47−Post Order, # 33 Exhibit 48−MDOC Incident Detail 3−25−15, # 34 Exhibit 49−MDOC Incident Detai # 35 Exhibit 50−MDOC Incident Detail 3−12−15, # 36 Exhibit 51−MTC−EOR Checklist 3−28−15, # 37 Exhibit 52−M Checklist 3−31−15, # 38 Exhibit 53−Cell Inspection Form 3−13−15)(JS) (Entered: 04/28/2015)

/27/2015

Set Hearing: Status Conference set for 4/27/2015 at 4:45 PM in Courtroom 5B (Jackson) before District Judge Carlton Reeves. Counsel representing parties re medical services for inmates shall attend. (JS) (Entered: 04/28/2015)

/27/2015

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Status Conference held on 4/27/2015. App Jody E. Owens II, Margaret Winters, Krissy C. Noble, Harold Pizzetta and Robert Pederson. Telephone Status Confere for 4/29/2015 at 10:00 AM before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves. Plaintiffs Counsel and Defense Counsel represent parties re medical services for inmates shall participate. Court Reporter/Transcriber Gina Morris, Telephone Number : 601−608−4187. (JS) (Entered: 04/28/2015)

/28/2015 155 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert H. Pedersen on behalf of Marshall L. Fisher (Pedersen, Robert) (Entered: 04/28/201

/29/2015

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Telephone Status Conference held on 4/29 Participants: Jody E. Owens II, Margaret Winter, Harold E. Pizzetta III, Robert H. Pederson, Krissy C. Nobile and Lew (JS) (Entered: 04/29/2015)

/29/2015 156 NOTICE of Appearance by Lewis W. Bell on behalf of Marshall L. Fisher (Bell, Lewis) (Entered: 04/29/2015)

Case: 3:10-cv-663 As of: 08/09/2018 11:25 AM CDT 31 of 35

/04/2015 157 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 4−23−2015 before Judge Carlton W. Ree Reporter/Transcriber Gina Morris, Telephone Number : 601−608−4187. NOTICE RE : REDACTION OF TRANSCR parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If is filed, the transcript will be made electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The p located on the court website at www.mssd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purch through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 5/26/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/4/2015. Release o Transcript Restriction set for 8/3/2015. (GM) (Entered: 05/04/2015)

/04/2015 158 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 4−23−2015 before Judge Carlton W. Ree Reporter/Transcriber Gina Morris, Telephone Number : 601−608−4187. NOTICE RE : REDACTION OF TRANSCR parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If is filed, the transcript will be made electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The p located on the court website at www.mssd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purch through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 5/26/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/4/2015. Release o Transcript Restriction set for 8/3/2015. (GM) (Entered: 05/04/2015)

/04/2015 159 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 4−27−2015 before Judge Carlton W. Ree Reporter/Transcriber Gina Morris, Telephone Number : 601−608−4187. NOTICE RE : REDACTION OF TRANSCR parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If is filed, the transcript will be made electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The p located on the court website at www.mssd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purch through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 5/26/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/4/2015. Release o Transcript Restriction set for 8/3/2015. (GM) (Entered: 05/04/2015)

/05/2015

TEXT−ONLY ORDER granting Defendants' unopposed ore tenus motion for a one−day extension of time to submit th reports. The new deadline is May 7, 2015. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE. Signed by District Jud Carlton W. Reeves on 05/05/2015. (AS) (Entered: 05/05/2015)

/06/2015 160 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 4−3−2015 before Judge Carlton W. Reev Reporter/Transcriber Gina Morris, Telephone Number : 601−608−4187. NOTICE RE : REDACTION OF TRANSCR parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If is filed, the transcript will be made electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The p located on the court website at www.mssd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purch through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 5/27/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/8/2015. Release o Transcript Restriction set for 8/4/2015. (GM) (Entered: 05/06/2015)

/06/2015

DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #143: PLEASE DISREGARD ENTRY #143; CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT HAS BE FILED AS DOCKET ENTRY #160. (RRL) (Entered: 05/06/2015)

/06/2015 161 RESPONSE in Support re 129 MOTION to Terminate Prospective Relief Granted and Ordered by The Court's Approv Consent Decree Post−Hearing Memorandum filed by Marshall L. Fisher (Nobile, Krissy) (Entered: 05/06/2015)

/06/2015 162 RESPONSE in Opposition re 106 MOTION For Enforcement and Modification of Consent Decree −Post−Hearing Memorandum filed by Marshall L. Fisher (Nobile, Krissy) (Entered: 05/06/2015)

/06/2015 163 MEMORANDUM in Support re 106 MOTION For Enforcement and Modification of Consent Decree and in Oppositi Defendants' Motion to Terminate filed by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher Coleman, L Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Gina Morris, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian Webster White (Owens, Jody) Modified on 5/7/2015 (RRL). (Entered: 05/06/2015)

/07/2015 164 NOTICE of Service of EXPERT DESIGNATION AND DISCLOSURE Disclosure by Marshall L. Fisher (Pedersen, Rob (Entered: 05/07/2015)

/08/2015 165 MEMORANDUM in Support re 106 MOTION For Enforcement and Modification of Consent Decree , and in oppositi MOTION to Terminate Prospective Relief Granted and Ordered by The Court's Approval of the Consent Decree filed Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kin Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian Webster, Fredrick White (Owens, Jody) Modified on 5/8/2015 (R (Entered: 05/08/2015)

/02/2015 166 STATUS REPORT Fourth Monitoring Report re: YOU Consent Decree by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Jos Christopher Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis S Brian Webster, Fredrick White (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Service)(Eichelberger, Jennie) (Entered: 06/02

Case: 3:10-cv-663 As of: 08/09/2018 11:25 AM CDT 32 of 35

/02/2015 167 STATUS REPORT Fifth Monitoring Report re: YOU Consent Decree by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshu Christopher Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis S Brian Webster, Fredrick White (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Service)(Eichelberger, Jennie) (Entered: 06/02

/10/2015 168 STATUS REPORT Sixth Monitoring Report re YOU Consent Decree by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Christopher Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis S Brian Webster, Fredrick White (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 YOU Disciplinary Stats January through April 2015, # 2 E May 4, 2015 Memorandum from Commissioner Fisher to the YOU Monitor)(Owens, Jody) (Entered: 06/10/2015)

/10/2015

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 106 Motion for Enforcement and Modification of Consent Decree; denyin Motion to Terminate Prospective Relief Granted. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 6/10/2015. (as) (Ente 06/10/2015)

/11/2015 169 ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs Motion for Enforcement and Modification of Consent Decree; d Defendant's Motion to Terminate Prospective Relief Granted and Ordered by the Court's Approval of the Consent Dec Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 6/10/2015. (as) (Entered: 06/11/2015)

/11/2015 170 AMENDED ORDER granting in part and denying in part 106 Plaintiffs' Motion for Enforcement and Modification of Decree; denying 129 Defendant's Motion to Terminate Prospective Relief Granted and Ordered by the Court's Approva Consent Decree. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 06/11/2015 (AS) (Entered: 06/11/2015)

/25/2015 171 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher Coleman, Lamarcus C Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian Webster, Fredrick White, Br Wolverton (Owens, Jody) (Entered: 06/25/2015)

/08/2015 172 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 170 Order, by Marshall L. Fisher. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number 0538−2982618. (Fried Gary) (Entered: 07/08/2015)

/08/2015 173 MOTION to Dismiss Without Prejudice, Or, In the Alternative, MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Rep 171 MOTION for Attorney Fees , Or, In the Alternative, MOTION To Stay Consideration Of Attorneys' Fees Pending by Marshall L. Fisher (Friedman, Gary) (Entered: 07/08/2015)

/08/2015 174 MEMORANDUM in Support re 173 MOTION to Dismiss Without Prejudice, Or, In the Alternative MOTION for Ext Time to File Response/Reply as to 171 MOTION for Attorney Fees , Or, In the Alternative MOTION To Stay Conside Attorneys' Fees Pending Appeal filed by Marshall L. Fisher (Friedman, Gary) (Entered: 07/08/2015)

/09/2015 175 FINAL JUDGMENT pursuant to Rule 54(b) in favor of the Plaintiffs on the Defendants' Motion to Terminate Prospec 129 . Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 07/9/2015 (AS) (Entered: 07/09/2015)

/09/2015

TEXT−ONLY ORDER finding as moot 131 Motion for Hearing. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 07/9/ FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE. (AS) (Entered: 07/09/2015)

/13/2015 176 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Marshall L. Fisher. Amendment to 172 Notice of Appeal (Friedman, Gary) (Entered: 07

/14/2015 177 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney on behalf of attorneys Robert H. Pedersen, Esq., Walter T. Johnson, Esq., Lewis W Esq. and the law firm of Watkins & Eager, PLLC by Christopher Epps, Marshall L. Fisher, Health Assurance, L.L.C., K (Pedersen, Robert) (Entered: 07/14/2015)

/15/2015 178 ORDER granting 177 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorneys Robert H. Pedersen, Lewis W. Bell, and Walter T. J and law firm of Watkins & Eager, PLLC, terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 7/15/2015. (JRB) (E 07/15/2015)

/23/2015 179 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael J. Bentley on behalf of Marshall L. Fisher (Bentley, Michael) (Entered: 07/23/201

/23/2015 180 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael C. Williams on behalf of Marshall L. Fisher (Williams, Michael) (Entered: 07/23/

/24/2015 181 NOTICE of Partial Withdrawal of Motion to Terminate Consent Decree by Marshall L. Fisher (Bentley, Michael) (Ent 07/24/2015)

/07/2015

Certified and Transmitted Electronic Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals re 172 Notice of Appeal. (RRL) (Enter 08/07/2015)

/03/2015 182 STATUS REPORT 7th Monitor's Report by Marshall L. Fisher (Pizzetta, Harold) (Entered: 09/03/2015)

/29/2015

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 173 MOTION To Stay Consideration Of Attorneys' Fees Pending Appeal. NO FURTH WRITTEN ORDER SHALL BE ISSUED. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 9/29/2015. (JS) (Entered: 09/29/2015)

/29/2015 183 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Jennie Eichelberger by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christ Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian W

Case: 3:10-cv-663 As of: 08/09/2018 11:25 AM CDT 33 of 35

Fredrick White (Eichelberger, Jennie) (Entered: 09/29/2015)

/30/2015

TEXT−ONLY ORDER granting 183 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Jennie S. H. Eichelberger terminated. FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 9/30/2015. (JRB) (Enter 09/30/2015)

/28/2015 184 STATUS REPORT 8th Report of Monitors Pursuant to: Class Action Consent Decree by Christopher Epps (Pizzetta, H (Entered: 12/28/2015)

/06/2016 185 STATUS REPORT by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Ch DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian Webster, Fredrick White (Owens, Jody) 01/06/2016)

/29/2016

ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL ACCEPTED : The Court of Appeals has accepted the Electronic Record on A it is available for attorney access and download at http://http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/default−source/forms/instructions−for−electronic−record−download−feature− using credentials provided to you by the Clerk of that Court. (RRL) (Entered: 01/29/2016)

/23/2016 186 MOTION for Gabriel Baron Eber to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Chr Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian W Fredrick White (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit a Certificate of Good Standing)(Owens, Jody) (Entered: 02/23/2016)

/23/2016

Pro Hac Vice fee paid for Gabriel Baron Eber receipt number 0538−3132297 $ 100 (Owens, Jody) (Entered: 02/23/201

/03/2016

TEXT−ONLY ORDER granting 186 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. That Gabriel Baron Eber be admitted pro hac vi case on behalf of the plaintiffs in association with local counsel and upon registration for electronic filing as required b Court. No further written order shall issue from the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 3/3/2016. (JEJ) 03/03/2016)

/04/2016 187 NOTICE of Appearance by Gabriel B. Eber − PHV on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Eber − PHV, Gabriel) (Entered: 03/04/2

/05/2016 188 STATUS REPORT 9th Report of Monitors Pursuant to: Class Action Consent Decree by Marshall L. Fisher (Pizzetta Gov, Harold) (Entered: 05/05/2016)

/23/2016 189 ORDER of USCA as to 172 Notice of Appeal filed by Marshall L. Fisher : Motion to extend time to file supplement br GRANTED. (RRL) (Entered: 08/23/2016)

/01/2016 190 STATUS REPORT 10th Report of Monitors Pursuant to: Class Action Consent Decree by Marshall L. Fisher (Pizzetta Gov, Harold) (Entered: 09/01/2016)

/21/2016 191 Appeal Remark re 172 Notice of Appeal : Letter from 5th Circuit granting Motion of Attorney Brooke McCarthy to wi counsel of record. (RRL) (Entered: 09/21/2016)

/27/2016 192 Copy of Opinion − USCA re 172 Notice of Appeal: Appeal is Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the District Court reta jurisdiction to rule on the plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. Section 1988. (RRL) (Entered: 09/27/20

/27/2016 193 CERTIFIED COPY OF USCA JUDGMENT/MANDATE as to 172 Notice of Appeal filed by Marshall L. Fisher; App DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Issued as the Mandate: 9/27/16. (RRL) (Entered: 09/27/2016)

/27/2016

Case Stayed. (RRL) (Entered: 09/30/2016)

/27/2016

TEXT ONLY ORDER LIFTING STAY upon receipt of 193 Certified Copy of USCA Mandate dismissing 172 Notice Appeal. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL BE ISSUED. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 9/2 (JS) (Entered: 11/01/2016)

/26/2016

Set Hearing: Telephone Status Conference set for 10/27/2016 at 11:00 AM before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves to moving forward with developing a schedule for the briefing on the motion for attorneys fees and related issues. At leas counsel for each party shall participate. (JS) (Entered: 10/26/2016)

/26/2016

Reset Hearing: Telephone Status Conference reset for 11/1/2016 at 8:45 AM (CST) before District Judge Carlton W. R discuss moving forward with developing a schedule for the briefing on the motion for attorneys fees and related issues. one counsel for each party shall participate. (JS) (Entered: 10/26/2016)

/01/2016

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Telephone Status Conference held on 11/1 Participants: Jody E. Owens II, Robert B. McDuff, Gary E. Friedman, Krissy Casey Noble and Michael J. Bentley. Tel Status Conference set for 12/1/2016 at 9:00 AM before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves. (JS) (Entered: 11/01/20

/01/2016

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Telephone Status Conference held on 12/1 Participants: Gabriel B. Eber, Jody E. Owens II, Gary E. Friedman, Krissy Casey Nobile and Gregory Todd Butler. Pla shall file their supporting brief to 171 Motion for Attorney Fees by 1/13/2017; Defendants shall file their response brie

Case: 3:10-cv-663 As of: 08/09/2018 11:25 AM CDT 34 of 35

2/13/2017; and Plaintiff shall file any rebuttal by 2/27/2017. (JS) (Entered: 12/01/2016)

/19/2016 194 NOTICE of Appearance by Sarah D. Bidinger on behalf of Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christo Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian W Fredrick White (Bidinger, Sarah) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

/13/2017 195 Supplemental MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christoph Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian W Fredrick White (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Owens Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 2 Fathi Declaration, # 3 Exhibit 3 McDuff Declaration, # 4 Exhibit 4 Transcript Excerpt, # 5 Exhibit 5 United States Courts FY 2017 Congressional Budget Summ Exhibit 6 Lancaster v Cate Order, # 7 Exhibit 7 Rosas v. Baca Order)(Owens, Jody) (Entered: 01/13/2017)

/13/2017 196 MEMORANDUM in Support re 171 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs 195 Supplemental MOTION for Attorney by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Joshua Clay, Christopher Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, La Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian Webster, Fredrick White (Owens, Jody) (Entered: 01/13/2017)

/25/2017

TEXT−ONLY ORDER denying without prejudice 171 Motion for Attorney Fees, as discussed with the parties during conference held on 12/01/2016. The 195 Supplemental Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs has preserved the issue and taken up after briefing is completed. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE. Signed by District Judge Ca Reeves on 01/25/17. (NM) (Entered: 01/25/2017)

/13/2017 197 RESPONSE in Opposition re 195 Supplemental MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs filed by Marshall L. Fisher (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. SPLC Memorandum)(Friedman, Gary) (Entered: 02/13/2017)

/13/2017 198 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 195 Supplemental MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs filed by Marshall L. Fish (Friedman, Gary) (Entered: 02/13/2017)

/21/2017 199 MOTION to Extend Deadline for Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's Fees D by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, C Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian Webster, Fredrick White, Brenda Wolverton (Eber − PH Gabriel) (Entered: 02/21/2017)

/22/2017

TEXT−ONLY ORDER granting 199 Motion to Extend Deadline for Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Pla Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs. Reply is due by 03/09/17. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE. District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 02/22/17. (NM) (Entered: 02/22/2017)

/09/2017 200 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher Coleman Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian Webster, F White (Owens, Jody) (Entered: 03/09/2017)

/09/2017 201 RESPONSE in Support re 195 Supplemental MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs filed by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Ja Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Co Latravis Smith, Brian Webster, Fredrick White (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 J. Owens Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 2 Eber Declaration, # 3 Exhibit 3 Winter Declaration, # 4 Exhibit 4 McDuff Declaration, # 5 Exhibit 5 Transcript Excerpt, # 6 Penthouse Owners Assn)(Owens, Jody) (Entered: 03/09/2017)

/10/2017 202 MOTION to Amend/Correct 200 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, J Clay, Christopher Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latra Smith, Brian Webster, Fredrick White (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Eber Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 2 Owens Declaration) Jody) (Entered: 03/10/2017)

/10/2017 203 RESPONSE in Opposition re 200 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by Christopher Epps, Marshall L. Fis (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. Emails)(Friedman, Gary) (Entered: 03/10/2017)

/10/2017 204 RESPONSE in Opposition re 202 MOTION to Amend/Correct 200 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by M L. Fisher (Friedman, Gary) (Entered: 03/10/2017)

/13/2017 205 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 200 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; granting in part and denying Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 03/13/2017. (NM) (Entered: 03/13/2017)

/20/2017 206 RESPONSE in Support re 195 Supplemental MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs filed by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Ja Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Co Latravis Smith, Brian Webster, Fredrick White (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 4.1.15 Hearing Transcript, # 2 Exhibit 2 J. Declaration, # 3 Exhibit 3 M. Winter Declaration, # 4 Exhibit 4 McDuff Declaration, # 5 Exhibit 5 Eber Declaration, # 6 Penthouse Owners Assn)(Owens, Jody) (Entered: 03/20/2017)

/01/2017 207 LETTER MOTION for copies of documents by Omar K. Humphrey. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope).(RRL) (Entered: 05

Case: 3:10-cv-663 As of: 08/09/2018 11:25 AM CDT 35 of 35

/03/2017

DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #207: This document should be docketed as a letter for copies. Motion has been termi (RRL) (Entered: 05/03/2017)

/22/2017 208 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 195 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reev 9/22/2017. (cr) (Entered: 09/22/2017)

/22/2017 209 FINAL JUDGMENT dismissing plaintiff's claims with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 9/22 (RRL) (Entered: 09/22/2017)

/06/2017 210 MOTION for Attorney Fees for Fees Litigation by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher Co Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian Webster, F White (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Fathi Decl., # 2 Exhibit 1 Owens Decl.)(Bidinger, Sarah) (Entered: 10/06/2017)

/11/2017 211 MOTION to Extend Appeal Deadline (EXPEDITED MOTION) by Marshall L. Fisher (Friedman, Gary) (Entered: 10/1

/12/2017 212 TEXT−ONLY ORDER granting 211 Motion to Extend Applicable Appeal Deadline. The appeal deadline will be exten 30 days after this Court rules on the currently pending motion for attorney's fees filed by Plaintiffs. Signed by District J Carlton W. Reeves on 10/12/2017. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL BE ISSUED. (cr) (Entered: 10/12/201

/20/2017 213 RESPONSE in Opposition re 210 MOTION for Attorney Fees for Fees Litigation filed by Marshall L. Fisher (Attachm Exhibit 1. Summary of Fees Charged for Reviewing, Editing, Citing, and Filing the Brief that the Court Struck, # 2 Ex Summary: Fees Charged for Clerical Tasks)(Friedman, Gary) (Entered: 10/20/2017)

/20/2017 214 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 213 Response in Opposition to Motion, For Attorneys' Fees for Fees Litigation (D 210) filed by Marshall L. Fisher (Friedman, Gary) (Entered: 10/20/2017)

/27/2017 215 REPLY to Response to Motion re 210 MOTION for Attorney Fees for Fees Litigation filed by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Brady, Joshua Clay, Christopher Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Co Latravis Smith, Brian Webster, Fredrick White (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Owens Supplemental Declaration)(Owens, (Entered: 10/27/2017)

/23/2018 216 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Margaret Winter by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christoph Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian W Fredrick White (Eber − PHV, Gabriel) (Entered: 04/23/2018)

/24/2018

TEXT−ONLY ORDER granting 216 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Gabriel B. Eber − PHV terminated. N FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER TO ISSUE FROM THE COURT. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 4/24/1 (Entered: 04/24/2018)

/24/2018

TEXT−ONLY ORDER correcting earlier text−only order of 4/24/18. The motion sought withdrawal of Margaret Wint counsel for plaintiffs, not Gabriel B. Eber. The Court has reinstated Eber as counsel of record and instead terminated W FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER TO ISSUE FROM THE COURT.Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 4/24/18 (Entered: 04/24/2018)

/25/2018 217 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 210 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reev 4/25/2018. (cr) (Entered: 04/25/2018)

/30/2018 218 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Sarah Bidinger by Eric Ball, Erik Barnes, Jamario Brady, Joshua Clay, Christophe Coleman, Lamarcus Curry, Charleston DePriest, Craig Kincaid, Lamarsha Readus, Cozy Scott, Latravis Smith, Brian W Fredrick White (Bidinger, Sarah) (Entered: 04/30/2018)

/01/2018 219 ORDER granting 218 Motion to Withdraw as Plaintiffs' Counsel. Attorney Sarah D. Bidinger is granted leave to withd counsel of record for Plaintiffs. The Southern Poverty Law Center and associated attorneys will continue to represent P Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 5/1/2018. (JS) (Entered: 05/01/2018)

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

CHARLESTON DEPRIEST, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS

VS.
WALNUT GROVE CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITY, ET AL.

CIVIL NO. 3:10CV663-CWR-FKB DEFENDANTS

HEARING

BEFORE THE HONORABLE CARLTON W. REEVES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE MAY 29TH, 2012 JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: MR. JODY E. OWENS, II MR. ROBERT B. MCDUFF

FOR DEFENDANT EPPS:

MR. JUSTIN L. MATHENY

FOR DEFENDANT BURNHAM: MR. WILSON D. MINOR

REPORTED BY: MARY VIRGINIA "Gina" MORRIS, RMR, CRR Mississippi CSR #1253
_________________________________________________________
501 E. Court, Ste. 2.500 Jackson, Mississippi 39201
(601) 608-4187

2

1

(COURT CALLED TO ORDER)

2

THE COURT: You may be seated. Good afternoon.

3

MR. OWENS: Afternoon.

4

MR. MCDUFF: Afternoon, your Honor.

5

MR. MATHENY: Afternoon.

6

THE COURT: I'm waiting until my computer loads up. I

7 apologize.

8

(PAUSE)

9

THE COURT: Nijah, you can go ahead and call the case.

10 Do you have it?

11

THE CLERK: Yes, sir. The United States District

12 Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson

13 Division, Charleston DePriest, et al., v. Walnut Grove

14 Correctional Authority, Civil Action Number 3:10cv663.

15

(PAUSE)

16

THE COURT: Okay. I apologize. I'm trying to get up

17 on the system. We're here today because plaintiffs' counsel

18 has requested an emergency hearing on a matter that arose I

19 guess at Walnut Grove in the last either -- I assume in the

20 last 72 hours.

21

MR. OWENS: Yes, sir.

22

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Owens, could you come forward

23 to explain to the court --

24

MR. OWENS: Good afternoon.

25

THE COURT: -- what you need.

3

1

MR. OWENS: Good afternoon.

2

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

3

MR. OWENS: Your Honor, on Saturday night going into

4 Sunday morning, class counsel was notified by a resident of

5 Walnut Grove's mother that she received a phone call that her

6 son had been in an altercation. He received --

7

THE COURT: What time did you all receive the call?

8 What time did you receive the call, approximately?

9

MR. OWENS: It was after 9 p.m., your Honor, on

10 Saturday night. We received a call, your Honor, that an

11 individual had been stabbed in the eye, had been attacked by

12 four individuals while at Walnut Grove and was in the intensive

13 care unit at the University of Mississippi Medical Center

14 having fluid relieved from their brain -- from his brain, your

15 Honor. At this point in time we assisted the individual in

16 trying to work with MDOC in allowing the mother to visit her

17 son.

18

But in light of this attack, the recent rape at Walnut

19 Grove that the court is aware of, as well as the recent

20 suicide, we thought it was prudent to bring this to the court's

21 attention, because even after the settlement, your Honor, it

22 seems that Walnut Grove is still in a state of chaos and

23 violence that is not a safe environment for any of the

24 residents there.

25

THE COURT: Is that all the information that the

4

1 plaintiffs' counsel received?

2

MR. OWENS: At that time, yes, your Honor. Since then

3 we have worked with Mississippi Department of Corrections and

4 Attorney General's Office to get an incident report and to find

5 out more information about what happened. We actually were

6 supplied with the incident report about two hours ago of 20

7 pages of the incident and what was alleged to have happened.

8

THE COURT: Do you know who prepared that report?

9

MR. OWENS: If I understand, your Honor, it was

10 prepared by the individual on staff at Walnut Grove.

11

THE COURT: Okay. You indicated that there were four

12 individuals who have -- that were alleged to have assaulted

13 this prisoner. Those individuals are inmates themselves or --

14

MR. OWENS: Yes, your Honor. There is some

15 discrepancy about that. We were told per MDOC that this

16 individual was involved in a one-on-one attack. However,

17 speaking to his mother who spoke to him in the intensive care

18 unit, he said that there was four individuals who attacked him.

19

THE COURT: Do you know if law enforcement has been

20 contacted?

21

MR. OWENS: No, your Honor, we're unaware of that at

22 this time.

23

THE COURT: You indicated that the court is aware of a

24 rape that has occurred there since --

25

MR. OWENS: Since the settlement was reached between

5

1 the parties, your Honor. This individual who was struck in

2 this attack was the individual who testified at the fairness

3 hearing on Walnut Grove and also at that same hearing the

4 individual testified of a rape he was a part of.

5

THE COURT: The individual who was stabbed in the eye.

6

MR. OWENS: No, this is a different individual, your

7 Honor.

8

THE COURT: Okay. But the individual who was stabbed

9 in the eye, how old is that individual?

10

MR. OWENS: That individual is 20, your Honor.

11

THE COURT: 20. Okay. So -- he's 20 or 21? I see --

12

(COUNSEL CONFERRED)

13

THE COURT: He's 21?

14

MR. OWENS: 21.

15

THE COURT: So the consent decree that specifically

16 applies to him is one -- is the one that's --

17

MR. OWENS: 18 and over.

18

THE COURT: -- over 18.

19

MR. OWENS: Yes, your Honor.

20

THE COURT: I guess at the time of the hearing there

21 was testimony that a rape had occurred. The court is aware of

22 at least the letter that was received that it shared with the

23 parties of a stabbing. So that's something in addition to what

24 either occurred on Saturday -- or that has actually occurred

25 since the hearing itself and since the court signed off on the

6

1 settlement agreement. Right?

2

MR. OWENS: That's correct, your Honor.

3

THE COURT: And the suicide occurred after the court

4 signed the settlement agreement as well. Right?

5

MR. OWENS: Yes, your Honor.

6

THE COURT: Are the plaintiffs aware of any other

7 things that have occurred that would go to any of the terms --

8 well, maybe that's too broad -- any other violent acts such as

9 those that have occurred and put the prisoners in harm's way.

10

MR. OWENS: Just a series of fights, your Honor.

11

THE COURT: Series of fights? Between the prisoners?

12 Only between the prisoners?

13

MR. OWENS: Yes, your Honor.

14

THE COURT: Not involving prisoners and guards or

15 anything.

16

MR. OWENS: Not to my understanding.

17

THE COURT: Okay. Has the plaintiff taken steps -- I

18 realize DOJ has done an exhaustive investigation at this

19 facility. Has the plaintiff taken any steps to contact DOJ

20 about any of these instances since the court entered the

21 settlement agreement?

22

MR. OWENS: No, your Honor.

23

THE COURT: What steps has the plaintiff taken to -- I

24 guess to effectuate its portion of the consent decree, its

25 obligations, that is, notifying either -- or I guess -- you've

7

1 hired your expert I presume.

2

MR. OWENS: Yes, your Honor. In addition, on May 8th

3 our expert -- plaintiffs' expert, Steve Martin, toured the

4 facility I believe with Deputy Commissioner Emmitt Sparkmann

5 and actually submitted the report to all parties on May 17th

6 addressing issues with the facility and observations including

7 custody, observations that -- and recommendations that included

8 staffing. And, in particular, Mr. Martin noted that the

9 facility was short-staffed and recommended improvements to deal

10 with not only the staffing but also suicide risk management.

11

THE COURT: How short-staffed did the expert find that

12 the facility was?

13

MR. OWENS: Your Honor, he kind of glosses over with

14 not specificity. But what we know today, we spoke to

15 Mr. Martin and also MDOC spoke to him, and personally he

16 recommended that the facility staff in some units could be

17 doubled as particular how many guards are on a particular pod

18 and control tower and a lack of a guard as a floater, because

19 he indicated that a series of attacks occur when guards walk

20 off the facility to transport an inmate to a particular portion

21 of the facility, and it could actually be doubled.

22

THE COURT: Does the plaintiff know if staffing is

23 reduced over the weekend as opposed to every -- you know, do

24 the number of correctional officers decrease because of just

25 regular tour of duty over the weekend? Do we have fewer CO's

8

1 there?

2

MR. OWENS: Your Honor, in most facilities we find

3 that to be the case. In this particular instance we talked to

4 Mr. Martin who also spoke to Mr. Sparkmann. As we understand

5 it, he looked at the staffing pattern for this incident -- when

6 this incident occurred and the facility was short-staffed at

7 that point in time. And, your Honor, Mr. Martin had indicated

8 that he is available for the court's inquiry at any time

9 including during this hearing or anytime subsequently.

10

THE COURT: Oh, okay. So should I talk with

11 Mr. Martin or is the plaintiff prepared to provide to me any

12 sort of recommendations either now or after I hear from the

13 State?

14

MR. OWENS: Specific recommendations would need to

15 come from Mr. Martin, your Honor. We do have a copy of his

16 report, but it doesn't go into specifically. I believe that a

17 conversation with Mr. Martin would provide the court the level

18 of clarity the court would probably want of individuals --

19 placement of individuals.

20

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Owens.

21

MR. OWENS: Thank you.

22

THE COURT: And if I need to call you back, I will.

23

MR. OWENS: Yes, your Honor.

24

THE COURT: Mr. Matheny.

25

MR. MATHENY: Good afternoon, your Honor.

9

1

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

2

MR. MATHENY: Justin Matheny on behalf of Commissioner

3 Epps. And as I believe may have been noted, I have with me --

4 Deputy Commissioner Sparkmann is here today, and Wilson Minor

5 representing the department of education is also here.

6

THE COURT: Okay.

7

MR. MATHENY: Mr. Minor is counsel of record in the

8 lawsuit. Mr. Sparkmann, he's not an attorney. I just wanted

9 to point that out.

10

THE COURT: Okay.

11

MR. MATHENY: Your Honor, the State's prepared to

12 proceed in any way that the court would deem necessary. I can

13 explain and respond to Mr. Owens and some of the questions that

14 you had for him, but I also wanted to make sure that the court

15 was aware that Mr. Sparkmann is here to either address the

16 court -- address the court's questions either directly or from

17 the stand, however the court pleases, and can provide the level

18 of specificity with respect to some of the issues that have

19 been raised here.

20

But, just generally, if you will, your Honor, with

21 respect to the assault incident that was reported in the e-mail

22 to your Honor to -- prior to this hearing, this morning when I

23 got in the office and after being in contact with

24 Mr. Sparkmann, I got a copy of the incident report that was

25 prepared by the investigators at the facility that was the

10

1 20-page report that Mr. Owens referred to. And I'll be glad to

2 provide the court with a copy of that if it would please your

3 Honor.

4

THE COURT: Okay.

5

MR. MATHENY: If I could approach.

6

THE COURT: You may.

7

(DOCUMENT TENDERED TO THE COURT)

8

MR. MATHENY: Your Honor, I would also note that some

9 of the attachments to the report include medical records. And

10 so it may be if the -- if it's marked as an exhibit or treated

11 as an exhibit, it may be appropriate to redact that information

12 so that it doesn't appear in the public record.

13

THE COURT: Right. Okay.

14

MR. MATHENY: Basically, your Honor, based on the

15 report -- and I won't try to read it off to you, but what we

16 understand from the investigator who took statements from

17 witnesses and statements from the guards that were involved in

18 the incident, that it was pod 6D at the facility. And the

19 injured inmate, the one who was stabbed in the eye, was there

20 in the pod; and officers had come through the pod and asked

21 everybody to sit down. And then the floor officers left to go

22 secure a different pod.

23

When they left, the incident occurred. One inmate

24 stabbed the inmate in the -- around his eye. According to the

25 reports, another inmate tried to break up the fight. And there

11

1 was another inmate that was involved in the fight, so a total

2 of four individuals that were fighting together. But based on

3 the investigative report, it did not conclude that there were

4 actually four people that attacked the inmate that ended up

5 being stabbed.

6

I think, as Mr. Owens said, following the incident,

7 the tower guard who saw it going on called a -- what they refer

8 to as a code black, which is the emergency call. Guards came

9 in, got everybody down on the ground, put the individuals into

10 a cell confinement and sorted out what had happened. And the

11 inmate that was stabbed was transported to the hospital there

12 in Leake County and then on to UMC.

13

Following the incident, it's my understanding -- and

14 Mr. Sparkmann would certainly know more detail about this than

15 I, but I understand that plaintiffs' counsel contacted him and

16 sought to arrange for the victim's mother to visit with him at

17 the hospital. And I think that he also arranged for his

18 brother to visit him there while at UMC. And this was also

19 over the weekend, Saturday, Sunday -- Monday?

20

MR. SPARKMANN: Monday.

21

MR. MATHENY: It was on Monday, your Honor. The

22 report -- and you can read this for yourself, but the findings

23 of the report and the statements from the witnesses do not link

24 this up to any kind of connection to having testified at the

25 hearing -- the fairness hearing back in March in this court.

12

1 As it's described for you there in the report, the dispute was

2 between -- between the inmates.

3

THE COURT: How old was -- do we know how -- the age

4 of the inmate who committed the assault?

5

MR. MATHENY: Did you want the names of inmates, your

6 Honor?

7

THE COURT: I don't need the names right now, just the

8 age.

9

MR. MATHENY: Okay. The person who did the

10 assaulting, his age is 20.

11

THE COURT: Okay.

12

MR. MATHENY: One other thing that I think is -- I

13 think it's relevant to the incident, your Honor, is that pod 6D

14 where the incident took place is a medium security pod at the

15 facility. The inmate that had been stabbed had been in a

16 more -- a maximum security pod for various reasons and rule

17 violations prior to this date. He had been upgraded into the

18 maximum. And then after a period of good behavior, he had been

19 downgraded into the medium unit.

20

THE COURT: Did those upgrades occur after his

21 testimony before the court at the fairness hearing, or was he

22 at maximum -- was he classified for maximum treatment when he

23 came and testified?

24

MR. MATHENY: Back in March.

25

(COUNSEL AND MR. SPARKMANN CONFERRED)

13

1

MR. MATHENY: It was close, your Honor.

2

THE COURT: Yeah. I mean, if -- I tell what you, I'll

3 allow you to go ahead and finish yours and I'll get

4 Mr. Sparkmann up and we can ask him questions, because he

5 probably does have more information.

6

MR. MATHENY: Yes, your Honor. And as I understand

7 it, he had been in the maximum unit; and then over a period of

8 I think 12 months of good behavior, if you will, that's when he

9 was downgraded to the medium security.

10

Also important to that -- and the court may be aware

11 and this is, of course, something that Mr. Sparkmann can

12 explain better than I, but when -- when certain inmates are not

13 supposed to be put together with other inmates for whatever

14 reason, when they tag them as not supposed to be in the same

15 unit or, obviously, not in the same cell, then that's noted in

16 their file. And there was no notation in the file for these

17 two gentlemen that were involved in the altercation that they

18 should not be in the same pod together.

19

And, in fact, the -- as I understand it, the inmate

20 who did the -- who actually stabbed the other inmate had no

21 prior incidents that would have -- would have raised -- or

22 would have caused concern about him being in that particular

23 pod.

24

As to the -- and I'm sorry. I'm going to move on from

25 the -- that incident and address a couple of the other things

14

1 that Mr. Owens had raised.

2

Mr. Sparkmann, of course, can testify to this better

3 than I can, but he has brought the statistical and the data

4 printouts for the Walnut Grove facility which is broken down to

5 several pages of different kinds of incidents and things such

6 as searches for weapons, findings of weapons, contraband, uses

7 of force, several different types of statistical data, and can

8 explain to the court the types of incidents that have been

9 reported and that have been going -- the information dates back

10 from July of last year and going forward to April of this year.

11

The May data is not available yet because it's not

12 reported until the 10th of the month after. But he has that

13 information and could share that with the court which I think

14 would shed light on the important issue of the notion that

15 Walnut Grove has somehow become a more dangerous place or that

16 there's been more incidents following the consent decree as

17 opposed to prior to the consent decree and I think would shed

18 some light on that issue for your Honor.

19

The third thing -- and if Mr. Sparkmann had the best

20 information about my prior two subjects, this would definitely

21 qualify. But he has been working closely with Mr. Martin, the

22 plaintiffs' expert that Mr. Owens mentioned, in addressing both

23 the -- Mr. Martin's report and the staffing issues and the

24 suicide prevention issues. He has been working with him on

25 that.

15

1

And Mr. Sparkmann has also been involved in what the

2 court is aware of, as we've discussed at prior hearings, but

3 the fact that GEO's contract has been terminated and a new

4 company will be coming in to run the facility. And

5 Mr. Sparkmann is well aware of all the details that are going

6 place -- being put in place in order to be able to make that

7 transition happen.

8

So if it would please the court and you have further

9 questions that would go into more detail on these subjects,

10 we'd be happy to present Mr. Sparkmann either to testify or

11 address the court and answer your questions as you would see

12 fit.

13

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Sparkmann, you can take

14 the stand, please, sir.

15

EMMITT L. SPARKMANN,

16 having first been duly sworn, testified as follows:

17

DIRECT EXAMINATION

18 BY MR. MATHENY:

19 Q. Would you state your name for the record, please.

20 A. Emmitt Louis Sparkmann.

21 Q. And what is your job title and position?

22 A. Deputy Commissioner for Institutions, Mississippi

23 Department of Corrections.

24 Q. And could you describe for the court what your job entails?

25 A. I'm responsible for the oversight of the three state

16
1 prisons, 15 regional prisons and four private prisons. I'm 2 also responsible for classification, records, agriculture, 3 training, the agriculture program, and facility and 4 engineering. 5 Q. What are your responsibilities as they exist today with 6 respect to the Walnut Grove facility? 7 A. I have oversight. As one of the four private prisons, I'm 8 responsible for the oversight and report directly to the 9 commissioner on those matters. 10 Q. Mr. Sparkmann, I will try to address the subject areas the 11 same way that I laid them out when I was addressing the court 12 earlier. But specifically with respect to the assault that had 13 occurred at the facility on May 25th, when did you first find 14 out about that? 15 A. I learned of it Saturday morning, on May the 26th. I was 16 notified by the warden as to what had occurred and the 17 procedures he had put in place after it occurred. And he had 18 reported -- he was reporting to me after being -- they had 19 investigated the majority of the night as to the incident. 20 Q. Can you describe for us what information was relayed to you 21 and what your follow-up was? 22 A. The information that was relayed to me from Warden Tripp 23 was that there been an altercation between two offenders. 24 Offender Goodson I later identified and Offender Hardin was the 25 victim of the assault. And that he had been stabbed in the eye

17

1 and he had one other I believe puncture wound on his back and

2 that it was a one-on-one altercation involving a gambling debt,

3 and that he had received initial treatment at the facility and

4 then at the Leake Memorial Hospital and then transported to

5 UMC.

6

It was my understanding from the warden they had contacted

7 local law enforcement to investigate. They had retrieved the

8 video that had captured the assault where they were able to

9 identify the inmate that committed the assault and he had been

10 removed from the general population and placed in segregation.

11

They had conducted a search and performed interviews,

12 preliminary interviews, to make sure it wasn't a rival gang

13 issue or something that was planned as far as being some kind

14 of facility disturbance that involved numerous other offenders.

15 From their preliminary investigation it was basically a

16 disagreement over a gambling debt, not rival security threat

17 groups. And that the offender was stable at UMC, but they were

18 concerned that the eye injury was serious.

19 Q. What did you do to follow up once you received that

20 information from Warden Tripp?

21 A. I immediately had -- well, first thing I told him was to

22 send me a summary -- a short summary of the incident as best he

23 could off the information he had so that I could relay that to

24 our general counsel and also to the commissioner of

25 corrections. And then I contacted the commissioner to report

18

1 the incident that had occurred.

2 Q. When did you first have any interaction with plaintiffs'

3 class counsel about the incident?

4 A. I believe it was Sunday I believe is the first I received

5 contact, I believe an e-mail from Attorney McDuff about the

6 situation. And through e-mails and phone conversations, we

7 were able to work out a visit for the next day, which was

8 Monday.

9 Q. And when you say "visit," what did you mean?

10 A. Because the victim was in the hospital. So, typically,

11 unless it's life-threatening, we don't allow visits. But I

12 worked with Attorney McDuff to get the phone number and then --

13 of the mother and we were able -- eventually, what we decided

14 to do was to get the phone number of the mother to the warden

15 where they could directly correspond and communicate where they

16 could arrange the visit on Monday.

17

And then subsequently Monday, I believe it was -- I never

18 could understand if it was her brother or the victim's brother

19 had came to the hospital and that caused a little bit of

20 confusion; but we were able to work that out through the warden

21 and allow both of them to visit on Monday, as I understand it.

22 Q. Did you do any follow-up reporting to law enforcement or

23 any other type of agency regarding the incident?

24 A. No, sir. That would have been the responsibility of the

25 Walnut Grove Correctional Facility as -- the law enforcement

19

1 would be Leake County Sheriff's Department is their law

2 enforcement contact.

3 Q. Would that be the typical manner in which incidents at

4 Walnut Grove would be handled?

5 A. Yes. As the -- Leake County Sheriff's Department is the

6 chief law enforcement in the county. So they would have

7 jurisdiction in that matter. Now, if they had requested that

8 MDOC assist, we would have done so.

9 Q. Have they requested that you assist?

10 A. No, sir. To my knowledge, we've had no contact with Leake

11 County Sheriff's Department.

12 Q. When did you receive a copy of the investigation report

13 that we were talking about earlier?

14 A. Well, when we were -- while myself and the warden were

15 talking, he was talking about the investigation. I told him if

16 at all possible, I would like to have a preliminary

17 investigation as early as Tuesday so we could review it and see

18 if there were other measures that we needed to take in the

19 matter. And so I received that I believe -- I believe that I

20 received it this morning I believe.

21

MR. MATHENY: Your Honor, I wasn't sure if you wanted

22 me to ask him about all the subject areas or if you wanted to

23 break them --

24

THE COURT: You can proceed as you wish.

25

MR. MATHENY: Okay.

20

1 BY MR. MATHENY:

2 Q. Let me also ask you, Mr. Sparkmann, about the monthly

3 statistical reporting that you get from the Walnut Grove

4 facility. Can you describe how that works?

5 A. Each one of our facilities in the Institution Division, the

6 private prisons, the state prisons and the regional prisons,

7 are all required to submit a monthly report with specified data

8 that they have to report in. We also have -- it's a national

9 database that we compile the -- that's identified certain

10 categories that we use statistical analysis that are basically

11 developed on a national model, basically what we call the

12 counting procedures, are the same that's used everywhere

13 because you need to be comparing apples to apples.

14

So each month each facility submits a monthly report that

15 includes their staffing, miles driven, medical incidents,

16 assaults, searches, education programs they're offering. It

17 just gives you a picture of the facility and what's going on,

18 grievances. It's a very comprehensive report. I believe

19 it's --

20 Q. Lots of different -- lots of different areas.

21 A. Yes, sir.

22

MR. MATHENY: Your Honor, if I could approach the

23 witness.

24

THE COURT: Yes, you may.

25

MR. MATHENY: I have a copy for your Honor as well.

21

1

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

2

(DOCUMENT TENDERED TO THE COURT AND WITNESS)

3 BY MR. MATHENY:

4 Q. Mr. Sparkmann, what is the document I just handed to you?

5 A. It's the Mississippi Department of Corrections monthly

6 report for the Walnut Grove Correctional Facility with data

7 from July 2011 through May 2012.

8 Q. And is this a --

9 A. I mean through April. I'm sorry. May hadn't --

10 Q. April 2012?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Is this a document that MDOC prepared itself?

13 A. No, sir. What happens is the facility staff prepare and

14 enter the data, and then it's reviewed by the MDOC, Mississippi

15 Department of Corrections, compliance officer that's on site.

16 Q. How is it transmitted to you, if you know?

17 A. It's electronically. It's on one of our electronic

18 databases. This has been shared previously. Prior to

19 Mr. Martin's site visit on May 8th, I shared this information.

20 And also he's requested -- we have what we call an

21 Extraordinary Occurrence Report that any kind of out of the

22 ordinary occurrence that occurs at the facility has to be

23 generated. And we shared those with him for a specific time

24 frame, I believe from April the 10th through May the 9th, I

25 believe, from my office so he could look at different -- the

22

1 data and what was occurring at the facility.

2 Q. You're referring to Mr. Martin, the plaintiffs' expert in

3 this matter.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. If you would, could you turn to page 14.

6

(COMPLIED WITH REQUEST)

7 Q. When it comes to issues such as protection from harm and

8 staffing and the like, which of the categories in this

9 statistical data is most relevant for you when evaluating

10 what's going on at Walnut Grove?

11 A. Well, you use a lot of data to determine what's going on.

12 The first thing -- the reason it's across months is I want to

13 look at what changes from month to month. And I personally

14 review the monthly reports each month and -- to determine

15 whether -- if there's a reason, if there's a spike in a certain

16 area. Or if we've identified a problem, is it being addressed?

17 Has it been decreased?

18

But, you know, you look at -- you have your medical. You

19 want to know -- identify is medical services being provided.

20 Escapes, of course, is very important for public safety. As

21 you go through, looking at your assaults at the prison based on

22 were they just assaults where there was a victim or was there

23 fights, one-on-one fights? Were there weapons involved, with a

24 weapon? Were there serious injury?

25

And that's where -- when you start on page 14, it's more of

23
1 the database that we're submitting into the national database 2 to track. Sexual misconduct, whether staff assaults -- because 3 that's an indication of a problem. You want to ensure about 4 your -- of course, anytime there would be a homicide, that 5 would be something that -6 Q. Are there categories of data listed there that are 7 specifically, in your belief, more relevant to issues like 8 inmate-on-inmate violence? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And what are those? 11 A. The ones I would really be very concerned about, of course, 12 are the -- the -- where you have the assaults with serious 13 injury. 14 Q. Could you point out what number that is so we could follow 15 along. 16 A. Okay. That would be -- with serious injury would be 2110. 17 Q. What page is that on? 18 A. Page 15. I'm sorry. 19 Q. 2110 on page 15? 20 A. Yes, sir. 21 Q. Okay. And what do the reporting figures there -- what do 22 those explain for us? 23 A. That tells us across -- of course, you've got reporting 24 from July 2011, and that the highest month during that period 25 was three. Across, there's never been any higher than three

24
1 within that time frame. 2 Q. Are there other areas that are important to being able to 3 assess issues with inmate on inmate? 4 A. Yes, you have inmate-on-inmate victims, inmate-on-inmate 5 assaults without serious injury, inmate-on-inmate fights, 6 inmate-on-inmate assaults by throwing substances. And that's 7 very -- you look at that because if inmates' going by another 8 cell, because sometimes that will lead to more serious 9 assaults. Then you have the staff assaults. 10 Q. And, just generally, in each category where they have a box 11 and a date listed, the number in there, does that represent the 12 number of reported incidents for each category? 13 A. Yes, sir. 14 Q. There are several of the categories that I see, 15 particularly on page 15, that talk about inmate incidents or 16 inmate-on-inmate incidents. Are there any other categories on 17 here that would be important to you in tracking that type of 18 activity that takes place at Walnut Grove? 19 A. Yes. You'd want to look at their use -- your uses of 20 force, because that's -- the higher the use of force, that 21 would indicate that they're having some disruptive activity. 22 What -- whatever the cause, you want to look at reasons for 23 that. Not to say it's something that's wrong, but you want to 24 look at anytime there's a spike. You want to look at 25 disruptive events.

25

1

You monitor your drug test, if there's been an increase in

2 drug -- positive drug tests, because that indicates there's a

3 lot of contrabands coming into the facility. You want to

4 ensure that staff are doing their searches, and with -- with

5 that number of searches, are there a number of weapons being

6 found. An indication to me that there may be the possibility

7 for potential violence is if all of a sudden you find a spike

8 in the finding of weapons. Whether it be there hadn't been any

9 assaults, but you've got weapons, maybe that's a planned

10 disturbance. Or if you've got assaults but they're finding a

11 lot of weapons, that means you've got a contraband control

12 problem.

13

All of those are key indicators that an experienced

14 facility administrator or central office person would look at

15 to see how the facility is operating and where the problem

16 areas are.

17 Q. And, again, you've provided this data with respect to

18 Walnut Grove to plaintiffs' expert in the past several months.

19 Is that correct?

20 A. Well, I provided him prior to the site visit, which that

21 way he could have measured from -- because this is a continuing

22 report of July through December. So he would have had the data

23 from July through I believe April. So he should have this -- I

24 believe he has this report.

25 Q. When was the site visit you were referring to?

26

1 A. I believe that was on May the 8th, I believe is when we had

2 the site visit.

3 Q. What did the site visit entail? What did you guys do?

4 A. Well, the first thing we did was had a prebriefing with the

5 warden and the chief of security. Just basically, Mr. Martin

6 outlined his basic -- how he as an expert operated and how --

7 what his procedures were. Then we went through the entire

8 facility.

9

He conducted private interviews with -- spontaneous

10 interviews and also with inmates identified. And I don't know

11 this for sure, but I believe for some interviews that names he

12 already had, but he did some spontaneous interviews also.

13

And during our tour of the facility he asked a lot of

14 questions, asking about what he observed. And then we had a

15 debriefing then that day and then continued the next day where

16 I -- we -- he and I went through the entire consent decree,

17 took what information we gathered from the on-site visit we

18 both made to kind of formulate a plan on how we'd proceed from

19 them.

20

Talked with the Mississippi Department of Corrections

21 general counsel, also with our -- because of our -- the data

22 we're able to obtain, I wanted him -- I introduced him to our

23 management information system kind of the person that does --

24 coordinates gathering the data for me so that he'd have -- know

25 that person personally and could assist him as he had requests

27

1 for documents.

2

And then he visited with the commissioner for a short

3 period of time just about what he intended, how he intended to

4 perform his duties for the court.

5 Q. What issues or types of issues did Mr. Martin identify that

6 you all needed to start working on?

7 A. Well, a couple of things that we felt like could be

8 addressed were immediately addressed. One was that the close

9 custody offenders were being -- receiving their meals in their

10 cell. And --

11 Q. I apologize. I hate to interrupt. When you say "close

12 custody," what does that mean?

13 A. That's the highest custody level that you can be. It's

14 not -- you have an administrative segregation status, but close

15 custody is the highest custody that you can be. And they had

16 been feeding those individuals, even though they were general

17 population offenders, in their cells.

18

And we talked about, you know, what reasons we couldn't

19 feed them in a group setting. And it was agreed that the

20 warden, Warden Brick Tripp, would initiate -- implement

21 immediately where they could be fed in a group setting. And he

22 agreed to do that, and it was implemented in the next few days.

23

We also identified that suicide-- basically, there was a

24 large number of inmates expressing an intent to do self-harm to

25 themselves. And Mr. Martin and I talked about that. And it

28

1 was a real concern, the system in place that -- it was

2 difficult for staff to identify those that had serious intent

3 to harm themselves versus those that were attempting to

4 manipulate housing and their situation or their status. And

5 there wasn't really an interdisciplinary team that could --

6 that was in place that had what we viewed as to do a correct

7 assessment, initial assessment and then a follow-up assessment

8 to identify those that had serious issues versus those that

9 were trying to manipulate.

10

So that became one of our -- one of our -- probably the

11 first thing that we identified needed to be addressed, that we

12 needed to totally revisit our suicide prevention plan at the

13 facility. And we talked about how we were going to do that.

14 Q. Let's talk about that in a little bit more detail. Since

15 the site visit and the discussion -- the initial discussions

16 with Mr. Martin, what have you all done to put in effect or

17 improve the suicide prevention issues?

18 A. Well, one, because it is the population that we had and

19 that the Oakley had, through a lot of revisions in their

20 suicide prevention, instead of really reinventing the wheel, so

21 to speak, we determined let's start out with Oakley's suicide

22 prevention plan and then we could modify, because our

23 population at Walnut Grove is a lot larger population.

24 Q. You're referring to the Oakley Training School?

25 A. Yes.

29

1 Q. Okay. So we obtained the copy of that suicide prevention

2 plan. And I called a meeting -- or general counsel called a

3 meeting, but I was able to get the parties together, Health

4 Assurance, which is -- provides medical, the GEO Group warden

5 and a select member of his staff, the private prison MDOC

6 official, myself, and the MDOC Office of Medical Compliance.

7 And we went through suicide prevention -- Oakley suicide

8 prevention policy, talked about what they had in place, issues,

9 what we would have to do to implement -- to be able to

10 implement it almost in its entirety.

11

Then we took it back, basically edited it to become a

12 Mississippi Department of Corrections suicide prevention plan

13 with forms -- forms, policies. And I believe it was Friday I

14 disseminated it out to the -- all the individuals that were in

15 the planning phase. And, hopefully, this week we'll have their

16 comments back on the draft document to begin.

17 Q. When you say individuals involved in the planning phase,

18 who are you referring?

19 A. Well, the initial planning and -- was our Office of Medical

20 Compliance, Mississippi Department of Corrections, Health

21 Assurance, GEO, the facility administration. We didn't involve

22 corporate, of course, because as of July the 2nd at midnight

23 they'll no longer be involved, but we wanted -- because the

24 facility is familiar with what the operations are now, to have

25 their input as to what the suicide prevention plan would be.

30

1 Q. So what is the current status of the new suicide prevention

2 procedures?

3 A. I'm waiting on comments to the draft that was disseminated

4 to those individuals. And then once I receive that, I'll share

5 it with the plaintiffs' expert and also the defendants' expert,

6 have those -- get their review and comments. My goal is to

7 have that plan finalized in the next week to ten days so we --

8 when the new operator comes in on July the 2nd, we can begin

9 training with a new vendor to put this in place.

10 Q. Could you explain to the court -- you had mentioned that as

11 of July 2nd GEO would be terminated. Can you explain where

12 MDOC is in that process and how it got there?

13 A. Yes. We requested proposals from the vendors that we were

14 aware of that offer services, both medical, mental health and

15 also prison operations. Some do it all and some just one

16 specific area, some just medical and some mental health. And

17 we closed out -- all the proposals had to be in Friday, May the

18 25th. Those proposals are in.

19

We have interviews scheduled for two of the major operators

20 this week, tomorrow and then Thursday. And, hopefully, the

21 commissioner will make a decision on the operator by Friday.

22 We're hopeful for that, optimistic on who we'll begin

23 negotiations with to work out an agreement. And then we'll do

24 a transition for approximately 30 days.

25 Q. What -- to the best of your knowledge, what do you

31

1 anticipate being part of this transition period that will be

2 upcoming?

3 A. Well, the main, to me, something that we'll have to work

4 through is we have staffing pattern based off what the

5 performance evaluation research to establish what the cost per

6 day can be for the state. It's been -- cost -- Planning

7 Evaluation Expenditure Research Division that works for the

8 legislature.

9

So one of the things we'll have to determine when we begin

10 our negotiations in -- and I've already asked Mr. Martin to be

11 involved and Dr. Austin involved in determine what the staffing

12 needs to be at the facility to provide a safe environment as to

13 where we come in and say, It's going to take this much more.

14

And that may exceed what PEER has established the cost per

15 day and then -- but we'll have to do that to honor the court's

16 decision and the consent decree that we have an agreed

17 staffing. But we'd all sit down at the table and talk about

18 staffing and where staff -- what -- the amount of staff we're

19 going to need to operate a safe prison.

20 Q. And the staffing issue -- not to backtrack too far, by the

21 staffing issue is another issue that Mr. Martin had brought up

22 following his site visit. Right?

23 A. The two -- you know, it's -- we had to establish a

24 beginning point. And the two issues that I -- I believe he

25 will agree with me that we agreed upon was the two most

32

1 important issues were the suicide prevention and the staffing.

2 And he -- and we talked about -- he took the information that I

3 gave him from the monthly report, from Extraordinary Occurrence

4 Reports that I described. And he was able to pinpoint certain

5 housing units in the facility where the majority of the

6 incidents occurred. And I believe those incidents were housing

7 unit 4 and housing unit 8.

8

And I relayed that -- shared his report with the warden of

9 the facility. Of course, GEO is discontinuing operations. So

10 even if they hired additional staff, they wouldn't be trained

11 and on board by the -- before they left. But we talked about

12 redeploying staff. And the warden has already done that to

13 where the protective custody unit is on 8, housing unit 8.

14 He's increased staffing there and working to increase staffing

15 at housing unit 6 (sic), because that's another housing unit

16 where they've identified that -- from what Mr. Martin and our

17 discussions are, the majority of the incidents occur in housing

18 unit 8 and housing unit 4 at the facility.

19

THE COURT: I'm sorry. I want to ask a question right

20 here at this point. You indicated that the warden or the

21 commissioner has increased the staffing right there.

22

THE WITNESS: The warden, your Honor, has deployed

23 more staff to housing unit 8 because once we shared that

24 information that more of the incidents were happening there, he

25 redeployed staff there as to make that effort.

33

1

THE COURT: Okay. Deployed more staff. Are those GEO

2 employees or are those MDOC employees?

3

THE WITNESS: GEO employees, your Honor.

4

THE COURT: Okay. So he will not have access to them

5 after June 30th or July 1 I presume unless the other -- unless

6 the other -- whoever you contract with maintains those

7 employees. Right?

8

THE WITNESS: Well, it's our intent when we negotiate

9 with the new agreement is that we have agreed staffing as part

10 of those negotiations to where in my -- and I believe it will

11 be more staff that we negotiate that into the agreement. And

12 our intent is, where we don't have that in any of our private

13 prison contracts now, that they have required staffing. And if

14 they don't meet that on not just numbers, but also the -- when

15 I say numbers of staff that are employed, staff on-site, what

16 we call mandatory posts. And if they don't man those posts,

17 there will be financial penalties. That's our intention with

18 the new agreement with the new vendor.

19

THE COURT: The warden currently is an employee of

20 GEO.

21

THE WITNESS: Yes.

22

THE COURT: So where he's found the areas understaffed

23 in the past, it's completely up to him to redeploy.

24

THE WITNESS: Basically, yes, sir. Well, what we're

25 doing right now is I've asked him to be evaluating what he felt

34

1 like if he continued as the warden what additional staff he

2 would need. He's under no obligation. He's told me he's

3 looking at that, to what improved staff -- what would improve

4 staffing for the facility. And I believe with the input he

5 provides, my knowledge of the facility and Mr. Martin's

6 knowledge, that we can come with a staffing that will make the

7 facility safer.

8

THE COURT: Other than potential civil liability

9 against the warden and/or GEO, what other incentive does he

10 have to redeploy staff or, I mean -- obviously, areas became at

11 some point in time even in the past understaffed, and I presume

12 this warden has stayed in place in everything else. Now that

13 this has occurred, he's decided I presume that areas need to

14 be -- that staff need to be redeployed. Is there any pressure

15 from MDOC or anything that sort of guides his behavior?

16

THE WITNESS: All we, your Honor, can -- it's just

17 standard terms of the agreement that they're to provide a safe

18 facility. Specific staffing requirements, no, sir, there's not

19 any in the agreement that we have right now.

20

THE COURT: And what is MDOC -- what has MDOC done

21 with the warden and/or GEO since getting the signed-off consent

22 decree? Has there been any specific discussions between the

23 two entities?

24

THE WITNESS: The -- with GEO -- with us discontinuing

25 operations, there wouldn't have been any time to -- even if

35

1 there had been an agreement, for them to have additional staff

2 on board.

3

THE COURT: What has MDOC done with respect to GEO to

4 make sure that -- I'm sorry. Wrong paper I held up -- to make

5 sure that GEO understood what was coming down the pike? I

6 realize portions of the consent decree says, you know, within

7 90 days, and, obviously, that takes you past July 1. But,

8 obviously, the spirit I believe of the agreement was that some

9 things would I guess occur immediately, because it says "at all

10 times prisoners will be provided a reasonably safe living

11 condition and will be protected from violence." That's at all

12 times regardless if the contract ended on June 30th or

13 whatever.

14

So right now GEO has to make sure that the inmates are

15 reasonably protected. Any discussions between MDOC and GEO

16 about the agreement as it exists -- or as it existed on

17 March 26th forward? I think it was March 26th.

18

THE WITNESS: I have shared the recommendation to

19 Mr. Martin and received a commitment from the warden to try to

20 implement those staffing recommendations.

21

THE COURT: Okay. You may proceed, Mr. Matheny.

22

MR. MATHENY: I just wanted to follow up for just a

23 second on that point.

24 BY MR. MATHENY:

25 Q. When the new contract is put in place, are there incentives

36
1 or penalties that you anticipate being part of the new contract 2 that would be consistent with obligations under the consent 3 decree? 4 A. Yes. It's our intent that staffing will be a staffing that 5 where the plaintiffs' expert, the defendants' expert, myself 6 and the new operator will come to an agreement on what the 7 staffing should be. And that will be a part of the new 8 agreement. And then if they don't meet those staffing 9 requirements, there will be financial penalties. 10 Q. Penalties to the new operator. 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. Aside from the staffing implementations that you've already 13 mentioned, are there other things that have been implemented 14 right away at Walnut Grove in response to the discussions with 15 the plaintiffs' expert about the issues? 16 A. Well, first, we went through -- myself and the plaintiffs' 17 expert went through the entire consent decree and identified 18 things that couldn't be really done until we had a new operator 19 in place. One of the situations, there was a concern that 20 based on an inmate's behavior that maybe the housing unit was 21 placed on what we call lockdown. And we -- we voiced that 22 concern to the warden and told him it would not be tolerated 23 and it would be monitored closely. And, to my knowledge, since 24 that conversation, there's -- there hasn't been a problem 25 there, or I haven't received any complaints.

37

1

Mr. Martin in his interviews had heard concerns voiced by

2 the offender population that that was something that was being

3 done. So it wasn't a lockdown, but where inmates were placed

4 basically on -- their activities were limited for like a

5 weekend or whatever. So we put the warden on notice that that

6 was something that we were aware of complaints and we were

7 going to be monitoring it very closely.

8 Q. What about the 17-and-under inmates that are housed out?

9 What changes, if any, has occurred with respect to them?

10 A. The warden has taken the proactive approach and has removed

11 them, that they were not scattered. They're placed in one

12 housing unit so they can be monitored more closely, in 7C,

13 housing unit 7C.

14 Q. Is that unit separate and apart from other parts of the

15 facility?

16 A. It's a separate housing unit, but it's a part of the

17 facility.

18 Q. Are there any other changes that have been made in response

19 to discussions with the plaintiffs' expert about the issues

20 that we've been talking about?

21 A. Primarily, what was -- we wanted to focus on the two main

22 issues that we identified during -- from the statistical

23 reports that Mr. Martin had reviewed, based on what our

24 conversations, our personal observations and we felt like move

25 on those things that we could actually have an impact on

38

1 immediately. And we felt like those were the two critical

2 issues that were causing the most problems at the facility was

3 the suicide prevention plan and the staffing.

4 Q. What involvement, if any, has Dr. Austin had with the

5 process? Let me ask it better. Who is Dr. Austin? Explain

6 for the court, who is Dr. Austin and what involvement has he

7 had in the process?

8 A. Dr. James Austin is the defendants' expert, as I understand

9 it. And his involvement is that he's reviewed the suicide

10 prevention plan. He made the same recommendations that it

11 needed to be more detailed, needed to be more -- have a more --

12 interdisciplinary team, which we all recognized upon reviewing

13 and discussions of what could do -- what we could do to improve

14 that.

15

He'll be looking at as far as classifications, which that's

16 one of the issues that we looked at in this instance where the

17 two offenders classified correctly based upon objective

18 classification. He hasn't been able to make a scheduled site

19 visit. He has previously visited Walnut Grove; whereas,

20 Mr. Martin, as I understand it, I believe that was his first

21 site visit.

22 Q. I hate to backtrack, but I had overlooked this earlier and

23 I do want to go back and make sure that we covered all the

24 details about the assault incident that we had been talking

25 about. I guess -- I think this is important to discuss because

39

1 earlier I had presented to the court some information about the

2 classification of the inmates that were involved.

3

Can you just briefly describe what the classification

4 system is? How did they get -- how did they end up in medium

5 or maximum security?

6 A. What -- your Honor, what we have is what we call objective

7 classification that it's validated. It's been determined

8 reliable. It's a system we use. And we have different custody

9 levels. There's minimum community custody, which offenders can

10 be -- work in the community without direct correctional staff

11 supervision. Then we have minimum restricted, which they are

12 out -- allowed to work what we say outside the fence without --

13 not being under the gun, but they have to be correctional --

14 under correctional supervision.

15

Medium custody is offenders that they -- it's really the --

16 the majority of our offenders are medium custody. And anytime

17 they're outside the fence, they have to be under the gun. Then

18 our highest custody is close custody which they require real

19 close supervision when they're doing jobs, even they should be

20 under direct observation at all times.

21

Then you have different statuses. You have protective

22 custody status, which is not a -- you can be any of the

23 custodies and be on protective custody. And you have

24 administrative segregation status that is an inmate that he has

25 committed such a serious rule infraction that he has to be

40

1 isolated from the other offenders. And then -- which it's not

2 applicable to Walnut Grove, then there's death row.

3

And it's a scoring system that's based on their age, their

4 crime. Have they had a history of escape, a history of

5 violence against other offenders, rule violation reports inside

6 prison. And there's a scoring mechanism that you reach. And

7 once you -- if you score 11 points, you would be close custody.

8 I believe it's between five and ten is medium custody, and

9 below five is minimum.

10

But there's certain restrictions. A good example, a sex

11 offender might score out with a two, but he couldn't be

12 working -- he couldn't be a minimum community. It would have

13 to be a nonviolent crime. And then it's electronically scored.

14

And we do that annual reclassification. It's scheduled

15 every year from the date of entry; but if something changes, if

16 an inmate -- a good example, the inmate that committed the

17 assault, if he's found guilty of that, that would initiate a

18 reclassification to where he would score because he had an

19 assaulted rule violation report. That would kick his scores

20 up.

21 Q. And let me ask you, after you were notified of the incident

22 over the weekend with the assault, did you have an opportunity

23 to look into the classification for the two inmates that were

24 involved in the incident?

25 A. Yes.

41

1 Q. And what, if anything -- what did you find as to whether or

2 not they had been appropriately classified per the policy for

3 that particular unit?

4 A. Based on the information I had, the assailant had been

5 there since January and he was initially classified medium. He

6 had no incident reports. So he fell into the medium custody

7 range. Offender Hardin had had some serious rule violation

8 reports, possessions of weapons back in 2010, I believe two

9 occasions. And that kicks your score up. But he had clear

10 disciplinary rule violation reports for a good number of

11 months. So we, in prison terminology --

12 Q. When you say "clear," what does that mean?

13 A. No rule infractions. And when -- in prison terminology,

14 what we use, those points roll off after a period of time. So

15 it rewards in positive behavior. So it scores so many points

16 for rule violation reports typically for a year. If it's an

17 assaulted offense, it can go for an extended period of time.

18

But because of that, his objective score was lowered and he

19 was able to reach the medium custody range. So then he was --

20 he qualified to go from close custody to medium custody.

21

MR. MATHENY: One moment.

22

(PAUSE)

23

MR. MATHENY: That's all the questions I have.

24

THE COURT: Okay. Does the plaintiff have any

25 questions of this witness?

42

1

MR. MCDUFF: Yes, your Honor.

2

THE COURT: Okay.

3

CROSS-EXAMINATION

4 BY MR. MCDUFF:

5 Q. Afternoon, Mr. Sparkmann.

6 A. Good afternoon.

7 Q. Was Warden Tripp given a copy of the consent decree?

8 A. Yes, sir.

9 Q. Do you know if anyone else in GEO was given a copy? Did

10 you all transmit one to any other officers of the GEO or to its

11 corporate headquarters?

12 A. I -- I couldn't say what our legal provided them.

13 Q. Okay. Do you know if Warden Tripp -- did he tell you if he

14 provided a copy of it to GEO management?

15 A. No, sir.

16 Q. Okay. He didn't tell you.

17 A. No, sir.

18 Q. Okay. All right. Now, the -- you talked about the

19 deployment of additional staff to zones -- to units 4 and 8.

20 Is that staff that was taken off of other units to be moved to

21 those particular units?

22 A. Well, what Mr. Martin during his walk-through observed is

23 there's one unit I believe that has seven offenders that are

24 long-term segregation, which ties up a good number of staff.

25 And he talked about being able if we could change those -- move

43

1 those inmates into -- just basically assimilate those into an

2 existing segregation unit, that they could take that staff and

3 deploy them. That was one of the ideas he had.

4

And I basically talked to Warden Tripp about that. And I'm

5 sure he has to get approval from his corporate officials before

6 he can do that, but that was some of the -- with the existing

7 staff, talking about where we could redeploy staff by moving.

8

And even as we went further into it, the close observation

9 unit, moving some of maybe -- if it was -- if we were able to

10 implement the suicide prevention plan -- this wouldn't be while

11 GEO was operating it, but it changed to how we identified

12 those -- how we addressed the suicide or self-harm gestures,

13 that that might make more staff available.

14 Q. Okay. So I just want to make clear that when you earlier

15 referred to deployment of additional staff, you were talking

16 about movement of staff consistent with the recommendations of

17 the plaintiffs' expert, Mr. Martin.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Okay. But not -- GEO has not hired any additional staff,

20 have they?

21 A. No, sir.

22 Q. Okay. And am I correct that GEO has an obligation under

23 the contract to provide a safe and secure prison, but that GEO

24 makes the decision about how many people to hire? Is that

25 correct?

44
1 A. That's correct, sir. 2 Q. Okay. And MDOC is responsible under the consent decree, 3 but GEO makes the decision about how many people to hire. 4 A. That's correct. 5 Q. Now, Mr. Martin -6 A. If I could say. 7 Q. Yes. 8 A. Under the consent decree, if we were -- once a staffing 9 plan is agreed upon, then that would be -- that was where we 10 would have to -- whoever the operator is, if it had continued 11 to be GEO, which it's not going to be, there would have had to 12 have been an amendment to the contract to incorporate that 13 agreed upon staffing because we'd have a court order there. 14 Q. I understand. I want to come back to that in a minute. 15 But for purposes of the next month and for purposes of the past 16 however long GEO's been operating this prison, GEO's been the 17 one that makes the decision about how many people to hire. 18 Right? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. And Mr. Martin did a report on May the 17th that was shared 21 with both parties, and in there on page 3 he said -- do you 22 have a copy of it? 23 A. Yes, sir. 24 Q. Okay. On the fourth line he said, "The shift rosters 25 reviewed for a seven-day cycle in April indicate that only on

45
1 rare occasions are all housing zones in the pods fully 2 staffed." Do you agree with that statement? 3 A. Yes, sir. 4 Q. And do you agree that that statement is reflective not 5 simply of that seven-day cycle in April, but of conditions 6 generally since GEO has been in charge of that prison? 7 A. There was never a determined staffing as to how many had to 8 be in the housing unit. I agree with that. 9 Q. And do you agree that not on that seven-day cycle in April 10 but prior to that seven-day cycle and since that seven-day 11 cycle, that only on rare occasions are all housing zones in 12 pods fully staffed? 13 A. I couldn't because I hadn't -- I'd have to go on -- because 14 I know we had the staffing rosters, but I don't have the 15 staffing prior to that. So I couldn't testify to that. 16 Q. What about since then? 17 A. The -- there has been some changes in that housing unit 8 18 from my understanding from the warden the staffing has 19 increased. 20 Q. Okay. But what he says here is that only on rare occasions 21 are all housing zones in a pod fully staffed. Would you agree 22 that that's the condition at the current time? 23 A. Well, when we say "fully staffed," I -- what I would 24 testify to is that there is not a staff member present for each 25 zone.

46
1 Q. Okay. 2 A. It hasn't been established that that's the staffing 3 requirement. 4 Q. That it hasn't been established by contract. 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. That's what you're saying. 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Okay. But -9 A. Or any other document that established that there had to be 10 a staffing person in each zone -- in each housing unit. 11 Q. Okay. Now, the -- the last sentence in that paragraph, 12 Mr. Martin says, "Moreover, the facility routinely operates 13 without a dedicated cadre of utility officers necessary for a 14 variety of support service functions such as recreation, 15 escorting and other ancillary areas of the facility." Do you 16 agree with that statement? 17 A. Yes, sir. 18 Q. Now, Mr. Sparkmann, do you agree that the understaffing 19 described by Mr. Martin contributed to the incident of last 20 Friday where Mr. Hardin was stabbed in the eye? 21 A. I couldn't say that that contributed to it because even if 22 you would have had someone right there, from what I -- what I 23 recollect as the -- how the incident occurred, I don't believe 24 a -- that would have prevented it. That's just speculation 25 because --

47
1 Q. Right. 2 A. -- he came up without any prior notice and from -- and, 3 again, I'm testifying from the reports I've received. And that 4 he assaulted without any warning of any kind. And so it would 5 have been very unlikely that someone could have prevented the 6 assault. 7 Q. Okay. But according to the investigation that you've 8 received, no guard was present on the zone at the time the 9 stabbing occurred. Is that right? 10 A. That's correct, but I can't testify that if one had been 11 present that that would have stopped the assault. 12 Q. Sure. But I gather that assaults generally occur less 13 frequently if a guard is present than if a guard is not 14 present. Do you agree with that? 15 A. It's according to the situation. I'd have to testify to 16 that. 17 Q. I'm asking generally. Generally speaking. 18 A. Well, generally, and when you -- if you take that 19 situation, there is a -- the person was being observed, because 20 someone saw the assault occur. 21 Q. Yes. But in terms of a guard being present on the zone, an 22 assault is less likely -- is less likely to occur than if a 23 guard is not present. Would you agree with that statement? 24 A. I'd have to say yes. 25 Q. Okay. With respect to the staffing, I'm -- GEO has I guess

48
1 one more month where they're operating Walnut Grove. Are there 2 payments that will be made to GEO under the contract that will 3 be made after July 1 -4 A. I'm not sure. 5 Q. -- for services previously rendered? In other words, GEO I 6 assume gets paid every so often under the contract. Is that 7 right? 8 A. My understanding of the contract is they're paid a per diem 9 for how many inmates are at the facility on a given day. 10 Q. And their contract requires them to operate a safe and 11 secure facility. 12 A. That's correct. 13 Q. Do you know whether any payments are made after the fact? 14 In other words, they'll be leaving on June 30th I guess. Will 15 some money still be owed by MDOC to GEO after July 1? 16 A. They will bill the department of corrections because 17 they're billed on a monthly basis. 18 Q. Okay. 19 A. So, as I understand it, they would bill at later date for 20 June 1st through June -- I guess through July the 2nd at 21 midnight, because there's only two days in that month. 22 Q. Given the sort of understaffing or inadequate staffing 23 that's described by Mr. Martin in his report, could the MDOC 24 tell GEO that in order to fulfill its requirement of providing 25 a safe and secure facility during these remaining 30 days it

49
1 needs to send some additional personnel from some of its other 2 corporate operations to help out at Walnut Grove during the 3 last month? 4 A. I don't believe we'd have any -- they'd have any 5 contractual obligation. 6 Q. Well, they do have a contractual obligation to provide a 7 safe and secure facility, don't they? 8 A. Well, I don't -- I'm not an attorney, but I don't -- it 9 doesn't require staffing and I -- I'm -- I couldn't answer if 10 you could require them to or not. That's something legal would 11 have to advise me on. 12 Q. Okay. The recommendations that Mr. Martin made about 13 redeployment, particularly to zone 4 -- or to pod 4, the -14 when were those accomplished? Do you know? 15 A. I didn't -- I didn't said they'd accomplished zone 4. 16 Q. I thought you did? 17 A. I said housing unit 8. 18 Q. And I thought you said 8 and 4. 19 A. I said I recommended and discussed with Warden Tripp about 20 housing unit 4, but that hadn't been implemented yet. 21 Q. Okay. Is he going to be implementing that recommendation? 22 A. He's attempting to get approval, as I understand it. 23 Q. From GEO? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. But did you say this: Have more personnel been assigned to

50
1 zone 8 as to this point? 2 A. That's what I -- he has informed me of that. 3 Q. That has happened. 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And he's waiting on approval for -- why does he have to 6 have approval from corporate to move staff from one zone to 7 another? Do you know? 8 A. Well, anytime you're shifting staff, because it -- that 9 involves moving inmates from another housing unit, the part of 10 the plan Mr. Martin had -- was closing down a housing unit, 11 moving inmates into another area, I'm sure they want to look at 12 the liability situation on moving those offenders into another 13 housing unit. 14 Q. Do you know how long ago he contacted corporate about the 15 particular recommendation of increasing this -- of deploying 16 staff from one unit to unit 4? 17 A. No, sir. 18 Q. And do you have any idea from Warden Tripp as to when he 19 expects to hear back from the corporate headquarters about 20 that? 21 A. I have not received a date. 22 Q. Did he give you any suggestion of when he would hear? 23 A. No, sir. 24 Q. Okay. Mr. Sparkmann, regarding the prisoners who are under 25 18 --

51
1 A. Yes, sir. 2 Q. -- the consent decree, I believe, provides that by December 3 they will be moved to Central Mississippi Correctional 4 Facility. Is that right? 5 A. That's correct, sir. 6 Q. Is there a possibility that they can be moved sooner in 7 terms of preparation of CMCF? 8 A. Are you -- in my opinion? 9 Q. Yes. 10 A. No, sir. 11 Q. Okay. 12 A. And for these reasons, we've got to hire staff. There's 13 got to be some physical plant modifications, that -- we're 14 going to have to create positions. Those renovations will 15 take -- and then we're going to have to train staff because -16 to -- because -- well, the decision's been made that this is 17 going to be a totally different operation, policies and 18 procedures. So that's going to take time there. 19 Q. Now, in terms of the current housing unit, you mentioned 20 they -- are they now all in unit 7C? 21 A. Yes, sir. 22 Q. Are any inmates who are older than 17 in unit 7C? 23 A. I can't testify. I don't believe there are, but I couldn't 24 say that for a fact. 25 Q. Okay. Is that something you can check on --

52
1 A. Yes. 2 Q. -- and report back to us about? 3 A. Yes, sir. 4 Q. And you said that in terms of the suicide prevention 5 policies, that you expect comment back from the people who are 6 reviewing it within a week to ten days. Is that right? 7 A. I'm hoping to have the comments back from the ones that 8 were in the initial meeting this week. And then I want to 9 share it with the plaintiffs' expert and also the defendants' 10 expert, have their comments before we move any further forward. 11 Q. And do you have any sort of rough idea of when that suicide 12 prevention plan can actually be implemented? 13 A. I'm -- it's going to require the new operator, because 14 we're going to have -- it's going -- they're going to have to 15 be trained. And from what -- studying the policy from Oakley 16 juvenile, it's an eight-hour training. So it will take a 17 period of time to get those trained. We're -- also it's going 18 to require 24/7 mental health at the psychologist level 19 available. So I -- I anticipate fully implemented, I'm 20 optimistic, August the 1st. I'm -- that's my -- that's my 21 goal. 22 Q. Okay. And is there going to be a new medical provider at 23 Walnut Grove? 24 A. I'm not -- right now the individuals -- the group we're 25 involved in talking about implementation and has agreed in

53
1 principle to what we talked about with the Oakley policy is 2 Health Assurance. 3 Q. That's Health Assurance. And is their contract -- I guess 4 I'm wondering, is their contract up for renewal just as GEO's 5 contract would have been? 6 A. I believe it's -- I believe it's existing and continues. 7 So I don't believe there's any intention of changing it. 8 Q. Okay. Let me go back to, if I can, briefly to Mr. Hardin, 9 the man who was stabbed in the eye and who's in the hospital 10 now. Do you have any idea of how long he's expected to be at 11 UMC? 12 A. No, sir. 13 Q. Okay. Do you have any idea what -- whether there is a plan 14 afterwards to -- once he leaves UMC, to send him elsewhere for 15 treatment, like to the Parchman hospital or some other place? 16 A. That would be determined after the 72 hours. Well, 17 Dr. Perry, our Office of Medical Compliance, will determine 18 what his treatment plan is after his release from the hospital 19 as far as medical. 20 Q. And when you say "after 72 hours," what do you mean? 21 A. I misspoke on that because I don't believe the 72 hours 22 applies to Walnut Grove. 23 Q. Okay. Mr. Sparkmann, you were kind enough to arrange for 24 Mr. Hardin's mother to see him in the hospital. We have -25 none of us -- none of his lawyers have had a chance to visit

54
1 with him because we didn't want to interfere with her visit. 2 Would it be possible to arrange it so that someone from -- one 3 or two people from our -- from the plaintiffs' attorneys' team 4 could go visit him in the next day or so? 5 A. As long it's attorney of record. And that's what the 6 policy -- I'll sure make every attempt to work with you on 7 that. 8 Q. Thank you very much. And once we get a HIPAA release, can 9 you also help us, if we need help, in expediting a copy of his 10 medical records so we can look at his medical records? 11 A. Dr. Perry and her office I'm sure will accommodate you on 12 that, but I don't want to speak for her on that. But I've 13 never found her not to be cooperative. 14 Q. Good. Thank you. Do you know -- did someone on staff at 15 Walnut Grove notify Mr. Hardin's mother on Saturday of this 16 injury? 17 A. I can't -- I couldn't speak to that. I don't -- I don't 18 know. 19 Q. Do you all have -- I know you and I talked about another 20 injury recently to an inmate at East Mississippi Correctional 21 Facility. And, again, you were kind enough to help us arrange 22 a visit for his mother and you allowed one of the lawyers to 23 visit him as well. But what is the general policy -- I'll ask 24 for Walnut Grove specifically -- of notifying parents when a 25 prisoner is injured so badly that he has to go to the hospital

55
1 and spend the night in the hospital? 2 A. Unless it is life-threatening and the medical -- Office of 3 Medical Compliance on the visit request would make that 4 determination. They make the first determination on if his 5 life is in danger. And then the follow-up, then the warden 6 would be contacted as to security requirements as to whether a 7 visit could be allowed based on the security. 8 Q. I'm not talking about a visit. I'm talking about just 9 notifying the parents. 10 A. It's not a -- unless it life-threatening. 11 Q. Parents aren't even notified -12 A. No, sir. 13 Q. -- unless it life-threatening. 14 A. Now, that will change with the 17 and younger because we're 15 going to revise our policies. 16 Q. And in light of the fact that Walnut Grove is under a 17 consent decree and you have -- once we have alerted -- once 18 we've alerted you to things we've learned, you've been very 19 cooperative with us and shared information. Would it be a 20 problem for you all, once you learn of incidents at Walnut 21 Grove that send someone to the hospital overnight, to at least 22 inform the attorneys about it in case we don't otherwise hear 23 about it? 24 A. Well, my protocol is to contact our attorneys and -25 Q. Okay. They can inform us.

56

1 A. Yes, sir. I don't want to --

2 Q. I understand. But you can contact them right away when

3 something like this occurs.

4 A. Yes, sir.

5 Q. Okay.

6 A. And that system is in place.

7 Q. You -- just a few more questions, Mr. Sparkmann. Page 15

8 in the monthly statistical reports.

9 A. Yes, sir.

10 Q. I was looking at item 2106. That's inmate-on-inmate

11 completed nonconsensual -- looks like "nonconsensual." Do you

12 know what goes after "nonconsensual"? Is that sexual assault?

13 A. I believe so.

14 Q. Or sexual contact?

15 A. I believe so.

16 Q. And then 2170 is inmate-on-inmate attempted nonconsensual,

17 presumably sexual contact.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. 2180, allegations of inmate-on-inmate nonconsensual, again

20 presumably sexual contact. 2190, inmate-on-inmate abusive

21 sexual contact. 2200, allegations of inmate-on-inmate abusive

22 sexual contact.

23

And I'm trying to sort of figure out the differences

24 between those. In some places there's -- two of the entries

25 have "allegation." Does that mean allegations have been made,

57
1 but the prison officials have not confirmed whether they were 2 true? 3 A. They were not substantiated. 4 Q. They were not substantiated. So that means an 5 investigation was done and they were not substantiated. 6 A. And I'd -- I'd have to provide the definitions. 7 Q. Okay. 8 A. This is -- we're using the national defining criteria as to 9 what -- what makes it fall into a certain category. So I can't 10 recite them from memory. So I think it would probably be 11 better to provide -- our research division could provide you 12 the specifics on what it -- what makes it fall into what 13 category. 14 Q. Okay. That would be great if y'all could do that. That 15 would be very helpful. 16 A. And, in fact, I'll just ask them to provide for all the -17 not just those, for all of them, if that's okay. 18 Q. And do the officials at Walnut Grove who do this reporting, 19 do they -- do they have these definitions? 20 A. Yes, sir. 21 Q. Okay. I'm -- just three more categories of questions, very 22 quickly. We had -- we'd heard from Mr. Hardin's mother. She 23 somehow got the impression that there was another Walnut Grove 24 inmate in the UMC intensive care unit. I don't want to ask 25 about any names or any details. But do you know if there is

58
1 another inmate there? 2 A. Not to my knowledge. Attorney -- I can't say for a fact 3 without checking, but I don't believe there is. 4 Q. Okay. I know you said you had not personally spoken to the 5 Leake County Sheriff's Department, that that's a responsibility 6 of Walnut Grove. Have you been told whether or not they 7 contacted the sheriff's department about this incident? 8 A. As I recall it, when the warden gave me his initial 9 briefing, that he was contacted -- not he, the sheriff's 10 department. 11 Q. Okay. The last thing I want to ask you about is the new 12 vendor in the transition. What happens on June 30th when GEO 13 leaves? You had talked about a transition phase. How long do 14 you anticipate that transition lasting? 15 A. It's July 2nd at midnight is when the GEO is -16 Q. I'm sorry. July 2nd. And then is there a transition phase 17 after that? 18 A. No, sir. 19 Q. You mentioned transition phase. 20 A. The transition, once we -- we establish who the new vendor, 21 which I hope to be this Friday -22 Q. Okay. 23 A. -- because we're going to do our interviews and we'll begin 24 negotiations, but even in negotiations, there will be a 25 transition, that 30-day period of where they will start

59
1 interviewing the staff that are present there, bringing in 2 their policies and procedures, their post orders, making sure. 3 And that transition will run from -- basically, from June the 4 4th to July the 2nd when they take over operations. 5 Q. So GEO leaves and the new vendor moves right in. 6 A. They're right in. 7 Q. Okay. And I assume they will keep some staff. Some point 8 they may -- they may remove some people, hire other people. 9 A. You know, it stands to reason that -- it's a small 10 community -- the majority of the -- what we call line staff and 11 mid-managers I anticipate will stay in place, unless there's 12 some reason during interviews that they decide not to offer 13 them employment. As far as the higher upper management, GEO 14 may offer them positions and -- and I'm sure MTC will interview 15 them and determine whether they want to bring in some of their 16 own managers from other sites or if they want to offer them 17 employment. 18 Q. You mentioned "MTC." Is that a -19 A. MTC -- there's two. MTC and LaSalle Southwest are the two 20 companies that are scheduled for interviews. 21 Q. Okay. Now, you mentioned that plaintiffs' expert, Steve 22 Martin, and the MDOC expert, Dr. James Austin, are going to 23 make recommendations to you about what staffing levels are 24 necessary to comply with the consent decree. Is that right? 25 A. Kind of what I envision the way it's going to work is we'll

60
1 take the existing staffing and sit down and either do a 2 conference call or, hopefully, I'd like to see us even, if we 3 could all get together and go through it and -- because all 4 three of us have experience, and the new operator, whomever 5 that may be, and sit down and go through and talk about 6 positions here, positions there, what is needed, why this one 7 would be -- or his deployment. Just like what Mr. Martin 8 talked about, do we need to deploy more here? Where do we need 9 additional staff? Could we do some of it with just 10 redeployment? Just basically have a roundtable as to what 11 type -- what the staffing, and then come to an agreement on 12 what -- hopefully, come to an agreement on what the staffing 13 needs to be. 14 Q. With the vendor. 15 A. Yes, sir. 16 Q. And do you believe the staffing is going to -- in order to 17 comply with the consent decree, that you're going to need more 18 staff than Walnut Grove currently has? 19 A. In my personal opinion, yes. 20 Q. And your plan is to -- I want to make sure I'm right about 21 this -- in terms of these negotiations is to obtain as part of 22 the contract or part of the written commitment an agreement by 23 the new vendor to provide the staffing levels that you all 24 believe are appropriate. 25 A. Well, and when -- it's going to be a situation where we all

61
1 sit and talk about the staffing, you know. And I -- when I say 2 I believe it's going to be more, if someone -- if someone could 3 convince me they could operate it and do the services that 4 we're all comfortable with with the existing staffing -- I'm 5 not sure that's -- in my opinion, somebody's got to show me 6 that. But I'm not going to say you have to have. But you 7 asked me what my opinion was. 8 Q. Right. But whatever you end up believing at the end of the 9 day is necessary, you're going to require that of the new 10 vendor. Is that right? 11 A. When we all -- part of it is -- in the consent decree is 12 that the plaintiffs and the defense will agree with the 13 staffing pattern. 14 Q. Okay. 15 A. So once we agree on it and we present it to them, that -16 my intent is to recommend to the commissioner it be part of the 17 total agreement. 18 Q. Okay. Because I believe our time line provides that from 19 90 days after March 26th, there is I believe a proposal put 20 forth by MDOC as appropriate staffing pattern and we review 21 that. And that may not be completed until after your contract 22 negotiations are complete, that process. 23 A. Well, by June the 26th we should have the staff because 24 they'll be -- whomever the vendor is will be selected in early 25 June, hopefully on the first day of June. So the staffing will

62

1 begin -- talks begin at that time. So I see no reason that we

2 can't establish what the staffing can be by that June 26 -- it

3 won't all of them be employed, trained and in place, but at

4 least we'll know what that staffing number -- that's -- that's

5 my intent.

6 Q. And has the consent decree been shared with both of the

7 vendors who have applied --

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. -- for the contract?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And do you anticipate that your contract will require the

12 vendor who is selected to comply with the consent decree?

13 A. Absolutely.

14

MR. MCDUFF: One moment, your Honor.

15

(COUNSEL CONFERRED)

16 BY MR. MCDUFF:

17 Q. Mr. Sparkmann, we talked about staffing at Walnut Grove.

18 Does MDOC have staff available at other institutions that it

19 could spare to go to Walnut Grove during this last month while

20 GEO is sort of leaving the place? Because you can imagine

21 we're a bit concerned that GEO doesn't care that much anymore.

22 They're just ready to get out. They haven't been providing

23 enough staffing previously, and that someone else may have to

24 take steps to ensure that the staffing is adequate. So that's

25 what I'm asking is whether MDOC has the resources to do that.

63

1 A. In my opinion, we're staffed to the -- minimal staffing is

2 what we provided at our facilities. Also I'd be very concerned

3 about bringing in staff that wasn't trained on that facility

4 and bringing them in. In my opinion, it would cause more

5 disruption than it would provide a benefit. That's my opinion.

6

MR. MCDUFF: Your Honor, I have nothing further.

7

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Matheny, do you have

8 anything in redirect?

9

MR. MATHENY: A couple of follow-ups, your Honor, if I

10 may.

11

THE COURT: Okay.

12

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

13 BY MR. MATHENY:

14 Q. Mr. Sparkmann, you had talked with Mr. McDuff about

15 policies and procedures for the staffing and the suicide

16 prevention that you're working with Mr. Martin on completing.

17 A. Yes, sir.

18 Q. So I can be clear, where in the process are you with the

19 suicide prevention policies?

20 A. We have a draft that went to the parties that are present

21 right now, GEO on-site, MDOC Office of Medical Compliance,

22 Institution Division and Health Assurance, and they're

23 reviewing those policies.

24 Q. And when are -- or at what point will those have to be

25 reviewed by Mr. Martin and plaintiffs' counsel?

64
1 A. Well, I'm -- hopefully, once I get comments from those 2 parties back in, then I would share with Mr. Martin. And I'm 3 sure he'll -- well, I'll share it with the Attorney General's 4 Office who will share it with the plaintiff and then they'll 5 share it with Mr. Martin. I would say a week. Hopefully, this 6 week, but no longer than a week. 7 Q. But would it be fair to say that it depends upon all the 8 parties that are involved in conducting their reviews and -- to 9 develop the best policies for the suicide prevention as 10 possible? 11 A. Yes, sir. 12 Q. I also wanted to make sure so we could be clear about the 13 staffing. Is it fair to say that the recommendations that were 14 in Mr. Martin's report that you discussed with Mr. McDuff, that 15 those are just part of the overall staffing policies that will 16 need to be developed and put into place? 17 A. Yes, sir. What he was identifying was the immediate areas 18 that he felt like needed to be addressed with some 19 recommendations. But as far as the overall facility staffing, 20 we're having -- hopefully, the facility is going to -- people 21 that manage the facility day-to-day will be honest and open 22 with us because GEO's leaving about what they actually feel 23 could operate the -- what they need to operate the facility. 24 Q. And like the suicide prevention policies, those staffing 25 policies, that's going to require input from more than just

65

1 Mr. Martin and plaintiffs' counsel and the attorneys. Is that

2 right?

3 A. Yes, sir.

4 Q. So before they can be put into place, what all -- what kind

5 of review or who all needs to review it before it can be

6 finalized?

7 A. Well, you're going to need the facility management team.

8 You're going to need my and the private prison staff to review.

9 You're going to need Dr. Austin to review it. Mr. Martin, of

10 course. When you're looking at staffing, you're not just

11 looking at correctional staffing. You're going to need to look

12 at the medical staffing, the mental health staffing, treatment

13 staff as to what treatment needs are, all those folks, and have

14 their input.

15

I mean, I can sit at my desk and decide or Mr. Martin or

16 whatever, but I think a collaborative effort -- and that's what

17 we're trying to do now is to have the best staffing plan, the

18 best suicide prevention plan that meets the needs of the

19 facility put in place.

20 Q. And right now you are on track to have those staffing and

21 suicide prevention policies completed and reviewed and gone

22 through the process, you know, on time.

23 A. I believe so. Yes.

24 Q. Last thing I wanted to ask you, Mr. McDuff at several

25 points had raised issues about asking GEO to do this or that

66

1 and decisions that GEO makes. With respect to the staffing,

2 have you made any request or recommendations to GEO regarding

3 staffing that they have not complied with?

4 A. No, sir. And to be frank and honest is our training

5 requires seven weeks. So hiring additional staff, they would

6 need -- they would not be on board. And it would be past their

7 contracts when they would be able to be able to perform as

8 independent employees. So there's no guarantee that the new

9 facility would offer those individuals employment. So I just

10 don't believe we can do that.

11 Q. And why would it be important to follow that process with

12 regard to the staffing before adding any new guards?

13 A. Well, one of the things, you want a stable workforce and

14 you don't want to put an untrained person out there. An

15 untrained person in some incidents would be worse than having

16 somebody at all. They can cause more problems. So you need

17 trained staff that know -- had went through the required

18 training so they can perform their duties and responsibilities

19 successfully.

20 Q. Thank you, Mr. Sparkmann.

21

THE COURT: Okay. We're going to take a 15-minute

22 break for my court reporter. Mr. Sparkmann, you may step down

23 for now, but I will have some follow-up questions. And I will

24 give each of the counsel an opportunity to follow up on the

25 questions that I ask. We're going to take a 15-minute break

67

1 for the court reporter.

2

(RECESS)

3

THE COURT: You may be seated.

4

EXAMINATION

5 BY THE COURT:

6 Q. Mr. Sparkmann, I have some follow-up questions with respect

7 to what I'll call Exhibit 2, the monthly reports. You

8 indicated that there are certain definitions. I guess there's

9 a table or a glossary of definitions that people know about?

10 A. Yes, your Honor. There's a -- basically, a manual for the

11 back -- that back section from --

12

(EXAMINED DOCUMENT)

13 A. Starting at, your Honor, I believe about 850 is where

14 there's a -- we have a manual. It goes into a national

15 database that we compile, which is submitted to us from each

16 facility. And then it goes into a national database for --

17 most of the correction systems in the United States participate

18 in it, and they wanted a uniform data collection.

19 Q. And I presume the term "serious injury," "serious" is

20 defined?

21 A. Yes, sir.

22 Q. Okay. And that would include -- do you know what "serious

23 injury" includes, or what it excludes?

24 A. Your Honor, I --

25 Q. I don't want you to be guessing, but in your view, the word

68

1 "serious injury "-- because it's listed there in 2110,

2 "assaults with serious injury."

3 A. From what I understand, it's -- and I -- I'm almost

4 positive, it's any kind of injury requiring more than typical

5 first aid.

6 Q. Now, I do know -- also I do know that at one time DOJ

7 was -- and I have not gone back and looked at the Department of

8 Justice findings, and I don't know what period of time those

9 findings take place. But I guess my question is, do those

10 findings go beyond July 2011, some of the incidents that they

11 reported in their report? Do you know?

12 A. Your Honor, I believe their report was prior to July 2011.

13 I believe. I'm not positive, but I believe that's correct.

14 Q. Okay. It may be that they did not go beyond March 2011.

15

(PAUSE)

16 Q. Now, with respect to incidents that occur at the facilities

17 such as Walnut Grove, is it the department of corrections'

18 position that -- does the -- well, is it the department of

19 corrections' position that it is the responsibility of GEO to

20 contact law enforcement officers or law enforcement authorities

21 and do all the follow-up and make sure that the local law

22 enforcement authorities are apprised of everything?

23 A. That's required -- if a criminal act is committed, it's

24 required in our policies and procedures that they would contact

25 local law enforcement.

69
1 Q. Okay. And what does MDO -- that who would? GEO would. 2 Right? 3 A. Yes, sir. 4 Q. Okay. And what does MDOC have in place to make sure that 5 is actually done? 6 A. Our compliance officer monitors that on-site. 7 Q. Okay. And, obviously, GEO -- I mean MDOC -- once it's 8 reported to law enforcement, it doesn't do anything else. 9 A. We don't follow up. No, sir. It's the decision of local 10 law enforcement whether to pursue it or not. Now, if local law 11 enforcement -- if it something we receive additional 12 information -- our corrections investigation division in some 13 cases will receive information about -- say, an incident 14 happened and maybe something comes to their attention, they'll 15 work with law enforcement on that -- on that particular case. 16 Q. Has MDOC learned what item, piece of equipment, what was 17 used to stab this inmate with? What was actually used? 18 A. My understanding was it was a piece of metal. It was not 19 recovered. It's believed that the offender or -- was able 20 to -- or someone was able to flush it down a toilet. They have 21 the high-pressure toilets, and they assume -- because there was 22 a search of the -- of the housing unit and the offenders in the 23 area and they weren't able to locate the weapon. And so they 24 spec -- and it's pure speculation that it was flushed in the 25 toilet.

70
1 Q. What steps does it -- well, back during our hearing back in 2 March, the court learned that correctional officers were 3 involved in and affiliated with gangs, for example. What has 4 MDOC done to investigate on its own whether the item was 5 provided to the individuals by one of the guards? 6 A. In this incident here? 7 Q. In this incident here. 8 A. We hadn't -9 Q. MDOC has -- I know the statements were taken by GEO. 10 Right? 11 A. Yes, sir. 12 Q. GEO is doing the investigation. 13 A. The administrative part, yes, sir. 14 Q. Right. But this court has already determined that GEO's 15 employees, right, I think, were involved or have been involved 16 in gang-related activity? So has MDOC taken upon itself 17 anything to, you know, make sure that the -- that those in 18 charge of investigating are not those same ones who actually 19 perpetrated the -- or who were actually involved in the 20 misconduct, if any? 21 A. The safeguard there, your Honor, would be that the Leake 22 County Sheriff's Department would be doing the investigation of 23 the assault. And so during their interviews, if that 24 information were to come forward, I'm confident either they -25 if they felt comfortable -- if they didn't feel comfortable

71
1 contacting GEO officials, they would contact the Mississippi 2 Department of Corrections and said, you know, as a sister law 3 enforcement agency with MDOC, that We discovered that GEO 4 officials were involved in providing or were involved in the 5 assault. 6 Q. Now, if it is determined -- I guess this goes down to the 7 fundamental question here. If it is determined that this place 8 is not adequately staffed, what can the State of Mississippi -9 what can MDOC do to make sure that it's adequately staffed 10 while the new contract -- or prior to the new contract being 11 implemented with the next vendor? What is it that MDOC can do? 12 In your view, can MDOC require GEO to bring on new -- to bring 13 on additional employees, not necessarily new employees? I 14 mean, what is it that MDOC can do, in your view? 15 A. In my view, your Honor, all we can do is make a request of 16 GEO that there are incidents and they need to increase 17 staffing. You know, if it's determined there was insufficient 18 staffing in a housing unit at a certain particular time and 19 request for additional assets, then they would be under no 20 obligation contractwise. By the time we litigated it or had a 21 dispute over the agreement, the contract would, in my opinion, 22 end. 23 Q. So, ultimately, whose responsibility? Maybe this is a 24 question I asked Mr. Matheny. But, ultimately, whose 25 responsibility is it to make sure that at all times prisoners

72
1 are to be provided with a reasonably safe living condition and 2 will be protected from violence and other physical or sexual 3 abuse by staff and other prisoners? Whose responsibility is 4 that? Is it MDOC's responsibility or it is GEO's 5 responsibility? 6 A. By the agreement, GEO is responsible, your Honor, I mean. 7 But, ultimately, legally, I -- I'm not -- I don't have a legal 8 degree. MDOC would have to be the ultimate responsibility. 9 Q. Now, you indicated earlier that when they're -- only in 10 cases of life-threatening injuries is a family member notified 11 of when the inmate is admitted or sent to the hospital, only in 12 life-threatening injuries. 13 A. Yes, sir. 14 Q. So there -15 A. Yes, your Honor. 16 Q. Potentially, there -- any injury that is not -- I mean, you 17 know, life-threatening means a lot. If someone got their 18 finger cut off, for example, that would not necessarily be 19 life-threatening. Right? And the family might not be 20 notified. 21 A. That's correct, your Honor. 22 Q. And in this instance here, the guy was only stabbed in the 23 eye. I realize there may be some damage or some fluid on his 24 brain or something like that. Did MDOC consider that a 25 life-threatening injury?

73
1 A. Well, we -- MDOC, it would be up to our medical authorities 2 to advise us if it was life-threatening. 3 Q. Okay. In this instance was the family members -- was a 4 family member notified or did they -5 A. I -6 Q. Excuse me. 7 A. I wasn't advised that it was life-threatening by the 8 medical officials. 9 Q. You were not advised? 10 A. No, sir. That's a -11 Q. So there was no need for MDOC to notify the family even in 12 this instance? 13 A. It would be the responsibility of GEO to notify -- if their 14 medical officials or Health Assurance had advised them this is 15 life-threatening, then at that point they would have contacted 16 his emergency contact. 17 Q. Okay. That would be GEO. GEO would contact. 18 A. Yes, your Honor. 19 Q. Only in cases where there was an injury that was 20 life-threatening. 21 A. Yes, your Honor. 22 Q. And the medical side or Health Assurance or whoever it was 23 makes that determination as to what is life-threatening. 24 A. Yes, your Honor. 25 Q. Now, are the attorneys for the state notified of all

74

1 incidents where the -- a prisoner is sent to the hospital for

2 an injury sustained?

3 A. That would be a judgment -- I'm notified of any serious

4 incidents. And then it's based on my judgment or the person --

5 if I'm out of state, the person that's acting in my capacity

6 would make the decision if it was serious -- a serious enough

7 incident to where the attorneys would be contacted.

8 Q. Okay. Now, is the -- are you, as the deputy commissioner,

9 notified of only the serious injuries or all injuries, I mean,

10 that calls for reporting to the hospital?

11 A. It's dependent upon the type incident that -- you know, if

12 an offender had chest pains and went to the hospital, they're

13 going to file -- they do what we call an Extraordinary

14 Occurrence Report. Anytime an offender leaves, I would be

15 notified electronically by a report.

16

Like on this situation here because it was assault with a

17 weapon, I was contacted telephonically. But I review daily --

18 99 percent of the time every day I review all the extraordinary

19 occurrence reports for incidents that happen within the state

20 at the four state -- the four private, 15 regional and three

21 state prisons. So if I have a question as to what happened,

22 then I would contact -- I contact them.

23 Q. Is that -- is that the responsibility that falls on your

24 shoulders only? I mean, because you said 15 sites plus -- 15

25 correctional institutions --

75

1 A. Yes, sir.

2 Q. -- plus four privately run ones.

3 A. Yes. Yes, your Honor.

4 Q. That's 19. And I think you may have mentioned a couple

5 others. You may have. I don't know.

6 A. Electronically I'm notified of those incidents and I -- and

7 if -- with Walnut Grove I review them closely. And if it's a

8 determination I need to contact our general counsel and the

9 Attorney General's Office, I do so. And I immediately did so

10 with this situation here. I generated an e-mail and told them

11 that there had been an incident.

12 Q. But I guess my question is, are you the only one who

13 receives that information on a daily basis?

14 A. No, sir. The extraordinary occurrence reports goes to all

15 upper management.

16 Q. Okay.

17 A. What I -- what I -- I personally review them daily. Even

18 when I'm off duty, I review them to make sure that I know

19 what's going on in the system unless I'm somewhere that doesn't

20 have access, remote access.

21 Q. Okay.

22

THE COURT: I have no more questions. Either side may

23 follow up based on the questions that I've asked.

24

MR. MCDUFF: Nothing further, your Honor.

25

MR. MATHENY: Your Honor, I didn't have any questions,

76

1 but I did want to clear up two little items real quick.

2

THE COURT: Okay.

3

MR. MATHENY: The first item was the exhibits. We had

4 been talking about them earlier today, and I realized that I

5 had forgotten to ask to have them marked. So I was going to

6 ask if -- I think you referred to the statistical printout as

7 Exhibit 2.

8

THE COURT: Right. The ones that you gave me I will

9 mark. I will allow you to do a redacted one for the one that

10 contains those medical records, or we could file them under

11 seal, whichever pleases the parties.

12

MR. MCDUFF: Your Honor, I'm going to object to the

13 report being admitted as an exhibit at this time. It's a

14 preliminary investigation. It's not complete. It's hearsay.

15 And I guess it is a business record, but this incident only

16 occurred a few days ago. We certainly haven't had a chance to

17 look into it. And I would hate for the record just to be this

18 report. So for that reason, we'd object to it. If the court

19 does want to admit it, I'd ask that it be put under seal.

20

THE COURT: Okay. The court will admit it under seal,

21 just for my reference. In case I make any future findings, I

22 might rely on something that was presented to the court today.

23

MR. MCDUFF: Thank you, your Honor.

24

MR. MATHENY: I did want to make sure that we took

25 care of that item. The other thing, your Honor, was I didn't

77

1 have a chance to go through the entire document with a

2 fine-tooth comb, but in looking back at the DOJ findings that

3 your Honor mentioned earlier, it's my understanding from

4 looking back through here that it's referring to events and

5 records from 2009 and 2010, prior to the statistical data that

6 appears on Exhibit 2 that Mr. Sparkmann was discussing.

7

THE COURT: Exhibit 1 will be the report and it will

8 continue to be under seal. The GEO report, I guess this is the

9 report of -- report of investigation. And number 2 will be the

10 monthly reports, the statistical data. And the court is only

11 making these a part of this record because they're referred to

12 at this hearing. And if the court needs to have the parties

13 supplement in any way, it will. I'm not suggesting at all that

14 to find that the investigation, number one, is complete; number

15 two, I'm not in any way finding that it's thorough. Well,

16 those points are clear to me.

17

MR. MATHENY: -- I believe Mr. Sparkmann has the

18 original from Exhibit 2 that he was testifying from, if I could

19 give that to the court.

20

THE COURT: That will be fine.

21

(EXHIBITS 1 AND 2 MARKED)

22

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Sparkmann, you may step

23 down for purposes right now. You may be recalled.

24

I realize it's 4:19. When I started this, I asked the

25 plaintiff what they might recommend or be inclined to request.

78

1 And I do know the plaintiff mentioned that their expert was

2 actually here. I have room on my calendar in case we go beyond

3 this afternoon, and I'll just tell the parties I do have

4 tomorrow -- portions of tomorrow open. I actually have all day

5 open, but I don't expect anything to take all day. But I want

6 to let you know that on the front end in case we get bogged --

7 in case you do want to call your expert and we do and I have,

8 you know, more questions than you might have anticipated. So I

9 just tell you that now. But you may call your next witness

10 or --

11

MR. OWENS: Your Honor, point of clarification, our

12 expert is actually not physically here.

13

THE COURT: Oh, okay.

14

MR. OWENS: Mr. Martin is available by telephonic

15 conference if need be, but he's not physically here.

16

THE COURT: All right. Well, you may proceed then.

17

MR. OWENS: Your Honor, in light of MDOC's admission

18 and -- of the staffing deficiencies at Walnut Grove and

19 commitment to work on those staffing deficiencies with the new

20 contractor, as well as MDOC's by the commissioner to facilitate

21 our ability to be able to interview our client tomorrow at the

22 hospital and offer to expedite those records however possible,

23 at this time we'd like to talk to our experts before asking the

24 court of any other relief. However, we are amenable to any

25 other relief the court would deem appropriate at this time as

79

1 well.

2

THE COURT: Okay. Any response, Mr. Matheny?

3

MR. MATHENY: Briefly, your Honor. What I believe

4 that Mr. Sparkmann's testimony here today established was that

5 the consent decree as we know -- you didn't need the testimony

6 to establish this. The consent decree says what it says, and

7 it has time frames and requirements that were -- that we

8 negotiated for months and appeared before the court and were

9 approved.

10

And the implementation of the staffing policies --

11 development and implementation of the staffing policies and the

12 suicide prevention and the other things that are required of

13 the Walnut Grove facility per the consent decree, I believe

14 Mr. Sparkmann's testimony established that he's working closely

15 with their experts and that things are on track to comply with

16 the agreement.

17

And as Mr. Owens indicated, some of the smaller,

18 relatively minor issues that have come up in terms of being

19 able to have a visitation with the inmate in the hospital and

20 other things is something that can be worked out with the

21 parties. And the State is committed to resolve those issues.

22

So with all that in mind, respectfully, your Honor, I

23 don't believe that any relief from the court is necessary at

24 this time. With respect to this incident or anything -- I'm

25 not even sure what they've asked for, your Honor, to be clear.

80

1 But I know that my position is that they should not be granted

2 any relief as we sit here today.

3

Instead, MDOC would like the opportunity to continue

4 to work in good faith with plaintiffs' counsel and plaintiffs'

5 expert and comply with the consent decree, which we believe we

6 are in compliance with as we stand here before you today, your

7 Honor.

8

THE COURT: Okay. I'll just be candid with you,

9 Mr. Matheny. I realize the State -- I guess since this matter

10 was heard back on March 26th, the court has received evidence

11 or allegations or admissions that four serious things have

12 occurred since the parties signed off on their consent decree

13 and submitted it to the court, I do believe.

14

I think at the hearing the testimony established that

15 there was some fracas that occurred a few days before the

16 hearing, that Monday. I think the hearing was on a Thursday,

17 and that preceding Monday there was a fight on the premises in

18 the presence of a guard or two. I think the testimony

19 established there was not enough guards there, I think.

20

I know Mr. Owens mentioned a rape and the letter that

21 the court received about a month ago that he shared with the

22 parties on May 11th, evidence of a stabbing and a suicide. Now

23 you have this additional stabbing. So I realize the parties

24 have worked together on the time frame.

25

My real concern, though, is, as I heard from the State

81

1 today, there is nothing that the State can do to increase the

2 amount of security, the number of correctional officers there.

3 GEO I assume has no incentive to invest in the cost of

4 providing additional CO's at Walnut Grove because they are

5 about to -- well, they have announced to the world that they're

6 going to pick up their -- they're going to pick up whatever

7 they have there at Walnut Grove and leave June 30th. So they

8 have no incentive I think to invest money or capital, whatever

9 it is, for additional correctional officers.

10

And what I heard Mr. Sparkmann say is that there's

11 really nothing that the State can do because they don't

12 withhold payment on the -- he doesn't know whether or not the

13 contract allows the State, for example, to sort of dock GEO for

14 this instance, for example, because GEO only has to submit

15 its -- I presume submit its invoice at the end of June or,

16 for example, at the end of May.

17

So for June -- for the month of May, for example, all

18 they're going to do is submit an invoice. And I would

19 imagine -- and show their census data for the month of May, and

20 they're going to receive whatever they would normally receive

21 under the terms of the contract. I don't know if it's -- the

22 contract is divided into 12 monthly payments or what, but they

23 are set to receive that. And for June nothing will change.

24

You know, what happens if they decide to start

25 reducing their costs even more at the facilities? There's

82

1 nothing -- and that's why I pose that question. What is it

2 that -- who's responsible and what is it that MDOC can do to

3 make sure that it meets its obligation in making sure that I

4 think it's at all times that the prisoners are, you know,

5 reasonably safe. If the plaintiffs are not asking for anything

6 at this point and something happens again next week, what are

7 they to ask for then? I guess you say it's left up to them to

8 ask.

9

MR. MATHENY: Your Honor -- and I apologize. My point

10 was simply this, that with no specific request for relief, with

11 no specific solution proposed, my objection is simply that

12 without any such request, it's very difficult for me to be able

13 to respond to the no request, if you will, your Honor.

14

That was my position, that I simply wanted to state

15 that, because I wasn't clear what it is that the plaintiffs

16 were asking for in response to this specific incident that led

17 to the hearing today that the court needed to do in order to --

18 to remedy the situation. That was all I was intending, your

19 Honor.

20

THE COURT: Okay. Is there a specific response,

21 request from the plaintiff other than being able now -- the

22 State has said definitely you can interview your client. The

23 attorneys could have access to the -- to your client even

24 though he has not sustained a life-threatening injury and his

25 family wasn't notified. But now you have access to do that for

83

1 sure.

2

The State is going to work with the parties to make

3 sure that the -- that he has access to his medical records

4 through HIPAA or otherwise on, hopefully, an expedited basis.

5 I realize the medical records in MDOC's control, you can do

6 that on an expedited basis. All you could do is ask UMC to

7 provide its medical records on an expedited basis. Is there

8 anything else that the plaintiffs have requested specifically

9 today?

10

MR. MCDUFF: Your Honor, just sort of responding to

11 your question and to Mr. Matheny's point and then I'll get to

12 the specifics, you know, these -- this consent decree provides

13 for some very long-range solutions to a problem that has been

14 years in the making. And so we understand that it is going to

15 take time to get this prison to where it's a safe place.

16

We're very disturbed about these incidents and this

17 pattern of incidents. And that's the reason we asked for this

18 hearing today, so that we could inform you about them and that

19 we could explore the issues that we all have explored with

20 Deputy Commissioner Sparkmann today, including whether there is

21 an option for increasing staff for the next month.

22

And then, of course, we also wanted to explore what's

23 going to happen with the new vendor and would that vendor be

24 required to put in more staff and to comply with the consent

25 decree, would that be part of the contract. And I was pleased

84

1 to hear he said that will -- at least compliance with the

2 consent decree will be part of the contract.

3

The question for what to do over the next month,

4 that's really something we want to discuss with our expert

5 before deciding whether to ask you for any specific relief. I

6 mean, I think there's a question about whether we can get other

7 people in from GEO's -- from GEO's other facilities throughout

8 the country, whether there's time to do that and whether that

9 makes sense.

10

Deputy Commissioner Sparkmann mentioned that MDO -- if

11 we could try to get other MDOC people. They are thinly staffed

12 in other places and that trying to bring them into a new prison

13 may create more problems than it would solve. I don't know if

14 that's true, but that's something we want to discuss with our

15 expert before deciding whether to ask for that.

16

So that's why we don't -- because it's sort of -- the

17 complicated nature of the problems, we want to talk to our

18 expert before we decide whether we should ask you for some

19 specific solution. I was -- we did learn about this particular

20 incident, the stabbing in the eye, from the victim's mother.

21 Now, she had learned it from a call from somebody. And it may

22 well have been another inmate in the prison who had a cell

23 phone. She didn't know who called her. Once I informed

24 Commissioner Sparkmann about what we had learned, he responded

25 promptly.

85

1

And if I'm understanding him correct today, he says in

2 the future that when there is a hospitalization out of Walnut

3 Grove that requires an overnight stay, he will inform the

4 attorneys and the attorneys can inform us.

5

THE COURT: No, I don't think he said that.

6

MR. MCDUFF: Oh, I misunderstood him.

7

THE COURT: I don't think he said that. And, you

8 know, we went down this road about what was life-threatening.

9 And if you heard that, maybe he said it about children less

10 than 17 maybe.

11

MR. MCDUFF: Well, let me ask this then while we're

12 here. And that is, because we have a Walnut Grove consent

13 decree in place, can we at least for the next month -- can

14 Commissioner Sparkmann notify the attorneys if there is a

15 hospitalization out of Walnut Grove stemming from an incident

16 of violence that requires an overnight stay? Can he inform

17 them and can they inform us so we'll know about it? I think

18 that's something that's a very reasonable -- reasonable

19 request.

20

MR. MATHENY: Your Honor, my -- Mr. Sparkmann can do

21 that.

22

THE COURT: Okay.

23

MR. MCDUFF: Okay. All right.

24

MR. SPARKMANN: What I was testifying, I can contact

25 any incidents of violence. I thought you meant anytime -- did

86

1 I testify that anytime they went to the hospital that I was

2 going to contact y'all. But on any violence, yes. If you give

3 me who the contact person, I'll be glad -- I can do that.

4

THE COURT: He's saying any incident of violence, not

5 any incident of hospitalization, I know which would include

6 violence, but --

7

MR. MCDUFF: And I'm assuming -- yeah. I mean, if

8 somebody has chest pains and has to go to the hospital, I don't

9 know that we necessarily need to be informed of that. But,

10 yeah, if it is an incident of violence that leads someone to go

11 to the hospital, we would like to be informed of that.

12

THE COURT: Right. And I -- and I presume from my

13 understanding of the consent decree that that information would

14 at least be provided to the monitors at some point in time.

15

MR. MCDUFF: At some point, yes, sir.

16

THE COURT: But I do think it's important, because

17 we're talking about this one-month no man's period where GEO

18 has the incentive to leave. That's my concern.

19

They have been incentivized to leave. All they have

20 to do is work with the State and help the State through the

21 transition as it brings in the new vendor. But they have every

22 incentive -- as a profit-making entity, they have every

23 incentive to reduce their cost. So -- and if that means

24 short-staffing it enough, making sure that the work gets done,

25 but definitely not overextending, then I don't think they have

87

1 any incentive to overextend.

2

And I don't think it's unreasonable, at least from

3 May 29th through July 1, that the plaintiffs' counsel is

4 informed of all of these things, violent acts as well as

5 hospitalizations, I mean, because it's the violent acts among

6 and between staff and inmates, if you will, though either

7 inmates and inmates, that has really caused the -- you know,

8 that they brought to the court to be -- you know, they sought

9 relief for that. And at this stage nothing -- nothing will be

10 in place because the -- the full 90 days won't be up until

11 about June 26th or 27th. And I realize the parties are going

12 to have to exchange things and do things to reach agreement on.

13

But it appears that for a period of time, if no

14 stop -- if no stopgap is entered, some of these incidents,

15 including the one that just happened, could fall through the

16 cracks. We don't want that to happen.

17

MR. MCDUFF: And I do know, your Honor, that Deputy

18 Commissioner Sparkmann is spending -- he's obviously a very

19 busy man, but he is spending a significant amount of time

20 monitoring Walnut Grove. And we appreciate him continuing to

21 do that during this particular period because, as you

22 suggested, it is a period of time that is fraught with the

23 potential for further problems.

24

THE COURT: Right. Well, what I will do is give the

25 parties until Friday. You could give me some language that you

88

1 all can agree upon. Or I'll say Monday, which will be June

2 the --

3

MR. MCDUFF: 4th I believe, your Honor.

4

THE COURT: -- 4th, to give me a proposed agreement

5 for this month, I mean, because I do think it needs to be

6 there. I'm concerned that this incident happened. I'm

7 concerned that it happened to someone who came and testified.

8 I'm concerned that it happened when there was no guard. The

9 opportunity came about when there was no guard present.

10

The court is, you know, completely mindful of the

11 testimony that I heard where often a CO's involved in gangs

12 recruiting people. The hypotheses can run wild as to how this

13 individual -- who was this individual that got the shank? How

14 did he get it? Who did he talk to? You know, we could

15 speculate all day long.

16

And I realize that, you know, it's all speculation.

17 But what if one of the guards got this person to do it who has

18 no past record, who's virtually a clean guy? If you do it,

19 nothing will happen to you, just all these infinite sort of

20 possibilities. But because the correctional officers have been

21 so tainted by the findings of DOJ and this court, you know, the

22 officer merely turns his back while this happens or goes away

23 while this happens.

24

And I don't know what the investigation of the

25 sheriff's department is going to reveal. But in 90 days the

89

1 investigation might conclude that an officer aided and abetted

2 or assisted or offered or counseled or did whatever, allowed

3 this incident to happen. In that case, that would be a very

4 bad thing for the department of corrections and GEO.

5

So I do think for the next 30 days, at least before

6 the full details of the consent decree are in place, the

7 parties are to be mindful of having some real stringent

8 measures in place to account for the stopgap. So I would

9 encourage you all to work with one another and make it as

10 restrictive as necessary.

11

MR. MCDUFF: Thank you, your Honor.

12

THE COURT: All right. So thank you all for bringing

13 this to the court's attention. As you know -- well, you all

14 saw my order. You know how concerned I am about this facility

15 in particular because this is the one where evidence has been

16 presented to me. But in the future if you need any hearing,

17 the court will do whatever it can do to make sure that the

18 matter is heard as soon as possible, just as I did today.

19

So we need to make sure that the State lives up to its

20 obligation to even protect those who have violated the law in

21 the past, and they need to make sure that those -- that this

22 consent decree -- that the State complies with the consent

23 decree to the fullest.

24

You know, ultimately, I mean, you know, I realize the

25 State has contracted on legitimate policy choice to enter in

90

1 this contract with these private prison facilities; but,

2 ultimately, it is the State's obligation I do believe to make

3 sure that the Eighth Amendment rights of these prisoners are

4 protected.

5

I don't think you could step aside and leave all of

6 that to the private vendors without running into consequence or

7 breaching your obligations to live up to the Eighth Amendment

8 and everything else. So I just say that.

9

But I appreciate the parties for working together, and

10 I appreciate you all for being here today on such short notice.

11 But I think it's important that we try to make sure that we're

12 all on the same page in making sure that this consent decree

13 works in the best possible way possible for the State and the

14 affected parties. Court's adjourned.

15

(HEARING ADJOURNED)

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

91

1

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

2

3

I, MARY VIRGINIA "Gina" MORRIS, Official Court

4 Reporter, United States District Court, Southern District of

5 Mississippi, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing

6 pages contain a full, true and correct transcript of the

7 proceedings had in the aforenamed case at the time and

8 place indicated, which proceedings were recorded by me to

9 the best of my skill and ability.

10

I certify that the transcript fees and format

11 comply with those prescribed by the Court and Judicial

12 Conference of the United States.

13

This the 29th day of May, 2012.

14

15

s/ Gina Morris

U.S. DISTRICT COURT REPORTER

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25